237 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

Why? For several of the reasons already stated by others. Any scenario in which the government could ban teaching kids religion would have to be positively Orwellian.

and why are the reasons stated above valid?

have to be positively Orwellian? no, actually it would protect the rights of those we create by preventing parents from forcing their beliefs on them Orwellian style

[abolitionist]

one of the most important points to consider here is that

children do not have informed consent, nor are they able to think for themselves

certainly all ages are highly susceptible to brain washing, but children are the most highly susceptible

parents use all kinds of tyrannical methods to force their children into their own religions : guilt, threats, punishments, lying to them, taking away their freedoms, etc...

that's what we need to protect children against.

Do you think parents should be able to force their children to believe as they do? To force them to go to church and believe in eternal damnation or original sin?

That's what is Orwellian, not the government trying to protect the intellectual freedom of children.

[Blutarsky]

ah, but you must understand such a law would not prevent them from being exposed only prevent parents and public service people from forcing their doctrine on them using fear, guilt, and social reinforcement

First. I'm not exactly sure that this statement is: 1. A complete thought; or 2. A complete sentence. Secondly, this entire argument is a strawman that rests upon faulty assumptions. For example, as a person of faith and a father I neither use fear nor guilt to teach my children about faith or morality, and I don't believe that most who practice religion do; therefore your assertion is a common stereotypical fallacy asserted by the anti-theist. As far as social reinforcement, I don't know what you mean by that.

religion doesn't agree with religion - the competing theories can't all be true, so why should a child be forced to accept one theory by their parents?

This actually has a glimmer of hope in it. You are correct that all competing theories can't be true, but there are ways of testing the veracity of the claims of a religion.

religion truly is child abuse if forced upon children

Thanks Richard. How do you define "forced?" How do you define "abuse?" On a wider note, what's wrong with "forcing" something upon a child? I assume you think it's wrong to do so, but may I ask where you got these antiquated notions of morality such as something being right or wrong?

Edited by Blutarsky, 06 February 2009 - 03:59 PM.

[advancedatheist]

there's no evidence that religion is linked to happiness, nor does it help prevent crime (the largest percentage of inmates in America are Baptists) in fact religion becomes a rationale for all manner of degenerative activities

Prisoners are not criminals because they are religious, they're usually religious because they're in prison, have very little hope, and on average are less intelligent.

The fact that prisons allow so much proselytizing, even from religions with bad reputations in the U.S. like Islam, also indicates that many people running the corrections system consider religious indoctrination a form of punishment.

Edited by advancedatheist, 06 February 2009 - 05:37 PM.

[abolitionist]

ah, but you must understand such a law would not prevent them from being exposed only prevent parents and public service people from forcing their doctrine on them using fear, guilt, and social reinforcement

First. I'm not exactly sure that this statement is: 1. A complete thought; or 2. A complete sentence. Secondly, this entire argument is a strawman that rests upon faulty assumptions. For example, as a person of faith and a father I neither use fear nor guilt to teach my children about faith or morality, and I don't believe that most who practice religion do; therefore your assertion is a common stereotypical fallacy asserted by the anti-theist. As far as social reinforcement, I don't know what you mean by that.

AB : it's good that you do not determine what constitutes a complete thought, though it's clear that you understand and are just being a PITA

next up, it's been proven time and again that parents do us those tactics - and how can you teach faith in a doctrine without some threat to believe it? either you're saying you'll suffer more if you don't believe or you'll go to hell or something like that - you can't escape the fact that religion depends on intimiation and social pressure - that's why we have major world religions which are no more true than something any bum on a street corner could make up

do you understand?

religion doesn't agree with religion - the competing theories can't all be true, so why should a child be forced to accept one theory by their parents?

This actually has a glimmer of hope in it. You are correct that all competing theories can't be true, but there are ways of testing the veracity of the claims of a religion.

AB : how nice of you to patronize, do you use the same tactics when teaching religion to your children? Yes I agree that we can test some religious theories. However, many continue to exist because they can't be tested.

religion truly is child abuse if forced upon children

Thanks Richard. How do you define "forced?" How do you define "abuse?" On a wider note, what's wrong with "forcing" something upon a child? I assume you think it's wrong to do so, but may I ask where you got these antiquated notions of morality such as something being right or wrong?

AB : Forced in this case means that you apply pressure to go to church or religious services and/or to believe in specific doctrines and behaviors outside of what is legally required (related to religion).

Abuse in this case is causing harm to a child by forcing them to accept doctrines as truth.

