|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 2:39:29 GMT -5
It's not forcing non-religion on you. Forcing non-religion on you would be mandatory atheism classes. My proposal, while admittedly maybe not the best idea, was meant to keep people from forcing religion onto YOU. The idea was to make people more free to choose a religion. Freedom of religion doesn't necessarily mean the churches get to do whatever they want, and stepping on someone else's freedom (indoctrination) is totally grounds for a legislation.
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 10, 2011 3:17:06 GMT -5
While I'm all for preventing parents from dragging their children places they don't want to go, swearing oaths they have no comprehension of, and indoctrinating them in ideologies that will shape their entire world view with a heavy emphasis on rejecting anything that clashes with their beliefs... flatly denying any access to information on the subject of religion altogether isn't the act of an enlightened society.
It's shot right in the eye of both freedom and education if the child legitimately has their own desire to engage in religious pursuits and worship. Limiting the amount of duress a child's legal guardian can impose on them in taking up religious studies and setting an age of legal consent for being baptised, affirmed, or whatever you call it when you're officially considered a practicing member of a religion seems like a better place to start. Preventing religious institutions from accepting children below this age as altar boys or similar employees of the establishment would be another good move... might cut down on the rape too. Preventing religious figures from attempting to compel through faith, issue demerits or punishments based on faith, or discriminate based on tennets of faith should be strictly illegal to do to a child, especially one that has not made their own choice to follow the faith they are being made to live by. Heck, I don't even think it's acceptible to do that to adults. Making it so that a child cannot be recognized as a member of a religion until age of consent should provide an ample block as it can be argued that a minister has no more place attempting to influence someone not part of his flock than a cleric would telling the minister's congregation how to conduct themselves.
Cripes, I'm actually defending churches now.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Aug 10, 2011 7:59:54 GMT -5
I honestly see it a lot like alcohol: Kids don't need it, they're not old or responsible enough. But I'm not going to take it away from adults. Access to alcohol isn't a human right, but freedom of conscience is. Even beneath civil rights, which are a bit different from society to society, are human rights that should be protected throughout the world. And besides that, fundies would simply take their churches underground and create house-churches. Are the police going to start storming people's homes to make sure kids aren't sitting in on an Bible study? If so, does that mean the government can ban kids from attending conferences or other activities where anything is proclaimed about the existence of gods, including anti-theism? The question is really one of how many basic rights - human and parental - you're willing to give up just to stick it to some religious people.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 10:52:37 GMT -5
Lot of straw men there.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 10, 2011 17:13:05 GMT -5
Fundamentalism is just another variety of totalitarianism, largeham. Dictators hate competition. Mosque worship and teaching kids about their religion =/= fundamentalism.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 10, 2011 17:50:15 GMT -5
I would like to point out that being prevented from visiting a mosque/church/temple/grove/coven is not the same thing as preventing someone from practicing that religion.
After all, the parents naturally pass down the desire for that religion simply by example, and the instinctive desire of children to emulate their parents.
Which is why I originally pushed for 13 to be the age that kids get to go to a religious building.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Aug 10, 2011 19:56:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 10, 2011 20:46:23 GMT -5
Look up to what Zachski said. I've seriously explained it enough times that I'm tired of repeating myself. If you can't see the many differences between "I don't want kids to be indoctrinated" and "I don't want them to be religious," that is just not my problem.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on Aug 11, 2011 2:16:02 GMT -5
I've seriously explained it enough times that I'm tired of repeating myself. If you can't see the many differences between "I don't want kids to be indoctrinated" and "I don't want them to be religious," that is just not my problem. All parents indoctrinate. There's no way around that. If you want to make formal religious practice into an item for coming-of-age celebrations, where kids look forward eagerly and wait with open ears for church propaganda, then by all means, set an age limit on church buildings. You can even pretend it's no different from setting an age limit for the purchase of alcohol. And you still haven't answered my question. I'll pose it another way: What ethical lessons are you willing to forgo teaching your kid simply to avoid "indoctrinating" him? Because every right you take away from someone else is a right you no longer have.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 11, 2011 2:55:37 GMT -5
I don't make it a habit to answer loaded questions. You can complain about not getting an answer when you ask a question that doesn't require me to accept 6 baseless assertions from you.
Ex: "All parents indoctrinate," "you'll have to forego teaching ethics," etc.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 11, 2011 5:21:49 GMT -5
The problem, in a nurshell, is not going to mosque, church or synagogue. It's what's being preached in places of worship that may warp young, malleable minds to do things which are illegal. Why is it that suicide bombers tend not to be venerable imams with long white beards?
Perhaps a way to address the problem is for the state to license every preacher, priest and rabbi, imam, and where sedition-preaching is suspected to monitor whatever place of worship comes into question; and if such sedition is found, then the preacher's licence to be revoked and have him prosecuted and the place of worship to be closed permanently on the frounds of misuse of a placed designated for one purpose but illegaly used for another. Sedition is not religion, and religions ought not to be seditious.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Aug 11, 2011 7:48:11 GMT -5
Sedition is not religion, and religions ought not to be seditious. As far as I remember we haven't had any anti-sedition acts for quite some time now, here in the US at any rate. And to be completely honest the last instance of large scale sedition by religious figures I can think of goes back to the civil rights movement, which by the definition given here would have been a perfectly acceptable target for police. I'm going to say this as simply as I can. If you're an atheist, and against full freedom of religion, you are an idiot. You are not the majority, you are the target for every believer out there with an axe to grind. The moment you start supporting limits on religion is the moment you start signing your own warrant. We are allowed our freedom to ignore what we regard as bullshit because people are free to deal with said bullshit however they want. You don't have to like religion, you don't have to see any value in it, just be damn sure to see the value in what lets you avoid it in your own life. See it as a harmful choice all you wish, but remember how many people see atheism as condemning your eternal existence to oblivion, hell, or what have you. They see it as plenty harmful too.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 11, 2011 9:54:16 GMT -5
This is precisely why I'm extremely uncomfortable with allowing the government to place these kinds of limits on religion. Aside from barring blatant, straight-forward abuse (and taking your kids to church is not blatant, straight-forward abuse), I'd rather the government stayed the hell out of religious matters. Perhaps I'm being overly cautious and indulging in some slippery slope paranoia, but I just don't like the idea of setting a precedent where the government can decide who can worship when and where -- not just for my own sake, but for the sake of those who don't share my opinions/beliefs as well.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 11, 2011 13:35:05 GMT -5
This is precisely why I'm extremely uncomfortable with allowing the government to place these kinds of limits on religion. Aside from barring blatant, straight-forward abuse (and taking your kids to church is not blatant, straight-forward abuse), I'd rather the government stayed the hell out of religious matters. Perhaps I'm being overly cautious and indulging in some slippery slope paranoia, but I just don't like the idea of setting a precedent where the government can decide who can worship when and where -- not just for my own sake, but for the sake of those who don't share my opinions/beliefs as well. Psh, what a liberal.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 11, 2011 19:46:27 GMT -5
Wow, Distind, you really don't see the distinctions here? I am disappoint.
This isn't even a violation of freedom of religion. If you guys were arguing that it's against freedom of EXPRESSION, then you might have a point. But even that falls to the wayside when, I repeat, this blocks people telling kids what to do & believe more than kids deciding for themselves what to do or believe.
It's not just that it's potentially harmful, it's that it's brainwashing. There's a difference between things that are a problem in the real world & things that are only problematic in the warped imaginations of Fundies. The day there's an actual, concerted effort to convert kids to atheism en masse and pass atheist-centric laws, THEN you can tell me it's the same beast.
|
|