Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?

[Ponder This]

Your first paragraph is a response to @Nakosis, the second two to me. But let me ask you, would you consider there to be zero harm in teaching your child that quite a few of their classmates and friends in school are going to burn forever in Hell because they have the wrong religion?

Evil? Yes. Harmful? I'm not so sure.

Frankly, I find that quite evil. Yet, parents are permitted, you are correct, to do some pretty evil things to their children, like snipping their foreskins painfully when they're too young and helpless to prevent that violent assault.

Harmful? Yes. Evil? Not so sure.

I don't think values should be mandated or restricted by the law, but harmful behavior often (but not always) should be. I can't justify infringing the autonomy of a family because I think certain beliefs are wrong.

What do you think about the idea that children aren't equipped to handle religion? Why not give children a basic education in all the world religions? Is there real substance to the idea that children can't handle religion? Is there is a genuine concern about children being indoctrinated? It seems that it's the adults that are squeamish about religion. If there is a real issue here it seems that more education is better than less. After all, there's no point in keeping sex a secret from teenagers.

If 85% of four year olds believe in Santa, but only 25% of eight year olds believe in Santa, then maybe we need to realize that kids actually do reach an age fairly early on when they are able to maturely handle supernatural beliefs. This idea that we need to ban religion until kids are 16 years old seems to me like the thought worm of a madman with no common sense.

 

[syo]

You're redefining religion in a dichotomous manner. 'Religion' is neither good nor bad, as it doesn't relate to any particular belief or behaviour. It's entirely possible for religions to be good or bad. And I would hazard a guess that the majority are both, depending on context, etc.

I have to admit, I've never understood a desire to reduce the substantial differences between religions, whilst focusing on a few key messages to show that they are 'compatible' beliefs. Even to make those few key messages fit, you have to make them fuzzy in the extreme, or start quickly backpedalling from a claim that it's 'all religions' to some sort of cherry picking.

And therein lies the issue. Religion, in and of itself, doesn't have to be divine, so limiting religion in the manner you are, and showing commonalities between disparate beliefs in the manner you are is simply a way of begging the question.

Anyway...that's my little rant response.
What you're trying to do is noble enough, in a way, but it lacks authenticity to my eye.

religion is theology and way of life. theology may be different but way of life has same elements. for example, way of life is the notion live and let live. all religions preach ''you shall not murder''. that is why I view religions as common. because the way of life is the same.

 

[SomeRandom]

The lack of rational, critical thinking minors have when exposed to it.

Uhh, isn't child porn is harmful because of the lack of emotional development children have? I mean a very bright child would still be traumatized by such abuse, even if they had critical and rational thinking.

And all this talk about hellfire and whatnot being damaging to kids. What of religions without such beliefs? What of religions that are extensively tied to a particular culture? Like would you really deny a parent teaching their child to embrace their cultural heritage and understand their roots, just because it's been infused with religion over the millennia?

And critical thinking is not the opposite of religion necessarily. I know many educated Christians who are the very epitome of critical thinkers. They also just so happen to be Christian.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

religion is theology and way of life. theology may be different but way of life has same elements. for example, way of life is the notion live and let live. all religions preach ''you shall not murder''. that is why I view religions as common. because the way of life is the same.

Sorry, mate, I just don't see it.

Culling is one blunt and unnuanced example, but consider the Thuggees.
And that's without considering more nuanced examples, or quoting Leviticus...

 

[Nakosis]

Uhh, isn't child porn is harmful because of the lack of emotional development children have? I mean a very bright child would still be traumatized by such abuse, even if they had critical and rational thinking.

And all this talk about hellfire and whatnot being damaging to kids. What of religions without such beliefs? What of religions that are extensively tied to a particular culture? Like would you really deny a parent teaching their child to embrace their cultural heritage and understand their roots, just because it's been infused with religion over the millennia?

And critical thinking is not the opposite of religion necessarily. I know many educated Christians who are the very epitome of critical thinkers. They also just so happen to be Christian.

Sorry, I don't think I should have brought child porn into the argument. It ended up confusing the point I was trying to make.

I'm not a big fan of culture, but if it is not harmful, it's not really a problem.

