Should there be laws to protect kids from religous inflence?

[ray245]

Well, as the title put it, should there be laws to protect kids from any kind of religous influence until they are of legal age?

I mean...it's kinda unfair for kids to be brainwashed (to put it in a better term, converted) into certain religion before they can even make any kind of decision for themselves.

Although, I'm guessing that carrying out this law is going to be very very hard...

[wautd]

There should be laws, but good luck with getting thát trough.


Lets start with circumcision, just in case

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes.

[Cairber]

There should be laws, but good luck with getting thát trough.


Lets start with circumcision, just in case

Some day we will get there!

Just came out an hour or so ago:
story

Court blocks father from circumcising 12-year-old son
Posted by The Oregonian January 25, 2008 08:14AM
Categories: Top Stories

The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday blocked a divorced former Southern Oregon man from circumcising his 12-year-old son against the wishes of the boy's mother.

The court ruled that the trial judge failed to determine whether the boy wanted to have the procedure. The child's mother, Lia Boldt, claims that circumcision is dangerous and that her son is afraid to say he doesn't want the procedure. Go here for the court's decision.

The court ordered the case back to the trial judge to determine the boy's wishes.

James Boldt, who converted to Judaism several years ago, wants to circumcise his son. As the custodial parent, he argued that he has wide latitude to make decisions for the boy.

The lower courts sided with the father.

The case attracted national attention. An anti-circumcision group based in Seattle said the practice was dangerous. Jewish groups joined the fray out of the concern that the Oregon court would restrict circumcision.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think we need to define "religious influence"

Do we mean laws protecting them from JW parents killing them over a blood transfusion? Or are we talking about laws that prevent parents from taking their kids to church? Both?

[K. A. Pital]

Yes. No religion before 18 yo.

[Ace Pace]

Well, as the title put it, should there be laws to protect kids from any kind of religous influence until they are of legal age?

I mean...it's kinda unfair for kids to be brainwashed (to put it in a better term, converted) into certain religion before they can even make any kind of decision for themselves.

Although, I'm guessing that carrying out this law is going to be very very hard...

First, what the hell do you mean by religious influence? Is that christian youth camps? Parents taking their kids to church? Define that.

Then define the brainwashing. Are you proposing limiting the parents choice in how to educate their kids(or not educate, as the case may be?)? Or just limiting outside influences? How do you intend to define such influence? A teacher saying god is a strong influence? A bible lesson?

[Darth Wong]

We can't even outlaw parents drinking and smoking in front of their kids, for fuck's sake. How can we entertain the idea of outlawing religious indoctrination?

Having said that, I think we should outlaw these actual indoctrination "camps" that some fundies have set up. Those camps are outright abusive, and use every kind of brainwashing technique in the book, including deprivation for those who don't get with the program. And quite frankly, it should be illegal for teachers in public or private schools to present religious beliefs as if they are equivalent to history or science. By all means, present them as myths or stories or beliefs. Say that many people believe strongly in these ideas, whatever. But you can't tell kids that they are equivalent to historical knowledge or scientific theories. Freedom of speech ends at fraud, especially for institutions like schools.

[DarkSilver]

Actually...
I find this concept insulting and assanine.

You want to remove the parents ability to give a child a grounding a form of knowledge, basically to raise the child atheist. Not only that, but because the Parents could not introduce THEIR child to Religion of any sort, you deny the parents their ability to practice their religion openly.

Congratulations fuck nut, you've officially remove the freedom of religion.

Allow me to try to make a point. I was raised as Roman Catholic as a child. It was my grounding point in religion, and my frame of reference. All other religions - and lack there of - where measured against Catholicism.

When I turned 18, and obtained legal freedom, I choose to become Wiccan, based on my grounding of the Catholic religion. My dislike of the Catholic religion drove me from it, and to look at other options. I study Wicca for a couple of years, before I became Agnostic. I've been Agnostic for years, until earlier in this month, I began to study Buddhism.

Now, would I have chosen this path if not for my grounding in Catholicism as a child? More than likely not. Had I not been shown by my parents what Christianity was, had I not gone to church when I did, and read the bible, I never would have seen how bullshit and corrupt the religion was, and never would have sought on my own something to better myself with and expand my horizons.

