NationStates Jolt Archive

** INSPIRED BY 15-month old toddler murdered by christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552643) **

We have a legal set age at which sex is consensual.

We have a legal set age at which it consumption of alcohol is permitted.

We have a legal set age at which we can smoke.

There are also legal set ages for driving, gambling, taking out a loan, voting, and more.

We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

All of the above won't hurt you if you engage in proper protections or just don't engage in rated activities. Yet, there is ample proof that these can cause hurt. That is the justification for the age. But why then do we not have one on religion if we're concerned about the wellbeing of society, why do we permit the young; undeveloped mind and the immature emotional understanding to be exposed to religion without protections?

Why is it fine to indoctrinate children with religious propaganda?

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.

No. There shouldn't be ages for religion.

It will be to hard to impose.

No. There shouldn't be ages for religion.

Why not?

It will be to hard to impose.

Tie it to the "tax break" that religions are permitted to receive.

Little problem with implementing that:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
Much as this case is dispicable, such a law would clearly violate the 1st amendment.You'd also get into trouble with defining religion. Would saying the lord's prayer be illegal, but meditating wouldn't?

There should be a majority of age for religious practice. When a child is that, just a child, it really can´t understand all the concepts thrown at it from an altar. It can´t decide, it can´t ask why. When majority of age is reached, usually (and mark the usually because some people never, ever, reach said majority in mind), then and only then can the child make decisions regarding it´s faith.

Tie it to the "tax break" that religions are permitted to receive.

What, will you put police officers at the gates of churches to see if no minors go in?
I think it would be better to still improve education (also towards parents) instead of wasting resources on that. A religion is something different from sex or driving, it's an ideology, it isn't that simple to control. Children can be indoctrinated without going to churches too.
It's also a dangerous precedent, most ideologies are dangerous when taken to an extreme, the same case could be made against almost all ideologies.

Why not?

Read up on the US COnstitution. Most notably the 1st amendment.

I'd disagree with it. Despite the fact that I'd be 18 before any such law could take effect, I met some of my best friends at church and had some great times in my Youth group.

Little problem with implementing that:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
Much as this case is dispicable, such a law would clearly violate the 1st amendment.

Ah, the heart of the matter, Free Speech. That could be used in many ways and indeed is a valid argument because this would be dealing with freedom of speech.

You get problems with it because with this you get people who will use in to perhaps justify the behaviour of say, walking down the street naked but some prude doesn't like it, and can just call the cops because we have anti-nudity (indecency) laws that say you can't do that.

But, despite that law, the person who is naked feels that it is her/his right to freedom of speech. He is expressing himself, and that message is that he is comfortable with his body.

Or perhaps you're sitting on a bench, talking to a friend and you're swearing a lot while you speak with your equally as vulgar friend, and a nearby person over hears it and comes over, telling you not to talk like that because the children will hear. Even though you're protected by the first amendment, others think differently.

Voting is another key form of how we exercise our freedom of speech. Our ballot speaks of what we think of the regime yet your voice is not considered until you're 18 even though you understand it despite being young...

See a pattern here? We run into a slippery slope because of conflicting opinion and what is acceptable and what isn't. All opinion.

We don't let children vote because we consider them "uninformed". Yet they are allowed religion despite being equally as uninformed when subject to indoctrination.

What else are you going to limit? Legal age for political beliefs? Also "Ma'am, your under arrest for saying the Lord's prayer with your daughter." Or Swat teams breaking in and arresting a kid looking up Christianity on Wikipedia.

Read up on the US COnstitution. Most notably the 1st amendment.

Which applies to Canada how as a matter of interest?

Edit: And I think from a young age kids should be educated in a variety of religions/theisms so they can decide if they want to follow this one or that one, or any at all.

Ah, the heart of the matter, Free Speech. That could be used in many ways and indeed is a valid argument because this would be dealing with freedom of speech.

The part bolded dealt with Religion Kryozerkia. :rolleyes:

Which applies to Canada how?

Well you see...for starters, nothing was said of Canada and secondly, it was inspired by what happened in OREGON, a US STATE!!!

Only if you agree to a majority age on teaching atheism, spirituality, and any form of tradition up to and including all holidays and anything to do with citizenship.

I'd disagree with it. Despite the fact that I'd be 18 before any such law could take effect, I met some of my best friends at church and had some great times in my Youth group.

You could apply that to other extracurricular groups.

What else are you going to limit? Legal age for political beliefs? Also "Ma'am, your under arrest for saying the Lord's prayer with your daughter." Or Swat teams breaking in and arresting a kid looking up Christianity on Wikipedia.

Looking up information is one thing. It would be the same as reading up for your driver's ed test. You just read, you didn't engage in the activity until it was time.

Which applies to Canada how as a matter of interest?

Edit: And I think from a young age kids should be education in a variety of religions/theisms so they can decide if they want to follow this one or that one, or any at all.

Thus leading them to make the choice of who they want to vote for. It would be like politics. You can study but you can't vote until you're 18.

The part bolded dealt with Religion Kryozerkia. :rolleyes:

And I replied. I chose to reply to the whole statement. You merely chose to see if I replied to a certain part.

Only if you agree to a majority age on teaching atheism, spirituality, and any form of tradition up to and including all holidays and anything to do with citizenship.

I never said those would be excluded.

But the funny part about that is, without any instruction in religion, one is in theory an atheist, so that part would surely fail because they haven't been told of the idea of a god.

But if you did teach, along the lines of prepping for a driver's ed test, you would include everything.

If people completely neglected children, we wouldn't be having all these problems.

The majority age thing sounds a little harsh. People would probably complain.

However:
We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.
There's an ESRB. Why not a RDRB?

And speaking of fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeoem1gR3s

I'm of two minds -- as a Catholic, I was baptised as an infant and one could say brought into the faith from the time I could understand anything.

I actually think Baptists probably have a better idea in that Baptism, as a sacrament marking one as a member of a faith, should be when that person is an adult and capable of understanding the commitment thereof.

As for raising children in religion -- I honestly believe that so long as the practices can cause no physical harm (as in allowing someone to die needlessly) the government should stay out of it. However, just as they would not allow human sacrifice under the banner of the 1st Amendment, necessary medical treatment should be imposed on minors until they are legally able to say, "No, I would rather trust in God."

Y
Thus leading them to make the choice of who they want to vote for. It would be like politics. You can study but you can't vote until you're 18.



I personally would have said 15 or 16. But that's only because I knew some fairly smart 15/16 year olds. Having said that, I know some fairly thick 18 year olds..... so, yeh.

Tough call that one. :)

Looking up information is one thing. It would be the same as reading up for your driver's ed test. You just read, you didn't engage in the activity until it was time.

What exactly would you say is a religious practice? I guess praying is, but I really don't think thought-crimes should exist.

** INSPIRED BY 15-month old toddler murdered by christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552643) **

We have a legal set age at which sex is consensual.

We have a legal set age at which it consumption of alcohol is permitted.

We have a legal set age at which we can smoke.

There are also legal set ages for driving, gambling, taking out a loan, voting, and more.

We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

All of the above won't hurt you if you engage in proper protections or just don't engage in rated activities. Yet, there is ample proof that these can cause hurt. That is the justification for the age. But why then do we not have one on religion if we're concerned about the wellbeing of society, why do we permit the young; undeveloped mind and the immature emotional understanding to be exposed to religion without protections?

Why is it fine to indoctrinate children with religious propaganda?

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.

Actually, many age restrictions are based as much off of physical maturity as much as mental maturity. So it isn't always just about 'prudes not wanting people to have fun'.

Also, here in Minnesota, there is actually no law against the sale of violent, or sexual video games to minors, the games got protected under free speech (a store may still choose to restrict sale, but it is not a legal requierment).

Additionally, you realize that to ban people form having any religious feelings you must also ban any form of actual thought, or critical thinking until the age of majority for this category.

I'm not sure where you are going with this idea, but it really makes no sense, minors are allowed to have political beliefs, they are allowed to believe what they will about whether criminal activity is right, all of these are similar to religious beliefs, are you proposing a ban on critical thinking? That hasn't been attempted since the Catholic Church tried to keep people form learning, and thinking in the middle ages, I thought we were past that... well, good luck to you, but I think you will find that many people don't want to support the forbiddance of thinking/holding beliefs, it's kinda central to humanity.

I never said those would be excluded.
Oh good. We'll have blank children then.

But the funny part about that is, without any instruction in religion, one is in theory an atheist, so that part would surely fail because they haven't been told of the idea of a god.
Quick then! Get all the Dawkins books out of the school library! Ban the FSM!

Seriously, your idea is unworkable and seriously conflicts with the right of parents to raise their children in their traditions and culture.

Seriously, your idea is unworkable and seriously conflicts with the right of parents to raise their children in their traditions and culture.

It would even conflict with the right of the children to follow religious traditions and such.

What if there was a minimum age for Atheism, too? It would be the only way to treat people equally. Then what would children believe in?

Yes, there should be a legal limitation on when, or when not, religion maybe practiced by a person.

It would even conflict with the right of the children to follow religious traditions and such.

Children have rights?

** INSPIRED BY 15-month old toddler murdered by christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552643) **

We have a legal set age at which sex is consensual.

We have a legal set age at which it consumption of alcohol is permitted.

We have a legal set age at which we can smoke.

There are also legal set ages for driving, gambling, taking out a loan, voting, and more.

We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

All of the above won't hurt you if you engage in proper protections or just don't engage in rated activities. Yet, there is ample proof that these can cause hurt. That is the justification for the age. But why then do we not have one on religion if we're concerned about the wellbeing of society, why do we permit the young; undeveloped mind and the immature emotional understanding to be exposed to religion without protections?

Why is it fine to indoctrinate children with religious propaganda?

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.


A: NO because freedom of religion
B: Seperation of church and state. The government has no power in churches. It would be very illegal. Supreme court would be all over this. End it quickly.

Seriously, your idea is unworkable and seriously conflicts with the right of parents to raise their children in their traditions and culture.

And the rights protected in the Constitution of the United States.

Children have rights?

Not until those rights get taken away apparently.

Children have rights?

OMG, tell me you just didn´t really ask that question...:eek:
Of course they do.:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights

What if there was a minimum age for Atheism, too? It would be the only way to treat people equally. Then what would children believe in?

Very good point. Would they be agnostics? If they were they would still be something. They would be admiting they don't know what to belive. Besides what right does government have to interfere with someone's spiritual life. It is the parent's choice at least for a while as to whether or not their kid goes to church and stuff like that.

Only if you agree to a majority age on teaching atheism, spirituality, and any form of tradition up to and including all holidays and anything to do with citizenship.

Actually, we'd better hold off on all education until this age of majority, after all, even the way children learn the language, they could pick up beliefs, ideals, or opinions, which are inherrently dangerous. Not to mention the fact that many teachers are biased (even if almost imperceptibly) and we wouldn't want a child to hear an opinion until they are old enough to understand everything all at once with no prior instruction.

OMG, tell me you just didn´t really ask that question...:eek:
Of course they do.:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights
They only have rights up to the point that their parents want them, how many male children are circumcised yearly without asking the child?

The part bolded dealt with Religion Kryozerkia. :rolleyes:

Exactly. That's basically been interpreted by the courts as meaning that, as long as your not violating any laws, you can practice your religion however you want. I agree with the Oregon law on cases like this, but it's a tricky matter, constitutionally.

The best thing to do is to emphasize tolerance and multiculturalism in schools and in public life in general.

OMG, tell me you just didn´t really ask that question...:eek:
Of course they do.:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights

I don't think he/she/it/them/we was being entirely serious.

However, out of the second paragraph of that article.

According to Cornell University, a child is a person, not a subperson, and the parent has absolute interest and possession of the child.
Not sure what that entails.

If people completely neglected children, we wouldn't be having all these problems.

Sure it makes me a bitch but that made me laugh.

The majority age thing sounds a little harsh. People would probably complain.

However:

There's an ESRB. Why not a RDRB?

And speaking of fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeoem1gR3s

Your ideas intrigue me. Tell me more.

And that video is hilarious.

I'm of two minds -- as a Catholic, I was baptised as an infant and one could say brought into the faith from the time I could understand anything.

I actually think Baptists probably have a better idea in that Baptism, as a sacrament marking one as a member of a faith, should be when that person is an adult and capable of understanding the commitment thereof.

As for raising children in religion -- I honestly believe that so long as the practices can cause no physical harm (as in allowing someone to die needlessly) the government should stay out of it. However, just as they would not allow human sacrifice under the banner of the 1st Amendment, necessary medical treatment should be imposed on minors until they are legally able to say, "No, I would rather trust in God."

Very valid points, Kat.

I have a friend who made that very commitment as a grown up. I remember being at her Baptism. It for me drove me from religion. Strange really. It was the pivotal moment, seeing her make that choice.

But I digress.

Your point about not being able to use the "No, I'd rather trust in God" line is interesting because it would as posters point out earlier contravene the first amendment. Not that I have an issue with it. It would protect a lot of helpless people, not just children. It would aid those who are being denied treatment by relatives who rely on prayer.

Another good example would be the issue with Creationism. People are teaching children this is fact and using religion to back it up, through religious scripture and practice.

** INSPIRED BY 15-month old toddler murdered by christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552643) **

We have a legal set age at which sex is consensual.

We have a legal set age at which it consumption of alcohol is permitted.

We have a legal set age at which we can smoke.

There are also legal set ages for driving, gambling, taking out a loan, voting, and more.

We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

All of the above won't hurt you if you engage in proper protections or just don't engage in rated activities. Yet, there is ample proof that these can cause hurt. That is the justification for the age. But why then do we not have one on religion if we're concerned about the wellbeing of society, why do we permit the young; undeveloped mind and the immature emotional understanding to be exposed to religion without protections?

Why is it fine to indoctrinate children with religious propaganda?

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.
Only in society's eyes, since it has a bit of a favourtism in favour of religious propaganda. If someone is to be brought up religion-neutral and you try to push such religious dogma as "I am the lord your god, thou shalt have no other gods but me" onto them after they've grown up, they'll be more willing to resist. I'm guessing this is why religious brainwashing preys on the young...

But yeah, I KINDA agree here, and I wanna make a side-comment; in Dawkins' "Virus of Faith" documentary there was someone defending the "Christian Education" institutions by saying "why is pedophilia wrong? Why are any of these things wrong if there is no law-giver?"; why is pedophilia wrong? Because it's unreasonable to expect a child to understand the implications of sex. Why is religious brainwashing of children wrong? Because it's unreasonable to expect a child to understand the implications of religion...

