Why do outsiders think they have a right to impose their non-beliefs on believing parents?
- Image by clemente via Flickr
This question comes up frequently on a forum I initiated with the following question:
Why do parents believe they have the right to force religion on their children?
I guess my standard answer has not sufficed, so I’ll try harder. First my standard answer:
Beliefs are not easily imposed on adults.
I’ll elaborate. A belief is a concept or idea that is held without evidence, without facts. Hense, religious people make a virtue of beliefs. A belief is synonymous with an opinion. As long as adults are just exchanging opinions, not much is going to change. Opinions have no force, no weight, they lack the ability to sway people’s minds. If a person thinks their belief will not withstand challenge, isn’t that an important clue that the belief actually needs to be challenged? Where is it written in the constitution that citizens cannot challenge each other. I’ve never seen this anywhere and in fact the foundation of our democracy was healthy debate. Our founders engaged in the most raucous rambunctious debate you can imagine.
I think the point you may be reaching for is why should atheists challenge parents over the way they raise their children. My rejoinder is why shouldn’t we if we think it is wrong? If your family lives on an isolated island and you are the only family, then what you do to your children only effects you and the children. You don’t live on an isolated island, do you? We may regret what is happening to such an isolated family’s children, but it doesn’t really effect us.
Whatever gives you the idea that others in your community are “outsiders”, as you put it. This “us – them” attitude is fostered by religious groups as a way to solidify support and loyalty. But, it divides us and sets one group against another. Yet another valid reason to challenge believers, so far as I can see.
We humans are social animals and we all depend upon each other unless we are hermits. Don’t we look askance at hermits? Are they not considered anti-social, strange, even threatening?
When I encounter parents here who are really defensive, and many take this to the point of belligerence, it tells me I am listening to someone who is not so confident in what they are doing or they would not overreact. People who are secure in their convictions do not react defensively when challenged because they have carefully thought about their world view and can usually present it calmly and clearly.
People know I am an atheist, I make no secret of this. However, the fact that I am an atheist is immaterial to the question. There are theists who understand and appreciate the ethical question involved. Accordingly, they also oppose indoctrination of vulnerable children. Which, opposition I think, is actually your concern. Am I understanding you? Likewise, many theists support the separation of church and state. It is really not a question of believer versus non-believer.
If parents are raising their children in their faith so that the faith can continue, then they are using their children as instruments and we in the West decided long ago that it is unethical for a person to use another person to satisfy their own desires. It would be like raising a child specifically to be a field hand on your farm or to be a soldier to protect your country’s borders. Hitler was reviled for developing an extensive government program that subsidized German women to be baby factories so he could have soldiers for his army.
A final thought. Can you appreciate the fact that everyone can be thought of as an “outsider” to someone else. We have to get past this kind of divisive thinking if we are going to build healthy happy communities.
Related articles by Zemanta
- An insightful personal narrative of an apostate (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Liars for Jesus (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=09b4fb7d-80fa-4a1d-a682-abff1501456b)
Why people believe in evolution, *not*
- Image via Wikipedia
Do you want to know why people believe in evolution? Read evolution denying Christian, Wayne Jackson. Here we have in one concise document all the contorted rationalizations you could possibly imagine for *not* believing in evolution.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/567-why-people-believe-in-evolution
Wayne Jackson, is an expert propagandist. What he churns out are classic pieces built around the strategy of “turnspeak”. Turnspeak is a technique of deliberately confusing issues by turning the truth upside down. Jackson attacks Darwinians, but then the claim is weirdly made that the Darwinians are actually the attackers. Black becomes white and white becomes black. Joseph Goebbels, the NAZI propaganda genius is credited with inventing the technique. A variation of turnspeak is the use of disingenuous descriptions that seem to conflate opposing positions into advocacy. It’s easier to persuade others to agree with an argument for something rather than against something. For example “pro marriage” and “protection of marriage” really mean anti-same-sex marriage. Pro life really means anti-abortion. Paranoid propagandists like Jackson seek to create their own version of reality so they can ward off the unwelcome truth of actual reality. Jackson’s Christian Courier web site is a monument to his delirium.
A facebook member, Prince St. Cyr follows the Christian zealots and is an expert in analyzing propaganda of practitioners like Wayne Jackson that are part of the assault on reason. St Cyr informs us:
“One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. … Respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all-but-obsessively accumulates “evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.”
