Listening to Mark Steele (comedy show on BBC Radio 4) the idea of an age of consent for religion came up. In support was the argument that organised religions are allowed to claim, amongst their membership, individuals who are not considered adult within society. Why should a religion be allowed to include new born babies amongst the membership when that implies some element of personal choice? Once you are baptised then you have no way to 'opt out' of the membership statistics - I know because I have tried.
Thoughts?
I agree that the religions should only be allowed to recruit people at a certain age. As to why a religion is allowed to recruit newborn babies, well I guess it has become embedded in the culture it spawns- i.e. christian parents are always going to baptize their babies the moment they are born, give them confirmation by the age of 10 or so, and so on... following the 7 sacraments as they go through life.
Of course it's a given that atheists have something to say about newborn recruitment, but I think it would be more interesting to view it from the church's perception- say a priest. Does he ever think for a second that baptizing a child is willfully ignoring and taking advantage of the child's inability to think for itself? If that priest at least acknowledges the different paths and religions a growing child can take, then there's a possibility. But as it is, the church and its members are too consumed by their own religion they wouldn't even blink. To them, there is only ONE path. ONE way. Period.
but.... . . . I think I expressed my opinion in another topic though that Christians have evolved through the years. They've become more worldly and "lax". So I think that would be interesting to see how that affects the christian culture in its entirety.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Listening to Mark Steele (comedy show on BBC Radio 4) the idea of an age of consent for religion came up. In support was the argument that organised religions are allowed to claim, amongst their membership, individuals who are not considered adult within society. Why should a religion be allowed to include new born babies amongst the membership when that implies some element of personal choice? Once you are baptised then you have no way to 'opt out' of the membership statistics - I know because I have tried.
Thoughts? |
I would argue it the other way round. That once children have arrived at the age of majority, that they get to decide whether they want to continue as a member of the church or not. Depending on the religion, I doubt that the baby has a choice in the matter. From a religious point of view, the parents would automatically wish their baby to be christened as soon as possible. It goes with the territory. Whether right or wrong from the outside in, it would appear that children have no choice in the matter until they grow up and start thinking for themselves. But once they have reached the age of majority, it should be a consitutional right of sorts that they can make their own choices. If they want their record expunged from the church that they had been a member off, that should be their right, as they never really formally consented to being a member in the first place.
In addition, if you are no longer a church going member and do not want to be part of it, there should be a rule that you can "resign" your membership if you wish to do that. With the right to ask that any personal information be removed from the records. Whether that is practically doable is another matter however.I don't see how that is just/fair.
Would we be content to let other organisations count children in this way? Would it be right to including children in the membership of the Labour or Tory party? Does it even make sense?
Obviously there are some organisations which are set up for children - so we could validly include children in the number of scouts, or girl guides, for example, but I find the notion of a 'Christian' or 'Muslim' baby both absurd and manipulative.
I think that on many of the life aspects the parents can "speak for the child" before his/her majority age. So I think this case fall into that category. The parents want for instance their baby to be christian (the reason being that he will be baptised in case of premature death and they may think that somehow this enhance his status). A bit like the parents will enrol their children in certain activities even if the child is not really willing to participate.
After the issue of counting the members is something else. Christian church count the baptised people but that is of course cheating (cheating is a sin isn't it?) And that is I think not related to age. You can change your opinion at any age and there is no way I know to be "unbaptised".
In my opinion you can count members only if people can "unsuscribe". For instance in some religions you have to pay a fee to belong to the "church community". In that case you could count people paying like you would do for any other activity.
Its actually a good idea,though i can't see it ever being made into law. I was christened,so i am officially part of the church of England,had there been an age of consent,that would not be the case as i would never have chosen to be christened. Its probably how most organized religions are able to claim so many members,take away those who although baptised,but who have no interest in the religion they were baptised into,then i wonder what the true (active) members numbers would be.
Well, as I said earlier, you certainly cannot be 'unbaptised'. I was baptised into the Catholic religion as a baby and I wanted to officially undo my membership of that church. I was informed that there is no such mechanism - the best they offer is a note attached to the baptismal records that say I have 'lapsed' from the faith. My name is still in the Diocesan records and my 'membership' is still counted.
I considered legal action under the provisions of the Data Protection Act but it could get expensive and I wasn't able to get the support of the Data Protection Registrar in bringing the case.
I agree that parents have certain rights with regard to representing their children - this is well established in law. What I do not agree with is that this should extend to religion. Surely religion is about a 'relationship' with God freely entered into. How can a baby have or enter such a relationship freely? You wouldn't let the parents of a baby sign it up for a 25 year mortgage would you? So why is it OK for them to sign the same baby up to a particular religious faith, and to use proxies to represent that child - the God Parents? I find the notion both bizarre and troubling. After all, if you pull out of the mortgage then the worst that will happen is that you will be declared bankrupt. Even if you could 'pull' out of the religion, the price is eternal damnation in most cases. Hardly a contract that a child or baby should be entered into....
As a teacher I am well aware of the potential problems with exposing young children to propagandist material - it is something we are very careful about in schools, yet we seem happy to let the churches do it.
Again, one of the follies of the Catholic church...
In this regard, I prefer the ones that baptize a child only after that child accepts the faith.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Again, one of the follies of the Catholic church...
In this regard, I prefer the ones that baptize a child only after that child accepts the faith. |
Which is surely an age of consent - as per my original point? | Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | Again, one of the follies of the Catholic church...
In this regard, I prefer the ones that baptize a child only after that child accepts the faith. |
Which is surely an age of consent - as per my original point? |
Quite so...
This may shock you, but I actually agree with you on this one.Well... Someone like Dawkins would sure agree that there should be an age of consent - he did devote an entire section of The God Delusion to how one should shudder when hearing a phrase like "Catholic child."