EDIT: But for the record, I just want to clarify that I wouldn't necessarily say that children should be disallowed from religious PRACTICE if they learn about different religions and want to try one, and I'm not quite sure even about religious brainwashing... religious brainwashing is wrong but something being wrong doesn't necessarily justify government intervention on it... then again, it's not completely victimless given what religion's influence does to those outside religion...

But the funny part about that is, without any instruction in religion, one is in theory an atheist, so that part would surely fail because they haven't been told of the idea of a god.

But if you did teach, along the lines of prepping for a driver's ed test, you would include everything.

Umm... no, they would be agnostic.

You can't have a specific disbelief in something that you don't know could exist. In other words, how can a child specifically believe there is no god(s) when the concept of god(s) is unknown?

Hence agnosticism.

I don't think he/she/it/them/we was being entirely serious.

However, out of the second paragraph of that article.


Not sure what that entails.

I was jesting. I´m almost sure this person wasn´t being serious.

Children are the property of parents? That contradicts children having right, then...:confused:

Sure it makes me a bitch but that made me laugh.

I shudder to think what it makes me then.

*shudders to think*

I was jesting. I´m almost sure this person wasn´t being serious.
So I thought you thought the person was being serious, while you weren't actually being serious, meaning I was the only one being serious about whether or not you two were serious.
*examines life through a different lens*

Children are the property of parents? That contradicts children having right, then...:confused:
Yes, that confused me as well. Being as it stated children were not subpersons, but persons, just words beforehand.

I'm of two minds -- as a Catholic, I was baptised as an infant and one could say brought into the faith from the time I could understand anything.

I actually think Baptists probably have a better idea in that Baptism, as a sacrament marking one as a member of a faith, should be when that person is an adult and capable of understanding the commitment thereof.

Actually, Christianity teaches the baptism of adults, example: Jesus, He wasn't baptized until He was ~30.

Catholicism decided that God hated children, and as such would sentence them to Hell if they didn't take a special bath, which is ridiculously against Christian theology.

Many Protestant sects have adult baptism, I got re-baptized at my current church, my infant one meant nothing, I chose no god(s) at that point, and felt the spiritual desire to actually make the baptismal commitment.

So I thought you thought the person was being serious, while you weren't actually being serious, meaning I was the only one being serious about whether or not you two were serious.
*examines life through a different lens*


Yes, that confused me as well. Being as it stated children were not subpersons, but persons, just words beforehand.

Don´t confuse me, Bann-ed.:p

Yeah. Being a person means you have rights, and that you do not belong to anyone, you´re not property. How then can parents own kids? Doesn´t make sense...:(

Your ideas intrigue me. Tell me more.

RDRB - Religious Dogma Rating Board.

This religion has been rated as suitable for ages 17 and up, for:
- fundamentalist beliefs
- promotions of intolerance
- encouragement of unscientific thought
- graphic violence
- sexual themes/partial nudity

Don´t confuse me, Bann-ed.:p

Yeah. Being a person means you have rights, and that you do not belong to anyone, you´re not property. How then can parents own kids? Doesn´t make sense...:(

Well, I don't think children can be sold, so I assume they aren't property. Maybe we should wait for a lawyer.

Well, I don't think children can be sold, so I assume they aren't property. Maybe we should wait for a lawyer.

If children can't be bought, then where do parents get their kids? :confused:
We thank you for not responding to this post.

I personally would have said 15 or 16. But that's only because I knew some fairly smart 15/16 year olds. Having said that, I know some fairly thick 18 year olds..... so, yeh.

Tough call that one. :)

Interesting age selection.

If you've noticed, I've never suggested an age so far.

What exactly would you say is a religious practice? I guess praying is, but I really don't think thought-crimes should exist.

You can think what you want to think.

Religious practice would be adhering to the ways of a religion. Believing is not practice, it's thought and opinion. Acting on it would be practice.

Actually, many age restrictions are based as much off of physical maturity as much as mental maturity. So it isn't always just about 'prudes not wanting people to have fun'.

But the ages are still arbitrary. After all, there are young people between 15-17 that are bright but can't do much because they are assumed to be mentally immature, even though they may be astute than their older peers.

Also, here in Minnesota, there is actually no law against the sale of violent, or sexual video games to minors, the games got protected under free speech (a store may still choose to restrict sale, but it is not a legal requierment).

But there are ratings on games, no?

Don't the stores enforce those ratings?

Additionally, you realize that to ban people form having any religious feelings you must also ban any form of actual thought, or critical thinking until the age of majority for this category.

See my response to this above.

I'm not sure where you are going with this idea, but it really makes no sense, minors are allowed to have political beliefs, they are allowed to believe what they will about whether criminal activity is right, all of these are similar to religious beliefs, are you proposing a ban on critical thinking? That hasn't been attempted since the Catholic Church tried to keep people form learning, and thinking in the middle ages, I thought we were past that... well, good luck to you, but I think you will find that many people don't want to support the forbiddance of thinking/holding beliefs, it's kinda central to humanity.

I never said that young people wouldn't be able to have their beliefs. I just said they couldn't practice. There's a big difference. Just as there is a difference between political beliefs and being able to exercise those.

ie: You have a 16 year old Democrat who wants to vote in the primary and likes Clinton has a candidate and believes in what Clinton stands for. But that person can't vote. It doesn't change their beliefs.

Oh good. We'll have blank children then.

Like children already are who don't exposed to religion from a young age. They are left to form their own opinions.

Quick then! Get all the Dawkins books out of the school library! Ban the FSM!

LOL. :D Like America schools would have that book! ;)

Seriously, your idea is unworkable and seriously conflicts with the right of parents to raise their children in their traditions and culture.

Yes it does.

But tradition is a culture's way of saying our system is broken bvut we can't be arsed to fix it.

What if there was a minimum age for Atheism, too? It would be the only way to treat people equally. Then what would children believe in?

Already answered that.

Children have rights?

No, foetuses have rights. Your rights stop at birth and resume at age 18.

Only in society's eyes, since it has a bit of a favourtism in favour of religious propaganda. If someone is to be brought up religion-neutral and you try to push such religious dogma as "I am the lord your god, thou shalt have no other gods but me" onto them after they've grown up, they'll be more willing to resist. I'm guessing this is why religious brainwashing preys on the young...

But yeah, I gotta agree with you there, and make a side-comment; in Dawkins' "Virus of Faith" documentary there was someone defending the "Christian Education" institutions by saying "why is pedophilia wrong? Why are any of these things wrong if there is no law-giver?"; why is pedophilia wrong? Because it's unreasonable to expect a child to understand the implications of sex. Why is religious brainwashing of children wrong? Because it's unreasonable to expect a child to understand the implications of religion...

Well said. :)

Umm... no, they would be agnostic.

You can't have a specific disbelief in something that you don't know could exist. In other words, how can a child specifically believe there is no god(s) when the concept of god(s) is unknown?

Hence agnosticism.

I never said it would be atheism. But it can swing either way depending on how you read the not knowing state of mind.

Don´t confuse me, Bann-ed.:p
I'll do my best to refrain from any mentally unsettling phrases.
Yeah. Being a person means you have rights, and that you do not belong to anyone, you´re not property. How then can parents own kids? Doesn´t make sense...:(
We can always just ignore it because Cornell is hardly the arbiter of all that is well and good with the world.

Well, I don't think children can be sold, so I assume they aren't property. Maybe we should wait for a lawyer.

Like waiting for the Grim Reaper. Greater men than I have gone mad in the process.

Other. No one should be allowed to practice their religion on a non-consenting or under age person (that means if your kid doesn't want to go to church no dragging them along against their will as well as no letting your kid die because you're waiting for God to fix him). Everyone should be allowed to practice their religion on themselves with the caveat that those below the age of majority may be prevented from engaging in any religious ritual that may endanger their health (this means that you may NOT tell your underage child that they can practice a Neo-Pagan religion, for example, but you CAN prevent them from lighting candles and incense unsupervised if you don't trust them around fire).

You could apply that to other extracurricular groups.

So what?

Well, I don't think children can be sold, so I assume they aren't property. Maybe we should wait for a lawyer.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_rights) is what confused both Bann-ed and me. Check it out. Oh, the contradictions.:p

People need to stop citing the first amendment for why we shouldnt. The OP is Canadian. And despite what some Americans think, not everyone in the world has the same laws we do *gasp*.


Yes there should be an age. That way, children make up their own minds when theyre old enough, and aren just brainwashed by their parents into having imaginary friends.

I'll do my best to refrain from any mentally unsettling phrases.

We can always just ignore it because Cornell is hardly the arbiter of all that is well and good with the world.

Thanks.:p

Yes, I know that but still... the article from Wiki is contradicting.:(

RDRB - Religious Dogma Rating Board.


This religion has been rated as suitable for ages 17 and up, for:
- fundamentalist beliefs
- promotions of intolerance
- encouragement of unscientific thought
- graphic violence
- sexual themes/partial nudity


Sounds like the cover for a rap movie. :D

Other. No one should be allowed to practice their religion on a non-consenting or under age person (that means if your kid doesn't want to go to church no dragging them along against their will as well as no letting your kid die because you're waiting for God to fix him). Everyone should be allowed to practice their religion on themselves with the caveat that those below the age of majority may be prevented from engaging in any religious ritual that may endanger their health (this means that you may NOT tell your underage child that they can practice a Neo-Pagan religion, for example, but you CAN prevent them from lighting candles and incense unsupervised if you don't trust them around fire).

This is a good happy medium.

Of course then you run into the issue of the parent saying that the unwilling child MUST attend religious services because it is for the "good of the child".

Thanks.:p

Yes, I know that but still... the article from Wiki is contradicting.:(

What I want to know is: Did you experience a mild internal 'Rofl' when you saw the clock-boy thing?

No, foetuses have rights. Your rights stop at birth and resume at age 18.


Thank you for picking that up. :)

What I want to know is: Did you experience a mild internal 'Rofl' when you saw the clock-boy thing?

*blush*
I seriously tried not to ´Rofl´ inside, but alas, it happened. Everyday I´ll die a little bit more inside from this...:D

People need to stop citing the first amendment for why we shouldnt. The OP is Canadian. And despite what some Americans think, not everyone in the world has the same laws we do *gasp*.


Yes there should be an age. That way, children make up their own minds when theyre old enough, and aren just brainwashed by their parents into having imaginary friends.

For those interested, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under section 2, we have the same core rights and freedoms as Americans but there is no direct mention of separation of church and state, nor is there anything prohibiting the House of Commons from enforcing laws on religious institutions.

That made for an interesting debate when the HC debated Gay Marriage (for example).

Establishing an "age of consent" for religious practice is little more than another way the government can displace parents in society. If parents are not allowed to teach religion and any seemingly religious values (which could be any idea the government doesn't like, in practice), the primary source of values for children will be state-controlled school.

Mao's Cultural Revolution tried what you suggest to great effect. Every Chinese national I meet believes the Dali Llama is a terrorist.

Imagine how a Republican president could abuse this power? He could declare socialism a pseudo-religion and take away the kids of any registered Democrats to protect them from child-abuse. /sarcasm

The age limit thing drives me crazy because its unsolvable. I think I could have cast an informed vote at ten, and would love to have been able to vote in the New York primary last month for Barack Obama, a canidate I strongly believe in, but since I'm 16 I'm basically brain dead as far as my government is concerned. On the other hand, I know people decades older than me who might as well do a coinflip to decide who they're voting for.

I love this, I absolutely love this. You are all the same people that bitch about too much involvement between religious groups and Government organizations. You always bitch about separation of church and state but now you want the STATE to enforce religion! I got news for you, it's same difference. Imposing Atheism, is the same as imposing Religion. That's that. Weather you see it as a religion or not is irrelevant both are belief systems non the less. There is a huge difference between shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and teaching your kids about God and religion. Free speech and religion come with responsibility and THAT is what America's founders wanted! Responsible citizens exercising their rights, responsibly.

Give me a break, kids are a little smarter than you are giving them credit for. Even if they are raised that way doesn't mean as they get older they may question their faith. I have seen countless people here who stated they were raised X religion but turned Atheist etc. Kids in time will grow up and make up their own minds up in time.

Of course then you run into the issue of the parent saying that the unwilling child MUST attend religious services because it is for the "good of the child".

Except, as you will note, my rules only focused on the child's PHYSICAL wellbeing. Before anyone brings up leaving the kid home alone to go to church, either get a sitter or don't go.

Just make the parents responsible for the actions and welfare of the children and we can let them figure out for themselves whether religion is safe.

I love this, I absolutely love this. You are all the same people that bitch about too much involvement between religious groups and Government organizations. You always bitch about separation of church and state but now you want the STATE to enforce religion! I got news for you, it's same difference. Imposing Atheism, is the same as imposing Religion.

No one is imposing athiesm. I suggest you actually read whats going on.

That's that. Weather you see it as a religion or not is irrelevant both are belief systems non the less.

Athiests will not raise their children with superstition and the belief tha gays are all evil sodomites who are going to burn in hell. Athiesm doesnt teach that anyone who believes different from you is an enemy of your God and must be converted or destroyed. Athiesm doesnt teach you to walk around imposing your morality on everyone else.

But that is all a moot point because no one is saying we should enforce athiesm.

There is a huge difference between shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and teaching your kids about God and religion.

Not huge. One results in near immediate harm. The other over time promotes intellectual laziness and fosters a latent bigotry.

Free speech and religion come with responsibility and THAT is what America's founders wanted! Responsible citizens exercising their rights, responsibly.

Gee no shit.

Give me a break, kids are a little smarter than you are giving them credit for. Even if they are raised that way doesn't mean as they get older they may question their faith. I have seen countless people here who stated they were raised X religion but turned Atheist etc. Kids in time will grow up and make up their own minds up in time.

Unfortunitally most will continue to mindlessly walk along.

*blush*
I seriously tried not to ´Rofl´ inside, but alas, it happened. Everyday I´ll die a little bit more inside from this...:D

Maybe some Alka Seltzer (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiyKKn3vuY) could help.

Stranger things have happened.

Maybe some Alka Seltzer (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiyKKn3vuY) could help.

Stranger things have happened.


LOL!

Oh yeah, stranger things have happened, like the Soy Bomb guy at the 1998 Grammy´s.:p

Just make the parents responsible for the actions and welfare of the children and we can let them figure out for themselves whether religion is safe.

Parents... responsible? Obviously you're NOT talking about mine! :D

This is BS. Kids can convert out if they want to, and most religions that aren't Osama-type Islam or extreme Fundamentalist Protestant are good influences. The catholic church especially spends all of its time teaching love, peace, compassion, charity, mercy, and forgiveness. What's wrong with kids picking up that?

