An utter irrelevance.
If totalitarianism is going to rear its ugly head in the west again (and it probably will) it will almost certainly be atheistic and left-wing. (Or rather 'progressive').
Last edited:
-
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
If totalitarianism is going to rear its ugly head in the west again (and it probably will) it will almost certainly be atheistic and left-wing. (Or rather 'progressive').
Pretty much where my head's at, too.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Seems like it could go either way, see Poland.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
On the contrary. That theism poses as the "savior" to all our problems and yet they are just as corrupt as nontheist governments shows only that theocracies don't solve anything.
PureX
Veteran Member
It already is rearing it's ugly head, big time, and on a global scale. And it's neither theistic nor atheistic, it's plutocratic.
"Plutocracy (Greek: πλοῦτος, ploutos, 'wealth' + κράτος, kratos, 'rule') or plutarchy, is a form of oligarchy and defines a society ruled or controlled by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens. The first known use of the term was in 1631.[1] Unlike systems such as democracy, capitalism, socialism or anarchism, (or theism) plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy."
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
An idea that sounds intelligent, but is, in reality, unwise.
First of all, it comes from the notion that, somehow, the atheism has arrived at an ultimate truth. It hasn't.
Second, it comes from the notion that this ultimate truth needs to be imposed upon other people.
Isn't it odd? That in the name of preventing indoctrination, they would impose another indoctrination? Surely, they will say that they aren't imposing their ideas.
It is better to raise your children to make their own decisions and arrive at their own beliefs. This is wise. So the clever man says, "let's make it a law". And so something which was wise, becomes foolish.
Too vague. The vast majority of all human societies throughout history would be theocratic by today's standards, yet few of them on the very principle of that theism murdered (and killed by sheer ideologically inspired negligence) anywhere close to the amount of people that the Communist regimes of the twentieth century managed to. The Khmer Rouge for example was nothing but a marauding death squad.
No one is saying that medieval Europe was a mecca of free-thought, nor that atrocious things didn't happen but to simply say "theistic governments" are just as bad as the communist regimes were and are (for which state atheism was a core doctrine) is essentially meaningless. It's an apples and oranges comparison. Theocracy could mean almost anything but state atheism is a very specific phenomenon.
The all consuming worship of the state (or rather party) has been tried; it results in death. These 'transhumanists' just like their Marxist forebears worship the state. They both believe in the same darn thing; that the state can be used to 'perfect' human society and that the eradication of religion is necessary to achieve that perfection.
I also find it to be no small coincidence that both Marxism and Transhumanism are atheistic ideologies.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
The more intelligent these folks think they are, so more stupid can their ideas get to be.
So let's see this guy (or anybody) write the legislation to ban 'religious indictrination to kids'.
I'd bet that religious education in schools would be wiped out, and people devoted to their religions would be at risk of losing their children. And I wonder whether extreme atheists would be banned from indoctrinating their kids towards..... atheism?
Indoctrination of minors in schools is already banned in the UK, but it goes much further than just religion, it includes political persuasions, racism, sexism, etc.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi.....
But, oh dear, where are you going with this...?
Sex education is now mandatory in all British junior schools. That includes visual teaching aids.
Children have to be exposed to the world in order to be socialised and able to cope with the World.
A child that has been insulated from the World is helpless in the World, later on.
Considering that Poland spent decades under communist tyranny it doesn't surprise me that they're not by in large sympathetic to the cosmopolitan left. Heck, without nationalism their language and culture would have been completely Russianized.
Last edited:
Jumi
Well-Known Member
You don't find it surprising that they are taking further steps toward totalitarianism in a right wing fashion?
Yeah, why not?
Reason: We've done the other way around for so long, maybe it's time for a change. Just because. No other reason necessary.
Really?
I think you're barking up the wrong tree, then. Aim for secularism, not anti-religiousness. That screams of thought-police, and I'd be marching in the streets to oppose it.
Whilst I wish what you are saying here was true, the dominance of Christianity and Islam in certain areas of the globe suggests otherwise.
The Holy Roman Empire is a decent case study in this.
Bringing practicality to a forum? How dare you...
I'm sure of it, to be honest. Secularism is a much better way to go, as it doesn't assume religious folks are theocrats waiting to happen. One thing American atheist organisations seem unable to grasp is how countries where there was until recently a state religion (eg. Sweden) are far more secular than the US. For groups that commonly espouse scientific approaches to things, they seem to only occasionally reference various control groups around the world where religion has gradually taken a back seat in all important state decisions, and is no longer an expected part of the mainstream culture.
For all their socialist tendencies, and for the balancing of individual versus community rights, Swedes wouldn't ban religion in a pink fit.
Last edited:
I believe I already made my case on forced conversion and the difference between historical forced idea (killing all the adult believers and indoctrinating the children) and the proposed forced idea (making it illegal to express certain opinions to your children) in another post and why they are different. Feel free to see that post for reference.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I think we have to challenge the idea that religion makes people better.
It doesn't HAVE to be 'killing the parents and putting the kids in an atheist household', though. Whilst a core of a religion might resist assimilation permanently (or near enough for our purposes) there is plenty of evidence that religions can be subverted within a couple of generations through the use of economic inducement, and simply making it difficult to be a member of the religion you wish to subvert.
It's been done plenty of times, and whilst sometimes this has involved severe punitive action, it has not always.
In any case, we're probably derailing. Suffice to say, I'd see my points as all the more reason to protect freedom of religion. I totally disagree with the premise in the OP.
Me too. But not via legal controls.