|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 15:23:32 GMT -5
I don't see this happening. My analogy compared religion & alcohol on their self-destructiveness to a developing mind, when used in excess anyway. But that's as far as it goes. Religion (hopefully) isn't something where you take in too much, get drunk, and pass out.
If a system like this were in place, I would fully expect the majority of kids to just not give a shit. And, in the mean time, they don't have it discoloring their perceptions of science, history, ethics, etc.
That would also be acceptable. But I still like the whole "not exposing kids to religion until they're old enough to handle it" thing.
I suppose, but my thing was a hypothetical.
I have no problem with this.
Look at the main page. Now ask yourself how many of them are like that because they've had it pummeled into their heads from birth.
I rest my case.
This too. Although I suppose it would have to be a ubiqutous thing, to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Aug 9, 2011 15:45:10 GMT -5
I'm against this law. Freedom of religion and all that. I'm in favor of the government dictating a central curriculum, so we don't get revisionist history or creationism.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Aug 9, 2011 16:10:15 GMT -5
I see this as nothing but age discrimination. If a Muslim kid wants to go to a mosque, they should be allowed.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Aug 9, 2011 16:55:16 GMT -5
Yeah freedom of religion means freedom of religions you don't like. You can't just do this and expect things to be hunky dory. You can limit the impact a religion has on a society but you can't restrict a portion of society from going to that religion of their own free will.
Ironbite-freedom's a powerful thing.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 18:02:52 GMT -5
This discrimination thing is just silly. We're really going to pretend that we give kids the full rights and responsibilities of adulthood, & suggesting we mitigate their exposure to something is a novel concept?
Smoking. Drinking. Owning property. Voting. You get the picture.
True, none of those examples are necessarily considered "civil rights" in the universal sense, but you know the funny thing about freedom of religion? Kids DON'T have it. They have the freedom to have a religion imposed on them by their parents, & to identify as the religion they are being raised as.
I could point out that my idea doesn't actually stop that, and so the so-called "freedom of religion" is still in tact, but in actuality, the only reason I don't suggest stopping that altogether is because I don't see how it could hypothetically be done. It's really no tragic loss to me if kids have to wait a few years & form their own world views on their own.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Aug 9, 2011 20:55:17 GMT -5
I believe children should have more civil rights. Just because they aren't adults they should be treated as second class citizens?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 9, 2011 22:04:32 GMT -5
Let's give them full rights to all of the things I've mentioned.
I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say, but you have to agree, "Let kids do what they want" isn't the right answer across the board. When it comes right down to it, they ARE dependent and not capable of that level of responsibility yet.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 9, 2011 22:35:49 GMT -5
Wow. No thanks. I happen to like freedom - and I have this crazy, nutty idea that for it to be the real deal, it has to apply to everyone. I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. For example, we still have the freedom to smoke, yet we do this to cigarette companies. Same goes for alcohol.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Aug 9, 2011 23:53:54 GMT -5
I'm a member of NYRA, The National Youth Rights Association. So yes, I am very much for allowing teenagers the right to vote, drink, smoke, and own property.
I remember how I was treated as a teenager, and it made me feel really shitty, the way people said I was too young to have any real rights. That's why I got into this at about age 16.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 0:11:55 GMT -5
Note that 16 is the age I suggested.
I seriously hope you're not asserting that 13-year-olds are mature enough for that.
I'm not completely confident that 18-year-olds are.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Aug 10, 2011 0:17:42 GMT -5
I would see a problem with telling a 13-year-old she's too young to follow whatever religion she wants, provided it isn't harmful to her well-being. And I don't believe religion in itself is bad. Example: a 13-year-old wants Communion.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 0:29:52 GMT -5
Why?
Probably because she thinks she'll go to Hell if she doesn't.
And first things first, is 13, generally speaking, too young of an age for certain privelages?
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Aug 10, 2011 0:40:13 GMT -5
Maybe she wants to be a Christian to help her be a better person? Those do exist.
Personally, I do not believe in age restrictions as long as that person shows themselves competent to do whatever it is they want to do. If a 13-year-old can tell you all about the candidates, why she wants to vote for whoever, why the other isn't getting her vote, etc without her parents whispering in her ear, then she's smarter than most adults and should be able to cast a vote.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 0:56:39 GMT -5
How very misguided.
But I still don't see how she's stopped from being Christian, or even getting communion--the latter would just be more of a hassle.
This is true. I guess you could institute some kind of voting test. I just used that age because...frankly, you can tell when you're talking to a 13-15 year old on the internet. They tend to be...not so smart.
|
|
|
Post by dharmicdalek on Aug 10, 2011 1:40:02 GMT -5
I like my First Amendment that says the government cannot tell me I cannot go to church, or tell me I have to go to church, or any other forcing of religion or non-religion on me at any age, yes.
|
|