Religion and Child Abuse2. Comment #47496 by BAEOZ on June 4, 2007 at 5:54 pm
3. Comment #47498 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 4, 2007 at 5:56 pm
The US not signing on board doesn't bother me. Spams have a habit of shouting that their way is the best, and whilst their country has some major issues with humans rights *cough..Guantanamo Bay..cough*, their record in general is good.4. Comment #47506 by Undefined on June 4, 2007 at 6:44 pm
5. Comment #47522 by SMART on June 4, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Future generations will shake their heads at how long human beings took to recognise the evil of religious schools6. Comment #47523 by BeauHMcLendon on June 4, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Separation of Church and State. This is fantastic, but obviously not infallible considering the second any Secular organization or those of opposed faiths revolt against religious pressure in the school systems are instantly charged as somehow encroaching on religious belief itself.7. Comment #47525 by Wyle_E on June 4, 2007 at 9:24 pm
While common criminals may know that they are doing wrong, the perpetrators of great evil are always certain that they are doing good.8. Comment #47538 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 4, 2007 at 11:05 pm
At the heart of this monstrous idea lies the incredible misunderstanding that children can be taught to not believe anything. To believe in nothing is still to believe in something. A vacuum is still something. It is empty space. It does not not exist. You cannot teach children to not believe in anything, for then you teach them to believe in nothing. To teach children to believe in nothing would therefore still be considered, in your own words, "indoctrination". It's just plain silly.9. Comment #47540 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 11:25 pm
At the heart of this monstrous idea lies the incredible misunderstanding that children can be taught to not believe anything. To believe in nothing is still to believe in something.This is nomologically false. Anyway, that isn't exactly what I think is being advocated, and its at least not what I would advocate. Children should be taught how to think, not what to think - obviously the principle of skills over knowledge doesn't precisely extend to stuff like history and math - but you are specifically referring to questions of uncertainties, what children should be taught to believe in the absence of reasons. What is being advocated is that children deserve honest answers to questions no one can claim to be certain they know, like what happens when we die, or where life and the universe came from.
A vacuum is still something ... it does not not exist.This statement is incorrect, at least in the sense you are attempting to apply it. We could talk about energy and spacetime curvatures, but I don't think that's really what you were getting at. ..or maybe it was. *shrug*
10. Comment #47541 by greg_m on June 4, 2007 at 11:31 pm
What a scary story, Bizarro. I live in Australia, and I can also curse my country without a care, but we have laws against owning assault rifles and handguns. I don't see that this is unreasonable; we have far fewer mass shootings that you do in the US. I'm not jealous.11. Comment #47543 by krogercomplete on June 4, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I like the thrust of the convention, but I'm not sure how it would actually go about dealing with religion as child abuse. As much as it pains me to say, a few of the things in Bizzaro's post resonated with me. Unfortunately Bizzaro, you lost me with that last paragraph:12. Comment #47545 by kcjerith on June 4, 2007 at 11:39 pm
This is an issue i am a bit torn on. Yes, I think a religious up bringing is horrible. But i am not sure what one can do. Ban religious teaching in the home? To me this would turn Christians into martyrs, as well as being unproductive. I also dislike the idea of the government interfering with parents and their children. this of course echoes the point the Bizarro Dawkins makes (though i feel a bit odd being in agreement with him). I do support gun ownership, though i am not sure what it has to do with this topic.13. Comment #47547 by krogercomplete on June 4, 2007 at 11:43 pm
kcjerith,14. Comment #47548 by kcjerith on June 4, 2007 at 11:47 pm
After i thought about it for a minute, i know that the government trying to prevent religious education is pointless. First, it would be a massive undertaking. Can you imagine how big a department (or making current ones larger) you would need to try to accomplish such a goal. I can also just imagine the "reason police" who's job it would be to determine if the children's belief systems are rational. I have a feeling it would almost be comical, like a monty python skit. And, trying to punish people for not thinking or teaching a certain way seems scary to me.15. Comment #47558 by Shuggy on June 5, 2007 at 12:42 am
i am not sure what one can do. Ban religious teaching in the home?No, that would probably be too much of an intrusion, but one could certainly keep public schooling secular, and possibly make public schooling compulsory - let them indoctrinate the kids in their own time. I don't know about yours, but our government got sucked in by the line that private (church) schools were lifting a burden from the state, so the state should fund them.
16. Comment #47560 by mmurray on June 5, 2007 at 12:54 am
You cannot teach children to not believe in anything, for then you teach them to believe in nothing.
