WMN: t3_3hdjdq_t1_cu6i5in

[TITLE]

CMV: Bringing your kids to church is indoctrination and they shouldn't be allowed in any church until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves.

[CaptainCfo]

Disclaimer: I am very anti-theist so that's why I have such a negative thought of bringing your kids to church. Bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice. At a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them. Thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered. I am not saying that they will never switch, it's just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered. I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction (I will leave that age number up for debate). And not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution. But to let them make the choice themselves, and purely by themselves. I know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[jozef_telefonmast]

I'd like to argue why being "indoctrinated" over a certain religion is necessarily a bad thing. I've never associated myself with a religion personally, but from what I can see most of religion serves as a catalyst for social gatherings, social communities, et cetera where people identify with each other under certain beliefs. This isn't much different as a person from the USA saying they are an American, where people identify and unite under a common flag. Should a person not be subject to any nationality until they have the ability to choose for themselves?

[DylanThomas928]

Taking your kid to church is like teaching them their first language, not brainwashing.

[JohnTackett]

The same can be said for atheists living in an atheistic family. The atheist mother and father sit their kid down after he or she comes home from school after hearing another kid talk about how great God is. In my opinion, the chances of the parents telling their kid, "there is no God, honey, he is just a fairy tale to keep kids scared" are pretty high. Then you have the atheist equivalent of a church (while they aren't a religion, I know) atheist organizations, there are so many out there, I forget their names. However, atheists congregate at these meetings and groups to talk about things dealing with atheism ... which is going to involve them somewhere along the line, saying, "God isn't real" because that's the whole point behind their beliefs. I believe that they believe it is true, there is no God, or there is a God, so why shouldn't they be allowed to preach it to other people in an attempt to spread their truth? The fact is, that parents want their kids to be like them most of the time, so getting your child to believe in what you think to be the truth is only normal for all parents and people.

[martin_grosse]

I think that we should approach it the same way we approach everything else. We give the children a tour of the different religions (including atheism) presented by officials of each, and let them decide which to attend (if any). I think it would be good for parents and children to get rid of a lot of fears and see how much common ground there really is.

[JohnTackett]

I can see why this might be the most politically correct thing to do, at least in the short term. What happens when your average atheist parents have a son that chooses Christianity, both parents and son are now super devout to their own beliefs, they fight constantly over what is right and what is wrong. Or a Muslim family where their kids choose paganism. The Muslim parents would (as far as they know) be letting their children damn themselves to hell because they don't believe in one God, rather they believe in multiple. In fact, this method would almost definitely root atheism out of the world. I mean, what is a child going to believe more, that there is no God and nothing happens for a reason, that when they die that's it there is no coming back? Or are they going to believe a higher being looks out for and loves them, and will allow them to survive eternally in an afterlife? That's not to say that theistic views are childish, but that they are hopeful to children. The problem is that anyone who isn't agnostic thinks their beliefs are the only true ones. It would be like leaving your child's education up to people who were teachers and people who failed grade-school, at least that's the way really devout people would see it, whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Secular. I don't think anyone would be willing to go with this method. For both fear of damning their children, losing their children, their children hating them for their belief, or any number of alternate ends that can hurt the family. It's much better to just teach your child what you believe and if he or she wants to convert when they grow up then they can.

[martin_grosse]

You're operating in large generalities, and I have counter examples. There are plenty of places where cross-faith interactions are encouraged and beneficial for all. In the University I attended, for example, the staff were all of some kind of Christian background, but students came from all walks of life. I learned with Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Secular Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, all that. There were classes where you went through each religion and studied their precepts and compared what they had in common. There were many, I among them, who later built on that understanding and chose other than what we were raised with. I'm not saying it's common, but it's not as bleak as what you're suggesting. What I would say is that competition is good for almost any system. In my opinion, if Atheism can't stand up next to religions in its observed benefits (no matter how placebo in their grounding), then maybe it genuinely is better to be religious even if the object of your religion is false. I don't think that's the case and I have found the Atheist and skeptical approach to be infinitely preferable and more productive than the religious one of my past. As for the fighting, I think that is more a function of conforntation vs non-confrontational. I think that people present to their families what their families want to see, or they fight. That's a part of your personality. They do it with politics, economics, sexual preference, all that stuff. I don't think this is fundamentally different. To be clear, I think only a couple of those religions care about damning. Christians and Muslims. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Secular Humanists...they don't really care.

[JohnTackett]

[STA-CITE]> I learned with Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, Secular Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, all that. [END-CITE]You learn from a lot of atheists? XD Yet you are talking about universities now, where previously you said "children" when I hear people say children I assume elementary or middle school ... not college. Sure, choosing your own faith when you're an adult is fine, and learning about them all should be encouraged. I hope to one day read the Torah and Quran. However, children aren't as developed as college students, so you relating your experiences in college to how it could help children doesn't make much sense. Perhaps you were a close-minded religious person. I can in no way see how being religious would inhibit productivity ... I mean, look at Newton, he was religious, and Einstein believed in a God (not a personal one but still a God of some type). Although, religious people can be "skeptical" too. Anyone who takes everything on blind faith without questioning is foolish. Yet, to completely ignore the possibility of a God or God-like being being a possibility is pretty close-minded to me. Yet to live a life so differently than your children would be terrible. Imagine you have a child, and he decides he's going to go to church every week, donate money to them, go to confession, pray before eating every time, pray before going to bed, read the bible, maybe even later in his life become a priest or preacher. And then there is the opposite side, where the parents are the ones doing all of this, and the child goes on to join an atheist organization ... the ones that insult his parents God by making up a thing called the spaghetti monster, the organization that laughs at his parents beliefs ... you can't see where this would add additional problems to already existing ones like differences in politics, economics, sexual preferences? And yes, only a few of the religions believe you could be damned to hell for your beliefs/sins. Yet when those are the two biggest ... chances are not many people are going to go with your idea here, especially at the risk of their child not making it to heaven with them.

[martin_grosse]

I mean...this is my literal reality. You're using the term "being religious" in the same way that /r/askwomen use the phrase "Do women like it when a guy...". There are so many implementations of religiosity that they are difficult and time-consuming to enumerate. Some of them, the east coast brand laissez faire christianity, hardly interact in your life at all. They barely ever mention God. It's more of a respectable community club than anything else. Contrasted to my upbringing where I read the bible every day, did mission trips, fed the poor, sang in a praise band, went to church camp, hung out at youth group and did bible study. The lot. My mom and dad were barely involved in that at all. It was mostly me. Maybe your family was different than mine, but two of my sisters were atheists when they were teenagers and came back to the faith when they were older with kids. I was extremely faithful until I was about 30, and then went apostate. My little sister never left the faith, but is maybe more moderate than any of us. My dad is religious, but at kind of a superficial brochure level. My mom does it like she does Amway. She's emphatic, but doesn't actually put that much effort into it. I don't see this kind of thing as being particularly unusual in my experience. As for adding to additional problems, I think there are more problems than can be named. It's adding tears to the ocean. It's not going to have a noticeable effect.