I, on the other hand, do not think there should be an age of consent for religion. Indoctrinating a child is certainly wrong, but it doesn't go for just religion. Telling your child that blacks are inferior to whites, women belong in the kitchen, etc. is also certainly wrong yet is there an age of consent for racism, sexism, etc.?
Parents should be able to raise their children with their ideas BUT society has a responsibility to every child to insure that they receive a compulsory secular (I do not think private schools or homeschooling should be allowed) and non-bigoted eduction. Society can then provide other viewpoints and (if it's a functioning system) the child will see the error of their parents ways and make the right decisions. This puts a lot of pressure on the society. Society must provide that secular, non-bigoted, non-biased education for the child (this is why I think private schools and homeschooling should be banned. Society has to ensure, through their schools, that this education is being provided).
I do believe that signing your child up for a religion is morally wrong, but I do not think it should be banned. However, there should be data protection to where any data that a church has must be destroyed if requested by the person who it applies to. There is no reason for there to be any unfortunate situation like Bikerman's situation.
Think about the following question: Is it wrong to put your really young child in a baseball league, indoctrinating him/her into the game of baseball, and then forcing him as a child to play every single season every year?
I don't know how this would be in the rest of the world, but in the United States a law like the one you are speaking of is unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights "expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion."
You argue this because whatever religion you were born into still counts you as a member even though you have publicly denied the religion. Correct? I think that is wrong. In the U.S. children don't have specific rights, but once they reach the age of majority, I think they should be able to choose for themselves and should be able to erase their name from whatever list their Church has.
I don't know much about what information they keep when you get baptized. I've never been baptized, and I don't know what denominations keeps record of that, or what they keep.
If my religion said I could abuse my child, would it be okay because of that amendment? I suppose this is a controversial question, because many don't believe imposing religion on a child is a form of abuse, while I think it is.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Think about the following question: Is it wrong to put your really young child in a baseball league, indoctrinating him/her into the game of baseball, and then forcing him as a child to play every single season every year? |
If I'm of the opinion (I'm not) that making a child take part in organized sports has a negative impact on their development and life in general, yes. I don't think such a case could be made for organized sports; I do think such a case could be made for religion. | liljp617 wrote: |
| If my religion said I could abuse my child, would it be okay because of that amendment? |
I'm not saying that it is okay just because of an amendment. Laws can be made to protect people and their information once they become adults, but for there to be an age of consent for religion in the United States...then, well, law makers will have to be very innovative in lawmaking. However, many people are conservative, and they will tell their representatives in Congress to oppose a law that would establish an age of consent for religion. Although, I am sure there are liberals who may oppose such a law as well, despite generally being secular. | liljp617 wrote: |
| If my religion said I could abuse my child, would it be okay because of that amendment? I suppose this is a controversial question, because many don't believe imposing religion on a child is a form of abuse, while I think it is. |
Of course it wouldn't be okay. Many things that religions endorse are not okay, and we have laws against them. Some religions endorse killing yet we have laws against killing. If the religion wants to survive, it has to adapt to follow the laws of society. You may think that imposing a religion is child abuse (while I think it's just wrong) yet raising your child to follow a particular religion is well within the law and, like I said, it is up to society to make sure that the child gets an honest and good education so that the child can make their own decisions. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Once you are baptised then you have no way to 'opt out' of the membership statistics - I know because I have tried. |
You may have failed, I haven't. One form was enough. Why do you think your personal experience is universally valid?
Also, "age of consent for religion" is something else than "age of consent for baptism". So are we actually talking about something or just rambling on about the religious bogeys? The churches that baptize adults (such as Pentecostal) are generally more zealous about teaching children their faith than, say, Catholics. I'm glad to hear ocalhoun and Bikerman prefer Todd Bentley to the pope.
liljp617 seems to think his opinion about the negative impact of religion should be imposed on all parents. But baseball is officially approved folks. | Arnie wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Once you are baptised then you have no way to 'opt out' of the membership statistics - I know because I have tried. |
You may have failed, I haven't. One form was enough. Why do you think your personal experience is universally valid? |
I don't. My experience is general for all Catholics. I did not generalise it to other Christian denominations - though there is certainly some crossover. The only exception I know of is a Spanish chap who managed to persuade the Information Commissioner to support his case through the courts. Even then his records were not removed completely...
http://www.secularism.org.uk/nssmemberchallengescofeondebapti.html
You say you have succeeded via a single form. Has that meant your records have been removed from the Diocese register? - I bet not. You don't say what denomination you belong(ed) to either...
| Quote: |
| Also, "age of consent for religion" is something else than "age of consent for baptism". So are we actually talking about something or just rambling on about the religious bogeys? The churches that baptize adults (such as Pentecostal) are generally more zealous about teaching children their faith than, say, Catholics. I'm glad to hear ocalhoun and Bikerman prefer Todd Bentley to the pope. |
I am talking about an age of consent for formal entry into a church. If that formal entry includes a baptismal ceremony then, yes, that would be included.
As for what parents teach their children - personally I would wish that they didn't, but I am not arrogant enough to wish my views imposed on parents and I would have nothing to do with trying to dictate to them what they should and should not teach their children. I am talking about formal organisations, recognised by the state, that derive much of their authority (moral, legal and economic) from misleading figures about their membership. We (as a society) would not put up with this behaviour from other organisations, and neither should we put up with it from organised religions.Exactly Bikerman - the problem lies in extrapolating one's experience to all denominations. I'm glad you figured that out. But have you found out yet that you don't mention Catholicism until your third post here, and even there you say: | Quote: |
| Well, as I said earlier, you certainly cannot be 'unbaptised'. I was baptised into the Catholic religion as a baby |
This still states that in all cases it's impossible, and your particular case was Catholic.
Last edited by Arnie on Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total | Arnie wrote: |
| Exactly Bikerman - the problem lies in extrapolating one's experience to all denominations. I'm glad you figured that out. |
Instead of attempting to patronise me why don't you substantiate your claim? What denomination were you baptised into, and did your 'form' have the baptismal records at the Diocese deleted - or did it simply add a note?I'm surprised you think there is a Diocese in all denominations. It's a Catholic / Anglican / Episcopal thing.
