You do not have to take your children to church
- Image via Wikipedia
There is a presumption that children must be taken to church. This presumption is based on centuries old tradition and the full backing of religious institutions that rely on new converts to keep their faith alive down through the ages.
Morally this is reprehensible because it treats vulnerable children as instruments. Treating others as objects or as instruments to satisfy a desire has been recognized by moral philosophers as repugnant since the days of Kant. Why are children any different? What makes it morally OK to treat children as instruments in a scheme to promote a certain brand of faith?
Secondly, the notion that a child who does not like the faith you chose for them will suddenly recover at age 18 from 15 years of being subjected to a deliberate mind control program is simply risible. There is no reset switch you can press to set a child’s brain back to it’s pristine state at age three. In fact, brain scientists have shown that the brain is actually changed physically by early learning (age 3 to 7). Those changes to the brain are extremely difficult to overcome. Logically, childhood is actually the longest stage in our lives because we retain the memories of childhood for a lifetime.
Do people break the locks on their religious cage? Yes, but usually at great emotional cost. Sometimes people suffer anxiety and depression for years as they break away and recover from religion. Family relations can be stretched to the breaking point.
Personal narratives tell the story of “making up their own minds”. Poignant accounts can be found all over the web at recovery sites established by people seeking mutual aid and comfort. Every faith and sect is represented. The biggest sites look to be for Catholics, Mormons, and Pentecostals.
Is this news to people reading this article and will it shape your thinking about hereditary religion?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Religion and The age of Consent (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=059290d5-1f40-47d5-99f0-61bb45ec96f4)
Global progress towards banning all corporal punishment of children
- Image by HA! Designs – Artbyheather via Flickr
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/global.html
From End Corporal Punishment official web site. In the following text the hypertext links, italicized, are deactivated. Please visit the web site.
Legal reforms to prohibit all corporal punishment of children – in the family home as well as in schools and other institutions and penal systems – are spreading fast.
In many states the law provides defences for parents, other carers and teachers who use corporal punishment to discipline children: provisions which allow “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction”. In addition there may be education laws providing for corporal punishment in schools and laws allowing corporal punishment in penal institutions and as a sentence of the courts.
Law reform to end corporal punishment involves removing any provisions authorising corporal punishment and removing any special defences that may exist, so that the criminal law on assault applies equally to any assault of a child, whether or not it is described as discipline. It is a fundamental principle of human rights – upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 26 – that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.
In some states the law is silent on corporal punishment of children, but nevertheless it is socially and legally accepted and therefore explicit prohibition is required.
Click (active link at the web site) for the latest summary information on progress towards universal prohibition, and selected facts and figures on states pursuing reform and states so far resisting.
Click (active link at the web site) for information of legislation in states which have achieved full prohibition.
Worldwide, corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited in at least 108 states. But at least 78 states have not prohibited corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in conflict with the law, and 43 have not prohibited it as a judicial sentence of the courts for young people convicted of an offence.
Our online global table shows data for all states and dependent territories on the extent of prohibition in three categories: Home; School; Penal system. Listed alphabetically, select from below
: TABLE A-D | TABLE E-H | TABLE I-L | TABLE M-P | TABLE Q-T | TABLE U-Z (active links at the web site)
Also available from the table are individual reports for each state, with details of laws relating to corporal punishment in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings, as well as summaries of prevalence research and extracts from recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies. Click here for individual state reports.
Our global and regional tables, available as PDF files (updated August 2009), summarise the extent of prohibition in the home, schools, as a sentence for crime, as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, and in alternative care settings. Download from here:
[Please visit the web site for latest data]
This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Sask. children’s advocate adds support to anti-spanking bill (cbc.ca)
- Spanking Hurts Kids’ IQ (abcnews.go.com)
- Corporal Punishment in U.S. Schools (time.com)
- UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=110cb2d3-374c-43a1-a29b-25caf9ebd1b3)
James Dobson just has to be responsible for many psycopaths in America
- Image via Wikipedia
Dr. Dobsons advice books have sold millions of copies and even though his prescriptions have been refuted over and over, he contines to reap millions of dollars from sales of his books. This can only be occurring because his buyers are Idiot Americans who have been raised by other Idiot Americans to follow dogma and superstition and avoid reason at all costs.
