237 replies to this topic

[kismet]

That is such a bad poll. Parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. That's one of the prerogatives of being a parent.

No, it's not their right. For instance they don't have the right to provide no or only abysmal education to children. There are actual laws in place to prevent that from happening.

Should the government have a right to "force" children into schools ?

Well, they certainly do in my country. They are definitely entitled to force parents to provide their children with education. It's called "mandatory" education for a reason.

Should parents have the right to "force" children to not eat candy all day ?

That depends on the damage that is being done and is decided on a case by case basis. The gov is definitely entitled to take away morbidly obese children from their parents if they are fed nothing but junk food.

If atheism necessitates the micro-managing of other people's lives, then it's as much a blight as religion, thank you very much.

Atheism does not necessitate anything, atheism is the absence of belief and nothing else. I don't like how you just tried to turn a completely non-atheistic, in fact merely secular, discussion into an argument against atheism. That is incredibly unfair. We are discussing policy, not atheism.
That would be like me saying: "If your libertarian bias, necessitates that we allow parents to abuse their children, then we don't need no freedom" - do you see how unfair such an inaccurate statement is?

Children do not get the same freedoms adults do. It's just how it works.

Children do not have some rights, but only for their protection. Other than that, children are in fact real, human beings and deserving of all civil rights and liberties. Furthermore, let's not forget that their guardians are supposed to act on their behalf.

And who are you to decide what is "factual education" anyway ?

Do I even need to answer that sort of question, I'm assuming it's rhetorical? Quite obviously the scientific method and consensus among professionals decides which facts are taught. Factual eduction reflects how the real world works and it's quite easy to discern factual from fictious (notwithstanding some corner cases).

There are very good reasons why most centralized planning doesn't work very well.
And this includes Dawkins' grand declarations about children.

Maybe my statement was really that ambigious, if not yours is a nice strawman, but let's stay on topic and argue about Dawkin's idea and not turn this discussion into "communism vs capitalism" or whatnot. To paraphrase once again (maybe the way I put it was really ambiguous, so let me try again): children are not religious until they have grown up to choose their religion. It does not mean they cannot be taught religion. However, it means the church shouldn't have the right to count the child as one of their members.

Indoctrination is merely a fact of life, It's a widely used tool.
How do you think the military convinces people to sacrifice themselves ?
...

Those people are fully developed adults who can understand the choices involved. Let's focus on your better arguments: you don't consider religious education to cause significant psychological damage. Well, neither do I, if we're not talking about extreme forms of fundamentalist religion.

Edited by kismet, 09 August 2009 - 05:57 PM.

[abolitionist]

Why should parents be allowed freedom with respect to their children?

You don't think indoctrination or brainwashing is significant damage?

Because distributed self-interest directed systems work better than central planning.

Indoctrination is merely a fact of life, It's a widely used tool.

How do you think the military convinces people to sacrifice themselves ?
Why do you think people do stupid things rooting for their home team ?
Why do people do ridiculous things to get into a fraternity?
Why do you believe that it's wrong to hurt other people or steal things from them ?

if distributed self interested directed systems work better (how is this quantified)..

then why is indoctrination and brainwashing good as you say

so by your ethic I should be free to brainwash you at will?

[Reno]

That is such a bad poll. Parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. That's one of the prerogatives of being a parent.

No, it's not their right. For instance they don't have the right to provide no or only abysmal education to children. There are actual laws in place to prevent that from happening.

Read before you quote.

I hate to break it to you, but it IS their right. Parents have the last word when it comes to raising their children. As I said in the post you failed to read, the only time government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse. Go ahead and argue it, but in the end the law and of course nature is on the parent's side. If you have a child it is your right and responsibility to teach that child how to survive in its environment. No matter how much you might disagree with it, religion is just another means to teach survival.

[abolitionist]

That is such a bad poll. Parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. That's one of the prerogatives of being a parent.

No, it's not their right. For instance they don't have the right to provide no or only abysmal education to children. There are actual laws in place to prevent that from happening.

Read before you quote.

I hate to break it to you, but it IS their right. Parents have the last word when it comes to raising their children. As I said in the post you failed to read, the only time government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse. Go ahead and argue it, but in the end the law and of course nature is on the parent's side. If you have a child it is your right and responsibility to teach that child how to survive in its environment. No matter how much you might disagree with it, religion is just another means to teach survival.

debating ethics is many times finding a disparity between what is and what should be

there is some degree of government oversight when it comes to education, if you aren't homeschooling according to certain guidelines then you are deemed negligent

in many ways the state will step in when societally determined abuse is present, parents don't have the last word

[kismet]

Read before you quote.

I hate to break it to you, but it IS their right. Parents have the last word when it comes to raising their children. As I said in the post you failed to read, the only time government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse. Go ahead and argue it, but in the end the law and of course nature is on the parent's side. If you have a child it is your right and responsibility to teach that child how to survive in its environment. No matter how much you might disagree with it, religion is just another means to teach survival.

