Azrael wrote:You've raised the concern that you might be communicating poorly, so let me assure you that it is very likely that you are. And responses like your last post to not set your communications up to be considered in good faith.
I don't act in good faith to repeated straw man's of my position. I have been very clear that no individual is to be considered criminal under any development of the law for believing anything. Nor for saying they believe it. Nor for claiming it is true. Throwing emotives like "Thoughtcrime" around is disingenuous and so doesn't warrant good faith rebuttal.
I don't believe you know what the term "straw man" actually means. You keep throwing it out there, but it's really not appropriate.
Your position seems to be that teaching religion to children is harmful, and that it should therefore be banned. But you provide no detail as to what you even mean by "religion" - are you including the most basic "there is a/are god(s)" ideas? Or does it have to be specific beliefs about god(s)? And what actual evidence do you have that religion, however you describe it, is harmful? You keep alluding to experts; but you cannot (or will not) name these experts, nor the studies that led them to this conclusion. As others have pointed out, you seem to want to skip right by the actual question that started the thread, and move right into what to do about it.
Nobody is expecting you to write a doctoral thesis here; we are expecting you to make a rational argument if you expect to be taken seriously.
I don't believe merely teaching that a god exists is harmful. Some groups attempt to reinforce this belief with the teaching of modes of reasoning including faith based reasoning which are harmful to the developing mind. How you measure it and where you draw the lines is entirely based on psychology, neuroscience and sociology.
Based on what
psychology, neuroscience and sociology? You do realize that these aren't singular monolithic entities, right? That there is a fairly vast and highly diverse range of opinions? I am quite certain you could find research showing that religious teaching is harmful; and I am quite certain you could find research showing the opposite of that. The problem is that you're attempting to cherry pick without even bothering to see the cherries.
Adolescents with lower reasoning scores are more likely to commit a wide array of socially negative acts including crimes even when accounting for income status and various parental factors.
Which, even if true, has not been linked to religion by you or by any (reliable or not) source cited by you.
Young adults who believe in one or more supernatural entities (not specifically including or excluding god) were more than twice as likely to be victims of fraud. Cognitive dissonance between an ideology they were raised with and a new perception of reality was a determined factor in a significant percentage of suicides of males between 18 and 30.
According to whom? Sorry, but if you're going to make bold, authoritative statements about this topic, you're going to have to back those statements up with something
Without digging out the meta-analyses I can't give the specific definition of the cause of the harm but from memory it was approximately "a foundational belief being a faith based position". Having children build their world views from there increased their risk factors for personal harms and social harms. This was ameliorated if the faith based position was incorporated later into the child's worldview. I remember distinctly one study finding no effect on what it was looking at when the "religious instruction" began after 13 but strong effects when it began between 5 and 8.
Again, this simply doesn't cut it. Anyone can pull anything out of their ass and claim that it comes from something they kinda-sorta remember reading. Nobody is asking you to dig through entire studies and write complete summaries of their results; but we would like to know who you're basing your claim on and why we should believe them.
If you're going to use research as the basis of an argument, you ought to be at least capable of pointing to the research. "I remember someone said this..." doesn't cut it.
Activities which promote this sort of foundational weakness in a worldview I'm not an expert in. What little I have seen seems to point to large group activities (hence my focus on groups and organisations) with peers from within the child's community and led by authority figures from outside the child's immediate community being the kind of activity most apt for instilling this kind of foundational belief whether a harmful one or not.
In all honesty, the impression I get from the above is that you're trying to throw a lot of words together in a way that seems (to you) to reflect deep thought and academic depth, without all the fuss of actually thinking or learning about what you're talking about.
The law as proposed would make it illegal to organise that type of activity to promote any idea [possibly with an exception for those approved by academic boards] to children or preteen children.
Right. You want a board (or council, panel, whatever you want to call it) to approve the ideas that parents can teach their children; and you actually believe that limiting this restriction to organized groups makes it reasonable. What you are proposing is offensive with or without religion being involved.
There may be a wider scope of activities which would also reasonably be so outlawed and to determine those, and what children require protection from them I would turn to the research community to find out which activities have similar effects or if there is a subgroup of the above defined activity which doesn't have the negative effect.
But again, even if we went along with this, we are left with the question of who gets to decide what is harmful? As has been pointed out to you dozens of times now, there is an enormously wide range of opinions on what is or is not harmful to children. You cannot simply pass something like this off to "the research community" as if that were some singular unit; it's simply not.
There is a reason society does not base it's laws on what "the research community" happens to be saying at any given time. Research, with rare exception, is constantly changing; hopefully more forward than backward, but even that isn't a given.