Being or not being in the closet seems a terrible reason to change one’s tag. And I argue on-line, but never in person. What does that make me?
Being Jewish I’m pretty glad that they didn’t wait, because I’d much rather have my bris at 8 days than just before I turned 13. :eek:
So how does this square with the First Amendment? Just asking.
Maybe. I meant that religious faith (which fans the flames of war, or maybe provides the tinder) can keep one out of the military, but humanism (which promotes tolerance via Reason), or atheism, doesn’t get you out of the government’s command that “we” go and kill “them”. Religious zeal is a great igniter of conflict.
I don’t know; I hope that’s clearer. Nobody kills as, um, joyfully as the divinely inspired. My reference source: the entirety of Human existence.
Through indoctrination, children may be denied freedom of religion, in the sense that their freedom to choose what to believe or not believe can be severely affected by indoctrination. And, of course, we should also consider the children of, say, Christian Scientists, who may find themselves even denied the right to choose survival.
The rights of parents to fuck up their children, in a variety of ways, has way too much latitude. Even as minors, they are still people, whose rights should be respected. I know I would be a lot happier now if my father had not been free to shove jesus down my throat as a child.
That makes no sense at all.
If we accept that children have the rightto make a choice, then they must have an ability to make a choice. If they have that ability, then “indoctrination” doesn’t conflict with that choice. The child can choose to believe or not as they see fit.
The only possible logical issue you could have is that parents may coerce children into religious acts, such as going to church. But that is ridiculous on several grounds.
The first is that parents coerce their children into almost everything. By your argument parent shouldn’t be able to punish their child for swearing or refusing to eat their vegetables since it conflicts with their freedom of expression. This is such obvious nonsense that nobody could seriously consider it for even a moment.
The second point is that not indoctrinating a child also seriously affects their ability to not believe. From the figures I have seen, a child raised atheist is far less likely to convert to religion than a religious child is to become atheist or convert to another faith. So by your argument not indoctrinating children harms their ability to believe far more than indoctrination harms their ability not to believe.
The third is that children are always going to absorb messages on belief from their parents. Children will *always *be indoctrinated into the parent’s religious belief or non-belief system. I can only assume that you are proposing that parents be prevented by law from discussing their atheism in front of their children. Because if you don’t do that then it constitutes indoctrination into a religious belief system. Just as schools can’t advocate for atheism, you would have to ensure that parents could not advocate for atheism to avoid indoctrination.
Which is almost exactly the same words a Christian Scientist would use to describe a child raised atheist.
Indeed. Let the state raise our children through the Hitler Youth or the Red Army raise our children. Those are proven ways not to fuck them up.
The idea of the state regulating how a child should be raised and what ethical and philosophical systems parents can discuss in front of their children is abhorrent, fascist psycopathy.
They are respected. The rights of the child are layed down by the UN and they are respected. Children don’t have other specific rights. That’s why we don’t give them the vote, and why parents can lock their children in their room without being charged with kidnapping. Your idea that children should have all the rights of adults is just plain dumb.
No, you don’t know that. You just believe it. It’s an article of faith.
And of course 10 times more people will tell you that they are much happier because their father had not been free to shove Jesus down my throats as a child.
So why should we believe your faith-based anecdote over an order of magnitude anecdotes in the other direction?
I so agree with this. I wish all parents had the courage to raise their children as mine raised my siblings and me. Both parents were lapsed. One raised Catholic, the other Protestant. Neither were believers, but they didn’t talk with us about that. Since we were raised in Salt Lake City, it was impossible to ignore the question of faith, however. When questioned, both parents simply said what various religions believed, said that some people believed those things, other people didn’t believe, and that everyone had to decide for themselves.
For my entire childhood from about age 7 onward, we were introduced to every kind of religious service you can think of. We attended the services of the Mormons (of course), Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, Jews, UCC, Russian Orthodox, Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians, Lutherans, Methodists… you get the idea. We had exposure to all of it. We also had a strong education in science, understood the scientific method very young and were taught to question everything.
The result was that science turned out to be the only thing that made sense. While I find the rituals of religion interesting and culturally informative, it’s all just myths, no different from myths surrounding gods of yore. Some stories are more interesting than others. I draw virtually no distinction between the Santa Claus myth and the Christ myth.