You contradict your own statement that parents can raise children "how they see fit" (see bolded part of your post). If parents fail, the gov. does step in, as I have already mentioned:

For instance they don't have the right to provide no or only abysmal education to children [=if parents had the choice to teach them "whatever" they want as you imply, this would be perfectly legit, but it is not]. There are actual laws in place to prevent that from happening.

Parents are obliged to provide proper education, not whatever they want (in Austria at least). Strictly speaking we could consider a failure to provide education abuse, so that your statement "[the] government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse" would make sense again, but in any case parents don't have the right to just do as they see fit.

Could you also elaborate how religion is a means of survival? Sure, it's offtopic, but I'm really curious nonetheless.

Edited by kismet, 10 August 2009 - 10:41 PM.

[Reno]

Read before you quote.

I hate to break it to you, but it IS their right. Parents have the last word when it comes to raising their children. As I said in the post you failed to read, the only time government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse. Go ahead and argue it, but in the end the law and of course nature is on the parent's side. If you have a child it is your right and responsibility to teach that child how to survive in its environment. No matter how much you might disagree with it, religion is just another means to teach survival.

You contradict your own statement that parents can raise children "how they see fit" (see bolded part of your post). If parents fail, the gov. does step in, as I have already mentioned:

For instance they don't have the right to provide no or only abysmal education to children [=if parents had the choice to teach them "whatever" they want as you imply, this would be perfectly legit, but it is not]. There are actual laws in place to prevent that from happening.

Parents are obliged to provide proper education, not whatever they want (in Austria at least). Strictly speaking we could consider a failure to provide education abuse, so that your statement "[the] government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse" would make sense again, but in any case parents don't have the right to just do as they see fit.

Could you also elaborate how religion is a means of survival? Sure, it's offtopic, but I'm really curious nonetheless.

There is no contradiction. Raising children properly does not include abuse. Abuse is defined by the laws of the location. I personally agree with the U.S. definition of abuse, but the truth is that what is considered abuse in one country is not abuse in the next. If you want to get picky about it you could say that what you teach your children is a function of where you live.

Religion teaches through story lessons on how best to live life accounting to a particular religious philosophy. Do x to be here at y later. There are stories to teach everything from personal hygiene, farming, to dating. When to farm and what plants to farm when was very important 2 and 3 thousand years ago. Eating pork could get an entire community sick. From what I understand the general public wasn't literate back then. So most of these lessons had to be taught through song or story to be remembered. Religion has always been a tool for teaching. The only thing that has changed is how we use that tool.

[abolitionist]

Read before you quote.

I hate to break it to you, but it IS their right. Parents have the last word when it comes to raising their children. As I said in the post you failed to read, the only time government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse. Go ahead and argue it, but in the end the law and of course nature is on the parent's side. If you have a child it is your right and responsibility to teach that child how to survive in its environment. No matter how much you might disagree with it, religion is just another means to teach survival.

You contradict your own statement that parents can raise children "how they see fit" (see bolded part of your post). If parents fail, the gov. does step in, as I have already mentioned:

For instance they don't have the right to provide no or only abysmal education to children [=if parents had the choice to teach them "whatever" they want as you imply, this would be perfectly legit, but it is not]. There are actual laws in place to prevent that from happening.

Parents are obliged to provide proper education, not whatever they want (in Austria at least). Strictly speaking we could consider a failure to provide education abuse, so that your statement "[the] government has the right to step in is when it involves abuse" would make sense again, but in any case parents don't have the right to just do as they see fit.

Could you also elaborate how religion is a means of survival? Sure, it's offtopic, but I'm really curious nonetheless.

There is no contradiction. Raising children properly does not include abuse. Abuse is defined by the laws of the location. I personally agree with the U.S. definition of abuse, but the truth is that what is considered abuse in one country is not abuse in the next. If you want to get picky about it you could say that what you teach your children is a function of where you live.

Religion teaches through story lessons on how best to live life accounting to a particular religious philosophy. Do x to be here at y later. There are stories to teach everything from personal hygiene, farming, to dating. When to farm and what plants to farm when was very important 2 and 3 thousand years ago. Eating pork could get an entire community sick. From what I understand the general public wasn't literate back then. So most of these lessons had to be taught through song or story to be remembered. Religion has always been a tool for teaching. The only thing that has changed is how we use that tool.

there's a qualitative difference between teaching laws and societal rules and teaching beliefs

There's no reason to teach beliefs anymore, instead we can provide rewards and punishments that are real

No do we need to try to tell people how they should behave in their interpersonal lives, we only need to be concerned about rights and protecting them

barring that, let people believe and do what they want

[Reno]

there's a qualitative difference between teaching laws and societal rules and teaching beliefs

There's no reason to teach beliefs anymore, instead we can provide rewards and punishments that are real

No do we need to try to tell people how they should behave in their interpersonal lives, we only need to be concerned about rights and protecting them

barring that, let people believe and do what they want

Your right, let people believe and do what they want.

There may not be a real solid need for religion anymore, but people still like to practice it and pass it on to their children.

