-- Posted by sadnessness at 1:50 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Prof. Richard Dawkins has stated that labelling a child as being of a certain religion (or of no religion) from an early age could be seen as very detrimental to them. What do you guys think about this? I agree with it: i was confirmed as a Catholic when i was 12, before realising last year that i am actually an atheist. I lost touch with a close friend a few years ago because i was defending a religion that i now think is based on bullshit. That upsets me. Maybe every child (i'll propose this just in Britain and USA + Western Europe atm, cos there'd be uproar in middle east) should be labelled as "deciding" or "undecided" until they reach an age where they can understand, and they should all be taught about the main religions before being forced to join a group and go to church. Parents who want to bring their children up in the religion would just have to work hard to sell it to their kids. Could it work? Would the religious people ever let it work? -- Posted by Light Assassin at 1:51 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 religion is just an excuse for lack of reason -- Posted by The Nowhere Man at 1:52 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 It's something of a decent idea, but I don't entirely agree. It'd also be impossible to implement. -- Posted by Satine at 1:52 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 I'd be up for it absolutely. I'm not sure how easy it would be to enforce such an idea, though. Parents are often certain that what they're doing is right, so I suspect many would indoctinate their kids anyway. But religion should be utterly for the individual to choose and nobody else, in an ideal world. -- Posted by justin1990rm at 1:52 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 people have the right to be stupid -- Posted by senorita smirnoff at 1:53 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 i dont think religion is a problem for most people, it just needs to be had within reason. Rather than bothering with making laws on who can decide what religion they are at what age, put the effort into educating people on tolerance and acceptance of other peoples beliefs -- Posted by Darraaagh at 1:54 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 I completely agree with what Dawkins said. It's an incredibly annoying prejudice. -- Posted by Prince o palities at 1:54 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Sure.  That's the way Communist China does it.  I've always said we should be more like them. -- Posted by MixedDelight at 1:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 A child is generally born into the religion of their parents. The same way they are born into their parents' last name. If you think this is correct, then the childs' last name should also be "yet-to-be-determined" No. -- Posted by driscoll1997 at 1:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 WOw way to give islam special favor like every other god danm country in the world... -- Posted by HuffleHaire at 1:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 See, even when I was in church and getting confirmed, I never ARGUED with my good friends about it. I would never, ever let something that stupid get in the way of a friendship. I'm pantheistic/atheistic now, and I have friends who believe. I think kids will want to be like their parents regardless of if they are labeled "undecided" or whatever. It'll still be the same. And that would be impossible to enact anyway. -- Posted by sadnessness at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from MixedDelight at 9:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 A child is generally born into the religion of their parents. The same way they are born into their parents' last name. If you think this is correct, then the childs' last name should also be "yet-to-be-determined" No. A child isnt defined my its surname (unless the name is Hitler) Religion defines how a child thinks! -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? -- Posted by Deviant at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 That's not a bad idea, but it wouldn't stop parents from teaching their kids religion anyway. -- Posted by justin1990rm at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? -- Posted by MixedDelight at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 4:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from MixedDelight at 9:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 A child is generally born into the religion of their parents. The same way they are born into their parents' last name. If you think this is correct, then the childs' last name should also be "yet-to-be-determined"    No. A child isnt defined my its surname (unless the name is Hitler) Religion defines how a child thinks! It's a question of culture. Are you going to ask a Sikh family to refrain from giving their child a turban until they reach 'an age of reckoning' That, is discrimination and a violation of a constitutional right. But not that it matters, this would never work. -- Posted by Style Out at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from noahjk at 1:51 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 religion is just an excuse for lack of reason I actually find church and dance to be the two most uplifting things in my life, and I used to be a complete atheist like you. -- Posted by The Nowhere Man at 2:01 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?   what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? ...Wow, because those are obviously the exact same thing and have the same affect on people's lives. A better analogy would be a kid's sexuality - whether they're straight or gay or whatever. But analogies only go so far, anyway. -- Posted by sadnessness at 2:01 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 9:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? I am saying that the children SHOULD be encouraged to label themselves. How many people would tak a three year old who declares themself a catholic seriously? I wouldnt:  they have no idea about any of the actual concepts. a 14 year old might have more of a grasp. -- Posted by The Wolfhound at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 I agree with that... Although barely care... -- Posted by sadnessness at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from MixedDelight at 9:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 4:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from MixedDelight at 9:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 A child is generally born into the religion of their parents. The same way they are born into their parents' last name. If you think this is correct, then the childs' last name should also be "yet-to-be-determined"   No.    A child isnt defined my its surname (unless the name is Hitler)    Religion defines how a child thinks! It's a question of culture. Are you going to ask a Sikh family to refrain from giving their child a turban until they reach 'an age of reckoning' That, is discrimination and a violation of a constitutional right. But not that it matters, this would never work. When i said "Britain, USA and Western Europe, i meant the religions such as Christianity to be used as a trial first, anticipating the bigger impact it would have on such religions as Sikhs etc. Of course this cant be implemented world wide- i'm sure in some cultures you would be killed for not following the family religion so i am in no way proposing a blanket ban or law, just for the idea to be circulated and some parents to think about it. -- Posted by justin1990rm at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:01 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?     what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?   ...Wow, because those are obviously the exact same thing and have the same affect on people's lives.   