So why not answer the question?
Let me illustrate why it matters.
Here are the Catholic 'statistics' for the UK, showing membership by Diocese.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/scgb1.html
I was born into the Liverpool diocese and therefore I count as one of the 506,319 Catholics. I have no way to remove myself from that statistic, therefore the myth is perpetrated that Liverpool is 46.03% Catholic. This myth enters the general perception and is used in making decisions about public finance, grants, provision of social services and so on.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:36 pm; edited 1 time in total It was a mainstream Dutch protestant church, but your enquiry to my personal details is totally irrelevant. If you're claiming that it's impossible in all denominations, it's your job to prove so.
I know why it matters and I know you're upset about it, but that's no reason to present false or misleading information. You're discrediting certain churches for something they didn't do - which harms the credibility of your argument, leads to confusion and distracts attention to other things that these churches can rightfully be accused of.
| Arnie wrote: |
| It was a mainstream Dutch protestant church, but your enquiry to my personal details is totally irrelevant. If you're claiming that it's impossible in all denominations, it's your job to prove so. |
Nope - you don't seem to understand how it works.
I have made a claim (call it a hypothesis) that church membership statistics are distorted by the fact that nobody can officially 'withdraw' from the baptismal record. I have cited Catholic dogma on this and the same applies to other mainstream Christian denominations in the UK (C of E, Methodist and so on).
You say that in your case this is untrue. I ask you to demonstrate this. It may well be the case that my generalisation is too wide and that some Christian denominations do allow an adjustment of the baptismal figures by later request. I have seen no evidence for this and you have provided none. As far as I can tell the generalisation holds for Christian denominations. If you say otherwise then produce some evidence.
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:44 pm; edited 1 time in totalActually, you made a claim that it is impossible to be removed from the statistics once you are baptized. No denomination was mentioned until your third post, which only mentioned it as a detail of your particular example and still not as a restriction on the applicability of your statement.
What I actually did was pointing out the lack of your evidence, since it only applies to Catholicism while your claims go way beyond that. I have no obligation and no intention of supplying any counter evidence since your lack of evidence is sufficient. Not to mention the absurdity of your generalized claim.
If you were to claim that the statistics of the Catholic church were skewed, that would be fine. In fact the statistics of the Dutch protestant churches are also skewed since not everyone takes the effort to remove themselves. But that's not what you said.
Last edited by Arnie on Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Arnie wrote: |
| Actually, you made a claim that it is impossible to be removed from the statistics once you are baptized. No denomination was mentioned until your third post, which only mentioned it as a detail of your particular example and still not as a restriction on the applicability of your statement. |
Yes - I thought I had accepted that (or if not then let me make it explicit NOW that I have).
I have narrowed the generalisation to Christian denominations (though I thought that was implicit from the use of the word baptism - clearly I should have specified that some non-Christian religions use a baptismal ceremony).
I still await your evidence that this generalisation is incorrect. It doesn't only apply to Catholicism, as I said earlier. It applies, as far as I know, to all Christian denominations. My error, therefore, was in not saying that it doesn't (necessarily) apply to Judaism and other religions that make use of a baptismal ceremony.
Now, you seem to be claiming that you no longer appear on the baptismal records of the Dutch Reformed Church. This would make my generalisation wrong. I do not believe that claim and would like to see some evidence. If you can produce the evidence (surely something in the form you completed would have said what would happen?) then I will be happy to change my position and exempt your particular denomination from my generalisation. I am happy to accept your word that this happened - I'm not demanding a copy of the actual baptismal register.
Until then, I stick to my previous 'generalisation' - it (the fact that you cannot have your baptismal record deleted) applies to everyone baptised in a Christian denomination.
Prove me wrong - I'd welcome it.
As far as I know, all Christian denominations have stuck to the legal argument formulated by the Catholic legal team - that a baptism is a matter of history and that you cannot therefore delete a record of baptism, since it is a historical document.
That argument - which is superficially compelling - has not been properly tested in court, which is why I have severe doubts that YOUR baptismal record has been deleted. What normally happens is that a note is attached to the baptismal register saying something to the effect that 'so and so is officially recorded as 'lapsed' from the faith on such and such a date'.
Now, you could argue that this is sufficient - I argue otherwise. The 'historical fact' argument does not apply to documentation in other coercive actions. If I force someone to marry me and it later comes to light that this happened, then the 'wife' can have the marriage certificate destroyed, along with the civil record of marriage. The fact is that the marriage never happened because a marriage requires consent and the record of marriage is really a fiction, not a historical document. I think the same applies to baptism. The church is currently allowed to maintain the fiction that a non-consensual baptism is a historical event, and that their record of that event is therefore a historical document and should be protected as such. I demur from this, since I maintain that the 'act' was legally fictitious and that the record is no more a historical account than any other piece of fiction.
Finally, it is certainly true that not all official statistics use baptismal records as 'evidence' of membership - some use census or other data sets (which have problems of their own).
It is certainly true, however, that many of the statistics that permeate the public awareness are entirely, or partly, based on these baptismal records.
Now, since, to date, your only contribution has been to say that I have incorrectly generalised about Christian denominations, I think you should provide the evidence for that statement. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | Again, one of the follies of the Catholic church...
In this regard, I prefer the ones that baptize a child only after that child accepts the faith. |
Which is surely an age of consent - as per my original point? |
Quite so...
