Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[sojourner]

It is worse when they permanently mark a child's body, showing them to be part of a certain religion.

There is a Christian group that tattoos, or brands, a cross onto the hands of their children, permanently marking them as owned by that religion, even though they are in an area where it will get them abused, and possibly killed. And of course it gives the child no choice.

*

While I disagree with bodily mutilation wholeheartedly, I have to point out that the people aren't being marked as "owned by that religion." They're being marked as belonging to Christ. I think it's a stupid act, but it's a valid and important theological distinction to make. It's not an act of hubris, it's supposed to be an act of celebration.

 

[sojourner]

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.

In an ideal world, you would prevent children from socialization. Because culture is inherent to socialization. In an ideal world, you would keep a child from the important process of differentiation. Because being immersed in a family (culture) or any other integrated social group gives the child an important baseline against which s/he can measure her/his unique personhood.

 

[oldbadger]

Putting a visible and permanent Christian Cross on your child's hand in an area where it can get him killed - is tantamount to child abuse. Personally I would consider the parent an accessory to murder, if the child is killed.

I agree with you on the alcohol, nicotine, and drugs around children.

I'm an Alaskan. I don't agree on the guns. Every home here has multiple rifles, and hand guns. Teach gun safety.*

I think that the Egyptian Coptics tattoo their kids..... not good at all, but tattooing anything on kids is wrong. Some morons here tattoo football club insignia on their kids, but it is going to be illegal to tattoo anything on a minor soon..... already is in Wales, I think.

Fair enough about your guns....... to a point. It's just a question of 'what age should a kid be allowed to handle a gun'. In the UK we are not allowed to leave 12yr olds at home on their own!!

 

[oldbadger]

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.

Yep.
....begs the question 'at what age is gun instruction sensible'
For argument's sake, suppose we agreed that 12 yrs was ok for simple gun instruction.... well, I would then suggest that 12 yrs is a reasonable age for somebody to agree to baptism, etc. I think tattoos should wait to 18yrs though....

 

[oldbadger]

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

Yep..... the theory is busted. No stawman required.

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.

Nah..... we don't live in an ideal World!
Look, I think it's best if we leave devout parents decisions about their kids alone, OK? Let's spend our energy to focus upon some of the big-time deep cr-p that's going on in the World and leave united families alone.
Me? I'm a non-religious person...... which makes me an impartial mind over religious families, but the day that some berk decides to pass laws which interfere with religious parent's rights to include their kids in their ceremonies etc..... that will be the day that I stop being impartial!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yep.
....begs the question 'at what age is gun instruction sensible'
For argument's sake, suppose we agreed that 12 yrs was ok for simple gun instruction.... well, I would then suggest that 12 yrs is a reasonable age for somebody to agree to baptism, etc. I think tattoos should wait to 18yrs though....

When I was one and twenty
I heard a wise many say
Give pounds and crowns and guineas
But not your heart away

When I was one and twenty
I heard him say again
The heart out of the bosom
Is never given in vain
'Tis paid with sighs of plenty
And sold with endless rue
And I am two and twenty
And oh 'tis true 'tis true.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

Agreed. But worse it all starts with the indoctrination, the very first word a child learns, of "NO." Mind your mom, do what your dad says, don't question, do as i say not as I do. How is a baby supposed to learn to think critically if they are taught from day one that they need to pay attention to and accept authority? I say when a baby is born we immediately move them to an environment where they receive ZERO subjectivity and are only provided with 100% certain objective knowledge. Then we will check back in 18 years and test the hypothesis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development.

What about national identity? Gender roles? Social roles? Political roles? Language? Cultural ideology? What about marriage, education, and the bombardment of messages contained in TV? Should there be laws against advertisement? Should it be banned to play any music for your child? To read them any stories? To tell them about anything?
Culture as a whole is passed on this way, and does the same thing to people. You process thoughts and reach the conclusions you do primarily because of the culture you grew up in, and slightly because of other things you have been exposed to.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance-

Actually, many people do raise their children to be Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. Even if you do not actively try to instill these views in your children, they will still observe and learn from what they have seen their parents do. This is yet another example of when Hitchens and Dawkins are embarrassing the rest of us.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments.

This would be to use the state as a tool to eradicate the culture of and gravely infringe upon the rights of another. To allow the state such power is to allow for the state to abuse its power. And not too mention one hell of a slippery-slope that is vertical because everything is ideology, and all we can ever pass down to our children is ideology. Religion, science, politics, gender, environmentalism, all of those and everything else is ideology that are passed down the same way and have the same consequences and effects. If you want to band preaching to kids, then you must ban teaching them philosophy, art, and critical thinking to a children because those too can be used to shape a child's development in the same exact manner as religion.