17. Comment #47565 by Geoff on June 5, 2007 at 1:34 am
Comment #47498 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy
"What worries me is that there needs to be something specificaly aimed at children at all. By declaring they need their own separate rights from adults implies that they are not equal to adults in some way - as though they were lesser humans."
18. Comment #47567 by kcjerith on June 5, 2007 at 1:49 am
I agree that if we have to public school, and I would claim we do not, that they should be secular. In the USA their is strong constitutional reasons for this. I do think it is shame that people who are not religious should be forced to fund bible/religious schools, but on the same hand what makes it ok to force religious people to fund secular schools? I think the key is getting the government out of the business of education. Let the crazy religious (now that is a redundant term!)people fund their own schools.19. Comment #47569 by redfive on June 5, 2007 at 1:50 am
20. Comment #47571 by Corylus on June 5, 2007 at 2:10 am
21. Comment #47579 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 2:47 am
22. Comment #47580 by rokort on June 5, 2007 at 2:48 am
I know you all think we Americans are ignorant logic haters, what with mottos like "In God We Trust" on our money, but I will be so bold as to suggest that this may be the manifestation of just a bit of jealousy. I know America is very, very far from perfect, but here people are free. I can shoot my civilianized AK (or, if you're Canadian/British, my 9mm handgun) in my backyard without having to worry about being arrested for owning a gun. I can tell people about my perfectly rational faith in the God who gives me hope without being fined for spreading my beliefs. I can even curse my own country without a care in the world. God forbid that any government ever tells me what to teach my own children.
23. Comment #47582 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2007 at 2:59 am
24. Comment #47583 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:00 am
25. Comment #47585 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:06 am
26. Comment #47587 by Logicel on June 5, 2007 at 3:08 am
27. Comment #47588 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2007 at 3:10 am
28. Comment #47590 by Luthien on June 5, 2007 at 3:21 am
I also disagree that bad religion is the sole source of instilment of corrupt values. Just look at any number of communist or formerly communist secular societies. Their children were still indoctrinated in corrupt values
What right does the state have to monitor the values that parents instill in their children?
I can tell people about my perfectly rational faith in the God who gives me hope without being fined for spreading my beliefs. I can even curse my own country without a care in the world. God forbid that any government ever tells me what to teach my own children.
29. Comment #47592 by I'mNotAlone on June 5, 2007 at 3:30 am
As an atheist, I hope my two children (four and two) learn about religion at school. However I hope that they learn about ALL religions, rather than the religious education I had where a Xtian 'taught' me about the Bible. Here in the UK, I'm horrified by the Govnts decision to allow faith schools. The one thing that children shouldn't have to learn by example is about division - whether that be by religion, colour, race, sex or anything else. By all means make them aware of the division in the outside world, but dont bring that divide into the classroom (or practised at the school gate).30. Comment #47593 by Flagellant on June 5, 2007 at 3:35 am
Religion - an activity for consenting adults in privateI'm having that on a tee-shirt.
31. Comment #47599 by Adrian on June 5, 2007 at 3:46 am
We are talking about education and schools are now the primary places to obtain that.32. Comment #47601 by Donald on June 5, 2007 at 3:48 am
What a splendid article. It's good to see the efforts of the sane to counterbalance the insanity that gets reported here.33. Comment #47617 by Mat on June 5, 2007 at 4:37 am
Regarding Bizarro Dawkins' above post, I must confess that I agree, to an extent, that the problem of religious indoctrination of children by parents is something that governments would find very difficult to do anything about - even if one assumes they "should." However, the article doesn't ask for that. It asks for dialogue, debate, conversation on the matter. Something very different. I, for one, feel that governments are generally incompetent and power-hungry, so giving them more powers is something that should be questioned hard. I'd agree with Bizarro on this, if that was what he was saying. But unfortunately, he was also doing a reflexive strawman argument because the reality (let's talk about this) is more reasonable than what he wants to object to (all religious teaching is bad and the government should do something about it).34. Comment #47620 by newatheist on June 5, 2007 at 4:38 am
Were his parents allowed to deny him medical treatment because of religious beliefs when he was a kid?Excellent! And a point that Innaiah Narisetti left out of the article altogether. [edit - I see this is an excerpt] If ever there was a case of religious child abuse that should be straight out illegal altogether, this is it.