This may shock you, but I actually agree with you on this one. |
Nope it doesn't shock me, based on what I know of you from other postings. We may disagree on many things (and we do) but I don't think I've ever accused you of being 'invincibly ignorant', unwilling to acknowledge facts, immune to logical argument, or any of the other descriptions I might use for people I have little regard for....Great idea! How about an age of consent for public schooling too. Kids at 4 and 5 will just blindly accept anything a teacher (or any adult) tells them. I think kids shouldn't have to go to school until they're maybe 13 or 14, when they've begun to realize that adults don't know everything. Then they can enter the educational process with a critical mind.
| Libby wrote: |
| Great idea! How about an age of consent for public schooling too. Kids at 4 and 5 will just blindly accept anything a teacher (or any adult) tells them. I think kids shouldn't have to go to school until they're maybe 13 or 14, when they've begun to realize that adults don't know everything. Then they can enter the educational process with a critical mind. |
No - I don't want to go down this route. You are widening my case too much. I am not saying that children should have the right to opt out of religious education (even though I might like that) - I do not want to phrase this debate in terms of individual rights - that is a different debate and will distract from the point at hand.
The point here is - do the churches have the 'right' to count non-consenting people as part of their membership? Even if they do, then should there be a mechanism for the official 'membership' records to be altered later if that person decides that they don't want to be a member, and perhaps NEVER wanted to be a member? Is it valid for the church to say that they WERE members until they 'opted out'? | Arnie wrote: |
| liljp617 seems to think his opinion about the negative impact of religion should be imposed on all parents. But baseball is officially approved folks. |
It's called taking a stance, having a view on an issue. I think imposing religion (to the degree it is often done in many regions of the US) on a 3 year old is a form of abuse, thus I take the stance that it shouldn't be accepted or allowed, legally or socially.
I was not talking about baseball, I was talking about the concept of organized sports. I don't know what, in organized sports, would constitute a form of abuse. I suppose a ridiculous parent yelling at and demeaning their child for messing up or not being very good would constitute. And at that point, I would say it is wrong for the child to be put in that situation. If the majority of cases in organized sports were like this, I would say it's wrong to force a child to play. In my experiences, most cases are not like this, very few are. Thus, I take the stance that organized sports rarely have a negative impact on a child's development and life in general...along with the obvious positive benefits they provide.
And with that I will finish:
1) The thread isn't really about this, it's about whether or not churches should be able to count individuals who wish to opt out of their statistics. I shouldn't have furthered the off topic discussion.
2) No personal offense meant, but I have little desire to have a discussion about much of anything with youIs baptism an irreversible act ?
or can one be unbaptised
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Is baptism an irreversible act ?
or can one be unbaptised |
Well... That is sort of what is being discussed here. There is no mechanism that I know of in the church to "unbaptize" someone... I've been baptized and I must live with the fact that I was dumped in the water and pulled back out by a pastor... There is no official way to renounce your faith in a church and say, "I don't want my baptism to count anymore; forget that it ever happened." And to be realistic, why would the church have something like that? It would go completely against their beliefs.
But the real issue here (and this is what I think is Bikerman's biggest issue against the church), is that some churches (the Catholic church apparently) keeps track of the people they baptize. They then keep baptismal records and count those people in those numbers. They then refuse to destroy your records if you request for them to be removed; so now you'll go down forever as having once (most likely against your consent) have been part of an organization that you may despise. I agree that that is wrong. While, for reasons I stated in my previous post, do not think that an age of consent for religion is necessary but that it is wrong for the Catholic church to include you in their records when it's against your will... You should have the legal right to opt out and have your records destroyed. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| You should have the legal right to opt out and have your records destroyed. |
Why should you have to legally opt out of things you never legally opted into?
Why can't i create a neo-Nazi organization and just claim an infant as a supporter if the parents support it... and then for the rest of that person's life, display their name on the list of neo-Nazi supporters? And refuse to take their name off that list, even if they ask? i could apparently get away with that if i created a religion. | Indi wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | You should have the legal right to opt out and have your records destroyed. |
Why should you have to legally opt out of things you never legally opted into?
Why can't i create ...? And refuse to take their name off that list, even if they ask? |
You shouldn't be able to.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| You should have the legal right to opt out and have your records destroyed. |
Of course some governments love religion and hate Nazism, so you'd probably get your name off the list fairly quickly with a costly lawsuit... | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | You should have the legal right to opt out and have your records destroyed. |
Why should you have to legally opt out of things you never legally opted into?
Why can't i create ...? And refuse to take their name off that list, even if they ask? |
You shouldn't be able to. |
But should you be able to put their name on the list to start with?
What 'right' do you have to do so? You are assuming the 'right' to speak for another person - in that you contend that they are members of your group with all the 'beliefs and practices' that this entails.
Do you really suggest that any organisation has that right, with respect to minors? If not then why is religion special in this regard? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | You should have the legal right to opt out and have your records destroyed. |
Why should you have to legally opt out of things you never legally opted into?
Why can't i create ...? And refuse to take their name off that list, even if they ask? |
You shouldn't be able to. |
But should you be able to put their name on the list to start with?
What 'right' do you have to do so? You are assuming the 'right' to speak for another person - in that you contend that they are members of your group with all the 'beliefs and practices' that this entails.
Do you really suggest that any organisation has that right, with respect to minors? If not then why is religion special in this regard? |
Of course religion should not have any special privileges. But parents should be able to place their children in an organization as long as the child can eventually opt out and have their records destroyed.
The key to this issue, in my opinion, is society. Society has a responsibility to all children to make sure that they're educated in a secular and non-bigoted environment (I do not think homeschooling or public schooling should be allowed). For more information on this, read my first post in this topic where I explain in detail the conditions that society must meet in order for parents to be able to sign their children up for a religion (or other organization).
A similar situation was me as a child. My parents placed me in boy scouts when I was a little kid. That organization, Boy Scouts of America, has my information because I earned Eagle Scout (and they keep a record of all Eagle Scouts). So my information is in their organization all because my parents placed me in the organization as a young kid (although I do not regret it; I enjoyed it as a kid). How is that any different from being placed in a church as a young kid and them having records of you? I do not see any difference yet most people wouldn't have a problem with putting their son in Boy Scouts.
