Subscribe to End Hereditary ReligionNews FeedSubscribe to End Hereditary ReligionComments

Home > Blog > Human rights > Children's rights > Children’s Bill of Religious Rights.004

Children’s Bill of Religious Rights.004

Posted by

Preamble:

The right to commit to a faith practice or be free of religion is an extremely personal one with consequences that usually shape a persons entire life. Usurping this right is unethical no matter how well intentioned the motive. In a free society children should actually not require a bill of religious rights, but unfortunately many children around the world are burdened by oppressive religious hegemony. Until societies come to respect their children as persons with rights and not objects to be molded by religion, free people must work towards gaining all children their religious rights. If freedom means anything, it means the right to chose.

  1. Children have an ethical right to decide questions involving religious practice for themselves and until they are old enough to exercise this right no one can presume to impose a religious faith on them for the purpose of biasing or thwarting that right.
  2. Therefore, parents will not consign children to a specific religious faith, but instead will insure their children receive a well rounded education about all faiths including a parent’s own personal choice. Parents may explain why they were motivated to follow a certain faith and openly practice their faith.
  3. Children require education to help them lead constructive lives, make appropriate decisions and get along in society. Such education must be neutral and not associated with the practice of any religious faith. They must never be admonished that there are supernatural rewards and punishments for the way they lead their lives.
  4. The initiative to receive religious instruction and participate in religious activities must come from the child, sans coercion of any kind.
  5. Therefore, it follows that before embarking on religious activities children must demonstrate that they have reached the level of maturity that they are thinking like an adult, meaning as one important measure they can realize that life is full of options and each option they might choose can have positive effects and negative drawbacks. They are to use facts and reason to weigh the positives and negatives in making all of their life choices. Children begin to think like adults around 12 to 14 years of age, but there can be wide variation between individuals.
  6. Children can change their mind at anytime and opt out or modify a course of action if circumstances warrant a change. Only the unwise continue to carry out a plan that is not working just for the sake of constancy. There is no disgrace in changing one’s mind when new facts and understandings so warrant such a change.
  7. Other family members and friends must respect a child’s decision and not interfere.

Please add your comments and suggestions to the Forum topic instead of commenting below.
http://www.endhereditaryreligion.com/forum/topic.php?id=28

Posted on Monday, June 22nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm in Children's rights.

Related Posts

No related posts.

Share/Save


Bookmark and Share

Subscribe via RSS! or Follow EndOfReligion on Twitter!


Comments (33)

 Follow this discussion | Leave a trackback | Login

Lindsey Coddington

This is so fabulous ! I love it ! I think this is exactly what children need ! Thank you for this wonderful post ! I hope that it will come to pass ! How can we get this into practice ?

» Posted on June 23, 2009 at 12:06 am

Rev. Bob

I'm posting as guest because intensedebate is evidently handicapped hostile. Way to make us feel like half-people, intensedebate!

Somebody needs to tell them about GAWDS

Apart from the choice of platform, I like it. Keep going.

» Posted on June 23, 2009 at 7:02 am

Rev. Bob

Sorry. Evidently warring cookies between here and fb resulted in a pile of cookie crumbs.

back on topic, shouldn't this be a bill of children's religious rights?

For it to be a children's bill, shouldn't it be by children? Which leads to a really neat process question. Maybe we can get some kids involved?

» Posted on June 23, 2009 at 7:17 am

Richard_Collins

Getting kids involved is a very good point and I totally agree. I have a number of teens and young adults in my facebook, and it was a real surprise when youngsters started sending me friend requests. Many of them are Canadians. They are very articulate and several have their own blogs. I did send many of them invitations to participate and I hope they will. Those who have younger siblings can perhaps interview them for us. Indeed, I would hope everybody who is raising children will consult their kids. Facebook rules require children to be 13 or older to establish an account, but from reading personal narratives on the web I know there are children much younger who have clear ideas about religion and the position their parents have placed them in.

» Posted on June 23, 2009 at 7:50 am

areks

yay! end false religion! find the true God! well it must be close to the armageddon… romans 1:20 come on come on 2peter 3:7 dont be fooled by satan there is a God wo cares about you! but end all false religion! lol

» Posted on June 24, 2009 at 5:53 am

James Tracy

all religions are false! yay! lol

» Posted on June 24, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Jessica

Sounds like a no-brainer to me Richard :)

» Posted on June 25, 2009 at 1:59 am

Sid

I agree fully, Richard. But don't you think this will be impossible to enforce and the child will anyways be brainwashed into following the religion of their parents over the years?

