Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?

[leibowde84]

religion should be taught from a young age. because everyone should practice religion, because religion is living a virtuous life. we need religion in our lives.

But, we can all live virtuous lives without religion. So, why should we all have religion in our lives?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You would be correct. Just look at how many adults voted for Trump against what could be considered better judgment.

However, children are to be protected from that which can harm them. I consider religion to be harmful to society, certainly more harmful than what little good it does as though it can outweigh the harm.

You need to factor in the harm that this sort of measure can cause, not just the harm you see in religion (seemingly without distinction). Are atheistic religions to be banned, or just theistic ones?

You were a lucky young child, yet not all can be as lucky as you, which you have already proven by mentioning your friend. We must find ways to protect those unlucky ones.

You realise this is the same sort of thinking that led to Trump closing the borders to certain countries and wanting to build a wall between the States and Mexico? Do you see that as healthy?

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I think we have to challenge the idea that religion makes people better.

It's not the religion itself as much as it is the idea different points of views exist. Most of the kids that I knew that went to church were kids I thought were pretty mean, and they assumed God existed. I didn't understand Christianity so I grew up irreligious and a self-proclaimed atheist surrounded by religious grandparents, Hindu songs and several books either titled The Holy Bible or had "yoga" in its name. Additionally I was obsessed with the Egyptians and their own religion. Whenever as a kid I tried to talk to other kids about Ra or Hanuman they all looked at me funny and then talked about Bible study only to turn around and smash bugs for no reason. I would think to myself things like "I wonder if they would smash bugs if they were Hindu" or "that was a beetle, Egyptians thought it was really sacred". When I asked my mom why the church wanted people to love but the kids were smashing bugs, she told me a story in the Bible and then blamed the children's behavior on incorrect teaching.

Does exposer to many veiw points sound like something you would challenge?

 

[leibowde84]

It's not the religion itself as much as it is the idea different points of views exist. Most of the kids that I knew that went to church were kids I thought were pretty mean, and they assumed God existed. I didn't understand Christianity so I grew up irreligious and a self-proclaimed atheist surrounded by religious grandparents, Hindu songs and several books either titled The Holy Bible or had "yoga" in its name. Additionally I was obsessed with the Egyptians and their own religion. Whenever as a kid I tried to talk to other kids about Ra or Hanuman they all looked at me funny and then talked about Bible study only to turn around and smash bugs for no reason. I would think to myself things like "I wonder if they would smash bugs if they were Hindu" or "that was a beetle, Egyptians thought it was really sacred". When I asked my mom why the church wanted people to love but the kids were smashing bugs, she told me a story in the Bible and then blamed the children's behavior on incorrect teaching.

Does exposer to many veiw points sound like something you would challenge?

Of course not. Learning about different religions is always a good thing. But, teaching your children religious beliefs as if they are true or known can be dangerous.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

How do you feel about child pornoghraphy?
We ban it because we feel it's harmful to children. If religion is harmful to children why is this different?

I'm just pointing out we do make illegal some activities we find immoral. This is hypothetical, say if they did a study and found that religious indoctrination cause significant to a child's well being. Is freedom of belief more important than the well being of children?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Sorry, I'm not sure which side you're coming down on.

Either you feel we've pursued secularism too long or we've allowed religious freedom too long.

 

[columbus]

How do you feel about child pornoghraphy?
We ban it because we feel it's harmful to children. If religion is harmful to children why is this different?

There's a bunch of human behavior that I think we're better off without. But that doesn't always mean that legislation is the solution.

This is one utterly unenforceable legal concept. I really despise laws that just give the government a new way to intrude on people's personal lives, without actually fixing anything.
Tom
ETA~ I am not suggesting we decriminalize kiddie porn. That is sufficiently enforceable and definable and important~

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Keep in mind the idea is to no longer teach children religion as the ultimate truth. Just allow kids enough rationality to question what is taught them before they are expected to accept religious truth.

 

[Nakosis]

There's a bunch of human behavior that I think we're better off without. But that doesn't always mean that legislation is the solution.

This is one utterly unenforceable legal concept. I really despise laws that just give the government a new way to intrude on people's personal lives, without actually fixing anything.
Tom
ETA~ I am not suggesting we decriminalize kiddie porn. That is sufficiently enforceable and definable and important~

I understand but how is this really different. There are laws against it which intrude on people's personal live. Yet it's still available. The law just makes it a criminal act. It's ok to intrude in some cases where we decide something is sufficiently immoral. So religious indoctrination of children you don't believe is immoral?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

That's all I'm saying really. If Atheism were to be seen as a "religious" belief, in the sense of being an ultimate Truth. Indoctrination into atheism would also be illegal.

 

[Nakosis]

No it should not be illegal unless the religious teaching also involves exclusion of general education that schools impart or is about teaching kids to be actively violent towards others in the society.

So you feel it is ok to teach children that there is an ultimate truth before they are old enough to question that idea?

 

[syo]

*blinks*

Kinda a blanket statement there, don't you think?

yes, in a way.