Removing a child's ability to learn one religion as a youth, you do not allow the child the option to make their own choice when they come of age; you can actually limit their imagination and their option of choices artificially for when they come of age.

Let me put this another way, should we pass a law that Parents are no longer allowed to tell their children Santa Claus is real?

[Havok]

This is so a SLAM topic.

Religion should be a choice, just like choosing to go to college or not, or which one you want to go to. The problem is that most religions have some sort of indoctrination ritual that takes place at very young ages and if you don't do, puts your kid straight on the road to hell. So parents that do believe are not going to risk that and therefor most kids are screwed before they are even capable of making the choice.

[Kodiak]

Having said that, I think we should outlaw these actual indoctrination "camps" that some fundies have set up. Those camps are outright abusive, and use every kind of brainwashing technique in the book, including deprivation for those who don't get with the program. And quite frankly, it should be illegal for teachers in public or private schools to present religious beliefs as if they are equivalent to history or science. By all means, present them as myths or stories or beliefs. Say that many people believe strongly in these ideas, whatever. But you can't tell kids that they are equivalent to historical knowledge or scientific theories. Freedom of speech ends at fraud, especially for institutions like schools.

I agree that those camps are dangerous. I haven't seen Jesus Camp mostly because I was afraid of the nightmares I might get. I have to question though was is "influencing" kids towards religion and what is "informing" them about religion. I have an example from my own life: When I was a junior in HS (age 16) my English class read The Grapes of Wrath and one of the aspects we studied was the author's use of religious symbolism. The teacher asked if any student could relate "any stories from the bible" that were relevant, and someone got up and told the Hebrew Exodus story.

As a class we then compared elements. Examining the symbolism was 1 day of class which, when compared to the month we spent on it was relatively insignificant. Does this qualify as religious influence on the part of the professor? One student complained and several of us were actually interviewed by school officials as to whether or not religion was being "forced" on us, but they eventually concluded that we weren't. So, I ask again, where do we draw the line between informing and indoctrinating?

[General Zod]

You want to remove the parents ability to give a child a grounding a form of knowledge, basically to raise the child atheist. Not only that, but because the Parents could not introduce THEIR child to Religion of any sort, you deny the parents their ability to practice their religion openly.

How the fuck is religion a grounding form of knowledge? Almost all of them encourage obedience to the magic sky pixie and not questioning the magic sky pixie's doctrines, as well as discouraging questioning how things work, which is where all of our modern body of knowledge comes from. Unless you're seriously attempting to suggest that raising someone as an atheist is somehow inherently harmful.

Removing a child's ability to learn one religion as a youth, you do not allow the child the option to make their own choice when they come of age; you can actually limit their imagination and their option of choices artificially for when they come of age.

What the fuck are you smoking? Almost every major religion disapproves of people using their imagination because being imaginative encourages rebellious thoughts.

[DarkSilver]

What the fuck are you smoking? Almost every major religion disapproves of people using their imagination because being imaginative encourages rebellious thoughts.

Buddhism does not teach the following of the magic sky pixie, teaches us to believe in ourselves, and use our imaginations. It encourages rebellious thoughts to the betterment of all humanity.

As such, this is the only point I may make against your arguments against my point of view.

As such, I concede this debate.

Meditation over confrontation.

[Havok]

DarkSilver
Man, you are an exception if anything. You went from Catholic to Wiccan to Agnostic to Buddhist. You probably would have been better off not having any religion in your life as a child since you seem to just be running from one to another trying to fill some void that was implanted in your brain as a kid through Catholicism. You would have saved time just not "believing" in anything.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes. No religion before 18 yo.

I am sorry kiddo, but no. The moment you say that it is OK to outlaw taking your kids to church, you open the door for any majority to outlaw the teaching of any other ideology to children. You open a legal door for the banning of teaching political ideologies, ethical systems, schools of thought regarding artwork, any other subjective belief.

Of course, that is a relatively weak argument. But here is the better one. Religion thrives on persecution. If you outlaw the teaching of religion to children, not only will enforcement be impossible, but the religion taught will become even more extremist and dangerous. As it stands in the US, the religious right has a pernicious political influence, but at least they are not violent for the most part. If they feel persecuted, that will change.