Edited by bobscrachy, 11 August 2009 - 02:24 AM.

[abolitionist]

there's a qualitative difference between teaching laws and societal rules and teaching beliefs

There's no reason to teach beliefs anymore, instead we can provide rewards and punishments that are real

No do we need to try to tell people how they should behave in their interpersonal lives, we only need to be concerned about rights and protecting them

barring that, let people believe and do what they want

Your right, let people believe and do what they want.

There may not be a real solid need for religion anymore, but people still like to practice it and pass it on to their children.

so you don't think that children should have the right to be free of forced religion? should they be the fodder for the whims of their parents?

I know I don't want to force a religion on children whether they are "my" kids or not.

Passing it on implies that it is accepted by them, otherwise you can simply just inform that that you subscribe to certain beliefs and telling them how they can learn about it if they wish.

Edited by abolitionist, 11 August 2009 - 07:43 AM.

[russianBEAR]

On the other hand, I'd LOVE to be in the top That managerial position of some religious cult/sect. Talked to my friend the other day though, but he said there aren't any openings since him and his friend are pretty much running their cult alone. That's a shame :(

So you don't want religion imposed on you, but you wouldn't mind imposing it on others.
Nice!

I recognize religion as an excellent money-making and brainwashing tool, and being the head-honcho in a sect is perfect for vain people like me who dream of secret power and clout all the time  


Plus think about how much fun you can have, creating your own rituals, beliefs, and hierarchy system. You can base it on existing religions, maybe some esoteric/spiritual stuff, or a good mix of the two. 

At the end of the day people are bored and don't know what they want/need in life so they find a sect. So they're willing to have stuff imposed on them. 

As you can tell, I don't take this with any degree of seriousness - religion is a fun way to pass time if you actually think about it instead of believeing it

Like someone said: "If one person believes in something and noone else does, he is a psycho with issues. If a few million people believe something equally ridiculous, it's a religion".

If anyone's interested I can find some very good videos of big-time Russian sect leaders. They are very charismatic, all got their own style and "flow" kind of like rappers do. It's great television as well

That's the thing IMO - there are a small amount of people who are born with this "leader gene" and while some go into politics etc. others choose a secret society kind of thing. Either way, it's not about what they say, but how they say it and how their personality influences people to imitate them and listen to them.

I think that's why people are still huge into religion like that, it's more about the personality passing on the belief, than the belief itself.

Edited by russianBEAR, 11 August 2009 - 10:22 AM.

[Reno]

so you don't think that children should have the right to be free of forced religion? should they be the fodder for the whims of their parents?

I know I don't want to force a religion on children whether they are "my" kids or not.

Passing it on implies that it is accepted by them, otherwise you can simply just inform that that you subscribe to certain beliefs and telling them how they can learn about it if they wish.

If you've ever had children then you would know that the majority of parenting is forcing them to do things they don't want to do. Eat your peas, pick up your toys, take breaks from having fun to go to the restroom.... No child is forced to continue a particular religion past the age of 18 here in the US. That is where freedom of religion comes into the equation. There have even been cases here where children have become emancipated, or removed from their parents for some more radical religious beliefs. There was a kid a month or two ago that was forced by court order to under go chemo to fight off cancer.

[abolitionist]

so you don't think that children should have the right to be free of forced religion? should they be the fodder for the whims of their parents?

I know I don't want to force a religion on children whether they are "my" kids or not.

Passing it on implies that it is accepted by them, otherwise you can simply just inform that that you subscribe to certain beliefs and telling them how they can learn about it if they wish.

If you've ever had children then you would know that the majority of parenting is forcing them to do things they don't want to do. Eat your peas, pick up your toys, take breaks from having fun to go to the restroom.... No child is forced to continue a particular religion past the age of 18 here in the US. That is where freedom of religion comes into the equation. There have even been cases here where children have become emancipated, or removed from their parents for some more radical religious beliefs. There was a kid a month or two ago that was forced by court order to under go chemo to fight off cancer.

so you think it's okay to do it before 18? why do you think there is reason to not protect the right of children to be free of forced religion?

there is reason to have rules and discourage certain behaviors but there's no reason to control beliefs

are you using an interpretation of the way things are to justify your position

or do you have a principle that you are using to determine how things should be?

Edited by abolitionist, 12 August 2009 - 05:46 AM.

[Reno]

so you think it's okay to do it before 18? why do you think there is reason to not protect the right of children to be free of forced religion?

there is reason to have rules and discourage certain behaviors but there's no reason to control beliefs

are you using an interpretation of the way things are to justify your position

or do you have a principle that you are using to determine how things should be?

I don't like to repeat myself.

Religion has always been a tool for teaching. The only thing that has changed is how we use that tool.

It is a scientific fact that before the age of 18 children's brains are not fully developed. Parents act as protectors. The role of the parent is to watch, correct, and educate. Since the function of a parent is so subjective, it can be abused. That is what child protective services is for.