I would encourage critical thinking. What I'm against is indoctrination.

 

[Nakosis]

If you are arguing that parent's shouldn't be allowed to tell their children what is what because children are impressionable and don't know any better, then you essentially have no argument. The parent has a responsibility to educate the child and it's nonsense to expect parents to educate their child in a way contrary to what they themselves believe, regardless of what the majority thinks.

We do restrict of minors access to pornography and alcohol. Of course there are cases where parents ignore these restriction and the parents are held accountable for this. We already have systems in place to deal with exactly what you say there's no argument for. It's just a matter whether we as a society see religious indoctrination as harmful or not.

What you really mean here is that a certain idea about what is right for the child should take priority and that's the problem. You advocate usurping the authority of the parents in order to assert either your own moral authority or the moral authority of the state over the rights of the parents. Children do not exist in vacuums; they have parents. The state of Louisiana doesn't make laws for the state of Kansas. Belgium does not make laws for Afghanistan. No one declared war on China for their civil rights abuses or Somalia for theirs. Wouldn't the well-being of people take priority? The answer is no, because sometimes autonomy has priority over what we think is right (and sometimes it doesn't). Parents "indoctrinating" their children with so-called "harmful" religious beliefs (namely that children are too gullible) is not enough justification to mess a family up out of some notion of "superior" moral beliefs ().

What I'm am saying is shouldn't we be willing to investigate whether harm is being caused? And, if such is found to be the case, take action.

Aggressive nationalism. In this case, the state would be suppressing thought out of the notion of superior moral authority.

Nationalism is not fascism and I'm not sure what nationalism has to do with this anyway. Perhaps you mean statism?

You are claiming that indoctrination is harmful (in a general way) without showing that it actually is and you are advocating legislation without concern for the harm the legislation would do. Should I start saying your moral view is harmful?

From personal experience and personal account I've seen where indoctrination is harmful.
However I realize these are at best anecdotal so we need to encourage scientific study to determine any actual harm.

On the other hand, the article points at AK-47s, anti-gay bullying, genital mutilation, and suicide bombers. These are all things laws can address, but the article points the finger at religious indoctrination!!!

Don't you think if people had not been indoctrinated at an early age to accept religious truths without question these people themselves might question these behaviors before committing them?

Apparently, laws that forbid minors in the military or inflict punishments for bullying in school aren't enough. Apparently, the problem is religious indoctrination (because religions teach our children to fight with AK-47s and bully gays in school)?

Because religion teaches children to accept religious truth without question

I do not think this means what you think it means.

It means statism, which I'm generally against, but there are cases where society has decided the state has to take authority in the parent/child relationship.

 

[SomeRandom]

I would encourage critical thinking. What I'm against is indoctrination.

To be fair I don't think "indoctrination" is actually that common in religious teaching except for very hardline hardcore sects.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But let me ask you, would you consider there to be zero harm in teaching your child that quite a few of their classmates and friends in school are going to burn forever in Hell because they have the wrong religion?

Evil? Yes. Harmful? I'm not so sure.

I guess I see it somewhat differently. To teach a child that others "will burn forever in Hell" is to teach them that God hates those others (you cannot make an argument I would find even vaguely reasonable that says "love sometimes mean condemning someone to eternal, never-ending torment.") And if God hates them, shouldn't that child also hate them?

And when we learn to hate, rather than to perhaps be hurt or angry but eventually forgive out of love, we are diminished.

So I find it harmful.

Frankly, I find that quite evil. Yet, parents are permitted, you are correct, to do some pretty evil things to their children, like snipping their foreskins painfully when they're too young and helpless to prevent that violent assault.

Harmful? Yes. Evil? Not so sure.

I don't think values should be mandated or restricted by the law, but harmful behavior often (but not always) should be. I can't justify infringing the autonomy of a family because I think certain beliefs are wrong.

Okay -- so now consider, since we're talking male circumcision, female genital mutilation (FGM) or vaginal cutting -- often the removal of the external clitoris, but sometimes also some or all of the labia majora and minora, and even sewing so that eventually very painful intercourse will be the result. In most of the western world, this is certainly banned (yet still happens, under the covers, so-to-speak), even though there are those who argue that their religion demands it. Yet, I know of nowhere where male circumcision -- in the absence of a good medical reason -- of infants is illegal. And it is routinely practiced in many of those western nations. And it is most definitely a religious practice.