Although, the Boy Scouts of America would probably be more cooperative if I wanted my records destroyed (which would probably be the right thing to do because the BSA forbids atheism), although I have no intentions of doing that... I really do not have anything against the program. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Of course religion should not have any special privileges. But parents should be able to place their children in an organization as long as the child can eventually opt out and have their records destroyed. |
So, stick with the example - you think parents have the right to enrol their kids in a neo-nazi group?
| Quote: |
| The key to this issue, in my opinion, is society. Society has a responsibility to all children to make sure that they're educated in a secular and non-bigoted environment (I do not think homeschooling or public schooling should be allowed). For more information on this, read my first post in this topic where I explain in detail the conditions that society must meet in order for parents to be able to sign their children up for a religion (or other organization). |
But you can't easily frame legislation in those terms. I am advocating specific legislation to require religions to only include as members those who have given informed consent.
| Quote: |
| A similar situation was me as a child. My parents placed me in boy scouts when I was a little kid. That organization, Boy Scouts of America, has my information because I earned Eagle Scout (and they keep a record of all Eagle Scouts). So my information is in their organization all because my parents placed me in the organization as a young kid (although I do not regret it; I enjoyed it as a kid). How is that any different from being placed in a church as a young kid and them having records of you? I do not see any difference yet most people wouldn't have a problem with putting their son in Boy Scouts. |
There are several differences.
a) If you had expressed a wish to leave to the Scout Leader then, from what I know of UK Scouts, your wish would have over-ridden that of your parents. My understanding is that the scouts would not wish to have an unwilling member - even if the parents wanted it.
b) The Scouts are an organisation set-up specifically for young people and designed with that in mind. They do not teach or practice anything which is exclusive of other groups - much less condemnatory of them. | Bikerman wrote: |
| So, stick with the example - you think parents have the right to enrol their kids in a neo-nazi group? |
Again, yes. Do I think it's right? Hell no! Should society have the responsibility to make sure that child receives a compulsory non-bigoted/non-biased religion so that, if the educational system is done right, they see the errors of their parents way and opt out of the group later? Hell yes. Should there be data protection legislation requiring the neo-nazi group to remove any data regarding the individual? Yes. This is also the extreme example and I do not see it happening often.
| Quote: |
| The key to this issue, in my opinion, is society. Society has a responsibility to all children to make sure that they're educated in a secular and non-bigoted environment (I do not think homeschooling or public schooling should be allowed). For more information on this, read my first post in this topic where I explain in detail the conditions that society must meet in order for parents to be able to sign their children up for a religion (or other organization). |
But you can't easily frame legislation in those terms. I am advocating specific legislation to require religions to only include as members those who have given informed consent.[/quote]
What do you mean "frame legislation in those terms?" All the legislation would have to say is that anyone can opt out of a group that they were put in without consent. That's all. Is that so hard to frame legislation in those terms? There has to be a way to simply have a data protection act that protects your name from being in the records of organizations that you have. The rest is simply done without words. If you were placed in a religion without your consent, then when you're older you'll probably end up in one of these three cases:
1) You grow to endorse the religion and you'll be a lifelong [fill in the blank]
2) You won't be a strong [fill in the blank] and become a statistical [fill in the blank] but it doesn't matter because you simply do not care
3) You'll despise [fill in the blank] and want nothing to do with it. You'll want your name out of the records
If you end up in case 1, you'll be happy that your parents signed you up for the religion. The data protection legislation will not be important to you. In this case, this whole argument doesn't really apply to you (but it may apply to your kids). If you're in case 2, you simply will not care either way. I know tons and tons of people in case 2. They say that they're a Christian but they simply do not care. They haven't been to church in ten years. I think most people are in case 1 or in case 2.
The last case is case 3. This case is easy to deal with. You just right a letter and the organization must remove your name because of the data protection act. If they do not, you report them for illegal activities. It's as simple as that. You'll be happy and you can live on your life saying that you're not part of the organization.
My whole point to society being required to give compulsory non-bigoted/non-biased/secular educations was really just a point of having a good educational system. At home you'll most likely receive a biased, one sided viewpoint. As a child, I just received the religious side because I have an extremely religious family. I only learned science from school. Other kids may only hear the scientific and honest approach and will probably benefit from religious studies courses. School can provide both. That way a child can learn about different religions in their religious studies courses and then about science in their science classes. If they decide that they like religion they can go and sign up for a religion. If they decide that they want to follow the evidence, they can then go to their previous religion and tell them that they want out by the Data Protection Act (or whatever it's called - I pulled that name out of my ass).
You can do the same with any group. If the child becomes enlightened at school and sees that racism and Nazism is bad, then they can leave their neo-nazi group.
So basically, parents can teach whatever they want to their children at home. Some of it may be blatantly wrong, but we have secular educational systems for that (home schooling and private schooling need to be banned). The child can then grow up to be what they want to be...
| Quote: |
There are several differences.
a) If you had expressed a wish to leave to the Scout Leader then, from what I know of UK Scouts, your wish would have over-ridden that of your parents. My understanding is that the scouts would not wish to have an unwilling member - even if the parents wanted it.
b) The Scouts are an organisation set-up specifically for young people and designed with that in mind. They do not teach or practice anything which is exclusive of other groups - much less condemnatory of them. |
a) That was certainly not the case when I was growing up. Growing up, there were certainly some boys that did not want to be there. They also didn't go out of their way to hide it. Their parents clearly forced them to be there. And unless they did something extremely bad, they were not kicked out. The parents and leaders all tended to be under the same mind set that even though some people may not like it, they need to stay in because it's "good for them," a "positive influence," "it keeps them out of trouble (yeah right lol... I still got in plenty of trouble)," etc. There were clearly kids that did not want to be there. Their parents were convinced that they were doing something good for their kids and that organization still may have information about them (and if their parents also forced them to make Eagle Scout, they definitely have information about them).
