Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[Ingledsva]

I've never heard of that either.. And besides, It's illegal to mark children like that. What you've described is literally child abuse, And seems pretty far off from the OP.

Not to mention the bible says not to do it.

Leviticus 19:28 - "Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the LORD.

Christians have tattooed themselves for a long time. A Jewish site that I visited said some ancient Priests tattooed a blue symbol on their foreheads as a sign to stay away from them. Also the Bible doesn't actually say to not get tattoos. It says to not cut, slash, brand, for the dead.

One of the groups that tattoos their children with crosses are Coptic Christians.

Edit - pictures - coptic christian tattoo wrist - Google Search

*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Christians have tattooed themselves for a long time. A Jewish site that I visited said some ancient Priests tattooed a blue symbol on their foreheads as a sign to stay away from them. Also the Bible doesn't actually say to not get tattoos. It says to not cut, slash, brand, for the dead.

One of the groups that tattoos their children with crosses are Coptic Christians.


*

The Greek word for tattoos is stigmata.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yes, like this: Arizona gun instructor accidentally shot and killed by nine-year-old girl with Uzi | US news | The Guardian

Sheer lunacy handing a child a weapon like this.

That was lunacy. There is no use for a weapon like that, and a child should not have been using it. The instructor was also in the wrong spot.

*

 

[Thana]

Christians have tattooed themselves for a long time. A Jewish site that I visited said some ancient Priests tattooed a blue symbol on their foreheads as a sign to stay away from them. Also the Bible doesn't actually say to not get tattoos. It says to not cut, slash, brand, for the dead.

One of the groups that tattoos their children with crosses are Coptic Christians.

Edit - pictures - coptic christian tattoo wrist - Google Search

*

So?
That doesn't make it any more legal or relevant or applicable to the majority of Christians.

The OP is talking about indoctrination, You've just gone off on your own tangent for the sake of stirring the pot.

 

[Ingledsva]

So?
That doesn't make it any more legal or relevant or applicable to the majority of Christians.

The OP is talking about indoctrination, You've just gone off on your own tangent for the sake of stirring the pot.

LOL! I suggest you read the title!

"Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral"

Tattooing your permanent religious symbol on them is definitely Labeling them.


*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That was lunacy. There is no use for a weapon like that

Actually there is. UZIs aren't that accurate in no small part because their rate of fire is so high compared to other PDW and submachine guns like HK MP5, MP5 kurtz, FN P90, HK MP7, and so on. They are cheap, though, and have a large magazine that empties out fast able to spray down a room quickly killing most inside. Unfortunately, this kind of tactic isn't useful for most special ops, paramilitary law enforcement, anti-terrorist squads, etc. It is very useful for criminals, terrorists, and others who care little to nothing for human life and don't mind inflicting maximal damage regardless of the target.

It's a weapon designed to kill fairly indiscriminately with little measures of control to stop rounds from spraying along multiple trajectories. I cannot fathom putting it into the hands of a child.

The instructor was also in the wrong spot.

There are things one does as a student or instructor on a range or anywhere involving guns. Never have your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to destroy. Never point your gun anywhere other than up or down (in safety positions) even if you are running (rangers tend to run with their rifles pointed downwards, but this brings the head down unconsciously and requires two hands while the methods SEALs tend to use (hold the rifle in one hand straight up so that you can run normally while ensuring that your weapon is safely oriented upwards). Ensure the line of fire is clear before allowing any trainees to even bring their weapons into a ready position. And so on. Handing a child a submachine gun designed to inflict maximal damage with minimal skill in minimal time is not being "in the wrong spot" it is being irresponsible. This doesn't, of course, mean the trainer deserved what happened. Far from it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Tattooing your permanent religious symbol on them is definitely Labeling them.

Calling them children is labeling them.

 

[serp777]

Unlike imposing on them the ball and chain of a nationality, gender identity, cultural customs, or the worst of them all, a name.



Who are to religion what Kim Jong Un is to democracy.