» Posted on June 25, 2009 at 6:01 am

Richard_Collins

Hi Sid,
Obviously we cannot send the Children´s Rights police into parent's homes. But in any family or circle of friends there are those who are aware of what transpires in families. If we succeed in convincing people it is unethical to thwart the rights of their children these witnesses will apply pressure if they agree. The goal now is to upset the current assumption that religious indoctrination is a given and beyond questioning. Just like slavery was considered at one time beyond reproach.

» Posted on June 25, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Richard_Collins

New version .002 is posted in the blog. Please add your suggestions and comments to the forum topic instead of to this comment section.

» Posted on June 26, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Children have the right to information | End Hereditary Religion

[...] Children’s Bill of Religious Rights (endhereditaryreligion.com) [...]

» Posted on July 1, 2009 at 10:56 am

Gavin

This smacks of communist China. So now we're advocating the proscription of culture? Sure, it's unfortunate that religious beliefs are semi-hereditary, but so are almost all ignorant beliefs including sexism, racism, homophobia etc. How could you possibly legislate against racism? Your plan does nothing more then undermine freedom of speech and gives too much control to the government over matters that the state should stay out of. Religious belief is not mutually exclusive from culture or psychology nor does it exist in a vacuum. This bill is an affront to democracy, rationalism, and liberalism.

» Posted on July 8, 2009 at 4:56 am

James Tracy

These are ideals. Nobody is advocating using state power to force or coerce individuals to adhere to any of these points.

» Posted on July 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm

Richard_Collins

Hi Sid,
Please elaborate. Who said anything about culture? Why would you want to qualify what is happening around the world as "semi-hereditary". Pick a country any country and I will tell you what the people in that country follow and pass on to their children. If that is not hereditary, I don't know what is. None of the seven articles addresses any kind of legislative action. Parents are free to talk to their children as much as they like so there is no suppression on speech. You have a strange notion of democracy rationalism and liberalism so far as I can make out.

» Posted on July 8, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Gavin

First of all, you cannot separate religion and culture since the two are so deeply intertwined. I refuse to humor any other view. I used the term 'semi-hereditary' to avoid absolute claims of why people believe what they believe. Of course, children in Christian societies will most likely become Christian children, but I don't see that belief system as all that different from accepting the teachings of Islam, or any other organized religion. It is fair to state ( since the evidential mole hill is turning into a mountain) that there appears to be a psychological predisposition towards faith and unquestioning (for the most part) belief. Therefore, it is too simplistic to call it 'brain-washing' even if you've used euphemisms to sanitize your stance. Some people will believe no matter what, and it is more constructive to recognize the constraints of human behavior than it is to revel in some fanciful idealistic vision of an atheist utopia. Human nature is a powerful determinant, and your subtly well masked post modernist views carry scary ramifications. Where do you think religion and culture come from? There is no conspiracy, just the fearful limitations of a self-righteous primate species.

» Posted on July 9, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Gavin

On the other hand, there are also too many counter examples of people rejecting religion to hold such an arrogant view of humanity- many people are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves no matter how intense and pervasive the indoctrination is, and others are extremely susceptible without parental influence. It is no mistake that every culture that has ever evolved has done so with a constant religious institutional presence. As for addressing my alleged misunderstanding regarding legislation: if you are not calling for legislation, then why call this a bill? And if not a bill, then what the hell are you babbling about? Is this simply a philosophical and parental mission statement? If so, then many many kudos and respect points to you sir. My notion of democracy involves allowing people to pursue self-determination no matter how politically incorrect. I don't hold religious belief as rational, nor do I think interfering with parental duties as appropriate. This brand of moral certainty has no place in government (if that's your intention). I subscribe to small 'l' Liberalism, in so far as we try to not oppress individuals, and keep government intervention at an absolute minimum. Your take on religion and parenting is about as intellectually bankrupt as affirmative action- it's a band-aid solution for a much deeper and more complex issue.