This is BS. Kids can convert out if they want to, and most religions that aren't Osama-type Islam or extreme Fundamentalist Protestant are good influences. The catholic church especially spends all of its time teaching love, peace, compassion, charity, mercy, and forgiveness. What's wrong with kids picking up that?

Are you fucking serious? Did you just attack parts of protestantism and then say Catholicism is all about love and then just talk it up?

And whats wrong with it? How about the whole idea that women are basically second class citizens, that using contraceptives is always wrong, that idiotic idea that sex is only for reproduction, that homosexuality is sinful and worthy of scorn, and the intellectual laziness it promotes, not to mention having a big all knowing imaginary friend?

Your bias is disgustingly obvious.

2000.

This is BS. Kids can convert out if they want to, and most religions that aren't Osama-type Islam or extreme Fundamentalist Protestant are good influences. The catholic church especially spends all of its time teaching love, peace, compassion, charity, mercy, and forgiveness. What's wrong with kids picking up that?

To be honest: You don't know where its been.

2000.

+1 Spam, adding nothing to this. Nyah! Wrong thread.

There shouldn't be an age limit for belief sets of any sort. Children should be exposed to a wide variety of potential beliefs, religious and secular, and be permitted, over time, to choose their most desirable options, but they should not be banned from accessing religious beliefs.

There shouldn't be an age limit for belief sets of any sort. Children should be exposed to a wide variety of potential beliefs, religious and secular, and be permitted, over time, to choose their most desirable options, but they should not be banned from accessing religious beliefs.

Ideally, yes, but that doesn't happen in this world.

There shouldn't be an age limit for belief sets of any sort. Children should be exposed to a wide variety of potential beliefs, religious and secular, and be permitted, over time, to choose their most desirable options, but they should not be banned from accessing religious beliefs.

I dont want to ban access, I just want to ban committments to a religion. Kind of like Catholic's confermation, but at an older age where a parent cant basically force you to do it like what happens with a lot of Catholics who go through confermation. Its not usually their choice, its their parents.

I dont want to ban access, I just want to ban committments to a religion. Kind of like Catholic's confermation, but at an older age where a parent cant basically force you to do it like what happens with a lot of Catholics who go through confermation. Its not usually their choice, its their parents.

Not really. Confirmation is mandatory in places like Spain if you´re to graduate high school from a Catholic school. Of course, only in this case is confirmation mandatory unless you belong to another religious denomination, in which case, the school authorities together with the priestly order or nun order that are in charge of the institution excuse the student from it.

Not really. Confirmation is mandatory in places like Spain if you´re to graduate high school from a Catholic school. Of course, only in this case is confirmation mandatory unless you belong to another religious denomination, in which case, the school authorities together with the priestly order or nun order that are in charge of the institution excuse the student from it.

Mandatory confirmation? You're kidding... right? *checks Nanatsu's origin...*

Mandatory confirmation? You're kidding... right? *checks Nanatsu's origin...*

Nope, I´m not kidding. If you´re a high school student at a Catholic school in Spain, in order to graduate you have to do your Confirmation unless you belong to another religious denomination. I had to do it. Silly thing, really.

This is BS. Kids can convert out if they want to, and most religions that aren't Osama-type Islam or extreme Fundamentalist Protestant are good influences. The catholic church especially spends all of its time teaching love, peace, compassion, charity, mercy, and forgiveness, homophobia, opposition to abortion, that women are not as good as men (since they aren't allowed to be priests).

Fixed.

Like children already are who don't exposed to religion from a young age. They are left to form their own opinions.
Already addressed, your system would then call for no education as well. After all, we can't have them being given an opiion about ANYTHING then.

LOL. :D Like America schools would have that book! ;)
You'd be surprised.

Yes it does.

But tradition is a culture's way of saying our system is broken bvut we can't be arsed to fix it.
Tradition IS also culture. Don't forget that. I'm sure you have a number of family traditions that you do for any number of things. I'm sure that you also have a number of Canadian traditions that you also follow because, surprise surprise, that helps you id as Candanian.

Tradition IS also culture. Don't forget that. I'm sure you have a number of family traditions that you do for any number of things. I'm sure that you also have a number of Canadian traditions that you also follow because, surprise surprise, that helps you id as Candanian.

I felt an overpowering need. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw)

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.
Simple. Seperation of Church and State. works both ways.

I dont want to ban access, I just want to ban committments to a religion. Kind of like Catholic's confermation, but at an older age where a parent cant basically force you to do it like what happens with a lot of Catholics who go through confermation. Its not usually their choice, its their parents.

Confirmation is virtually entirely ceremonial. It means little and not many people take it seriously (the important sacraments are Baptism, Communion, and Marriage). And the purpose is to prove that your old enough to make the decision to be a Catholic. Most find it perfectly acceptable to say that you are not old enough to make the decision yet. It is hardly the forced induction/ indoctrination that you seem to think it is. At least within the United States.

Simple. Seperation of Church and State. works both ways.

Then again, remember the right to worship the god of your choosing. It´s kinda complicated and twisted.:(

I felt an overpowering need. (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw)
Great... Now I'm gonna have that song stuck in my head all day long! :p

Then again, remember the right to worship the god of your choosing. It´s kinda complicated and twisted.:(

which is the Freedom of Religion. the Government can't tell you to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but at the same time, they can't tell you not to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

which is the Freedom of Religion. the Government can't tell you to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but at the same time, they can't tell you not to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Exactly, which is why I said it´s twisted.:p

Great... Now I'm gonna have that song stuck in my head all day long! :p

It's better than "Wake Me Up Before You Go Go" in that the gender of the singer does not confuse me and also in the fact that it is actually relevant to the topic.

By the way, in the credits for Fiddler on the Roof it states the movie is a "Norman Jewison film". I chuckled.

No, sorry friend, but, while in principle, I agree with you, you cant just tell people when and where they can practice their religion, Its one of those great Inalienable Rights we all enjoy...

Eventually people will make up their own minds anyway, regardless of which age their told things...Afterall, arent we telling 2nd and 3rd graders about Evolution and the Big Bang, its the same thing as the parents telling the kids of God and Adam and Eve when theyre young...

I Was told both at a young age, and, while i do believe in some form of God, i think most Christian faiths are fuckin Crazy, as well as Dark Matter, and a Universal Singularity being Fucking Crazy...It goes hand in hand, you just dont know, so you make up what makes the most sense for you, a thousand years ago God and Adam and Eve made the most sense, these days its The Big Bang...

Regardless its up to the individual to decide, and he or she will, regardless of which sides propaganda they cling on to....:cool:

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

Alcohol, driving, and the like are banned by age because they can cause physical harm when used improperly, and movie ratings cannot be (legally) enforced outside of a movie theater (because of freedom of speech and whatnot), so movie ratings are more guidelines than anything else.

That said, there are always things you should wait to tell your children. Age limit for religion in general? Well kind of, if only because a 3-year-old doesn't get it. Age limit for certain parts of religion? Certainly.

Thing about it, though, is that you cannot limit what people think, when they think it, and when a parent has the right to say it. But there are certainly common sense guidelines that many people don't bother with.

Incidentally, The Passion was rated R. Children don't belong in an R rated movie, even if it's about Jesus. It's still rated R.

Age limit for certain parts of religion? Certainly.

So if I join the cult of Bacchus I still have to wait until I reach the age of consent to join in the fun?

So if I join the cult of Bacchus I still have to wait until I reach the age of consent to join in the fun?

Depends on if Sex, Smoking, Drinking, or Driving, are involved, lol ;)

Exactly, which is why I said it´s twisted.:poops, sorry too tired...

oops, sorry too tired...

No worries. Go to sleep.:)

People need to stop citing the first amendment for why we shouldnt. The OP is Canadian. And despite what some Americans think, not everyone in the world has the same laws we do *gasp*.

Except that the OP is citing a thread with an article from the United States. So yes...we can bring up the First Amendment and yes, we can use the Free speech part in any other nation, as can the free right of practicing relgion.

Yes there should be an age. That way, children make up their own minds when theyre old enough, and aren just brainwashed by their parents into having imaginary friends.

Have fun enforcing it. I think invasion of Privacy will come into immediate play.

Have fun enforcing it. I think invasion of Privacy will come into immediate play.
Not to mention seperation of Church and state, and Freedom of Religion...

trying to enforce an age limit for religion would be unconsititutional.

Still relevant oddly enough so I'll cut/paste my previous response:



That would go against the separation of Church and State. State doesn't tax the Church, Church stays out of State affairs. That is how it works.

I'm sure you are only seeing it rather onesided. But the matter of hand is that it's a two sided blade. Once the State imposes itself over the Church, instead of co-existing as two distinct separate entities, it means that the Church can also influence the State again. Meaning nothing would prevent a Bishop from running for mayor and being leader of the Bishopry and Mayor position at the same time. As well if there is no more separation, he can enact any religious laws (which would no longer be illegal and so could theoretically be enacted since they can no longer be struck down as unconstitutional).

Is that really a road you want to tread down? I would rather not. Simply leave it be in the current status quo, it works and no one is currently forcing you to attend Church every Sunday by government mandate are they? I would like to nullify any possibility of such a thing ever happening. Hence. Don't open the Pandora's box.

"Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, give unto God what is Gods."

Legal age for religious practice? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Not having a legal age for religious practice gives the families the freedom of choosing the kid's religion.
Having a legal age defends the kid's right to individual liberties - like the liberty of believing, of not believing, and what to believe.

Individual rights > families' rights, I think.

YEA!

:cool:

Legal age for religious practice? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Not having a legal age for religious practice gives the families the freedom of choosing the kid's religion.
Having a legal age defends the kid's right to individual liberties - like the liberty of believing, of not believing, and what to believe.

Individual rights > families' rights, I think.

YEA!

:cool:

Care to tell me how it can be enforced?

Edit: And I think from a young age kids should be educated in a variety of religions/theisms so they can decide if they want to follow this one or that one, or any at all.

As the teacher of a religion once said, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Seeing as we can't even begin to figure our own religions out, who is going to teach the other ones? The church itself? The church that says followers of any other religion shall be cast into eternal hellfire? Or the government? Tell me: who decides what religions to teach? Surely you can't learn about them all, as there are thousands.

It is going to come down to individuals to seek out education on other faiths if we really want it to work.

Care to tell me how it can be enforced?

Financial incentive. Make it easy for people to report when religious institutions are not falling in line with the law and penalize by revoking tax-free status. When the place falls back in line, grant them back that status.

Oh good. We'll have blank children then.


Quick then! Get all the Dawkins books out of the school library! Ban the FSM!

Seriously, your idea is unworkable and seriously conflicts with the right of parents to raise their children in their traditions and culture.

When I was young, around 8, I was a mamber of a babtist church (or methodist or church of wales, all I'm sure of is that it wasn't church of england), I wanted to be baptised.
My parents didn't try to talk me out of it, they told me to wait until I was old enough.
I am now, at 17, a fairly commited atheist.
Thus when my parents forced me to wait untill I was 16 (a majority age in britain) they prevented me from making an ill informed decision that I would later have regretted.

I would support keeping religion from children until they are able to understand it. Which would be never, because religion is such utter carp!

Maybe religion can not be stopped, but there could be a law against indoctrination. It will take some effort to uphold it though.

Little problem with implementing that:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
Much as this case is dispicable, such a law would clearly violate the 1st amendment.You'd also get into trouble with defining religion. Would saying the lord's prayer be illegal, but meditating wouldn't?

Is it just me or are children not already protected from other's excercise of freedom of speech?
Kids are only allowed to see certain kind of movies, and read certain kindof magazines.
So how would that not be possible to apply to religion as well?

No. People mature at different ages and by the age of 5 children are spiritual. If you start telling children they can't belivev in something you cross the line into thought police.

No. People mature at different ages and by the age of 5 children are spiritual. If you start telling children they can't belivev in something you cross the line into thought police.

Kids are sexual at age 5, too, does that mean they should be allowed to watch porn?

Financial incentive. Make it easy for people to report when religious institutions are not falling in line with the law and penalize by revoking tax-free status. When the place falls back in line, grant them back that status.

Despite the fact that this is illegal, care to tell me how you are going to get people to report?

I said no.

It isn't religion that killed that child. It was neglect. Laws in place to ensure that children cannot be neglected solve the problem without violating the first amendment.

I said no.

It isn't religion that killed that child. It was neglect. Laws in place to ensure that children cannot be neglected solve the problem without violating the first amendment.

The problem of child neglect in this case most certainly was solved indeed...

The problem of child neglect in this case most certainly was solved indeed...


Sadly it gets solved that way in many neglect cases, not just those involving faith healing.

Kids are sexual at age 5, too, does that mean they should be allowed to watch porn?

Religion is hardly Equatable to Porn Madam!

And I have never heard of such a thing. Sounds to me like you had a warped childhood. Children shouldn't know about sex until they hit puberty.

Religion is hardly Equatable to Porn Madam!

And I have never heard of such a thing. Sounds to me like you had a warped childhood. Children shouldn't know about sex until they hit puberty.

True, one is enjoyable, the other usually does its damndest to make sure you work up that guilt complex for the rest of your life.

And why would you want kids ignorant about sex? Who gains anything from that, apart from that paedophile on the playground?
I think kids should be taught everything as soon as possible, including sex and spelling.

Religion is hardly Equatable to Porn Madam!

And I have never heard of such a thing. Sounds to me like you had a warped childhood. Children shouldn't know about sex until they hit puberty.Sounds like you had a warped childhood. Having and knowing are two different things, and knowing is something that should come rather early in this case.

Kids are sexual at age 5, too, does that mean they should be allowed to watch porn?

Good point but it don't really wash. How can you legislate an age at which children should think?

I don't believe indoctrination of a child into any religoin is a good thing, but if they want to know about Jesus, or God or Mohamed, or Guru Nanak, or the Bhudda, or Alesteir Crowley or even that Dawkins fella, then why should there be an age limit set upon when we can and cannot answer these questions?

'Daddy why is the sky blue?'

'Sorry son you are too young to know that'

Good point but it don't really wash. How can you legislate an age at which children should think?

I don't believe indoctrination of a child into any religoin is a good thing, but if they want to know about Jesus, or God or Mohamed, or Guru Nanak, or the Bhudda, or Alesteir Crowley or even that Dawkins fella, then why should there be an age limit set upon when we can and cannot answer these questions?

'Daddy why is the sky blue?'

'Sorry son you are too young to know that'

Well, I admit, that's where it gets tricky.
Kids are allowed to ask and think about sex, but you can't show them how it works. Not even in pics.
I've honestly no idea how exactly this could be handled in the case of religion...

True, one is enjoyable, the other usually does its damndest to make sure you work up that guilt complex for the rest of your life.