And how do you know that this is a "fundamentally important process"? What research have you done on child developmental psychology, or human psychology in general?



No it doesn't, and statements like this are highly insensitive to real child abuse, because it devalues it.



Vernacular that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of history.

"Unlike imposing on them the ball and chain of a nationality, gender identity, cultural customs, or the worst of them all, a name."

Most of these are irrelevant facts. So i guess its okay to label a child a republican or a homosexual or any other very personal decision that requires a significant amount of thought to develop a position since by your logic every imposition has the same weight. You've made a fallacy here because one imposed thing isn't equivalent to another just because they're imposed. In an ideal world I would also like children to be able to avoid the influences of culture at a young age and find a culture that, after thoughtful analysis as an adult, aligns with them the best.

"Vernacular that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of history."

Allegations without any evidence or reasoning and an ad hominem. Most of the world believes in Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm which were founded during ancient eras by lower class individuals.

"And how do you know that this is a "fundamentally important process"? What research have you done on child developmental psychology, or human psychology in general?"

So children being able to form their own identity without overt influences isn't an important process? Are you for real? Perhaps the indoctrination of children in North Korea is acceptable in your opinion because personal development isn't a fundamentally important process. Furthermore its an ethical issue--people should have the ability to make their own decisions and come to their own beliefs without manipulation, peer pressure, subliminal messaging, propaganda, or other significant influence. At a young age children are most vulnerable to these powers of suggestion.

"No it doesn't, and statements like this are highly insensitive to real child abuse, because it devalues it."

Child abuse covers a wide spectrum and isn't limited to simply the worst cases of physical child abuse; you aren't the master authority on its definition. Its child abuse because it limits many children from developing their own religious identity. Furthermore many children in the United States, for instance, are brought up to believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago and that evolution is a fraud, which means that the religious beliefs cause accurate information to be withheld from children, thus directly hurting their education.

 

[serp777]

This is the part that counts.........
It shows that you are prejudiced about religions.
An extreme-atheist household would not have any books about any religions available for children, and would not allow them to go to various and differing religious meetings.......... Ouch!..... theory busted! ........

Theory busted? You mean the strawman theory you created of me is busted.

In an ideal world I wouldn't want there to be no exposure to religion. The argument im making is that it shouldn't be shoved down their throat because that's what their family believes in. Similarly an athiest agenda wouldn't be suggested either. In my ideal world, a child would have access to all religious texts and athiests books like richard dawkins's The God Delusion. They wouldn't be told "You're a christian" or forced to go to church/ get baptised, and they wouldn't be told that religions are stupid either. They would simply be allowed to come to their own conclusions, or left alone if they didnt care one way or another. This would promote self education and self discovery that would enhance their own identity and thinking skills.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

1. clarify-.
Puttingtattoos onchildrendon't knowChristianity
The imagecan beaffectionatelynew
And I never heard the Christian East by
But they rejected
For it's not Christianity-
2. Christian Eastern Churches
His parents-yamzah.
He is a child.
The function of the priesthood-the
--
Adolescentsare taught theBibletochildren.
Then take the rank of the Eucharist
3. after the completed human mental powers have no right to reject the Christian faith in absolute freedom
4. There is no provision in the Gospel calls for killing of the apostate Christianity
5. all the teachings of Christianity do not hate
But calls for morality, humanity and tolerance
6. in all countries where Islam is not the dominant force
Thiscan be applied
7. this view could not be applied in any Islamic State
8. the teachings of Islam are the most dangerous in child rearing
Because the child in education for peace and tolerance
But when he grows up and returns to the teachings of the Koran, he will find a dramatic difference
Therefore the duplication
In education and the serious consequences applicable to Muslims in Western countries
9. Christian child learns the simple Gospel lyrics
The good She pherd
And AED widow
The Samaritan
And also learns about the Kingdom of God
Children in Christianity have preference in the Kingdom of God
Because it wants to obtain the Kingdom to become like children in his innocence
The texts of the Bible are
You can read his teachings
But in the same direction
The teachings of Islam: inteaching the child Al-Fatihah
After Sura Al-fatiha learn
Wrath on them
And gone astray
And when the child grows up
And become young
Ask
From the ir wrath on them
And they gone astray
And Islamic education
Did not know the childequal
And no one knows of any good morals
Only learns that Muhammad best senders
The last of the prophets
And learn how to marry three and four
Invite thread Starter not to confuse the control
One knows your childlove
And the other teaches hatred
Send your topic to Muslims, especially in Western countries