We truly were permitted to choose for ourselves. The only outcome for all three of us was atheism.
It’s wrong, but it certainly does make sense.
So, a thing is wrong, because other, similar or greater wrongs occur also? That’s logically invalid.
Religious indoctrination is of a different nature than other forms of compulsory education. Forcing a kid to learn his ABC’s is not the same as forcing the kid to accept religious dogma.
Irrelevant. You can’t justify a wrong action by claiming it may have a probability of a better outcome at a later time. It might well be that children who are severely beaten when very young grow up to be model citizens, committing very few crimes as adults. Do you think that justifies the beatings?
Your argument does not actually rebut the claim that religious indoctrination is wrong.
This is only an argument – and a correct and true one – that the ideal is not attainable in the real world. It does not rebut the claim that religious indoctrination is wrong; it only recognizes the fact that religious indoctrination is not avoidable in any practical fashion.
Children live in a culture, and Western culture is immersed in religion. There are churches in every neighborhood. Even if the parents wanted to spare their children exposure to religious ideas (until the age of majority, at which point they could make up their own minds) the cultural reality is otherwise.
This doesn’t make it right. We can’t make children safe from broken bones, childhood diseases, exposure to pornography, or even the danger of sexual assault. Do you affirm these to be unworthy of our efforts to oppose or eradicate, because 100% success is not possible?
The proposal is unwise, invasive, and untenable. But your arguments fail to address the real reason.
Everything you have said would equally apply to someone who said, “Children should not be taught racist values by their parents.”
So the First Amendment’s freedom of religion = parents should be prohibited from teaching their children religion? That’s a strange interpretation.
Saying that “children should not be taught racist values by their parents” is different than trying to pass a law prohibiting parents from teaching their children racist values.
I totally agree, and I am, in fact, against the proposal. (Both proposals.)
I was just noting that Blake’s argument failed in what it appeared it was intended to accomplish.
All cultures transmit their myths to their children. It’s one of the defining characteristics of myth. And, come to think of it, one of the defining characteristics of culture.
I’m going to hazard a wild guess, and say that what your really mean here is that you think it should be a crime to indocrinate the innocent with mythical beliefs which you do not share. You can see how that’s a policy position that won’t appeal to more than about one person.
Transmission of myths is not at all the same as indoctrination. Can you see that at all? All children are born atheists, not putting bullshit into their heads, repeatedly and with ritual reinforcement (indoctrination), provides them with the opportunity to look at a belief set objectively, as an educated person, to assess whether they want to participate.
It is fine to mention mohammed or heracles or loki or david or whatever, none of that stuff should be burned into a child’s mind, they should be a dogmatic blank slate until at least adolescence. If the religion is so good and right and true, it should be able to captivate them as teenagers.
Consider the literal meaning of the word indoctrinate. Yes,this proposal stomps all over the idea of religious freedom.
So, do you think SCOTUS would let a “ban parents from raising their children in religion” law pass the First Amendment test?
Just saw this thread. Of course it’s socially acceptable to be an atheist in the U.S. It’s still a free country. You’ll probably be more comfortable in a liberal (or apathetic) big city than in a small, tight-knit town with strong religious leanings, but that’s up to you.
I would be surprised. I think children are primarily viewed as property, not fully vested with unalienable rights until majority. In principle, they have rights, in practice, not so much.
I was kicked off a message board when I admitted I didn’t believe in any 3 in one God. But it was a religious board.
i have a problem with calling myself an atheist. But I have never had a problem describing the god I don’t believe in.
On the plus side, I drive by their headquarters every day on the way to work, and they are putting a large addition on the building. Perhaps atheism is starting to pay off for them. 
Does that god want us to keep kosher or not? Does he reincarnate us or not. Does he say that the planet Uffa 3 is the real center of the universe?
I bet that you, like I, don’t believe in lots and bunches of gods. That’s the default position. If someone wants you to believe in a specific one, they have the job of defining it and giving evidence.
When I was growing up I didn’t believe in the 3 in 1 god either - and my rabbi had no problem with that at all.