Advice of violence-prevention professionals compared to advice of James Dobson
Compiled by Eric Perlin
A critical look at the evangelical right’s leading proponent of violent authoritarianism in the family, Dr. James Dobson, through quotes from his best-selling publications. In the following material, Dobson’s admonitions (shown here in green when viewed with Netscape) are juxtaposed for easy comparison to the advice of experts in the fields of domestic violence and child-sexual-abuse prevention. (shown in italics for this post)
Psychologists Ronald Slaby and Wendy Roedell: “(O)ne of the most reliable predictors of children’s level of aggression is the heavy use by parents of harsh, punitive discipline and physical punishment… Parental punitiveness has been found to be positively correlated with children’s aggression in over 25 studies…(P)arental punishment is one important aspect of a general pattern of intercorrelated parental behaviors that influence the child’s aggression.” 1
James Dobson: “Contrary to what it might seem, (a child) is more likely to be a violent person if his parent fails to (spank him), because he learns too late about the painful consequences of acting selfishly, rebelliously, and aggressively.”2
Protect Your Child by Laura Hutton: “Every child should be taught that he has personal rights that should be respected by all adults…’I have the right to say no if someone touches or wants to touch the private parts of my body.’ ” 3
James Dobson: “A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to willful defiance, whenever it occurs. Period!” 4
Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “The pain a woman feels cannot be measured by how many bruises she has on her body… Most women report that even if the physical abuse is not severe, the emotional trauma from being abused by someone they love has long-lasting effects.” 5
James Dobson: “When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier.” 6 “…It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely.” 7
Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Many men make statements such as, ‘My partner makes me hit her.’ Blaming the victim is an easy way of denying responsibility for your own behavior…. No matter what your partner does, you don’t have the right to hurt her.” 8
James Dobson: “Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted.”9
Protect Your Child: ” I have a right to scream for help even if I am told by a molester to be quiet and obey….l don’t have to obey someone who hurts me or wants to hurt me.” 10
James Dobson: “Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, ‘You must obey me.’ ” 11
Suffolk County Women’s Services: “You cannot end the violence by trying to be ‘better’ or by trying harder to please your abuser.” 12
James Dobson: “You can explain (to your child) why he has been punished and how he can avoid the difficulty next time.” 13
The Safe Child Book by Sherryl Kerns Kraizer: “We need to look at the ways in which we teach our children to be blindly obedient to adults and authority figures. Most children do not know they can say no to a police officer, a teacher, a principal, a counselor, a minister, a baby-sitter, or a parent when an inappropriate request is made.” 14
James Dobson: “By learning to yield to the loving authority…of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life — his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers.” 15
Suffolk County Women’s Services: “You have a right to a life free from abuse.” 16
James Dobson: “Most (children) need to be spanked now and then.” 17
The Safe Child Book: “Young children tell me that some of the ways they don’t like to be touched are: kisses on the mouth, getting their shirts tucked in by grown-ups, being picked up, having their hair stroked, having to kiss Grandma and Grandpa or Mom and Dad’s friends… They can be unwanted touch, just as sexual abuse is unwanted touch… It is important to respect children’s preferences. By learning to say no to one type of touching, children learn to say no to the other.” 18
James Dobson: “Minor pain can…provide excellent motivation for the child… There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the neck… When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain saying, ‘This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs’.” 19
Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Men who abuse do so in order to maintain power and control over their partners.” 20
James Dobson: “A child wants to be controlled.” 21 “… The need to be controlled and governed is almost universal in childhood… It is through loving control that parents express personal worth to a child.” 22
The Safe Child Book: “Private parts include the genital area, the buttocks, and the breasts. It is sometimes easier for parents to say something like ‘The parts of your body that your bathing suit and underwear cover up are special parts of your body. You can touch yourself there, but other people shouldn’t. except if you’re sick or at the doctor. Those same parts of the body are special for other people and it’s not okay for someone older than you to touch you…’ ” 23
James Dobson: “If a parent responds appropriately, on the backside, he has taught the child a valuable lesson…” 24
Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: If your partner has to change her behavior in order to keep herself free from your physical or verbal assaults… then she is being abused.” 25