Edited by bobscrachy, 12 August 2009 - 04:59 PM.

[kismet]

I don't like to repeat myself.

Religion has always been a tool for teaching. The only thing that has changed is how we use that tool.

But how in god's name is "our god is the one and only and everyone who disbeliefs will burn in hell" a good way of teaching anyone anything? And make no mistake, this sentiment lies at the very core of all mainstream religions (the big Abrahamitic ones...) Wouldn't a secular approach work much better? Which means confronting children with different religions without any prejudice? Sure, we can't force parents to teach secular values, but I think it's undeniably a superior way of raising children. We certainly should encourage it, no? Teaching one-sided religion seems like a failure to educate. Maybe not enough of a failure for the government to intervene, but it should be discouraged.

If religion is morally bankrupt, how can it be a tool for teaching? If you invent even more lies you can turn religion into a mediocre tool, but then it's not your religion anymore, just some abstraction. As a child I was never told that the Vatican's dogma is corrupted and bigoted to its core. Should we encourage parents to tell lies?

Edited by kismet, 12 August 2009 - 06:08 PM.

[Reno]

I don't like to repeat myself.

Religion has always been a tool for teaching. The only thing that has changed is how we use that tool.

But how in god's name is "our god is the one and only and everyone who disbeliefs will burn in hell" a good way of teaching anyone anything? And make no mistake, this sentiment lies at the very core of all mainstream religions (the big Abrahamitic ones...) Wouldn't a secular approach work much better? Which means confronting children with different religions without any prejudice? Sure, we can't force parents to teach secular values, but I think it's undeniably a superior way of raising children. We certainly should encourage it, no? Teaching one-sided religion seems like a failure to educate. Maybe not enough of a failure for the government to intervene, but it should be discouraged.

If religion is morally bankrupt, how can it be a tool for teaching? If you invent even more lies you can turn religion into a mediocre tool, but then it's not your religion anymore, just some abstraction. As a child I was never told that the Vatican's dogma is corrupted and bigoted to its core. Should we encourage parents to tell lies?

You need to do some more research on theology if hell and damnation is what you think is at the core of all religion. Most religion is about self improvement not self flagellation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[kismet]

Look, when you start wiki-quoting, please at least do your wiki-research. Please provide citations that "our god is the one and only" and that "everyone who disbeliefs will go to hell" is not true and not a central tenet of religions. Your view of religion is either wrong or irrelevant, because even if "self improvement" was important to religion, you are not denying what perversely important role hell and damantion plays:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
The Qur'an lists several sins that can condemn a person to hell, such as disbelief, usury and dishonesty. 

http://en.wikipedia....in_Christianity
Hell, in Christian beliefs, is a place or a state in which the souls of the unsaved will suffer the consequences of sin. The Christian doctrine of hell derives from the teaching of the New Testament, where Hell is typically described using the Greek words Gehenna or Tartarus. Unlike Hades, Sheol, or Purgatory it is eternal, and those damned to hell are without hope. In the New Testament, it is described as the place or state of punishment after death or last judgment for those who have rejected Jesus.[1] In many classical and popular depictions it is also the abode of Satan and of evil spirits.[2]

Hell is generally defined as the eternal fate of unrepentant sinners after this life.[3] Hell's character is inferred from biblical teaching, which has often been understood literally.[4] Souls are said to pass into hell by God's irrevocable judgment, either immediately after death (particular judgment) or in the general judgment.[4] Modern theologians generally describe hell as the logical consequence of the soul using its free will to reject the will of God.[4] It is considered compatible with God's justice and mercy because God will not interfere with the soul's free choice.[4]

I don't have a clue what is wrong with you if you don't understand how frightening and unpedagogical that is.

Edited by kismet, 12 August 2009 - 07:33 PM.

[Reno]

Look, when you start wiki-quoting, please at least do your wiki-research. Please provide citations that "our god is the one and only" and that "everyone who disbeliefs will go to hell" is not true and not a central tenet of religions. Your view of religion is either wrong or irrelevant, because even if "self improvement" was important to religion, you are not denying what perversely important role hell and damantion plays:

I don't have a clue what is wrong with you if you don't understand how frightening and unpedagogical that is.

Yeah yeah yeah quack quack quack. I specifically didn't wiki quote. There are hundreds of different flavors spanning thousands of years. If you think all religion is hell and damnation all I can say is your wrong and you need to do some more reading. Hell wasn't even a real part of the christian religion until after the first millennium CE. After the christian bible had been rewritten into the new testament specific versus were used to push political motives.

I know, your 17 or 18 and you think everyone really cares as much about the unfairness of religion as you do. I personally don't care. What is ironic is that you would censor one idea to further another.

[kismet]

Yeah yeah yeah quack quack quack. That ain't funny. I specifically didn't wiki quote. Because Wikipedia, as neutral and well-sourced as it is when it comes to religion, does not support your position, see my quotes. There are hundreds of different flavors spanning thousands of years. This is besides the point. If you think all religion is hell and damnation [I couldn't care less, if you think otherwise you are misinterpreting my sentiment, deliberately or not] all I can say is your wrong and you need to do some more reading. Hell wasn't even a real part of the christian religion until after the first millennium CE. Yesterday doesn't matter, hell is part of the Abrahamitic religions today. After the christian bible had been rewritten into the new testament specific versus were used to push political motives.

