Should it be Illegal to Indoctrinate Kids With Religion?

[Faithofchristian]

What did people do before Moses?

The same as Abraham did before Moses was born.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

anyone of the major religions. their core beliefs are the same. love your neighbour, don't murder, etc.

Wow. You think all forms of Islam (for example) are the same?

 

[Nakosis]

Because it's a broad brush descriptor that include everything from age-sensitive material children can't process through to educational material which helps their growth.
Child pornography harms children. You are assuming religion harms children, and (imho) using a VERY broad brush to do so. Conflating the two is inaccurate. TV is a better analogy, as there is mixed evidence of it's impacts, and it's hard to determine direct cause and effect.
Go your hardest. If you can prove a specific religious ideology harmed children, I'd want children protected from it. That is quite different entirely from 'should it be illegal to indoctrinate children with religion'.

Yes, that's all I'm saying. If it can be shown to be harmful to children should they be protected from it.

Was your definition the 'authoritarian God' one? That seems like an epically bad way to categorize, but I'd rather ensure I'm understanding you correctly before extrapolating.

I suppose you have to extrapolate first before I'd know if you either understood or maybe it'd needed to be explained better.

Like TV, right? Or football. Or competitive spelling. Or climbing trees. Or getting your hands dirty and muddy.

Depends on whether they were forced into these activities.

Wait, wait, wait...
You realise there are existing laws in place already to deal with that, the behaviour is illegal, and the children can be removed, right? What do you think the impact of your proposed laws would be on these particular kinds of insidious sects already behaving in an illegal manner due to religious beliefs? What ARE your proposed laws, and how would you limit them to the intended target, with the caveat that laws should be written to apply to all, and focus on what is being done that is wrong?

The impact would be increased awareness of the harm caused by authoritarian religious beliefs. The law as stated previously would be to restrict indoctrination of children into religion until an appropriate age that the belief can be rationally questioned by the child.

 

[Milton Platt]

“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

I don't like the idea, but I don't think it should be illegal.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Even though I fully advocate for making it illegal to religiously indoctrinate children, perhaps the better solution would be to ensure children (perhaps an age limit should be applied where they wait until they are teenagers) are taught comparative religions, including non-religious lines of thought, instead of a single religion to which the family personally adheres. Learning about multiple religions, without it being driven into their minds that only one is correct, they can choose for themselves what to believe, or not believe, through proper study and critical thinking.

Kind of a broad brush, is it not? And possibly somewhat unwieldy!

My first observation is that you are suggesting that parents should be instructed (and monitored) as to what they can teach their children before they enter school. Then, of course, there is private, religiously-oriented schools, should be banned (or at least to teach exactly what every other school -- public or private, of whatever religion -- teaches.

I say this as one who really doesn't like religion very much, and religious indoctrination of children (or "pagan savages" by missionaries) even less. But I wonder, is it something that we can really forbid, or control? Doesn't seem like it to me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, that's all I'm saying. If it can be shown to be harmful to children should they be protected from it.

Sure. Like TV!

I suppose you have to extrapolate first before I'd know if you either understood or maybe it'd needed to be explained better.

No, I haven't understood it. I'll extrapolate below.

Depends on whether they were forced into these activities.

Forced? Hmmm. Your ban on religion isn't tied to force, though, right? It could easily be suggested that I coerced my girls into playing basketball.

The impact would be increased awareness of the harm caused by authoritarian religious beliefs. The law as stated previously would be to restrict indoctrination of children into religion until an appropriate age that the belief can be rationally questioned by the child.

Ok, so at a helicopter level I understand your point. However, even assuming religions are harmful, I'd suggest;
1) Benefit should also be considered and balanced.
2) Authoritarian God lacks utility as a way of determining who your proposed law would impact. What are the actual parameters you're proposing? I'm not trying to be pedantic, I would see practical drafting of legislation a massive practical hurdle to the point this whole proposal lacks utility.
3) What does the ban entail? Can I practice religion in site of children? Can I answer questions if they see me practicing it? Are children to be kept ignorant of religion?

For reference, Sweden has considered some of these questions, specifically in relation to the education system (including private schools) and that would be an example of a more structured and practical legislative outcome, imho.

