237 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

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.

[abolitionist]

d'oh! I accidentally voted the wrong way in the poll i created - should have been yes

I don't think that we can trust parents not to force their beliefs on children. Some are good about this, but many are not - so it will take legal protection.

[sUper GeNius]

Should religion be illegal until 18?

Yeah, let's make any sort of religious/faith/morals instruction illegal. We'll let MTV, Beavis, situation comedies, Cops, World of Warcraft and the internet take it's place.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 04 February 2009 - 08:23 PM.

[abolitionist]

Should religion be illegal until 18?

Yeah, let's make any sort of religious/faith/morals instruction illegal. We'll let MTV, Beavis, situation comedies, Cops, World of Warcraft and the internet take it's place.

that's a good point, TV is definately brainwashing and should be restricted in some ways (we already do to some extent)

besides producing lazy, hypnotized slobs I don't think comedies make bad people - but yeah there is alot of garbage online and on TV that should be restricted for those with impressionable minds

there can be a distinction between religious doctrine and beliefs

and teaching responsibility in accordance with rights and laws - as well as teaching children about natural consequences

Edited by abolitionist, 04 February 2009 - 08:45 PM.

[StrangeAeons]

Your concept is good in theory, if we were to "start society from scratch"; but people need something to hold on to, be it culture or hobbies or religion; so if you don't come up with a viable substitute for those who are predisposed to religion, you find yourself dealing with a society consisting at least partially of malcontents.

As per the practice of it, this is just plain stupid. Religion does a good deal of harm, it's true, but so do many other things culturally; more importantly the more destitute, degenerate, and mentally unstable in our society have a habit of relying on religion, and I consider that far more benign than the alternatives. You can't take religion away from people, least of all parents, who will believe you are denying their children salvation and a righteous life. You can only mitigate the damage by ensuring that fundamentalist-raised children are by default exposed to a certain amount of other viewpoints, and most importantly scientific viewpoints. They also need to be exposed to a heterogeneous society from the beginning to help keep intolerance from being blown out of proportion. This is by and large taken care of by mandatory schooling in our society, though many fundamentalists homeschool their children. Though the quality of their education in terms of pure academics may seem superior, from what I've seen such children have vast social and emotional problems.

[abolitionist]

Your concept is good in theory, if we were to "start society from scratch"; but people need something to hold on to, be it culture or hobbies or religion; so if you don't come up with a viable substitute for those who are predisposed to religion, you find yourself dealing with a society consisting at least partially of malcontents.

As per the practice of it, this is just plain stupid. Religion does a good deal of harm, it's true, but so do many other things culturally; more importantly the more destitute, degenerate, and mentally unstable in our society have a habit of relying on religion, and I consider that far more benign than the alternatives. You can't take religion away from people, least of all parents, who will believe you are denying their children salvation and a righteous life. You can only mitigate the damage by ensuring that fundamentalist-raised children are by default exposed to a certain amount of other viewpoints, and most importantly scientific viewpoints. They also need to be exposed to a heterogeneous society from the beginning to help keep intolerance from being blown out of proportion. This is by and large taken care of by mandatory schooling in our society, though many fundamentalists homeschool their children. Though the quality of their education in terms of pure academics may seem superior, from what I've seen such children have vast social and emotional problems.

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

and yes, we can take away a parent's right to force their dogma and beliefs upon children - they shouldn't have it in the first place

your argument is similar to what those in favor of the death penalty say - it's good for something but we can't prove it

certainly some people would be angry - but it will have to be introduced incrementally and they'll have to learn to be less controlling - or else be punished

the alternatives are ethical debate, and real things that people can do to make themselves happier

like exercise, social engagement with values, education, science, and all manner of hobbies and interests

children could still be religious on there own - are you assuming that I'm saying we should be thought police?

no, the goal is to prevent parents from forcing their religion on their children when it's known that children can be brainwashed and want to please their parents (until they grow up...)

what we can't do is to allow parents to take away the rights of children so that they will feel more powerful over their children

Edited by abolitionist, 04 February 2009 - 11:50 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

Your concept is good in theory, if we were to "start society from scratch"; but people need something to hold on to, be it culture or hobbies or religion; so if you don't come up with a viable substitute for those who are predisposed to religion, you find yourself dealing with a society consisting at least partially of malcontents.