[JohnTackett]

I disagree. You've never fought over religion or atheism to anyone it sounds. But the people that do hate each other for it. I went to a school where the atheists were loud-mouthed and the Christians returned the loud-mouth. They always hated one another ... so why would you want that in a family. I can tell you that I would rather marry anyone besides an atheist ... the way I've seen how many act is appalling. Not to mention that religion is an important part of a lot of peoples lives, so having their kid just thrown into an opposite belief would hurt them. By that logic, I could get into a car-wreck, get terribly disfigured and just ask the nurses to friggin' pull the plug on me because it "won't have a noticeable effect" If you can limit the amount of fights in your family then why wouldn't you want to? Once again, as I said, children aren't like college students. They are going to pick Christianity 9 times out of 10, I promise you. This method may have worked for you, but you and your family alone are hardly representative of every person in the world my friend. My literal reality is that I would never want to marry someone who believed what assholes like Dawkins and Maher believe. They heckle Christians and Muslims constantly, and if there's even a chance that my children would turn out like them, all hateful and bigoted then I'd rather my kids worship the sun. My literal reality is that I'd rather marry a woman of my own faith than not, it makes everything so much easier when you have similar things to talk about to share ... if not ... then why'd you get married, why have kids that believe different than you, especially if, as I said, you believe you belief is the only true one.

[martin_grosse]

You are correct. You've convinced me. I can't find any flaws with your argument.

[mbleslie]

This could be applied to anything, not just religious views. Political views, philosophical views, and on and on. And then who would determine what practices and beliefs were acceptable and which were banned?

[ouixch]

So how far should we take this logic? You cannot possibly try to keep people from indoctrinating their kids into things you don't like. Parents bring kids into politics all the time, should they be prevented from doing so? Should vegan parents have to feed their children meat, or should meat eating parents have to raise their children vegan? I like watching football on Sunday, that is indoctrinating my children.... should I be banned from doing it? Part of living in a free society is that people get to do things others may not like, and that includes raising children however they see fit. When you become an adult you get to make your own choices. I was forced to go to church until I left the house, that did not keep me from making my own decision when I became an adult. At the end of the day, parents have to have a good bit of latitude to make the best decisions for their children that they can, and just because you don't like that choice doesn't make it wrong

[Gailyn]

Let's say you have a toddler, and for three days and three meals you put three different options in front of them: a fruit, a vegetable, and a chocolate bar. Ask them which one they'd like to eat, and do not suggest for even a second that one choice is better than another. The three days go by, and the kid ate nothing but chocolate for all his meals for three days. His nourishment is significantly stunted. He feels sick. His blood sugar is out of whack. He chose temporary pleasure (the good tasting chocolate) over what he needed (fruits and vegetables to sustain his health). But how could he have known if nobody told/showed him? This is the problem with your idea of barring children from being taken to church. They will grow up with poor nutrition, or a lack of spiritual guidance. Sure, they can learn some of their religion at home, but if the child only talks, hears, or learns about religion at home, and does not get to discuss varying ideas with peers in a more public setting... is this not also indoctrination? What if the child, who grows up enough to be able to articulate more abstract ideas, believes that homosexual people should marry, but his parents do not agree? His idea would be shut down and snuffed out. What if while attending church, a member of the clergy presented an idea to the child that, yes, it is possible that homosexual people should marry? The child would not learn or be encouraged by that option or line of thinking until whatever age restriction you're proposing is reached.

[Gailyn]

How can they decide for themselves at that particular age if they haven't been exposed to religion properly? Also, isn't being required to go to public school and take specific, required classes also a form of indoctrination?

[NeverQuiteEnough]

[STA-CITE]>isn't being required to go to public school and take specific, required classes also a form of indoctrination? [END-CITE]if we examine the subjects, I think this is mostly seen not to be the case. Language is the closest to indoctrination, as what literature is observed has a big effect on culture. So perhaps there. History can be used for indoctrination. In my state at least, there is a big focus on presenting the most balanced accounts possible. I grew up in the US, and we were taught about the trail of tears, and the US governments complicity in spreading polio, for example. I feel that history *can* be taught in a manner free of indoctrination. Science and Mathematics are simply true. In the teaching of the history of science and mathematics, there is room for misguiding like other history, but in the actual subjects themselves are true whether or not you believe them. They are just facts.

[Gailyn]

I mean in the sense that children are subjected to material beyond their control. You make good points though.

[Enchanted_Bunny]

I'm going to pick on the religion I was raised in as an example that throws a bit of a wrench into your argument. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness from birth. The levels of indoctrination I went through are atypically high for most people raised in a Western Christian household. I was taken to church three times a week, publicly evangelized and preached every Saturday from the time I was a child, gave my first sermon at age eight, and was baptized into the church at age 15. If I don't qualify as someone who was heavily indoctrinated as a child, nobody does. Yet, here I am, an atheist. You admit that this is a possibility, but that indoctrination makes it "less likely." I think the opposite is true. I don't think there's a correlation between religious indoctrination and remaining in one's childhood tradition at all. I direct you to the following study conducted by the Pew Forum: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chapter-2-religious-switching-and-intermarriage/ [STA-CITE]>Most people who currently identify as Jehovah’s Witnesses (65%) also were raised outside that tradition. [END-CITE]Most people join Jehovah's Witnesses as adults, suggesting that children are not the only people susceptible to indoctrination. If you notice the table that says "Hindus, Muslims, and Jews have the highest retention rates," you'll notice the lowest retention rate (34%) belonging to Jehovah's Witnesses. That means only 34% of those raised in the religion remain Jehovah's Witnesses into adulthood. Yet, the unaffiliated retain 53% with no indoctrination. I'm not trying to say that less indoctrination = increased likelihood of staying with your childhood beliefs. I'm saying that in light of the data in this study, retention into adulthood and level of indoctrination do not seem to correlate at all. The religions with the highest retention rates have a racial and cultural element to them which would at least partially explain that. "Jewish" for example is a racial and cultural identity as much as it is a religion. Hinduism has deep-rooted ties to India. Islam has similar ties to the Middle East and North Africa. I think the major factor over the religious path someone chooses is how much information they are exposed to. The more information they are exposed to, the less dogmatic they are likely to be. Exposure to different opinions is what was instrumental in me becoming an atheist. I'm an atheist, but I plan on exposing my children to a wide variety of religious beliefs. I am not afraid they'll be indoctrinated by one of those beliefs because they will have been exposed to multiple perspectives. If they end up being religious I'm fine with that, because they wouldn't be making that decision due to indoctrination. I think keeping children ignorant of all religious perspectives and beliefs makes them just as susceptible to indoctrination and radicalization as keep them ignorant of all but one perspective.

[NeverQuiteEnough]

[STA-CITE]>I don't think there's a correlation between religious indoctrination and remaining in one's childhood tradition at all. [END-CITE]Does your source not disagree with you? [STA-CITE]> 34% of American adults currently have a religious identity different from the one in which they were raised [END-CITE]People are still disproportionately bearing the same religious identity as their parents.

[Enchanted_Bunny]

[STA-CITE]>Does your source not disagree with you? [END-CITE]I don't see how. Levels of indoctrination and retention rates are all over the map. Some stricter religions barely retain any of the children they indoctrinate, but others retain children at a higher rate. If you were right, you'd see a trend of higher retention rates among groups that exercise more control over their followers. That is not the case. [STA-CITE]>People are still disproportionately bearing the same religious identity as their parents. [END-CITE]How do you define "disproportionately?" What's the proper proportion and how do you know that?