James Dobson: “Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited.” 26
Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents: “Children who may be too frightened to talk about sexual molestation may exhibit a variety of physical and behavioral signals. …Symptoms (include):..excessive crying…” 27
James Dobson: “Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining… I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears.” 28
Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Batterers over-personalize their partner’s behavior, perceiving any disagreements as attacks against him.” 29
James Dobson: “When a child has lowered his head and clenched his fist, he is daring the parent to take him on.” 30
Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents: “Other behavioral signals (that indicate a child may have been sexually molested include)…aggressive or disruptive behavior…” 31
James Dobson: “An appropriate spanking from a loving parent in a moment of defiance provides (a) service. It tells (the child)…he must steer clear of certain social traps… selfishness, dishonesty, unprovoked aggression, etc.” 32
Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “When trying to resolve a conflict, look for ‘WIN-WIN’ solutions, where both of you feel that the resolution is acceptable. Don’t make your partner into your opponent. Remember that the goal is to solve a problem, not have the ‘upper hand’.” 33
James Dobson: “When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively.” 34
Notes
1. Slaby and Roedell, “The Development and Regulation of Aggression in Young Children,” in Judith Worell, ed., Psychological Development in the Elementary Years (New York: Academic Press, 1982), pp. 98, 106, 107.
2. Dobson, James, Dare to Discipline, Tyndale House and Bantam Books, p. 41.
3. Huchton, Laura M., Protect Your Child, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 71.
4. Dobson, James, The Strong-Willed Child, Tyndale House and Bantam Books, p. 37.
5. Domestic Partner Education Program, Victims’ Information Education Bureau of Suffolk, p. 10.
6. Dare to Discipline, p. 16.
7. Dare to Discipline, p. 23.
8. Domestic Partner Education Program, , p. 7.
9. The Strong-Willed Child, , p. 73.
10. Protect Your Child, p. 71.
11. The Strong-Willed Child, pp. 53-4.
12. Confronting Family Violence, Suffolk County Women’s Services, p. 3.
13. Dare to Discipline, p. 23.
14. Krazier, Sherryl Kerns, The Safe Child Book, Dell Publishing Company, lnc., p. 98.
15. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 235.
16. Confronting Family Violence p. 3.
17. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 63.
18. The Safe Child Book, p. 47.
19. Dare to Discipline, p. 26.
20. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 4.
21. Dare to Discipline, p. 16.
22. Dare to Discipline, p. 39.
23. The Safe Child Book, p. 48.
24. Dare to Discipline, p. 40.
25. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 5
26. The Strong-Willed Child, p.35.
27. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
28. Dare to Discipline, p.38.
29. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 9.
30. Dare to Discipline, p. 40.
31. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents
32. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 36.
33. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 17.
34. Dare to Discipline, p. 36.
See Eric Perlin vs. Stephen B.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=d0501526-80d7-4101-a97a-045fdaf7c2aa)
UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment
- Image via Wikipedia
In 2006 the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment
The Committee’s General Comment on Corporal Punishment
At its 42nd session, held in Geneva from 15 May to 2 June 2006, the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment. This is the first General Comment concerning the protection of children from all forms of violence which the Committee resolved to publish following its Days of General Discussion on violence against children in 2000 and 2001. It reflects the Committee’s commitment to address the problem of corporal punishment, which dates back to the early days of monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and which has consistently informed the Committee’s recommendations to States parties over the years.
General Comment No.8 (2006) on “The right to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia)” aims “to highlight the obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children and to outline the legislative and other awareness-raising and educational measures that States must take” (para 2). As well as being an obligation of States parties under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, addressing and eliminating corporal punishment of children is “a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms of violence in societies” (para 3).
Definitions
The Committee defines corporal punishment in paragraph 11 of the General Comment:“The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slapping’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with an implement – whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouths out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment which are also cruel and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”
Children are subjected to such punishment in all settings and must be addressed and eliminated in all settings, including within the home and family.