In the Islamic world, some female students are allowed to attend certain madrassas. However, they are forced to learn in classrooms, or even buildings, separate from their male peers.This reads like "boy's schools", and "girl's schools", and doesn't mention any inequality in teaching, if that's what the author intended..
no child should have a file which states that they are of a particular religion. The religion of their parents can be noted, of course. (emphasis mine)
35. Comment #47640 by MAS2007 on June 5, 2007 at 5:49 am
18. Comment #47567 by kcjerith on June 5, 2007 at 1:49 am I agree that if we have to public school, and I would claim we do not, that they should be secular. In the USA their is strong constitutional reasons for this. I do think it is shame that people who are not religious should be forced to fund bible/religious schools, but on the same hand what makes it ok to force religious people to fund secular schools? I think the key is getting the government out of the business of education. Let the crazy religious (now that is a redundant term!)people fund their own schools.
Why should a racial bigot be expected to pay taxes for the benefit of all?
36. Comment #47649 by Awl on June 5, 2007 at 6:32 am
As many people here have pointed out, even if it was not a huge breach of civil liberties for the goverment to interfere in what parents teach their children it would certainly be very difficult to enforce.37. Comment #47658 by konquererz on June 5, 2007 at 7:34 am
38. Comment #47671 by kcjerith on June 5, 2007 at 8:45 am
MAS2007,39. Comment #47689 by Stuart Paul Wood on June 5, 2007 at 9:42 am
Bizarro said:40. Comment #47690 by Jonathan Dore on June 5, 2007 at 9:43 am
I would oppose "banning" parents from teaching certain propositions to their children at home (school is another matter) not out of respect for their rights as parents to foist nonsense on their children, but because:41. Comment #47697 by Bremas on June 5, 2007 at 9:59 am
I have joined the "ignore bizarro" bandwagon.42. Comment #47700 by Duff on June 5, 2007 at 10:16 am
Bizarro,43. Comment #47710 by Jenin on June 5, 2007 at 10:38 am
This is hardly an easy issue to tackle. Parents' freedom to raise their children as they choose vs. children's freedom from indoctrination...also excessive government intervention in family life which to most is a frightening proposition. Although I have not thought enough about this issue to say with confidence this is the best solution, I think Sam Harris' ideas apply here : we should not make religious indoctrination by parents illegal per se, but consider it as socially unacceptable as verbal abuse. We should force parents to think about just what they are doing to their children through this indoctrination--although needless to say many will still see nothing wrong with it. However, if religious indoctrination of children becomes akin to verbal child abuse, I think many more people would refrain from it.44. Comment #47760 by Canuck#1 on June 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm
45. Comment #47786 by catchy_nick on June 5, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I am against legislating what parents out to teach their kids. Daniel Dennett suggested that we teach children about ALL religions in schools. Their origins, their history and their *ahem* evolution and in some cases, their death. With no biases ofcourse. I couldnt agree more. I would go as far as saying the course should be mandatory. Also the fact that most children end up following their parents' religion should also be part of the syllabus. Even the "home schooled" should be tested on this. It'll take a generation or two, but I think it would pretty much get rid of atleast fundamentalism. We also need to teach our children to think critically and question everything. Including faith. I can already see faithhead cry babies calling this an attempt by satan to sway Xtians from the Word! Just like satan used the theory of evolution to make people doubt the FACT of creation.46. Comment #47791 by D'Arcy on June 5, 2007 at 2:28 pm
47. Comment #47848 by flistr8 on June 5, 2007 at 5:54 pm
48. Comment #47867 by kcjerith on June 5, 2007 at 8:46 pm
See, i think the gun issue is way off topic, not saying it isn't worth discussion, just that it has very little to do with religion. Since you (bizzaro) have linked the two issues (and falsely so) you made an attack against one an attack against the other, which you can see in several of the above comments. While i am tempted to debate the merits and perils of gun ownership, that would seem to be spreading my attention a bit too thin. :)49. Comment #47875 by krogercomplete on June 5, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I will be so bold as to suggest that the US is a totalitarian system where (too many) people are so afraid of each other that communication goes via court, have a screwed up idea of reality, are a political and environmental menace to the rest of the world, and push forward archaic views about "freedom" by planting bombs and soldiers around the world.
50. Comment #47892 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 6, 2007 at 12:50 am
First, I think my statement on guns is being taken out of context. My comment did not focus on gun control; it briefly mentioned it (that would mean that many of you are setting up straw men). The last part of my post was something of a side note on the rather negative attitudes that many non-American societies have towards the US, and this was indeed relevant to certain portions of the article. And yes, all of my guns are legal and registered. I shoot for fun. And you know, I may try to be well-spoken and educated, but it's a universal truth that any typical guy just likes things that go boom.
1. Comment #47491 by MIND_REBEL on June 4, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Other Comments by MIND_REBEL