Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[Ingledsva]

Calling them children is labeling them.

Again - keep it in context.

A permanent tattoo of your religion on an exposed part of their body - publicly labels them.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

The answer here is - YES IT DOES NEED TO BE DISCUSSED! Such things do need to be discussed, - and are obviously under the topic!

*

 

[Thana]

The answer here is - YES IT DOES NEED TO BE DISCUSSED! Such things do need to be discussed, - and are obviously under the topic!

*

If it needs to be discussed then take my previous advice and make your own thread about it.

 

[Ingledsva]

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!!

I agree, 12yr olds should not be left home alone. Here in the US, many people actually hire 12yr Olds as babysitters! Thus leaving them, and even younger children home alone.

 

[Ingledsva]

If it needs to be discussed then take my previous advice and make your own thread about it.

Don't know what your problem is with me, - BUT, - this IS UNDER THE TOPIC, - so give the CRAP a break!

*

 

[sojourner]

Again I have addressed this strawman before. I'm not saying teach the children modern realism and reject all religions, rather its teach the children all the religions, philosophies, and atheism and let them reach their own conclusion without a gigangtic bias from their family's religous preconceptions. Also I would argue, as a tangent to my central argument that takes priority, realism is better than teaching children that Mohammad rode to heaven on a winged horse, or Jesus was resurrected, or the Earth is 6000 years old, or that we are reincarnated into different castes depending on our karma, or whateber.Regardless children should still hear about all the mythologies and come to their own conclusions.

Since much of religion is experiential and culturally-imbedded, I don't see how that could be done -- especially for a child whose cognitive development isn't really fully in place.

 

[sojourner]

An early form of prostelization.

Oh? Really! Then how come I was never singled out for conversion as a child?

In much of the first world you can. Religion also isn't that integral clearly--China, the country with the largest population--get along without religion fine and dandy. It's proof that religion doesn't need to be connected to culture.

I'm not talking specifically of the "larger national culture." Culture pertains to any set of sociological norms, like family life, marriage, etc. If a family is religious, they can't just divorce that part of their family culture from their child-rearing. It would be dishonest, because (even if it were possible; it's not, faith is spread throughout one's life experience, and often impacts us in ways we don't notice) the parents wouldn't be presenting their true selves to their children. That's ultimately damaging.

And? Are you arguing that I thought kids shouldn't be taught any ideas? That is definitely not my position.

Just specific ideas that you happen to disagree with.

No it won't. People who grow up in agnostic households that don't really care about religion aren't any worse off. This is just a bald faced assertion.

You said "agnostic households." So the household has a culture of "we don't know/don't care." That's the framework within which the child grows up and compares to her/his selfhood. And guess what! The child will very likely grow up to embrace that same agnosticism! But, of course, that would "limit" the child's potential to just assume agnosticism, as you say. (I suppose, though, that that limitation doesn't "count" because, at least the child isn't embracing some duffs religion.) Do you see? One can't just not have a cultural influence within a family. If a family believes, the child will likely believe. If a family doubts, the child will likely doubt.

No lol. What has philosophy and theology contributed to science and engineering in the last 500 years? Seriously i would love to know.

For starters, the Hippocratic oath -- first do no harm. Then there's the whole not experimenting with human life thing,the whole human euthanasia thing, abortion issues, etc. On the science side, how about nuclear non-proliferation? Or toxic waste?

 

[sojourner]

No, this is another strawman. In an ideal world I would let a child decide to explore a variety of cultures through the processes you mention, and then allow them to associate themselves with one they aligned best.

Regardless culture is entirely different from religion. its impossible to avoid culture, but families tend to have a significant amount of control over the child's religious holidays, or cermonies, or conversations that occur in the home.

You can't do that, because cultural immersion is part of how one identifies both self and place in social groups. You can't give children choices like that, because they wouldn't know what to do with those choices. They'd lose "themselves."

Culture isn't different from religion. Religion is cultural.

 

[oldbadger]

I agree, 12yr olds should not be left home alone. Here in the US, many people actually hire 12yr Olds as babysitters! Thus leaving them, and even younger children home alone.

I did that myself...... decades ago when my wife was in research wards for months at a time, neighbouring girls of ten and eleven looked after the kids (together, in pairs) when I was in difficulties. The law has changed since those days.
Over here you cannot leave your infants at home on their own at all, but you can send them out alone to play in play-parks, the fields, going shopping...... we still haven't got this right yet.....

EDIT: Hey! You've got the 'shrug' sorted out! You clever member!