» Posted on July 9, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Gavin

Well I guess I'll just end this discussion with a brief response since you didn't address anything I said directly:

1. If you want to get technical and call this a bill without declaring its purpose seems to me to be nothing more than self indulgent ego stroking. I'm sure you and your dictionary will be very happy together. I like how you failed to mention the other 10-15 definitions of bill, very sneaky . You purposely chose to call this a bill to give it an aura of importance that is undeserved.
2. Which 'qualities' of mine have I projected onto you? Mental fortitude? Obnoxiousness? Satirical wit? Delusions of grandeur? I never once accused you of possessing anything remotely approaching any of these fine qualities that define my character. Oh, you meant values?
3. I used affirmative action as an example of government attempting to right an obvious wrong with an ill conceived solution that has very real and subversive results. Also notice my use of this clause: 'as intellectually bankrupt as' Pay special attention to the 'AS ______ AS' format. This is often used to draw comparisons or to note parallels. I was simply doing so to illustrate the ineffectiveness of superficial solutions that do not attack the root causes of the problem.

» Posted on July 10, 2009 at 2:06 am

Gavin

4. I can't help myself here. A complete non sequitur? Not a partial, a half, or even a 3/4? But completely illogical? Once you get into calling someone out by invoking ye old latin terms of logical fallacies then you run the risk of coming off as a pretentious snickering wiener- especially if used incorrectly.
5. Since when is there a limit on freedom of speech? Who decides that limit? (please recognize that this is a rhetorical question and by responding with 'Well obviously the Supreme Courts' is unnecessary here) Speech should never, ever be limited or restricted, no matter how offensive. Speech is civil, it is the tool of discourse, if speech offends you then stay inside. It is action that is to be restricted, not words.
6. Mind control techniques? This is all so very sinister. We've all seen 'Jesus Camp' and yes it was frightening. The problem here is that most parents aren't hucksters trying to pull a fast one on their children, they honestly believe they are saving their souls. I agree that parents should educate themselves and present their children with well rounded world views and avoid indoctrination. However, that requires well educated, rational, critical thinking adults. So once again the problem is a more complex a nuanced one.

» Posted on July 10, 2009 at 2:07 am

Gavin

7. Finally, as vulnerable as baby seals? And you accuse me of logical fallacies? This is nothing more than presenting manipulative imagery to mask the shaky foundation the argument stands on. Of course children deserve rights and protection from harm, demonstrable harm. And as much as religion repulses me, and as much as I love to attack cultural relativism, I cannot support meddling in the affairs of families in this way. Religion for some people, and this is the genius of its design, does not allow for a casual introduction. Some religions dictate the routines of daily life, and it is just too complicated to separate children from their parents. Once again, I understand that children are impressionable, but they DO develop into adults, and lets not blame everything on the parents. There are smart people, average people, and stupid people. Intelligence falls nicely into a normal distribution, and is a powerful predictor. Education is the only remedy, and it's clearly working since the first world countries are becoming increasingly secular (while noting the ebbs and flows of a fluctuating trend). So stop the fear mongering already, all the evidence points to an evolving human civilization that is continually becoming more peaceful. I said more peaceful, not peaceful.

Hmmm, maybe brief wasn't the best way to preface this response.

» Posted on July 10, 2009 at 2:07 am

Richard_Collins

Hi Gavin,
Well I have a well stocked medicine cabinet that is full of more than band-aids. I also have access to dictionaries which I consult frequently.

bill: any written paper containing a statement of particulars

There is a well know phenomenon in psychology known as projection. Reading your comments I would say you are projecting your qualities onto me. Besides, misconstruing just about everything I wrote. What does affirmative action have to do with this subject? A complete non sequitur. Do you have an antidote for Cialis?

Do I get my kudos now or later? I totally agree with you that free people should be autonomous and self-determining. This means that everyone is free to follow their conscience. However just like the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion has limits. What we see now is the courts in the USA have elevated the religious expression rights of parents to a place where they now harm others. To wit: their very own children. Since SCOTUS ruled on parental rights, much has changed. We know a great deal more about childhood development and especially the crucial period 3 to 7 years. Parents and institutions rush children into religious practice and subject them to mind control techniques that were not even being studied 60 or 90 years ago. Children are as vulnerable as baby seals, bambi, or fish in a barrel. Taking advantage of them isn't ethical based on all we know today.
It never was, really. Their ability to exercise a choice must be held in trust for them until they are old enough to make a decision that fits their freedom of conscience — not their parents.

Thanks for commenting.

