Human Rights

[Tmac]

I have often wondered what life would have been for me if I had a lawyer advise me of my rights before I began considering my first thought but then I would have had to already begin to believe in those rights to listen to counsel.

Our rights are violated from day one, society (religion is but a part) demands under the guise of promises that we fall in line or there will be consequences. Coercion by any other name is still coercion. And we get use to it, to the point where we only react to the "serious violations".

Society (religion is but a part) indoctrinates us without making us aware of our rights, good or bad, it still is a violation of our rights.

Most people have no idea of the fullness of their rights but believe only in what they were told about their rights.

Do you have the right to set aside that which you accepted before you knew you didn't have to accept it?

And if you believe you have that right, can you exercise it?

 

[icehorse]

Do you have the right to set aside that which you accepted before you knew you didn't have to accept it?

And if you believe you have that right, can you exercise it?

Yes and yes.

Richard Dawkins goes so far as to say that bringing up a child "as a _____" should be considered child abuse. (Fill in the blank, Christian, Hindu, Muslim...)

Daniel Dennett says that children should be raised without religion for a while and then offered objective classes in comparative religions. So that the child can decide for themselves whether to follow in their parent's footsteps or not.

It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine how such proposals would be received

My less-than-charitable guess is that such a proposal would be extremely provocative to most religious parents and that that in itself points to deep insecurities.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes and yes.

Richard Dawkins goes so far as to say that bringing up a child "as a _____" should be considered child abuse. (Fill in the blank, Christian, Hindu, Muslim...)

Daniel Dennett says that children should be raised without religion for a while and then offered objective classes in comparative religions. So that the child can decide for themselves whether to follow in their parent's footsteps or not.

It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine how such proposals would be received

My less-than-charitable guess is that such a proposal would be extremely provocative to most religious parents and that that in itself points to deep insecurities.

They never say 'bring up as atheists is child abuse' though.

 

[Muslim-UK]

They never say 'bring up as atheists is child abuse' though.

It would seem that 'Belief' is acceptable to some in a free society.

 

[Jesster]

They never say 'bring up as atheists is child abuse' though.

As an atheist, I still wouldn't do this. My parents pushed their beliefs on me and I'd never want to repeat that with any child of mine.

 

[Tmac]

They never say 'bring up as atheists is child abuse' though.

Atheism is just another religion.

 

[Tmac]

Yes and yes.

Richard Dawkins goes so far as to say that bringing up a child "as a _____" should be considered child abuse. (Fill in the blank, Christian, Hindu, Muslim...)

Daniel Dennett says that children should be raised without religion for a while and then offered objective classes in comparative religions. So that the child can decide for themselves whether to follow in their parent's footsteps or not.

It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine how such proposals would be received

My less-than-charitable guess is that such a proposal would be extremely provocative to most religious parents and that that in itself points to deep insecurities.

If you could take it a step further, (never mind religion) we were told who and what we are?

 

[icehorse]

They never say 'bring up as atheists is child abuse' though.

I find this post shocking for several reasons:

1 - You apparently didn't read the OP, since Dennett's proposal completely handles your argument.
2 - It seems you're willfully twisting the definition of atheism, unless you feel the same way about a-unicornists. Should a-unicornist parents be charged with child abuse?

 

[icehorse]

Atheism is just another religion.

In what way(s)???

 

[icehorse]

If you could take it a step further, (never mind religion) we were told who and what we are?

Can you pin this down a bit?

 

[Tmac]

Can you pin this down a bit?

The information about who and what we are is just another thought and this thought has at its foundation in that we are "matter" which now has a completely different meaning than when it was use to generate the thoughts of who and what we are.

 

[Tmac]

In what way(s)???

It has followers.

 

[icehorse]

It has followers.

I have to say that seems like an odd reason. If we were to use "followers" as a criteria, then we might say that Chess, and classical music, and modern architecture, and vegetarianism and so on are also all religions. That seems to really bend the common understanding of religion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

1 - You apparently didn't read the OP, since Dennett's proposal completely handles your argument

No he doesn't. Its still an insistence that parents can't raise their own children with their own beliefs unless it's an atheistic belief. I am all for encouraging comparative religion classes, encouraging all generations new and old to take a look at everyone's belief so that they could make better, more informed judgments. What I am not for is forbidding children from a big part of their parents lives and culture and calling it somehow abusive brainwashing to do so. Which is the height of hyperbole and highly hypocritical if you believe raising a child in religion makes them religious but raising a child irreligious won't make them irreligious.
Most people who are irreligious come from religious backgrounds. Which clearly shows they can make that decision themselves regardless of if they were raised in a religious atmosphere or not.

2 - It seems you're willfully twisting the definition of atheism, unless you feel the same way about a-unicornists. Should a-unicornist parents be charged with child abuse?

That is already a bad faith argument. Not only is comparing belief in gods to belief in unicorns a reductionist false comparison, but it's also not what I said. I think that neither should be called child abuse.

 

[icehorse]

The information about who and what we are is just another thought and this thought has at its foundation in that we are "matter" which now has a completely different meaning than when it was use to generate the thoughts of who and what we are.

I'd say that for most discussions we ought to make a distinction between the material world and our thoughts. If you want to blend those two, I'd say you ought to be in the philosophy forum.

 

[Tmac]

I have to say that seems like an odd reason. If we were to use "followers" as a criteria, then we might say that Chess, and classical music, and modern architecture, and vegetarianism and so on are also all religions. That seems to really bend the common understanding of religion.

Maybe it should be bent, either its all sacred or nothing is sacred.

 

[icehorse]

No he doesn't. Its still an insistence that parents can't raise their own children with their own beliefs unless it's an atheistic belief.

No, Dennett is suggesting that parents should be agnostic.

That is already a bad faith argument. Not only is comparing belief in gods to belief in unicorns a reductionist false comparison, but it's also not what I said. I think that neither should be called child abuse.

I'm not challenging what a parent believes, I'm challenging the idea of indoctrinating children into supernatural faith claims. And remember, for 1.6 BILLION people, such indoctrination is often a life sentence with no change of parole.

 

[Tmac]

I'd say that for most discussions we ought to make a distinction between the material world and our thoughts. If you want to blend those two, I'd say you ought to be in the philosophy forum.

It is possible to see understanding as neat little boxes stacked in order or as concentric circles, you seem to favor the first case.

 

[icehorse]

Maybe it should be bent, either its all sacred or nothing is sacred.

I need you to connect some dots for me on this point.

 

[Tmac]

I need you to connect some dots for me on this point.

No, you need to connect them yourself, it wasn't so hard using religion as the indoctrination but you have trouble separating yourself from your thoughts about yourself.