Why should anyone care about Wayne Jackson and his writing? Isn’t he too far off the wall? Jackson matters because he has so many followers and they represent a dangerous segment of our population. The enemies of reason, which is what we are talking about here, are passionate about spreading their propaganda and they enjoy political power and have money funneled to them by wealthy patrons. They represent a malignancy in our collective body politic and they have succeeded in making ignorance fashionable and desirable. Recall Joe the plumber? Sarah Palin‘s preposterous candidacy for vice president revealed exactly how virulent the malignancy grew in the waning days of the Bush administration. We may have gone into remission, but the cancer is still there. Just tune to the Fox network or the many Christian zealots on radio and television.
We should care because as Charles Darwin said: “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” We care because the lies and half truths of Jackson’s propaganda are easily believed by people who have been systematically turned away from rationality and reason. They have been methodically robbed of the training they need to see through the lies. Worse yet, they can be influenced to vote and to support the systematic assault on reason. They disrupt public meetings, and divert public money into court battles such as the Dover case and the countless challenges that arise around Christian holidays that involve Christians openly challenging the separation of church and state.
In Texas, the State Board of Education is chaired by a radical literalist Christian who constantly seeks to introduce his flavor of religion into the science curriculum and now into the social studies curriculum.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777413372910705.html”
The Texas Board of Education will vote this week on a new science curriculum designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution, a step that could influence what is taught in biology classes across the nation.
The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry. Texas is such a huge textbook market that many publishers write to the state’s standards, then market those books nationwide.
“This is the most specific assault I’ve seen against evolution and modern science,” said Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution.
Christians are angered or distressed when anyone states the obvious: that they are deluded. But as a final example of turnspeak, here is Wayne Jackson concluding his article:
“People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude themselves when they think otherwise.” A golden nugget of turnspeak.
Translation:
People believe evolution because it is based on solid evidence. They cannot be stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial emotion and personal factors in the manner that Christians are stampeded into Christianity. Darwinians do not delude themselves like Christians delude themselves.
According to Gallup only about 12% of Americans accept the scientific arguments and mounds of data as proof that natural forces are sufficient to explain evolution. No supernatural intervention is required. The widespread acceptance that a supernatural force has to be behind evolution can only be regarded as a national disgrace because it exemplifies how willing people are to embrace the wild rationalizations of propagandists like Wayne Jackson. Charles Darwin gave humanity one of the most elegant and brilliant intellectual achievements ever created by a human and his theory is routinely and stupidly dragged through the mud and mire of Christian and Muslim propaganda.
American understanding of science and the scientific method is woefully lacking and the proximate cause is a deliberate program of propaganda directed towards intellectuals, the public schools, and in particular the appreciation of science and reason. The propaganda merchants are literalistic evangelicals that clearly understand the relationship between education level attained and the acceptance of fanciful supernatural beliefs. The more education you have, the less apt you are to accept dogma and superstition as guides to living. The problem is that people opposed to education and rationality indoctrinate their hapless children with their backward outlook and beliefs. You do not see such ignorance in Japan, Canada, or the secular democracies of the world. Unfortunately, the Muslims are just as adamantly opposed to evolution as our hillbilly theologists.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Texas board comes down on 2 sides of creationism debate (cnn.com)
- Science and faith: the conflict (telegraph.co.uk)
UN Secretary General’s Report on Violence Against Children
Appendix: The 12 Overarching Study Recommendations
- Strengthen national and local commitment and action: This refers to establishing a national focal point on violence against children by the end of 2007, to coordinate actions, and especially to ensure that actions to stop violence against children are integrated into national planning processes by 2009.
- Prohibit all violence against children: This refers to legal reforms including implementation of laws to stop all forms of violence against children, in all settings, including all corporal punishment, harmful traditional practices, such as early and forced marriages, female genital mutilation and so-called honour crimes, sexual violence, and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as required by international treaties.
- Prioritize prevention: This refers to preventing all forms of violence against children in all settings by addressing underlying causes, as well as more immediate risk and protective factors.
- Promote non-violent values and awareness-raising: This refers to transforming attitudes that condone or normalize violence against children including via public information campaigns which promote non-violent values and protect children in all media coverage.
- Enhance the capacity of all who work with and for children: This refers to developing the capacity of all those who work with and for children to improve prevention, detection and responses.