 

[syo]

Wow. You think all forms of Islam (for example) are the same?

their core beliefs, yes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

their core beliefs, yes.

On things like apostasy and the appropriate punishments for it, you mean?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Should it be Illegal to indoctrinate kids with religion?
That all depends who kids they are and what religion kids are being indoctrinated with.
Let's for say an Atheist does not want their kids indoctrinated with Christian belief's.

This goes both ways, say a Christian does not want their kids indoctrinated with Atheist belief's.
Let's take Islam,Muslims belief's, many people will say that here in the United States that there is Freedom of Religion.

This only shows how little people knows or understand what the Constitution of the United States actually says.

First who Written up the Constitution?

Those founding fathers were all Christians with Christians belief's.
Is it any wonder why throughout the Constitution it written that all men are created by God.
When the founding fathers had written in the Constitution freedom of religion.What religion do you suppose that religion was seeing the founding fathers were all Christians.It doesn't take much to figure that out.

What religion do you suppose that religion was, when the founding fathers had written in the Constitution, separation of state and church,
What Religion do you suppose that religion was?
Seeing they were Christians?
Take note also, that the founding fathers, had written, that the Constitution was written for a Moral Religious people and unfit for any other people.
Seeing the founding fathers were Christians and the Constitution were written up for Christians.

How does, Atheists, homosexualls, Muslims, or any other religions are to fit into a Constitution that was written up by christians and for Christians.

People will want to argue with this, but logic will always stand.

All the founding fathers who signed their names at the bottom of the Constitution were all Christians.
Now why would a Religious people put anything else, that would stand against Christianity in the Constitution. Go Figure?

Fact is Fact,

This is why over the years since this Country has become the United States, That when another People come here to the United States they are to come under what we believe and take our way of life.
As a Christian Nation. One Nation Under God.
Therefore to actually look at it, if you do not accept our way of life As a Christian Nation, You stand on the outside of the Constitution, without any Constitutional Rights.
If you say, hey I was born here, That does make you to have any Constitutional Rights.
Go read the Constitution, and show where it written of this.that if your born here you have Constitutional Rights.

The Constitution was written for a Moral and Religious people and is unfit for any other people.
Just go and read what the founding fathers had written who the Constitution was written for.
Therefore the Constitution was written for a Religious Christian People. And No other people.

 

[syo]

On things like apostasy and the appropriate punishments for it, you mean?

yes and no. religion is being used badly, so apostasy is a blessing. the fanatic religionists harm religion, so apostasy is a necessity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

yes and no. religion is being used badly, so apostasy is a blessing. the fanatic religionists harm religion, so apostasy is a necessity.

This is sounding very much 'no true Scotsman-ish'.
Are you suggesting religions are being misused, and that 'proper' use of religion is by definition love and mutual respect, etc?

 

[syo]

This is sounding very much 'no true Scotsman-ish'.
Are you suggesting religions are being misused, and that 'proper' use of religion is by definition love and mutual respect, etc?

exactly. people in our times misuse religion. it's the worst. that is why people hate religion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

exactly. people in our times misuse religion. it's the worst. that is why people hate religion.

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.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't like the idea, but I don't think it should be illegal.

I agree. I remember years and years ago, when I was a teenager, I heard my mom and dad having a discussion. My dad said, "You can't legislate morality." I didn't have a clue what he mean, but for some reason, I remembered the statement my entire life. Back then, I thought of the word "morality" strictly in a sexual sense, but it obviously means much more than sexual morality. A lot of things may be immoral, but people's morals are not something that anyone else has the right to try to govern. For starters, how in the world could you possibly enforce laws against religious indoctrination?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The same as Abraham did before Moses was born.

Make stuff up?

Those founding fathers were all Christians with Christians belief's.

Not so much. Any suggestion they are tend to ignore all the quotes where they clearly don't care, much like all politicians.

Is it any wonder why throughout the Constitution it written that all men are created by God.

Except for nonwhite people, including those who were there before the whites showed up.

.What religion do you suppose that religion was seeing the founding fathers were all Christians.It doesn't take much to figure that out.

Actually, not all states/colonies were Christian. And that's not even counting that, really, the majority of the colonies were founded on the Religions of Greed and Overcrowded English Prisons.

Seeing the founding fathers were Christians and the Constitution were written up for Christians.

