Fundamentalism and Children

[qayak]

So you think people guilty of child abuse, as you have called bringing a child up in a religion, should only be fined?

If I have a child riding in my car without having them in the appropriate restraint, I get a fine. Fines are good because they help pay the cost of enforcement.

Here in British Columbia, the cops don't even investigate or raid marijuana grow-ops because it is too expensive and is a huge drain on the criminal justice system.

Instead, the municipality files a freedom of information request with the public utility company to get power consumption numbers for every residence in the city. They target the properties with huge power consumption by sending in inspectors who immediately condemn the buildings when a grow-op is found.

The house next to mine was rented to growers. They were caught within two weeks of the grow-op going in. Although perfectly safe, the property was condemned. The owners of the property had to pay over 8 thousand dollars to have their property re-certified. (It was the owner who called the cops when he suspected the grow-op.)

The real criminals in all this? They packed up their stuff and moved. Didn't cost them anything except their damage deposit of $700.00. Last week, Surrey, the grow-op capital of BC was declared grow-op free.

So, yes, it is okay to punish criminal activity with fines. It is also very effective.

 

[qayak]

How about not? qayak has made a very firm case that this is constituionally appropriate. The first amendement can be broadly interpreted as meaning freedom of religion. By indoctrinating your child you are infringing on his or her freedom of religon. I see no reason why your freedom of speech should trump your child's freedom of religion.

That's it! My whole point and exactly why I would support any initiative and would do it myself if I had the opportunity. Maybe when I become Supreme King of Canada next year.

 

[Beth]

How about not? qayak has made a very firm case that this is constituionally appropriate. The first amendement can be broadly interpreted as meaning freedom of religion. By indoctrinating your child you are infringing on his or her freedom of religon. I see no reason why your freedom of speech should trump your child's freedom of religion.

This isn't a workable argument because children don't have the same rights as adults. I've heard similar arguments to ban other things such as spankings or circumcision. Funny, but nobody ever argues that parents don't have the right to ground their teenagers or give their toddler a time-out even though those are clear violations of their constitutional rights too.

That said, qayak's ideas is ridiculously unworkable. It's unenforcable, because while we could fine you for bringing your child to a church for indoctrination, we can't be in your house where most of it happens anyway. Also, as you said, nuts like you probably would start a rebellion over being prohibitied from publically lying to your children. In a different political climate that might not be the case, but then we probably wouldn't have the need for such a law in the first place.

It's unworkable yes, but I'm as bothered by those advocating rational solutions and critical thinking espousing it as a good idea as I am by christians who go into hate-filled rants about homosexuals and how various sorts of private activities ought to be illegal. It's a similar attitude of intolerance and such stances are similarly a betrayal of the very values they are claiming they cherish most.

I feel it's not just unworkable and unenforceable, it's a really really bad idea. It's trampling all over the rights of other people to decide for themselves what they believe and to transmit their beliefs, along with their values and judgements and family culture, to their children. Even if you are only suggesting fines for those caught in the act, I put such a suggestion right along side making homosexual behavior illegal and fining people when they are caught engaging in such activities.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This isn't a workable argument because children don't have the same rights as adults. I've heard similar arguments to ban other things such as spankings or circumcision. Funny, but nobody ever argues that parents don't have the right to ground their teenagers or give their toddler a time-out even though those are clear violations of their constitutional rights too.
.

That's funny, I support banning spanking and circumscion too. Spanking being a less ration argument as I had an abusive father, but circumcision I argue aginst on child rights grounds.

Children do not have the rights of adults, you are correct there. They do have some. I argue that freedom from having religion forced on them should be one they have, especially as it will effect them after they are an adult (similar to circumcision).

It's not a coincidence that the majority of believers in a given region have the same beliefs as their parents. You don't see a spontaneous generational conversion from Islam in Saudi Arabia and you don't see a generational converstion to Buddhism in America. This suggests to me that children are not acheiving free choice in their selection of religion, because at the least you'd see a more even spread globally. It suggests indoctrination, coersion, and an impedidement of the right to freely choose.

 

[Beth]

That's funny, I support banning spanking and circumscion too. Spanking being a less ration argument as I had an abusive father, but circumcision I argue aginst on child rights grounds.

Children do not have the rights of adults, you are correct there. They do have some. I argue that freedom from having religion forced on them should be one they have, especially as it will effect them after they are an adult (similar to circumcision).

And I reject that argument because I feel that the rights of the parent (or whomever is raising the child) are of more importance.