 

[Thana]

LOL! I suggest you read the title!

"Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral"

Tattooing your permanent religious symbol on them is definitely Labeling them.


*

Let's just say that tattooing/branding children for any reason is the kind of wrong that doesn't even need to debated, yeah?
So again, You're just trying to stir the pot. Make an argument for or against the topic of this thread which is religious indoctrination or make your own if you wish to talk about tattoo's.

 

[serp777]

Children develop in many different ways, from platelets to apoptosis. I'm assuming you mean something like cognitive development. However, it takes children many years to be able to reflect upon their conceptions of self and prior to their capacity for doing so they generally require a worldview wherein which much of the structure is provided. And whatever Dawkins and the New Atheists may argue, the fact that parents with particular political ideologies do not necessarily tell or label their children according to their views matters little when they do impart at every election who should be elected and why and communicate in many ways their political worldviews. I recall every year growing up, but especially those years in which there was a presidential election, we children talking about who should be elected and teachers creating mock voting booths. In the end, most simply regurgitated their guardian'(s') view(s) and could not defend their positions (nor should they have been expected to.

Cognition is thoroughly influenced, down to basic reasoning, by culture. To imagine a world in which children can be raised without dogma is to be blind to the dogma that is imposed upon one simply by virtue of the sociocultural contexts, language, SES, and other factors that influence things so seemingly unrelated as the notion of fairness or spatial cognition.


Yet they frequently self-identify as such. Nor is the identification of one as an American, Canadian, Russian, etc., much different. In fact, for a child to identify herself or himself as Jewish need not entail any religious beliefs. I remember in kindergarten and first grade before I had any knowledge of race that we were all just kids. Then we were informed about Martin Luther King, segregation, and other horrors that Americans have sought to assign to a distant past to readily. Yet once we learned of such distinctions the formed part of our identities, and I recall one day in particular noticing as I went out to the cafeteria that it looked nearly like a chess board: tables of those who were black and those who were white, but little if any tables at which both sat (until I turned 14, I grew up in a town that was almost entirely white, but there was a program set-up to bus black children from Boston into schools in the suburbs).

It would be wonderful if we could hand children Plato, Descartes, Confucius, Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, Aristotle, Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, Anslem, Freud, etc., and just say "read up". This isn't how it works. Upbringing entails indoctrination.


I was raised Catholic and have been agnostic so long I don't remember what it was like to believe, but I think my fathers' showing me Cantor's proof that some infinities are bigger than others when I was about 6 was far more damaging than any experiences in Church. Also, for good or ill, it is simply a fact that Western culture is thoroughly steeped in Christian thought from the creation of the university system and early modern science to basic moral and ethical notions. Being blind to what forms one's worldview is not an advantage.


Societal standards are defined by pressure to conform. Most children care far less about whether they are Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox, or neopgan than whether they like the "right" bands and wear the "right" clothing.


Human nature does that.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.


And no doubt such open-mindedness as you express would be invaluable to a child's ability to freely determine her or his own worldview.

"Cognition is thoroughly influenced, down to basic reasoning, by culture. To imagine a world in which children can be raised without dogma is to be blind to the dogma that is imposed upon one simply by virtue of the sociocultural contexts, language, SES, and other factors that influence things so seemingly unrelated as the notion of fairness or spatial cognition."