I know, your 17 or 18 and you think everyone really cares as much about the unfairness of religion as you do. Nice ad hominem! I personally don't care. I do, because I dislike ad hominems.

What is ironic is that you would censor one idea to further another. Wow, I really couldn't care less if you disagree or are sarcastic or even despise me, but STOP twisting my words or at least back up those accusations with a quote! Never did I concur that religious education should be censored. I merely played devil's advocate when it comes to indoctrination (sensu stricto!) - i.e. fundamentalist religion. Even in that case I'm not sure in how far censorship is possible or should be employed and I never advocated it (I can quote myself just FYI: "Sure, we can't force parents to teach secular values...[one-sided Religion] should be discouraged").

Again you are very defensive about religion and most importantly miss the point. It doesn't matter what you think about religion or that there are some religions which are peace and nothing else. I am asking you now, perhaps more clearly than before: do you deny that the Abrahamtic religions teach children that they are going to burn in hell if they apostatise or sin? Do you deny that powerful religious authorities who dictate religious dogma, e.g. the pope, subscribe to this philosophy and teach it? Do you deny that this fear could be damaging to children? That it is bad pedagogy? And do you deny the influence of the Abrahamtic religions? (having 3 billion or more followers)

And let me add some new questions to the mix: In how far is religion a better tool for teaching than are all other metaphors? After all most factual information from the Bible, et al. has been proven wrong. So shouldn't we simply use the different metaphors provided by different religions (and other stories) without any bias if we are to be good parents? This, by the way, would be a secular approach and should be encouraged - that was basically the point I've made in my recent posts.

All the time I was just asking questions (and I was criticising both sides), nothing else. I don't have a clue how you could misinterpret my words that badly.

Edited by kismet, 12 August 2009 - 10:50 PM.

[Reno]

What is ironic is that you would censor one idea to further another. Wow, I really couldn't care less if you disagree or are sarcastic or even despise me, but STOP twisting my words or at least back up those accusations with a quote! Never did I concur that religious education should be censored. I merely played devil's advocate when it comes to indoctrination (sensu stricto!) - i.e. fundamentalist religion. Even in that case I'm not sure in how far censorship is possible or should be employed and I never advocated it (I can quote myself just FYI: "Sure, we can't force parents to teach secular values...[one-sided Religion] should be discouraged").

I'm twisting your words???

Again you are very defensive about religion and most importantly miss the point. I could care less about religion.

I do not practice nor subscribe to any of today's religions. I think I already said that above....

It doesn't matter what you think about religion or that there are some religions which are peace and nothing else. I am asking you now, perhaps more clearly than before: do you deny that the Abrahamtic religions teach children that they are going to burn in hell if they apostatise or sin? Do you deny that powerful religious authorities who dictate religious dogma, e.g. the pope, subscribe to this philosophy and teach it? Do you deny that this fear could be damaging to children? That it is bad pedagogy? And do you deny the influence of the Abrahamtic religions? (having 3 billion or more followers)

I will say that every religion has a human element. That human element can and has been abused from time to time. Again, that wasn't the question your asking me. Your asking me if it is healthy to use a perennial approach to educating children. I would have to say yes it is appropriate. It isn't the way for everyone, but it is legitimate.

And let me add some new questions to the mix: In how far is religion a better tool for teaching than are all other metaphors? I never said religion was the best way to teach children. If a person were to look at this discussion from that point of view, they might feel justified in attacking me as a "devils advocate". After all most factual information from the Bible, et al. has been proven wrong. Source???So shouldn't we simply use the different metaphors provided by different religions (and other stories) without any bias if we are to be good parents? This, by the way, would be a secular approach and should be encouraged - that was basically the point I've made in my recent posts.Yep, I imagine that would be a nice way to grow up. You could have a father that was a professor of theology. Think of all the history you would be exposed to.

Edited by bobscrachy, 13 August 2009 - 01:11 AM.

[abolitionist]

so you think it's okay to do it before 18? why do you think there is reason to not protect the right of children to be free of forced religion?

there is reason to have rules and discourage certain behaviors but there's no reason to control beliefs

are you using an interpretation of the way things are to justify your position

or do you have a principle that you are using to determine how things should be?

I don't like to repeat myself.

Religion has always been a tool for teaching. The only thing that has changed is how we use that tool.

It is a scientific fact that before the age of 18 children's brains are not fully developed. Parents act as protectors. The role of the parent is to watch, correct, and educate. Since the function of a parent is so subjective, it can be abused. That is what child protective services is for.

ok, so you are using your interpretation of the way things currently are in order to justify your position - do you think this is a valid way of determining what is ethical?

yes, forcing beliefs and religion is abuse

we will expand the rights and protection of rights for children because it's the right thing to do

[Reno]

yes, forcing beliefs and religion is abuse

we will expand the rights and protection of rights for children because it's the right thing to do

Well, good for you then. People in the minority should never feel afraid to fight for what they believe in.