And why would you want kids ignorant about sex? Who gains anything from that, apart from that paedophile on the playground?
I think kids should be taught everything as soon as possible, including sex and spelling.

The irony is that both those statements would agree with both points for some.

Why? If they know, they want to try. You should no more let children know about sex than about common ways of poisoning!!!!!!

I think Children can be taught that some things are wrong without too much detail. Teaching a child about sex in my book is abuse. How can they deal with something nature hasn't equipped them for.

Why? If they know, they want to try. You should no more let children know about sex than about common ways of poisoning!!!!!!

Really? I knew about the Birds and the bees at age 5 and I am not active. Hell...My daycare group was educated by me and someone else at that age as well! No one complained either.

The irony is that both those statements would agree with both points for some.

Why? If they know, they want to try. You should no more let children know about sex than about common ways of poisoning!!!!!!

I think Children can be taught that some things are wrong without too much detail. Teaching a child about sex in my book is abuse. How can they deal with something nature hasn't equipped them for.

Soooo sex is wrong? Sex education at school is abuse?

The irony is that both those statements would agree with both points for some.

Why? If they know, they want to try. You should no more let children know about sex than about common ways of poisoning!!!!!!

I think Children can be taught that some things are wrong without too much detail. Teaching a child about sex in my book is abuse. How can they deal with something nature hasn't equipped them for.

When was the last time you had a look at a child? They most certainly are equipped for right from the start.
And they don't need to know to want to try. They try one way or another. It's best to tell them straight out what the consequences might be, biologically and legally.
What's wrong with telling kids what's poisonous??? I think it's the responsible thing to do to tell your kid not to drink the Domestos, rather than leaving them unaware.

When was the last time you had a look at a child? They most certainly are equipped for right from the start.
And they don't need to know to want to try. They try one way or another. It's best to tell them straight out what the consequences might be, biologically and legally.
What's wrong with telling kids what's poisonous??? I think it's the responsible thing to do to tell your kid not to drink the Domestos, rather than leaving them unaware.

Not fully. However, I'm not yur biology teacher so I shan't go further.

All they need to know is that there are somethings that are wrong.

I meant teaching children, "now, this is yew. You put it in grandma's tea and she dies. Go outside and play".

Children don't need to know they're at risk of dying for a long time after they come into this world.

Not fully. However, I'm not yur biology teacher so I shan't go further.

All they need to know is that there are somethings that are wrong.

Oh please tell me that you just did not say that sex is wrong!

I meant teaching children, "now, this is yew. You put it in grandma's tea and she dies. Go outside and play".

Children don't need to know they're at risk of dying for a long time after they come into this world.

You're insane dukieboy. Thank God my parents were sane and told me things at an early age. Its apparent that your parents did not do that with you.

Not fully. However, I'm not yur biology teacher so I shan't go further.

All they need to know is that there are somethings that are wrong.

I meant teaching children, "now, this is yew. You put it in grandma's tea and she dies. Go outside and play".

Children don't need to know they're at risk of dying for a long time after they come into this world.

Yes, fully. And you might want to read up on the subject.

And what's wrong again with teaching children to avoid possible dangers, like chewing on yew berries? Did your parents never tell you not to put that into your mouth, it's poisonous and will harm you? Or where you condemned to sit in the middle of a padded room for most of your childhood?

Children need to know about danger and death. How else will they know not to run onto the road without looking, or not to put plastic bags over their heads, or not to poke knives in electric plugs? They desperatly need to know this from the moment they can move on their own.

You're insane dukieboy. Thank God my parents were sane and told me things at an early age. Its apparent that your parents did not do that with you.

Oh, I think they did. How else would he survived long enough to come on here and post?

Oh, I think they did. How else would he survived long enough to come on here and post?

If they did, then they did a pretty shitty job of it.

Methinks someone was denied "Where did I come from? (http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-Come-Peter-Mayle/dp/0818402539)" when they needed it...

Oh please tell me that you just did not say that sex is wrong!



You're insane dukieboy. Thank God my parents were sane and told me things at an early age. Its apparent that your parents did not do that with you.

At their age it is.

And when did you last hear of a pregnant Toddler?

Don't Ba*****ise my name.

They told me all I needed to know, the rest I found out.

Children should be protected fully until 5, then you can start to tell them about dangers, but don't tell them they're about to die if they do X. That's not helpful.

Children should be protected fully until 5, then you can start to tell them about dangers, but don't tell them they're about to die if they do X. That's not helpful.

Why have you chosen 5 as your perfect age to start informing children of the dangers of the world?

At their age it is.

And when did you last hear of a pregnant Toddler?

Don't Ba*****ise my name.

They told me all I needed to know, the rest I found out.

Children should be protected fully until 5, then you can start to tell them about dangers, but don't tell them they're about to die if they do X. That's not helpful.

You DO need to read up on reproduction. Urgently. Or better yet, include your parents when reading up on it.
Every female toddler is born with a vagina and all the egg cells she will ever have. Puberty is the stage when those cells start being released from the ovaries. So they are fully equipped, right from the start. You might also want to read up on infant masturbation, while you're at it.

So they never told you not to drink the toilet duck cause it's poisonous? How did you find out it was? Tried it on your hamster?

Methinks someone was denied "Where did I come from? (http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-Come-Peter-Mayle/dp/0818402539)" when they needed it...

I have that book. And the book about puberty too.

Children should be protected fully until 5, then you can start to tell them about dangers, but don't tell them they're about to die if they do X. That's not helpful.

Man you are so wrong. Can I ask if you have kids? As soon asthey can understand it the word No should be taught them, and as some as they can understand why you shout No everytime the want to put their fingers into the plug socket, or they reach up to grab the kettle lead, or they want to hit doggie in the face with a stick, really the better it is for them.

Thats very, very helpful.

Don't Ba*****ise my name.

Have a problem spelling out bastardize?

I have that book. And the book about puberty too.
Yeah. I recently found both of them while cleaning out my mom's basement. Very useful.

The irony is that both those statements would agree with both points for some.

Why? If they know, they want to try. You should no more let children know about sex than about common ways of poisoning!!!!!!

I think Children can be taught that some things are wrong without too much detail. Teaching a child about sex in my book is abuse. How can they deal with something nature hasn't equipped them for.

Wait, aren't you the guy who said that if your child attempted to set another child on fire (from that thread, you know the one) you'd do the same to them?

:rolleyes:

And with regards to the topic, no. Thought police is thought police. Have to trot out the old line about how children have rights too.

Man you are so wrong. Can I ask if you have kids?

He's 15 so i'm guessing he doesn't

He's 15 so i'm guessing he doesn't

Ahhhh okay okay then, it's all fine. He may know it all know but he'll soon forget!

I find it disturbing that so many people are in favor of such legislation.

I mean, just how deep do you want Government to regulate your life? How much of the decision making on how to raise your own children do you want to give up to a body of politicians who are already known to lack integrity and common sense?

Yes, on occasion someone's religious beliefs interfere with medical treatments that may save lives. This is hardly an epidemic but it does happen. Some fundamentalists rely on prayer over medicine. Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept blood transfusions. Sometimes that costs a life. Yes, that's tragic but wasn't there once a great American who said 'Give me liberty or give me death?' Do we not believe that liberty is more important even than human life? An awful lot of soldiers have given up their lives in keeping with that belief, and not just Americans, either.

Do I think people whose religion causes their baby to die should be prosecuted? As much as it hurts to say it, no. If we start doing that, shall we also prosecute Jehovah's Witnesses for declining to have blood transfusions in the name of saving their life? Shall we then prosecute the Jehovah's Witnesses church itself for promoting criminal behavior?

Maybe this isn't about religion after all. Maybe this is about medical privacy and freedom. Whether religious or not, parents do have to give consent for medical professionals to go to work. People have to give consent before any treatment is performed on them. If you want to start regulating religion so that you can treat such cases without parental consent, where does it stop?

I think Children can be taught that some things are wrong without too much detail. Teaching a child about sex in my book is abuse. How can they deal with something nature hasn't equipped them for.

I say that teaching a child to mindlessly believe in some cloud faerie is abuse. Of course, others would beg to differ, but do you see the point? I doubt you do.

To the rest who invoke the magical first amendment et al,

I realise that it would open a Pandora's Box but it was merely a question formed along the same general thinking of the other arbitrary ages that we impose on ourselves and others. All because some believe that young people aren't capable of emotional maturity and reason.

Imagine for a minute that we didn't have an age for say... voting, and I made the thread to be about imposing a minimum age to vote, most people would bemoan the fact that I suggested it, yet we have it and people defend the minimum voting age because we consider people under a certain age to lack the necessary understanding that goes into voting (despite actual evidence that most adults will flip a coin or just vote for someone because they are from a certain party even if that person doesn't represent what you believe and stand for).

But in reality, we have a voting age, but none for religion and the argument being made is that it infringes on people's general rights.

I challenge you to apply this to voting (religious practice) and political beliefs (religious belief) and see what you come up with.

Perhaps my whole intention was to use something that isn't regulated to get us to think about the purpose for ages attached to certain activities...

No one is imposing athiesm. I suggest you actually read whats going on.

Without a clear definition of 'religious practice', there is a very real risk of state imposed atheism.

Athiests will not raise their children with superstition and the belief tha gays are all evil sodomites who are going to burn in hell. Athiesm doesnt teach that anyone who believes different from you is an enemy of your God and must be converted or destroyed. Athiesm doesnt teach you to walk around imposing your morality on everyone else.

There are superstitious atheists. There are homophobic ones. There racist ones too.

There are also theists who champion human rights, teach science, promote tolerance, and do not impose their morality.

Perhaps it would be better to outlaw teaching children intolerance, rather than religion. Because really, that's what you're complaining about: intolerance.

But that is all a moot point because no one is saying we should enforce athiesm.

No. Merely the practice thereof.

Not huge. One results in near immediate harm. The other over time promotes intellectual laziness and fosters a latent bigotry.

Isaac Newton spent an inordinate amount of time and intellectual energy trying to prove the existence of god through design. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that god created all humans as equals, and then tried to reshape his society in that image. It is obvious that religion does not cause inevitably cause intellectual laziness and bigotry.

I don't think it would be possible to outlaw religious practice even if it could be shown to be beneficial to do so.

I find it disturbing that so many people are in favor of such legislation.

I mean, just how deep do you want Government to regulate your life? How much of the decision making on how to raise your own children do you want to give up to a body of politicians who are already known to lack integrity and common sense?

Yes, on occasion someone's religious beliefs interfere with medical treatments that may save lives. This is hardly an epidemic but it does happen. Some fundamentalists rely on prayer over medicine. Jehovah's Witnesses will not accept blood transfusions. Sometimes that costs a life. Yes, that's tragic but wasn't there once a great American who said 'Give me liberty or give me death?' Do we not believe that liberty is more important even than human life? An awful lot of soldiers have given up their lives in keeping with that belief, and not just Americans, either.

Do I think people whose religion causes their baby to die should be prosecuted? As much as it hurts to say it, no. If we start doing that, shall we also prosecute Jehovah's Witnesses for declining to have blood transfusions in the name of saving their life? Shall we then prosecute the Jehovah's Witnesses church itself for promoting criminal behavior?

Maybe this isn't about religion after all. Maybe this is about medical privacy and freedom. Whether religious or not, parents do have to give consent for medical professionals to go to work. People have to give consent before any treatment is performed on them. If you want to start regulating religion so that you can treat such cases without parental consent, where does it stop?

We already outlaw religious practices that harm others. Virgin sacrifices have not become rare for sheer lack of virgins.
Tell me how it is different in this case, where the beliefs of the parents effectively are what killed the child. Would you condone sexual activities with children, if a religion deemed them beneficial?
Would you agree to leave extremely malnourished children with parents who refuse to feed them a balanced diet, just because their religion forbids to eat meat and any form of cooked foods?

I say that teaching a child to mindlessly believe in some cloud faerie is abuse. Of course, others would beg to differ, but do you see the point? I doubt you do.

To the rest who invoke the magical first amendment et al,

I realise that it would open a Pandora's Box but it was merely a question formed along the same general thinking of the other arbitrary ages that we impose on ourselves and others. All because some believe that young people aren't capable of emotional maturity and reason.

Imagine for a minute that we didn't have an age for say... voting, and I made the thread to be about imposing a minimum age to vote, most people would bemoan the fact that I suggested it, yet we have it and people defend the minimum voting age because we consider people under a certain age to lack the necessary understanding that goes into voting (despite actual evidence that most adults will flip a coin or just vote for someone because they are from a certain party even if that person doesn't represent what you believe and stand for).

But in reality, we have a voting age, but none for religion and the argument being made is that it infringes on people's general rights.

I challenge you to apply this to voting (religious practice) and political beliefs (religious belief) and see what you come up with.

Perhaps my whole intention was to use something that isn't regulated to get us to think about the purpose for ages attached to certain activities...

Voting affects the choice of the national leader (supposedly :p). Religious practice, not quite as influential. As it often can be and is a wholly private matter, restricting it for all under age X is thought police at its finest.

** INSPIRED BY 15-month old toddler murdered by christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552643) **

We have a legal set age at which sex is consensual.

We have a legal set age at which it consumption of alcohol is permitted.

We have a legal set age at which we can smoke.

There are also legal set ages for driving, gambling, taking out a loan, voting, and more.

We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

All of the above won't hurt you if you engage in proper protections or just don't engage in rated activities. Yet, there is ample proof that these can cause hurt. That is the justification for the age. But why then do we not have one on religion if we're concerned about the wellbeing of society, why do we permit the young; undeveloped mind and the immature emotional understanding to be exposed to religion without protections?

Why is it fine to indoctrinate children with religious propaganda?

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.

I doubt this would be a good idea.
Those other examples you noted all have exceptions, whether they're legal or not, some people would ignore this idea. such as alcohol or sex loads of people do engage in these while under age.
To put an age limit on religion would require a huge administrative cost, also what is your definition of religion?
Some people might get around this restriction, by saying they aren't preaching religion they're just offering a different philosophical viewpoint.

I understand the idea behind this, that some official religious beliefs can be harmful, but so can alot of human ideas, science can be harmful as well should there be a limit to the age at which science is taught? What about some of those chemistry classes, certain chemicals can be very destructive should an age be given for consent?

Or teaching kids about fire can encourage them to burn down buildings, does this mean that fire knowledge should or shouldn't be taught?
This isn't a good way to reduce religious practices, or any religion.

Voting affects the choice of the national leader (supposedly :p). Religious practice, not quite as influential. As it often can be and is a wholly private matter, restricting it for all under age X is thought police at its finest.

You could argue that allowing a child to browse your porn collection will not harm society, yet you'll go to jail for it...

