Religious Age of Consent
 

As it is illegal to serve under-age children alcohol, cigarettes, adult movies etc. as children do not have the maturity or breadth of understanding to be able to cope with, or to consider these things from a balanced perspective.

I suggest that Religion should be treated the same way . . just as hypnotism or alcohol or drugs or anything that impacts upon natural thought processes is 'controlled' by the authorities and minors are protected by law . . . . then it should be illegal for any child under the age of, say 16, to be instructed or indoctrinated in any religion, cults or other way of life which can be shown to permanently impair, reduce or damage that childs basic human right to a free-will in adult life . . . . unencumbered by the trappings, baggage, restrictions and the intolerances which are deeply instilled.

My 4 year old believes in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Mickey mouse and monsters in the cupboard. ut her in the hands of nuns in a Catholic school at the age of 5 . .. and she has no chance!

i whole heartidly agree. i'm 24, and went to hebrew school from the time i was five until about 16, and i came out of it with a major disdain for religion. if i hadn't been forced, who knows? but at the same time, others go through it and end up being incredibly nutty when it comes to whichever religion is theirs.

plus, while i have no problem with being circumcised, i'd like to have been the one to make the choice.

A number of religions actually do have an age limit as to when children can formally be entered into it. I know catholicism is that way (I think confirmation was at 13). Before that, it's recognized that you aren't mature enough to actually choose the religion.

I like your idea, but only on the surface. If you really penetrate it, it's clear that even atheists (like me) indoctrinate our children with beliefs and ideals that are analogous to those taught by religions. What separates religious values apart from secular ones? And kids who aren't taught any values at all will grow up to be total shits.

it seems like every kid i see today out at the mall or movie theater already is a total shit. i just can't wait to see how their kids turn out.

...and the seventh shit son of a seventh shit son will have special shit powers.

I like the idea of an age of consent, but by the time you've reached it, it's no longer your own choice. It's a damn shame.

The stupid and the poor are outbreeding the wealthy and the wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it doesnt look good for the future. As a society we peaked about a hundred years ago . . its all been downhill since then . . . . . . . .

Of course there are major flaws in your system. What you forget is every single living breathing person on this planet is in some form of religion. First off lets define religion. Now of course this is the biggest problem we will all face. But no matter what the subject matter is (Wether it be belief in God,Angels,Demons,Heaven,Hell,Karama,Reincarnation) you can really only believe either x or y (and sometimes z) For example as part of your religion you either believe there is a God or not. Obvious example of people who believe in A God is Jews,Christians and Muslims. We shall call this X. Or you do not believe in God at all. This will be your secular humanist as well as your Budahtists and some other eastren religions. This is Y. Now this example also includes a Z. There are people who believe in multiple gods. Such as hindu. The great thing about these religions is that you don't have to believe in any one particluar god. They are all good. Next step in defining a religion is its thoughts on Heaven. This one is a little easier. X and Y. Exists or dosn't exist. Christians,Muslims,Jews,Hinduism and Budahism all believe in one form of heaven or another (Although yes in the last two you DO have to be reincarnated so many times before making it there) Secular humanism does not. This is about the only parrell between Secula humanism and other "real" religions that I can not find although I am hoping someone will point one out for me. At any rate the point is you probably ARE a secular humanist (and probaby don't even realize it) but I do not think you believe that secular humanist principles should be held back.

If you get nothing else out of my post, atleast try to understand this, EVERYONE is religous. Most people who say they have no religion are in fact secular humanist. I am not trying to run secular humanism through the mud and say it is a bad religion. I am just saying it IS a religion and everyone (but defintly secular humanist) needs to sit down and read up about religions (their own and others) and atleast understand their role and their importance. For even if they are all false (Which again, They can't ALL be false can they?) they play an important role in peoples lives.

My final thoughts. I think that children SHOULD be exposed to religions but they should be exposed to alot. As it is for most american children it appears the only choice is christanity and secular humanism and that is some pretty crummy choices if thats all you got. Again I am not trying to trash either religion but how can you decide what you want to be if you don't know everything about them AND everything about the others?

BBtB,
You make no sense. NOT beleiving in something doesn't make one 'religious'. If I accept only scientific facts then that is NOT a religion. I understand that gravity causes an apple to fall. That is NOT a religion! You fail to understand the concept of 'belief'. To believe in something you have to have no proof of whether it is true . . if you knew something to be true then it would simply be a fact. 'Belief' requires uncertainty. Where there is certainty there is NO religion . . . . . . . . I choose to recognise only scientific facts and therefore I am not religious. There are a cast number of questions to which I do not know the answer . . . but I am not so arrogant as to 'make up' the answer to the big questions just mask my insecurities.