You're assuming that all influences have the same weight, which isn't true. Furthermore, religion is assigned by birth often, as opposed to political influences which as shown by your anecdotes became more applicable as you aged. Children are often forced to attend church, listen to sermons, etc, while they most likely aren't force to attend republican ideology lectures.

And I was also arguing about a hypothetical ideal world--much of your argument seems to be centered around the fact that many influences are unavoidable, which I don't deny, but religious and political influences are actually something that parents could mitigate to allow their children to come to their own decisions, and thus also acting as a learning, research, and exploration exercise to find their own identities that they align most closely with. Culture on the other hand is unavoidable no matter what because of television, the media, and other children that make the influences prominent. But also in an ideal world I would like children to discover and find a culture that suits them best. And remember, I did say in the OP in an ideal world.

"And no doubt such open-mindedness as you express would be invaluable to a child's ability to freely determine her or his own worldview."
This is completely irrelevant to the main argument so ill just leave it at that. I wouldn't want my personal views about religions influencing a child anyways--i would want them to come to their own determination once they became older.

"It would be wonderful if we could hand children Plato, Descartes, Confucius, Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, Aristotle, Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, Anslem, Freud, etc., and just say "read up". This isn't how it works."
Well that would be great, and you're basically agreeing with me. If the child didn't care at all to read those that would also be their choice, but an unbiased education could force them to be exposed to a lot of different religions and philosophical perspectives and perhaps get them interested, as opposed to going to a catholic school and going to church for example. Remember, also, I did say in an ideal world.

"the New Atheists"
As a side note not related to the main argument, I just want to mention that this term is completely illogical. There's no such thing as the new A-celestialteapotists, or the new A-santaclausists, or the new A-utilitarianists. And people aren't new athiests to top it off--its the same old athiesm.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

The child inChristian him special respect
And the words of Christ about children known
The texts of the Gospel does not acceptany harm against children
Because they have special status
The children in the Christian Kingdom also means
Who wants to obtain the Kingdomto becom a kidin his in nocence
This tattoo to his extract modern children
Not acceptable christian religiously

 

[serp777]

Well, there have been multiple threads on this before, and though I respect your wishes, I think its a petty argument. It pollutes personal progress? Its a form of child abuse? I mean really dude lol

How many here were born into religious families and ended up atheist?

Well often times religion does directly lead to physical child abuse. Circumcision in Judaism and other religions is a great example. genital mutilation is about as direct an example I can think of.

There are a plethora of child molestation events that occur in the catholic church, which attracts many pedophiles because of easy access to young boys and girls. There are of course other cases.

But besides that religious exposure can damage a child's education, which is child abuse in my opinion. Many households in the United States teach their children that the earth was created 6000 years ago, that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, and that evolution and a huge chunk of science is a lie. It also convinces many children turn away from science and learn more about theology, which is the last thing we need--more theologians and philosophers. We need scientists and engineers to save lives and bring us into a new age of safety and prosperity. But that's kind of a side point since the next generation of scientists and doctors will help provide a better life for the next generations of kids.

Forcing a child to conform to a certain religion also hurts their potential. It inhibits an important learning experience for a child--to find their own religious identity without manipulative propaganda and peer pressure, which can be a powerful learning, discovery, and exploration expeirence.

 

[serp777]

I understand how you feel, I feel the same about inculcating the idea of atheism into a child

Children look to their parents for their own identity... of course they have the abiltiy to make their own choices as they get older, but while they are young it would be wrong of any parent to exclude them from the family identity and culture. I can't imagine how a child would feel if they were excluded by their own parents...that too would be immoral imo.

Well I think we're in agreement because I am not advocating for parents to only support athiesm. I think parents should provide an avenue to explore athiesm as well as other philosophies and religious beliefs to come to their own conclusions.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

No not true-
Do not force thec hild to hear the words of Christian Pastor Sunday
In most churches, there is a special wing for children
Where
Are taugh thymns
And children between the age of 10 to 18 years is an important element in the Eastern Churches, especially the choirs which
In some cases, theChristian Churchis an important elementin domestic peace also
Christian Educatione not stablis hat olerant
In General

 

[serp777]

Calling them children is labeling them.