Voting affects the choice of the national leader (supposedly :p). Religious practice, not quite as influential. As it often can be and is a wholly private matter, restricting it for all under age X is thought police at its finest.

As is sex between consenting teenagers, who happen to be 14 and 15, and in some cases not able to engage in sexual relations because they're gay. A private matter, wouldn't you agree?

Further, as you say, voting affects the choice for national leader. So why is everyone over 18 able to vote even if they don't understand the system, nor what the issues are (at least that's how it seems) yet someone 15-17 who understands and is actively following the issues and is able to be informed can't vote? Does that not affect a nation?

What about some of those chemistry classes, certain chemicals can be very destructive should an age be given for consent?

Or teaching kids about fire can encourage them to burn down buildings, does this mean that fire knowledge should or shouldn't be taught?
This isn't a good way to reduce religious practices, or any religion.

Fist of, yes, there is an age restriction in place for children to handle dangerous chemicals, even in class. Only the teacher is allowed to demonstrate with those restricted substances.

And teaching them about fire as a danger and in order to protect them isn't exactly like the way they're being taught about religion, is it?

As is sex between consenting teenagers, who happen to be 14 and 15, and in some cases not able to engage in sexual relations because they're gay. A private matter, wouldn't you agree?

Further, as you say, voting affects the choice for national leader. So why is everyone over 18 able to vote even if they don't understand the system, nor what the issues are (at least that's how it seems) yet someone 15-17 who understands and is actively following the issues and is able to be informed can't vote? Does that not affect a nation?

Personally, I am in favour of lowering the voting age. As well as the age of consent, and as a child, I had access to pornography and I would not consider it abuse. Nor would I restrict a child's right to practice a religion.

I understand the idea behind this, that some official religious beliefs can be harmful, but so can alot of human ideas, science can be harmful as well should there be a limit to the age at which science is taught? What about some of those chemistry classes, certain chemicals can be very destructive should an age be given for consent?

Which is why you probably see Chemistry classes only in high school, after the students have been through a certain number of science grade levels, and tested before they are permitted to pass to the next level. At least that's how it went when I was in school. You couldn't take 3A Chem without 2A General Science. If you took 2G science, you couldn't take any A-level science classes.

No age is required but a certain level of knowledge is expected.

Or teaching kids about fire can encourage them to burn down buildings, does this mean that fire knowledge should or shouldn't be taught?
This isn't a good way to reduce religious practices, or any religion.

Replace fire with sex education, and buildings with more sex and you get your argument against teaching sex to kids. :)

And I never said it would be a good way to reduce religious practice or religion.

Personally, I am in favour of lowering the voting age. As well as the age of consent, and as a child, I had access to pornography and I would not consider it abuse. Nor would I restrict a child's right to practice a religion.

Now, if the ages were reduced, there would be no need to question why religion doesn't have an age on it. After all, the ages associated with access to those things often come off as being arbitrary, and exist because an extremely vocal minority claims to want to protect children... yet won't protect them from something possibly that is equally as "harmful".

No. There shouldn't be ages for religion.

I agree...sort of. Religion [mainly] is isn't harmful. But maybe until a child is maybe 8 they should not be allowed to join churchs, synagogues etc... then they should be given the chance to experience all religions and atheism...

You could argue that allowing a child to browse your porn collection will not harm society, yet you'll go to jail for it...

Viewing pornography isn't really a matter of 'thought' though.

Incidentally, is that right? Jail for that seems a bit harsh. AFAIK providing alcohol or tobacco to a minor doesn't get you a prison term, I see no reason why porn should be different.

As is sex between consenting teenagers, who happen to be 14 and 15, and in some cases not able to engage in sexual relations because they're gay. A private matter, wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

Further, as you say, voting affects the choice for national leader. So why is everyone over 18 able to vote even if they don't understand the system, nor what the issues are (at least that's how it seems) yet someone 15-17 who understands and is actively following the issues and is able to be informed can't vote? Does that not affect a nation?

Well, because 18+ are in general supposedly more informed than those younger. But the right to vote < the right to free thought, which I don't believe should be restricted at any age. I doubt you could devise a test for informed voting without a strong likelihood of it being twisted into voting for party X at some point anyway.

(btw when I keep referring to thought I'm thinking of prayer as religious practice especially)

Viewing pornography isn't really a matter of 'thought' though.

Incidentally, is that right? Jail for that seems a bit harsh. AFAIK providing alcohol or tobacco to a minor doesn't get you a prison term, I see no reason why porn should be different.



No? Why not?
And given the current with-hunt climate whenever the words "child" and "sex" are mentioned in the same sentence, are you really surprised?

I agree...sort of. Religion [mainly] is isn't harmful. But maybe until a child is maybe 8 they should not be allowed to join churchs, synagogues etc... then they should be given the chance to experience all religions and atheism...

That reminds me of the Amish. While they live in isolation from society, their children upon reaching a certain age, are sent to see the world and told to choose if they want to remain with the religion or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Baptism.2C_rumspringa.2C_and_shunning

Though it can mean they are shunned if they leave after being baptised as an adult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Baptism

Do I think people whose religion causes their baby to die should be prosecuted? As much as it hurts to say it, no.

Ok, my religion demands child sacrifices. Im going to go kidnap other peoples babies and chop em up on an altar. Cant prosecute me, its my religion. Respect my rights.

Ok, so its different when its other peoples kids? Fair enough. Ok, well now Im going to just keep my fiance popping out kids and constantly chop up my own kids. Again, cant prosecute me. Respect my rights.


If we start doing that, shall we also prosecute Jehovah's Witnesses for declining to have blood transfusions in the name of saving their life? Shall we then prosecute the Jehovah's Witnesses church itself for promoting criminal behavior?

No, we shouldnt prosecute them. This is why. In one case, its your own choice to let yourself die. In the other, you didnt let your child get needed medical care and just thought your all knowing buddy would take care of it, and he didnt. Ooops.

Ones neglect. The other is just stupidity.

No? Why not?
And given the current with-hunt climate whenever the words "child" and "sex" are mentioned in the same sentence, are you really surprised?

Is pornography generally associated with a specific belief system or ideology?

And no, not really.

Incidentally again, I'm astounded as to the number of people who think that preventing parents from withholding their children's medical care for religious reasons is a natural first step to prohibiting an adult's right to patient autonomy.

Wow. I've heard some seriously absurd things proposed on NSG, but this takes the cake.

That reminds me of the Amish. While they live in isolation from society, their children upon reaching a certain age, are sent to see the world and told to choose if they want to remain with the religion or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish#Baptism.2C_rumspringa.2C_and_shunning

Though it can mean they are shunned but they are expected to make the choice.

It's a trait of that particular sect that I've always admired.
It's an effort to respect individuality and choice, unfortunately somewhat mired by the fact that by the time children reach the mentioned age, it is socially and culturally very difficult for them to actually really take the leap.

Is pornography generally associated with a specific belief system or ideology?

And no, not really.

Incidentally again, I'm astounded as to the number of people who think that preventing parents from withholding their children's medical care for religious reasons is a natural first step to prohibiting an adult's right to patient autonomy.

Does it have to be in order to be a matter of thought? It's an expression of personality if you want, and covered under the "freedom of speech" bit in the human rights.

Well, people jump at catch phrases and then indulge in slipping down whatever slope presents itself, really. You've been here long enough to know that ;)

Ok, my religion demands child sacrifices. Im going to go kidnap other peoples babies and chop em up on an altar. Cant prosecute me, its my religion. Respect my rights.

Sure I'll respect your rights and have you arrested for murder.


Ok, so its different when its other peoples kids? Fair enough. Ok, well now Im going to just keep my fiance popping out kids and constantly chop up my own kids. Again, cant prosecute me. Respect my rights.

Still murder though.



No, we shouldnt prosecute them. This is why. In one case, its your own choice to let yourself die. In the other, you didnt let your child get needed medical care and just thought your all knowing buddy would take care of it, and he didnt. Ooops.

Ones neglect. The other is just stupidity.

It's a no brainer really, whatever the given reason for this neglecte it is still neglect and so they should at least be tried for manslaughter.

If they want to complian about it and cry oppression of religous beliefs, then they need to realise that they do not yet live in a Theocray, and that even they need to obey the laws of the land.

What does the OP mean by 'religious practice'?

Would a tantric buddhist having sex be considered as 'religous practice'?

Prayer?

Transcendental meditation?

Tai-Chi?

Spinning around in circles?

Did you bother to read the post I was responding to? Im saying exactly what you said, only in a sarcastic way.

Way to take my post totally out of context:rolleyes:

Bwaahahah! Yeah I can read y'know, I was agreeing with you!

Bwaahahah! Yeah I can read y'know, I was agreeing with you!

Oh, sorry. I thought you thought I was serious.


I am made of fail:(

Fist of, yes, there is an age restriction in place for children to handle dangerous chemicals, even in class. Only the teacher is allowed to demonstrate with those restricted substances.

And teaching them about fire as a danger and in order to protect them isn't exactly like the way they're being taught about religion, is it?
Ah i wasn't aware of the chemicals thing, cheers.
In what way is teaching about fire safety different from teaching of religion?

Which is why you probably see Chemistry classes only in high school, after the students have been through a certain number of science grade levels, and tested before they are permitted to pass to the next level. At least that's how it went when I was in school. You couldn't take 3A Chem without 2A General Science. If you took 2G science, you couldn't take any A-level science classes.
No age is required but a certain level of knowledge is expected.

Replace fire with sex education, and buildings with more sex and you get your argument against teaching sex to kids. :)
And I never said it would be a good way to reduce religious practice or religion.

Again, i'm not really knowledgeable about the sciences apart from biology.
Oh well i didn't say fire education was a bad thing i was using it as an example, i suppose sex education could be used as an example also.
E.g. If we can teach sex to kids why can't they learn about religion also?
Perhaps not to adopt the religion with fanatic zeal, but to be aware of it is worthwhile.
Besides school isn't the main influence on how well you do in education it's your parents or guardians who have the greatest influence. (and your peers)
So i think it comes down to how the parents teach their kids about religion.

To decipher if an age of consent should be given is a very tricky thing, as i mentioned above not only would some people ignore it or get around the restriction it could spark off a larger religious movement, effectively backfiring on the legislation.
I would suggest if you wished to prevent kids from learning religion, that you'd take religion into schools, not just one all of them. And by doing so then an age of consent would make more sense.
Again this would bring in difficulties with costs of bringing this change, however if religion was taught in all schools. not just one but all the main ones to people over say 15, then an age of consent could be manageable in the public domain as well, perhaps not wholly workable but it would reduce religious upheaval, and it would encourage are more diverse outlook on religion by people.
But another problem with this could be how you'd fit that into the curriculum, there's already loads of information kids have to take in at a very young age.


Now i have a seperate idea, which is sort of relevant but i've been thinking about it for a while. What about raising the age for children to be publicly educated to 10 years old? with voluntary classes not compulsary ones earlier to the age of 5. This would allow a better relationship between parent and child, and it would encourage some families to get on with each other (you know the whole bonding thing), and it would reduce costs of education vastly in the long run on the parent and the state. Another advantage is religion would be taught to more mature children, and children might not be put off by education.

However again issues of domestic violence would be less likely to be reported to authorities, problems of income for parents might mean children would become even more like their parents, and if their parents were struggling then their children might also struggle even more, so when they do enter into school they'd fall further behind. However this is a problem for any education system. Thus a stronger programme for child support in learning difficulties for all children, say a single day visit by a specialist once per month, would help in targeting learning difficulties this new system might develop.
Just an idea.

you're to come unto christ(me) as a child... not really so interested in adults, unless they are into age play.

this is an absurd idea indeed. I vote no.

Basically, my take on this, is this law is unenforceable and constitutional, and well, intrusive.

In a perfect world, everyone would be like me (muwahaha!!) and not indoctrinate their kids with religious brainwashing and propaganda and let them make their own decision on religion.

Alas, we are not in a perfect world (Im not Pharoh of Earth....) and so, philosophically, with constitutionality aside, I like this idea. But in the context of the real world, I dont think it can or should work.


I just felt I needed to get my real feelings out there clearly and articulitally. Now Ill go back to crushed all who disagree with me :p

I agree...sort of. Religion [mainly] is isn't harmful. But maybe until a child is maybe 8 they should not be allowed to join churchs, synagogues etc... then they should be given the chance to experience all religions and atheism...

To be perfectly honest, I never joined a church until I was 23. Most people do not join until they are in their adulthood.

What does the OP mean by 'religious practice'?

Would a tantric buddhist having sex be considered as 'religous practice'?

Prayer?

Transcendental meditation?

Tai-Chi?

Spinning around in circles?

Sex is practised by all, and due to it being part of the human urge cycle, would not be religious practice.

Prayer and Transcendental meditation would be. Prayer has no place if not for religion. The latter... less connected, though in a way connected.

Tai-chi, Yoga et al, highly questionable, though not likely if there is no connection made during class between the art and the supposed religion to which it is attached.

Spinning in circles... :D wee!

Sex is practised by all, and due to it being part of the human urge cycle, would not be religious practice.

Prayer and Transcendental meditation would be. Prayer has no place if not for religion. The latter... less connected, though in a way connected.

Tai-chi, Yoga et al, highly questionable, though not likely if there is no connection made during class between the art and the supposed religion to which it is attached.

Spinning in circles... :D wee!


i consider all spinning in circles to be devotion to me... little kids who die in terrible merry go round accidents go directly to heaven.

you're to come unto christ(me) as a child... not really so interested in adults, unless they are into age play.

Um...yea....you're a nut.

i consider all spinning in circles to be devotion to me... little kids who die in terrible merry go round accidents go directly to heaven.

[stupidity moment]
It's a common practice in my yet to be named religion designed for Atheists! :p

Of course, the whole concept is dizzy and doesn't fly!
[/stupidity moment]

Of course, the whole concept is dizzy and doesn't fly!


Unless one goes fast enough and wears the special skirt!

Sex is practised by all, and due to it being part of the human urge cycle, would not be religious practice.

Prayer and Transcendental meditation would be. Prayer has no place if not for religion. The latter... less connected, though in a way connected.

Tai-chi, Yoga et al, highly questionable, though not likely if there is no connection made during class between the art and the supposed religion to which it is attached.

Spinning in circles... :D wee!

It appears to me that you are defining religious practice by how closely it resembles Christian rituals.

According to your answers, Sufis, Tantric Buddhists, most mystics, and most polytheists would be able to continue their practices.