What's wrong with forcing? Well that depends upon what is being forced. Certainly you should force them to get an education and respect the law and not infringe upon the rights of others. However forcing morality (your views of right and wrong) upon someone is harmful to them and therefore abusive.

It's also harmful to society at large to be creating indoctrinated drones. Teaching respect for laws and ethics is distinct from teaching religious beliefs and/or doctrines.

Edited by abolitionist, 06 February 2009 - 05:43 PM.

[abolitionist]

there's no evidence that religion is linked to happiness, nor does it help prevent crime (the largest percentage of inmates in America are Baptists) in fact religion becomes a rationale for all manner of degenerative activities

Prisoners are not criminals because they are religious, they're usually religious because they're in prison, have very little hope, and on average are less intelligent.

The fact that prisons allow so much proselytizing, even from religions with bad reputations in the U.S. like Islam, also indicates that many people running the corrections system consider religious indoctrination a form of punishment.

lol

instead they could be teaching them meditation and self hypnosis as well as critical thinking skills and ethics - why don't they?

I think we have laws (I'd have to verify this) that force prisons to provide religious services to those that ask for it

Governments have always found religion to be a useful tool for controlling the masses. Here's a recent and sinister example;

The US government has hired thousands of preachers to administer to those takent to FEMA camps as well as to convince their flocks that they should follow government unquestioningly using Romans 13.

I know it sounds ridiculous but it's true...

[Blutarsky]

AB : it's good that you do not determine what constitutes a complete thought, though it's clear that you understand and are just being a PITA

next up, it's been proven time and again that parents do us those tactics - and how can you teach faith in a doctrine without some threat to believe it? either you're saying you'll suffer more if you don't believe or you'll go to hell or something like that - you can't escape the fact that religion depends on intimiation and social pressure - that's why we have major world religions which are no more true than something any bum on a street corner could make up

do you understand?

Because some people behave in one manner does not, by extension, allow you categorically stereotype all others. Believing that you must couple faith with threat or fear underlies your own fallacious presupositions about religion. Most anti-theists have a shamefully uneducated view of religion which allows them to construct strawmen such as the above, regarding religion. If you base your analysis of religion on incorrect information, you end up drawing incorrect conclusions.

And yes, I am a PITA.

AB : how nice of you to patronize, do you use the same tactics when teaching religion to your children? Yes I agree that we can test some religious theories. However, many continue to exist because they can't be tested.

My quote was not an attempt at patronization. Again, your apparent limited understanding of religion(s) and/or philosophy is clear. Every religion can be judged by analysis of its core principles and whether they can be supported by any number of common philosophical tests for truth telling, for example, the law of non-contradiction.

AB : Forced in this case means that you apply pressure to go to church or religious services and/or to believe in specific doctrines and behaviors outside of what is legally required (related to religion).

I force my children to brush their teeth and it's not legally required for them to do so. Am I abusing them?

Again, why stop with religion?

Abuse in this case is causing harm to a child by forcing them to accept doctrines as truth.

I get that Richard, what I want to know is HOW and WHY. Why do you anti-theists have such thin skin? I think you need to review what actual abuse (physical or mental) entails.

What's wrong with forcing? Well that depends upon what is being forced. Certainly you should force them to get an education and respect the law and not infringe upon the rights of others. However forcing morality (your views of right and wrong) upon someone is harmful to them and therefore abusive.

I've got some shocking news for you; every law is forced morality. There is no law on the books that is not a codification of someone's or some group's idea of morality.

Put another way, why is right for YOU to tell others that they can't impose their view of right/wrong on a child? Aren't you, by operation of this supposed requirement, forcing YOUR morality (that it is immoral to teach religion to children) onto others?

Again I ask you, what gives you the right to categorize something as immoral?

Teaching respect for laws and ethics is distinct from teaching religious beliefs and/or doctrines.

Only to an anti-theist. You folks are the only people dumb enough to believe that law and ethics were created de novo by man. Of course the anti-theist has no evidence to prove this phenomena, but nevertheless it persists and is believed as gospel truth, pardon the pun.

[Lazarus Long]

]I've got some shocking news for you; every law is forced morality. There is no law on the books that is not a codification of someone's or some group's idea of morality.

Put another way, why is right for YOU to tell others that they can't impose their view of right/wrong on a child? Aren't you, by operation of this supposed requirement, forcing YOUR morality (that it is immoral to teach religion to children) onto others?

Again I ask you, what gives you the right to categorize something as immoral?

Teaching respect for laws and ethics is distinct from teaching religious beliefs and/or doctrines.