As per the practice of it, this is just plain stupid. Religion does a good deal of harm, it's true, but so do many other things culturally; more importantly the more destitute, degenerate, and mentally unstable in our society have a habit of relying on religion, and I consider that far more benign than the alternatives. You can't take religion away from people, least of all parents, who will believe you are denying their children salvation and a righteous life. You can only mitigate the damage by ensuring that fundamentalist-raised children are by default exposed to a certain amount of other viewpoints, and most importantly scientific viewpoints. They also need to be exposed to a heterogeneous society from the beginning to help keep intolerance from being blown out of proportion. This is by and large taken care of by mandatory schooling in our society, though many fundamentalists homeschool their children. Though the quality of their education in terms of pure academics may seem superior, from what I've seen such children have vast social and emotional problems.

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 scapegoat for all manner of degenerative activities

and yes, we can take a parent's right to force their dogma and beliefs upon children - they shouldn't have it in the first place

your argument is similar to what those in favor of the death penalty say - it's good for something but we can't prove it

certainly some people would be angry - but it will have to be introduced incrementally and they'll have to learn to be less controlling

the alternatives are ethical debate, and real things that people can do to make themselves happier

like exercise, social engagement with values, education, science, and all manner of hobbies and interests

children could still be religious on there own - are you assuming that I'm saying we should be thought police

no, the goal is to prevent parents from forcing their religion on their children when it's known that children can be brainwashed and want to please their parents (until they grow up...)

what we can't do is to allow parents to take away the rights of children so that they will feel more powerful

Why stop there? Would it be right to make teaching religion illegal, and then have the kid growing up in a vacuum of sorts? Since you know that religion is a 'negative' influence, let's also have mandatory ethics training, [I guess the government would provide the curriculum, (by the way, who is "the government?")] and we ought to 'improve' on the way parents teach leadership and all the other things kids learn from their parents. Parents often have a strong influence on the career choice a young person goes on to choose, so we ought to grab this opportunity to steer kids in the right direction. For instance, I doubt our society needs more lawyers, so we'll have the government strongly discourage that. In fact, we ought to create a new task force that would decide *exactly* how these kids should be influenced, rather than leave it to chance.

[advancedatheist]

I have a counter proposal: Let children receive religious indoctrination and make of it what they will, then when they turn 18, the parents have The Talk with their children like the one they had with them a decade earlier about Santa Claus.

[StrangeAeons]

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.

and yes, we can take away a parent's right to force their dogma and beliefs upon children - they shouldn't have it in the first place
your argument is similar to what those in favor of the death penalty say - it's good for something but we can't prove it

My main argument is: try and take religion away from people and see what happens.

certainly some people would be angry - but it will have to be introduced incrementally and they'll have to learn to be less controlling - or else be punished

So essentially when you distill this down to historical precedent, we would either have widespread riots and civil unrest, a police state, and likely an ugly period of these two conflicting.

the alternatives are ethical debate, and real things that people can do to make themselves happier
like exercise, social engagement with values, education, science, and all manner of hobbies and interests

none of these quite have the same appeal to the destitute as a big man in the sky watching over them and making it all better. Until the human condition becomes unilaterally more hospitable, you're asking far too much of the entire populace. It's poor social policy to expect the area to the left of the mean, or at least one standard deviation left of the mean, to be enlightened.

children could still be religious on there own - are you assuming that I'm saying we should be thought police?

no, the goal is to prevent parents from forcing their religion on their children when it's known that children can be brainwashed and want to please their parents (until they grow up...)

what we can't do is to allow parents to take away the rights of children so that they will feel more powerful over their children

I'm pretty secure saying you're not a parent. I really don't think that even parents who indoctrinate their children with really bad ideas do so to "feel powerful".
I don't need to assume that you want to control children's minds to think that your ideas are totalitarian; parental education of children is a very ethically touchy issue in certain regards, but all-in-all denying their ability to teach religion to children lies on the decidedly abstract/radical side of the debate.
It's also decidedly unconstitutional in the U.S. because it favors doctrines of non-belief. This violates the establishment clause (although yes, technically there exist a number of laws that swing the opposite direction). I think religious people seeing a reactionary atheist/agnostic backlash are really unlikely to construe such an imposition as a sign that they need to re-evaluate their beliefs; antagonizing people's religion historically just makes them develop a martyr complex about it.

