How to tell your parents you are atheist/agnostic
http://www.youtube.com/user/writcheyc?feature=mhsn
Have you stopped believing your parent’s religion? Many kids are questioning the religion of their parents. Some have stopped believing and don’t know how to tell their parents. This video is a guide to kids and teenagers in opening up to their parents.
In many respects, the advice in this video tracks the advice given to GLBT kids who want to be honest with their families and friends.
Related articles
- Hope For Young Atheists (anatheist.net)
Parental rights are not inalienable
- Image via Wikipedia
Here in the USA there is far too much attention given to the doctrine of parental rights and children are suffering for this. Our family laws granting parents so much power rest solely on patriarchal custom, not on ethics and not on an inalienable right. It doesn’t hurt that our judges are just as infatuated with the supernatural as the most uneducated people in the land.
Family law Professor James Dwyer presents the arguments against our current doctrine of parent’s rights in a seminal paper and in his books. Briefly, we do not grant rights to one group of people over the lives of another group of people except in this very unique case of parents and their children. The reason such rights are not granted is that according to our legal theory rights can only apply to an individual and must be self determining not other determining. Rights have a very technical meaning in the law, but people bandy the term around as though they actually know what they are talking about.
We especially should not grant such rights to a group of people who have questionable self serving motives, such as insuring the survival of a religion and using their children as instruments in such a scheme. This is why the Yoder decision will one day be reversed. If we can ever clear out the people like Thomas and Scalia and put the court on a progressive track.
Inalianable: Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Inalienable rights are usually enshrined in human rights declarations. I don’t find anything about parental rights being inalienable in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Obviously, Michael Ferris of HSLDA agrees that our parental rights doctrine is on shaky ground or why would his organization ParentalRights.org be clamoring to amend the US constitution to “protect” parental rights. Which like I say do not exist in the sense of natural rights. What he and his devious attorneys attempt to persuade people with are quotes from legal arguments they take out of context from various court decisions. People who are not constitutional lawyers buy his line. Then, convinced the evil state is trying to rob them of their rights, they get all up in arms and send him money, which is the whole point. He stands as much chance of amending the constitution as I do.
The Swedes, some of the planets most bold social engineers, have created many far reaching laws concerning parent/child relationships. Libertarians, may all swoon now, but the Swedes seem to be doing pretty well as a society. You should know that by now.
Here is some news about how Swedes are going about amending their laws on sex ed.
http://www.thelocal.se/10298/20080306
Related articles
- Children as property of parents (endhereditaryreligion.com)
The principle of freedom of religion only goes so far
- Image via Wikipedia
A forum participant writes:
It is rather a relationship with a loving God who desires to know them and show them truths of the Bible in their everyday lives. It is about understanding that acceptance is not based on performance but on the very existance of that relationship. If I did not teach what I believe to be true and so very important, eternally important, I would be remiss as a parent.
++++++++++++
Hold up there! First of all you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to show there is a god. Let alone a Hebrew god of the bible (assuming you are Christian). We cannot accept such imaginings as justification for parent’s actions. Prove there is a god — then maybe we will listen to you.
Children should only be taught the truth of the natural world, not the wild postulations of the supernatural. You do not know there is a god. You simply have decided to believe there is a god. If this gives you comfort and satisfaction, well and good you are entitled to follow your conscience. It does not mean you are entitled to infect your children with your delusional beliefs.
Do you understand the difference? Making crucial life decisions based on unproven beliefs is highly irresponsible. The principle of freedom of religion only goes so far — the minute harm is caused by a belief in religion your rights are abrogated — null and void. Teaching vulnerable children supernatural myths and unfounded religious dogma is harmful. You can couch your misbegotten program with all the sentiments of love you so choose, that only makes your actions more reprehensible. Parents that truly love their children respect them as persons and allow them to make there own choices to suit themselves.
If we are going to suffer harm, wouldn’t we all rather be wounded by someone that hates us than by someone who loves us? You are trampling on your children’s religious freedom.
Related articles
- Do atheist activists poison everything? (barefootbum.blogspot.com)
- A Holiday Letter from the Family of an Air Force Academy Graduate [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
Superstition vs reason, which will triumph?
- Image via Wikipedia
There are two ways of looking at the world – through faith and superstition or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence – in other words, through reason. –Richard Dawkins
At the beginning of the 21st century we are experiencing a virtual war against reason that is happening due to at least two important reasons. Firstly, the religion virus has spread far and wide in recent decades capitalizing on doubt and confusion about modern intellectual achievements and cultural changes that have emancipated people from the grasp of religion. Secondly, science is advancing so rapidly that the common person cannot absorb all the new knowledge. Highly technical scientific reports are so numerous that even experts complain they are being swamped by information What chance do lay persons have? How many simply give up ever understanding.
To fill the void, peddlers of superstition have flooded in to offer bizarre alternatives to science that seem to make sense and don’t require rigor or careful thought. Purveyors advocate impossible untested schemes of quack medicine and psychics abound that have absolutely no logical grounding whatsoever. The most aggressive superstition peddlers attack the very notion that evidence and fact are critical in the search for truth. They cavalierly toss out epistemology backed by centuries of investigation and careful study. They claim one can “know” something through feelings, emotions, ephemeral insubstantial hunches. President George W. Bush, a proud born-again christian, claimed he went with his gut feeling to answer the most profound questions. According to him, what felt right is right. This is stupifying ignorance raised to the umpteenth power. If he used his gut to think with, one wonders if he used his brain to digest his food. The fool.
Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of science education and a tireless advocate of using reason to seek the truth, stars in a two part television program, “The Enemies of Reason“, broadcast by Britain’s Channel 4 television. Here is part one.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017#
Part Two:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017#docid=6004927014381716642
Related articles
- This Week On God Discussion Radio: Science, Reason and Superstition with Dr. Liz Cornwell, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and other special guests – Deborah (show host) – God Disussion (richarddawkins.net)
- The Poetry of Science: Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson (milkandcookies.com)
- [Update - audio added ] This Week On God Discussion Radio: Science, Reason and Superstition with Dr. Liz Cornwell, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, and other special guests – Deborah (show host) – God Discussion (richarddawkins.net)
Children as property of parents
Historically, children were considered the property of parents. Under the scheme of patriarchy wives and children are under the control of the family head, the husband of the family. Much of this hoary antiquated thinking is still promoted by far right conservatives and the vestiges of ancient thinking die hard.
Today, children are persons in their own right and modern progressives recognize the personhood of children. Children have the right to grow up free of debilitating dogmatic superstitious thinking. Instead parents and communities must encourage children to think critically and determine their own path through life to suit themselves.
Authoritarian parents view the autonomy of children as threats to their antiquated way of life. Anachronistic groups like the dominionist inspired and led Parentalrights.org want to seal off the family from the state to avoid heretical ideals like children’s rights or the emancipation of women creeping in. They advocate a constitutional amendment to protect what they call parental rights, but are really restraints aimed at the protection of the antiquated system of patriarchy. This is why they emphasize the taboo of non-interference in family matters (a strong meme). The goal is really to keep patriarchy going and ward off any progressive moves that would liberate wives and children.
