Ban

[Ace Otana]

@ Godhead

I'm not scared of children becoming theists. I just don't want religion to take advantage of them. They could all convert to muslims for all I care, it's down to them. Just NO to religion when it comes to the very young and gulible. Anyway, why teach very young kids about it when they probably don't understand a word that's being said to them? I was under 8 when I was being sent to church and then being given a lecture on jesus bullshit. Then I was told to sing religious songs in school! If I hadn't I'd be told off. Education you say? Live my life and bare my memories and then we can talk.

Religion has a nasty habit of aiming for the young and gulible.

[Godhead]

Ace -

I didn't say send them to church. I'm talking about teaching religion in the same way as history and culture is taught. A religion is essentially a culture. Are we saying that culture should also not be taught because kids won't understand what the teacher is talking about? That's the whole point of school, to educate kids about the subject. Teachers teach many subjects from scratch, and the kids pick it up. There's no difference with religion. What you're doing there is confusing being sent to church and being preached at with being taught in a school environment. It is not the same. And your use of the word "gullible" gives away the fact that for you, it all boils down to you not wanting others to have views which you disagree with. It's obvious because you're ignoring the fact that any subject can be taught to anyone of any age, in a school environment, with everything explained clearly so they understand, without preaching.

[Ace Otana]

it all boils down to you not wanting others to have views which you disagree with.

NO I don't. Like I said, couldn't give a damn what they believe. Just don't want religion getting involved with very young minds. Religion has taken advantage of age before and still does.

We aren't going to go anywhere with this and so I'm ending this debate. We are going to have to agree to disagree. I've got things to do. I'm flicking from one page to the next here.
Argument over.

[Godhead]

Ace -

Your fears are unfounded for the simple reason that many subjects are taught in a school environment without anybody preaching to anyone. I was taught about Hitler at shool but I'm not a nazi because my history teacher didn't encourage me to become one. That's why your argument doesn't make sense, because you're confusing a church environent with a controlled environment.

[Autumnlicious]

Your statement is quite flawed through omission.

They taught you about the Nazi's, did they teach you the ideology?

Did you read their literature, listen to their speeches?

We teach our children at first a very constrained and apolitical view of the world, because it is so easy to corrupt them into ideologues.

We slowly increase their breadth of knowledge as they slowly gain the capability of differentiating fantasy from reality.

That is the nature of pedagogy.

[Godhead]

Synackaon -

I was told about their ideology, yes, because it is a fact of history. It was in a school environment where the idea was to teach me about what happened in history and why, rather than to preach at me. As a result, I left knowing more about that aspect of history than I did before I was taught, and I didn't become a nazi because the teacher didn't preach. Any subject can be taught without the teacher preaching it. A religion is essentially a culture. History and culture are taught in a non preachy way all the time and religion can be taught in the same way.

[Purple Rabbit]

Should we not protect children from these rather unsecular ideas.

It's not an "unsecular" idea though. Secularism is about the separation of church and state. As far as I am aware, that covers both religion interfering in government, and government interfering with religion. What religions decide to teach their children is up to religion, not to government.

“Religion” can claim no dominion over children or their minds. Besides the fact that as a container of all religious practices “religion” is no legal entity, there is no educational or other basis for that. Your suggestion that it somehow can claim this is just ridiculous and reminds me of the state of affairs in early twentieth century and earlier in history. Parents do not “own” their children and have no unlimited and exclusive rights to influence their young minds. The state however IS a legal entity that has partial responsibility in ensuring equal opportunities for all its citizens and protection from threats like the ones posed by ambitious religious indoctrination.

Your libertarian take on this totally passes over the rights of individuals that not or not yet can make their own decisions. Secularism entails the right to be free from religious rule and teachings and free choice on this must be guaranteed for children as well. Freedom of religion is easy to understand for adults, most of us are repulsed at the thought of someone forcing religious views on us. But what choice do we leave for children if we follow your libertarian advice?

Since children at a young age cannot overlook consequences of specific religious upbringing and how it affects their potential, their right on freedom of choice as an adult is impacted by decisions made by others when they are young . Also even when a child is capable of formulating opposing views there is the dependency on parents for social security that leaves little room for free choice. This means that extreme caution for the possible occurrence of a situation of early indoctrination is necessary. If the parents fail to recognize this, the state should interfere. Not interfering would mean favoring the religion of the parents over free choice of the adult that grows out of the child. In the case where religious upbringing clearly inhibits the potential of the child, as is the case with muslim schools, the state cannot be passive. Not to mention the physical abuse that is common all over the world in muslim schools.

On a personal level, I'm far more inclined to let parents raise their children the way they want, as long as they don't break the child's civil rights. In a secular society, Christians would bring up their children as Christians, Muslims would bring up their children as Muslims, and atheists would probably leave the whole "religion" thing out of it. Far too many people these days try to pollute secularism by thinking it is somehow anti-religious or "atheistic". It's not.