One day, maybe you'll read the actual documentation instead of whatever BS Texas' KKK chapters put up.

How does, Atheists, homosexualls, Muslims, or any other religions are to fit into a Constitution that was written up by christians and for Christians.

If you cared about Christianity, you wouldn't demonize non-Christians. FYI.

People will want to argue with this, but logic will always stand.

Particularly if premises are far removed from reality.

That when another People come here to the United States they are to come under what we believe and take our way of life.

Is that why you worship the Great Spirit or whoever else was a god or goddess in Native groups?

As a Christian Nation. One Nation Under God.

One Nation Under Money.

Go read the Constitution, and show where it written of this.that if your born here you have Constitutional Rights.

Even nonChristians?

Just wanted to thank you, though: you are a prime example of what indoctrination into falsehoods looks like. Congrats.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

How is the well-being of the child harmed? How is this comparable to child porn?

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.

I see. So as long as everyone agrees it's immoral... we should just go ahead and ban it. Interesting. And you are right: that is how a democracy functions: All it takes is a majority to get together and vote it so (change the constitution, what ever). And yet... we do have this notion that the majority isn't always right. Sometimes they get it wrong. So we need to weigh the risk of being wrong against the need to enforce a majority opinion. That means that we need to do more than simply agree that something is immoral, we also need to justify that it is immoral enough to legislate. The fact that we can legislate it does not mean that we should even if we agree that it is immoral. For example, Prohibition in the United States turned out to be a failure. It didn't matter that the majority agreed that consuming alcohol was bad for people. It was still bad legislation. So you need to do more than simply argue that religion is somehow immoral. You need to justify that it is worth legislating. And comparing it to child porn does not help your case.

Agree. Religion is still an important thing in the world and with that in mind it makes sense that children are in contact with their parents religion.
Also, parents have a right to educate their children in their culture.
It would be great though if all parents had enough consideration for their children to accept that once they are adults they will be entitled to their own choices and those choices are to be respected.

There is a notion that parents experience both a degree of responsibility as well as a degree of privilege with respect to their children.

I'm trying to elicit a rational response rather than an emotional response. When it comes to morals maybe morality doesn't rely on rational argument. So if we take out the emotion and focus only on the harm caused.

Ok, religion in the sense that it has a portrayal of a God who holds absolute authority. Which in effect is giving that religion absolute authority over a person's life.

So is this form of religion harmful enough to consider banning the indoctrination of children.

Or is there some benefit in this type of religion which outweighs or even balances any potential harm caused.

I think you need to do more than show there is a harm... assuming you can even do that much.

Yes, that's all I'm saying. If it can be shown to be harmful to children should they be protected from it.

I suppose you have to extrapolate first before I'd know if you either understood or maybe it'd needed to be explained better.

Depends on whether they were forced into these activities.

The impact would be increased awareness of the harm caused by authoritarian religious beliefs. The law as stated previously would be to restrict indoctrination of children into religion until an appropriate age that the belief can be rationally questioned by the child.

What means do you suggest to differentiate harmful beliefs from innocuous beliefs such as Santa Clause?
Are you proposing to create a list of religious beliefs that are banned? How will parents be able to easily identify what beliefs the laws cover (even parents are going to have a hard time making sure every single thing they say to their kids isn't creating a "harmful" belief)? How can you support that kind of fascist thought policing?

Kind of a broad brush, is it not? And possibly somewhat unwieldy!

My first observation is that you are suggesting that parents should be instructed (and monitored) as to what they can teach their children before they enter school. Then, of course, there is private, religiously-oriented schools, should be banned (or at least to teach exactly what every other school -- public or private, of whatever religion -- teaches.

I say this as one who really doesn't like religion very much, and religious indoctrination of children (or "pagan savages" by missionaries) even less. But I wonder, is it something that we can really forbid, or control? Doesn't seem like it to me.

I agree. I think we have to accept that some things have to be left to the parents (not because they are right, but because they have rights). Laws concerning parents should be about what happens when parents fail in their responsibilities and not an invasion of the privileges that parents hold. Parents should not be under an obligation to not teach their children their religious beliefs because the state has determined their religious beliefs to be "harmful".

