1. 

   Holy Prepuce
   Member

   I would be interested to see your (site authors' and forum members') responses to the following critique of this site's central objective, which as I understand it is to persuade readers that children have a right not to be subject to religious indoctrination.

   The critique is that acceptance of the proposed "right" presupposes that the listener either:

   (1) agrees with the statement "all religious beliefs about the world are false," or else

   (2) believes that children have a right not to be taught any fact about the world, as the parents understand the world to be.

   What I'm getting at is that most believers consider the "facts" of their religion (e.g. god(s) exist(s), he/they want us to follow specified ritual practices, afterlife/reincarnation awaits us) to be objective truths about the world, as much as we believe that gravity is what makes apples fall and wearing a seatbelt will keep you safer in an accident.

   Thus, to believe that children have a "right" not to be taught as true one group of "facts" (about the supernatural), but ought to be taught another group of facts (about physics, road safety, and everything else we happen to believe is good for children to know) is to presuppose that the supernatural "facts" are incorrect.

   Because virtually no one would accept statement (2), it follows that the proposed "right" would be recognized only by atheists, who are unlikely to subject their children to religious indoctrination in any event.

   To say that everyone should recognize the "right" is therefore no different from saying that everyone should be atheists. We might well think that everyone should be atheists, but if they were, there would be little risk to children of experiencing religious indoctrination, and this entire discussion would be moot.

   I'd be interested to hear your responses to this critique.

   Posted 1 year ago #
2. 

   richardcollins
   Administrator

   The problem with the status quo is that children are not considered to have any rights. Myself as an author on this site take exception to this view, even though I acknowledge the mainstream feels differently. The current doctrine of parent's rights is simply a continuation of patriarchy that is unsuited to the modern world.

   We need to move to a doctrine of children's rights that considers the welfare interests of children above all other competing rights, including parents rights. Parents should be considered guardians, and their duty must be to protect the rights of children, not usurp them.

   The decision to take up a religion or to remain free of a religion is only appropriate for an adult to make and the decision cannot be ethically made by others, no matter their spiritual beliefs or the demands they think they are operating under. Where would the demands end if we were to recognize spiritual demands people think they are obligated to follow? Whether a believer considers the facts of their religion are true or not is beside the point. A believer cannot submit such "facts" in a court that has jurisdiction over the temporal interests of children.

   Parents can share their beliefs with their children. This is not the issue and there would be no practical way to prevent parents from sharing their religion even if this was a desired goal. The objection is to forcing a child into a specific faith instead of teaching them about all faiths and preparing them to make a decision for themselves when they are mature enough to understand what religion is all about.

   In our mores and laws we have an embedded concept that life decisions are properly made by individuals to suit themselves and not by others because individuals have to live with the consequences. Others, not even parents, have the ethical right to force someone to follow their particular desires or objectives.

   
   

   Posted 1 year ago #
3. 

   Holy Prepuce
   Member

   I agree with you about children's rights.

   The difficulty as I see it is that when you unpack the act of "forcing a child into a specific faith," you discover that it consists of (a) teaching the child that certain factual propositions about the world are true; (b) teaching the child that certain behaviors are ethical or unethical; (c) requiring the child to participate in certain ritual practices.

   As far as A and B go, presumably you would not go so far as to say that children must be taught <i>no</i> factual or ethical propositions as "correct", but only be exposed to a range of ideas so that they can make up their minds later on? After all, this would exclude from being taught as correct such useful propositions as "it's a good idea to look both ways before crossing the street" as well as "you should say thank you when someone offers you a cookie."

   So as long as you wouldn't define your proposed right so categorically, it becomes necessary for someone to draw the line demarcating the set of propositions that are subject to the right from the set of propositions that are not. And not only is that line inherently subjective, but where anyone would draw it depends largely on which propositions he or she happens to believe are correct.

   It's easy enough as atheists for us to say, "simple, the line should be drawn between secular and religious propositions." But being atheists, for us that simply means "between those propositions we believe are likely to be correct and those we believe to be incorrect." For Christians, the easy answer would be "between secular plus Christian propositions on the one hand, and between all non-Christian religious propositions" on the other -- and so on, inserting the name of any particular religious group.

   So, again, at least as far as A & B go, this takes me back to my point that only atheists would accept that children have a right not to be subject to any religious indoctrination; a theist is likely to believe that any such right permits teaching as correct the "true" propositions of his or her particular religion.

   Category C (ritual practices) is a little bit trickier, because one could make the argument that you can teach your children what you believe to be factually and ethically correct without forcing them to engage in particular activities. One difficulty with this distinction, however, is that it's easy to rephrase any ritual practice (e.g. wearing a yarmulke or sacrificing chickens) as a factual proposition (God wants men to cover their heads; the gods want us to sacrifice goats), or an ethical proposition (it's wrong to defy the will of god(s)). So even category C in some sense presents the same difficulty.

   Again, I don't disagree with you that it would be better if children were not subject to religious indoctrination -- but I think the only practical way of getting there is to persuade as many people as possible that there are no gods. In the absence of that, I question whether the right you propose has any chance of gaining acceptance.

   Posted 1 year ago #
4. 

   richardcollins
   Administrator

   Holy Prepuce writes:
   In the absence of that, I question whether the right you propose has any chance of gaining acceptance.
   +++++

   I take the long view. When I started discussing the idea of ending hereditary religion I was met with stiff oppposition. People told me I was on a fools errand. But like Richard Dawkins asserts the zeitgeist is changing. I started my facebook group over 18 months ago and now there are at least 5 more groups with the same general goal. One has over 4500 members. Last weekend I posted a petition on iPetition and the response has been quite positive. We are nearing 200 signatures. If it goes viral we will capitalize on the public relations advantages to gain still more supporters.

   One of the key arguments I make is that religion is not simply a divisive force when it comes to communities and nations -- it is very much a divisive force in families. The myth of the benign benefits flowing to families that pray together is belied by the dozens of recovery web sites that contain literally tens of thousands of personal narratives of people and families wounded by religion. The damage takes place behind closed doors and in this respect it is like domestic violence, the victims suffer in silence.

   Apostasy is a sin, clearly spelled out in the Bible and Koran. Believers are instructed to stay away from atheists. Children who walk away realize they will dishonor their families. For those children unfortunate enough to be raised in an insular faith the only friends they have are likely to be other members of their church. Leaving their faith means they leave their friends also. It can be devastating emotionally and results in depression and anxiety for many people. The fear mongering and wish mongering keeps many trapped even though they realize they no longer believe the dogma and doctrines. These are the cultural believers and the Jews are famous for this. Nonetheless, they support the corrupt institutions financially and do not speak out against religious excess.

   Spend some time reading the posts on exchristian.net and you will see what I mean. Then multiply what you read there by perhaps a hundred fold. Every possible faith has a recovery site. Religion is not benign once you appreciate what it can do to people and their families.

   
   

   Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.