Zcorp wrote:? There is some problem. There is a problem of scarcity, disease, death, poverty and educational levels specifically self-awareness. Specifically in this instance there is a problem with cultures have a negative influence on general well-being.
You've made it very clear how much you'd be willing to let freedoms be removed in order to enforce your ideology. I am just thankful that your opinions are in a small minority, even here on a forum where you don't have to look hard to find people with no love for religion.
Since your post is just a rehashing of all the stuff we've been over numerous times, I'll let it go. The quality of your armchair psychoanalysis of me is representative of the quality of most of your arguments. But challenging your preconceptions has demonstrably been a fruitless endeavor. So I will just respect your right to believe whatever you want.
LaserGuy wrote:All of these things, to whatever degree your brand of Christianity imposes them, are the things that are stopping you from leaving.
They are stopping me from leaving? Not merely providing pressure against leaving? Do you realize how presumptive this sort of statement is? You could make the same pitch to my wife about all the costs of switching her marriage to another person. It's true that there are a lot of barriers involved. But then to conclude that all of those things are stopping her from leaving me is to completely ignore the idea that she might choose to stay with me even if those barriers were gone, or even if the bigger burden was with staying with me rather than abandoning me.
LaserGuy wrote:Indoctrination in particular, forces children into a belief system, before they have reached an age of sufficient maturity to actually decide that such a belief system is correct, and then builds up barriers that make it difficult for them to leave it. It is no coincidence that the single best predictor of a person's religion is that of their parents
If parents wait to expose their kids on religion, it does not remove any barriers imposed by neighbors, friends, or a future spouse. You could say it reduces the barriers of the parents, but then parents could raise their kids religious from birth and still be tolerant of them switching.
My parents would accept me regardless of the choices I make even with religion. How they raised me does not intrude upon my freedom to choose whatever religion I want.
Whimsical Eloquence wrote:But it is not a justification for why you should have a legal right to the status quo. If you have a right to something then you are asserting there being some moral or ethical good in you having that right in and of itself. It must not merely "not cause harm", there must be some positive good in you having it regardless of the present circumstances.
This is where I disagree. Rights are not about enshrining goodness, but about preventing worse things from happening. What the WBC people are doing is not a good thing, but we can recognize that giving the government the power to restrict that is worse, and opens the door to a lot of potential abuses. I cannot imagine how the government could infringe upon the current legal rights of parents in a way that's not very bad. Rights are a protection from government and a protection from the majority. They are not indicators that people are using their freedoms to do anything good whatsoever.
Talking about enshrining rights is irrelevant to me if it makes no practical difference. For it to be relevant, not having the right should mean something. We would have something different than what we currently have. I have to know what that is to compare it to what we have now. I'm not being coy about this; I simply don't know how to answer the question. To me this is like talking about the trouble of The Affordable Care Act without proposing any other solution to our health care problem. Or for an example I just heard, it's like debating
whether the two-party system is bad without presenting any alternative (this very point gets raised during the debate).
Whimsical Eloquence wrote:Now, let's examine the issue of harm. Do you agree that
1) Some beliefs are harmful to society and to any form of enlightened thinking? (e.g. Racism, Prejudice, anti-empiricism) or indeed that there are beliefs and religious systems which are harmful to the individual (cults, oppressive religious moralities) and particularly the individual child?
2)Do you acknowledge that parents raising children in x belief makes that child more likely to follow that belief?
There are harmful beliefs, and parents can certainly do harm by raising their children to believe in them. But what I'm not getting is any sort of way to fix this. If you think unenshrining the right of parents will help fix this problem, then make that case.
Whimsical Eloquence wrote:Why should society enshrine the rights of parents to indoctrinate?
As far as I can tell, you're not really dealing with indoctrination. You're dealing with parents raising their kids to be religious. The thing with kids is that they become aware of things before they can really understand why. Children learn to speak at 2 years old, but there's so little they can really comprehend. Their concept of why they need to share with their siblings is limited and is very much rooted in "because mom and dad say so". And similarly the reasons why they go to church every week and why they hear stories from the Bible. Little children often want to just know the answers, they don't have the attention span or the capacity to understand why. I tell you this from personal experience because it is in my nature to give lengthy explanations, and my kids just stop listening. I want them to understand and as I learn methods to help them learn better, I put them into practice.
Of course, as kids get older, they care more and more about why. I am witnessing this as my daughter went from 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. She is piecing more things together and is starting to question the way things are. I am very much into letting kids explore and ask questions, and I am big on expecting my own kids to realize that all claims of truth need justification. In other words, I want kids to be taught good thinking skills.
Is what I'm describing indoctrination? It depends on how you define it. I do impart information in a non-critical way to my kids, but it's not out of my desire for them not to think about it, but rather their own limitations. And as their mental faculties becomes stronger, I want to foster them to think better. So if this is indoctrination, then you can't really avoid it. My strategy on promoting my religious beliefs is to maintain a position of truth much like I do with issues of morality. I have opinions on the rightness of late-term abortions and on whether gay should be used as a pejorative even though the truth of those claims is poorly defined (i.e. we lack objective tests to reveal the answer). I will present my belief on those claims and I will present my beliefs about God. But they will also know why I believe that way, and they can decide for themselves if those justifications are suitable. Both religion and morality represent areas where truth is poorly defined, but I don't see any harm in simply maintaining my own claims for truth there. There are certainly harmful ways in which I can promote those truths, but I reject that there's inherent harm in the promotion itself.
There are harmful things that are labeled indoctrination, but it's because of what it does, not what we call it. So when you talk about the right of parents to indoctrinate, I not only need to understand what it means to remove the right, but what you are describing as indoctrination. Is it indoctrinating during the time when kids have a poor ability to think critically and naturally trust whatever their parents say? If parents enforce and impart moral claims of rightness in a non-critical way to their kids (regardless of the kids' mental capacity) is this indoctrinating as well? Will the removal of the right impact this as it would religious indoctrination?
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.