Should there be laws to protect kids from religous inflence?

[Havok]

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.

Well that's the trick isn't it. This is obviously not a feasible idea to put into practice, at least not in the U.S. and other such countries. So we are left to our wonderful "what ifs".

[Molyneux]

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...

Yes to banning things like circumcisions. Any kind of permanent change to the body should not be legal until the child has reached the age of majority. No to the more general law.

[Justforfun000]

Yes to banning things like circumcisions. Any kind of permanent change to the body should not be legal until the child has reached the age of majority.

Seconded. I still find it unbelievable this is not already law. Our medical ethics in North America regarding Routine Infant Circumcision is disgusting. I can't imagine a more gross form of child abuse short of raping them. Why people cannot see this is beyond me. Even the fucking tremendous PAIN it causes should be enough let alone the elective, irreversible nature of the stupid procedure.

[Civil War Man]

Even the fucking tremendous PAIN it causes should be enough let alone the elective, irreversible nature of the stupid procedure.

The pain would be easily justified if there was a health condition that required the surgery. Of course, as it is, only a tiny fraction of the people who are circumcised actually needed it in any way, shape, or form.

Though, if Penn and Teller are to be believed, it actually is possible for a circumcised man to restore the foreskin. Can't remember what exactly they said about it. Only saw that episode once, since it creeped me the fuck out.

[DarkSilver]

According to the episode, the foreskin can be restored, if you wanted to, by "stretching" the skin back over the head, twice a day, for ten minutes or so at a time.

eventually the skin would regrow to cover the head of your dick again.

[The Guid]

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.

You have included both slippery slope and black and white. You can protect people from something's influence through other means than just removing it.

You can ensure that a child has a good education that is not religious based, i.e. banning faith schools and requiring all children to attend a school barring disabilities but even then you can ensure private tuition. You can require all private schools to have a system of education that does not promote one set of values over and above another in terms of political ideology or relgious ideology.

[Battlehymn Republic]

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.

Oh, give me a motherfucking break. How common is the archetype of the disillusioned (Western) Catholic or Christian? How many people on this board were raised with a religious background? How big is the joke that people who go to Catholic school end up nonbelievers? DarkSilver is supposed to be an exception?

[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.

Oh, give me a motherfucking break. How common is the archetype of the disillusioned (Western) Catholic or Christian? How many people on this board were raised with a religious background? How big is the joke that people who go to Catholic school end up nonbelievers? DarkSilver is supposed to be an exception?

Not where he ended up, but the path he used to get there. And DS isn't a non believer, he believes in something, but apparently he has been spending his life figuring out what it is. His journey is not the point A to point B simplistic "archetype" that you are describing, so yes he is an exception.

[Superman]

Yes, we should outlaw this. Hell, I should be able to sue my dad civilly and get a judgment that says he has to pay my psychiatry bills for all of the emotional trauma I went through growing up in a fundie church. On second thought, I wouldn't do that, but a law that would save kids from experiencing all of the bullshit I went through? Hell yes.

[K. A. Pital]

All I see is people shouting an obvious strawman: "Ban religion". That's not how you limit influence on little children.

Think of religion as of creationism. There's no way in hell creationism would be taught to a small child in school, right? "Faith schools" and other bogus education which spreads outright anti-scientific lies, should be banned for anyone under 18 yo obviously.

As for "taking kids to church", isn't that just indocrinating a child into a religious institution at a young age? Shouldn't religion be a matter of choice?

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.

How is islam persecuted in Islamic states? Why is Islam in those states so violent, intolerant and "extremist"?

And why have religions not grown "extremist" in places where a certain religion becomes banned?

[Battlehymn Republic]

Yeah, but my point is that there's a good number of people raised in a strict Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu) environment and end up in a different place because of that strictness. And if they end up somewhere else, they usually have a spiritual journey of there own, don't they? Even if their journey might have less stops than DarkSilver's did, and maybe ended up at a destination less spiritual than his was.

[Justforfun000]

The pain would be easily justified if there was a health condition that required the surgery. Of course, as it is, only a tiny fraction of the people who are circumcised actually needed it in any way, shape, or form.

Oh I agree. Well to an extent...they should still be given an anesthetic for the painful surgery. They have gotten away with this only because of the bullshit theory that infants "didn't feel pain". That has been disproved. In fact, they now say they feel it even MORE.

In any event, I was referring to general RIC. Not medical issues. [/i]

[DarkSilver]

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.

I'm hardly an exception.

While I never claimed to be a non beleiver, I did search for what I felt was the proper way to worship. The Catholic church was, as most everyone knows, contradictory, hypocritical, corrupt and basically full of bullshit. I converted to Wicca because it was a attempt to find a different way to try to better myself spiritually and after a couple of years of studying and practicing, found it ultimately disliked how it was going (emo/gothies flooding in, how it was becoming the "in" religion for those who wanted to be "outside the establishment", etc). That, and with in my studies, I came to the conclusion that god is unknowable - the basic tennats of being an Agnostic. So i left Wicca, and never declared a new religion - considering myself Agnostic and worshipping in my own way.

I recently decided to study Buddhism not because I wanted to worship in a religion again, but I felt it would help me better myself mentally and spiritually.

So I don't think I would have been better off with no religion as a child. I actually am grateful for being a Catholic, because it set me on a path to help me better understand myself and others and experience things I never would have without that frame of reference.

What more, being religious has not damaged my view of the real world - like many on this board. Religion really, is only as bad as the people who practice it, not in and of itself.

[DarkSilver]

Ghetto Edit:

Thanks to Ace pointing it out, I meant Theistic, not Agnostic.

my bad.