I'm sorry you had an abusive father. They are all too common. I didn't. My own father is absolutely terrific. One of the finest people I've ever known. So is my mother. They managed to raise four children into self-supporting adults, some of whom still share their faith, some who don't. My brother and his wife raised their children much as our parents did us. They have managed to raise two children into intelligent, capable young adults. They did all three of those things you would argue they have no right to do. Didn't seem to affect their ability to raise children into adults I'm glad to have in my community.

I actually find the arguments against spanking to be the most rational of the three. If you take the time to look deeply into the research behind recommended child rearing practices, spanking rates pretty far down the list. They have a high cost in terms of damage to the relationship and a low rate of success at extinguishing undesirable behavior. Not to mention the issue of when the line is crossed into abuse.

But after giving the issue a lot of thought and discussion, I came to the conclusion that even though I felt not-spanking was the best rational choice by a wide margin, it was not sufficient justification to make it a crime. Not even a minor one only punishable by a fine. I have far more concern regarding the inevitable damage to parent/child relationship that would result from the sort of intrusive govermental policies you are supporting than I have concern over the damage to the children. All in all, I'd rather see spanking disappear without coercion, which I would expect to take several generations.

Anyway, sorry to get off on a rant there. It used to be one of my favorite topics to argue.

It's not a coincidence that the majority of believers in a given region have the same beliefs as their parents. You don't see a spontaneous generational conversion from Islam in Saudi Arabia and you don't see a generational converstion to Buddhism in America. This suggests to me that children are not acheiving free choice in their selection of religion, because at the least you'd see a more even spread globally. It suggests indoctrination, coersion, and an impedidement of the right to freely choose.

I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.

Bottom line, it simply doesn't seem rational to me in the slightest to support such policies. It's an extreme measure for a problem that, as near as I can tell, has no documented objective and quantifiable evidence to support it's existance. Extreme solutions to non-existant problems are a recipe for serious trouble.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.

Let's hear your alternate explanation. If it's not parental indoctrination, why do so many children follow the religion of their parents?

 

[Beth]

Let's hear your alternate explanation. If it's not parental indoctrination, why do so many children follow the religion of their parents?

Parental indoctrination certainly plays a role in making the choice, but that doesn't imply that it is a an impediment to freely choosing as an adult. If the benefits of staying outweigh the costs of changing for most people, then most people will keep the religion they were raised in. After all, if they have no compelling reason to change, then there are advantages to keeping the same religion as their parents and siblings. They already know the dogma, the rites, etc. from being raised in it. There is comfort in the familiar. When someone rejects their parent's religion, there is a cost in terms of damage to the family relationships. Given that many people do change religions as an adult, I find it a reasonable hypothesis that those who wish to change can and that those who don't, choose not to.

 

[Slimething]

Parental indoctrination certainly plays a role in making the choice, but that doesn't imply that it is a an impediment to freely choosing as an adult.

I bolded the operative word. The second part of the sentence is a non-sequitor. There is no possible avenue for indoctrination to allow a free choice later on.

 

[Beth]

I bolded the operative word.

Thank you. I think it worth pointing out that the definition of that word varies tremendously and it is particularly prone to change in discussions of this nature. I was using the word in the way that so many people here do - i.e. parents who raise up their children to know and understand their religious beliefs and participate in some religious activities that are appropriate for their ages. People in this forum have defined such an upbringing as 'indoctrination'. However, when you claim that people cannot escape their indoctrination, I think you are using the word to refer to a harsher, more stringent situation. Something more akin to indoctrination into military service than forced attendance at Sunday School.

The second part of the sentence is a non-sequitor. There is no possible avenue for indoctrination to allow a free choice later on.

The evidence does not support that contention. You might want to check out "Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion" by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger. That book documents the results of their research into people who have changed their religious beliefs radically from their upbringing. Clearly, it's far more typical for people to choose to follow the religion they were raised in, but there's no evidence that people cannot choose to do otherwise.

 

[Henners]

I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.

Do you think that platitudes like that apply equally to the children in North Korea?

 

[Meadmaker]

I bolded the operative word. The second part of the sentence is a non-sequitor. There is no possible avenue for indoctrination to allow a free choice later on.

In casual conversation, it's all very well to say that indoctrination is bad, although you have to make sure that everyone knows that by "indoctrination", you are referring to brainwashing. The word could just mean education. (At least, that's what the dictionaries say. Here's the "American Heritage" dictionary's entry, quoted from dictionary.com.