[Mobiboros]

DarkSilver
Man, you are an exception if anything. You went from Catholic to Wiccan to Agnostic to Buddhist. You probably would have been better off not having any religion in your life as a child since you seem to just be running from one to another trying to fill some void that was implanted in your brain as a kid through Catholicism. You would have saved time just not "believing" in anything.

Oddly I made a similar path. Though I skipped agnostic. However I've been buddhist for several years now. The philosophy of it as a life path is what interested me.

That said, I don't know if there should be laws. I agree with others, the actual indictrination camps, yes get rid of. But outlawing parents sharing religion with their kids? No. Forcing their kids into the religion, sure, but how you'd ever enforce that kind of law I have no idea. Personally I am raising my daughter without religion, let her choose what she believes of the world around her as she grows. If she wants to join a religion, fine. If not, fine.

[Sidewinder]

Hell no. There's a reason democratic nations protect the freedom of religion. If you pass a law criminalizing parents for exposing a child to religion, e.g., taking the child to church or praying in front of them, where do you stop in trying to prevent the exposure of children to what you believe are harmful influences?

Should you make it illegal for children to travel to foreign nations, due to concerns they may be influenced by foreign cultures, including religions practiced in those nations? Great, now my cousins can't travel to Taiwan to visit their aunts and uncles.

Should you make it illegal for children to learn about world history in school, due to concerns they may be inspired by the religious beliefs of the crusaders? Great, now you're making them ignorant of history, including the history of foreign cultures, which may make them intolerant of those cultures. For comparison, imagine outlawing the mention of slavery in US history classes, under the belief that children may see black people as subhuman due to their former status. Now those children won't understand why blacks are subjected to racial discrimination-- and let's be honest, it's human nature to discriminate against those who are different, it's a leftover from the Stone Age, when humans lived in clans that frequently fought other clans for land and other resources-- they may not care when someone becomes the victim of racial discrimination, or even support continued discrimination under the idea that the victim "must have done something to deserve it."

Should you make it illegal for children to learn about mythology-- including the Bible-- due to concerns they may end up worshipping the gods and goddesses depicted in myth? To do that, you'll have to ban an astronomical amount of books from libraries and other public information sources. Remember the book burnings the Nazis used to hold? Do you really want to take away freedom of expression like the Nazis did?

[Covenant]

Things like this rely on a suspension of disbelief. If a Genie said "Okay, I got these wish things, and they shit all over reality. What do you want?" And you could say "I'd like people to keep religion away from their kids until they're old enough to start poisoning themselves in other ways" then you're already relying on a system to support it.

We're not saying a state-enforced set of Demon Robots to mercilessly crucify any faith-teachers out there who happen to mention "do not kill" to their children, so don't bother spinning the wheels about that. If or if not such a system WOULD work in reality is a seperate point to 'should there be a law against it.'

I think it's bad for children, and I know it was certainly bad for me, and I very much resent the damage done to me as a child. However, it's damage that you get out of. Throwing off religion is much easier than throwing off an actual birth defect, given an adequate education system. I think, instead of trying to strange religion in the crib, it makes more sense to fully endorse the widespread teaching about religion as a human sociological system. There's always a dumb few who are going to cling to it from birth, but the real fundies are the ones who find it at the age of 28 and decide they're"Born Again" anyway.

What we need is education and assistance to buttress against religious indoctrination, so instead of leaping into it like lemmings at the age of 18 (thus denying them the transformative experience of doubting more and more as you get older, a useful way to disabuse yourself of it), you'd have people falling out of religion.

So I say no. I think it's a good idea to have laws against forcing children into dangerous situations, like refusing blood and such, and to remove protections for religious justifications of abuse. But beyond that, you're just going to drive it into a hole. Religion is already on the way out, it's just going to take for-fucking-ever. I don't think we should exacerbate the process by making it law though, we get a lot of new free thinking folks just by offering a reasoned alternative, and pouring the education onto kids so they know how to reason their way out of it.