Only to an anti-theist. You folks are the only people dumb enough to believe that law and ethics were created de novo by man. Of course the anti-theist has no evidence to prove this phenomena, but nevertheless it persists and is believed as gospel truth, pardon the pun.

The answer to the first question leads to the send answer. Secular law developed through a rational analysis of human conduct and optimal behavior versus antisocial behaviors.

The point is the answer to the second point you make is that all secular humanists are not "anti-theists" but all secular humanists (and transhumanists) by definition do not accept or believe in divine deliverance of laws, ethics and mores for human conduct. They generally believe (when they about about it depth) in an evolutionary development of human ethics based largely in adaptive evolutionary psychology.

[Lazarus Long]

BTW I have not contributed to the poll either way because because I do not think it is constructed fairly but is biased intentionally.

Remember the example of the question: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The very question presumes the conclusion and this poll is similar in construct.

I just simply disagree with you BLutarsky that thinking laws are not of divine origin is a particular uncommon trait.

[advancedatheist]

The answer to the first question leads to the send answer. Secular law developed through a rational analysis of human conduct and optimal behavior versus antisocial behaviors.

Eh, a Hayekian would have a problem with that. A lot of law derives from pragmatic, ad hoc resolutions of disputes by "folk judges" which served as precedents for resolving similar situations in the future. The attempt to make law rational, for example by eliminating contradictions, came along fairly late in human history.

The point is the answer to the second point you make is that all secular humanists are not "anti-theists" but all secular humanists (and transhumanists) by definition do not accept or believe in divine deliverance of laws, ethics and mores for human conduct. They generally believe (when they about about it depth) in an evolutionary development of human ethics based largely in adaptive evolutionary psychology.

Theists have trouble accepting that some people don't believe in their gods because they just don't care about the matter any more.

[Lazarus Long]

The answer to the first question leads to the send answer. Secular law developed through a rational analysis of human conduct and optimal behavior versus antisocial behaviors.

Eh, a Hayekian would have a problem with that. A lot of law derives from pragmatic, ad hoc resolutions of disputes by "folk judges" which served as precedents for resolving similar situations in the future. The attempt to make law rational, for example by eliminating contradictions, came along fairly late in human history.

Actually collective decison making is a rational process. It is only flawed by the amount of GIGO that evolving humans had with respect to the world around them. They flooded their thinking with misconceptions about the universe and outright falsehoods but these also helped"*rationalize* conduct during the evolution of laws.

Esentially however we are in agreement.

[.fonclea.]

I am a deep atheist but i consider religion fundamental to built some bases.

Our values are related to religion and even if we are disagree with the dogme we can't afford them.
In russia religion had been banned for almost half century, now it's back and it's worth than ever with homophobic and integrist vision. If you put religion illegal, you can expect that result. Religion is vital for 3/4 of peoples in the world, they don't owned anything else but faith. Religion tend to be less and less powerful, just one or two century more.

I disaprove countries with a religion of state and pupils obliged to follow courses of theology, we must let families decide their vision of faith and belives. Sometime they qre so bad for the job children decide to leave it. My parents grown up in christian and muslim families but believe me they probably never belived in a greatet god. And it's the case for our generetion.

Once you are adult you can develop your mind/opinion.

[EmbraceUnity]

why don't you think making it illegal would protect the rights of children to be free of involuntary religion? isn't that a problem?

When the government tries to manage the beliefs of its citizens using coercion, then it has overstepped its bounds. While the slippery slope argument doesn't hold in all cases, it does for legal precedents. I don't think the government should have any precedents for engaging in such behavior.

it wouldn't be the government determining truth, only preventing parents from forcing doctrine on their children

I don't think it is the government's job to decide what is "doctrine" and what isn't.

yes it would cause resentment I agree, but so do most laws - if introduced gradually and incrementally they become socially acceptable

That is how totalitarianism is implemented generally.

define decent - is it decent to allow parents to force religion on their children?

It is morally repugnant to force beliefs upon children. Nevertheless, that is something that must be left up to personal responsibility because the danger of using the state for this purpose is too great.

clearly our current system does not prevent child brainwashing here in the states, what other measures do the scandinavian countries take that we don't here in the USA?

They have fostered a reasonable and secular culture simply by funding and teaching science, and, more importantly, by fostering civil society and providing a social safety net so citizens aren't forced to resort to things like drugs and religion for comfort. Those are all key elements of Social Democracy.