[forever freedom]

I voted yes in lack of a better option, because such a law would be impossible to enforce and put to practice. In an ideal world, it would be great, though.

[spaceistheplace]

you can't make it illegal just because you disagree with it.

[abolitionist]

Your concept is good in theory, if we were to "start society from scratch"; but people need something to hold on to, be it culture or hobbies or religion; so if you don't come up with a viable substitute for those who are predisposed to religion, you find yourself dealing with a society consisting at least partially of malcontents.

As per the practice of it, this is just plain stupid. Religion does a good deal of harm, it's true, but so do many other things culturally; more importantly the more destitute, degenerate, and mentally unstable in our society have a habit of relying on religion, and I consider that far more benign than the alternatives. You can't take religion away from people, least of all parents, who will believe you are denying their children salvation and a righteous life. You can only mitigate the damage by ensuring that fundamentalist-raised children are by default exposed to a certain amount of other viewpoints, and most importantly scientific viewpoints. They also need to be exposed to a heterogeneous society from the beginning to help keep intolerance from being blown out of proportion. This is by and large taken care of by mandatory schooling in our society, though many fundamentalists homeschool their children. Though the quality of their education in terms of pure academics may seem superior, from what I've seen such children have vast social and emotional problems.

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 scapegoat for all manner of degenerative activities

and yes, we can take a parent's right to force their dogma and beliefs upon children - they shouldn't have it in the first place

your argument is similar to what those in favor of the death penalty say - it's good for something but we can't prove it

certainly some people would be angry - but it will have to be introduced incrementally and they'll have to learn to be less controlling

the alternatives are ethical debate, and real things that people can do to make themselves happier

like exercise, social engagement with values, education, science, and all manner of hobbies and interests

children could still be religious on there own - are you assuming that I'm saying we should be thought police

no, the goal is to prevent parents from forcing their religion on their children when it's known that children can be brainwashed and want to please their parents (until they grow up...)

what we can't do is to allow parents to take away the rights of children so that they will feel more powerful

Why stop there? Would it be right to make teaching religion illegal, and then have the kid growing up in a vacuum of sorts? Since you know that religion is a 'negative' influence, let's also have mandatory ethics training, [I guess the government would provide the curriculum, (by the way, who is "the government?")] and we ought to 'improve' on the way parents teach leadership and all the other things kids learn from their parents. Parents often have a strong influence on the career choice a young person goes on to choose, so we ought to grab this opportunity to steer kids in the right direction. For instance, I doubt our society needs more lawyers, so we'll have the government strongly discourage that. In fact, we ought to create a new task force that would decide *exactly* how these kids should be influenced, rather than leave it to chance.

stop?

do you understand that the goal is to protect the rights of children who are forced into a religious doctrine?

the goal is not to brainwash them or supplant religion with state doctrine

yes, being forced to believe in or participate in a specific religion is a negative influence

[abolitionist]

I have a counter proposal: Let children receive religious indoctrination and make of it what they will, then when they turn 18, the parents have The Talk with their children like the one they had with them a decade earlier about Santa Claus.

hahaha, yeah - by the way we lied to you about everything so that you'd do what we told you

(we needed you to fear the eye in the sky so that you'd do your homework...)

[abolitionist]

I voted yes in lack of a better option, because such a law would be impossible to enforce and put to practice. In an ideal world, it would be great, though.

why would it be impossible? - certainly there would be initial opposition from fundamentalists and hardcore christnazis but it could be overcome in time

we could fine parents for forcing children to participate in religion and for using tactics to force them to hold the same views

if serious and persistent enough, the punishments become more severe

and we should allow children to divorce their parents and find foster parents if desired

[abolitionist]

you can't make it illegal just because you disagree with it.

that's right I can't make it illegal, this is just a debate son

however the justification is that it impedes upon the rights of the children and causes harm to society

[Cyberbrain]

No it should not be illegal, but it should be limited in every other way possible.

[abolitionist]

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.

AB : we might argue that they aren't very good at religion or fail to learn it's lessons, but it's clear that religion does not make people statistically less likely to commit crimes

My main argument is: try and take religion away from people and see what happens.

AB : the attempt is not to take away religion from people, but only to take away their ability to force religion on others

So essentially when you distill this down to historical precedent, we would either have widespread riots and civil unrest, a police state, and likely an ugly period of these two conflicting.

