Respect For Religion

Most people have no respect for religion and many show hatred for religion (e.g. Christians hating Muslims, vice versa). Nevertheless, we respect the law and should all tolerate religion which has been legalised in most countries.

Its a bit like pornography really. Most people would have no respect for pictures or videos of people wearing shoes whilst fornicating. Still, some people get their kicks from it and it is legalised in many countries, albeit with restrictions.

So, why don’t we have restrictions on religion?

Surely children should not be exposed to questionable practices and beliefs that can have profoundly adverse effects on them. As with pornography, there should be an R18 restriction on religion and any adult who wants to follow such a bizarre practice is free to purchase religious material and enter religious institutions.

Unfortunately, it still does not stop parents from leaving lascivious or religious material within reach of children or talk about it in front of them yet as a community we owe it to be more responsible towards our future generations and at least restrict children from being exposed to such quirky and unsavory beliefs.

Swolliw: So here's a question. Why should we ban children from watching porn?

Swolliw: You've made quite a few flawed contentions here:

-religion is different to pornography.

-what kind of restrictions are you talking about? You do realise that freedom of religion is an internationally recognised human right? (see 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article.18)

-how do you know that these 'questionable (so-called) practices and beliefs' can have 'profoundly adverse effects' on them?

(You haven't given any detail on exactly what practices and beliefs you're referring to, or labelled any of the adverse effects. Moreover there is the question on where one draws the line; example, family disputes *can* have demonstrably adverse effects on children, does one restrict those? Divorces can have demonstrably adverse effects, does one restrict those as well? Or how about the case of parents engaging in political discourse with their children? Or encouraging them into extra-curricular activities that they may not otherwise be interested in.)

-what 'lascivious or religious material' are you referring to? Some estimates state that there's 4,200 religions globally. You haven't really expounded on how these non-defined materials and/or beliefs (you actually could be talking about a variety of things) are inherently detrimental or damaging to children.

Cenc: I have made no flawed contentions.
I explained why religion is like pornography.
Freedom of religion does not give one the freedom to preach hatred towards minority groups that organised religion does.
I have worked with old and young victims of religious abuse who have been profoundly affected by having fear and guilt drummed into them by preachers.
The fact is that religious followers are made to believe that they will suffer eternal damnation in hell and not be with their loved ones. This is tantamount to lies and deception and used by religious organisations to inflict guilt and fear in gullible, naive and vulnerable people. This is a disgusting pratice and even more so when children are victims.

Cenc: what kind of restrictions are you talking about? You do realise that freedom of religion is an internationally recognised human right? (see 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article.18)

Do human rights apply equally to children and adults?

I don't think the OP is denying anyone their freedom to practice a religion as adults. He is concerned with the indoctrination of children before they acquire critical thinking skills. That is how I understood him.

dee-em: He is proposing placing 'restrictions' on religion, which, as I have pointed out--directly contradicts Article 18 of that particular Declaration. International Law regarding the rights of children, as far as religion is concerned, states this:

-parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

-parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

So, #2 clearly states that parents/legal guardians have the *right* to rear their children as they so wish, providing that it doesn't violate any other existing laws (I.E laws regarding neglect, health, abuse, public safety, etc.) It would be impossible to find grounds for placing legal restrictions on religious practice in the home *without* violating other various international and domestic laws; basically, it would be a human rights violation in itself.

As for children acquiring critical thinking skills, this is something that will gradually happen as they become older; and once again, there's a variety of ways that a child could potentially become indoctrinated by something.

Swolliw: You have, as I have demonstrated. Not once did you explain how religion is akin to pornography--so I still invite you to do so. What's most apparent is the laziness and blanket assumption in your post; you should make a greater effort to explain why or how something is so, as when you instigate a discussion that you're serious about; the burden of proof also falls on you. Example: one can't assume that religion is damaging to children, one actually has to demonstrate how religion is damaging to children.

Additionally, you don't know for fact that all religious followers 'are made to believe that they will suffer eternal damnation in hell and not to be with their loved ones'. It would seem here that you're only referring to extreme proponents of the Catholic faith, and ignoring the thousands of other religious groups around the world. Moreover--how do you know that they were 'forced'? When someone is 'forced' into something, it happens against their will. Thus, if the people you're referring to actually gave their will--they were not 'forced'. And if you're referring exclusively to children or people who were children at the time, law protects their parents' ability to rear them in a religious environment. It would appear that you're basing your entire argument on your own moral disagreements rather than objective analysis.

Cenc: parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

I asked the question because there are a lot of rights which adults have but children don't. I accept that the human rights declaration you are quoting is worded that way. However such declarations are written by people influenced by religion and can be changed. I could also argue that religionists might be violating those rights be indoctrinating a child with their own religion instead of letting the child choose for themselves when they are old enough. There is no freedom of religion if you, as usually happens, take up the same religion as your parents.

It would be impossible to find grounds for placing legal restrictions on religious practice in the home *without* violating other various international and domestic laws; basically, it would be a human rights violation in itself.

As I said, nothing is set in stone. Laws can be changed if there is a good reason. The OP gave some good reasons.

As for children acquiring critical thinking skills, this is something that will gradually happen as they become older; and once again, there's a variety of ways that a child could potentially become indoctrinated by something.

But isn't that the point, to avoid indoctrinating them before they develop those critical thinking faculties especially if such indoctrinated beliefs are known to cause harm to some people?

dee-em: I asked the question because there are a lot of rights which adults have but children don't. I accept that the human rights declaration you are quoting is worded that way. However such declarations are written by people influenced by religion and can be changed. I could also argue that religionists might be violating those rights be indoctrinating a child with their own religion instead of letting the child choose for themselves when they are old enough. There is no freedom of religion if you, as usually happens, take up the same religion as your parents.