b) Where's the evidence showing that every single religion "teaches or practices anything which is exclusive of other groups or condemnatory of them?" Some religions may teach that but surely not everyone does and isn't this thread about religion in general? So if I theoretically had a child it would be okay to sign them up for a religion as long as it doesn't teach or practice anything which is exclusive of other groups or condemnatory of them? | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | So, stick with the example - you think parents have the right to enrol their kids in a neo-nazi group? |
Again, yes. Do I think it's right? Hell no! Should society have the responsibility to make sure that child receives a compulsory non-bigoted/non-biased religion so that, if the educational system is done right, they see the errors of their parents way and opt out of the group later? Hell yes. Should there be data protection legislation requiring the neo-nazi group to remove any data regarding the individual? Yes. This is also the extreme example and I do not see it happening often. |
I see it happening all the time. So, you think it is valid for a neo-nazi organisation to claim a membership based on unconsenting individuals? I beg to differ. Imagine that your parent enrolled you in the BNP or some similar loony group. Would you be happy for me to draw attention to the fact that you were once a member of an extreme right-wing group?
| Quote: |
| What do you mean "frame legislation in those terms?" All the legislation would have to say is that anyone can opt out of a group that they were put in without consent. That's all. Is that so hard to frame legislation in those terms? There has to be a way to simply have a data protection act that protects your name from being in the records of organizations that you have. The rest is simply done without words. If you were placed in a religion without your consent, then when you're older you'll probably end up in one of these three cases: |
There is an extremely simple way - you do not allow such organisations to include, in their membership, minors.
| Quote: |
| You can do the same with any group. If the child becomes enlightened at school and sees that racism and Nazism is bad, then they can leave their neo-nazi group. |
But the fact is that they will have been registered as a member. Take the example of the current Pope - a member of the Hitler Youth....I bet he wishes he didn't have that stigma...
| Quote: |
1) You grow to endorse the religion and you'll be a lifelong [fill in the blank]
2) You won't be a strong [fill in the blank] and become a statistical [fill in the blank] but it doesn't matter because you simply do not care
3) You'll despise [fill in the blank] and want nothing to do with it. You'll want your name out of the records |
Case 1 - then why not wait until you are old enough to endorse the religion in the first place?
Case 2 - it DOES matter. You may not care, but that organisation is going to lobby, based on completely bogus membership numbers. You may not have noticed but the main Christian churches do it all the time.
Case 3 - I would want my name completely expunged from the records, yes. In fact I would wish that my name had never BEEN in the records.
As for the scouts - I can only comment on my own experiences (yes, I was a scout). I believe it is policy (at least here) that any child not wishing to be a member is not required to be a member.
Now, that leads to the wider question - does a parent have the right to 'enrol' their child in an organisation? I don't think we can set a rigid 'yes or no' to that, and I am not framing the debate in terms of parental, or children's, rights. I am framing it in terms of the rights of the organisation itself. We clearly understand as a society that some organisations have the 'right' to enrol minors. Examples include schools, scouts/guides and other similar bodies. My argument is that this should not be taken as a general rule and that there are some organisations, including religion, for which this is not appropriate. | Bikerman wrote: |
| I see it happening all the time. So, you think it is valid for a neo-nazi organisation to claim a membership based on unconsenting individuals? I beg to differ. Imagine that your parent enrolled you in the BNP or some similar loony group. Would you be happy for me to draw attention to the fact that you were once a member of an extreme right-wing group? |
Not only that you were once part of the group, but that you STILL ARE! If we keep the detail that there is no official way to have the records destroyed, you're still seen as a BNP member or neo-Nazi member. | Bikerman wrote: |
| I see it happening all the time. So, you think it is valid for a neo-nazi organisation to claim a membership based on unconsenting individuals? I beg to differ. Imagine that your parent enrolled you in the BNP or some similar loony group. Would you be happy for me to draw attention to the fact that you were once a member of an extreme right-wing group? |
People know that you cannot control many circumstances in your childhood. Imagine that you are a huge animal rights activist and that because of this, you're a strict vegan. You speak out publicly against eating anything that comes from animals. Now let's say someone wanted to discredit this individual so they found pictures of their parents feeding them chicken with a glass of milk when they were four years old. They had no choice over what they ate, really. Or what if someone was firmly against the actions of a country because they found the actions to be immoral. Like, for instance, if someone from the U.K. felt that the U.S. was despicable for their actions in the U.S. How would that person feel if they found out that they were really born in the U.S. and then as an infant moved to the U.K. and never knew where they were born?
The fact of the matter is that people cannot control their childhoods for the most part, anyways. What really matters is what they choose to do as an adult when they can choose their actions. Being placed in a neo-nazi organization as a child means that your parents were probably neo-nazis. So you'll either grow up like them and then you'll have probably joined anyways, or you'll grow to find their ways bigoted and then legally have your records destroyed and it will not have had any extra effect on your life.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| There is an extremely simple way - you do not allow such organisations to include, in their membership, minors. |
That completely missed the point/didn't respond to what you quoted right above it...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| But the fact is that they will have been registered as a member. Take the example of the current Pope - a member of the Hitler Youth....I bet he wishes he didn't have that stigma... |
But any non-bigoted person will realize that the Pope isn't a Nazi and that, most importantly, didn't support Hitler (or his ideas after Hitler died).
| Quote: |
| Case 1 - then why not wait until you are old enough to endorse the religion in the first place? |
Because the parents didn't want that. My whole point was that parents should be able to raise their children with their ideas and then society balances it out. I am sure that the parents thought they were doing the right thing.
| Quote: |
| Case 2 - it DOES matter. You may not care, but that organisation is going to lobby, based on completely bogus membership numbers. You may not have noticed but the main Christian churches do it all the time. |
This is basically saying that the problem isn't with there being all sorts of extra people in the church records; it's with the church lobbying... That's a different issue. Besides, even if there were less people in the church, the church would probably just lie about their numbers by adding in fake people or duplicating records. Who's going to find out anyways? From my experience, churches have no problem being dishonest and they always get away with it.
| Quote: |
| I would want my name completely expunged from the records, yes. In fact I would wish that my name had never BEEN in the records. |
Just like in my example above where that person would wish they'd never been born in that country they despise? I really don't see the problem if there is legislation requiring the complete removal of the name from the records. | Bikerman wrote: |
There are several differences.
a) If you had expressed a wish to leave to the Scout Leader then, from what I know of UK Scouts, your wish would have over-ridden that of your parents. My understanding is that the scouts would not wish to have an unwilling member - even if the parents wanted it.
b) The Scouts are an organisation set-up specifically for young people and designed with that in mind. They do not teach or practice anything which is exclusive of other groups - much less condemnatory of them. |
Actually, there are a couple even more important differences between "enrolment" in a religion, and enrolment in a school or other organization such as the Scouts.
