Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

The relationship between parent and child is easily distinguished from that of government and citizen. Further, we have separation of church and state, not separation of church and parent.

Sure, there are difference, but I have yet to see a good reason for holding a double standard in this case. I can't see a reason not to extend the idea of not imposing religious beliefs onto kids.

 

[Curious George]

Really? So the government is free to impose religious beliefs on people?



We're talking about a philosophy for treating other people. We all agree that adults in power should not use that power to impose their religious beliefs on other adults. That's a generally accepted view, and the whole reason behind separation of church and state in the U.S. I don't see any reason for holding a double standard when it comes to how we treat children. Why is it OK to impose religious beliefs on children, but not adults?

Um if the president said God is real, this would not violate the separation of church and state. If he told you specifically that God is real no one would care.

What you are beating around with parent and child is reliance due to a special relationship. In this case, we must look at duty of care. The duty of care imposed by the parent / child relationship is high. However, the question we ask is could a reasonable person think that no harm would have occurred. The answer is yes. Plenty of reasonable people would think no harm would come of telling your kid that God is real. Now, the variable that represents the tipping point is the method of religious indoctrination. If a parent burned their child with cigarettes to give them a taste of hell, then absolutely a reasonable person would see harm. But again, this focuses on methodology.

 

[Willamena]

This doesn't actually answer the questions, though.

I am okay with religious authority figures imposing their religious beliefs, even beliefs that are not fact. If they want to teach that Jesus is literally god's child or that Noah floated in a real arc with pairs of animals, that's okay. I have faith that it won't impact the child's upbringing as much as parents who lock their children away in a closet, or parents who sexually abuse their children.

 

[Curious George]

Sure, there are difference, but I have yet to see a good reason for holding a double standard in this case. I can't see a reason not to extend the idea of not imposing religious beliefs onto kids.

The problem is you do not need a reason to not extend it. You need a reason for it. And the best anyone has come up with so far is that it is unnecessary.

 

[Magic Man]

Um if the president said God is real, this would not violate the separation of church and state. If he told you specifically that God is real no one would care.

And this has nothing to do with what I've said.

What you are beating around with parent and child is reliance due to a special relationship. In this case, we must look at duty of care. The duty of care imposed by the parent / child relationship is high. However, the question we ask is could a reasonable person think that no harm would have occurred. The answer is yes. Plenty of reasonable people would think no harm would come of telling your kid that God is real. Now, the variable that represents the tipping point is the method of religious indoctrination. If a parent burned their child with cigarettes to give them a taste of hell, then absolutely a reasonable person would see harm. But again, this focuses on methodology.

I'm still not seeing a reason to have a double standard when it comes to imposing religious beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

Really? So the government is free to impose religious beliefs on people?



We're talking about a philosophy for treating other people. We all agree that adults in power should not use that power to impose their religious beliefs on other adults. That's a generally accepted view, and the whole reason behind separation of church and state in the U.S. I don't see any reason for holding a double standard when it comes to how we treat children. Why is it OK to impose religious beliefs on children, but not adults?

Sure, there are difference, but I have yet to see a good reason for holding a double standard in this case. I can't see a reason not to extend the idea of not imposing religious beliefs onto kids.

The concept of separation of church and state that ensures that no one religion will be imposed on the populace protects the freedom for all to practice any religion. It protects a right.

What right of the child is being protected by denying it religious stories?

 

[Magic Man]

I am okay with religious authority figures imposing their religious beliefs, even beliefs that are not fact. If they want to teach that Jesus is literally god's child or that Noah floated in a real arc with pairs of animals, that's okay.

I'm not sure whether you did it intentionally, but you misunderstood. I didn't say anything about religious authorities.

The question is whether people with power over other people, such as the government for instance, should impose their religious beliefs on other adults. Should government officials ban homosexuality?

I have faith that it won't impact the child's upbringing as much as parents who lock their children away in a closet, or parents who sexually abuse their children.

I have no idea why you'd even bring this up, considering no one here has argued against it...:sarcastic

 

[Curious George]

And this has nothing to do with what I've said.

Really, you said authority matters. And that one telling another that God is real represents the imposition of a religious view. You also said we shouldn't distinguish between adults and children.

I'm still not seeing a reason to have a double standard when it comes to imposing religious beliefs.

It is not a double standard with duty of care.

 

[Magic Man]

The concept of separation of church and state that ensures that no one religion will be imposed on the populace protects the freedom for all to practice any religion. It protects a right.

What right of the child is being protected by denying it religious stories?

First, let's rephrase the question to be more accurate:

What right of the child is being protected by ensuring he/she doesn't have religious beliefs forced into his/her head?

The answer, of course, would be his/her right to freedom of religion; the same reason we have separation of church and state.

 

[Willamena]

The question is whether people with power over other people, such as the government for instance, should impose their religious beliefs on other adults. Should government officials ban homosexuality?

All I can say is that I live in Canada. Here, we vote.

 

[Magic Man]

Really, you said authority matters. And that one telling another that God is real represents the imposition of a religious view. You also said we shouldn't distinguish between adults and children.

The only one of those I said was the first one. I didn't think I was being unclear. An adult telling another adult that god is real doesn't represent the imposition of a religious view. And of course we should distinguish between an adult and a child, but only in relevant ways.

It is not a double standard with duty of care.

How does duty of care make it not a double standard? Specifically, why does this particular type of authority mean it's OK to impose religious beliefs?

 

[Magic Man]

All I can say is that I live in Canada. Here, we vote.

OK, well, if you do want to answer the question at some point, let me know.

 

[Willamena]

First, let's rephrase the question to be more accurate:

What right of the child is being protected by ensuring he/she doesn't have religious beliefs forced into his/her head?

The answer, of course, would be his/her right to freedom of religion; the same reason we have separation of church and state.

So, what religion are children allowed to practice?

 

[Willamena]

OK, well, if you do want to answer the question at some point, let me know.

I did. You posed an unrealistic situation. Government officials do not assert "their power" to arbitrarily impose bans such as on homosexuality.

 

[Curious George]

The only one of those I said was the first one. I didn't think I was being unclear. An adult telling another adult that god is real doesn't represent the imposition of a religious view. And of course we should distinguish between an adult and a child, but only in relevant ways.



How does duty of care make it not a double standard? Specifically, why does this particular type of authority mean it's OK to impose religious beliefs?

Because it is the same question, was it reasonable.

 

[Magic Man]

So, what religion are children allowed to practice?

Any one they want, as long as it's actually them making the decision.

 

[Magic Man]

I did. You posed an unrealistic situation. Government officials do not assert "their power" to arbitrarily impose bans such as on homosexuality.

The question was whether you think it's acceptable for a government to impose religious beliefs on citizens, like banning homosexuality. It's a perfectly realistic situation, but if you don't want to answer, I don't know why you responded to the first post you did, saying you disagree that people should impose their religious beliefs on others.

 

[Magic Man]

Because it is the same question, was it reasonable.

OK, then, it's not reasonable in one case, and so it's not reasonable in the other. Right?

 

[Willamena]

Any one they want, as long as it's actually them making the decision.

So the standard for whether freedom of religion is a right is whether a person is capable of choosing to practice it?

 

[Willamena]

The question was whether you think it's acceptable for a government to impose religious beliefs on citizens, like banning homosexuality. It's a perfectly realistic situation, but if you don't want to answer, I don't know why you responded to the first post you did, saying you disagree that people should impose their religious beliefs on others.

I'm going to make it as plain as I can: government doesn't do that.