[advancedatheist]

Regarding the causes of religiosity, Gregory S. Paul discusses the unplanned, spontaneous implosion of religious belief in most developed democratic countries:

"The Big Religion Questions Finally Solved," Free Inquiry, Dec. 2008/Jan. 2009 issue:
http://www.box.net/s.../92sgtakzv2.pdf

Radio interview on Equal Time for Freethought:
http://www.equaltime...problemssolved/

[Blutarsky]

The answer to the first question leads to the send answer. Secular law developed through a rational analysis of human conduct and optimal behavior versus antisocial behaviors.

The term "secular law" is meaningless. Whether you think a law has roots in religion or not, all laws are based upon the morality of an individual or group. It's simply a matter of whos morality your speaking of. That again prompts the question of why YOU or ANYONE ELSE's morality as opposed to MINE?

It's presumptuous for you to assert that "secular law" is based upon rational analysis of human behavior. Religion has been with man since the beginning of recorded history. Show me a functioning anti-theistic society that emerged from purely non-theistic beginnings and I may believe you. Until then, it simply appears from the outside looking in that anti-theists are merely borrowing morality from the religious and rebranding it "secular law" to suit their own preferences.

The point is the answer to the second point you make is that all secular humanists are not "anti-theists" but all secular humanists (and transhumanists) by definition do not accept or believe in divine deliverance of laws, ethics and mores for human conduct. They generally believe (when they about about it depth) in an evolutionary development of human ethics based largely in adaptive evolutionary psychology.

I'm not interested in debating what an "anti-theist" or atheist is. Asking a group of athiests to define "what atheism is" is like asking listening to the Abbott and Costello skit about Who's on First. Once you guys decide what the hell you want to be called let me know.

To your other point, I understand the theories behind materialistic ethics. I simply don't find them to be meritorious.

On a final note, I find it interesting that some who believe in naturalistic evolution can't see the irony in the fact that humans, by way of stubbornly clinging to morality, are fundamentally denying themselves of one of the most important aspects of evolutionary development, namely selfishness and self-survival. I find it interesting that the most noble of character traits like supererogation and self-control are completely and wholy at odds with the fundamentals principles of evolutionary development.

Edited by Blutarsky, 07 February 2009 - 01:59 AM.

[Blutarsky]

Regarding the causes of religiosity, Gregory S. Paul discusses the unplanned, spontaneous implosion of religious belief in most developed democratic countries:

"The Big Religion Questions Finally Solved," Free Inquiry, Dec. 2008/Jan. 2009 issue:
http://www.box.net/s.../92sgtakzv2.pdf

Radio interview on Equal Time for Freethought:
http://www.equaltime...problemssolved/

Fantastic, yet another palentologist/evolutionary biologist/former trotskyist/etc. writing and speaking on religion. When a theist without a PHD in evolutionary biology wants to discuss evolution these guys start screaming and gnashing their teeth. When people like Dawkins with no formal training in religion or philosophy begin writing and lecturing on topics that they're wholly uneducated in, it's nothing but orgasms from their supporters. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

Edited by Blutarsky, 07 February 2009 - 02:10 AM.

[Ben Simon]

If the argument is that kids should be allowed to think for themselves, then that's worth noting. I certainly agree that parents should be respectful of their children's intellect, allow them to make up their own minds (to a point), and not harass or bully them into believing certain things. However, this should not (and I suspect cannot) be enforced by law. The way a child is brought up is the responsibility of their parents, and the state has no business getting involved. Every parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit.

The thing is - I don't think that's what we're really talking about. Let's be honest. This isn't about the best way to raise kids. It's about a bias against religion in particular. The thread starter is basing their primary assertion, that religious education during childhood is child abuse and should be outlawed, not on their opinions about best practice for childhood education, but rather on negative opinions about religion itself, which they perceive to be a destructive influence in society. Now, it so happens that many of those opinions appear to be misinformed ('Christians are converted for fear of going to hell', etcetera, when many Christians do not even believe in hell, which is a largely non Biblical concept) but that's the real meat of the issue.

Therefore, for the argument 'religion should not be taught to kids' to be successful, the author must show that religion IS a destructive influence. If it is, it should not only not be taught to kids - it shouldn't be taught anywhere. Me? I think that's a totally superficial outlook that belies a frivolous interpretation of both religion itself and its impact on the world. But then, that's totally consistent with the theard starters attempts to dictate to religious contributors to this conversation exactly what they believe and how they go about sharing those beliefs with others, without so much as asking them first. Hmmm. Maybe the answer is not less religious education, but more. If anything, Internet debates on the subject would be possessed of more substance.

