Nobody need be indoctrinated.
Just teach the children about all religious beliefs, or at least the top 100. Also Santa Claus, elves, and unicorns and Communism.
Then let them use their minds.
Simple.
Tom
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Just teach the children about all religious beliefs, or at least the top 100. Also Santa Claus, elves, and unicorns and Communism.
Then let them use their minds.
Simple.
Tom
Jumi
Well-Known Member
That's right, and those aren't even real beliefs... just instincts.
Perhaps you should change your views there, just like the Soviets did.[edit: rapproachment, rehabilitation]
I like the imagination and ambition behind the ideas and the ability to see the big picture but most people on RF would become victims of state atheism and I have really no desire to hurt anyone even for the "greater good". So you're probably right.
I'll go with 'No'. All children are indoctrinated with their family's culture; no getting around it.
It sure would be nice if resorting to forceful tactics or propaganda didn't destroy other cultures. But it's been done before, it's being done right now, and it'll be done in the future... because using force to win does work. It can and does get you the privilege of being the cultural norm and dominating the cultural dialogues.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Now if only they would parent.
That being said, I'm not fond of anything outside of comparative studies. I had teachers who couldn't spell. I wouldn't want them in charge of my child's soul.
What I mean is you can't force someone to believe something. You can kill everyone who believes something you don't like, sure, but there is no truly forced "conversion" in any sense of the word.
But OP is (or seems to, as their stated motive is now different) not referring to thoughtcrime genocide, but to, essentially, forcing people out of a belief so they can't raise their kids in such a way that their kids have exposure to that belief.
Unless I severely misread, and the OP meant to suggest murdering the parents and putting the children in atheist homes, there is no way to force-convert people into accepting raising their kids without mention of religion.
And, of course, let's not forget Articles 18 and 26 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
[. . . ]
Article 26
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
[. . . ]
Article 26
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf
Yes, I recently heard about the Barbra Streisand Effect.
How Barbra Streisand Inspired the “Streisand Effect”
Can't I like them both.
Hmm, well... I wish that were the case. It would mean the collapse of capitalism as an economic system, which relies upon manipulating consumers into believing they need a particular product... and then purchasing it. They call it marketing... and it very much works. Companies would not invest millions in marketing if it didn't. Nah, humans are pretty easy to manipulate and coerce into doing things. At the risk of sounding overdramatic, ignoring that fact is dangerously naive. Spend a bit of time studying the psychological basis of World War II and the crimes against humanity that good, everyday people committed? Yeah, there are some particularly scary examples of propaganda and coercion that come out of that era of history. Lessons that should absolutely not be ignored and forgotten... especially today.
In at least some sense, my awareness of the ease at which humans can be manipulated makes me a wee bit sympathetic to the concerns of the OP. But that's about where my sympathy ends, because telling families they can't raise their children in their cultural traditions is every bit as bad (or arguably worse) than allowing it. There is no better way to kill a culture than to prevent it from being disseminated to the next generation. Ignorance kills cultures.
That's not force that is diplomacy. You can diplomatically convert someone to anything, sure, but if Burger King sent goons to my house and they pointed guns at me and shouted "YOU WILL WANT TO EAT BURGERS OR ELSE!!" it would not be effective. I would not want to eat burgers. I might even start hating the idea of eating burgers just to spite their demands.
The best you can do is to threaten someone into giving the appearance of believing something, but they'll never really believe it.
Capitalists can't force you to believe anything, they have to convince you to. You may not like the method of persuasion, but it's still persuasion and not force. You have a problem with types of persuasion. Not with people forcing beliefs on people, which is fundamentally different.
If OP had asked "Should we run an advertising campaign to convince parents not to push religion on their kids" it would be a wholly different discussion, and then your comparison to business would make sense.
Yes, yes you can.
Seems to me diplomacy is a type of force, so kinda po-tay-to, po-tah-to here. You seem to be under the impression that force necessarily implies violence. To clarify, that is not my angle. I have to use force to hold my mug of tea in my hand, and that certainly does not mean I then hurl my mug against the wall and shatter it. A force causes a change in a particular direction - it doesn't have to do so violently. All force produces change... if you can believe the change is not genuine when violent, more power to you, but I can't believe that when I know of so many examples to the contrary.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
You really think that's gonna stop people?
Well okay. But I was the one who originally used the term, so the conversation is in context of my definition and the context in which I first presented the word, which is specifically the context of forcing parents not to push religion on their kids by making it illegal, which is not a type of "force" covered under your really broad definition. It should be clear from the context I used it in that that is not the type of force I was talking about, so why try to counter my point without addressing the type of force I was referring too??
Last edited:
No, absolutely not. In addition to being entirely unconstitutional, it be a waste of manpower and resources to attempt it. We aren't putting cameras in people's homes and forcing it into private only puts those kids legitimately endangered by cult behavior MORE in danger because the parents will be more careful to do it secretly and isolate the kid (making it harder for them to get help.)
Honestly I'm beginning (well maybe not just beginning) to wonder if the hard adversarial tone atheists take in the US hasn't caused more problems than solved. It's creating more of an us-vs-them and making what could be productive conversations grind to a halt when other countries that never even bothered with separation of church and state still managed to come to plenty of religious-right-opposing decisions long before us.
Honestly I'm beginning (well maybe not just beginning) to wonder if the hard adversarial tone atheists take in the US hasn't caused more problems than solved. It's creating more of an us-vs-them and making what could be productive conversations grind to a halt when other countries that never even bothered with separation of church and state still managed to come to plenty of religious-right-opposing decisions long before us.
Laws don't necessarily stop folks from breaking them. Perhaps in the case where they see the risk of consequence outweighs whatever benefit they think they get by breaking the law.
More it provides a means to hold folks accountable when it's found that they are breaking the law.
Since the Constitution grants freedom of religion, it doesn't matter what I feel about it.
What I'm considering is whether such a policy would be a benefit or detriment to society.
Personally the lack of religious indoctrination of children I feel would be a benefit but maybe I'm missing some benefit religion provides.
You really just have to teach them it's ok to ask for proof when someone claims to be telling them the truth. If no proof is forthcoming then it is not unreasonable to totally disregard what was claimed to be true.
I wouldn't even mind if parents told their kids "This is my Truth". "It is up to you to justify whatever Truth you decide to accept".
Yes, I had my issues with Christianity so maybe I'm being biased. I just felt as a kid, I had to accept Christianity without question.