The Committee distinguishes between violence and humiliation as forms of punishment, which it rejects, and discipline of children in the form of “necessary guidance and direction”, which is essential for healthy growth of children. The Committee also differentiates between punitive physical actions against children and physical interventions aimed at protecting children from harm.
Human rights standardsThe foundations of the human rights obligation to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other degrading forms of punishment lie in the rights of every person to respect for his/her dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law. The Committee traces this back to the original International Bill of Human Rights – “The dignity of each and every individual is the fundamental guiding principle of international human rights law” (para 16) – and shows how the Convention on the Rights of the Child builds on these principles. Quoting article 19 of the Convention, which requires States to protect children “from all forms of physical or mental violence”, the Committee states (para 18):
“… There is no ambiguity: ‘all forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children. Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and the State must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate them.”
The fact that article 19 and article 28 – on school discipline – do not specifically refer to corporal punishment does not in any way undermine the obligation to prohibit and eliminate it (paras 20, 21 and 22):
“… the Convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time. In the 17 years since the Convention was adopted, the prevalence of corporal punishment of children in their homes, schools and other institutions has become more visible, through the reporting process under the Convention and through research and advocacy by, among others, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
“Once visible, it is clear that the practice directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence.
“The Committee emphasizes that eliminating violent and humiliating punishment of children, through law reform and other necessary measures, is n immediate and unqualified obligation of States parties….”
The Committee goes on to note that this approach is mirrored in the work of other international human rights treaty monitoring bodies and of regional human rights mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.Common arguments by governments against prohibition of all corporal punishment are also addressed by the Committee. For example, in response to the contention that a certain degree of “reasonable” or “moderate” corporal punishment is in the “best interests” of the child, the Committee states that “interpretation of a child’s best interests must be consistent with the whole Convention, including the obligation to protect children from all forms of violence and the requirement to give due weight to the child’s views; it cannot be used to justify practices, including corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment, which conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity” (para 26). And there is no conflict between realising children’s rights and the importance of the family unit, which the Convention fully upholds. The Committee recognises that some justify the use of corporal punishment through religious faith teachings and texts but again notes that “practice of a religion or belief must be consistent with respect for others’ human dignity and physical integrity” and that “[f]reedom to practice one’s religion or belief may be legitimately limited in order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (para 29).
You can continue reading the comments here:
http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/hrlaw/crc_session.html
Click the Wiki link below the map of Europe to see the latest data.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Innaiah Narisetti (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Children have the right to information (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Abuses Against Children Persist Despite Rights Convention (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- BILL S-207 and the UN Secretary-General’s Study on Violence Against Children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=447502a3-768c-426d-b594-ae3e1b747de9)
Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms
Freedom of conscience is the root of all our freedoms because no one can be a self directing individual free of parents, governments or religious institutions without this bedrock principle. The men most responsible for the bill of rights, Jefferson and Madison, had a clear notion that freedom of conscience was the principle they were protecting in the first amendment. Madison wrote: that religion “must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate”.
Accordingly, secular parents do not steer their children towards atheism, if they are wise. Instead the idea must be to explain the religious “menu” so that when they mature, children can place an order intelligently. This is the essence of the Humanist ethos. People of limited imagination believe that everyone shares their way of looking at the world and cannot put themselves in a humanist’s shoes. Theists think they are commanded by their holy books to dominate and control their children. I suppose they just cannot fathom the notion that children are persons in their own right with their own life to direct as they see fit. Or, that the prevailing ethos among atheists and Humanists is to NOT dominate their children but to help them learn how to make decisions for themselves based on rational thinking and self reflection.
Children did not ask to be born and they are under no obligation to fulfill some master plan of their parents and especially some master plan of a religious institution. Teaching a child to think for themselves is the best insurance a child could have against being duped into a cult or other controlling group of people. To succeed, the insidious indoctrination process must diminish the ability to reason. Instead of how to think for themselves, children are taught dogmatism and to distrust their own ability to think.