Edited by ben, 07 February 2009 - 02:36 AM.

[sUper GeNius]

Children are not considered to be able to make informed, rational, or mature decisions until they are 18. So shouldn't they be protected from religion until that time - to be protected from parents who will try to brainwash their kids into believing as they do?

Many studies have proven that humans are easily susceptible to brainwashing, especially children. Clearly we cannot trust parents not to force their religion on their children.

Certainly some do not, but we need laws to ensure that they don't - otherwise many will continue to force their children into their religions.

What if the child decides on his own, prior to age 18, that he wants to practice a particular religion?

[Blutarsky]

If the argument is that kids should be allowed to think for themselves, then that's worth noting. I certainly agree that parents should be respectful of their children's intellect, allow them to make up their own minds (to a point), and not harass or bully them into believing certain things. However, this should not (and I suspect cannot) be enforced by law. The way a child is brought up is the responsibility of their parents, and the state has no business getting involved. Every parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit.

The thing is - I don't think that's what we're really talking about. Let's be honest. This isn't about the best way to raise kids. It's about a bias against religion in particular. The thread starter is basing their primary assertion, that religious education during childhood is child abuse and should be outlawed, not on their opinions about best practice for childhood education, but rather on negative opinions about religion itself, which they perceive to be a destructive influence in society. Now, it so happens that many of those opinions appear to be misinformed ('Christians are converted for fear of going to hell', etcetera, when many Christians do not even believe in hell, which is a largely non Biblical concept) but that's the real meat of the issue.

Therefore, for the argument 'religion should not be taught to kids' to be successful, the author must show that religion IS a destructive influence. If it is, it should not only not be taught to kids - it shouldn't be taught anywhere. Me? I think that's a totally superficial outlook that belies a frivolous interpretation of both religion itself and its impact on the world. But then, that's totally consistent with the theard starters attempts to dictate to religious contributors to this conversation exactly what they believe and how they go about sharing those beliefs with others, without so much as asking them first. Hmmm. Maybe the answer is not less religious education, but more. If anything, Internet debates on the subject would be possessed of more substance.

Excellent reply. Stereotypical constructs of "religion" underly the whole discussion. Exposing the faulty assumptions upon which the question is based is something akin to pulling the thread that unravels the sweater.

[advancedatheist]

When a theist without a PHD in evolutionary biology wants to discuss evolution these guys start screaming and gnashing their teeth.

How about fairly characterizing "these guys" instead of trying to throw their character into question ahead of time?

When people like Dawkins with no formal training in religion or philosophy begin writing and lecturing on topics that they're wholly uneducated in, it's nothing but orgasms from their supporters. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

Which authorities in "religion" should Dawkins go to for that "formal training"? Unlike scientists, religious "authorities" have no mechanism to check each other's work and reduce the incidence of errors, biases and nonsense.

[advancedatheist]

What if the child decides on his own, prior to age 18, that he wants to practice a particular religion?

If a child said that he wanted to worship a god that he would have had no way of learning about from his social background, then that could provide empirical evidence for the existence of a "revealed" religion. Say, a kid in some American household starts talking about Ahura Mazda as the one true god and tries to make a farahavar symbol to wear on a necklace.

[Ben Simon]

Unlike scientists, religious "authorities" have no mechanism to check each other's work and reduce the incidence of errors, biases and nonsense.

The same can be said of any non scientific discipline. Surely you do not mean to imply philosophers and political theorists are unstudied because their methods are not scientific?

[Ben Simon]

What if the child decides on his own, prior to age 18, that he wants to practice a particular religion?

If a child said that he wanted to worship a god that he would have had no way of learning about from his social background, then that could provide empirical evidence for the existence of a "revealed" religion. Say, a kid in some American household starts talking about Ahura Mazda as the one true god and tries to make a farahavar symbol to wear on a necklace.

Ahhh... now we get down to it. We're not just talking about a lack of indoctrination in childhood anymore. We're talking about the total removal of religious ideas from society. Kind of a hop, skip and a jump from where we started aren't we? Interesting.

[advancedatheist]

The same can be said of any non scientific discipline. Surely you do not mean to imply philosophers and political theorists are unstudied because their methods are not scientific?

Philosophers and political theorists usually don't claim to speak on behalf of supernatural powers, and we do see some progress in their debates based on the lessons of history. You would have trouble finding a philosopher or political theorist these days who defends slavery as the foundation of a proper social order, even though they still study Plato's and Aristotle's writings which assume the necessity of keeping a slave class.