- Provide recovery and social reintegration services: This refers providing accessible, child-sensitive and universal health and social services, including legal assistance to children and, where appropriate, their families.
- Ensure participation of children: This refers to States and their partners actively engaging with children and respecting their views.
- Create accessible and child-friendly reporting systems and services: This refers to establishing safe, well publicized, confidential and accessible mechanisms for children, their representatives and others to report violence against children.
- Ensure accountability and end impunity: This refers to building community confidence in the justice system by bringing all perpetrators of violence against children to justice.
- Address the gender dimension of violence against children: This refers to the integral role of gender biases in violence against children, and that States should promote and protect the rights of women and girls and address all forms of gender-based discrimination as part of a comprehensive violence-prevention strategy.
- Develop and implement systematic national data collection and research: This refers to the urgent need to improve data collection and information systems by 2009, in the context of a national research agenda and agreed international indicators, and with particular reference to vulnerable subgroups.
- Strengthen international commitment: This refers to States ratifying international treaties and implementing international standards agreed to.
www.rightsofchildren.ca/pdf/S-207.pdf
Comment on blogs supporting Hoekstra’s amendment
- Image by kjd via Flickr
http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php?sNav=getinformed_snav.php&sDat=faqs_dat.php
CRC FAQs- Myths and Facts
Over 300 organizations representing the interests of the religious, education, health care, humanitarian, labor, legal, and social service communities have lent their support for ratification of the CRC. However, a small number of political organizations (seems to be mainly Parentalrights.org) have spearheaded efforts to oppose U.S. ratification. These groups have sought to minimize the Convention’s value by employing “scare tactics” to fallaciously portray the CRC as a threat to American families. In general, opponents largely base their arguments on unsubstantiated claims regarding national sovereignty and interference in the parent-child relationship.
They allege that ratification of the CRC:
These false claims are the result of misconceptions, erroneous information, and a lack of understanding about how international human rights treaties are implemented in the United States. In many cases, the Convention’s opponents criticize provisions which were added by the Reagan Administration during the drafting process in an effort to reflect the rights U.S. citizens have under our Constitution.
Myth #1: The Convention would become “Supreme Law” of the land.
Truth: As ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, no treaty can override the Constitution [(Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)]. In addition, the CRC is not a “self-executing treaty” – it cannot be automatically implemented without legislative action. As with any treaty, each U.S. state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation.
Truth: The U.S. can ratify the CRC with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs). RUDs address specific conflicts between the U.S. Constitution and a particular Convention. Reservations modify a treaty’s provisions (e.g. if a provision of the CRC is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. can file a “reservation” to the provision so that the provision does not apply). Understandings and Declarations help to clarify how the U.S. believes a particular provision should be interpreted. RUDs do not legally exempt the U.S. from adhering to a provision.
Truth: The Convention contains no language or directives with regard to how it should be implemented. Each country is responsible for determining how to implement this. Moreover, as stated in the text of the Convention, any State that is a party to the CRC can nullify its ratification by providing written notification of “denunciation” to the UN General Secretary.
Truth: The CRC does not grant the UN and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body that monitors the CRC) enforcement authority over the U.S. and its citizens. Ultimately, the Convention obligates the U.S. federal government to submit periodic reports to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are being met. As a party to both the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the U.S. is already required to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child outlining implementation and monitoring efforts.
Myth #2: The CRC undermines the primacy of the parent-child relationship.
Truth: The CRC recognizes the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children…”, and acknowledges “that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.” (Preamble to the CRC)
Truth: The Convention repeatedly underscores the pivotal role parents play in their children’s lives. There is ample language throughout the Convention to support this, particularly with regard to Articles 3, 5, 7-10, 14, 18, 22, and 27.
Myth #3: Ratification would allow the UN to dictate how parents should raise their children.
Truth: The CRC does not, by any means, grant the UN authority to control, govern, or police U.S. policies for children.
Truth: Under the Convention, parental responsibility is protected from government interference. Article 5 states that Governments should respect the rights, responsibilities, and duties of parents to raise their children.
Truth: There is no language in the CRC that dictates the manner in which parents are to raise and instruct their children. Ratification of the Convention would not prevent parents from homeschooling their children.
Myth #4: The CRC embraces the view that children are autonomous agents who are capable, in all areas, of making adult decisions and dealing with adult situations.