[NeverQuiteEnough]

[STA-CITE]>How do you define "disproportionately?" What's the proper proportion and how do you know that? [END-CITE]If childhood indoctrination had no effect on the grown up adult's religious choice, and there are more than 3 religions, more than a third of adults should be of a different faith than their parent.

[HorlogerieNYC]

Everything you do with your child is indoctrination. You are literally indoctrinating them with your values constantly. Church is simply another value (like for instance, sharing is a good thing) that you are teaching them. If you start choosing what values parents should or should not teach their kids you get into Dacian pretty quickly. Another example of this would be school. There are plenty of values (particularly ones I do not agree with in a very strong sense) that are being impressioned upon young impressionable minds in school. Do we say you can't send your kid to school as well because they are learning a value set that requires a more developed understanding of the world to truly get? What about museums? My child isn't old enough to decide what constitutes great art, so until she is old enough to do so, we will keep her away from museums too.

[Mangling_Participles]

My parents endorsed a less stringent application of OP's idea with me when I was growing up. I wasn't outright not allowed to attend church, but it wasn't encouraged or facilitated either. If a relative, or later a friend, invited me to a church service I was allowed to attend for a short period, but wasn't allowed to make any commitments or join any church clubs or choirs, etc. It was never a point of contention in our household, and ultimately I ended up choosing a non-religious outlook (not to be confused with non-spiritual) for myself after much personal searching during my 20s. It probably led me to read much more and investigate my religious choices much more thoroughly before coming to my own choices; and in my 20s I often found myself in theological debates with peers, where I knew more detailed information about various religions than native members of those organizations. In retrospect it gave me the freedom to ask questions and find a belief structure that didn't conflict with the information that I learned. I won't dissuade others from pursuing other paths to their own spiritual truth, but it worked for me, and I am raising my daughter in the same manner.

[cdb03b]

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion are both constitutionally protected rights, and the right to bring your child up learning what you believe to be the truth of the world is an extension of them. What you propose would be highly illegal.

[appropriate-username]

But isn't it a good idea to bring up kids to believe only in objective truths?

[cdb03b]

Almost nothing in the world is an objective truth. Ethics and morality as pointed out by phoenixrawr are some primary examples. The primary function of religion within any society is to teach and reinforce the ethics and moral structures of that society. This is something that has to be done from a young age as you have to use those skills to make decisions long before you become an adult.

[appropriate-username]

[STA-CITE]> Almost nothing in the world is an objective truth. [END-CITE]Pretty much everything taught in schools is objectively true.... [STA-CITE]>The primary function of religion within any society is to teach and reinforce the ethics and moral structures of that society. This is something that has to be done from a young age as you have to use those skills to make decisions long before you become an adult. [END-CITE]I fail to see how teaching kids about a boat that held one of every single species has anything to do with morality.

[LiterallyBismarck]

[STA-CITE]>Pretty much everything taught in schools is objectively true.... [END-CITE]Is that all you need to know?

[phoenixrawr]

No, because there are many things in the world that aren't objective truths. Ethics and morality are two very simple examples of places where you can't just teach a child objectivism and assume it'll work out. Would you avoid any and all discussions on these subjects with your children because you can't give objectives answers on them? Also, even if something is a good idea that doesn't necessarily mean that doing something else should be illegal.

[appropriate-username]

[STA-CITE]> No, because there are many things in the world that aren't objective truths. Ethics and morality are two very simple examples of places where you can't just teach a child objectivism and assume it'll work out. Would you avoid any and all discussions on these subjects with your children because you can't give objectives answers on them? [END-CITE]Why can't this wait until high school?

[phoenixrawr]

Because people have to make moral and ethical choices before high school. How do you expect to never have to talk about them for the first 14 years of a child's life?

[stemid85]

This is a great idea and I believe it would increase chuch going in adults. Speaking as a kid who was youngest to be confirmed in their entire group because my parents forced me to church from a tender age. Now I loathe even stepping inside a church and am against the entire religious construct.

[Ramblar]

You could just as easily flip the situation as say that atheist parents who teach their kids to not believe in God and read Darwin are also being brainwashed. There's clearly not any objectivity or potential for the child to think critically in that situation. I know you'd probably say that you wouldn't force atheism on your child, but you're lying to yourself if you tell me that you'd give equal time to making a child think about theology and how it could be right. Since people are always going to have biases, it's better to let parents teach their kids what they think is right, and let society shape them in adulthood. I was raised christian, but exposure to the internet and different kinds of people pulled me to agnosticism, so it's not like kids are doomed for having religious parents.

[CaptainCfo]

I am not saying that they should be taught to not believe in a god. I am saying that the decision of religion, should be 100% up to them, and not with the help of any other person. So if I had a child, I won't be able to force them to be atheist.

[Ramblar]

All of our beliefs and attitudes are at least partly shaped by other people, though. They don't just show up in a vacuum.

[CaptainCfo]

Religious beliefs come in the form of religious writings. So the only thing shaping it is the child's curiosity

[Ramblar]

I didn't read much religious text as a kid. Parents tend to spread ideas through word of mouth or traditions such as holidays, which could also be seen as indoctrination.

[appropriate-username]

That could be discouraged though, which is what the CMV is about.

[Ramblar]

Socially discouraged, yes, but his view was about age caps for when to introduce kids to churches and religion, which is more authoritarian in nature. I'm all for getting parents to think about how to objectively introduce ideas, but the ideas presented are a bit much.

[appropriate-username]

Why not discourage them in an authoritarian manner? If anything deserves the treatment, I feel peer pressure should.

[Ramblar]

Because it could be flipped around and used against you. It's better to just be tolerant, but allow open access to different ideas and critical thinking in the education system.

[appropriate-username]

It's possible to allow access to ideas without pressuring people into accepting them. In OPs case, I think, it would be allowing kids access to religious books without forcing them to go to church.

[theviridiansky]

Not learning about religion =/= being raised atheist. Honestly. I was raised without my parents saying anything either way whether or not a higher power(s) existed, and when I got to my teens I made my own decision on religion. That's what OP is proposing.

[looklistencreate]

If you're worried about constitutionality this CMV should not be for you. You're specifically banning bringing your children to one specific location for the express purpose of disadvantaging faiths that you don't like. That's pretty clearly attempting to antagonize religious people, which the government is not allowed to do. You can currently bring your kid anywhere: to swim practice, to tennis camp, to New Jersey, anywhere, and that's not illegal in the vast majority of circumstances. They can learn any number of controversial things anywhere that their parents bring them. Controversy is not illegal and should not be illegal. I don't see any line between what's OK and what's not other than the fact that you're anti-theist and you want to use the law to achieve your goals in eliminating religions you don't like.

[CaptainCfo]

I am not saying that I wish for all kids to be atheist. I am saying that they should be able to choose what religion they want with no outside influence

[britainfan234]

[STA-CITE]> I am saying that they should be able to choose what religion they want with no outside influence [END-CITE]That's ridiculous. We are constantly being influenced by outside forces in almost everything we do/choose. Why shouldnt kids be allowed to believe a religion based on their parents beliefs in it? As for not being forced to go....kids lose quiet a lot of rights when they are kids....if I want to bring my son to a biased political meeting and he doesnt want to go, should I be allowed to try to persuade him? What about a political speaker? Like idk a presendial candidate? Their views on how to run government are certainly not objectively true and are rather belief driven. Why am I allowed to bring him to those and not to a preacher?