When are civil rights more broken? Are they broken when we put a limit on how parents and religious institutes can indoctrinate young minds or are they broken when we allow that young minds can be fucked up by any religion or sect that can lay its hands on them? Your problem is that you adhere to a rather romanticized version of libertarianism and shut your eyes for the consequences for young people that are the adult citizens of tomorrow shaping the secular society. In the end you may find no secular society left to fulfill your ideas in, since libertarianism can only be sustained by free minds.

[Tiberius]

“Religion” can claim no dominion over children or their minds. Besides the fact that as a container of all religious practices “religion” is no legal entity, there is no educational or other basis for that. Your suggestion that it somehow can claim this is just ridiculous and reminds me of the state of affairs in early twentieth century and earlier in history. Parents do not “own” their children and have no unlimited and exclusive rights to influence their young minds. The state however IS a legal entity that has partial responsibility in ensuring equal opportunities for all its citizens and protection from threats like the ones posed by ambitious religious indoctrination.

My apologies; I meant to put "parents" instead of religion, so the statement reads:

"What parents decide to teach their children is up to them, not the government."

No, parents do not have ownership of their children, but they are guardians; they do look after them, and in modern society we still (thankfully) leave much of the decision making up to the parents. Parents decide what schools their children should go to, which friends they play with, and what their children wear. Parents also have a right to teach their children things, and teaching them about their own religious beliefs is one of the things that parents teach their children. I don't see why the government should stop parents from teaching their children specific religious beliefs; parents tell their children all sorts of nonsensical things, so are we going to crack down on bedtime stories as well? You are trying to interfere with someone else's kids, and that is where I see a violation of rights. I don't see why government should mandate what our children learn, especially in this highly diverse and multicultural world.

Your libertarian take on this totally passes over the rights of individuals that not or not yet can make their own decisions. Secularism entails the right to be free from religious rule and teachings and free choice on this must be guaranteed for children as well. Freedom of religion is easy to understand for adults, most of us are repulsed at the thought of someone forcing religious views on us. But what choice do we leave for children if we follow your libertarian advice?

No, secularism entails us the right to be free from a government that interferes with religion, and religions that interfere with government. It does not guarantee a free choice in any private way, only public. What people believe in the privacy of their own homes (or at private churches / gatherings) is entirely up to them, and if you are a child and are brought along to one of these events, it is your parent / guardian's decision. You accuse me of passing over the rights of individuals, but raising your own child is a right in itself. I don't want the government telling me how to raise my children. As long as I don't cause them any harm, or put them in harm's way, I should not be breaking the law. Teaching them my religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) is something I should have every right to do.

Since children at a young age cannot overlook consequences of specific religious upbringing and how it affects their potential, their right on freedom of choice as an adult is impacted by decisions made by others when they are young . Also even when a child is capable of formulating opposing views there is the dependency on parents for social security that leaves little room for free choice. This means that extreme caution for the possible occurrence of a situation of early indoctrination is necessary. If the parents fail to recognize this, the state should interfere. Not interfering would mean favoring the religion of the parents over free choice of the adult that grows out of the child. In the case where religious upbringing clearly inhibits the potential of the child, as is the case with muslim schools, the state cannot be passive. Not to mention the physical abuse that is common all over the world in muslim schools.

It has been shown time and time again that people can escape the clutches of religion, and if an adult really wants to, they can make the free choice to do so. Nobody is stopping them from doing that. What you are doing is making the large assumption that all religion is evil, and so we shouldn't teach it to any child, lest they become a believer. If we take your ideas to the extreme, we shouldn't be teaching children any ideologies, since they are "too young" to comprehend them properly and make reasoned decisions on them. That sounds like a very boring childhood to me.

Bringing up religious child abuse is a pretty low thing to do by the way. As you are probably well aware from other conversations about politics, I don't consider business (that includes faith schools) to be beyond the laws of people. If a business abuses children, they should be prosecuted, simple as that.

When are civil rights more broken? Are they broken when we put a limit on how parents and religious institutes can indoctrinate young minds or are they broken when we allow that young minds can be fucked up by any religion or sect that can lay its hands on them? Your problem is that you adhere to a rather romanticized version of libertarianism and shut your eyes for the consequences for young people that are the adult citizens of tomorrow shaping the secular society. In the end you may find no secular society left to fulfill your ideas in, since libertarianism can only be sustained by free minds.

The obvious fallacy in the above is of course your assertion that religious people cannot have "free minds". Libertarianism relies on thinkers; of which there are plenty, religious and non-religious. Yes, children can be fucked up by cults; as can any adult. At the end of the day, the child's decisions should be made by the guardian. It shouldn't be up to the state to interfere with that child, even in their religious upbringing. Indeed, it is once again a complete disregard for what secularism is if you think that the government should make laws that prevent parents from teaching their religion. A law that affects religion is the complete anti-thesis of secularism.

[Jaysyn]

I'd ban the death penalty in all but the most blatant capital murder cases. Too many innocent people on Death Row right now for circumstantial evidence / bad lawyers.

[Purple Rabbit]

No, parents do not have ownership of their children, but they are guardians; they do look after them, and in modern society we still (thankfully) leave much of the decision making up to the parents. Parents decide what schools their children should go to, which friends they play with, and what their children wear. Parents also have a right to teach their children things,..