Human rights also apply to children, so that's incorrect. In fact there's an array of additional rights that specifically apply to those under the age of 16-18, but at the same time, there's also rights in place to protect how parents/legal guardians choose to bring up their children. For example, there is nothing legally wrong with parents choosing to take their child to church, or choosing to read the Bible or any other religious text to their child, or choosing to send their children to a religious school; and to enact laws restricting such things, one would have to prove that they are somehow inherently harmful to the child, and/or that they somehow violate the child's (and other people's) safety. And these grounds would have to be purely religion-caused and religion-based, you couldn't just exclaim something like: 'Jimmy stole my ice cream because his parents are religious', thus 'religion should be restricted!' Indeed, there would have to be a demonstrably strong correlation between the child having a religious background, and being damaged as a result of it. I would also argue that not all people 'take up the same religion' as their parents, there are notable variations, exceptions, and levels of religious practice. An individual could arise from a strong religious background, and either be more moderate in their approach to religion, or indeed not follow or practice that particular faith at all when they grow into an adult,

As I said, nothing is set in stone. Laws can be changed if there is a good reason. The OP gave some good reasons.


Feel free to outline which 'good reasons' you think he gave. This wouldn't just be a simple legal process either, it would invite a lot of contention and potential exploitation; in the form of people using it to exercise their own biases, it could even cause more conflict between various religious groups. However, the fact remains that the 'restrictions' (or rather laws) that are currently in place are sufficient anyway--if children are *legally* abused, then they are indeed protected. I find it concerning that the OP is focusing exclusively on (potential) religious indoctrination, and ignoring the very many, and very provable cases of other child abuse that exist.

But isn't that the point, to avoid indoctrinating them before they develop those critical thinking faculties especially if such indoctrinated beliefs are known to cause harm to some people?

What harm exactly? And no, the OP has not stated any particular 'point' or net-benefits to restricting religion.

Cenc: Sorry Ahiya, I had lost track of this post. I'm still getting used to this site.

Human rights also apply to children, so that's incorrect.

I wasn't just referring to human rights.

In fact there's an array of additional rights that specifically apply to those under the age of 16-18, but at the same time, there's also rights in place to protect how parents/legal guardians choose to bring up their children. For example, there is nothing legally wrong with parents choosing to take their child to church, or choosing to read the Bible or any other religious text to their child, or choosing to send their children to a religious school; and to enact laws restricting such things, one would have to prove that they are somehow inherently harmful to the child, and/or that they somehow violate the child's (and other people's) safety.

You still seem to be assuming that the current set of human rights are somehow inviolable. If the UN had been formed centuries ago, then owning a slave might have been included as a basic human right. We are discussing the ethical and moral nature of indoctrinating children into possibly harmful beliefs, not how the law currently stands. Laws only reflect societal standards of morality and can change given sufficient impetus.

Indeed, there would have to be a demonstrably strong correlation between the child having a religious background, and being damaged as a result of it.

Of course. It is this damage which is the subject of this thread.


I would also argue that not all people 'take up the same religion' as their parents, there are notable variations, exceptions, and levels of religious practice.

Again, yes, but exceptions make the rule. The vast majority of children adopt the same religion as their parents. How many Christians do you think there are in Iran?

Feel free to outline which 'good reasons' you think he gave.

Unfortunately the posts on this site are not numbered so I can't do more than provide an excerpt from the 4th post down:

Freedom of religion does not give one the freedom to preach hatred towards minority groups that organised religion does.
I have worked with old and young victims of religious abuse who have been profoundly affected by having fear and guilt drummed into them by preachers.
The fact is that religious followers are made to believe that they will suffer eternal damnation in hell and not be with their loved ones.

I find it concerning that the OP is focusing exclusively on (potential) religious indoctrination, and ignoring the very many, and very provable cases of other child abuse that exist.

You yourself said that protections for other forms of child abuse already exist so you are engaging in unfair criticism. The OP is not about removing the existing protections but adding another category (religious indoctrination) to the list.


What harm exactly? And no, the OP has not stated any particular 'point' or net-benefits to restricting religion.

On the contrary, the OP alluded to the harmful effects. If you want more authoritative sources:


http://journeyfree.org/childhood-religious-indoctrination/

In effect, the indoctrination of a child with immature cognitive abilities in the helpless context of a family is an abuse of power. The child has no perspective and no choice but to cooperate in order to survive. The messages are received and embedded in the brain while certain areas of brain development are repressed through lack of stimulation, chief of which is critical thinking. This, combined with accepting the teaching that one is unable to trust one’s own thoughts, and the abject fear of terrifying consequences, completes the trap. Even as the child gets older, there are social forces in place to enforce these dynamics and the circular reasoning can continue on, making the child feel highly disturbed but not have any idea why.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201408/does-christianity-harm-children

http://mirandacelestehale.net/2011/09/06/the-serious-consequences-of-childhood-religious-indoctrination/

Etc. I'm sure you can do a google search for yourself.

Swolliw: I do not agree that most disrespect religions based on the fact that most still count themselves as religious.

I do agree that the religious of a certain religion will disrespect those in other religions. Inquisitions and Jihads prove this beyond a doubt.

I disrespect all religions, except my own, Gnostic Christianity, but that is because, as an esoteric ecumenist, I see corruption in most religions as well as most political systems.

Regards
DL