Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[icehorse]

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."

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who thinks all of the world's problems are due to religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who thinks all of the world's problems are due to religion.

No. You seem to think religion is somehow not a "regular" part of culture, that it should not be allowed to be taught to kids, even though the reasons you give apply to culture as a whole.

 

[icehorse]

No. You seem to think religion is somehow not a "regular" part of culture, that it should not be allowed to be taught to kids, even though the reasons you give apply to culture as a whole.

No, I pointed out several ways in which religion is unique.

 

[icehorse]

Back to the OP,

For many children in the world, being "of religion X" means that some of the adults in their lives threaten them with hellfire. That strikes me as immoral.

 

[ChristineES]

I have another question. At what age would a child be able to join a faith on his/her own. I've seen children as young as 8 or 9 make the decision to join my own faith. What do you think the appropriate age should be for a child officially joining a faith on his or her own?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again - keep it in context.

Kind of like when you said infants should be given the same responsibilities and agency as adults, only it turned out you didn't actually mean that, you meant "under circumstances that accord with my worldview in ways that can be realizable in that worldview rather than being incompatible"?
Your "context" consists of the ways in which one should interpret some situation or information having already granted your views. Hardly the foundation for substantive argument or the basis for something like a defensible claim.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That strikes me as immoral.

Enter Euthyphro and the problem of evil as well as moral relativism. What basis do you or I have for asserting that X is immoral but Y is not other than whim? And if "God' determines what is moral, how is that nothing but a series of laws amounting to "if you behave thus, you will be rewarded/punished thusly"?

 

[icehorse]

Enter Euthyphro and the problem of evil as well as moral relativism. What basis do you or I have for asserting that X is immoral but Y is not other than whim? And if "God' determines what is moral, how is that nothing but a series of laws amounting to "if you behave thus, you will be rewarded/punished thusly"?

Read the sig line

 

[Ingledsva]

Kind of like when you said infants should be given the same responsibilities and agency as adults, only it turned out you didn't actually mean that, you meant "under circumstances that accord with my worldview in ways that can be realizable in that worldview rather than being incompatible"?
Your "context" consists of the ways in which one should interpret some situation or information having already granted your views. Hardly the foundation for substantive argument or the basis for something like a defensible claim.

Again - you take things out of context.

Common sense says that people no matter their age have a right to an intact body. No one has a right to alter it, especially when it is for no legit reason. The people that say it lowers the chances of STD's forget we are talking about infant circumcision. Anyone can get it done later - by their own choice.

Why you would choose to be nasty over someone saying people have a right to their own body, - is beyond me.


*

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Again - you take things out of context.

Common sense says that people no matter their age have a right to an intact body. No one has a right to alter it, especially when it is for no legit reason. The people that say it lowers the chances of STD's forget we are talking about infant circumcision. Anyone can get it done later - by their own choice.

Why you would choose to be nasty over someone saying people have a right to their own body, - is beyond me.


*

Circumcisionin Christianityis not binding
You are free-.
If youchildhascircumcisionfreedom in that
And if you want to leave it until the child grows up and chooses you are free
But the pain-
There are somechildrenin need ofsurgeryinchildhood
Surgery means pain
May refuse surgery for pain
Circumcision in this resembles a surgical operation

 

[Ingledsva]

Circumcisionin Christianityis not binding
You are free-.
If youchildhascircumcisionfreedom in that
And if you want to leave it until the child grows up and chooses you are free
But the pain-
There are somechildrenin need ofsurgeryinchildhood
Surgery means pain
May refuse surgery for pain
Circumcision in this resembles a surgical operation

Which says nothing about a person's right to an intact body.

*

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

Sorry, crossed wires then.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

In the era of )Ottoman(TurkishMuslims)
Use of children in the creation of the Muslim army was called the Army (Janissary)
This army of children and their up bringing are the only military of their childhood
The difference of the )Ottoman janissaries (were the harshest military teams

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Which says nothing about a person's right to an intact body.

*

Excuse me=
Ina message from theacts of the Apostlesinthis sense
Itgives us thefreedom
In circumcision or female genital mutilation
Circumcision in Judaism, according to my information
Is to distinguish the people of God from other people
Islam also took from Jews also
Thisis what I know
2. pain rejected Christianity by interpreting the provisions of the Gospel
And interest in children.
I don't save all the Gospel
You can review the Gospelso you know the position of Jesus child
3. in some cases, accept pain in surgical operations
In order to save the child.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

We mustdistinguish
Among thereligious teachingsthatproclaimtheteachings oflove
And the religious teachings that proclaim the teachings of love
Therefore, you should study the curriculum of religious education
But in Christianity there is no problem
Every Christian teachings are teachings correspond to the teachings of peace and love
And the question-
Why abolish the education our children??
Teaching children mathematics and engineering
Does not producethe fullhuman being?!?
There isthe spiritualside
Moralside
Every child needs to learn the difference between good and evil
Therefore I am not with the abolition of Christian education
But when we look at Islamic teachings
I'm with her, especially in European countries
Because Islamic teachings
Noteachings ofloveandnotthe teachings ofpeace
Ask-.
Does theKoranteachconcerning children??
Does theQuranteach aboutlove??
The distinction betweena very importantteaching
If the problemin Christianity
Is Jesusis GodorisGod's son
Cancelthesecurricula
And focus on other Christian teachings
After the child grows
Will examine thetheologicalside
And also the Christian is not an earthly penalty
In the Christianleft
You arefree tobelieveinor notbelieve inChrist
No sword plugin forces you to believe
Whil eIslam the punishment of apostasy

2. Let's say not the Christian form
Forbiddento teach childrenreligion
Would theIslamicStates
And accept where Muslims living in European countries??
There is a very serious flaw??
In this idea
Dangerousones
It'sa nice idea
But could not be applied because it means surrender to the Islamic threat
It is coming to you in these humanitarian ideas????!?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, I pointed out several ways in which religion is unique.