I do not deny that parents have those rights only the hopelessly naive assumption that they should be without limits.

...and teaching them about their own religious beliefs is one of the things that parents teach their children.

That is just restating the current factual situation, not an argument itself.

I don't see why the government should stop parents from teaching their children specific religious beliefs; parents tell their children all sorts of nonsensical things, so are we going to crack down on bedtime stories as well? You are trying to interfere with someone else's kids, and that is where I see a violation of rights. I don't see why government should mandate what our children learn, especially in this highly diverse and multicultural world.

You allow without limits that parents may have a strong negative effect on the future chances of young people. Stepping in there is ensuring rights of the kids rather than denying them rights. Implicitly you favor the rights of parents over the possible negative effects on the kids, not a very libertarian view on the rights of kids to prepare for adult life. The government already has a vote on what our children should learn because it decides about the school curriculum. Denying the necessity of this demands a twisted view on today's reality.

Your libertarian take on this totally passes over the rights of individuals that not or not yet can make their own decisions. Secularism entails the right to be free from religious rule and teachings and free choice on this must be guaranteed for children as well. Freedom of religion is easy to understand for adults, most of us are repulsed at the thought of someone forcing religious views on us. But what choice do we leave for children if we follow your libertarian advice?

No, secularism entails us the right to be free from a government that interferes with religion, and religions that interfere with government. It does not guarantee a free choice in any private way, only public. What people believe in the privacy of their own homes (or at private churches / gatherings) is entirely up to them, and if you are a child and are brought along to one of these events, it is your parent / guardian's decision.

Secularism according to my sources also is about freedom of religion. How can kids consumate this right if they have been indoctrinated before they are able to make that decision?

You accuse me of passing over the rights of individuals, but raising your own child is a right in itself.

I don't deny that, but there are obligations (to the child) that come along with it.

I don't want the government telling me how to raise my children. As long as I don't cause them any harm, or put them in harm's way, I should not be breaking the law.

Am I not talking about harm done to kids? That's precisely my point, in some cases harm is done to the child by excessive indoctrination.

Teaching them my religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) is something I should have every right to do.

Don't worry, I don't deny these rights. But again, there are limits.

Since children at a young age cannot overlook consequences of specific religious upbringing and how it affects their potential, their right on freedom of choice as an adult is impacted by decisions made by others when they are young . Also even when a child is capable of formulating opposing views there is the dependency on parents for social security that leaves little room for free choice. This means that extreme caution for the possible occurrence of a situation of early indoctrination is necessary. If the parents fail to recognize this, the state should interfere. Not interfering would mean favoring the religion of the parents over free choice of the adult that grows out of the child. In the case where religious upbringing clearly inhibits the potential of the child, as is the case with muslim schools, the state cannot be passive. Not to mention the physical abuse that is common all over the world in muslim schools.

It has been shown time and time again that people can escape the clutches of religion, and if an adult really wants to, they can make the free choice to do so. Nobody is stopping them from doing that. What you are doing is making the large assumption that all religion is evil, and so we shouldn't teach it to any child, lest they become a believer. If we take your ideas to the extreme, we shouldn't be teaching children any ideologies, since they are "too young" to comprehend them properly and make reasoned decisions on them. That sounds like a very boring childhood to me.

That's a very weak argument IMO. Because some people can escape religion we should sit back and relax. The statistics clearly show that there is a strong correlation between religious upbringing and adopted religion at adulthood. I do not make the assumption that all religion is evil I have stated over and over again that I am addressing extreme situations where the rights of chilren are severely at risk. If we take my ideas to the extreme we should be teaching children about ideologies just the same but we should be reserved with embedding them in religion doctrine before the age at which they are able to decide. I think it is a rather sick idea to suggest that a happy childhood is a childhood a child should want to escape from.

Bringing up religious child abuse is a pretty low thing to do by the way. As you are probably well aware from other conversations about politics, I don't consider business (that includes faith schools) to be beyond the laws of people. If a business abuses children, they should be prosecuted, simple as that.

I brought that up to show that we have a pretty common standard for physical abuse in place. So why should mental abuse be off limits for government interference?

When are civil rights more broken? Are they broken when we put a limit on how parents and religious institutes can indoctrinate young minds or are they broken when we allow that young minds can be fucked up by any religion or sect that can lay its hands on them? Your problem is that you adhere to a rather romanticized version of libertarianism and shut your eyes for the consequences for young people that are the adult citizens of tomorrow shaping the secular society. In the end you may find no secular society left to fulfill your ideas in, since libertarianism can only be sustained by free minds.

The obvious fallacy in the above is of course your assertion that religious people cannot have "free minds".

It is not an assertion I've made and therefore it is just your straw men. I am asserting that there is a balance to monitor, the balance between the rights of kids on decent chances in life and the rights of parents to influence this process. The balance can be broken. In extreme situations government interference is allowed. You are stuck and without remedy for these situations for the sole reason that you have elevated your libertarian principle to holy dogma.