A better analogy would be a kid's sexuality - whether they're straight or gay or whatever. But analogies only go so far, anyway. yea religion affects lives waay more than sexuality does and i dont think what kind matters because its really all the same (gay\straight etc) -- Posted by The Nowhere Man at 2:07 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:01 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? ...Wow, because those are obviously the exact same thing and have the same affect on people's lives. A better analogy would be a kid's sexuality - whether they're straight or gay or whatever. But analogies only go so far, anyway. yea religion affects lives waay more than sexuality does and i dont think what kind matters because its really all the same (gay\straight etc) Yes, it does affect it more than sexuality. I was addressing your point comparing it to having sex. Having sex underage would affect you more than declaring yourself to be a Christian. -- Posted by The Nowhere Man at 2:08 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from MixedDelight at 9:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from sadnessness at 4:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from MixedDelight at 9:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 A child is generally born into the religion of their parents. The same way they are born into their parents' last name. If you think this is correct, then the childs' last name should also be "yet-to-be-determined"  No.     A child isnt defined my its surname (unless the name is Hitler)     Religion defines how a child thinks! It's a question of culture. Are you going to ask a Sikh family to refrain from giving their child a turban until they reach 'an age of reckoning' That, is discrimination and a violation of a constitutional right. But not that it matters, this would never work.   When i said "Britain, USA and Western Europe, i meant the religions such as Christianity to be used as a trial first, anticipating the bigger impact it would have on such religions as Sikhs etc.   Of course this cant be implemented world wide- i'm sure in some cultures you would be killed for not following the family religion so i am in no way proposing a blanket ban or law, just for the idea to be circulated and some parents to think about it. edit: Nevermind, didn't see the part about this being an idea rather than a law. -- Posted by justin1990rm at 2:16 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:07 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:01 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?        what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?      ...Wow, because those are obviously the exact same thing and have the same affect on people's lives.      A better analogy would be a kid's sexuality - whether they're straight or gay or whatever. But analogies only go so far, anyway.    yea religion affects lives waay more than sexuality does    and i dont think what kind matters because its really all the same (gay\straight etc) Yes, it does affect it more than sexuality. I was addressing your point comparing it to having sex. Having sex underage would affect you more than declaring yourself to be a Christian. maybe in the short term, but both have life long consequences -- Posted by The Nowhere Man at 2:37 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 2:16 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:07 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:01 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?   what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?   ...Wow, because those are obviously the exact same thing and have the same affect on people's lives.   A better analogy would be a kid's sexuality - whether they're straight or gay or whatever. But analogies only go so far, anyway.   yea religion affects lives waay more than sexuality does   and i dont think what kind matters because its really all the same (gay\straight etc)    Yes, it does affect it more than sexuality. I was addressing your point comparing it to having sex. Having sex underage would affect you more than declaring yourself to be a Christian. maybe in the short term, but both have life long consequences I'm not denying that. But you seem to be saying that they both have the same equivalent effect (obviously they wouldn't have exactly the same effect), which I disagree with. -- Posted by isobel at 2:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 My parents have atheists, they're not married, and I wasn't baptised. However, my grandparents (both maternal and paternal) are big on religion. My grandmother got me to go to church sometimes, and I used to believe in God until I was about 10 or 11. Now I'm an atheist. Children should not be forced if they don't believe in something. But don't underestimate children and think they are not capable of rational thinking. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 3:50 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 4:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"? Different matter entirely; there are laws against children having sex. I am saying that the children SHOULD be encouraged to label themselves. How many people would tak a three year old who declares themself a catholic seriously? I wouldnt:  they have no idea about any of the actual concepts. a 14 year old might have more of a grasp. Sure, but who are you to stop a child from saying what he is based on what he understands of it? -- Posted by draakprinses at 6:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 4:37 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 2:16 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:07 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 2:04 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from The Nowhere Man at 2:01 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from justin1990rm at 1:58 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 1:56 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 What about children who label themselves? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?           what about the children who think theyre mature enough for sex? Are they to be told, "No you're not actually that, honey; you're not old enough yet"?         ...Wow, because those are obviously the exact same thing and have the same affect on people's lives.         A better analogy would be a kid's sexuality - whether they're straight or gay or whatever. But analogies only go so far, anyway.       yea religion affects lives waay more than sexuality does       and i dont think what kind matters because its really all the same (gay\straight etc)   Yes, it does affect it more than sexuality. I was addressing your point comparing it to having sex. Having sex underage would affect you more than declaring yourself to be a Christian.    maybe in the short term, but both have life long consequences I'm not denying that. But you seem to be saying that they both have the same equivalent effect (obviously they wouldn't have exactly the same effect), which I disagree with. To be honest, being raised in an oppressive Catholic household has affected me much more than any sexual experiences I had as a child. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 8:18 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 9:55 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 To be honest, being raised in an oppressive Catholic household has affected me much more than any sexual experiences I had as a child. In your case, aren't the two rather intertwined? Your sexuality and the oppressiveness of your household, I mean. In any case, I'd point to that and say that it's more the oppressive nature than the religion that's the problem, as I know plenty of Catholic households that wouldn't necessarily agree with people's life choices, but wouldn't oppress them, either.