 

[columbus]

I understand but how is this really different. There are laws against it which intrude on people's personal live. Yet it's still available. The law just makes it a criminal act. It's ok to intrude in some cases where we decide something is sufficiently immoral. So religious indoctrination of children you don't believe is immoral?

Here's why they're different.
Parents are expected to care for and teach their children. You might not like how they do it. They might not like how you do either. Unless you are willing to give up that right and responsibility to the government, you can't enforce your opinions on anybody else.

I realize that there are abusive and ignorant parents out there. It's one of the biggest tragedies of the human situation. But if you think you can give the government the power to tell you what you are allowed to teach your kids, without finding your children forceably enrolled in some religious reeducation class, you have a naive understanding of how humanity works.
Tom

 

[syo]

But, we can all live virtuous lives without religion. So, why should we all have religion in our lives?

actually we live a virtuous life because of christian teachings. our current morality is christian.

 

[Nakosis]

It seems to me that parents who insist upon indoctrinating their children into a religion before the child is even capable of logical and rational thought know they follow a religion that won't stand up to logical and rational examination. That's why it's essential to get them brainwashed prior to the logic and rational thinking kicking in.

Or maybe they just never came to the point of questioning it themselves.

I remember as a kid in a conversation with a JW, I said some people think Jesus never died on the cross. I could see the idea blew his mind. It had never occurred to him to question something that was taught to him as a fundamental truth.

 

[columbus]

actually we live a virtuous life because of christian teachings. our current morality is christian.

Uhhh...
No. Just the opposite.
Concepts like freedom of speech and religion, representative government, basic human rights and equality, etc., all came about because Christian morality lost it's hold on society.

You can do all the pretzel logic you want to retrofitting secular morality back into the Bible, but it just isn't there.
Tom

 

[Nakosis]

Here's why they're different.
Parents are expected to care for and teach their children. You might not like how they do it. They might not like how you do either. Unless you are willing to give up that right and responsibility to the government, you can't enforce your opinions on anybody else.

I realize that there are abusive and ignorant parents out there. It's one of the biggest tragedies of the human situation. But if you think you can give the government the power to tell you what you are allowed to teach your kids, without finding your children forceably enrolled in some religious reeducation class, you have a naive understanding of how humanity works.
Tom

So if I feel it is ok to allow my kids to be in porn films?

There exists an obvious line that we as a society have decided parents are not allowed to cross, and yes children do get forcibly taken from their parents if they are found to have crossed that line.

This is already in place and we accept this. The only question is whether we find religious indoctrination as abusive or not. If so then the situation would be dealt with the same as we already deal with other abuse cases.

It's not whether or not the state steps in, in some cases because it already does. It's when to step in.

If religious indoctrination of children is ok then it's ok. If not then it gets handled like any other abuse case.

 

[Nakosis]

actually we live a virtuous life because of christian teachings. our current morality is christian.

No, it's not. My morality is not based on Christian teaching. In fact some of what it teaches I see as immoral.

Christian morality is not even that consistent.

 

[columbus]

So if I feel it is ok to allow my kids to be in porn films?

Please reread my post #127. You quoted my answer to that.

There exists an obvious line that we as a society have decided parents are not allowed to cross, and yes children do get forcibly taken from their parents if they are found to have crossed that line.

The line is not at all obvious. It's a source of great contention. Child Protection Service does their best, but it's really hard to define abusive parenting. They generally stick to physical danger.

other abuse case.

Plenty of people think that children need Sunday School. Not exposing children to Christian morality is considered abuse. Are you really willing to let the same people who "elected" Trump decide what you can teach your children?
Tom

 

[Nakosis]

Please reread my post #127. You quoted my answer to that.

That's your opinion. Someone else may have a different opinion about it.

The line is not at all obvious. It's a source of great contention. Child Protection Service does their best, but it's really hard to define abusive parenting. They generally stick to physical danger.

In this case we are just helping them to define it.

Plenty of people think that children need Sunday School. Not exposing children to Christian morality is considered abuse. Are you really willing to let the same people who "elected" Trump decide what you can teach your children?
Tom

Isn't that how democracy works? You, I and some other individual may have different opinions about what is moral. We may individually like to enforce our morals onto everyone else. However, in a republic we vote for representatives to come to a consensus about what is acceptable moral behavior.

So if I feel religious indoctrination is immoral, I'll support someone who agrees with that morality.

We reached a consensus regarding child pornography. How would this be any different if we reached a consensus regarding religious indoctrination?

The main argument seems to be we don't want the government intruding, but that is not a good argument because there are some obvious cases that we do what the government to intrude. (Child pornography only brought up as an example of one of those cases.)

So, it being the case that I see religious indoctrination of children immoral, and you can see otherwise, why shouldn't I support a representative who supports my moral view? In the chance at some point laws may be enacted through a consensus.

Government intrusion is not immoral, in some cases. So saying it is immoral is not by itself an argument that is supported.

Freedom of religion is a morality, a right that's being questioned in the sense that is it really moral to indoctrinate children.

Slavery also used to be considered moral, legally. So we do change what we accept as moral.

Is it time to question the morality of religious freedom when it come to raising children?

If such religious freedom needs to remain sacred, then so be it. I'm just questioning the rationality behind the belief.