Truth: The Convention does not extend to children all of the same rights accorded to adults, such as the right to vote and unrestricted freedom to make independent decisions.
Truth: The framers of the CRC understood that children’s ability to exercise certain rights is dependent upon their age and maturity and influenced by their culture, environment, and life experiences. The Convention encourages parents to deal with rights issues with their children “…in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” (Articles 5 and 14)
Myth #5: The Convention gives children the right to sue their parents.
Truth: The CRC does not give children the “right” to sue their parents. Any legal action brought by children against their parents must be based on existing federal or state laws, not on provisions contained in the CRC. Currently, children in the U.S. (through a legally-appointed guardian) are allowed to bring legal action against their parents only for injuries sustained from physical abuse or gross neglect.
Truth: Provisions in the CRC regarding a child’s right to legal assistance pertain only to children who have been accused of committing a crime and subsequently arrested, detained, or imprisoned for such violation of the law. (Articles 37 and 40)
Myth #6: Ratification will encourage children to have abortions.
Truth: The CRC maintains no explicit position on family planning and abortion issues and does not define when childhood begins. Ratifying countries remain responsible for forming public policy on these issues through their own national legislative and judicial processes. The Holy See (Vatican) was one of the first parties to ratify the CRC. Moreover, countries that have strict anti-abortion laws, such as Ireland and the Philippines, have ratified the Convention.
Truth: The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in responding to State parties’ reports, has repeatedly called attention to the important roles parents play in their children’s lives, voicing its concern for the high rates of adolescent pregnancy and abortion found in certain countries.
Truth: Article 6 of the CRC provides for a child’s right to privacy. Opponents contend that this right would allow children to have abortions without securing parental consent. However, this provision was included in the Convention to protect children from governmental abuses. In addition, Articles 5 and 14 reflect the Convention’s respect for parental guidance and responsibility in raising their children and helping them to learn how to exercise their rights in an appropriate manner.
Myth #7: The CRC allows children to participate in any religion of their choosing.
Truth: The Convention grants children the right to practice their religion free from government interference. The CRC supports the right of children to examine and ask questions about their beliefs, but also specifically recognizes the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their children in these matters. The Holy See and many countries with strong religious traditions have ratified the CRC.
Myth #8: Ratification will allow children to join gangs and racist organizations. Parents will not be able to oversee children’s interactions with others.
Truth: The CRC does not give children the right to join gangs, cults, or racist organizations, but the right to peacefully assemble. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already guarantees this right.
Truth: The Convention does not usurp parents’ authority to prevent their children from associating with persons of “dubious” character, such as pedophiles, gang members, etc. Parents are responsible for ensuring their children do not associate with people who do not have the best interests of their children in mind.
Myth #9: The Convention provides children with an “unrestricted” right to access any information they want, including pornography.
Truth: There is no language in the Convention that gives children the right to “unlimited” freedom of information, including access to pornography and other obscene materials. Current U.S. laws protect children from exposure to inappropriate materials, such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Telecommunication’s Act of 1996.
Truth: Ratification of the CRC would not prevent parents from activating televisions’ “V-chips” or installing Internet firewalls and other content filtering programs that protect children from viewing inappropriate material. Parents would not be precluded from restricting their children’s access to violent video games, music with obscene lyrics, etc.
For a complete and rational analysis of the issues surrounding this convention please go to this Harvard Law school web site.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss19/rutkow.shtml#fnB158
Suggested action:
This is a perfect teaching moment. For those who have time and wish to be involved here is a suggestion. Go to www.alerts.google.com and make a news alert.
http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=
Use key words like ParentalRights or Hoekstra and Constitutional amendment
You will doubtless get many hits every day. Go to the blog or website and post the suggested comment. Or, make one you like. There are probably tens of thousands of Christian homeschoolers that are publishing verbatim whatever they get from the HSLDA or ParentalRights.org web sites.
We probably should create a web site or facebook group to combat the propaganda of the dominionists. Didn’t know Michael Ferris was a dominionist fascist? Take some time to read the articles on talk2action, Americans United, or People for the American Way.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Is the Constitution Too Hard to Amend? (themoderatevoice.com)
Parental rights amendment – Act II
- Image via Wikipedia
The parental rights amendment is going to be re-introduced by Representative Hoekstra:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={48D114CD-BD70-4776-A32A-5661013D8897}
This time he has rounded up 60 co-sponsors. Write to the sponsors and let them know we don’t want them messing with our constitution.