AB : if that were to happen, that would mean that we weren't going about it the right way - however, you can't let fear of riots deter you from protecting the rights of children. People who want to force religion on their children deserve to be punished and put in a prison if they refuse to cease and desist.

none of these quite have the same appeal to the destitute as a big man in the sky watching over them and making it all better. Until the human condition becomes unilaterally more hospitable, you're asking far too much of the entire populace. It's poor social policy to expect the area to the left of the mean, or at least one standard deviation left of the mean, to be enlightened.

AB : no religion was invented to control people, it doesn't make them happier or serve some inherent need - nor does it ease the pain of living. Better to focus on what does work and the science needed to change the human condition. However, as I said, this initiative doesn't preclude people from being religious - just from forcing their beliefs on others.

I'm pretty secure saying you're not a parent. I really don't think that even parents who indoctrinate their children with really bad ideas do so to "feel powerful".
I don't need to assume that you want to control children's minds to think that your ideas are totalitarian; parental education of children is a very ethically touchy issue in certain regards, but all-in-all denying their ability to teach religion to children lies on the decidedly abstract/radical side of the debate.
It's also decidedly unconstitutional in the U.S. because it favors doctrines of non-belief. This violates the establishment clause (although yes, technically there exist a number of laws that swing the opposite direction). I think religious people seeing a reactionary atheist/agnostic backlash are really unlikely to construe such an imposition as a sign that they need to re-evaluate their beliefs; antagonizing people's religion historically just makes them develop a martyr complex about it.
[/quote]

AB : Yes I am, and I never force religion on them - and there is no need to. Teaching what is useful doesn't involve religion. Yes, many parents do in fact use religion to control their children.

Decidedly abstract/radical? - so you're basically saying it isn't the norm right now which is no validation...

Unconstitutional because it favors doctrines of non-belief? you'll have to be more specific about how the constitution gives parents the right to force religion on their children...

Reactionary backlash? let them fight and be fought down - people that can't accept the religious freedom of others should be punished - that's what the constitution calls for

Edited by abolitionist, 05 February 2009 - 06:01 AM.

[abolitionist]

No it should not be illegal, but it should be limited in every other way possible.

why not illegal to force religion on children?

[abolitionist]

nice, so only 1 person voted against making it illegal so far (I accidentally voted no)

I hope you all adopt and raise strong, happy, ethical children

[forever freedom]

I voted yes in lack of a better option, because such a law would be impossible to enforce and put to practice. In an ideal world, it would be great, though.

why would it be impossible? - certainly there would be initial opposition from fundamentalists and hardcore christnazis but it could be overcome in time

we could fine parents for forcing children to participate in religion and for using tactics to force them to hold the same views

if serious and persistent enough, the punishments become more severe

and we should allow children to divorce their parents and find foster parents if desired

How would the fiscalization work? It's a very sensitive matter.

[Cyberbrain]

No it should not be illegal, but it should be limited in every other way possible.

why not illegal to force religion on children?

I didn't vote yet, but I think other measures could be taken that would be more effective. Though public indoctrination, such as in the middle east, where the government forces there own religious beliefs on the people should be illegal. Another example is that some eastern European countries still have bible classes and prayer in public schools. Parents can teach there kids anything, but what ultimately reinforces a child's beliefs is friends. Create a secular environment for the child to socialize in and the chances of the child becoming a fundamentalist are slim.

[EmbraceUnity]

nice, so only 1 person voted against making it illegal so far (I accidentally voted no)

I hope you all adopt and raise strong, happy, ethical children

I have to call you out on the biased poll. I'm going to vote no anyways. While I vehemently oppose indoctrination, especially of children, I don't think making it illegal will solve any problems.

a) it is not the government's job to determine truth

b) it would cause resentment

c) We can create a decent, secular society without such a law

I think the system we have now for the most part exposes people to scientific ideas, assuming the creationists never get their way. As long as our current relatively secular culture remains as such, it will be hard (but not impossible) for children to end up as fundamentalists. Homeschooling makes up only a very small fraction of society, and some of it is actually for gifted students, so it is acceptable. Public schooling was invented in part to give children a reprieve from their parent's neuroses, as Bertrand Russell would say. Unfortunately, they end up having to deal with a different set of neuroses, but at least it is usually a different set.

