Subscribe to End Hereditary ReligionNews FeedSubscribe to End Hereditary ReligionComments

Home > Blog > 2011 > April

Parents are at a loss to justify forcing their faith on their children
April 21st, 2011 by Richard Collins

 

A forum participant writes:
Richard’s original proposition that children are being “forced” by their parents to blindly accept religion has been discounted by multiple participants. If all of those replies don’t at least partially satisfy the question, then the question isn’t legitimately looking for an answer. Or it’s trying to force a particular answer, which makes it something other than a question.
+++++++++++++
I agree that many of the faithful have offered justifications. I assure you I am looking for answers that are more satisfying than the ones offered. We have explained why we say parents are forcing their children to adopt a chosen religion and the mechanisms they use. The temporal justifications really seem to come down to: tradition, the considered legal approval of the state (at least here in the USA), a desire to raise law abiding and respectful children, and the mundane problem of what to do with children while parents participate in their chosen rituals. The mystical dogmatic reasons have absolutely no consequence in a secular society, and like it or not the United States is founded on secular principles. To say one has a strong regard for their religion and that they find it meets all their needs and therefore it is what is right for their children does not satisfy at all. We have elaborated the reasons why children deserve a shot at choosing for themselves. Principally because our laws and doctrines say that important life decisions belong to the person who must live with the consequences. Forcing faith on your children is an anomaly.
I’ll grant you where to park the kids on the day you worship presents problems, but they are maybe not all that insurmountable. Leaving them in the SUV with the windows rolled up would seem unwise, that is for sure. But why not make a reciprocal agreement with another family that has a different day to worship? Just a suggestion. You babysit their kids for them and they do likewise for you. Problem solved! Or, why don’t the institutions provide “religion-free childcare zones” where children can stay for a few hours on-site.
What to tell the children? How about: mommy and daddy are doing adult things right now, you’ll understand when you get older. Same answer you use when you go in the bedroom and lock the door, or refuse to serve them beer. Religion really is an adult pursuit, don’t you think?
If nothing else, I would say this discussion is raising issues and asking people to challenge their assumptions that they may not have done otherwise. If we accomplish just that much, is the conversation not worthwhile? There is always the possibility that a differently configured Supreme Court might reverse some of the decisions that have tilted the balance too far towards the alleged rights of parents. Indeed in the strict language of the law, the very doctrine that parents have parental rights is open to challenge. I have stated why childhood indoctrination is morally abominable if the reason is to insure the continuance of a religious sect.
Instead of the present emphasis on parent’s rights, a new doctrine stressing children’s rights would assign to parents the privilege of making decisions in the interests of their children. Parents would not have an absolute right and the privilege could be revoked when parents abused their position. Same as with a driver’s license. Privilege implies a conditional situation. Note: the words “rights” and “priviledge” have very closely defined meanings in the law.
Demagogues on the right and their radio-mouth echo chambers have lately started blatantly and defiantly proclaiming that children are the property of their parents to do with as they please. Well, no they are not chattel. We managed to free women from the status of chattel, and human rights workers are keen to free children next. For this reason, parents may favorably regard this discussion as a way to understand what may be coming in the future. They may also start looking at the secular countries of Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand for a glimpse of this future. Children should be able to file divorce proceedings against their parents. That is one option for battered wives. Why not for battered brow beaten children?
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta


The value of believing in free will
April 18th, 2011 by Richard Collins

Research Article
Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating

Kathleen D. Vohs
Department of Marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota,

Jonathan W. Schooler
Department of Psychology,

University of British Columbia

ABSTRACT—Does moral behavior draw on a belief in free will? Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating. In Experiment 1, participants read either text that encouraged a belief in determinism (i.e., that portrayed behavior as the consequence of environmental and genetic factors) or neutral text. Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task  in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.

We are always ready to take refuge in a belief in determinism if this freedom weighs upon us or if we need an excuse. (Sartre, 1943/1956, pp. 78–79)

The belief that one determines one’s own outcomes is strong  and pervasive. In a massive survey of people in 36 countries, more than 70% agreed with the statement that their fate is in their own hands (International Social Survey Programme, 1998). Yet the view from the scientific community is that behavior is caused by genes underlying personality dispositions, brain mechanisms, or features of the environment (e.g., Bargh, in press; Crick, 1994; Pinker, 2002). There is reason to think that  scientists’ sentiment is spreading to nonscientists. For example, the news magazine The Economist recently ran the headline, ‘‘Free to Choose? Modern Neuroscience Is Eroding the Idea of Free Will’’ (‘‘Free to Choose?’’ 2006). What would happen if people came to believe that their behavior is the inexorable product of a causal chain set into motion without their own volition? Would people carry on, selves and behavior unperturbed, or, as Sartre suggested, might the adoption of a deterministic worldview serve as an excuse for untoward behaviors?

Full article is here:

Source: “The Value of Believing in
Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating,”
by Kathleen Vohs and JonathanSchooler,
Psychological Science(January 2008).
Association for Psychological Science,
1010 VermontAvenue, N.W., 11th Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20005.
Web site
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta


UNCRC moving towards ratification
April 7th, 2011 by Richard Collins

The well funded HSLDA and their offspring, the ParentalRights.org have waged a constant campaign of lies and disinformation about the UNCRC for many years. Like all propaganda, if it is repeated often enough, the unwary will accept the lies as truth. These devious disgraceful organizations are doing a great disservice to the potential health and happiness of children around the world.

Please get the facts from Americans who are working to see the convention ratified and implemented. There are more than 200 organizations (religious and NGOs) here in the USA who support the convention and most of our allies in the Western democracies including the UK, Canada, Australia, and nearly all the European countries are implementing laws to conform with the articles of the UNCRC.

No reasonable person would examine the facts and believe the disinformtion published by HSLDA. They are getting away with it because average Americans are not generally experts in international law, child development, or human rights. The common man or woman is easily swayed by fear mongering Washington lobbyists, whose goal is to goad people into sending them money to keep the disinformation mill churning out rubbish.

Children’s Rights & American Christianity « Signs of Our Times
200 institutions and organizations support ratification of the UN CRC.
http://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/christians-usa-childrens-rights/#support

Suffer the Children?: A Call for United States Ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Detailed exposition of pro/con arguments
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158

When you encounter the lies spread by HSLDA reply to them with accurate information as given above. We need a truth squad to push back because if the lies are not refuted many people will take the charlatans words as truth.

Enhanced by Zemanta