There are clearly different outcomes for children raised to enjoy intellectual autonomy (personal independence) and those burdened with intellectual heteronomy (the condition of being under the domination of an outside authority, either human or divine). In many churches, homes, and faith schools, children are taught intellectual heteronomy. I quote from Donald Capps’ book, “The Children’s Song, The Religious Abuse of Children”:
“What is at stake here is the freedom of children to think for themselves and to feel secure in the knowledge that adults will not hold their expressions of intellectual autonomy against them. Especially where biblical literalism is taught and practiced, and where punitive attitudes towards sinners are voiced and countenanced, children are unlikely to experience such freedom to think and reason for themselves. Rather, they are likely to feel that it is wrong for them to think for themselves and that, if they do, they are likely to incur the disapproval, if not the wrath, of precisely those adults who have power over them. Fearing the negative consequences of their exercise of intellectual autonomy, they are likely to overreact, to place even greater strictures on their own freedom of thought than these adults may have required of them.” (p. 59)
Parents who promote intellectual heteronomy likely grew up in such a stifling environment themselves and simply cannot imagine any other way of thinking or being. This is a key argument for ending childhood indoctrination. The chain must be severed once and for all. Every parent who contemplates imposing their religion on their children should study Donald Capps’ book before they do that.
Both Madison and Jefferson were strongly against any establishment of a state religion, although the practice was widespread in the original colonies. Today the most dangerous threat to our free and open society is coming from theocrats that sincerely want to sweep away the constitution and institute biblical laws. Seriously, and they managed to get G. W. Bush elected twice. Ok, I am drifting off topic.
Today, the institutions and parents do every thing they can to thwart the ability of children to grow up with a mind that is untainted by a particular flavor of faith. Parents are swayed by clerics, family members and co-religionists. However, freedom of conscience is an inalienable right which “people cannot possibly relinquish to civil government”. — Madison (or if you follow the logic to parents or priests).
Yet parents and clerics step all over this right for the simple reason that they are in a position to do so and they claim children are too young to exercise such a right. Well they are too young, but who says children need to choose at the ripe old age of three, or four?
Why on earth is religion different? Because it is religion, that’s why and a majority of religious people and the clerics want it that way because they know it will get harder to impress their wild improbable dogma on an adult mind. For all the noble justifications offered, there is little doubt that the institutions are in this indoctrination game to save their institutions. Which makes children simply instruments of their plan. In any other sphere of human activity, using others as instruments is an abhorrent practice. Not where religion is concerned.
The incredible fact is we reserve a special measure of loathing and disgust for people who mistreat small helpless animals or helpless people. Why? Precisely because they are vulnerable and helpless.
The Genius of America: How the Constitution Saved Our Country–and Why It Can Again
Related articles by Zemanta
- Children afraid to tell their parents (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Losing Our Religion (outsidethebeltway.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=70e2fdbb-5825-4ed4-8676-81941f8f6c58)
Is religiosity beneficial in affluent first world nations?
- Image by Amarand Agasi via Flickr
Contact: Gregory Paul
Tel: +01 410-243-0316
Email: GSP1954@aol.com
In recent decades, scholars have discussed the evolutionary origins of religious beliefs. Some hold that religious beliefs confer benefits to individuals’ abilities to cope with their life experiences; others propose that religious beliefs and identities facilitated the successful survival of human groups and their competition with other groups for land and other scarce resources.
As some nations become increasingly secular, one may wonder what role religious beliefs play for those living in technologically advanced societies. Advocates for religious systems often argue that these beliefs are instrumental in providing moral foundation necessary for a healthy, cohesive society – a view shared by Benjamin Franklin and Dostoyevsky.
In a follow up to his 2005 paper, Gregory Paul argues that high religiosity is not universal to human populations, and it is actually inversely related to a wide range of socio-economic indicators representing the health of modern democracies. Paul holds that once a nation’s population becomes prosperous and secure, for example through economic security and universal health care, much of the population looses interest in seeking the aid and protection of supernatural entities. This effect appears to be so consistent that it may prevent nations from being highly religious while enjoying good internal socioeconomic conditions.
National level statistics suggest that strong mass religiosity is invariably associated with high levels of stress and anxiety, which are created by impoverishment, inequality, or economic security, related to high levels of societal dysfunction. These relationships are largely consistent when the United States, an outlier amongst advanced democracies in the high level of both religious belief and social decay, is removed from the comparison.