My message to the sponsors:
The idea that parents lack rights in the United States is risible. Many state laws have purposely been written to allow parents to deny their children educational benefits they are entitled to. Some children actually suffer and die because of their parent’s superstitious religious beliefs.
Our constitution does not need amending. If anything, we should consider passing laws that make parenting education and testing mandatory. Perhaps we even need to go so far as issuing licenses to couples who want to procreate.
You cannot even give a child a haircut in this country without passing an examination that certifies you are qualified to cut hair. Likewise, teachers, child care center workers and anyone providing services to children must undergo education and prove they are qualified. For some jobs, a criminal background check is required.
What does it take to legally create a new life? Nothing. How are couples qualified to be parents? There is no way to know because they are not required to actually know anything about parenting or be tested. Sweden has had comprehensive parenting education in place for decades. The only people who object to it do so because they are zealots and they claim the bible has all the child rearing guidance they need.
Why should we as a society tolerate incompetent faith based parenting? We could fashion public policies that would save hundreds of little lives and millions of cases of neglect and abuse each year. All that stops us is the political motivation and a sick infatuation with individualism.
Oakland Politics:: US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights
US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights
by: laryholland
Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 19:41:00 PM EDT
(Want your event or release here? Create an account and contact me. – promoted by chetly)
US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights on Get Your Justice Live
Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) discusses his upcoming reintroduction of the former Parental Rights Amendment from 2008 into the 111th Congress. The Congressman confirmed that efforts from citizens are working with an increase from 24 co-sponsors to 54 co-sponsors to the proposed Parental Rights Amendment. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, will be on an upcoming episode. We were also joined by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Form. Congressman Hoekstra stated very clearly that “I don’t want anybody coming between the parents and the kids, and creating a barrier.”
The language is simple: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.“ The Congressman demonstrated clear examples of where parents make a better caregiver than the government. Congressman Hoekstra further said that one of the causes of the erosion of our parental rights is government growth, “Men of zeal who lack understanding,” people that basically mean well but who lack understanding. It is imperative that we protect our parental rights from both domestic and international government intrusions, but that means discussing our concerns consistently with our government officials.
To listen to interview in its entirety, visit the linked title.
US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights on Get Your Justice Live
laryholland :: US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights
Parental Inquisition | Democrat = Socialist
by Peter Kamakawiwoole writing at Parental Rights
Sweden and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
There’s an old saying that once you reach the top, you can only go down. For the nation of Sweden, however, reaching the top was only the beginning.
Sweden has long been regarded as a model nation, whose policies and laws are at the cutting-edge of international thinking on children’s rights. Sweden was the first nation to completely ban corporal punishment, the first to make sex education a mandatory feature of its educational curriculum, and the first to offer working parents free child-care for all children between the ages of 1 and 12. Thus, it should come as no surprise that on June 29, 1990, Sweden became the ninth nation in the world – and the first industrialized Western country – to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
And apparently, such innovations were only the beginning.
The modern regime in Sweden enjoys broad discretionary authority over parents, and is presently engaged in what Swedish lawyer Ruby Harrold-Claesson has termed a “parental inquisition.” The inquisition is broad, affecting educational decisions, child-rearing practices, parental discipline, and even the removal of children from their homes. The state wields incredible power, guided solely by its own “insights” into the child’s “best interests.” Against such power, no child or family is safe.
Sex-ed: No exemptions… period
When it comes to schools teaching children about the birds and the bees, American parents are used to two familiar words: “opt out.” Even parents who do not take advantage of parental exemptions are aware of their availability.
Apparently, that option has become outdated in Sweden.
In March 2008, Sweden’s government sought to take its trend-setting policies on mandatory sex education to the next level by eliminating all exemptions for parents – including parents with religious and philosophical differences.1 According to the state, all students, irrespective of religious or cultural beliefs, should receive instruction in the same subjects, and parental “exemptions” were being used as a ploy to keep children in ignorance. “Our belief in a tolerant society,” state officials wrote in a local paper, “should never result in us covering our eyes when women are the victim of attacks or being denied their rights with the excuse that it is a part of their culture or religion.”2
According to the state, the changes were primarily aimed at Sweden’s large Muslim immigrant populations, many of whom claimed religious exemptions for sex-ed classes.3
Although the proposal prompted a national debate, particularly among the nation’s major newspapers, nearly all of them came down firmly in favor of the government’s position. According to one paper, “religion has its given place in people’s lives. But in school, religious convictions ought to be studied, rather than be in control.”4 Another paper opined that eliminating the parental exceptions would be a good thing because it would give individual students “more power to decide for themselves whether or not they want to attend lessons which their parents find objectionable.”5
via Parental Inquisition | Democrat = Socialist.