[looklistencreate]

Let's extend this outside religion. How about politics? That's pretty controversial. Should we ban kids from going to events with political speeches? Or how about history, philosophy or economics? Those are pretty controversial topics that are impossible to cover impartially. Maybe we shouldn't be teaching them in school. Banning kids from hearing anything controversial isn't just a direct violation of freedom of speech, it basically says that freedom of speech is a bad principle because children are stupid and they can't make up their own minds when they grow up. As someone who has changed my childhood beliefs multiple times, I find that kind of insulting. The Supreme Court has ruled that explicit material is the only thing that is allowed to be prohibited from children by law. Controversy doesn't make the cut.

[CaptainCfo]

I didn't say that all kids won't change. I just said a majority have a high chance of keeping that belief throughout their life

[looklistencreate]

Well that's their right. They can believe whatever they want. All you're saying is that you don't like the result (more people are part of religions you don't like), which is not a valid reason to disallow it.

[dspm90]

Of course it's the right of someone to hold a certain belief, but do you not think it's preferable that they come to that conclusion rather than be indoctrinated? I don't agree with OP but feel you're arguing something different.

[looklistencreate]

Sure, it's preferable, but rights are rights for a reason. We don't make an exception to the right to free speech every time people use it for things we don't like, assuming you don't like kids going to church like OP doesn't.

[forestfly1234]

We can always do what has always been done and have kids have a religious upbringing so they are connected to their culture and have social outlets and then let them decide when they are older. Regardless of your views on religion you idea does trample on the very important idea that people can practice their religion without interference from the state. Once we make the state involved in restricting religion than there goes separation of church and state. We can't really pick and chose. Either the government is hands off with religion or they are hands on. Your idea requires them to be hands on. Now we really can't stop creationism in public schools or school prayer.

[bluefootedpig]

You can practice your religion sure, but just because you are Christian doesn't make your child Christian. So how does your religious practice and teaching your kids link? Do Christian have to teach their kids or they end up in hell?

[CaptainCfo]

You CAN stop creationism in public schools and school prayers, as long as they are public. Public schools are run by the state, and payed for by taxes. And if you include religion in state funded things, there goes the separation.

[Leylinie]

[STA-CITE]> Public schools are run by the state, and payed for by taxes. [END-CITE]What about this: public schools should run by the federal government.

[forestfly1234]

Separation of church and state goes both ways. The state can either play in the religion sandbox or it can't. You view clearly states that the state should play in the religious sandbox. We can pass laws that restrict access to religion than we could also pass laws that would make it legal to teach creationism in schools.

[CaptainCfo]

I see your point. I now see that I am being a little too harsh and that it would be controlling religion too much. ∆ Here's a delta!

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/forestfly1234. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/forestfly1234)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][/r/DeltaBot]

[forestfly1234]

Thanks. Very nice talking to you.

[SC803]

Would you close all religious based schools and camps? How about cartoons with a religious message, books too?

[CaptainCfo]

Religious based school should never have existed in the first place. Mainly because 1. Indoctrination and 2. Controversial science topics (Evolution, Big Bang Theory, etc.) Camps are fine, because I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as they don't make them to try to change peoples beliefs. Cartoons and books can be left alone. Cartoons because they are made up, and books for historical reasons

[Hoobacious]

[STA-CITE]>As long as they don't make them to try to change peoples beliefs. [END-CITE]Where do you draw the line? I imagine you can manipulate children's beliefs not just through telling them things in absolutes. You could probably predispose a child to religious belief if you get them to take part in ceremonies akin to Churchgoing or strictly non-rational thought. Something like singing/dancing for the sun to come out in a big group, saying wishes with their eyes closed before bed or getting the kids together to listen to an authority figure tell them a moral or life lesson. These activities aren't Christian in nature but they fit the tone and lend themselves to a religious mentality. The point here is that you can't raise a child in a vacuum and give them the perfect upbringing to lead to this idea of perfect objectivity. You can't have reasonable legislation on child indoctrination because it's an extremely nebulous concept. Pretty much anything could be construed as an attempt to indoctrinate a child. I agree that forcing your beliefs on your child is bad but it's also absurd to legislate against it.

[UncleMeat]

[STA-CITE]> Controversial science topics (Evolution, Big Bang Theory, etc.) [END-CITE]Topics which are supported by the Catholic Church, which accounts for a huge number of religious schools in the US?

[SC803]

I've been to camps there were basically church 7 days a week, every activity had some connection to religion. I'm talking about cartoons that are straight up religious in nature and children's books that have biblical backing or stories and talk about Jesus. There are 5 million kids in private schools, 80% of private schools are religious in nature. Safe to assume then there is 4 million kids are in religious based schools. So how do we not flood and overcrowd the public schools with this influx of students? What do parents do with their kids during church, just sit in the car or stay at home, who watches them? And finally why does it matter? Does it have any effect on your life?

[incruente]

[STA-CITE]>Bringing children to church starting at a young age is very likely to make that person blindly follow that religion without them having much of a choice. At a young age, kids are impressionable and tend to believe whatever an adult/parent says to them. Thus, the odds of them changing their beliefs are lowered. I am not saying that they will never switch, it's just the odds of them doing so are severely lowered. [END-CITE]You could say pretty much the same things about atheism. Unless and until you can really prove the superiority of that viewpoint from a truly unbiased position, are you willing to make the same demands on not teaching children atheism as you are about religion? [STA-CITE]>I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction [END-CITE]What constitutes a religious meeting? Does a family reunion where everyone prays count? [STA-CITE]>I know that the parents could just teach them about it, but hey, if some people are going to indoctrinate their child, might as well make them use their own time to do that. [END-CITE]I think they are. I don't know a while lot of people that send their kids to church but don't go themselves.

[appropriate-username]

[STA-CITE]> You could say pretty much the same things about atheism. Unless and until you can really prove the superiority of that viewpoint from a truly unbiased position, are you willing to make the same demands on not teaching children atheism as you are about religion? [END-CITE]Agnosticism \^_^

[incruente]

I can't say I find agnosticism compelling; it teaches that nothing can be known about the existence or nature of God. A philosophy that teaches that ignorance is a fundamental fact of reality is not what I would call compelling; at least atheists take a stance and defend it.

[appropriate-username]

[STA-CITE]> A philosophy that teaches that ignorance is a fundamental fact of reality is not what I would call compelling [END-CITE]Are you implying you know everything? That is the only way I can think of where ignorance would *not* be a fundamental fact of reality.

[incruente]

Of course not. I'm stating that I do not accept that there's any field of human interest where nothing CAN be known.

