Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't matter. Parents have he right to raise their children as they see fit as long as they aren't breaking any laws while doing so.

Obviously people people raise their children the best way they know how. Not sure anyone else is in a position to say otherwise.

In the US freedom of religion is a legal right. To suggest parents should not be able to raise their children with their religious beliefs is criminal.

People have freedom of religion as long as they are not breaking any laws.

Two points occur to me here:

- how the law IS is irrelevant when considering how the law SHOULD be.

- the child is just as entitled to freedom of religion as the parent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is nonsense.

If you're so sure, perhaps you can show me a Christian tradition that hasn't ever changed its stances on moral issues. Just one.

 

[Nymphs]

I think even a child that was never exposed to the outside world would come up with ideas of his/her own, so the term "brainwashing" may apply in those sorts of cases, yes.

Thanks for answering.

 

[Nakosis]

Two points occur to me here:

- how the law IS is irrelevant when considering how the law SHOULD be.

Sure, nothing stopping anyone from letting their imagination run wild.

- the child is just as entitled to freedom of religion as the parent.

No I think generally it's accepted they are under the guardianship of their parents until they are 18. Unless they go to court to become emancipated.

Of course court/laws may not fit well in the world as you wish it to be.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you're so sure, perhaps you can show me a Christian tradition that hasn't ever changed its stances on moral issues. Just one.

Yeshu did away with the old laws, that's pretty clear. So, if you mean some church doctrine of some sort, it's irrelevant. I'm not defending various church doctrine, that makes no sense. That would be the same as saying every atheist is responsible for what any atheist does or believes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, nothing stopping anyone from letting their imagination run wild.

No I think generally it's accepted they are under the guardianship of their parents until they are 18. Unless they go to court to become emancipated.

Of course court/laws may not fit well in the world as you wish it to be.

That's irrelevant to my point. While a child is under the guardianship of their parents, the parents safeguard the rights of the child, but the child still has the rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeshu did away with the old laws, that's pretty clear. So, if you mean some church doctrine of some sort, it's irrelevant. I'm not defending various church doctrine, that makes no sense. That would be the same as saying every atheist is responsible for what any atheist does or believes.

I'm not asking you to defend anything but the position you gave: that religion provides ready-made "codified morality" that doesn't need judgement or revision. If this is true, I'm sure you can provide just one example of a religion whose morality is codified and that has persisted without being revised. Can you give us even one?

Edit: bonus points if the codified morality is in fact moral.

 

[Mister Emu]

That's irrelevant to my point. While a child is under the guardianship of their parents, the parents safeguard the rights of the child, but the child still has the rights.

This is, in the U.S., largely incorrect in respect to parents. Now, children do have rights, but when compared to those of an adult, they are greatly reduced.

A child can be confined without due process (grounding).
A child can be physically assaulted (spanking) mildly.
A child can have their goods taken away.
Heck, even the government forces children to get an education(or at least attend school).

 

[Curious George]

This is, in the U.S., largely incorrect in respect to parents. Now, children do have rights, but when compared to those of an adult, they are greatly reduced.

A child can be confined without due process (grounding).
A child can be physically assaulted (spanking) mildly.
A child can have their goods taken away.
Heck, even the government forces children to get an education(or at least attend school).

Parents can limit a child's right to free association
Parents can limit a child's free speech
Parents can limit.... Am I seeing a pattern?

 

[Nakosis]

That's irrelevant to my point. While a child is under the guardianship of their parents, the parents safeguard the rights of the child, but the child still has the rights.

All specified by them irrelevant laws.

I already stated that the parents have to act in accordance with the laws. If you have a issue then you have deal with the law whether you consider it relevant or not. Has nothing to do with the parents religion or lack of one. The law has to treat all individuals equally regardless of their religious beliefs.

So if a parent is causing harm to their child they are dealt with because they are specifically causing harm, not because of their religious beliefs.

 

[kashmir]

I'm not asking you to defend anything but the position you gave: that religion provides ready-made "codified morality" that doesn't need judgement or revision. If this is true, I'm sure you can provide just one example of a religion whose morality is codified and that has persisted without being revised. Can you give us even one?

Edit: bonus points if the codified morality is in fact moral.

Read the NT.

"waits for you to twist a verse in there as some atheists love to do"
after all, in the other thread you claim baptism is like raising ones kid and forcing them to be bisexual...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is, in the U.S., largely incorrect in respect to parents. Now, children do have rights, but when compared to those of an adult, they are greatly reduced.

A child can be confined without due process (grounding).
A child can be physically assaulted (spanking) mildly.
A child can have their goods taken away.
Heck, even the government forces children to get an education(or at least attend school).

The child still has the rights. For instance, a child who is arrested still has the right to habeas corpus.

The parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. They're vested with the responsibility to see to some of the child's rights on the child's behalf under the presumption that the parent will exercise these rights in accord with the child's best interests. However, the parents aren't completely free in this regard: for instance, at least in most western countries, a parent can't force their child to get tattooed, or force them into an arranged marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read the NT.

Do you think that the Bible is a religion?

 

[Curious George]

The child still has the rights. For instance, a child who is arrested still has the right to habeas corpus.

The parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. They're vested with the responsibility to see to some of the child's rights on the child's behalf under the presumption that the parent will exercise these rights in accord with the child's best interests. However, the parents aren't completely free in this regard: for instance, at least in most western countries, a parent can't force their child to get tattooed, or force them into an arranged marriage.

And if a parent believes religious exposure is in the best interests, it is okay.

 

[kashmir]

Do you think that the Bible is a religion?

What do you think the churches are reading while sermon takes place?

:sarcastic

 

[Nymphs]

What do you think the churches are reading while sermon takes place?

:sarcastic

The Bible is a book, not a religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do you think the churches are reading while sermon takes place?

:sarcastic

I'm not going to play this game with you.

You know, if you aren't going to bother to read what you're responding to, you'll save everyone a lot of bother if you just don't post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And if a parent believes religious exposure is in the best interests, it is okay.

And I say that trying to force kids into lifelong religious commitments goes against the general principle in our laws that says we shouldn't force kids into lifelong commitments, as evidenced by our attitude to things like tattoos and marriage.

 

[Curious George]

And I say that trying to force kids into lifelong religious commitments goes against the general principle in our laws that says we shouldn't force kids into lifelong commitments, as evidenced by our attitude to things like tattoos and marriage.

So people shouldn't feed their kids vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets? This is getting confusing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So people shouldn't feed their kids vegetarian or non-vegetarian diets? This is getting confusing.

You're telling me. I have no idea what point you think you're making. How did you jump from "let's let kids make their lifelong commitments themselves when they're old enough" to "let's starve children"?