Related articles by Zemanta
- UN urges help for 1 billion deprived children (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=fba3105f-6935-4648-a6b7-bbab920262e4)
Trying to convert people surely is a waste of time
- Image by k.Akagami via Flickr
I’m sure that people who favored slavery would have made the same argument. As would have those who did not want to grant women the right to vote, people of mixed races to marry, and blacks to use the same drinking fountain as whites. Nonetheless, change came about.
Realistically what we write here is not going to convert any bigots, or people who cannot see the injustice of the present system because they were raised to think belief was a duty. If it’s a choice of following what we advocate versus following what they think their god would say — well we know what the decision will be. God has the hell weapon in his arsenal.
It is an interesting fact that children who were punished physically during their childhood frequently defend the practice of hitting children. They also vociferously defend their parents. The analogy to people who were subjected to childhood religious indoctrination is rather striking and may stem from a similar psychological mechanism. All children are strongly indoctrinated with the idea that they must love their parents and obey them. The conditioning works against them seeing their parents in a true light.
Our project is interested in learning why parents believe forcing religion on their captive children is their right, even when shown that it can be harmful to some, probably large percentage, of children and that parent’s so called rights are on shaky moral ground. The indoctrination of children is customary, traditional, and shielded by strong taboos and tropes the institutions have put in place to guard themselves from criticism. Of that we may be sure.
Out of all the people who decide to objectively investigate and think about their options, there will be some percentage that agree that it is healthy to stop and question practices that are continued solely on the basis of tradition. In fact, solely on the basis of patriarchal tradition. In Rome, fathers could legally murder a rebellious son because family fortunes passed down the patriarchal line. It is no accident that we have a saying that a man’s home is his castle and the notion that it is wrong to interfere in another man’s castle is so strong. Child rearing is loaded with sanctimony and issues of male dominance and power. Conservatives just totally lose control of their bladders when parental “rights” are challenged. What about the rights of children? No one talks about that.
With the issue of childhood religious indoctrination, parents usually face pressure from family members, their co-religionists, clerics and what they themselves were forced to endure. The culture, institutions, and unfortunately even the law in the USA, offer formidable resistance to change. That does not mean that we cannot examine what is going on and see how it might be changed.
If the institutions are deprived of vulnerable children they are apt to strike a more reasonable tone. Free inquiry if allowed to flourish is the best defense we have against bad institutions and bad ideas. Children raised to value rational thought over superstition and dogma will make far more discerning consumers of religion and parents that are far more more fair to their offspring.
If the religious institutions of today are so good, so fair, and wise, they should not fear people who set out to question them and demand changes. The number one change would be to allow children a voice in decisions that effect them. Allow them to opt out if they are unhappy with religion. Respect their wishes. Let them question everything freely even the heretical bits. Let them say they don’t believe, if they don’t believe. They have a right to their own thoughts. The present practice is dishonest and unethical.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Encouraging Children to Believe Falsehoods (msatheists.org)
- A selection of the comments received regarding last week’s article on faith schools (guardian.co.uk)
Judge Rules in Home Schooling Case
A judge in North Raleigh has ruled that a mother must stop home schooling her children and send them to public school. An organized group of conservative Christians is calling for him to be removed from the case. (We all know, of course, that judges are only fair if they rule the way we want them to. Otherwise, they’re… what’s that called? Activist judges.) In preliminary statements, the judge made references to the childrens’ need to have exposure to peers. Alan Keyes has weighed in on this notion:
“If his idea of socialization includes the need to challenge the Christian ideas their mother has taught them, then he not only interferes with her natural right to raise up her children, he tramples on one of the most important elements of the free exercise of religion.”