And what's your point? My argument isn't that labeling is inherently bad. Labeling them a human or a baby is just a stone cold fact. The fallacy here is that you're suggesting that all labels hold the same weight.

 

[serp777]

No not true-
Do not force thec hild to hear the words of Christian Pastor Sunday
In most churches, there is a special wing for children
Where
Are taugh thymns
And children between the age of 10 to 18 years is an important element in the Eastern Churches, especially the choirs which
In some cases, theChristian Churchis an important elementin domestic peace also
Christian Educatione not stablis hat olerant
In General

Yes and I find this to be a form of child abuse, albeit a light one. Children should not be forced to participate in choirs or go to the special wing for children, where they are no doubt told stories meant to prostelatize them and prepare them for the real sunday sermon. They should be given the option to participate after being exposed to other religions as well as athiesm, assuming they are mature enough to start understanding basic concepts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You're assuming that all influences have the same weight, which isn't true.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that after 50+ years of research in the ever more diverse fields of cognitive science, we can perhaps move beyond your level of analysis which seems to hold much bias but little in the way of understanding. Not that this is something to be blamed for (who reads research in fields that they do not work in?), but it does make your claims less a matter of evidence, research, and reasoning, and more one of bias.

Furthermore, religion is assigned by birth often

Unlike SES, race, nationality, etc.? And the only way that religion is "assigned" at birth is because of the belief of those raising the child. Such beliefs are not limited to religion.

while they most likely aren't force to attend republican ideology lectures.

I was. And most of my friends were forced to listen to the opposite. I believed I was right but couldn't defend my point of view any more than they could, and then we all grew up (as children are wont to do). I am not a republican, and some of them are.

And I was also arguing about a hypothetical ideal world

If wishes were horses...

much of your argument seems to be centered around the fact that

Actually I would argue that it centers around fact, period. Idealism is noble and necessary for progress, but is useless without pragmatism.

but religious and political influences are actually something that parents could mitigate to allow their children to come to their own decisions

Have you studied much in terms of cognitive development, particularly with respect to epistemic modality and related cognitive linguistic expressions?

This is completely irrelevant to the main argument so ill just leave it at that.

When your clear hatred and vitriol spills over into mere posts, would not one with such views necessarily inflict upon their children something of these beliefs?

Well that would be great, and you're basically agreeing with me.

Most assuredly, to the extent that your argument consists of the benefits all would gain were we not human.

I just want to mention that this term is completely illogical.There's no such thing as the new A-celestialteapotists, or the new A-santaclausists, or the new A-utilitarianists. And people aren't new athiests to top it off--its the same old athiesm.

There are neoconservatives, neopagans, and as the term "New Atheist" was a term used by insiders and promoted as a banner in works by e.g., Stenger, I hardly think it "completely illogical" considering there is no logical inference rule nor axiom it violates and it is in common usage. Nor is it the same old atheism, but a pathetically intellectually bankrupt insult to the great intellectual atheists who so influenced Western thought and philosophy and presented arguments that challenged even the most popular of apologists (such as C. S. Lewis), while the intellectually sterile arguments proffered by those whose intellect, while great, would be better served by a more than passing familiarity of the arguments, philosophies, theologies, and metaphysics they would seek to challenge.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And what's your point?

Mainly that apart from an admirably passionate plea, you assert much with little evidence and less cause.It is very easy to rant and rail against the wrongs and injustices inflicted upon children who are subjected to worldviews and beliefs you do not hold. It is quite another to consider how worldviews are formed and how they cannot but be formed, and then take stock and consider what right or cause or justification one has for advocating that those who raise children must do so in your image.

The fallacy here is that you're suggesting that all labels hold the same weight.

And pray tell where in fact did I suggest this?