[ThatBelligerentSloth]

You're going to be disappointed with academia. All fields of research (including philosophy) are fundamentally our attempt to place a mould over whatever reality actually is and say "this is the best we can do". We don't actually know what we, on shorthand, assert to be true is actually true, we don't have anything inherently true. We only have our moulds. That being said, we've gotten better, relative to ourselves, at making these moulds. In doing so we've crafted methodologies and standards of our abilities to observe and infer. Agnosticism then, very much fulfills the aspects of a "stand", such as you've defined it. This stand is that we will go to the ends of our best moulds, and so far the mould says that, while we have no reason to agree 100% a God doesn't exist, we also do not have evidence that it does. This view accounts for our conception of what it means to "know" something. So insofar as you may "know" that chair isn't going to turn into a unicorn, we can simultaneously say that we "know" a given god does not exist. We have no reason to believe either, but ones propensity to act as though one has fulfilled some other standard of evidence is symptomatic of inconsistency. Agnosticism is useful precisely because it takes all arguments into account. It's a stance on epistemology, rather than one on God.

[incruente]

It's a stance on both. And I'm not disappointed in academia; they acknowledge that some things MAY be beyond our knowledge or ability to gather it; agnosticism postulates that the existence or nonexistence of god IS beyond our knowledge or ability to gather it. Further, we have plenty of evidence that god exists; ironclad evidence, no, but evidence nonetheless. I commonly suggest the book mere christianity by C. S. Lewis.

[ThatBelligerentSloth]

[STA-CITE]>It's a stance on both. And I'm not disappointed in academia; they acknowledge that some things MAY be beyond our knowledge or ability to gather it; [END-CITE]True enough, but I meant more that the former is the highlight, rather than the latter. [STA-CITE]>agnosticism postulates that the existence or nonexistence of god IS beyond our knowledge or ability to gather it. [END-CITE]Not necessarily, or in most cases. Agnosticism argues that it is not possible at a given moment in time to know absolutely, but then we don't know anything absolutely. Moreover, that that's okay, we'll work with what we have. [STA-CITE]>Further, we have plenty of evidence that god exists; ironclad evidence, no, but evidence nonetheless. I commonly suggest the book mere christianity by C. S. Lewis. [END-CITE]This is what you'd have to demonstrate, because I haven't yet come across any supposed evidence of a God that isn't equally or more explainable by some other cause.

[incruente]

[STA-CITE]>Not necessarily, or in most cases. Agnosticism argues that it is not possible at a given moment in time to know absolutely, but then we don't know anything absolutely. Moreover, that that's okay, we'll work with what we have. [END-CITE]That's kind of a flimsy sort of agnosticism. Just saying "well, we're not ABSOLUTELY SURE" is something that I think pretty much any really honest person, religious or atheist, will admit. If that's all agnosticism means, it's a label that can be applied to pretty much anyone. [STA-CITE]>This is what you'd have to demonstrate, because I haven't yet come across any supposed evidence of a God that isn't equally or more explainable by some other cause. [END-CITE]The first tack he takes at it is simple enough; the apparent existence of a universal morality.

[ThatBelligerentSloth]

[STA-CITE]>Not necessarily, or in most cases. Agnosticism argues that it is not possible at a given moment in time to know absolutely, but then we don't know anything absolutely. Moreover, that that's okay, we'll work with what we have. >>That's kind of a flimsy sort of agnosticism. Just saying "well, we're not ABSOLUTELY SURE" is something that I think pretty much any really honest person, religious or atheist, will admit. If that's all agnosticism means, it's a label that can be applied to pretty much anyone. [END-CITE]well yes, essentially, why is flimsy a bad thing? but on the question of god it can also be applied to the standards of evidence argument presented earlier. That is, there is insufficient evidence to significantly attribute "god" more reason for existence than anything else. That's why it's not insignificant to say absolute knowledge seems impossible at a given time. You can have the position while still making significant statements. [STA-CITE]>This is what you'd have to demonstrate, because I haven't yet come across any supposed evidence of a God that isn't equally or more explainable by some other cause. >>The first tack he takes at it is simple enough; the apparent existence of a universal morality. [END-CITE]Moral realism is actually a very open question in philosophy. Moreover, how would a universal morality necessarily imply the existence of a god?

[appropriate-username]

I agree and that's not what agnosticism is about. [STA-CITE]>Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and **perhaps** unknowable. [END-CITE]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Agnosticism doesn't necessarily mean taking a stance that it's impossible to know stuff about god and that we will never know anything about god(s).

[incruente]

I guess it depends what definition you use. Type "define agnostic" into google and you get >a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[appropriate-username]

If you type "define agnostic*ism*" you get the wikipedia paragraph. Merriam-webster agrees with me: [STA-CITE]>a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god [END-CITE]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic But it's really a spectrum http://reverseenginears.com/rethink/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png

[incruente]

I quite agree. But quite a few religious people, myself included, already admit that the existence of God MAY not, to a certainty, be knowable. So a label for "we MIGHT not be able to find this one thing out" seems rather useless.

[appropriate-username]

....You agree to something that you think is useless to label? I don't get it. If you agree with an idea, don't you think it deserves a label?

[bluefootedpig]

I might not know, but i need evidence to know. Just being able to imagine it isn't enough to believe it exists. Otherwise unicorns exist.

[appropriate-username]

I don't see how this means ignorance is not a fundamental fact of reality.

[Leylinie]

[STA-CITE]> i need evidence to know. [END-CITE]Then you'll never know anything. Read Hume, especially his thoughts about the [problem of induction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction)

[CaptainCfo]

I'm not saying that they should be atheist, Im saying that they should be required to make the decision 100% by themselves. By religious meeting places I mean places like churches, mosques, etc. By that, I meant if they can't bring them to church, they would have to take hours of their own free time to teach them about every single thing in their religion.

[TeslaIsAdorable]

[STA-CITE]> By religious meeting places I mean places like churches, mosques, etc. [END-CITE]I have a lot of friends who participate in "house church", where a group of friends meet to have dinner, discuss the bible, pray, sing songs, and learn. Sorta like a book club focused on different chapters of an anthology, with music and food. It's not a "church" as we in the western world would see it, but it's the original form of "church" for Christians. I think part of your problem is that there isn't going to be an arbitrary line that defines "church" and "not church". There are religious preschools, which might read picture-book bible stories and watch VeggieTales, but are generally not "church" because you can't get much theological indoctrination when the attention span of your audience is about 2 minutes. There are religious colleges, which fall along a spectrum from "Jesuits who will kick your ass you in any subject you want" to "separate sidewalks for men and women" with no "extended gazing" at the opposite sex. Obviously we're talking about adults here (in most cases), but I think we'd agree that the Jesuits are probably ok and the latter case is extremely harmful. I'd also argue that 18 is the wrong cutoff point - I grew up in a church, and very much enjoyed attending until I turned 24 or so... my parents didn't need to force me to attend. I'd probably still go, except that I hate the close-minded attitudes that are common in churches in my current location. We allow 13 year olds to choose their peer groups and extracurriculars... and honestly, banning them from going to church will just make it more appealing at that age :).

[runblue]

Atheist here. I would take my child to church. There is a huge difference between atheists raised in the church and those not raised in the church. There is a different point of view when you remember how it felt as a child to believe something because adults told you too, and experiencing vacation bible school, etc. There is a humility. Of course, I would tell them I did not believe it. But I think a variety of cultural experiences is good

[slothscantswim]

They should also be allowed to pick their culture and language. Why force those onto a child, they'll likely just blindly follow them the rest of their lives.