1.To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2.To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. )

However, if we start talking about legislation instead of casual conversation I get a little bit more nervous. qayak wants to write tickets with $100+ fines for taking my son to the synagogue. Based on the fact that a whole lot of Jews stop going to synagogues as soon as their parents stop telling them they have to go, it would seem that whatever is going on at those places, it must not be the sort of indoctrination about which you are speaking. The people who stop going obviously make a choice not to go. Despite their obvious maintenance of free will in this matter, he's not taking any chances, and he'll be there with the ticket book.

I say that the desire to use legislation against religious groups makes him a lot like a Nazi, and I think that calls for that sort of restrictions on religious freedom are reprehensible.

But that's just me, I guess. If he had called for something truly odious, like giving government money to a church run soup kitchen, that would have brought forth howls of outrage. Barring children from church through legislation is nothing to get upset about, apparently.

Thank goodness there are people in the world who are thinking of the children and their welfare.

 

[qayak]

This isn't a workable argument because children don't have the same rights as adults.

And they shouldn't. They have different needs. I am not advocating banning religion for adults just the indoctrination of children. No one has argued against the right of an adult to sit in a car with the windows rolled up, in the sweltering heat of summer, while their spouse spends 4 or 5 hours gambling in a casino. However, we do argue against a parents right to leave their child in the car in summer while they go gamble. Different needs and rights.

And you are looking at this backwards. We put an age restriction on gun ownership. We prevent children from having guns until they are mature enough to understand the dangers. But with religious indoctrination you are advocating that children must be allowed to be indoctrinated BEFORE they understand the dangers. That is exactly backwards to your argument about gun ownership.

You are not protecting children as the gun laws do, you are protecting the systematic abuse of children.

. . . it's a really really bad idea. It's trampling all over the rights of other people to decide for themselves what they believe and to transmit their beliefs, along with their values and judgements and family culture, to their children.

Laws and customs change all the time. We ban many long held customs, female circumcision for example. We do not allow honour killings or gangrapes as suitable punishment for wrongs in the Indo-Canadian community although those are long held customs in their culture and religion.

The only difference here is that the restriction I argue for will have a profound affect on christianity as it is practiced int he West and while it is okay to restrict the practice of foreigners who are wrong about god anyway, it certainly isn't okay to restrict the customs of the one true religion . . . ours!

I put such a suggestion right along side making homosexual behavior illegal and fining people when they are caught engaging in such activities.

But we do restrict them. Homosexual behaviour is illegal when it is children involved. It is illegal for adults to initiate children into homosexual behaviour, or any sexual behaviour for that matter. That is something that is left up to children to decide when they reach the age of consent.

And it works! We know it works because homosexuals have kids who grow up to be straight and heterosexuals have kids that grow up to be gay. And it is a system that can be used a s a model for religious indoctrination.

 

[qayak]

In casual conversation, it's all very well to say that indoctrination is bad, although you have to make sure that everyone knows that by "indoctrination", you are referring to brainwashing. The word could just mean education. (At least, that's what the dictionaries say. Here's the "American Heritage" dictionary's entry, quoted from dictionary.com.

1.To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2.To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. )

But we aren't advocating indoctrinating them in another belief system. We are advocating allowing them the maturity to decide their own believe system.

I say that the desire to use legislation against religious groups makes him a lot like a Nazi, and I think that calls for that sort of restrictions on religious freedom are reprehensible.

You have not demonstrated that I am restricting religious freedom. Religious freedom means practicing your beliefs. Thrusting you beliefs on others is a violation of religious freedom. I am advocating an expansion to near universal religious freedom, which can only be a good thing.

You have a very screwed up view of Nazism. Didn't the Nazis give the Catholic church the right to indoctrinate all children in Germany? I believe the Vatican already had the right in Italy. Religious indoctrination is a sure sign of fascism and totalitarianism. As long as the church and the dictator are on the same page, of course.

 

[qayak]

I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.

Bottom line, it simply doesn't seem rational to me in the slightest to support such policies. It's an extreme measure for a problem that, as near as I can tell, has no documented objective and quantifiable evidence to support it's existance. Extreme solutions to non-existant problems are a recipe for serious trouble.

You are kidding, right?

How many children were injured by sharp objects on toy before standards were set? Well, to my knowledge, statistically very few. However, when it comes to the safety of children, one injury is too many.

How many children have been harmed by the toys in the current unsafe toy scandal? To my knowledge, none and yet look at the extreme measures being taken for this non-existent problem.

The point is, it is the FEW that child protection laws are designed for. They appear to protect the many but appearances can be deceiving.

Your belief that childhood indoctrination does not affect the ability of adults to make choices, is a extraordinary claim. Do you have some extraordinary evidence to back it up. I would settle for just ordinary evidence even. Can we get a reference to studies done?