 

[sojourner]

So children being able to form their own identity without overt influences isn't an important process?

Part of the identity process is the struggle to differentiate from those overt influences. It's normal. It's healthy. It's part of the maturation process. Religion can be part of that, too.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Why not? Why not give the child something cultural so that they can learn to place themselves within a context? Also, if you don't teach your children religion, it's the same thing. "No religion" is a cultural statement just as surely as is "this particular religion." So I don't want you cramming atheism down your children's throats, either, just because that's what you believe in.

 

[sojourner]

This would promote self education and self discovery that would enhance their own identity and thinking skills.

No, it wouldn't. It would produce a disconnected personality and would retard their self-identity. Because self-identity isn't fostered n a vacuum. It's fostered in the context of socialization.

 

[icehorse]

Several people have supported a false equivalency here, i.e. that religion is *like* culture, or politics or ...

Religion is *unique* in that it teaches a child that sometimes it's okay to suspend critical thinking. Religion teaches that sometimes extraordinary claims require no evidence, that sometimes it's okay to produce unfalsifiable arguments, that some claims are not to be questioned, and so on.

 

[sojourner]

Children are often forced to attend church, listen to sermons, etc, while they most likely aren't force to attend republican ideology lectures.

No. They're not. Most young children go to children's church where they hear stories and sing songs.

Culture on the other hand is unavoidable no matter what because of television, the media, and other children that make the influences prominent.

Religion (or lack thereof) is integral to one's culture. You can't separate them out like that.

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.

Wait a minute! Didn't you just complain that children were forced to go to church and listen to sermons? So, it's OK to force children to be exposed to a plethora of ideas, just not forced to be exposed to specific, religious ideas?

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.

Huh. I and many people I know were reared in the church, and this isn't true of us.

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

And so do theologians and philosophers. Both doctors and engineers operate within the bounds of philosophy. There are philosophies of both those disciplines. So, I would say that we'd be better off with more -- not less -- of those people.

Forcing a child to conform to a certain religion also hurts their potential.

No. It doesn't.

to find their own religious identity without manipulative propaganda and peer pressure, which can be a powerful learning, discovery, and exploration expeirence.

That will leave them, ultimately, worse off, foundering in a trackless wilderness of ideas and identities.

 

[sojourner]

Several people have supported a false equivalency here, i.e. that religion is *like* culture, or politics or ...

Religion is *unique* in that it teaches a child that sometimes it's okay to suspend critical thinking. Religion teaches that sometimes extraordinary claims require no evidence, that sometimes it's okay to produce unfalsifiable arguments, that some claims are not to be questioned, and so on.

Hmmm... Never taught me those things.

 

[sojourner]

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.

In any educational endeavor (which is what you're talking about), there are three different kinds of curricula: Explicit curricula, implicit curricula, and null curricula. An example of explicit would be the books you mention here. But usually, implied curricula is much, much stronger. What are you teaching the child by what you present to her/him? How do you live your life and express yourself? how do you understand (and thus interact with) family? One simply cannot divorce oneself from one's culture or beliefs (nor should one). A parent has to be honest with children, and not presenting her or himself honestly to the child presents a very, very negative implied curriculum. A null curriculum is defining what, specifically, is not being presented. To not talk about a core value of one's own life is damaging to the child.

 

[icehorse]

Hmmm... Never taught me those things.

Come on sojourner, really? "Didn't happen to you individually" is your argument?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Religion is *unique* in that it teaches a child that sometimes it's okay to suspend critical thinking.

They can do that in art, drama and so on.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Several people have supported a false equivalency here, i.e. that religion is *like* culture, or politics or ...

You can ask any anthropologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, or sociologist you want, and they will all tell you religion is just as much of a part of culture as is politics or any other aspect of culture. Even college professors in the Humanities department will tell you this.

Religion is *unique* in that it teaches a child that sometimes it's okay to suspend critical thinking. Religion teaches that sometimes extraordinary claims require no evidence, that sometimes it's okay to produce unfalsifiable arguments, that some claims are not to be questioned, and so on.

We have an abundance of that without religion. If only John Nada and his glasses were real.

 

[oldbadger]

When I was one and twenty
I heard a wise many say
Give pounds and crowns and guineas
But not your heart away

When I was one and twenty
I heard him say again
The heart out of the bosom
Is never given in vain
'Tis paid with sighs of plenty
And sold with endless rue
And I am two and twenty
And oh 'tis true 'tis true.

But I was one-and-twenty,
............No use to talk to me.

 

[icehorse]

They can do that in art, drama and so on.

What's an example of an extraordinary, unquestionable claim in any of those domains?