[Sidewinder]

In an extreme example, suppose the government decides that, due to the danger Mr. Wong's children may be influenced by the religion of their maternal grandparents, the children should be isolated from those grandparents-- it's now illegal for Mr. Wong's children to visit Grandma and Grandpa. Then the government becomes concerned the grandparents may influence the children through their own, i.e., Mrs. Wong, so the children should be isolated from their mother-- it's now illegal for the children to communicate with their mother. Then the government becomes concerned the children may be influenced by members of local churches, so they should be moved to a place where such influences are absent-- now Mr. Wong has to move to an isolated area, e.g., the North Pole, so his children won't see any crosses mounted on local churches, or hear people mention religion, so they can't go to school because their teachers and classmates may influence them, they can't have neighbors because those neighbors may influence them, they can't make friends because their peers may be influenced by religious relatives, who may influence Mr. Wong's children through the children's friends.

Do you see how dangerous this is?

[General Zod]

In an extreme example, suppose the government decides that, due to the danger Mr. Wong's children may be influenced by the religion of their maternal grandparents, the children should be isolated from those grandparents-- it's now illegal for Mr. Wong's children to visit Grandma and Grandpa. Then the government becomes concerned the grandparents may influence the children through their own, i.e., Mrs. Wong, so the children should be isolated from their mother-- it's now illegal for the children to communicate with their mother. Then the government becomes concerned the children may be influenced by members of local churches, so they should be moved to a place where such influences are absent-- now Mr. Wong has to move to an isolated area, e.g., the North Pole, so his children won't see any crosses mounted on local churches, or hear people mention religion, so they can't go to school because their teachers and classmates may influence them, they can't have neighbors because those neighbors may influence them, they can't make friends because their peers may be influenced by religious relatives, who may influence Mr. Wong's children through the children's friends.

Do you see how dangerous this is?

Slippery slopes don't make for very rational arguments.

[Havok]

Sidewinder
When was the last time a kid read about Norse mythology and started believing in it? Or read the Illiad and started worshiping those gods? Stuff like that just doesn't happen very often because the "smart" people in a child's life say "this is a myth, it's not real."
And it isn't about reading about religion, it's about the most trusted adults in your life, the same aforementioned "smart" people, saying "this is a fact. You will live your life this way or you will be damned for all eternity to the depths of fiery hell" I'm sorry, but can you say mental abuse?

[Covenant]

A better question is then, how do you punish it? Taking the kid away? I think that kind of disruption of families is extremely negative for everyone. I think we should plan on killing religion off at the "child of the child of the child of the most trusted adults" level, as trying to kill off religion in a single generation has never seemed to work at ALL (even when you're replacing it with just a slightly different flavor of their orignal faith).

[General Zod]

A better question is then, how do you punish it? Taking the kid away? I think that kind of disruption of families is extremely negative for everyone. I think we should plan on killing religion off at the "child of the child of the child of the most trusted adults" level, as trying to kill off religion in a single generation has never seemed to work at ALL (even when you're replacing it with just a slightly different flavor of their orignal faith).

The best way to go about it would be gradually, starting with schools and things like medical treatments. Anything too drastic is going to have a huge negative backlash no matter how you look at it.

[Havok]

Just to be clear, I am not at all advocating the eradication of religion. Some people need it. Others, it helps be better people. Some it serves as guide to help them find meaning in their lives.

I simply believe it should be a choice that is made when you are older than an infant, and closer to an adult. Hell, I would be OK with teaching it in school as an elective, just like art or music or shop. As long as it is not mandatory.

[Sidewinder]

And it isn't about reading about religion, it's about the most trusted adults in your life, the same aforementioned "smart" people, saying "this is a fact. You will live your life this way or you will be damned for all eternity to the depths of fiery hell" I'm sorry, but can you say mental abuse?

The problem is, in order to isolate a child from the influence of the parents' religious beliefs, you'll have to isolate the child from the parents, i.e., separate millions of families to protect the children from their parents' religious beliefs. Then you're on a damn slippery slope where the government is writing up laws defining the bad influences a parent may exert on a child, which will likely result in arbitrary decisions like "Latinos aren't good parents because they're too religious, so we should remove children from Latino families and have Caucasian people, who aren't too religious, raise them."

To understand how destructive such policies can be, read about Australia's Stolen Generation.