Can we imagine taking away the parents' children because the majority has democratically voted that teaching atheism is harmful? I imagine the shoe suddenly stinks when it's on the other foot. "What's that? You actually told your child that God was a fairy tale?!? And he wasn't 18 years old yet?!? That's like showing him child porn! And I'm afraid we are going to have to confiscate that Christmas tree too... state evidence."

 

[Nakosis]

How is the well-being of the child harmed?

In being taught to accept what is true whether than question what is true.

How is this comparable to child porn?

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

I see. So as long as everyone agrees it's immoral... we should just go ahead and ban it. Interesting. And you are right: that is how a democracy functions: All it takes is a majority to get together and vote it so (change the constitution, what ever). And yet... we do have this notion that the majority isn't always right. Sometimes they get it wrong. So we need to weigh the risk of being wrong against the need to enforce a majority opinion. That means that we need to do more than simply agree that something is immoral, we also need to justify that it is immoral enough to legislate. The fact that we can legislate it does not mean that we should even if we agree that it is immoral. For example, Prohibition in the United States turned out to be a failure. It didn't matter that the majority agreed that consuming alcohol was bad for people. It was still bad legislation. So you need to do more than simply argue that religion is somehow immoral. You need to justify that it is worth legislating. And comparing it to child porn does not help your case.

It draws attention to the impressionability that minors possess.

There is a notion that parents experience both a degree of responsibility as well as a degree of privilege with respect to their children.

The well being of the child should take priority.

I think you need to do more than show there is a harm... assuming you can even do that much.

Such as? Is some harm ok for the sake of parental privilege? What bar beyond showing harms is being done needs to be set?

[quotes]
What means do you suggest to differentiate harmful beliefs from innocuous beliefs such as Santa Clause?
Are you proposing to create a list of religious beliefs that are banned? How will parents be able to easily identify what beliefs the laws cover (even parents are going to have a hard time making sure every single thing they say to their kids isn't creating a "harmful" belief)? [/quote]

Studies, scientific, peer review studies.

How can you support that kind of fascist thought policing?

This is a democratic republic so I don't know how your claim of fascist thought applies.

I agree. I think we have to accept that some things have to be left to the parents (not because they are right, but because they have rights). Laws concerning parents should be about what happens when parents fail in their responsibilities and not an invasion of the privileges that parents hold. Parents should not be under an obligation to not teach their children their religious beliefs because the state has determined their religious beliefs to be "harmful".

That a moral view. What I'm saying is whether we should question a moral view if it is found to be harmful.

Can we imagine taking away the parents' children because the majority has democratically voted that teaching atheism is harmful? I imagine the shoe suddenly stinks when it's on the other foot. "What's that? You actually told your child that God was a fairy tale?!? And he wasn't 18 years old yet?!? That's like showing him child porn! And I'm afraid we are going to have to confiscate that Christmas tree too... state evidence."

It it can be shown to cause harm to the well being through scientific studies, then by all means.

The well being of the child is what is important isn't it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How is the well-being of the child harmed? How is this comparable to child porn?

I agree. I think we have to accept that some things have to be left to the parents (not because they are right, but because they have rights). Laws concerning parents should be about what happens when parents fail in their responsibilities and not an invasion of the privileges that parents hold. Parents should not be under an obligation to not teach their children their religious beliefs because the state has determined their religious beliefs to be "harmful".

Can we imagine taking away the parents' children because the majority has democratically voted that teaching atheism is harmful? I imagine the shoe suddenly stinks when it's on the other foot. "What's that? You actually told your child that God was a fairy tale?!? And he wasn't 18 years old yet?!? That's like showing him child porn! And I'm afraid we are going to have to confiscate that Christmas tree too... state evidence."

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?

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.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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?

Or that those kids deserve to be beaten or stolen from or killed?

 

[Ponder This]

In being taught to accept what is true whether than question what is true.

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

It draws attention to the impressionability that minors possess.

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.

The well being of the child should take priority.

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 (

Studies, scientific, peer review studies.

).

This is a democratic republic so I don't know how your claim of fascist thought applies.

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

That a moral view. What I'm saying is whether we should question a moral view if it is found to be harmful.

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?
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!!! 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)?

It it can be shown to cause harm to the well being through scientific studies, then by all means.

The well being of the child is what is important isn't it?

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