(But - and this is an aside especially for Bikerman, who may not be aware of this - in the US there is a major scandal involving the Scouts there that makes Afaceinthematrix's point a lot sharper than it appears at first glance. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has issued several public statements that gay and atheist people are not allowed in. That includes both adults (no gay or atheist Scoutmasters) and the kids (no atheist Scouts - i'd assume kids are too young to be gay or straight at the average scouting age). Several people have, in fact, been affected by this. Affiliation with the BSA may, therefore, be seen as tacit approval of their bigotry. So... technically... your point (b) is incorrect in the case of the BSA - although not Scouting in general, of course, this is a specifically American phenomenon.)
First, ask this: What is the point of public records? Why should certain records be kept by default and not others? Why should birth records be kept, but not purchasing records (i know they are, but it is illegal to release them without consent... why)? There are at least three reasons for public records of persons:
- To record information about a person that is relevant for identification of that person.
(Birth records, name change records, etc.)
- To have a record of a person's skills and education.
(School records, licensing records, certifications, awards, etc.)
- To have a record of the beliefs that a person supports. Obviously, any record recorded for this reason should only be done if the person consents... not simply as a matter of course that the person should have to opt out of.
(Organizations like the Freemasons, political party registrations, etc.)
There are other reasons, for sure, such as to record facts that may indicate that the person is a danger to society or some part of it (criminal records), etc. But these are the reasons that are relevant here, i think.
Now. Why should we allow records to be kept for education that a child may not have chosen to opt into? See point 2. Open and shut. A person's knowledge and training is not representative of their beliefs. If i learn to speak Japanese that doesn't imply i agree with the actions and policies of Japan - or that the beliefs of Japanese speakers are in anyway related to my own beliefs. If my parents send me to a school run by the KKK, my getting a degree majoring in math there doesn't mean i support the KKK's beliefs. The key is that the record is of what i learned... not what i believe. That's what school records record, and that's why school records should be kept, even if the person was not able to consent to going to school.
Now if a person feels strongly enough about renouncing their attachment to some school that they're willing to write off their education... that's their choice. But by default the record should be kept because it is relevant public information (see point 2).
The same goes with the Scouts. Scouting records record the skills that Afaceinthematrix has... not the beliefs. The record of being an Eagle Scout tells people what skills and abilities Afaceinthematrix has (whatever the requirements are to be an Eagle Scout). It doesn't imply that he believes in the bigoted nonsense espoused by the BSA (or whatever organization is relevant). It's a record of skills, not beliefs.
So. It makes sense to record schooling information - even though a child didn't consent to the school - by default... because it records education and skills, which are neutral with respect to beliefs and opinions, and so don't require an adult voice (as beliefs and opinions do). It makes sense to record scouting information for the same reasons. But it's not a perfect world, and if, later in life, a person feels strongly enough that they want to erase the information of their education and training for whatever reason, they should have the right. There is no rational reason under normal circumstances to object to having a record of education and training. But because abnormal circumstances arise, and because people sometimes want to make irrational gestures if only to demonstrate a point, the option to having that record removed should exist.
However, a religion does not record information relevant for identification (you can't identify someone by their religion, or vice versa). A religion does not offer education or training in any socially useful sense. The only reason to want a public record of your affiliation with a religion is to record your acceptance of that religion's beliefs. The Catholic argument about records of baptisms being historical records is idiotic... we don't keep records of when someone lost their first tooth or took their first step, because that information is utterly useless according to all of the points listed above, and so is the information about baptisms. There is absolutely no reason to keep records of religious rites... none... except to record that a person was part of that religion... which implies they believed the religion's mumbo jumbo.
(Seriously, think about it... why does the Catholic Church really need to keep a record of baptisms. Despite what they say about "historical records"... why do they really record baptisms. It's so they know who can get what sacraments, who can marry in their Church... ultimately it's to know who's "with the program" in the religion, and at what level. Basically: who's where in the eyes of the religion, and, by extension, God. Yes, on the surface, it's just a record of rituals, and not what you believe... and that's what they say when challenged... but on the other side of their faces, they will rant about how wrong it is to go through the ritual if you don't really believe. So: in the real mentality of the Catholic Church - not what the say publicly, but what they really believe - if there was a record of a baptism, you were baptized; if you were baptized, then you are a Christian (not a Hindu); if you're a Christian, then you believe the dogma. Therefore, ultimately, a record of baptism is, however obliquely, a record of agreement with the Church... by their own beliefs. And, of course, in secular practise: why record a baptism, if not to record your participation in the Church? There's no other reason.)
So... bottom line: Church records like baptisms serve no purpose whatsoever except to record a person's participation in a religion. And recording a person's participation in a religion serves no purpose whatsoever except to record their agreement with that religion's beliefs. And there is no rational argument to justify recording a person's beliefs by default. There is no rational reason under normal circumstances to justify having a record of opinions and beliefs (unless you're in a police state, and intend to use a person's opinions and beliefs to give them or deny them work, or other social benefits and freedoms). But sometimes people want to record their opinions and beliefs publicly for personal reasons... in which case, if they're of age to consent, they should be allowed to do so.