The belief held by some scholars that strong religious belief is the universal human condition deeply rooted in our psyches, may be false. Also contradicted is the hypothesis that evolutionary selective forces have played the leading role in determining the popularity of religion. Environmental conditions appear to exert great influence on the degree to which religious beliefs are held. The popularity of religious belief may be a reflection of a psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety resulting from adverse social and economic environments.
Because creationism can be popular only when religion is widespread, extensive disbelief of evolutionary science is also associated with the dysfunctional societal environment, which encourages the conservative, scriptural based theism that favors special creation. Large scale secularization is the only method proven to suppress creationist opinion to well below majority status.
The findings also have strong implications for consequential political debates, such as the current tussles amongst politicians and interest groups over health care reform in the United States. This may be seen as part of a larger ideological battle between those advocating for progressive government policies leveling health and economic outcomes and social conservatives who oppose the secularization associated with such outcomes.
The study, The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions, appears in the current issue of Evolutionary Psychology and is accessible at: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=887f6902-ee29-4204-9e99-0273e2c4ccc3)
What if your child becomes religious.
The fifth in a series on nonreligious parenting. Hosted by Dale McGowan, editor and co-author of “Parenting Beyond Belief” and “Raising Freethinkers.” Dale McGowan gives us a great argument in favor of letting children decide the important questions in life for themselves. In our laws and mores there is the embedded concept that whoever must deal with the consequences of a decision is entitled to make that decision. No one else, not the state, not parents, not the Pope.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Influence without indoctrination (endhereditaryreligion.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=10c8634b-54bb-4311-b94f-6b40687fce05)
The Root of All Evil
- Image via Wikipedia
In The Virus of Faith, Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped, and argues against the religious indoctrination of children. The title of this episode comes from The Selfish Gene, in which Dawkins discussed the concept of memes. The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion. The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45-minute episodes (excluding advertisement breaks), on Channel 4 in the UK.«
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=8004585d-327c-43da-99f0-b0ea64ae50f1)
Intersection of Stephen Law and Stefan Molyneux
- Image via Wikipedia
“The War for Children’s Minds” is a brilliantly clear and convincingly argued defense of liberalism in moral education. Stephen Law examines and demolishes all the arguments in favor of authoritarian ways of teaching, and shows that in spite of the insistence of popular commentators from the religious right, a liberal and rational examination and discussion of moral questions does not lead to moral relativism and the decay of moral behaviour, but can in fact be the best defense against them. This book won’t be read by popular journalists: they will attack it without reading it. But it should be read by every teacher, every parent, and every politician. What’s more, it should form the subject for discussion in every church, synagogue, mosque and religious youth group. It’s one of the most engaging as well as one of the most necessary books that I’ve ever read in the field of moral education. — Author Philip Pullman
Stephen Law’s point is that children must be given free reign to ask and discuss any and every question. Which is what I have emphasized over and over again in my posts. Children are naturally programmed to ask questions and they love why questions the most. Why is the sky blue? Why did my dog die? Why did we bury him in the garden? Instinctively it seems, children know that why questions are at the heart of understanding their world. Unfortunately for parents why questions do not lend themselves to quick and easy answers all the time. It is precisely the type of question that harried parents don’t want to answer because we are into philosophy now and there is no ending a discussion that turns philosophical. So typically, parents bow to the pressures of the day and downplay openings their children have given them to have meaningful conversations. This is what Stefan Molyneux explains in his book, On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusions.
I have argued that children are going to innocently wander into sensitive areas that are considered heretical or blasphemous, not to mention sexual. If they are met with frowns or exasperated eye rolling how better to vividly teach them they are not to think for themselves? How do you explain to a five year old that they are asking dangerous questions? You cannot explain, because young children do not have enough knowledge about the way the world works and religious concepts to process any kind of substantive answer. Which immediately points to a glaring problem with indoctrinating young children. Mostly all they can take away from religious indoctrination is confusion, fear and wishful thinking.