Um...yea....you're a nut.
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child does shall not enter it at all."

age play

We already outlaw religious practices that harm others. Virgin sacrifices have not become rare for sheer lack of virgins.
Tell me how it is different in this case, where the beliefs of the parents effectively are what killed the child. Would you condone sexual activities with children, if a religion deemed them beneficial?
Would you agree to leave extremely malnourished children with parents who refuse to feed them a balanced diet, just because their religion forbids to eat meat and any form of cooked foods?

First of all, those analogies don't really apply because it's NEVER okay to kill people or molest kids, and if parents aren't properly nourishing their kids there are ways to fix it without having to violate their beliefs. In fact, there are belief systems that forbid eating meat and they get along fine. It's all a matter of education and typically such organizations educate their members in proper nutrition.

But here's the thing: There are already laws in place giving parents the final say on medical treatment for their kids just as any person has the final say over treatment for themselves. If you refuse a treatment at the hospital you aren't required to give an explanation. If you want to leave you can leave. The only reason this case is getting the attention it is is because of the religious aspect.

Ok, my religion demands child sacrifices. Im going to go kidnap other peoples babies and chop em up on an altar. Cant prosecute me, its my religion. Respect my rights.

Ok, so its different when its other peoples kids? Fair enough. Ok, well now Im going to just keep my fiance popping out kids and constantly chop up my own kids. Again, cant prosecute me. Respect my rights.




No, we shouldnt prosecute them. This is why. In one case, its your own choice to let yourself die. In the other, you didnt let your child get needed medical care and just thought your all knowing buddy would take care of it, and he didnt. Ooops.

Ones neglect. The other is just stupidity.

Just like I said to Cabra, we already have laws that protect people's right to refuse medical treatment for themselves AND for their children. No law protects murder. There's a difference.

But here's the thing: There are already laws in place giving parents the final say on medical treatment for their kids just as any person has the final say over treatment for themselves. If you refuse a treatment at the hospital you aren't required to give an explanation. If you want to leave you can leave. The only reason this case is getting the attention it is is because of the religious aspect.

The decisions of the parents can be overridden in certain cases and do we know if the parents involved a medically trained third party in this decision at all?

The decisions of the parents can be overridden in certain cases and do we know if the parents involved a medically trained third party in this decision at all?

Unknown

The decisions of the parents can be overridden in certain cases and do we know if the parents involved a medically trained third party in this decision at all?
wouldn't that be an equal violation of their beliefs... if they don't believe in modern medical practices then how would consulting with a person trained in these satanic medical rituals be any more acceptable than just allowing them to be used on the child.

its like saying it might be okay not have female circumcision preformed if you consult with an advocate of the procedure first.

We impose age restrictions on certain practices such as smoking, driving, alcohol consumption because they are harmful to people under the proper age to perform them.

Religion is NOT harmful at any point in life. So why would you want to ban it?

I sense a radical secular-liberal agenda here.

We impose age restrictions on certain practices such as smoking, driving, alcohol consumption because they are harmful to people under the proper age to perform them.

Religion is NOT harmful at any point in life. So why would you want to ban it?

I sense a radical secular-liberal agenda here.
or as i like to call it cryptosatanism

We impose age restrictions on certain practices such as smoking, driving, alcohol consumption because they are harmful to people under the proper age to perform them.

Religion is NOT harmful at any point in life. So why would you want to ban it?

I sense a radical secular-liberal agenda here.

I think you have been living in cloud couckoo land if you really belive that religoin has caused no harm.

So for those who voted yes, if you found someone under age praying, what would you have done to him?

So for those who voted yes, if you found someone under age praying, what would you have done to him?

Absolutely nothing. I don't condone taking action against children for doing something they've learned to do from their parents. Plus, worshiping God is not illegal.

So for those who voted yes, if you found someone under age praying, what would you have done to him? probably a fine for the first offense then probation... perhaps flogging...

wait a second i voted no, nevermind

:headbang: Having an age requirement (at least here in the US) would be contradictory, especially since the Constitution states "Freedom OF religion" not "Freedom FROM religion".

Aside from the obvious, it would also be making it illegal for someone to study a religion because how can you not have them say, "oh, I agree with that...I must be that", furthermore, it would also turn this country in to a police state, people would have to register what religion they are and while many out there might think that that could be all well and good, it would start us down a long and dark path of further racism and antisemitism, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist and so on. It would eventually bring us back to the society that we've spent the past 300+ years struggling to get out of.

It appears to me that you are defining religious practice by how closely it resembles Christian rituals.

According to your answers, Sufis, Tantric Buddhists, most mystics, and most polytheists would be able to continue their practices.

Polytheists irritate me the least. They acknowledge more than one god. Plus some worship Zeus, so they're cool. :D

We impose age restrictions on certain practices such as smoking, driving, alcohol consumption because they are harmful to people under the proper age to perform them.

Religion is NOT harmful at any point in life. So why would you want to ban it?

I sense a radical secular-liberal agenda here.

Let's use one of your examples against someone that is age of majority...

Alcohol consumption above age of majority can and has proven to be harmful. Alcoholism, drunkenness. Causes a great number of accidents, and drives people to act contrary to the best interests of the public, and can hurt others, especially when an addiction gets out of control.

Also, I never said to BAN it. Suggesting an age limitation is NOT the same as banning it.

How do your know religion is not harmful at any point?

Polytheists irritate me the least. They acknowledge more than one god. Plus some worship Zeus, so they're cool. :D

so, freedom as long as it doesn't irritate Kryozerkia? yeah, that's not hypocritical.

** INSPIRED BY 15-month old toddler murdered by christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552643) **

We have a legal set age at which sex is consensual.

We have a legal set age at which it consumption of alcohol is permitted.

We have a legal set age at which we can smoke.

There are also legal set ages for driving, gambling, taking out a loan, voting, and more.

We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

All of the above won't hurt you if you engage in proper protections or just don't engage in rated activities. Yet, there is ample proof that these can cause hurt. That is the justification for the age. But why then do we not have one on religion if we're concerned about the wellbeing of society, why do we permit the young; undeveloped mind and the immature emotional understanding to be exposed to religion without protections?

Why is it fine to indoctrinate children with religious propaganda?

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.Should we prevent our children from watching T.V., of any sorts, till they are of a certain age?

Should we prevent them from going into public because they might hear the opinions of others?

Should parents be allowed to impose their own set of rules and morals upon their children?

Should the government regulate everything a child does till they are a certain age in order to 'protect' them from propaganda?

Should YOU be locked away in order to prevent kids from hearing your own version of propaganda?

The very idea of imposing limits on fairly standard, and might I remind, quite peaceful religions. NO.

The very idea of imposing an age of consent for religion goes down a path that might impose other laws which will prevent parents from raising their children and make the government the sole provider of info for kids till they get to a certain age.

Polytheists irritate me the least. They acknowledge more than one god. Plus some worship Zeus, so they're cool. :DThat's him boys! The guy who wants everything to suit his needs and make sure no one offends him! Get him boys!

*Packs of rabid Vikings enters the thread.*

Are we really trying to "protect" kids, or are we just trying to stop them from being "ebil Cristanz"?



If we're to "protect them" from being indoctorinated, we ought to include atheism and irreligion under that too. Which of course, one cannot effectively do. So just let them have what their parents or life throw at them, and decide for themselves. Those raised secular sometimes choose religion, and oftentimes those raised with religion choose to give it up. It's all about how people choose to live their lives, and the government shouldn't try to "protect" them from choosing a certain way. It's not religion vs. secularism, it's liberalism vs. authoritarianism.

What we should do is have a religious class, which teaches about every single religion, using the most right-wing nut possible from each religion. Hopefully then, the kids can decide which group they're willing to follow for the rest of their lives, though to be fair, we'll have to throw in some atheists and agnostics in there too. That should make up a few years of classes, and since all of the ones teaching about their religion are equally fundamentalist, no one teacher would have anymore time than any other, and every religion and cult gets their own chance to snatch up followers while the kids are all young and impressionable!


Everybody wins! :D

What we should do is have a religious class, which teaches about every single religion, using the most right-wing nut possible from each religion. Hopefully then, the kids can decide which group they're willing to follow for the rest of their lives, though to be fair, we'll have to throw in some atheists and agnostics in there too. That should make up a few years of classes, and since all of the ones teaching about their religion are equally fundamentalist, no one teacher would have anymore time than any other, and every religion and cult gets their own chance to snatch up followers while the kids are all young and impressionable!


Everybody wins! :D

That just might work...

so, freedom as long as it doesn't irritate Kryozerkia? yeah, that's not hypocritical.

Did you not note the use of the smiley? Injected for such purposes.

That's him boys! The guy who wants everything to suit his needs and make sure no one offends him! Get him boys!

*Packs of rabid Vikings enters the thread.*

Wait... aren't Vikings polytheists who worship a plethora of Norse Gods, hence, why would it be a problem?

Should we prevent our children from watching T.V., of any sorts, till they are of a certain age?

Some people already do that. We have TV ratings, and with movies we are preventing people of a certain age from seeing certain movies and are requiring ID for those, as well as purchasing games...

It's not the same everywhere but it is practised, and there are instances of people preventing the children of others watching certain shows. ie: your child is being minded by another adult but that adult doesn't approve of your choices and imposes their will while that child is in their care.

Should we prevent them from going into public because they might hear the opinions of others?

No, as we don't prevent them from going to public, but there are a lot of restrictions placed by choice due to paranoia, leading children to be mildly sheltered.

They're also taught not to talk to strangers, hence furthering their exposure to other ideas if they were out alone...

Should parents be allowed to impose their own set of rules and morals upon their children?

Some of those same parents also teach their children hate and tolerance, which is being permitted.

Should the government regulate everything a child does till they are a certain age in order to 'protect' them from propaganda?

It does already if you look at what the FCC (if we're using the US as an example) allows and disallows on TV.

The UK for example is protecting children by not allowing ads to be geared to them.

Should YOU be locked away in order to prevent kids from hearing your own version of propaganda?

It's called the internet! :D

The very idea of imposing limits on fairly standard, and might I remind, quite peaceful religions. NO.

The very idea of imposing limits on fairly standard and might I remind you democratic expressions... No.

We don't let children vote, they can't really do anything yet the government's actions affects them as much as it does their parents.

We permit children to be heavily indoctrinated under the guise of "morals" and an upright bringing, despite that it may be infected with intolerance and hatred, flown under the banner of religious beliefs. This affects them just as much as government decisions does.

We permit children to be heavily indoctrinated under the guise of "morals" and an upright bringing, despite that it may be infected with intolerance and hatred, flown under the banner of religious beliefs. This affects them just as much as government decisions does.

Anything may be infected with intolerance or hatred. Let's say I'm a secular European, and were to assemble a group of people in a park or lecture hall. Ic ould easily say something like this:

[Note: I don't mean to offend anyone here, and yes I know that not all Muslims are Arabs or vice-versa.]

"We NEED to end the immigration of these goddamn Arabs into the EU! They're poisoning our liberal society with their backwards 'faith'! We give them freedom of religion, and they use it to take away OUR freedom because they think 'Allah' dissapproves of it! Them almond-eyed bastards are ruining our culture with their religion! Keep them the hell out!"

A secular society can be just a filled with hatred as a religious one.

Anything may be infected with intolerance or hatred. Let's say I'm a secular European, and were to assemble a group of people in a park or lecture hall. Ic ould easily say something like this:

[Note: I don't mean to offend anyone here, and yes I know that not all Muslims are Arabs or vice-versa.]

"We NEED to end the immigration of these goddamn Arabs into the EU! They're poisoning our liberal society with their backwards 'faith'! We give them freedom of religion, and they use it to take away OUR freedom because they think 'Allah' dissapproves of it! Them almond-eyed bastards are ruining our culture with their religion! Keep them the hell out!"

A secular society can be just a filled with hatred as a religious one.

I never said a secular society was perfect.

I know it happened but it seems to me that if you're going to claim to be the morally superior person then you shouldn't be ready to preach hatred and intolerance. That's what I note in religion. It happens in secularism, though less so because of the lack of divine law and associated morality.

Are we really trying to "protect" kids, or are we just trying to stop them from being "ebil Cristanz"?



If we're to "protect them" from being indoctorinated, we ought to include atheism and irreligion under that too. Which of course, one cannot effectively do. So just let them have what their parents or life throw at them, and decide for themselves. Those raised secular sometimes choose religion, and oftentimes those raised with religion choose to give it up. It's all about how people choose to live their lives, and the government shouldn't try to "protect" them from choosing a certain way. It's not religion vs. secularism, it's liberalism vs. authoritarianism.

Atheism is not a religion.

My two cents:

I don't think parents should be legally prevented from teaching their children about religion or taking them to services or anything like that. I do think that parents should encourage their children to question religion and allow them to attend (or not) the services of their choice, but I wouldn't enforce that legally.

That said, I do not think that parents should be able to enforce religious precepts that cause harm to their children. I don't think, for instance, that "it's my religion" is a good enough excuse for circumcising a child. I don't think that "it's my religion" excuses a parent from seeking medical care for their child. I don't think "it's my religion" is an excuse for putting a poisonous snake in the hands of an untrained child or for suffocating a child you're trying to exorcise.

An adult's religion certainly allows that adult to choose to be circumcised, to refuse medical care, to handle poisonous snakes, or to be exorcised. I do not think it allows that adult to choose such paths for a child.

As for when a minor could make such decisions for themselves, I think that would end up being a matter of examination. Whether it is a judge personally sitting down to talk to the minor or a psychiatrist interviewing them to gauge their mental state, there certainly are ways to determine whether or not a minor is mature enough to make these decisions.

That said, I do not think that parents should be able to enforce religious precepts that cause harm to their children.

Why should they be allowed to enforce any religious precepts on their children?

Haven't read the whole thread, but I posted this in the other thread about religious ages and it's appropriate here, so I'll repost:

It's difficult to pinpoint, because there's so many different traditions and customs to take into consideration (all of which hold different ages for "entry"). Besides, how do you determine "participation"? Does that mean that parents can't teach their children about religion (since that can be construed as participation)?

In theory, yeah, there should be a "minimum entrance age", applicable when a person can comprehend the religion in order to take part. However, I just don't see how you can do something like that without stepping on too many toes.

Atheism is not a religion.

I didn't say that it was. I said that one can indoctorinate another to atheism, just like any philosophy, belief system, religion, or ideology.

I never said a secular society was perfect.

I know it happened but it seems to me that if you're going to claim to be the morally superior person then you shouldn't be ready to preach hatred and intolerance. That's what I note in religion. It happens in secularism, though less so because of the lack of divine law and associated morality.

No, you didn't. Sorry to have implied that.

But you see, that's the thing. We cannot isolate children from an aspect of society because of an imperfection that it shares with all other aspects of society.

Why should they be allowed to enforce any religious precepts on their children?

Why shouldn't they?