 

[Ingledsva]

I did that myself...... decades ago when my wife was in research wards for months at a time, neighbouring girls of ten and eleven looked after the kids (together, in pairs) when I was in difficulties. The law has changed since those days.
Over here you cannot leave your infants at home on their own at all, but you can send them out alone to play in play-parks, the fields, going shopping...... we still haven't got this right yet.....

EDIT: Hey! You've got the 'shrug' sorted out! You clever member!

Yep, I was babysitting when I was twelve. OMG!

*

 

[ChristineES]

I hope you understand the sarcasm for what it was.

Of course.

 

[ChristineES]

Yep, I was babysitting when I was twelve. OMG!

*

So did I. That's how I got money.

 

[icehorse]

I asked:

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

Society tells us how our families should be structured, when the "appropriate" age for sexual intercourse is, who we shouldn't be having sex with, and who should be involved in child rearing.
Our cultures tell us how to dress, such as the American look of t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. Culture also tells us what to eat, when to eat, and what foods are gross, disgusting, and off limits. It even tells us how to use the bathroom.
Marketing and advertising tells us how to look and what products to use.
Capitalism tells us to be consumers.
Language partly shapes the way we think.
Even the meta-narratives we view the world through are passed down to us through the culture we grew up and live in.
I can keep going on if you want. I have a background, personal experience, and education to keep going and going and going if you really need more examples.
Everything is ideology, and everything passes this ideology down from one generation to the next. It just happens.

None of these are extraordinary or unquestionable.

Here's an example of an extraordinary claim made by many parents in the US today: "My magic book tells me that God doesn't want my child to learn the theory of evolution".

This is fundamentally different than a kid saying "I want jeans because all the kids wear jeans."

 

[icehorse]

I'm refuting your claim that religion is somehow necessary as part of a child's education - it clearly isn't.

That's the last thing I think, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[icehorse]

What I find lol-worthy about the arguments like this that we see on a regular basis is that they can all pretty much be summed up as follows:

"I don't like religion [sic], therefore nobody should be taught it and instead do things my way." ​

The other conclusion I draw out of the OP goes something like this:

"Teach and show children nothing until they can think for themselves."
​

Yes, I realize the absurd implications of this. Absurdity was kind of my general reaction to this and similar OPs of the past.

Here are a few of the problems I see with declaring a child to be "of religion X":

- Religions are *often* divisive in nature and teach us vs. them worldviews.
- Religious beliefs *tend* to include the supernatural, tend to have no evidence, and *tend* to be presented as unquestionable. All of these characteristics *tend* to make people more easily manipulated and they fly in the face of critical thinking.

Some of you are members of more forward thinking religions - hooray. But that doesn't negate what happens more commonly.

 

[Riverwolf]

Here you hypocritically

As Yahtzee once said, "Well, I never said I wasn't a hypocrite."

That is definitely the worst part of it, but I still think that forcing religion onto children is not right when a parent controls the situation and could easily give the child information about other religions and athiest, in order allow the child to come to their own conclusions.

And I think that's the primary core of your argument: not allowing the child to have their own agency in developing their identities. While such things are dependent on external sources, something that perhaps my tired, kinda sick mind last night failed to communicate is that this dependency is because the development is based on how a given individual reacts to the external stimuli. In this last post, you're using more precise terminology instead of a bunch of terms that may or may not be related to what you're tying to convey, and it seems we are more in agreement than you might think.

Let me tell you my plan (I don't currently have children but do plan to in the future), and let's see if you would regard this as child abuse. Because I do count it as raising in a religion.

I intend to include my children in our holiday celebrations, which happen on the Wheel of the Year. This includes Maypole Dancing, blots to relevant Gods, dressing up as various Gods to "become" them (imagine African Mask rituals), telling stories about the Gods and Heroes, and singing holiday songs. Basically, there's no such thing as a "holiday season" separate from other "non-holiday seasons". Every season is a holiday season.

HOWEVER, I also intend to teach them about other religions and other practices, and not in a hostile way. I'll be telling them stories from the Biblical canon, Islamic lore, Hindu epics and legends, etc. The various philosophies from around the world will be explained and even explored. I'll be taking them to churches, mosques, synagogues, temples (whenever I'm allowed in, that is), and teach, before all other things, pluralism. The fact that there are people who don't follow a religion, and indeed also don't believe in Gods, will also be well-acknowledged, and not demonized. Their arguments will be presented, and I'll even challenge my children to try to answer them. If this ultimately turns them into atheists, or causes them to convert to another religion, that's fine; I'll still love and accept them just as always. They can still participate in the rituals if they choose(I don't think theism is necessary for participation in theistic rituals), but it won't be mandatory. The only mandatory celebrations will be birthdays, and I doubt they'll complain. (Screw that stupid song, though.)