Nor is it a 'religion' when people group together to discuss commonly held views (eg Secular Humanists) . . . . unless you want to start calling the Boy Scouts, Trekkies, Matrix fans, Republicans, Democrats, Greenpeace etc etc as 'religions' too.

The thing is, science is <i>full</i> of beliefs. Everything that's a theory is something that hasn't been proven, but is our best explanation at this point. Exactly what gravity is is still theoretical at this point. We're able to use things based on theories, but that doesn't prove them.

So the distinction is a bit blurry. Especially since science can only exist in the realm if what's measurable or testable. That doesn't make beliefs in things outside that realm untrue, it makes them unknowable with current technology.

With all do respect, YOU are the one that does not understand. All I am trying to say is that no matter what you believe you believe in SOMETHING. And that belief IS your religion. For something to be a religion it does NOT have to be believed by anyone else. It can be your own personal beliefs. I am saying that those who deny they have a religion, or for a better word belief system, are the ones who are truly in the dark. What I am saying is there is no way to prevent a belief system from interacting with a person. The original question was should we try to block children from a belief system untill they are old enough to weigh all of the consequences. All I am saying is it doesn't matter. The act of blocking more traditional religions from them such as christanity and islam would do nothing more then force another belief on them. Most likely in our world today it would be secular humanism although there are still other possiblitys. And I am sorry to inform you of this but "accepting only scientfic facts" is a religion as well. You still have the original guidelines as I said in my original post. You still have thoughts on good,heaven,hell and all other religious type things.

Also belief does NOT have to be in something that can not be proven. You are confusing believing in something and having faith in something. Believing in something is mearly accepting it as true. Wether it can be proven, in your eyes, or not. Of course everyone who believes in something blieves it can be proven. Some of us know that some just can not see beyond the physical. Two more things that I want to add. One is, I am not christian. I WAS raised christian (sorta..) but right now I am an athiest. I do keep an open mind though. And two, I am not saying secular humanism is bad or an unaccaptable choice. I just think people should realize that that IS a choice and the one they made. I just get tired of people who know knoweldge of what a religion is saying how they are not religous when they are in fact engrossed in it.

Ah but it can be. It is not just because they do but that dosn't mean just because do it is not. I.E. not all members of groups are religious. But their are groups of people who are. Secular humanism IS one. For one simple reason. The reasons I listed in my first post. They have posistions on such things as God,Heaven and Hell. If at the point a number of trekkies got together and peiced together a group that included thoughts on such things then YES they would be a religion in my eyes if nothing else.

BBtB,

Forgive my butting in, but it seems like you and duckznutz are arguing semantics.

I fail to see the harm in teaching kids the ten commandments. God forbid some kids actually learns good values. It is a parents duty to teach their kids a belief system, what they believe in. You would do the same if you had kids, by teahing them nothing you are teaching them what you believe. At a point in time that kid wants to go out and search forhimself a religion, or belief system he can, there is nothing keeping that person from deciding what he wants to believe.

with apologies to LeBell for my brusque tone earlier (I guess I touched a nerve? . . . and anyway, BBtB is a pretty robust character so no harm done!) . . . . . . . . . i think LeBell is correct in suggesting that this is a difference of interpretation of the word 'religion'. I find the whole area fascinating . . having had no real religious education gives one a diferent perspective against one who has been brought up 'in a faith' I suppose. I guess BBtB and I shall agree to disagree.

Podmore . . I take your point about Science being full of 'beliefs' . . . but I think it is widely accepted that Scientific 'theories' are no more than unproven theories. This has no connection to the debate on religious belief which I understand to mean 'blind faith'. Those who are religious are not waiting for their theories to be tested . . they simply believe wholeheartedly in the absence of proof. I suspect that if God were actually proved to exist then a lot of believers would actually be dissappointed?

Religious parents do not have the monoply on proving 'good' 'kind' 'charitable' or any other positive values to a child. I accept that for many people (who perhaps do not have the capacity to philosphise in any depth) . . . . a faith is a ready-made set of rules that they feel comfortable with. At best they are doing the right thing by their child . . . . . at worst they could be accused of being lazy. There are those who feel that indoctrination of a young mind is a form of child abuse. Remember, children do not 'belong' to their parents . . they have rights.

You say that there is nothing keeping a person from eventualy deciding what he wants to believe? Thankfully that is partly true . . many people are strong and can work it out for themselves . . many others however, will live fearful, guilty lives. I never understood the expression "are you a god-fearing man?" . . . . .

duckznutz,

Yes you touched a nerve, the one that makes me want to keep everyone respectful of EVERYONE'S beliefs on TFP.

ANYONE who touches that nerve will find themselves warned. If they continue to poke at it, they will find themselves banned.

Just so we understand each other.