[General Zod]

What more, being religious has not damaged my view of the real world - like many on this board. Religion really, is only as bad as the people who practice it, not in and of itself.

Considering that religion encourages denying objective reality, people who practice it are hardly in a position to say that it hasn't damaged their world view.

[DarkSilver]

What more, being religious has not damaged my view of the real world - like many on this board. Religion really, is only as bad as the people who practice it, not in and of itself.

Considering that religion encourages denying objective reality, people who practice it are hardly in a position to say that it hasn't damaged their world view.

I'm sorry, you seem to think spirituality and religion will actually impair a intellegent person's objectivity.

That's not the case, religion only can impair a persons objectivity if the person is already a weak willed stooge. Meanwhile, some of us can be both objective, and spiritually inclined.

[General Zod]

I'm sorry, you seem to think spirituality and religion will actually impair a intellegent person's objectivity.

That's not the case, religion only can impair a persons objectivity if the person is already a weak willed stooge. Meanwhile, some of us can be both objective, and spiritually inclined.

Are you willing to believe in things that have no proof of existing? If so, then you've already proven my point.

[Imperial Overlord]

Meanwhile, some of us can be both objective, and spiritually inclined.

What do you mean by "spiritual" while we are at it? People like to throw the word around, but most of them can't define it. Do you mean moral development (something quite different than religion), some religious feeling, or something else?

[RedImperator]

I don't know how you're supposed to look at a question like "Should there be laws to protect kids from religious influence?" and not take practical realities into account. If this was a "magic genie" hypothetical, then the obvious question is "Would it be better if kids weren't exposed to religious indoctrination until they're adults?". Once you start asking about laws, then you have to start asking about enforcement, unintended consequences, opportunity cost, backlash, and, yes, precedent--the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but in law, if it happened once, it's much easier for it to happen again. If judges have to take precedent into account, so do you. (This does not, incidentally, excuse ludicrous slippery slope horror stories--worrying about precedent means worrying that your idea will be used in the future against one of your own sacred cows, not that the government will force parents to move to the North Pole to protect their children from the sight of crosses).

When all that is taken under consideration, any such law looks like a wretched idea. It's also worth pointing out, the most secular countries in the world didn't become secular by banning kids from church. You could do far more to accelerate the secularization of the United States and the West in general with a robust, well-funded, well-managed public education system that's available to everyone than you ever could by outlawing youth Bible study and infant baptism.

[DarkSilver]

I'm sorry, you seem to think spirituality and religion will actually impair a intellegent person's objectivity.

That's not the case, religion only can impair a persons objectivity if the person is already a weak willed stooge. Meanwhile, some of us can be both objective, and spiritually inclined.

Are you willing to believe in things that have no proof of existing? If so, then you've already proven my point.

My belief is that god is unknowable and unprovable, thus, has no major impact upon my objective world. Thus, for all intents and purposes, my objective world is not hampered by my religious view (unless you want to get into a argument of morals and intent).

[quote='Imperial Overlord"]
What do you mean by "spiritual" while we are at it? People like to throw the word around, but most of them can't define it. Do you mean moral development (something quite different than religion), some religious feeling, or something else?[/quote]

I define spirituality as the internal development of the human, in a mental and spiritual way. This includes, amongst other things, development of morals and ethics, belief in the well being and compassion towards others. Not necessarily the belief in a higher power.

I'm sure my definition may be wrong, and more than likely is. Hell, my definition probably isn't the same any anyone else.

[DarkSilver]

Blah...could a Mod fix my broken quote tag. Teach me to do it manually...

[Imperial Overlord]

I define spirituality as the internal development of the human, in a mental and spiritual way. This includes, amongst other things, development of morals and ethics, belief in the well being and compassion towards others. Not necessarily the belief in a higher power.

I'm sure my definition may be wrong, and more than likely is. Hell, my definition probably isn't the same any anyone else.

You just defined it using the term "spiritual" again and your examples are all related to morality.

[DarkSilver]

I define spirituality as the internal development of the human, in a mental and spiritual way. This includes, amongst other things, development of morals and ethics, belief in the well being and compassion towards others. Not necessarily the belief in a higher power.

I'm sure my definition may be wrong, and more than likely is. Hell, my definition probably isn't the same any anyone else.

You just defined it using the term "spiritual" again and your examples are all related to morality.

Again, I said my definition may be wrong, but that's how I think of it. Are you going anywhere with this beyond "look at him, he doesn't know what spirituality means"?

[General Zod]

My belief is that god is unknowable and unprovable, thus, has no major impact upon my objective world. Thus, for all intents and purposes, my objective world is not hampered by my religious view (unless you want to get into a argument of morals and intent).

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about belief in anything that can't be proven, which includes things like souls, the afterlife, Nirvana, Valhalla, whatever.

[DarkSilver]

My belief is that god is unknowable and unprovable, thus, has no major impact upon my objective world. Thus, for all intents and purposes, my objective world is not hampered by my religious view (unless you want to get into a argument of morals and intent).

Who said anything about God? I'm talking about belief in anything that can't be proven, which includes things like souls, the afterlife, Nirvana, Valhalla, whatever.

I misunderstood your question then. I should have requested a clarification. But your also asking a loaded question - one which will either paint me as a rube, or a hypocrite.


So, I'll answer truthfully. I do not believe in a defined afterlife, but I believe that humans have in, what is essence, a soul. I believe those who live a good life, will be rewarded for it in the end - be it through their life experience, the deeds they've done, or even in some undefined form thereafter.

Ultimately, it doesn't affect my actions, or objectivity in the real world - I will do what I will do; which ends up giving me a system of ethics similar to yours.