Parents can enforce all sorts of rules on their children. I see no reason to prohibit that unless the rules in question are harmful.

Why shouldn't they?

The religious freedom of the child. <edit> Now please provide a reason why they SHOULD other than "because their religion says so".

Atheism is not a religion.

Technically, even Atheism is a belief-system which you are technically pushing onto a child. Since its the complete lack of any belief in any deity-figures.

The religious freedom of the child.

The religious freedom of the child is not harmed by having the rules of a religion enforced upon them unless they are actively indoctrinated - kept from questioning or exploring other religions.

<edit> Now please provide a reason why they SHOULD other than "because their religion says so".

Who says I think they should?

There's a difference between "should" and "should not be legally prevented."

There is Obama's mum's method. She was an Atheist herself(Let's not get into specifics), but encouraged her children's spirituality, and exposed them to religious literature of the world's major faiths. I think that that's allright. In fact, I think I'll use it myself if I ever have any kids.

I never said a secular society was perfect.

I know it happened but it seems to me that if you're going to claim to be the morally superior person then you shouldn't be ready to preach hatred and intolerance. That's what I note in religion. It happens in secularism, though less so because of the lack of divine law and associated morality.

It's not religion. It's ideological conviction. Racial, ethnic, social, and political ideologies, among others, can cause the same damage, the same hatred and intolerance that religions can. Religion sticks out in your mind because religion as a whole is a much wider spread phenomena, and much older too, therefore taking more responsibility for damage than other ideologies, simply because it's so huge and so old. If you look up the statistics, religious extremism as a proportion to religion in general is very small.

It's not religion. It's ideological conviction. Racial, ethnic, social, and political ideologies, among others, can cause the same damage, the same hatred and intolerance that religions can. Religion sticks out in your mind because religion as a whole is a much wider spread phenomena, and much older too, therefore taking more responsibility for damage than other ideologies, simply because it's so huge and so old. If you look up the statistics, religious extremism as a proportion to religion in general is very small.

I agree. Besides, what are going to define as religion? Something like driving is pretty easy, as is alcoholic beverage or tobacco. But restricting what people believe and practice smells of Thought Police.

I agree. Besides, what are going to define as religion? Something like driving is pretty easy, as is alcoholic beverage or tobacco. But restricting what people believe and practice smells of Thought Police.

Yes! Someone else used my phrase so I must be right!

Yes! Someone else used my phrase so I must be right!

Yes. It's a known fact that if enough people repeat something, it becomes true. :)

I agree. Besides, what are going to define as religion? Something like driving is pretty easy, as is alcoholic beverage or tobacco. But restricting what people believe and practice smells of Thought Police.

more like Religious Police... Saudi Arabia has them... seems to work out for them

more like Religious Police... Saudi Arabia has them... seems to work out for them

Yes, it would be the same thing.

Legally? No. I don't support the government having the right to tell any person how to raise their children, no matter how abhorrent and counterproductive it may be.

Logically? Yes. Say my kid wanted to be a Christian. First of all, that would likely be due to peer influence, and if I wouldn't let me kid go see a gory, violent, sexually-charged movie at a young age, I damned sure wouldn't let him read the Bible, no matter how filled with lovey, "inspirational" platitudes it was.

I'd say my child would be both 1) old enough to handle the subject matter, and 2) old enough to understand and draw conclusions about the Bible's entirety by the time he was 18. If he can read the Bible, cover to cover, and decide he still wants to be a Christian? Fair do's.

I will NOT spoon feed him a bunch of watered down, Precious Moments horseshit. Besides, your religion is supposed to be a choice. You can't make an informed choice if you're not old enough to really grasp its magnitude.

As for when a minor could make such decisions for themselves, I think that would end up being a matter of examination. Whether it is a judge personally sitting down to talk to the minor or a psychiatrist interviewing them to gauge their mental state, there certainly are ways to determine whether or not a minor is mature enough to make these decisions.

That might work if it's possible to interview (and reinterview- not every kid will "pass" on the first try) every child in the country. Which then begs the question- why not just do that for voting? Sex? Drinking? Driving? etc. That's why there's the age of majority- doesn't make a whole lot of sense but it's at least a workable solution.

I agree. Besides, what are going to define as religion? Something like driving is pretty easy, as is alcoholic beverage or tobacco. But restricting what people believe and practice smells of Thought Police.

I thought the same thing. There's a multitude of things people do that could be considered "religious practice"- praying, going to Service, heck, even parents telling their children about ideas and rituals could be considered "practice" (because it's "indoctrination" and could have terrible side effects).

Besides, I already think many of the objections listed in this thread are already covered- parents can't refuse medical treatment for their children in cases of potential fatality, there's laws against teaching and spreading hate as well as false information. Seems to me most people here- when thinking of religion- are thinking of Fred Phelps or Osama bin Laden, the fire-and-brimstome religious types who arrogantly believe they're right and everyone else should be destroyed. Yeah, that kind of thinking is dangerous but it's hardly indicative of all religious types- not to mention the kind of religious teaching the vast majority actually get.

First of all, those analogies don't really apply because it's NEVER okay to kill people or molest kids, and if parents aren't properly nourishing their kids there are ways to fix it without having to violate their beliefs. In fact, there are belief systems that forbid eating meat and they get along fine. It's all a matter of education and typically such organizations educate their members in proper nutrition.

But here's the thing: There are already laws in place giving parents the final say on medical treatment for their kids just as any person has the final say over treatment for themselves. If you refuse a treatment at the hospital you aren't required to give an explanation. If you want to leave you can leave. The only reason this case is getting the attention it is is because of the religious aspect.

So it's never ok to kill people or molest kids, but it's ok to let them die of neglect?
There should be no right for a parent to refuse standart medical treatment on any grounds whatsoever. The hype would just be as bad if the parents had been homeopaths trying to cure their kid (there was a case in Germany a few years back which resulted in the parents having the kid taken away from them temporarily until its health was restored).
You as an adult can refuse treatment for yourself, to some extend. If there's a concrete immediate danger that you might die without treatment, the hospital will most likely not let you go as they would be liable should you in fact die. However, you cannot ever make a life or death decision for anyone in your care, such as your child.

We impose age restrictions on certain practices such as smoking, driving, alcohol consumption because they are harmful to people under the proper age to perform them.

Religion is NOT harmful at any point in life. So why would you want to ban it?

I sense a radical secular-liberal agenda here.

Is it not? It caused these parents to let their child die.
It has caused people to commit suicide (see the Branch Davidians, see Muslim suicide bombers, and many more)
It has caused and still is causing people to kill others.
Sounds dangerous enough to me...

Let be clear on one thing...

Having an age on something doesn't legally prevent knowledge of it. The age limitation simply says, "you lack the physical/mental maturity to handle this, but there is no reason not to know about it".

ie: your child has their political beliefs, no one is censoring them but they cannot exercise that democratic right.

See the difference? People claiming that this is the "thought police" at work are not looking at this the right way. If you want to claim that thought police are a work, then apply it to many other areas in which children are restricted, namely politics.

Everyone who is jumping to the defence of the family, take a moment and apply politics to this. What does your answer look like?

I wager it would be much different than if it's religion as I am suggesting here, though I will admit it's only a suggestion because the curious thought entered my mind and I would never implement this in real life. I wanted to entertain the theory, however.

Imagine for a minute, I suggested the same if there was no age on political involvement and someone suggested it to a democratic society. It seems to be that the outrage would be all the same.

So it's never ok to kill people or molest kids, but it's ok to let them die of neglect?
There should be no right for a parent to refuse standart medical treatment on any grounds whatsoever. The hype would just be as bad if the parents had been homeopaths trying to cure their kid (there was a case in Germany a few years back which resulted in the parents having the kid taken away from them temporarily until its health was restored).
You as an adult can refuse treatment for yourself, to some extend. If there's a concrete immediate danger that you might die without treatment, the hospital will most likely not let you go as they would be liable should you in fact die. However, you cannot ever make a life or death decision for anyone in your care, such as your child.

So you're comfortable with the government making medical decisions for your child? Because that's what we're talking about here. You're saying that the government somehow is a better judge of what's best for kids overall than their own parents, so if you have or will have kids of your own you're fine with being told what treatments you can use, what medications you can give them, or when to seek treatment even if your own better judgement is in conflict.

The fact is, incidents like this don't happen often, and the damage done by setting a precedent like that could easily be far greater than the status quo.

Is it not? It caused these parents to let their child die.
It has caused people to commit suicide (see the Branch Davidians, see Muslim suicide bombers, and many more)
It has caused and still is causing people to kill others.
Sounds dangerous enough to me...

Actually, religion doesn't cause that. Human stupidity and/or insanity causes it and uses religion as a tool or an excuse. If there wasn't religion, they'd just do it another way.

So you're comfortable with the government making medical decisions for your child? Because that's what we're talking about here. You're saying that the government somehow is a better judge of what's best for kids overall than their own parents, so if you have or will have kids of your own you're fine with being told what treatments you can use, what medications you can give them, or when to seek treatment even if your own better judgement is in conflict.

The fact is, incidents like this don't happen often, and the damage done by setting a precedent like that could easily be far greater than the status quo.


Considering that I'm no trained doctor and my medical knowledge extends mostly to what I've read up myself and heard from my mother and brother (both nurses), yes, I'd be very happy with someone with more knowledge of the subject to help me when I or my child will need medication or any form of medical assistance.
I would object to not giving the parents a choice of doctor, or of seeking second or third opinions in any given situation, I would rather encourage that.
And the argument that this would lead to complete government control over the health of your kid is bollocks. You're not allowed to show your kids porn, does that give the government total control over your kids sexuality? No.


Actually, religion doesn't cause that. Human stupidity and/or insanity causes it and uses religion as a tool or an excuse. If there wasn't religion, they'd just do it another way.

Just as guns don't kill people, right?

Considering that I'm no trained doctor and my medical knowledge extends mostly to what I've read up myself and heard from my mother and brother (both nurses), yes, I'd be very happy with someone with more knowledge of the subject to help me when I or my child will need medication or any form of medical assistance.
I would object to not giving the parents a choice of doctor, or of seeking second or third opinions in any given situation, I would rather encourage that.
And the argument that this would lead to complete government control over the health of your kid is bollocks. You're not allowed to show your kids porn, does that give the government total control over your kids sexuality? No.


Your faith in government is powerful indeed. You refer to it as someone with greater kowledge "helping" you with what medication or treatment to get. The government doesn't 'help.' It takes control. That's what government does. What do you mean exactly by 'help' that either doesn't already happen or that wouldn't involve a loss of control on your part?

And the argument of it leading to greater control is not 'bollocks.' Show me one example of anything where Government involvement hasn't led to total control.


Just as guns don't kill people, right?

If all guns in the world suddenly vanished into oblivion right now, would people stop killing each other?

Let be clear on one thing...

Having an age on something doesn't legally prevent knowledge of it. The age limitation simply says, "you lack the physical/mental maturity to handle this, but there is no reason not to know about it".

ie: your child has their political beliefs, no one is censoring them but they cannot exercise that democratic right.

See the difference? People claiming that this is the "thought police" at work are not looking at this the right way. If you want to claim that thought police are a work, then apply it to many other areas in which children are restricted, namely politics.

Everyone who is jumping to the defence of the family, take a moment and apply politics to this. What does your answer look like?

I wager it would be much different than if it's religion as I am suggesting here, though I will admit it's only a suggestion because the curious thought entered my mind and I would never implement this in real life. I wanted to entertain the theory, however.

Imagine for a minute, I suggested the same if there was no age on political involvement and someone suggested it to a democratic society. It seems to be that the outrage would be all the same.

If children are permitted to believe what they like, what on earth is the point of outlawing going to church and other forms of religious practice? (and outlawing prayer is still pretty much thought police) I was under the impression the point of this was to stop them from being influenced by harmful ideas. Preventing religious practice without preventing religious thought and ideas isn't going to do an awful lot to stop that.

And the argument of it leading to greater control is not 'bollocks.' Show me one example of anything where Government involvement hasn't led to total control.

Could you please clarify this request? The way I'm reading this it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

If all guns in the world suddenly vanished into oblivion right now, would people stop killing each other?

If guns vanished, killing would take effort. And most people are lazy twats, so it would be drastically reduced.

Could you please clarify this request? The way I'm reading this it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Cabra us saying it's silly for me to be concerned that allowing a little Government control over medical decisions for you child can lead to total control. I'm asking for an example of a time when Government has NOT taken total control over something that began small.

If children are permitted to believe what they like, what on earth is the point of outlawing going to church and other forms of religious practice? (and outlawing prayer is still pretty much thought police) I was under the impression the point of this was to stop them from being influenced by harmful ideas. Preventing religious practice without preventing religious thought and ideas isn't going to do an awful lot to stop that.

There is a difference between believing as you want and being forced to believe.

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that parents shouldn't be allowed to force their children to go to church on Sunday (for example) if the child resisted.

The age is geared to prevent forced participation, forcing children to believe as the parents do. It doesn't stop children from believing as they want to. It frees them to question the why and how.

By not being spoon-fed ignorance, they will be free to pursue their own beliefs and figure out what they really believe.

...See the difference? People claiming that this is the "thought police" at work are not looking at this the right way. If you want to claim that thought police are a work, then apply it to many other areas in which children are restricted, namely politics.

Everyone who is jumping to the defence of the family, take a moment and apply politics to this. What does your answer look like?....

I find it difficult to compare the two.

Several aspects of political practice(including attending debates, membership in a political party, and campaigning for a candidate) have no age of majority. Anyone can attend a town hall meeting or sitting of a legislature, or even a protest march. So the truth is that the practice of some political behaviour is limited by age, while some is not.

Yet you would wish to ban all religious practice for minors.

This is one of the reasons why I wish to know exactly what you meant by "religious practice".

That might work if it's possible to interview (and reinterview- not every kid will "pass" on the first try) every child in the country.

Why would you need to do that? The circumstances in which parents try to make these sorts of decisions are few and far between. They can be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Besides, I already think many of the objections listed in this thread are already covered- parents can't refuse medical treatment for their children in cases of potential fatality,

Yes, they can, in the US anyways. Oregon is the only state I know of that has actually passed a law to the contrary, and it has yet to be challenged.

there's laws against teaching and spreading hate as well as false information.

Erm.....no, there aren't. Not in the US anyways. We have this crazy thing called free speech.


So you're comfortable with the government making medical decisions for your child?

I'm certainly comfortable with the government telling me that I cannot deny my child life-saving medical treatment, just as I am comfortable with the government telling me that I cannot deny my child food, clothing, or even education.

When there are options available, it will be up to me to choose for my child which option is best until that child is old enough to understand and choose for himself. But I do not believe I should have the option of sitting back and watching my child die of an easily treatable disease.