 

[Meadmaker]

You have not demonstrated that I am restricting religious freedom.

Making it illegal to take children to a church isn't restricting religious freedom? Well, whatever. I'm sure I won't convince you otherwise, but I also sure wish somebody else would try.

You have a very screwed up view of Nazism. Didn't the Nazis give the Catholic church the right to indoctrinate all children in Germany? I believe the Vatican already had the right in Italy. Religious indoctrination is a sure sign of fascism and totalitarianism. As long as the church and the dictator are on the same page, of course.

Ah, yes, the old Nazi + Catholic conspiracy. I think I read about it in "Protocols of the Elders of Rome".

After the war, the nation of Israel sent their national symphony to Rome to play a concert for Pope Pius XII, in thanks for his efforts against Hitler and in protecting Italian Jews. I understand that some people think the church could have done more against Hitler, and I'm sure they could have, but the last time I checked, the government of Israel wasn't soft on Nazi sympathizers, and they thought the Pope wasn't a bad guy.

 

[articulett]

Do you think that platitudes like that apply equally to the children in North Korea?

Or kids told they'll burn in a lake of fire forever if they deny the holy spirit or don't believe that Jesus died for them?

Some choice.

 

[Beth]

Do you think that platitudes like that apply equally to the children in North Korea?

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about how children in North Korea are indoctrinated to know what you are referring to here.

 

[Slimething]

Thank you.

You're welcome! I'm off your Ignore List? Pity. I was very happy there.

I think it worth pointing out that the definition of that word varies tremendously and it is particularly prone to change in discussions of this nature.

Point rejected. The meaning pf that word does not vary at all in this or any discussion. The word indoctrination involves coercion and negative reinforcement. It does not mean the same as education, as you are are about to argue.

I was using the word in the way that so many people here do - i.e. parents who raise up their children to know and understand their religious beliefs and participate in some religious activities that are appropriate for their ages. People in this forum have defined such an upbringing as 'indoctrination'.

Yes, people like me use the word to describe what religious upbrining is. It's not education. It's active and relentless inculcation of the weak and vulnerable into a system of self-deceit and tribalism. Your attempts to sugar-coat it are useless. Most of us have been through it and know first hand what it is.

However, when you claim that people cannot escape their indoctrination, I think you are using the word to refer to a harsher, more stringent situation.

Another straw man. Nowhere did I say it was impossible to escape it. I did. Many Forum members have. You haven't seemed to. Your fuzzy-headed arguments belie any such claim. First, you claim that the lexicon is exactly what you mean it to be and no more. Then, you put words in other people's mouths. Then you proceed to fashion arguments that are so circular that they can only come from someone who subscribes to the unending mantra "Yes Jesus loves me. The bible tells me so."

The evidence does not support that contention.

Yes, it absolutely does. You can prove it to yourself. You claim to be statistician, right? Wouldn't it be easier for you to compare the relative distribution of faiths today and twenty years ago? If they are roughly similar, then the evidence does indeed, doubtlessly point in that direction. Instead, you'd rather inundate us with words and excuses.

You might want to check out "Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion" by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger.

You might want to check out "The Oxford Englush Dictionary". It lists the precise meaning of words. It's in alphabetical order.

 

[qayak]

Making it illegal to take children to a church isn't restricting religious freedom?

Not when the children are being taken in there to have their religious freedom violated through indoctrination.

 

[Slimething]

In casual conversation, it's all very well to say that indoctrination is bad, although you have to make sure that everyone knows that by "indoctrination", you are referring to brainwashing.

Brainwashing is an extreme term that is not accepted by most psychologists. OTOH, we all know what indoctrination is. Click here if you don't.

The word could just mean education.

It could. It could also mean a toaster or, perhaps, a fetching fedora. But it doesn't.

(At least, that's what the dictionaries say. Here's the "American Heritage" dictionary's entry, quoted from dictionary.com.

1.To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2.To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. )

I did a search on the definition of the word and the vast minority of dictionaries gave the neutral definition you posted above. How long did you have to search for it?

However, if we start talking about legislation instead of casual conversation...

Why would you even bring it up? My post had nothing to do with that. If you don't like qayak's approach/attituted, discuss it with him.

But that's just me, I guess. If he had called for something truly odious, like giving government money to a church run soup kitchen, that would have brought forth howls of outrage.

You can't be serious. You know that government money is already being funneld to private faith-based charities, don't you? At least, in the US it is. Tell me you're kidding!

Thank goodness there are people in the world who are thinking of the children and their welfare.

I believe we all are. Get off that high horse.