» Posted on July 9, 2009 at 9:32 pm

Richard_Collins

If you are going to defend the unexamined unethical abuse of children you should at least spend some time looking at the harm that is done to them. Read the personal narratives people post on exchristian.net. And then perhaps you can explain why there are dozens more web sites devoted to deconverting people who have managed to escape an insidious system that was imposed on them when they were totally helpless to resist.

You seem to think you have carved out some noble high ground. But it is not you who are suffering the consequences of your mistaken misguided attitude. It is the children you so callously disregard who are the ones paying for your noble concepts about the inviability of the family.

Rather than spew bile, please try to put together at least one rational objection to any of the articles. Anyone of them. That would be a step in the right direction.

I'm still waiting for my kudos you promised.
Please take your blinders off.

» Posted on July 10, 2009 at 11:16 pm

Gavin

"If you are going to defend the unexamined unethical abuse of children "

When did I defend the abuse of children? Sidenote: Is there such thing as the ethical abuse of children? Please, no redundancies. Now back to your charge, when have I defended child abuse? All I've done is attempt to present the issue as more comlicated than a simple 'bill'; can solve. Religion and culture and products of the human psychological profile, so it is important to actually consider WHY religion exists, and WHY it continues to exist. It is not so simple as answering with 'Easy, evil parents brainwash their children.' If that were true, it would seem rather unlikely that every culture would have its own religious institution, and even less likely that they would all be so similar.

» Posted on July 12, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Gavin

But then again, you did lay down the trump card- exchristian.net! Booyah! Anecdotal evidence at its very best. While I would venture a guess that 99% of the personal tales are accurate and honest, that would still not constitute victory for your argument. For one, it obviously isn't a random sample, something very important for statistical analysis. Anyone who posts a story there probably has a particular disposition. Not to mention that when it comes down to it, they remain anonymous, so it is nothing more than a poorly executed poll with no statistical results. This is not the stuff of rational debate, nor would this kind of reasoning strike fear into the heart of an opposing lawyer during a trial.

» Posted on July 12, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Gavin

It's easy to explain why there are so many websites, and I can do so without reading a single one because, and let's face it, the stories follow a generic pattern 9 times out of 10- there are people who escaped MORE RADICAL forms of Christianity! I doubt there are many Anglicans or Catholics lamenting about the 'insidious system imposed on them'. And in this respect, when it comes to the Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Born Again Christians I will gladly admit that they do brainwash their children. These radicalized versions of Christianity do have clear agendas and are a threat. However, you never specified this so you're left to having me make your arguments for you.

Sidenote: inviability? or viability?

"Rather than spew bile" Is that how you form a rebuttal? Instead of specifically addressing anything I've written, you cannot do any better than attacking my character or making vague arguments. I'm seeing a pattern here, and it makes me think you don't actually consider opposing viewpoints.

» Posted on July 12, 2009 at 1:16 pm

Gavin

Article IV: IV.The initiative to receive religious instruction and participate in religious activities must come from the child, sans coercion of any kind.

Since I can tell that you subscribe to the antiquated belief that children are blank slates, and are worried into a state of near paralysis over the plasticity of the pre-adult brain, then perhaps we should stay out of childhood development altogether. Is it a logical leap to assume that since it would be wrong to coerce a child into participation in religion (which I agree with) it would also be wrong to coerce a child into attending school and receiving an eduaction? Sometimes children don't know best and require an adult to force his or her hand. I think many children are open to logic and an approach based on honesty and communication, some children would never do anything if there wasn't some form of punitive intervention. I guess what I'm saying is that if children are granted autonomy 'here', how can you say they don't have it other 'there'? Or is it only when it adheres to your value system?

» Posted on July 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Gavin

Article V: V.Therefore, it follows that before embarking on religious activities children must demonstrate that they have reached the level of maturity that they are thinking like an adult, meaning as one important measure they can realize that life is full of options and each option they might choose can have positive effects and negative drawbacks. They are to use facts and reason to weigh the positives and negatives in making all of their life choices. Children begin to think like adults around 12 to 14 years of age, but there can be wide variation between individuals.

This rebuttal is too obvious. You are suggesting (not in so many words) that in order to practice religion, people must demonstrate competency. This, for one undermines the argument for autonomy in Article IV, and also disqualifies other groups of people such as the severly mentally retarded from ever 'embarking on religious activities'. Do you think there should be a test? Who would administer this test?