[abolitionist]

yes, forcing beliefs and religion is abuse

we will expand the rights and protection of rights for children because it's the right thing to do

Well, good for you then. People in the minority should never feel afraid to fight for what they believe in.

yes I'm glad that you are doing so

if you've understood and watched history, you'll see that we continuously expand the rights of children and our protection of these rights in most of the developed countries

religious freedom means that you're not forced into religion, religious freedom is something we the majority hold very dear

[Reno]

yes, forcing beliefs and religion is abuse

we will expand the rights and protection of rights for children because it's the right thing to do

Well, good for you then. People in the minority should never feel afraid to fight for what they believe in.

yes I'm glad that you are doing so

if you've understood and watched history, you'll see that we continuously expand the rights of children and our protection of these rights in most of the developed countries

religious freedom means that you're not forced into religion, religious freedom is something we the majority hold very dear

Well on average most people around the world believe in one religion or another. If none of them were to be able to pass their traditions onto their children then I would bet the majority of religions around the world would fail within a generation. What will you do about religions like Buddhism? It's more a philosophy then a religion. Will the government then be forced to legislate philosophy?

Edited by bobscrachy, 13 August 2009 - 01:12 PM.

[abolitionist]

Well on average most people around the world believe in one religion or another. If none of them were to be able to pass their traditions onto their children then I would bet the majority of religions around the world would fail within a generation. What will you do about religions like Buddhism? It's more a philosophy then a religion. Will the government then be forced to legislate philosophy?

would it be a bad thing if religions around the world would fail if they weren't passed on through brainwashing vulnerable minds? I think that would be a good thing.

Buddhism has beliefs too like karma, reincarnation, nirvana, etc.

the government could enforce that theories are presented as theories and not as truth - i think that's the difference between teaching religion and teaching philosophy

philosophy is presented as theories and different points of view while religion is presented as untestable truth

[kismet]

I'm twisting your words???

Yep, so it seems: you still did not provide the quotes of my allegded request for censorship. But nevermind, there are more interesting points to discuss.

Again you are very defensive about religion and most importantly miss the point. I could care less about religion.

I do not practice nor subscribe to any of today's religions. I think I already said that above....

So far I did not imply otherwise, but your most recent post makes me wonder...

After all most factual information from the Bible, et al. has been proven wrong. Source???

I really don't want to sound offensive, but are you serious? If you really think that a lot of crucial & factual information from the 'holy book' has not been proven wrong, then I will - and I really don't mean this to sound offensive! - put you on my ignore list (this would be the best for both of us), because I generally do not discuss with creationists & literalists.
You mean it's not a biggy that basically all of genesis is contradicted by modern science? http://en.wikipedia....th_creationists
Or what about the biblical genealogy and longevity myths? http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Methuselah
Or the many errors, inaccuracies and factual flaws in the bible?
http://www.atheists....ns_in_the_Bible
http://www.infidels....sistencies.html

Google is thy friend as they say. Assuming we get the question whether you are a literalist out of the way we can certainly get back to the more important questions (no, I don't mind literalists, but I simply do not discuss with people who subscribe to biblical inerrancy & will never change their mind).

I will say that every religion has a human element. That human element can and has been abused from time to time. Again, that wasn't the question your asking me. Your asking me if it is healthy to use a perennial approach to educating children. I would have to say yes it is appropriate. It isn't the way for everyone, but it is legitimate.

Ok, so if the "perennial approach" includes telling lies (and I mean, many, many lies as made necessary by a literal interpretation of the bible for instace - not just about "father christmas" & the "easter bunny") which are contradicted by the evidence, you think it is justified? Do you think this is a perfectly fine way to teach children?

If not, what can we do to prevent it, without outright "censorship", which probably would not work any way. How can we encourage parents to not teach anti-scientific views & lies?

Edited by kismet, 13 August 2009 - 11:24 PM.

[Reno]

Sorry, I don't put as much effort into proving you wrong. By day I work full time and take summer history courses, by night I'm pretty hawked up on excedrin and benadryl.

Look up educational perennialism. You'll find it pretty much fits the religious educational doctrines. You talk about religion as if you know it to be false. The truth is nobody can truly know anything of the sort. That's what lures so many people into religious services.

----> You changed the subject to the bible. The problem with this is your singling one religion in particular to dismiss them all. Lets look at the bible for what it is from a literal point of view.

The bible is a historical document. Some people like to tout it off as the word of God, but that is a personal choice. It, like most holy books, has been edited repeatedly through the ages and is there to teach through story. The idea that such historical documents are completely factual is an opinion. This truth does not diminish in any way the educational value such documents can provide.