The Scandinavian countries certainly have a much more secular culture, and I think we can look to them as a role model. They do not ban religion whatsoever, but are almost universally and explicitly atheist. Their social democratic systems seem to inherently reinforce Enlightenment ideals and create a happy and prosperous life for their citizens. I just visited Norway and Denmark, and was very impressed.

[Blutarsky]

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.

Why stop with religion? Why don't we just allow the government to take newborns and sequester them away from society in a hermetically sealed environment until they're 18? We wouldn't want to unduly influence them with someone else's subjective view of right/wrong or expose them to a brand of morality that YOU might not agree with.

This Richard Dawkins "religion is child abuse" shit has to be the most myopic and pompus worldview I've ever encountered.

I want my 5 minutes back that I lost posting to this thread.

[abolitionist]

I voted yes in lack of a better option, because such a law would be impossible to enforce and put to practice. In an ideal world, it would be great, though.

why would it be impossible? - certainly there would be initial opposition from fundamentalists and hardcore christnazis but it could be overcome in time

we could fine parents for forcing children to participate in religion and for using tactics to force them to hold the same views

if serious and persistent enough, the punishments become more severe

and we should allow children to divorce their parents and find foster parents if desired

How would the fiscalization work? It's a very sensitive matter.

possible a fine for less serious offenses

[abolitionist]

No it should not be illegal, but it should be limited in every other way possible.

why not illegal to force religion on children?

I didn't vote yet, but I think other measures could be taken that would be more effective. Though public indoctrination, such as in the middle east, where the government forces there own religious beliefs on the people should be illegal. Another example is that some eastern European countries still have bible classes and prayer in public schools. Parents can teach there kids anything, but what ultimately reinforces a child's beliefs is friends. Create a secular environment for the child to socialize in and the chances of the child becoming a fundamentalist are slim.

I would guess it depends on how seriously they are brainwashed at home, some parents homeschool their kids too

yeah peer groups definately help though they tend to flock with their own kind

studies would need to be done to test the theories you are making

[abolitionist]

nice, so only 1 person voted against making it illegal so far (I accidentally voted no)

I hope you all adopt and raise strong, happy, ethical children

I have to call you out on the biased poll. I'm going to vote no anyways. While I vehemently oppose indoctrination, especially of children, I don't think making it illegal will solve any problems.

a) it is not the government's job to determine truth

b) it would cause resentment

c) We can create a decent, secular society without such a law

I think the system we have now for the most part exposes people to scientific ideas, assuming the creationists never get their way. As long as our current relatively secular culture remains as such, it will be hard (but not impossible) for children to end up as fundamentalists. Homeschooling makes up only a very small fraction of society, and some of it is actually for gifted students, so it is acceptable. Public schooling was invented in part to give children a reprieve from their parent's neuroses, as Bertrand Russell would say. Unfortunately, they end up having to deal with a different set of neuroses, but at least it is usually a different set.

The Scandinavian countries certainly have a much more secular culture, and I think we can look to them as a role model. They do not ban religion whatsoever, but are almost universally and explicitly atheist. Their social democratic systems seem to inherently reinforce Enlightenment ideals and create a happy and prosperous life for their citizens. I just visited Norway and Denmark, and was very impressed.

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?

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

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

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

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?

[abolitionist]

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.

Why stop with religion? Why don't we just allow the government to take newborns and sequester them away from society in a hermetically sealed environment until they're 18? We wouldn't want to unduly influence them with someone else's subjective view of right/wrong or expose them to a brand of morality that YOU might not agree with.

This Richard Dawkins "religion is child abuse" shit has to be the most myopic and pompus worldview I've ever encountered.

I want my 5 minutes back that I lost posting to this thread.

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

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?

religion truly is child abuse if forced upon children

sorry you can't have your time back, but you can send me your money...

[Ben Simon]

This whole thread is pretty ridiculous.

Make teaching religion to kids illegal? ...Seriously?

Would we make teaching them atheism illegal too?

[abolitionist]

This whole thread is pretty ridiculous.

Make teaching religion to kids illegal? ...Seriously?

Would we make teaching them atheism illegal too?

and why is that Ben?

yes I would consider Atheism a doctrine too

[Ben Simon]

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.