Before I make another point, I must comment on this emotionally appealing (and ultimately empty) statement. The judge has not ruled that the mother may not teach her children the religion of her own choosing. He has ruled that she must allow her children to be exposed to other teachings as well. Furthermore, Mr. Keyes has used a buzzword that sounds nice but doesn’t carry much weight — natural. Frequent readers of my blog will recognize that “natural” doesn’t really mean anything at all. If it happens in the universe, it is a natural occurrence. What Keyes is undoubtedly saying is that mothers have an inherent legal right, or perhaps a God given right to raise their children. Of course, the United States Constitution doesn’t mention God given rights, so that shouldn’t be an issue. (Don’t believe me? Go HERE and search for “God.”) As far as legal rights go, mothers also have an obligation to raise their children in ways that are not abusive, negligent, or otherwise unduly harmful. There is a whole department of the government devoted to child welfare, and it often forcibly removes children from their mothers, nullifying their “natural right” to raise their children.
In case you’re wondering, the woman is a member of the Sound Doctrine Church. Feel free to browse around the site. It’s just another fundamentalist literalist church that mainline denominations would dismiss as cultish. (In fact, they do.)
The mother has suggested that her children are doing fine in their studies, and that the husband is only bringing up the homeschooling to take emphasis away from his adultery. This seems odd to me, since he admitted the adultery, apparently without objection.
Oh, and the grandfather of the children has filed an affadavit requesting that the mother be evaluated for mental competency, as he feels her involvement with the church has caused her potential mental damage.
WHAT SHALL WE TELL THE CHILDREN?
Edge
Amnesty Lecture, Oxford, 21st February 1997
By Nicholas Humphrey
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” the proverb goes. And since, like most proverbs, this one captures at least part of the truth, it makes sense that Amnesty International should have devoted most of its efforts to protecting people from the menace of sticks and stones not words. Worrying about words must have seemed something of a luxury.
Still the proverb, like most proverbs, is also in part obviously false. The fact is that words can hurt. For a start, they can hurt people indirectly by inciting others to hurt them: a crusade preached by a pope, racist propaganda from the Nazis, malevolent gossip from a rival. . . They can hurt people, not so indirectly, by inciting them to take actions that harm themselves: the lies of a false prophet, the blackmail of a bully, the flattery of a seducer. . . And words can hurt directly, too: the lash of a malicious tongue, the dreaded message carried by a telegram, the spiteful onslaught that makes the hearer beg his tormentor say no more. . .
Sometimes indeed mere words can kill outright. There is a story by Christopher Cherniak about a deadly “word-virus” that appeared one night on a computer screen.(1) It took the form of a brain-teaser, a riddle, so paradoxical that it fatally twisted the mind of anyone who heard or read it, making him fall into an irreversible coma. A fiction? Yes, of course. But a fiction with some horrible parallels in the real world. There have been all too many examples historically of how words can take possession of a person’s mind, destroying his will to live. Think, for example, of so-called voodoo death. The witch-doctor has merely to cast his spell of death upon a man and within hours the victim will collapse and die. Or, on a larger and more dreadful scale, think of the mass suicide at Jonestown in Guyana in 1972. The cult leader Jim Jones had only to plant certain crazed ideas in the heads of his disciples, and at his signal nine hundred of them willingly drank cyanide.
“Words will never hurt me”? The truth may rather be that words have a unique power to hurt. And if we were to make an inventory of the man-made causes of human misery, it would be words, not sticks and stones, that head the list. Even guns and high explosives might be considered playthings by comparison. Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote in his poem “I”: “On the pavement / of my trampled soul / the soles of madmen / stamp the print of rude, crude, words.”(2)
Should we then be fighting Amnesty’s battle on this front too? Should we be campaigning for the rights of human beings to be protected from verbal oppression and manipulation? Do we need “word laws”, just as all civilised societies have gun laws, licensing who should be allowed to use them in what circumstances? Should there be Geneva protocols establishing what kinds of speech act count as crimes against humanity?
No. The answer, I’m sure, ought in general to be “No, don’t even think of it.” Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with. And however painful some of its consequences may sometimes be for some people, we should still as a matter of principle resist putting curbs on it. By all means we should try to make up for the harm that other people’s words do, but not by censoring the words as such.
And, since I am so sure of this in general, and since I’d expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture today to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship, against freedom of expression, and to do so moreover in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct.
I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed—even expected—to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong.
Children, I’ll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas—no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children’s knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith.
« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