What do you think about the idea that children aren't equipped to handle religion? Why not give children a basic education in all the world religions? Is there real substance to the idea that children can't handle religion? Is there is a genuine concern about children being indoctrinated? It seems that it's the adults that are squeamish about religion. If there is a real issue here it seems that more education is better than less. After all, there's no point in keeping sex a secret from teenagers.

If 85% of four year olds believe in Santa, but only 25% of eight year olds believe in Santa, then maybe we need to realize that kids actually do reach an age fairly early on when they are able to maturely handle supernatural beliefs. This idea that we need to ban religion until kids are 16 years old seems to me like the thought worm of a madman with no common sense.

I think earlier in this thread I did speak for the rights of parents, in general, to bring up their children as they see fit. I don't see any way past this, and I am certainly not going to deny that culture is immensely important in human life -- more important, perhaps, than even most people suppose.

But learning is also important, and learning, knowledge, understanding -- can and do lead to cultural change. And that's not a bad thing. While culture is important, that is not the same thing as saying it must be sacrosanct to the point of being static (which it never can be, anyway).

So why don't those of us who think, and who have the ability to write coherently, at least try to help our cultures (including our religions!) think, grow and improve -- to the general benefit of all of humanity?

 

[Shia Islam]

“Religion should remain a private endeavor for adults,” says Giovanni Santostasi, PhD, who is a neuroscientist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and runs the 10,000 person strong Facebook group Scientific Transhumanism. “An appropriate analogy of religion is that’s it’s kind of like porn—which means it’s not something one would expose a child to.”

Some Atheists and Transhumanists are Asking: Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion? | HuffPost

Make it illegal to bring kids to church until they're 18? Until they have developed some rational skepticism?
Constitutionally in the US can't do this, if we could though, would it be a good idea?

Why or why not?

View attachment 18759

if your beliefs are based on evidence then it is knowledge and you should transfer your knowledge to your child..

 

[Nakosis]

if your beliefs are based on evidence then it is knowledge and you should transfer your knowledge to your child..

I think it's better to teach you kids to examine the evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

 

[Shia Islam]

I think it's better to teach you kids to examine the evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

It's part of it.

 

[Ponder This]

shouldn't we be willing to investigate whether harm is being caused?

I believe we should be free to examine the causes, effects, and relationships of our actions and beliefs.

if such is found to be the case, take action.

I believe we should be inspired by our by our highest self and counseled by our intuition and intellect to take wise action. I don't think we should take actions simply because we can, or solely out of motivations of fear, anger, or other emotional distress, but rather from a place of consideration and contemplation.

You desire to control the beliefs of others? Two wrongs do not make a right. Can you show that the harm you inflict is less than the harm your prevent? Then, perhaps, you have a case. Otherwise, you should respect the rights of parents.

You belief that we should prevent children from adopting the beliefs of their parents? How is that not a harmful belief?

 

[Ponder This]

But learning is also important, and learning, knowledge, understanding -- can and do lead to cultural change. And that's not a bad thing. While culture is important, that is not the same thing as saying it must be sacrosanct to the point of being static (which it never can be, anyway).

Fair point.

So why don't those of us who think, and who have the ability to write coherently, at least try to help our cultures (including our religions!) think, grow and improve -- to the general benefit of all of humanity?

I also disagree with the mutilation of the body and the mutilation of other people's bodies in particular. I hold this a general principle and those religious practices that involve the mutilation of the genitals disgusts me. I would not wish such a thing upon my enemies. It is shameful and invokes in me a feeling of great pity for everyone who has suffered such a thing beyond their consent or ability to give consent. Perhaps, they do not wish my pity, but it is there nonetheless, just as I would pity a man who lights himself on fire with gasoline in the name of god.

I see genital mutilation as a from of racial arrogance that comes from the thought, "I do not wish my race to become polluted by intercourse with people from other races, because I regard other races as inferior and my race as superior. This is how I can keep my religion pure from the contamination of unbelievers and other lesser beings."