I really don't want to sound offensive, but are you serious? If you really think that a lot of crucial & factual information from the 'holy book' has not been proven wrong, then I will - and I really don't mean this to sound offensive! - put you on my ignore list (this would be the best for both of us), because I generally do not discuss with creationists & literalists.

What, is it too much for me to ask for a source? You seem so wounded. I'm pretty sure I posted that I personally don't follow any religion. You have asked me several times to cite a source for very broad common knowledge statements. It's just so ironic that you would get so defensive over such a small request for such a source. ::: my way of saying chill :::

If not, what can we do to prevent it, without outright "censorship", which probably would not work any way. How can we encourage parents to not teach anti-scientific views & lies?

Teaching a combination of history and sociology is probably the best way to do it. Sociology should be taught right now. I firmly believe that if kids were taught straight forward ways to deal with one another from early ages we would have far fewer issues with gangs, crimes of intolerance, and school shootings. In the last 50 years technology has come into our education system and almost completely removed the need to socialize face to face. We just don't deal with one another interpersonally.

If you actually know and understand history pre and post holy roman empire then you understand what the catholic church is and how it came to be what it is today. You can understand where the bible came from and how it evolved into the icon it is today. The middle eastern religions have been evolving for thousands of years. Much of what makes up the christian religions were taken directly from stories of sacrifice floating around in rome and persia before the death of christ.

Just knowing the history from Crete on up through the Renaissance would give kids a firm understanding of western culture. See the idea that we should limit what kids are exposed to would create the exact oposite effect you guys are looking for. If you want to lesson the hold false beliefs have on children then the answer isn't to ban the material, its to expose them to the truth of it. Then step back and let them decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction, and whether or not either has a meaning to them personally.

[Connor MacLeod]

so you think it's okay to do it before 18? why do you think there is reason to not protect the right of children to be free of forced religion?

there is reason to have rules and discourage certain behaviors but there's no reason to control beliefs

are you using an interpretation of the way things are to justify your position

or do you have a principle that you are using to determine how things should be?

I don't like to repeat myself.

Religion has always been a tool for teaching. The only thing that has changed is how we use that tool.

It is a scientific fact that before the age of 18 children's brains are not fully developed. Parents act as protectors. The role of the parent is to watch, correct, and educate. Since the function of a parent is so subjective, it can be abused. That is what child protective services is for.

ok, so you are using your interpretation of the way things currently are in order to justify your position - do you think this is a valid way of determining what is ethical?

yes, forcing beliefs and religion is abuse

we will expand the rights and protection of rights for children because it's the right thing to do

Perhaps we could just obviate the need for parents altogether: the government could grow, as needed, new humans in incubator-like devices. This would certainly remove the problem of meddlesome parents; thus allowing the authorities to fully engage themselves, without obstruction, in the task of indoctrinating children in a manner that is most likely to optimize their utility to society. As a side benefit, growing children in incubators would also enable a more efficient detection and disposal of defectives.

Orgy porgy, Ford and fun!

[Connor MacLeod]

Religion will be around, and still very prevalent, long after all us here have become food for worms. As for the Singularity happening any time soon, you'd probably be no worse off putting your hopes on the Second Coming. Have a nice day.

[kismet]

Look up educational perennialism. You'll find it pretty much fits the religious educational doctrines. You talk about religion as if you know it to be false. The truth is nobody can truly know anything of the sort. That's what lures so many people into religious services.

You are using the fallacy of Bertrand Russel's teapot, aren't you? I know for a fact that theisitic (abrahamitic) relgions are false, because their holy books are contradicted by the evidence, and so should you. Weak deism cannot be disproven, but it cannot be proven either, so it's irrelevant. Religion can be told as a story or history, but it's false as long as there is no proof.

----> You changed the subject to the bible. The problem with this is your singling one religion in particular to dismiss them all. Lets look at the bible for what it is from a literal point of view.

I am not and never was making a generalisation from the bible to all religions. Deliberately or not, you are again putting words in my mouth which I did not said. I am fervently attacking fundamentalist religion and nothing else.

What, is it too much for me to ask for a source? You seem so wounded. I'm pretty sure I posted that I personally don't follow any religion. You have asked me several times to cite a source for very broad common knowledge statements. It's just so ironic that you would get so defensive over such a small request for such a source. ::: my way of saying chill :::

I never did such a thing, please can you quote where I demanded proof of "common knowledge"? Do you mean the posts where you got the doctrine of all Abrahamtic religions wrong? (you said that hell and damnation plays no role in those religions and I proved you wrong) And if I did ask you to "prove common knowledge", I shouldn't have because it is very, very bad style. It's very unfortunate that "eye for an eye" is your excuse for deliberately asking redundant questions. If anything, I'm not wounded, but rather offended by your use of polemics (e.g. evading questions, misrepresenting my posts [deliberately or not], ad hominem, etc).

The solution you provide is fine, but I fear it won't prevent fundamentalist parents from feeding their children lies and abusing their minds. We need another solution for this problem and I'm not even sure if there is a solution without installing Orwellian control. Finally fixing the borked education system in the bible belt of the US of A would certainly help keep the indoctrination to a minimum and to teach religion and science in the most neutral way. Possibly more checks and balances on home schooling...