Yes we are arguing semantics. But I think semantics go to the bone of the original question. Wether you call it religion, or belief or science. Everything we think and do is based on what we think is right. Wether that is going to church every sunday or just being a good person or doing whatever we feel like because we believe there is no right or wrongs. The point is you are preposing to block children from religion based on them not being able to choose a religion because of diminished capicity. I am mearly stating that can not be done because we are either going to teach them that God is the answer or that scienece is the answer. I mean there is no way around it. Even if we try to teach them just the basics of science such as law of gravity and what not. They will still ask "why?" They will ask why was I born? Why am I here? What is my purpose?(Okay so there will be a few whats in there) They will ask such things because adults do. They will ask such things because they seem them asked on tv. They are asked by friends. And above all else they will ask those questions because that is one of the points of being human.. asking why. It can be stopped. We can try to stop them from learning the ones that bother you. But they will just learn others. Secular humanism DOES attempt to answer such questions. How can they give christanity a fair shake at 16 if for the first 15 years of their life we pounded into their heads that we all just happend by chance to evolve and the only reason we are here is to eat,sleep,fuck,make money and gain power? I too agree that the current system of forcing on belief or another on them sucks. All I am preposing is instead to let them see ALL the options on decide for themselves.

Well I was enjoying the debate BBtB but I am bowing out now. LeBell likes playing at God a little too much methinks! Take care.

duckznutz,

Maybe I HAVE played God.

I've certainly been very patient with someone who likes to poke fun at other people's beliefs and then whine about it when called on it.

Or maybe I've the patience of Job.

You'r in the grey here. Many scientific theories over the years have turned out to be wrong (the different kinds of bile, bad blood needing to be leached or drained, and many more). Many men of science believed them to be true because it's what was taught and accepted.

A lot of religious people see evidence of god in the way the world is constructed. Many more are simply taught that way and believe it.

I'm not saying there aren't differences, but it's hard to define them crisply. Certainly no one has in the above posts.

". . . then it should be illegal for any child under the age of, say 16, to be instructed or indoctrinated in any religion, cults or other way of life which can be shown to permanently impair, reduce or damage that childs basic human right to a free-will in adult life . . "

Question: Shown how? What is damage and who decides?
These can only be answered by someone who already has beliefs that we would call "religion". They would be biased, and the unfairness you seek to correct would only be transformed into another.

Sorry, I'm no good with answers, only more questions.....

There's simply no way to enforce this age restriction in any meaningfull way. If you are true to your religion, then you follow it's rules for your behaviour and for that of your family. Ignoring what it may say about child rearing, your child will still be raised under the tenants of your religion because you can do it no other way.

How could you have a double standard for yourself and your kids? Say you do, and you do nothing at all to involve the child in your faith. Kids learn from the people around them and will still be influenced by them.

To me, the only way to do this is to insulate them from all faiths untill legal age (raise them all in a creche under the care of robots?), or to teach them all existing faiths so that upon reaching legal age, they can choose what they like.

What parent would agree to that?

Exactly, I was forced by my father to go to church all the time, and then put in catholic school where they were shoving everything down my throat, now i really hate religion. I'll go to church if I feel like it, not because of anyone else or anything.

There doesn't seem to be a problem with restricting other media from children . . . . books, videos, magazines . . . even PC games and music CDs. Not to mention alcohol, drugs and driving vehicles. (and I am not directly comparing alcohol and drugs to religion . . just making the point that these are easily restricted).

But you are ignoring one important fact. Relgion is NOT media. It is our life. Every meaningfull thought you have is influnced by your world view with is directly influnenced by your thoughts on religion

hmmm, I'm not too sure about that.
I'm an athiest, but I have my own ideals and morals and ethics and whatnot, but these aren't religion by any means.
As far as my thoughts on religion influencing my world views?
I doubt it, I don't believe in god, which does influence my world views, but god isn't religion........

But don't you see what they are? I mean it all goes to your definition of religion of course. I use a broader definition then most people. It is more encompassing but more accrute in my opinon. I mean it is hard for me to show you how your ideals and morals draw parrell to established religion considering the fact that other then stating that you have them I do not have idea what they are. If you will elaborate on that satement I can probably find a parallel to a religion. I am not saying I am going to discover that you are in fact a Buddhist. That the first sterotype we need to rid our selves of. Not all religions are as clear cut as they want you to believe on either side. You can, and many people do, sorta create your own religion. With my own created religion you still make it to heaven (or whatever) that way.

How can they not? I mean by definition world view is "a comprehensive view of the world and human life " How can that not include thoughts on religion as well as politics,economy and nature(and of course some others as well)? With your thoughts on one influcing your thoughts on all others.

many "adults" do not have the maturity or breadth of understanding to be able to cope with, or to consider these things from a balanced perspective.

True . . . but the means by which you learn about it is media. Books, lectures etc. It doesn't materialise in your mind of its own accord (unless you follow a religion entirely unique to yourself . . and are not part of an organised denomination).