[incruente]

[STA-CITE]>I'm not saying that they should be atheist, Im saying that they should be required to make the decision 100% by themselves. [END-CITE]But I'm asking if we should make a similar rule about disallowing children from atheist gatherings. [STA-CITE]>By religious meeting places I mean places like churches, mosques, etc. [END-CITE]So is it the nature of the structure, i.e. it was built primarily for worship? Or is it the nature of the meeting itself, i.e. it's primarily for worship? [STA-CITE]>By that, I meant if they can't bring them to church, they would have to take hours of their own free time to teach them about every single thing in their religion. [END-CITE]Do you really think that the kinds of people that truly want to indoctrinate their children and shut them off from other viewpoints need to go into minute detail about every aspect of their religions? Do you think that forcing such people to not even expose their children to religious discussion and even moderately different ideas is going to make the children more open-minded, or less?

[CaptainCfo]

You should disallowed them from atheist gatherings too, I am not completely irrational. Perhaps i'll say it this way. A public gathering spot for a group of people to worship their deity.

[incruente]

[STA-CITE]>A public gathering spot for a group of people to worship their deity. [END-CITE]So if the church is private, would it be okay? Or religions that lack a deity? I'm sorry to keep asking so many questions, I'm just trying to get your view clear in my mind.

[CaptainCfo]

Private churches would be an exception. As long as the parents OFFERED for you to go, and that you don't have to. I don't see how a religion could lack a deity. Explain, and I will answer.

[incruente]

I mean private churches in the sense that not just anyone can walk in. Like a private club. Many religions lack a deity. Buddhism, for example, has no God. I'm not sure how to explain how they can lack a deity; God is simply incompatible with their teachings.

[CaptainCfo]

Yeah, my point still stands. I would think that it shouldn't apply to deityless religions because from my knowledge, they don't have anything to contradict modern science.

[incruente]

Well, until about two minutes ago, you were entirely ignorant of religions without deities. So I think that's a bold assumption on your part. Are you then also claiming that all religions with deities contradict science?

[CaptainCfo]

I was ignorant about religion without deities because from my knowledge, they don't teach things that already have a factual explanation. I claim that any religion that suggests a magical creation of the entirety of space conflicts science, and that those religious beliefs shouldn't be held above scientific discoveries/facts/theories.

[drunkwithblood]

Unless we are malicious, everything we teach our children our parents is stuff we *believe* to be true. What separates indoctrination from regular teaching, to you?

[bluefootedpig]

Parents know they could be wrong, religion knows it is right. Very different points of view

[CaptainCfo]

What separates it? Pretty easy answer. Evidence VS Idea. If it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true. Teaching something that isn't proven true is indoctrination

[Leylinie]

[STA-CITE]> If it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true. [END-CITE]You can argue that for 'hard' science, but what about 'soft' science like sociology or history?

[drunkwithblood]

[STA-CITE]> If it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true. [END-CITE]See, your idea is never going to work, because religious parents *do* believe it to be true (and as matter of life and death - often eternally so, and certainly sincerely!), and also feel justified in their *evidence* for it; be that faith, personal experience or what have you. So what you're really saying is that it needs to be *objectively* true, able to be independently verified. Who are you going to trust to fairly evaluate what is and what isn't objectively true, tell you what you can and cannot teach your own child?! [STA-CITE]> Teaching something that isn't proven true is indoctrination [END-CITE]Let's say I, as a secular parent, want to teach my child that we should treat all people the same, regardless of race, gender, what-have-you. Why should I have to prove that this "should" is true to anyone? If we are limited to only teaching things that are objectively, provably and *certainly* true I think the amount we could actually teach our children is massively reduced. Why should the state, or anyone else, get to make that call?

[CaptainCfo]

I am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true. [STA-CITE]>Let's say I, as a secular parent, want to teach my child that we should treat all people the same, regardless of race, gender, what-have-you. Why should I have to prove that this "should" is true to anyone? [END-CITE]Well, you don't have to because not everyone sees it that way. I think this is a trap, so I'm talking about morals, which is a different topic than religion. People have different morals with different beliefs and different ways of being grown up. There are others who believe that hating people from sexuality and religion IS OKAY BECAUSE THEIR RELIGIOUS WRITINGS SAY SO. So technically, it isn't a truth for all others.

[RovenKursk]

[STA-CITE]>I am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true. [END-CITE]Well this is ridiculous. Not many things can be known 100%. If you know anything about the history of science, it has evolved a lot over time. Things that used to be accepted as facts were disproven and improved with new theories and there is no reason to think that all current knowledge is 100% true. Science is no perfect but I'm sure you know this. Some believe that the Bible(or any other holy book) is evidence of their religion. I don't see how everyone can agree on what is true or else we wouldn't ever really need to disagree on anything would we.

[drunkwithblood]

[STA-CITE]> So technically, it isn't a truth for all others. [END-CITE]Sure, I agree. But my point is that so much of what we teach children about the world, their place in it, the way they ought to interact with the world and those others in it is *very subjective*. [STA-CITE]> I am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true. [END-CITE]Again, if we can only teach *factual* truths that doesn't leave us with much to pass on to our children, does it? [STA-CITE]> Well, you don't have to [prove that treating all people the same is something we should do] because not everyone sees it that way. [END-CITE]But hang on, if you allow for people to see moral truths differently and teach accordingly, why do you not allow people to see metaphysical "truths" differently, and teach accordingly?

[CaptainCfo]

[STA-CITE]>Again, if we can only teach factual truths that doesn't leave us with much to pass on to our children, does it [END-CITE]I see your point. But yet, I think that there is a lot that is passed down. [STA-CITE]>But hang on, if you allow for people to see moral truths differently and teach accordingly, why do you not allow people to see metaphysical "truths" differently, and teach accordingly? [END-CITE]Morals can be seen differently because everyone is different. In my mind, it's completely different from religion.

[drunkwithblood]

[STA-CITE]> Morals can be seen differently because everyone is different [END-CITE]'Faith in the supernatural can be seen differently, because not everyone's faith is identical'. Neither seem like a sound argument to me? [STA-CITE]> In my mind, it's completely different from religion. [END-CITE]OK, so let's ignore talk something like the idea of a multiverse. I can't prove or demonstrate it to be true, don't even really understand it, but for whatever reason (let's say their dog died) I might want to teach it to my child as being true. Let's say I teach them that this is just one of an infinite number of universes, and that in Universe X, Fluffy lives on. This is clear indoctrination of something unable to be proven, but why on earth should the state or anyone else be granted the power to tell me I can't teach this to my child?! If your sole problem is with churches and *institutionalised* indoctrination I think you're missing the point. I was raised and indoctrinated in Christianity from the moment I was born until I left home, despite our family being staunchly anti-church, and never attending any religious communities. Do I wish I hadn't been indoctrinated with the idea that the apocalypse was fast approaching and the world doomed? Abso-fucking-lutely. But how can you *legally* prevent parents from passing on their superstitions, magical thinking and supernatural beliefs without auditing everything they hold to "be true" and censoring on a scale that would make the Soviet Union blush? No thanks.