[advancedatheist]

Ahhh... now we get down to it. We're not just talking about a lack of indoctrination in childhood anymore. We're talking about the total removal of religious ideas from society. Kind of a hop, skip and a jump from where we started aren't we? Interesting.

Societies "remove" religious ideas all the time, which makes it difficult for today's scholars to reconstruct the history of religious beliefs if the source materials have disappeared. As far as I can tell, children have to learn about religious ideas in the same way they learn about Harry Potter. (I grew up in the BH [Before Hogwarts] era, so I guess that makes me a secular muggleist.) A child who spontaneously started to talk about communicating with a god he couldn't have learned about from his social environment would provide evidence that such a god exists independently of human myths and legends about it. Perhaps theists don't like this idea because they fear that they would discover from the kid's revelation that they worshipped nonexistent gods all along.

[Ben Simon]

The same can be said of any non scientific discipline. Surely you do not mean to imply philosophers and political theorists are unstudied because their methods are not scientific?

Philosophers and political theorists usually don't claim to speak on behalf of supernatural powers, and we do see some progress in their debates based on the lessons of history. You would have trouble finding a philosopher or political theorist these days who defends slavery as the foundation of a proper social order, even though they still study Plato's and Aristotle's writings which assume the necessity of keeping a slave class.

And theological scholars do? ...Hmmm. Priests maybe. ...Sometimes. Undereducated suburban youth pastors? Often enough. But students and scholars of theology? Surely any examples you can provide must prove the exception.

You also seem to be implying that religious beliefs and opinions don't evolve and change over time. That's a particularly strange comment, and couldn't be further from the truth. Even by your use of the word 'supernatural' you are communicating that your knowledge of religion conforms to stereotype.

Edited by ben, 07 February 2009 - 03:50 AM.

[Ben Simon]

Ahhh... now we get down to it. We're not just talking about a lack of indoctrination in childhood anymore. We're talking about the total removal of religious ideas from society. Kind of a hop, skip and a jump from where we started aren't we? Interesting.

Societies "remove" religious ideas all the time, which makes it difficult for today's scholars to reconstruct the history of religious beliefs if the source materials have disappeared. As far as I can tell, children have to learn about religious ideas in the same way they learn about Harry Potter. (I grew up in the BH [Before Hogwarts] era, so I guess that makes me a secular muggleist.) A child who spontaneously started to talk about communicating with a god he couldn't have learned about from his social environment would provide evidence that such a god exists independently of human myths and legends about it. Perhaps theists don't like this idea because they fear that they would discover from the kid's revelation that they worshipped nonexistent gods all along.

I think you may have missed my point, which is that we're supposed to be talking about whether parents ought be legally allowed to teach religion in the home. You on the other hand are talking about the entirity of a kids social environment being devoid of religion - up to and including never having heard of particular religious identities. By conflating the two you seem to be betraying a somewhat more ambitious agenda on your part than that which we were initially discussing. But then maybe the total eradication of religion is what we've been talking about all along.

[Shannon Vyff]

I think that parents have the best interests of their children in mind, and religions teach good things mostly. I'd like it if all churches taught the tenets of other religions like a Unitarian Universalist church does There is no way in our current society one could "ban" religion for children, I think the opposite should occur --the education of religion should be mandatory and expanded so kids learn about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Confucius, Buddhism (more a way of life than a religion ) and modern self-help "evolutionary psychology" etc. (That's pretty much a year's curriculum at a UU church )

[sUper GeNius]

I think that parents have the best interests of their children in mind, and religions teach good things mostly. I'd like it if all churches taught the tenets of other religions like a Unitarian Universalist church does There is no way in our current society one could "ban" religion for children, I think the opposite should occur --the education of religion should be mandatory and expanded so kids learn about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Confucius, Buddhism (more a way of life than a religion ) and modern self-help "evolutionary psychology" etc. (That's pretty much a year's curriculum at a UU church )

Now that's a VERY good idea. Teach kids about ALL religions. It would be hard for religious zealots to object, and would accomplish much the same goal. I'll tell you, that's one of the reasons I came to be a 'disbeliever.' Happened when I was fourteen. That, and my interest in science.

[abolitionist]

BTW I have not contributed to the poll either way because because I do not think it is constructed fairly but is biased intentionally.

Remember the example of the question: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

The very question presumes the conclusion and this poll is similar in construct.

I just simply disagree with you BLutarsky that thinking laws are not of divine origin is a particular uncommon trait.

what is the inaccurate bias you have identified?