Stefan Molyneux writes about the moral obligations parents have towards their children and drills down to what he identifies as the second part of parent’s moral obligation to their children:
“The second part of your parents’ moral obligation towards you is much more subtle and corrosive. This is the realm of integrity, and it is a great challenge for societies throughout the world.
Integrity
Integrity can be defined as consistency between reality, ideas and behaviour. Consistency with reality is not telling a child that daddy is “sick” when he is in fact drunk. Consistency with behaviour is not slapping a child for hitting another child. The value of this kind of integrity is also well understood by many, even if imperfectly practiced, and we will not deal with it much here either.
It is consistency with ideas that causes the most problems for families – and the most long-term suffering for children throughout their lives.
When you were a child, you were told over and over that certain actions were either good or bad. Telling the truth was good; stealing was bad. Hitting your brother was bad; helping your grandmother was good. Being on time was good; failing to complete chores was bad.
Implicit in all these instructions – moral instructions – was the premise that your parents knew what was right and what was wrong; what was good, and what was bad.
Do you think that was really true? Do you think that your parents knew what was right and wrong when you were a child?When we tell a child that something is wrong – not just incorrect, but morally wrong – there are really only two possibilities. The first is that we actually know what is right and wrong in general, and we are applying our universal knowledge of right and wrong to a specific action committed by the child.
This is how it is always portrayed to the child. It is almost always the most dangerous lie in the world.
The second possibility is that we are telling our child that his actions are “wrong” for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with morality whatsoever.
For instance, we might tell a child that stealing is wrong because:
We are embarrassed at our child’s actions. We are afraid of being judged a poor parent. We are afraid that our child’s theft will be discovered. We are simply repeating what was told to us. We enjoy humiliating our child. Correcting our child on “ethics” makes us feel morally superior. We want our child to avoid behaviour that we were punished for as children. … and so on Assuming they are not terrified, most children, on first receiving moral instructions, will generally respond by asking “why?” Why is stealing wrong? Why is lying wrong? Why is bullying wrong? Why is hitting wrong?
These are all perfectly valid questions, akin to asking why the sky is blue. The problem arises in the fact that parents have no rational answers, but endlessly pretend that they do.
When a child asks us why something is wrong, we are put in a terrible bind. If we say that we do not know why lying is universally wrong, we believe we will lose our moral authority in the eyes of our children. If we say that we do know why lying is wrong, then we retain our moral authority, but only by lying to our children.
Since the fall of religion, we have lost our way in terms of ethics. As an atheist, I do not mourn the loss of the illusions of gods and devils, but I am alarmed at the fact that we have not yet admitted that the fall of religion has not provided us an objective and rational moral compass. By failing to admit to the fact that we do not know what we are doing ethically, we are perpetrating a grave moral error on our children.
Basically, we are lying to them about being good.
But here, I want to switch back to Stephen Law. In chapter nine he explains that in spite of the fact moral laws cannot be arrived at strictly through reason (Hume is quoted here) that does not mean we should reject reason as a tool to help us make valid moral choices. Moral values come from law, culture, and religion. Using reason and subjecting every moral idea to questioning can reveal unacknowledged consequences and logical inconsistencies. He cites the fact that scientific reasoning helped resolve the issue of whether women should have the right to vote. The evidence they do have the intellectual skills to exercise the right to vote is a matter of empirically demonstrable fact.
Approaching moral lessons from the standpoint of authority leads to learning ossified values that have never been subjected to the winnowing that would occur if authorities were allowed to be questioned. Besides, from the standpoint of religious authority all avenues wind up with God as the ultimate law giver. Questioning God amounts to blasphemy so we see the horrendous labyrinth of imaginative reasoning religious apologists must go to in an attempt to “modernize” their theology. As if it could be modernized.
One crucial idea to grasp is that the world is constantly changing and that makes teaching children to question everything the most important thing parents can teach them.
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/ Stephen Law, Philosopher, UK, The War for Children’s Minds
Related articles by Zemanta
- Russell Blackford on the NCSE Religon Statements (tuibguy.com)
- 6.Science And Ethics (slideshare.net)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=55862f78-3b14-4aa6-b6f3-9e77a0335e6a)
Older Posts »