[Account115]

[STA-CITE]> Morals can be seen differently because everyone is different. In my mind, it's completely different from religion. [END-CITE]This in itself is a philosophical stance that you are seeking to have imposed upon society. Not all people view morality separate of religion. Seeking this policy effectively enforces a state ideology.

[IIIBlackhartIII]

Preface, Secular Humanist myself, not a huge fan of religion either, but... [STA-CITE]>And not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution. [END-CITE]Gonna stop you there- no it doesn't. First Amendment is the freedom of speech and religion. This protects the people from ***The government*** censoring them and denying them the rights to say or believe what they wish. Though freedom of thought and expression are also tenets of a free society and you can criticise other people for their beliefs, that critically ***does not*** mean that people cannot teach their children their own faith. If children were being taught faith in publicly funded schools I would agree, but parents are allowed to say whatever and teach their children whatever. Whether we like it or not, other people hold other ideologies and have different values. Such is the diverse nature of people, culture, subcultures, etc... I'm not a fan of many of the teachings of modern religion either, and I will criticise it as such in society. I think that it is very telling that most religions have to prey on the impressionable young, the desperate, and the weak minded in order to garner continued faith. That said, it is in no way against ***the Constitution*** for people to talk about what they will, teach what they will, etc... Fight with facts and truth, not lies or ignorance.

[CaptainCfo]

It violates it if you look at the whole context. What i was saying that creating laws to prevent a person from believing said religion is a violation

[IIIBlackhartIII]

[STA-CITE]>not to make them not believe [END-CITE]Sorry, that was the trouble I had, I missed the second "not" there.

[CaptainCfo]

It's cool.

[cacheflow]

Wouldn't such a law be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment?

[appropriate-username]

Well people censor videogames and restrict kids from seeing certain movies and porn. I think religion could be censored/disallowed/restricted along the same lines.

[Gailyn]

That's comparing apples to a baseball. Porn and some video games are lewd or graphic, and church is not.

[bayernownz1995]

Firstly, the right to video games or a movie is not a first amendment right. So that's a very clear difference. But also, you censor video games because they display messages that are harmful. The reason for censoring the religion would be because you don't think the children can form an opinion on the topic. The former is fine because it is there to protect the development of the child, the latter is there primarily to restrict which viewpoints a child can form.

[appropriate-username]

[STA-CITE]>But also, you censor video games because they display messages that are harmful. [END-CITE]Religious messages, for example satanic messages, can be said to be harmful.

[bayernownz1995]

Talking to people in general can be said to be harmful at times, too. You don't censor an entire form of communication because a subset of it is harmful

[appropriate-username]

Going to a church is a form of communication?

[bayernownz1995]

In a broad sense, yeah. It's a medium for hearing religious messages. I'd also include things like movies, video games and more in the category I was using 'form of communication' to define

[LiterallyBismarck]

[STA-CITE]>Religious messages [END-CITE]What is a message, if not a form of communication? Those are your words, not mine.

[looklistencreate]

Along the lines of obscenity? That's ridiculous. Religious ceremonies aren't obscenity.

[cacheflow]

The first amendment prevents the government from making any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. For many religious groups, there are important religious rites that need to be performed when a new child is born, such as baptism. By prohibiting children from entering a church, you've effectively outlawed baptism. There is really no threat of harm or indoctrination to a baby during a baptism, it's more a service for the parents. But, by banning the child, you've banned the adults the free exercise of their religion. Similarly, you'd be banning children from attending a number of important family and social gatherings, such as weddings or funerals.

[appropriate-username]

I think OP is arguing more about attending regular church meetings than special infrequent gatherings like baptism or funerals.

[cacheflow]

I'm not so sure. The OP clearly stated. [STA-CITE]> I believe that any church or religious meeting areas should have an age restriction [END-CITE]Weddings and funerals regularly occur in church or religious meeting areas. They may contain readings from religious texts, prayers, blessings, sermons, and all the things you'd regularly find in a church service. Why allow one and not the other?

[TeslaIsAdorable]

Not to mention if there's an exception to allow kids, etc. into weddings and funerals, they'll just get that much more obnoxious with the evangelizing during those events. I grew up in church, and it doesn't bother me, but weddings and funerals are a shit time to try to win converts.

[Zdrastvutye]

Or in the case of Europeans, the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 9).

[RovenKursk]

Not everyone is from the USA.

[cacheflow]

Of course not everyone is from the US, but the original argument specifically mentioned the Constitution as a possible concern, specifically [STA-CITE]> And not to make them not believe in religion, that violates the constitution [END-CITE]

[Ballllll]

You realize other countries have constitutions right...?

[RovenKursk]

Again, not everyone is from the USA. Plenty of countries have a constitution and each one is different. I don't see where OP mentions that he's specifically talking about the American constitution.

[Zeigzalar]

Don't be obtuse - with very few exceptions (like in a specific country's subreddit, for instance) if any OP on reddit says, "the constitution" without specifying what country they're talking about, then they're talking about the American Constitution.

[KuulGryphun]

CMV: Bringing your kids to school is indoctrination and they shouldn't be allowed in any school until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves. The problem is everything depends on point of view. If a parent genuinely believe something is true, why shouldn't they be allowed to tell their kids about it? Why shouldn't they be allowed to bring them to an expert who can talk about it?

[Leylinie]

[STA-CITE]> Bringing your kids to school is indoctrination and they shouldn't be allowed in any school until they reach an age where they can decide for themselves. [END-CITE]False analogy: education = state / official, religion = private.

[KuulGryphun]

That's why it's an analogy and not a statement of equivalence. If I replace "school" with "private school", is it now an acceptable analogy to you because a private school isn't run by the state?

[bluefootedpig]

Schools operate off an ever changing knowledge, teaching what facts we know. Religion cannot change and rejects evidence that shows the religion as wrong. Science wants to be wrong. I find the comparison not even close. Maybe if we taught kids that they should die serving their country, yeah that is indoctrination, but my school taught to distrust government and question it.

[KuulGryphun]

Religions change with the times too. Remember when the Pope declared the theory of evolution was true? Also, the way science is taught in schools is not "remember kids, everything we teach you might be wrong". In almost all cases, teachers are teaching what they think are immutable facts about the world. If the science book says a 1s orbital can hold 2 electrons, then that is how the world is.

[CaptainCfo]

Well, i'm not saying they can't talk about it. My point was that there are plenty of parents who force their kids at a young age to follow their religion and are punished when they don't. <-- This is what I dont like.

[KuulGryphun]

Ok? What do you propose to do about it? I don't like it either, but I acknowledge that freedom of speech requires that we allow parents to tell their children things they think are true.

[CaptainCfo]

There's a difference between forcing their religion, and telling their religion. Forcing it, in my eyes, is forcing their child to go to church and live, breath, eat the ways of their religion, which I am against.

[anonoman925]

If you saw something as an imperative - as important as getting your kid out of oncoming traffic - would you use force?

[KuulGryphun]

I still don't understand what you propose to do about it.

[RovenKursk]

that's not the point of this subreddit. You're supposed to change his view, not ask him to save the world.

[KuulGryphun]

I am hoping he can explain how his view is practical. If my view is "everyone should get infinite free chocolate", are you going to try to convince me why people shouldn't get infinite free chocolate, or are you just going to tell me it isn't practical?