Because that's what we're talking about here. You're saying that the government somehow is a better judge of what's best for kids overall than their own parents, so if you have or will have kids of your own you're fine with being told what treatments you can use, what medications you can give them, or when to seek treatment even if your own better judgement is in conflict.

If a parent's "own better judgment" is to completely neglect necessary medical treatment?

Yes, the government is a much, much better judge of what is best for the kids than their own parents.

The fact is, incidents like this don't happen often, and the damage done by setting a precedent like that could easily be far greater than the status quo.

Not really. Incidents like this don't happen often, so there would be very little exercise of governmental power in this area.

Cabra us saying it's silly for me to be concerned that allowing a little Government control over medical decisions for you child can lead to total control. I'm asking for an example of a time when Government has NOT taken total control over something that began small.

So what you're saying is that because, say, the government collects taxes, it has total control over your money and government agents can break down your front door to grab all your possessions?

There is a difference between believing as you want and being forced to believe.

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that parents shouldn't be allowed to force their children to go to church on Sunday (for example) if the child resisted.

The age is geared to prevent forced participation, forcing children to believe as the parents do. It doesn't stop children from believing as they want to. It frees them to question the why and how.

By not being spoon-fed ignorance, they will be free to pursue their own beliefs and figure out what they really believe.

Except, um, it prevents voluntary participation as well...

And the argument of it leading to greater control is not 'bollocks.' Show me one example of anything where Government involvement hasn't led to total control.

The government will step in and remove your children from your custody if you do not feed them.

They do not, however, lay out a diet for your child or force you to adhere to it.

In terms of government control, shouldn't we try to err on the side of more freedom?

Doesn't this include freedom of religion?

In terms of government control, shouldn't we try to err on the side of more freedom?

Doesn't this include freedom of religion?

Indeed.

But I do not believe "religious freedom" includes neglect.

Indeed.

But I do not believe "religious freedom" includes neglect.

I thought there were two other threads already discussing that issue. Nor does medical neglect qualify as religious practice. Therefore outlawing religious practice, as suggested by the OP, would have done nothing in either of the two cases being discussed in the other threads.

I thought there were two other threads already discussing that issue. Nor does medical neglect qualify as religious practice. Therefore outlawing religious practice, as suggested by the OP, would have done nothing in either of the two cases being discussed in the other threads.

Actually, currently, medical neglect does qualify as religious practice in most places.

And yes, there is discussion of that in a couple of other threads, as well as this one.

Your faith in government is powerful indeed. You refer to it as someone with greater kowledge "helping" you with what medication or treatment to get. The government doesn't 'help.' It takes control. That's what government does. What do you mean exactly by 'help' that either doesn't already happen or that wouldn't involve a loss of control on your part?

And the argument of it leading to greater control is not 'bollocks.' Show me one example of anything where Government involvement hasn't led to total control.


Government doesn't help? Wow... that almost warrants another thread. USAmericans are usually the first to scream about democracy and how that means by the people for the people, yet they also always seem to be the first to distrust the very system they're oh so proud of. It's odd.

Ok, let's see... government regulates the release of new drugs. Does that mean that it is forcing us to take them every day? No, it just makes sure that what we can buy has been thouroughly tested and doesn't show any effects that might be cause for concern.
Government has established road safety. Does that mean that they monitor everyone owning a car? No, it just means that they've sat down, established a set of rules that if applied, guarantee a maximum of safety for all drivers and pedestrians.
Government has put in place laws to protect the environment, started awareness campaigns and provides recycling facilities. Does that mean an agent will root through your bin each week to make sure you're mixing glass bottles and paper? No.
Government provides unemployment benefits. Does that mean they can force you to work, or have control on what you spend your money on? No.

Do you want me to go on?


If all guns in the world suddenly vanished into oblivion right now, would people stop killing each other?

Nope.
Would the number of killed people reduce?

Little problem with implementing that:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
Much as this case is dispicable, such a law would clearly violate the 1st amendment.You'd also get into trouble with defining religion. Would saying the lord's prayer be illegal, but meditating wouldn't?


That about sums it up. Silly thread this is.

Actually, currently, medical neglect does qualify as religious practice in most places.

And yes, there is discussion of that in a couple of other threads, as well as this one.

Obviously, we have vastly different definitions as to what constitutes 'religious practice'. That's fine.

But let's say we define medical neglect as a religious practice for the sake of argument. Then we could realistically make a case that that particular religious practice should be reseved for those who have reached the age of majority. That is a far cry from having all religious practices banned for minors.

Certainly not. It would be a violation of rights. That would be just as bad as forcing everyone to accept a state religion.

No. There does not need to be a consent age to practice religion. If we do not have our faith how can we deal with certain matters in life that we do not understand.

No. There does not need to be a consent age to practice religion. If we do not have our faith how can we deal with certain matters in life that we do not understand.

Logically?

Obviously, we have vastly different definitions as to what constitutes 'religious practice'. That's fine.

If someone tells you that their religion prohibits them from seeking medical treatment, are you going to argue with them?

But let's say we define medical neglect as a religious practice for the sake of argument. Then we could realistically make a case that that particular religious practice should be reseved for those who have reached the age of majority. That is a far cry from having all religious practices banned for minors.

Indeed. I wouldn't even go so far as an outright ban. I would say that a minor wishing to refuse medical treatment should be interviewed by a judge and possibly a psychologist. If it is clear that the minor is making the decision, rather than having it made for him by a parent, I do not think he should be legally forced to obtain medical treatment.

I simply do not think that parents should have an unmitigated right to force religious practice on a child. While I think that an adult should be able to handle snakes if they really want to, to refuse all medical treatment, to get circumcised, etc., I do not think parents have the right to force any of that on a child on the basis of the parents' religious beliefs.

As for going to church, having nightly prayers, etc., I see no reason why that sort of thing should be legally banned.

Indeed. I wouldn't even go so far as an outright ban. I would say that a minor wishing to refuse medical treatment should be interviewed by a judge and possibly a psychologist. If it is clear that the minor is making the decision, rather than having it made for him by a parent, I do not think he should be legally forced to obtain medical treatment.


Is it even possible to determine something like that with a psych evaluation? Unless the child outright says "give me medicine", I think it would be hard to draw a line. Everyone is at least in part the product of their parents or guardians, after all.

OH most definitely.
The way i do stuff at least is to figure it out on my. Make my own theories about (whatever) and then if i feel so inclined, i'll go find matching or similar theories so i can relate my ideas to others with a common name. But in the case of religion, all these ideas are forced on kids before they get to make their own. And who can honestly say that you could come up with these religions if someone else wasn't there to impose them on you?
I know that i could NEVER have thought up at LEAST half the crazy shit that's in any of the Bible, Torah, Quran, or what have you.
It's all absurd, ridiculous stuff.

Is it even possible to determine something like that with a psych evaluation? Unless the child outright says "give me medicine", I think it would be hard to draw a line. Everyone is at least in part the product of their parents or guardians, after all.

You can determine the maturity level of the child and how much they understand about the decision, yes.

It's not exact, of course. Nothing is. But there is precedent for it.

If someone tells you that their religion prohibits them from seeking medical treatment, are you going to argue with them?

Yes, I am.

I would probably start by explaining the difference between a belief and a theory. Then I would explain why only one is applicable to medical science.

It would actually be pretty easy.

I must say, I've always thought people who brought up kids as white supremacists or in something like the Westboro Baptist Church were abusing their children. Perhaps indoctrination of any sort is. Perhaps kids should demonstrate a certain level of psychological maturity before being allowed to become a member of any group philosophy. Though in my opinion, such maturity would make them opt out of any of them. Religion included.

Yes, I am.

I would probably start by explaining the difference between a belief and a theory. Then I would explain why only one is applicable to medical science.

It would actually be pretty easy.

Um....their whole belief is not to deal with medical science. Why would they care what is and is not applicable?

** INSPIRED BY 15-month old toddler murdered by christianity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=552643) **

We have a legal set age at which sex is consensual.

We have a legal set age at which it consumption of alcohol is permitted.

We have a legal set age at which we can smoke.

There are also legal set ages for driving, gambling, taking out a loan, voting, and more.

We rated our TV, movies, games and music with the "health" of our children in mind. We bar younger ones from playing violent games, or sexually charged games.

Yet, there is no age set on when a person may practice religion.

All of the above won't hurt you if you engage in proper protections or just don't engage in rated activities. Yet, there is ample proof that these can cause hurt. That is the justification for the age. But why then do we not have one on religion if we're concerned about the wellbeing of society, why do we permit the young; undeveloped mind and the immature emotional understanding to be exposed to religion without protections?

Why is it fine to indoctrinate children with religious propaganda?

Shouldn't there be an "age", or are these ages arbitrary with no other reason than the fact that some prudes don't want people having fun.

This:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/03/27/kids.ultimate.fight.ap/index.html

Oh, and if you're worried about religious nuttery getting into your child's head, then he must have the brains of a butternut squash.

People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss.

I'm certainly comfortable with the government telling me that I cannot deny my child life-saving medical treatment, just as I am comfortable with the government telling me that I cannot deny my child food, clothing, or even education.

When there are options available, it will be up to me to choose for my child which option is best until that child is old enough to understand and choose for himself. But I do not believe I should have the option of sitting back and watching my child die of an easily treatable disease.

If a parent's "own better judgment" is to completely neglect necessary medical treatment?

Yes, the government is a much, much better judge of what is best for the kids than their own parents.


But that isn't the issue. I'm talking about across the board medical decision making, like should we try surgery or chemo to deal with a tumor? Should we remove the tonsils preemptively or just treat the infection? Glasses or contacts?

Don't make it about neglect. That's already illegal. The issue is medical decision making.

Don't think prayer is a viable option? Well how about Wholistic (sp?) methods? Acupuncture? There are places in the world where such methods are standard practice with an interesting success rate. Are you suggesting that those approaches should be disallowed as well because of the methodology preferred by the Government?


Not really. Incidents like this don't happen often, so there would be very little exercise of governmental power in this area.

Right... but what happens when an election year rolls around and some politician decides that certain vaccinations that aren't already mandated should be, or that kids would be healthier if compelled to do some number of hous of exercise per week, as mandated by the Government whom you gleefully have trusted with deciding what's best for your kids? "Think of the Children!"

So what you're saying is that because, say, the government collects taxes, it has total control over your money and government agents can break down your front door to grab all your possessions?

Didn't say that, although if you look around you'll notice that taxes go up every congessional cycle. Think the Government won't come after you if you don't pay up?


Except, um, it prevents voluntary participation as well...

Thus far

The government will step in and remove your children from your custody if you do not feed them.

They do not, however, lay out a diet for your child or force you to adhere to it.

But by your logic it wouldn't be so awful if they did, would it? Since you're saying the Government has superior judgement and ability to decide. Maybe they'll eventually decide to step in and protect children from their horrible parents who allow them to eat junk food...

Government doesn't help? Wow... that almost warrants another thread. USAmericans are usually the first to scream about democracy and how that means by the people for the people, yet they also always seem to be the first to distrust the very system they're oh so proud of. It's odd.

I can understand why you see that as a contradiction.

See, the whole basis for the American Constitution is to keep Government power in check. It's written using logic that assumes that any Government that is not held in check will eventually oppress its people. Government by its nature promotes corruption but is a necessary evil. This is the position of the writers of the Constitution.


Ok, let's see... government regulates the release of new drugs. Does that mean that it is forcing us to take them every day? No, it just makes sure that what we can buy has been thouroughly tested and doesn't show any effects that might be cause for concern.

Which it does incompetently. We frequently hear of drugs that, despite having FDA approval have to be recalled due to unforseen side effects. COnsidering the powerful drug company lobbies in Washington it's little wonder so often drugs get rammed through the system so fast. It's also why they're so expensive.


Government has established road safety. Does that mean that they monitor everyone owning a car? No, it just means that they've sat down, established a set of rules that if applied, guarantee a maximum of safety for all drivers and pedestrians.

No, it's about money. Just last week (And I almost st arted a thread about it but I couldn't get the article link to work) there was an article in the local Dallas news about the traffic cameras in the city. You see, the cameras were actually reducing the number of red lights run and thus, accidents. The problem is that revenue from fines also went down since fewer violations were being committed. With revenue down the cameras were no longer supplying funds as before. The city council's proposed solution:

Remove the cameras.

That's right. The Government, which you trust so much, actually managed to improve safety and now they're thinking about undoing it because it doesn't generate enough money. Think that's an isolated case? What about the Traffic fines imposed last year in Virginia boosting the fine for repeat traffic offenders to the thousands, imposed by the state highway administration to help fund highway construction? (This measure was proposed by a state representative who owned a law firm specializing in... traffic cases.)


Government has put in place laws to protect the environment, started awareness campaigns and provides recycling facilities. Does that mean an agent will root through your bin each week to make sure you're mixing glass bottles and paper? No.


Actually, a measure to do exactly that was proposed in a California municipality 2 years ago. (I don't remember which and I don't know if it passed, but I read an article about it at the time.) They wanted to monitor the amount of recycled material as compared to the amount of garbage being generated by each home to be sure that it met a particular ratio.


Government provides unemployment benefits. Does that mean they can force you to work, or have control on what you spend your money on? No.


It doesn't provide unemployment benefits. Those are paid for by unemployment insurance and witholdings from employers. And it does mean they can compel you to work since the benefits are only temporary and are conditional upon your providing proof of an active effort to secure employment.


Do you want me to go on?


By all means.


Nope.
Would the number of killed people reduce?

Are you assuming that it would? Because if someone wants to kill and can't get a gun, they'll find another, possibly even more destructive means. Ask yourelf this: If you wanted to kill as many people as possible in a crowded shopping mall, would you use a gun or a bomb?

This:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/03/27/kids.ultimate.fight.ap/index.html

Oh, and if you're worried about religious nuttery getting into your child's head, then he must have the brains of a butternut squash.

People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss.

Understanding the dark side of human emotion is important at any age but it should be monitored in children below elementary school age so they understand that human emotion is more than just that, ie: 7-8 years old. Around the same time I would draw the line on religion.

We spend time teaching children about patriotic responsibility, we tell them both sides. There are those who insist that creation be taught as an alternative, but no one suggests that the core beliefs be taught to give children an idea of what else is out there. Yes there are thousands of religions and beliefs. However, many are just branches of a core denomination of a larger sect.


For our purposes here, let's keep the definition of religious practice simple, noting of course that different religions have different practices.

Rituals for the sake of worship and beliefs and engaging in general activities associate with a certain 'cult' - originally from French, part of devout worship - or religion would define religious practice.