Now if you don't respond to specific arguments I've made, then I'll leave you to your flock of adoring sheep and yes men and women who are all too willing to reassure you that you really have no equal.

» Posted on July 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Gavin

Fair enough, but I will take the last word. I feel confident claiming that in this 'exchange' that I was the only one actually exchanging ideas. It began with me offering resistance to your 'bill' and that was met with an almost disbelief. I attempted to articulate my stance, and illustrate it in a clear and organized way to avoid ambiguities. Each time I offered something that you didn't like (whether or not you actually took time and considered the content is uncertain) instead of directly challenging what I wrote, you simply accused me of wearing blinders, of not browsing the proper websites, or even so far as "It is the children you so callously disregard who are the ones paying for your noble concepts about the inviability of the family." So by disagreeing with you, I've somehow become the one manipulating children- an insidious villain in my own right? It's funny how easily, and predictably you were offended, especially for an atheist who probably secretly deems himself to be a real intellectual maverick. In the free market of ideas, fragile egos won't last long.
Final thought- your last reply continued the personal attack without directly responding to a single point I made, and you ignored my direct, and may I say rational, criticism of your 'list of particulars'.

» Posted on July 12, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Richard_Collins

Hi Gavin,
You are so belligerent in your tone and attitude that I wonder why there is any use replying to you. I think I'll just let you go your own way. You are more intent on lecturing than exchanging views and at this point I have more interesting and enlightened people on my list to talk to. Thanks anyway.

» Posted on July 12, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Abuses Against Children Persist Despite Rights Convention | End Hereditary Religion

[...] Children’s Bill of Religious Rights (endhereditaryreligion.com) [...]

» Posted on October 9, 2009 at 5:59 am

Scamp

Communism is a form of government and has nothing whatsoever to do with religious belief. To say that Captialism and/or democracy has anything to do with religion is also false. These are just forms of government.

China outlawed Christianity and many other religions for one primary reason. They were continually interfering in government affairs. Sound familiar? Just within the past year China has allowed Buddhist's to practice openly – because – they have shown over the past decades to be the least intrusive upon government.

Unfortunately, Christians in the United States of America not only disrupt government affairs, but are terminally intrusive upon private affairs also. Their are just enopugh of those 'born-againer's' that simply cannot go through one day without attempting to save a non-believer's soul.

» Posted on December 31, 2010 at 3:48 pm

Scamp

While much of your post can be discussed for and against it is fact that little children are subjected to the most horrific of ideas – ideas that possess them for life.

As a six year-old in Sunday school I remember the lesson: Jesus loves you. Jesus was nailed to a cross, bled for you, took all your sins upon himself, why he loved you so much he died for you. The very least you can do is love Him back. Those that refuse to accept this gospel will burn forever in HELL…with your very own mother looking down from heaven as you are tortured with burning hot fire for eternity. Can anyone say this is not brainwashing?

» Posted on December 31, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Richard Collins

There is no getting around the fact that parents are the most influential people in their children's lives. However, there is a huge difference between influencing a child and indoctrinating them. Children have no obligation to fulfill the plans of their parents and even less obligation to fulfill the plans of their parents religious institution. The change will come about because future parents will see what is wrong with the status quo and make suitable corrections. All human rights struggles begin at the consciousness raising stage, which is where we are now.

Secular parenting expert Dale McGowan has given us the best methods for raising a child free of indoctrination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YgM-A8A1ck

If it were the case that children could easily slip their bonds that would be one thing, but the fact is leaving a religion or even changing a religion can be a terrible experience for some people and can take years.

» Posted on January 1, 2011 at 2:08 pm

Richard Collins

I assert that culture evolves in spite of religion. No culture has ever been free of the pernicious influence of religion until modern times. The experience of the advanced secular societies in Europe bodes well for societies that manage to shed superstition and ignorance.

In any case this is an issue that is beside the point. The point is children have rights that are trampled by parent's free exercise of religion rights. This has happened because children were set off in a special category instead of being recognized as persons with separable rights.

A bill is simply a formal document setting out conditions or demands.

Allowing what is essentially unfettered parental control has costs that are born by children.. The price they pay for this idealism is unfair to them. I am all for idealism, but tempered with a dash of realism.

» Posted on January 2, 2011 at 8:25 am

Post a new comment

« »