[RovenKursk]

[STA-CITE]>everyone should get infinite free chocolate [END-CITE]This view is completely ridiculous and you know it. You should focus on telling OP either why his view is wrong or what a better view could be in order for him to change his view. It doesn't really matter if OP's view is impractical as all he's saying is that the way he would like it to be would be better. We know his view won't become a reality any time soon, but that doesn't mean his view is inherently bad or worse than what we have now. I could say that "peace is superior than violence, CMV". I'm sure most people could agree with this view even though it is impractical.

[slothscantswim]

So the Amish can't have children? Or they have to raise them to your standards until they are of "choosing age?"

[cdb03b]

One of the primary roles of religion is to teach and reinforce the ethics and morals of a society. If you do not allow parents to teach their children these things until they are older then you will have a massive issue with children not being exposed to any ethics or moral codes. Even secular Europe's moral and ethical codes are based on Judeo-Christian morality.

[redditoverki11]

religion is entirely different from morality

[cdb03b]

No, it is not. The primary function of all religions is to teach morality. And as I said, even in the much more secular world of today most of the morals are based in religious tenets.

[NiffyLooPudding]

All basic moral tenets predate religion by thousands of years and that's just in written form.

[cdb03b]

Religion predates written word, so it is not possible for this claim to be accurate. Religion is the tool by which morals and ethics are taught and reinforced in a society and this is more true for societies that have no written word. Now if you are talking about Christianity or any of the specific modern religions you are correct, but they are not the first religions. Every historical code of ethics that we have found in written form, all the way back to Hammurabi's code which is the earliest record of a code of ethics that we have, indicates that it is based on the religious tenets of the society it was written for.

[NiffyLooPudding]

That's only true in religious societies, not secular societies. You still have the issue of where the religious tenets come from. And how liberal you are with the term religious.

[cdb03b]

There are no purely secular societies. Even the modern mostly secular societies grew out of religious ones and is heavily influenced by those religions.

[NiffyLooPudding]

I sense infinite regression here.

[keegan112099]

What punishments? If I have a child they're going where I want them whether they like it or not. Religion aside if I want to go shopping but my kid does not I'm not going to hire a babysitter and leave them at home. No. I'm going to tell them to suck it up and take them shopping if they start being bratty because of it I'm going to punish them how I see fit.

[caw81]

[STA-CITE]> Well, i'm not saying they can't talk about it. [END-CITE]Isn't that just cruel to the children? "Son, if you want to avoid pain and suffering for all eternity, you have to do go to church. Too bad you can't go to church and are just one step away from hell."

[CaptainCfo]

Which is indoctrination. Using scare tactics to make a child believe in your religion is what I am against.

[BreaksFull]

If you break the law you'll go to jail and be punished. Isn't that also scare tactics?

[caw81]

But its what parents honestly believe. So they should lie to their children because of your rule would be cruel to them? That sounds like a problem with your rule.

[CaptainCfo]

You shouldn't be able to force things that you BELIEVE are true. Only things that are FACTUALLY true

[slothscantswim]

Prove any fact, I can wait.

[KrustyFrank27]

So I can't tell them about the Three Little Pigs or Goldilocks either? Just factual events.

[SoMuchMoreEagle]

Don't get me started on Santa.

[caw81]

[STA-CITE]> You shouldn't be able to force things that you BELIEVE are true. [END-CITE]Telling a child something isn't forcing things on them. I tell them "The sky is blue" or "This song is nice" - is that forcing it on them? [STA-CITE]> Only things that are FACTUALLY true [END-CITE]People believe that religion is factually true. This is the problem with your rule of not allowing children to go to church, its forces your opinion on others.

[theviridiansky]

Just gonna cut in here- people don't believe their religion is *factually* true, they believe that their religion *doesn't need* facts to be true. There's a difference.

[warsage]

Well... I guess this depends on the religion. Tons of people have had experiences that, to them, are factual evidence that the religion is true. This ranges from miracle healings to strong emotions attributed to the Holy Ghost. They aren't *scientifically verifiable,* but most facts aren't. For example, science can't verify that I had cheerios for breakfast this morning.

[theviridiansky]

Sure science can. If we investigate the contents of your stomach and measure the level of decomposition, it would be a valid theory to say that you had cheerios for breakfast. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Facts aren't subjective. People can believe in their religion through faith, that's fine, but religion isn't factual unless it can objectively be proven.

[UncleMeat]

"Its important to be nice to grandma, even when its boring to be around her." "You shouldn't judge people for having less money than we do." "You should always try your best in school because an education is the best way to have a leisurely life." "You should never hit somebody even when you are mad at them." Are these off limits?

[pudgypenguin22]

Parents force their children to go to school and scold/punish their children when they don't.

[PikklzForPeepl]

Would you punish/scold your kids for lying? Stealing? Calling people names? Cheating on a test? Isn't that indoctrination? Shouldn't you allow them to do that until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

[CaptainCfo]

Those are behavioral topics, and is completely un related to teaching of a ideology.

[PikklzForPeepl]

Are you saying people shouldn't teach ideologies to their children? How do you define ideology?

[CaptainCfo]

Yeah, they shouldn't. It should always be 100% up to the children. By once they can decide for themselves, they can delve into the many religions and see which one they believe the most

[GTA_Stuff]

What is the age by which kids can "decide for themselves? Would you teach your kids that there isn't a God before this age limit?

[PikklzForPeepl]

> How do you define ideology?

[CaptainCfo]

A system of ideas. It could vary between a bunch of topics, but I am talking about ideas of religion

[TeslaIsAdorable]

The scientific method is a system of ideas. It relies on inductive logic, to be sure, but you still have to start out with the idea of experimentation as a form of empirical support. Science as we know it is a product of the ideas of the 1500s-1700s (ish), and is very much a "system of ideas". What makes the scientific method different from religion?

[qezler]

Don't all parents teach a "system of ideas" to their children? If your parents have ever spoken politics around you, they were discussing a system of ideas, and by a certain logic, practicing indoctrination. Most people have a strong set of beliefs; yours appearing to be atheism. If you think something to definitely true, don't they have the right to tell their kids about it? What right does someone else have to tell you you can't? That they don't personally believe in it? It would be like if the president passed a law saying that you can't teach your kids about geology, simply because the president doesn't personally believe in geology. Plenty of parents that encourage their kids to be open-minded, skeptical, and seeking the truth, while still exposing their kids to their own beliefs. My parents took me to church and somehow managed to not brainwash me with extremist indoctrination. Taking your kid to church could just be saying, "Hey, this is what we believe in; you can choose whether you accept it yourself. We're showing you our religion because it was important for us personally." It would be ignorant to impose a sort of age limit on religious rights.

[prisonstrength]

Morality is a system of ideas. Should we not teach kids to be moral? If they're taught a strictly atheist moral system, that's still an ideology.

[PikklzForPeepl]

I think it would be impossible to define which organizations count as a religion. Would a philosophy club? The main issue, really, is that people who believe in a religion believe in it as objective truth. So if we say to them "You can't teach your kids Objective Truth A in an organized setting," that would be as preposterous to them as someone telling you "You can't teach your kids science," or ethics, or math, or whatever thing you think of as objectively real.