No you haven't. You are trying to claim that religion is somehow different, though you will not find one person who studies culture that will agree with this (it's equally as bad as trying to deny evolution). Althusser and Foucault would be good authors for you to read (or Chuck Palahniuk first three books since he very heavily based them on those two, especially Foucault), religious anthropology text books, Slavoj Zizek is really good if you want to learn through pop-culture (Pervert's Guide to Ideology is alot of fun to watch with the movies he talks about) even George Carlin and Bill Hicks went on about how different aspects of culture control us. Karl Marx and Neo-Marxist thinkers have written extensively on the subject. Simply put, everything about culture encourages you to not think and just do it the way it's being done/has been done.

 

[dantech]

Which says nothing about a person's right to an intact body.

*

A good parent does what he thinks is best for his child. When my nephew was born, his tongue was sort of stuck in his mouth. The doctor offered to clip it from under so that he won't have trouble speaking later on. Should the mom have told the doctor to wait until the baby is old enough to make his own decision because this is his body and he deserves for it to be intact?

Similarly, a parent who chooses to circumcise his child for religious reasons does it simply because he believes it's what's best for his child. You maybe can't see it right here, right now, but the parent is convinced that there is a perfect God out there, and that this God told him "you need to do this". It doesn't have any long term effect either. If you told me that there would be some sort of pain/discomfort that lasted forever or that it exposes you to diseases, then I'd agree with you. There's a reason a fragile 8 day old baby could have this ritual done, And it doesn't need to be done in a clinic or hospital.

It doesn't matter that the father may be wrong, he does what he believes is best for his child, and does it wholeheartedly because he wants nothing but the best for his child. There's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

Btw, I've probably met thousands of circumcised dudes. None of them ever complained about that insignificant piece of skin that's missing from their not so intact bodies. It's not like I woke up one day and said: "Damn... I wish i still had my foreskin..." people are making a bigger deal of this than it is. Have you ever met anyone whose life would be even slightly different had he still had his foreskin?

 

[icehorse]

No you haven't. You are trying to claim that religion is somehow different, though you will not find one person who studies culture that will agree with this (it's equally as bad as trying to deny evolution). Althusser and Foucault would be good authors for you to read (or Chuck Palahniuk first three books since he very heavily based them on those two, especially Foucault), religious anthropology text books, Slavoj Zizek is really good if you want to learn through pop-culture (Pervert's Guide to Ideology is alot of fun to watch with the movies he talks about) even George Carlin and Bill Hicks went on about how different aspects of culture control us. Karl Marx and Neo-Marxist thinkers have written extensively on the subject. Simply put, everything about culture encourages you to not think and just do it the way it's being done/has been done.

I never said that religion is completely separated from culture. What I said was that religion is unique in that it *tends* to demand a belief in the supernatural. Specifically I asked (in relation to the other domains you mention, e.g. culture):

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

You still haven't given me an example...

 

[Ingledsva]

A good parent does what he thinks is best for his child. When my nephew was born, his tongue was sort of stuck in his mouth. The doctor offered to clip it from under so that he won't have trouble speaking later on. Should the mom have told the doctor to wait until the baby is old enough to make his own decision because this is his body and he deserves for it to be intact?

Similarly, a parent who chooses to circumcise his child for religious reasons does it simply because he believes it's what's best for his child. You maybe can't see it right here, right now, but the parent is convinced that there is a perfect God out there, and that this God told him "you need to do this". It doesn't have any long term effect either. If you told me that there would be some sort of pain/discomfort that lasted forever or that it exposes you to diseases, then I'd agree with you. There's a reason a fragile 8 day old baby could have this ritual done, And it doesn't need to be done in a clinic or hospital.

It doesn't matter that the father may be wrong, he does what he believes is best for his child, and does it wholeheartedly because he wants nothing but the best for his child. There's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

Btw, I've probably met thousands of circumcised dudes. None of them ever complained about that insignificant piece of skin that's missing from their not so intact bodies. It's not like I woke up one day and said: "Damn... I wish i still had my foreskin..." people are making a bigger deal of this than it is. Have you ever met anyone whose life would be even slightly different had he still had his foreskin?

That was a know condition causing speech problems.

Uncircumcised babies don't have any more problems then circumcised ones. All of the so-called problems being brought up - are in sexually active people, and there are sites countering these.


"100+ circumcision deaths each year in United States
Each year in the United States more than 100 newborn baby boys die as a result of circumcision and circumcision complications. This is the alarming conclusion of a study, published in the journal Thymos, which examined hospital discharge and mortality statistics in order to answer two questions: (1) How many baby boys dies as a result of circumcision in the neonatal period (within 28 days of birth)? (2) Why are so few of these deaths officially recorded as due to circumcision?"

Circumcision deaths in USA | Circinfo.org

*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Read the sig line

That presents a basis, but does not indicate or suggest that there is evidence to indicate any such basis exists.