The sciences are also not going to go unnoticed. I'll make sure they're up to date on the current findings of whatever fields they find the most interesting, as well as aspects of other fields. They'll be taught how the scientific method of deduction works, and why the peer-review process is so important. I'll make sure to give them plenty of play-practice in scientific discovery and reporting, and on peer-review; both them peer-reviewing mine play-practice, and me peer-reviewing theirs. How to do proper research and checking sources will also be taught, particularly important in this information age. I'll teach them to question everything, even me, and especially themselves, and to learn how to be comfortable with potentially being wrong... something I never could do. (A major aspect of my poor self-esteem is a strange complex I developed from childhood: if I'm wrong, it means I'm a bad person).

Proper study of history will also be included. Instead of all the myths that permeate our culture, they'll know that people have known the Earth is round at least since Aristotle first proved it in ~600 BCE, and that while Columbus was a brilliant navigator, he was actually quite wrong. They'll know the good, the bad, and the ugly sides of history; from a young age, they'll know what ring-around-the-rosie truly means, and what happened in the Americas between the time of Columbus and the "Pilgrims". They'll know about what happened in the world, as far as our records can demonstrate, not based on irrelevant dates and arbitrary names, but on the stories that they tell. They'll know the history of whatever country we live in (most likely the US, but there's a chance it'll not be), and that we're not this glorious conquering hero, but a country with virtues and vices like any other. I'll do my best to teach them about other countries and cultures, as well, not with an air of imperialistic pity or scorn, but with pluralistic consideration.

Now, would you consider this to be child abuse?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

None of these are extraordinary or unquestionable.

Here's an example of an extraordinary claim made by many parents in the US today: "My magic book tells me that God doesn't want my child to learn the theory of evolution".

This is fundamentally different than a kid saying "I want jeans because all the kids wear jeans."

For starters, there is no "magic book that tells people God doesn't want them to learn the theory of evolution." It's called individual interpretation, and outside of America people, including religious people, do not challenge and deny evolution like they do in America. Last I knew, only Turkey has more people that deny it.
Second, you aren't looking deep enough. Marketing firms do not sell clothing, they sell low-self esteem and eating disorders to women and sex up children. Disney tells little girls how have a princess complex. The law tells us to betray our friends. The news tries to scare us, and cable news divides the populace for a buck. School tells you to obey authority, readies students for the dreadfully boring reality of the jobs they;re likely to get, and instructs them to go work for another person. Even how you get sick and the symptoms you display are determined by your culture.
The Pervert's Guide to Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's a good movie to watch. It's not as good as classes in multiculturalism or anthropology, nor as good as several philosophers who wrote about it, and is nowhere nearly as good as taking a hard look at reality to learn about how culture shapes anything and everything, but it least it will help you "put on the sunglasses."

 

[Thana]

Here are a few of the problems I see with declaring a child to be "of religion X":

- Religions are *often* divisive in nature and teach us vs. them worldviews.
- Religious beliefs *tend* to include the supernatural, tend to have no evidence, and *tend* to be presented as unquestionable. All of these characteristics *tend* to make people more easily manipulated and they fly in the face of critical thinking.

Some of you are members of more forward thinking religions - hooray. But that doesn't negate what happens more commonly.

Do you ever get tired of it? Using anecdotes as if they're proof, I mean.

Personally, I would rather call them prejudice fueled bald faced lies but that seems a little too confrontational.

 

[Riverwolf]

Here are a few of the problems I see with declaring a child to be "of religion X":

- Religions are *often* divisive in nature and teach us vs. them worldviews.
- Religious beliefs *tend* to include the supernatural, tend to have no evidence, and *tend* to be presented as unquestionable. All of these characteristics *tend* to make people more easily manipulated and they fly in the face of critical thinking.

Some of you are members of more forward thinking religions - hooray. But that doesn't negate what happens more commonly.

No, it just negates the accuracy of the declaration of religion as a whole to be, as a rule, a bad thing inherently, whether directly, or indirectly.

 

[icehorse]

Do you ever get tired of it? Using anecdotes as if they're proof, I mean.

Personally, I would rather call them prejudice fueled bald faced lies but that seems a little too confrontational.

I guess I'm curious what you mean when you use the word religion?