Religion will be around, and still very prevalent, long after all us here have become food for worms.

Ok, that's your belief. An assertion, a prediction which I do not in any way see coming true. Maybe you can share the evidence that makes you think that way? Personally, I'm convinced that association between lack of religion and high social status, intelligence & education and the statistics which show that religion has been declining for decades in industrialised countries make my point rather well.

Perhaps we could just obviate the need for parents altogether: the government could grow, as needed, new humans in incubator-like devices. This would certainly remove the problem of meddlesome parents; thus allowing the authorities to fully engage themselves, without obstruction, in the task of indoctrinating children in a manner that is most likely to optimize their utility to society. As a side benefit, growing children in incubators would also enable a more efficient detection and disposal of defectives.

Orgy porgy, Ford and fun!

Or maybe, just maybe we will stop parents - mostly fundamentalists - from abusing the minds of children? Well, you choose. And pelase, this time around do not respond with a red herring.

Edited by kismet, 30 August 2009 - 07:41 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Look up educational perennialism. You'll find it pretty much fits the religious educational doctrines. You talk about religion as if you know it to be false. The truth is nobody can truly know anything of the sort. That's what lures so many people into religious services.

You are using the fallacy of Bertrand Russel's teapot, aren't you? I know for a fact that theisitic (abrahamitic) relgions are false, because their holy books are contradicted by the evidence, and so should you. Weak deism cannot be disproven, but it cannot be proven either, so it's irrelevant. Religion can be told as a story or history, but it's false as long as there is no proof.

----> You changed the subject to the bible. The problem with this is your singling one religion in particular to dismiss them all. Lets look at the bible for what it is from a literal point of view.

I am not and never was making a generalisation from the bible to all religions. Deliberately or not, you are again putting words in my mouth which I did not said. I am fervently attacking fundamentalist religion and nothing else.

What, is it too much for me to ask for a source? You seem so wounded. I'm pretty sure I posted that I personally don't follow any religion. You have asked me several times to cite a source for very broad common knowledge statements. It's just so ironic that you would get so defensive over such a small request for such a source. ::: my way of saying chill :::

I never did such a thing, please can you quote where I demanded proof of "common knowledge"? Do you mean the posts where you got the doctrine of all Abrahamtic religions wrong? (you said that hell and damnation plays no role in those religions and I proved you wrong) And if I did ask you to "prove common knowledge", I shouldn't have because it is very, very bad style. It's very unfortunate that "eye for an eye" is your excuse for deliberately asking redundant questions. If anything, I'm not wounded, but rather offended by your use of polemics (e.g. evading questions, misrepresenting my posts [deliberately or not], ad hominem, etc).

The solution you provide is fine, but I fear it won't prevent fundamentalist parents from feeding their children lies and abusing their minds. We need another solution for this problem and I'm not even sure if there is a solution without installing Orwellian control. Finally fixing the borked education system in the bible belt of the US of A would certainly help keep the indoctrination to a minimum and to teach religion and science in the most neutral way. Possibly more checks and balances on home schooling...

Religion will be around, and still very prevalent, long after all us here have become food for worms.

Ok, that's your belief. An assertion, a prediction which I do not in any way see coming true. Maybe you can share the evidence that makes you think that way? Personally, I'm convinced that association between lack of religion and high social status, intelligence & education and the statistics which show that religion has been declining for decades in industrialised countries make my point rather well.

Perhaps we could just obviate the need for parents altogether: the government could grow, as needed, new humans in incubator-like devices. This would certainly remove the problem of meddlesome parents; thus allowing the authorities to fully engage themselves, without obstruction, in the task of indoctrinating children in a manner that is most likely to optimize their utility to society. As a side benefit, growing children in incubators would also enable a more efficient detection and disposal of defectives.

Orgy porgy, Ford and fun!

Or maybe, just maybe we will stop parents - mostly fundamentalists - from abusing the minds of children? Well, you choose. And pelase, this time around do not respond with a red herring.

Are you seriously suggesting that academic teaching about religion is a major source of indoctrination? Although municipalities have considerable sovereignty over school curriculum, they are bound to follow certain Department of Education guidelines, and Supreme Court decisions (the most important precedent being Abbington Township vs. Schempp) that expressly forbid devotional religious instruction. If the curriculum standards of the 1920s still prevailed, you might have a point, but fortunately, the teaching of science is not widely deemed to be heretical (even in Tennessee). Even if academic teaching about religion is far from neutral in some school districts, I doubt you can provide a single contemporary example of a school district that has brazenly subordinated the teaching of science to religion. Or, that has included devotional teaching in their curriculum. There is a far greater interest in limiting the potential liability of school districts, so even in the deep South, it's unlikely that school districts would take a chance. At most, there are isolated examples where instructors cross the line.

Edited by Rol82, 07 September 2009 - 08:30 AM.