And that's the conclusion. There is a rational reason to keep some kinds records by default - records for identification, and records of training - because there is no rational reason to hide them under normal circumstances. But there is no rational reason to keep records of opinion and belief by default - because there is no rational reason that your opinions and beliefs should be public without your express consent. Church records - despite what they say - record no relevant information, except that you were a member of the religion.
Therefore, Church records should not be kept by default. Like all records pertaining to opinion and belief, they should be opt-in, not opt-out. And you cannot opt-in to anything, until you are of majority age.
What the Church should do, is record all baptisms etc. in private files, never to be released to the public. When a person reaches the age of majority, it should be standard Church practise to then officially ask them whether they want to be publicly recognized as Catholic. If they say no, or do not say yes by a certain time, the records should be destroyed.If there was an age of consent for religions,the first problem that would arise would be if a christian couple had a terminally ill child,they would argue that by denying them the right to make their child a christian you are denying the child a place in heaven.
Maybe the best solution would be allow the parents the right to choose a religion for their child,but for there to be an opt out later on when the child becomes an adult.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If there was an age of consent for religions,the first problem that would arise would be if a christian couple had a terminally ill child,they would argue that by denying them the right to make their child a christian you are denying the child a place in heaven. |
No - that does not follow. Why should the religion not baptise the child without requiring the baptism to be recorded? If we see the baptism as a 'spiritual' ceremony, then what, exactly, is the requirement to register that child? Even if you accept the 'logic' of baptism - I'm pretty sure that God would not require a written record at the Diocese - it's sort of assumed that he would know anyway isn't it ? | Bikerman wrote: |
| truespeed wrote: | | If there was an age of consent for religions,the first problem that would arise would be if a christian couple had a terminally ill child,they would argue that by denying them the right to make their child a christian you are denying the child a place in heaven. |
No - that does not follow. Why should the religion not baptise the child without requiring the baptism to be recorded? If we see the baptism as a 'spiritual' ceremony, then what, exactly, is the requirement to register that child? Even if you accept the 'logic' of baptism - I'm pretty sure that God would not require a written record at the Diocese - it's sort of assumed that he would know anyway isn't it ? |
I am sure Chritians would only require the baptism,for them to be baptized would be enough. So i guess that would cover the this particular problem. | truespeed wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | truespeed wrote: | | If there was an age of consent for religions,the first problem that would arise would be if a christian couple had a terminally ill child,they would argue that by denying them the right to make their child a christian you are denying the child a place in heaven. |
No - that does not follow. Why should the religion not baptise the child without requiring the baptism to be recorded? If we see the baptism as a 'spiritual' ceremony, then what, exactly, is the requirement to register that child? Even if you accept the 'logic' of baptism - I'm pretty sure that God would not require a written record at the Diocese - it's sort of assumed that he would know anyway isn't it ? |
I am sure Chritians would only require the baptism,for them to be baptized would be enough. So i guess that would cover the this particular problem. |
Yes I think so. Religion is supposed to be a relationship between the person and the Deity (at least most religions I know claim that to be the case). The 'earthly paraphernalia' is secondary and secular... | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | There are several differences.
a) If you had expressed a wish to leave to the Scout Leader then, from what I know of UK Scouts, your wish would have over-ridden that of your parents. My understanding is that the scouts would not wish to have an unwilling member - even if the parents wanted it.
b) The Scouts are an organisation set-up specifically for young people and designed with that in mind. They do not teach or practice anything which is exclusive of other groups - much less condemnatory of them. |
Actually, there are a couple even more important differences between "enrolment" in a religion, and enrolment in a school or other organization such as the Scouts.
|
I think you put that very well.
I'm also grateful for the heads-up on the US Scouting movement - I wasn't aware of those details (though I have seen the Southpark episode with 'Big Gay Al' and I should have guessed there might be something behind it).. | Indi wrote: |
| (But - and this is an aside especially for Bikerman, who may not be aware of this - in the US there is a major scandal involving the Scouts there that makes Afaceinthematrix's point a lot sharper than it appears at first glance. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has issued several public statements that gay and atheist people are not allowed in. That includes both adults (no gay or atheist Scoutmasters) and the kids (no atheist Scouts - i'd assume kids are too young to be gay or straight at the average scouting age). Several people have, in fact, been affected by this. Affiliation with the BSA may, therefore, be seen as tacit approval of their bigotry. So... technically... your point (b) is incorrect in the case of the BSA - although not Scouting in general, of course, this is a specifically American phenomenon.) |
That was part of the point I was going for, because in this discussion it matters, but I do think it is slightly different from religion in the aspect of bigotry. I did mention that I should not have gotten my Eagle Scout because of my atheism, but I do not think that excluding atheists and homosexuals is on the same level of bigotry (although it still can be seen as bigotry) as religion, for example.
Religious groups openly try to affect people's lives outside of their religion. Religious groups trying to ban gay marriages is clearly bigotry. They're not letting people live their own lives even though they're not a part of the religion! The BSA, however, is basically saying, "This is a club for straight theists. Be a straight theist or quit." The difference would be like me saying, "I am going to create a Spanish club. You can only join if you speak Spanish because that's a club requirement." and then me saying, "Everyone in the world better learn Spanish! Learn it or die (or go to Hell)!" Is that a valid difference? If you start a club you can have whatever requirements you want because it's your club and you may just want it for a certain purpose. Would it be bigotry to not allow someone who doesn't speak Spanish, or isn't interested in learning it, into your Spanish club? I think not. But it is bigotry to think that only Spanish-speakers are worthy of living.
However... I did bring up the BSA for a reason - a reason similar to what you mentioned. That's that many kids didn't have a choice of joining. Many kids were forced into the organization by their parents. What if they were an atheist or homosexual deep down inside? Their parents would have forced them into a club that excludes their type and basically made them live a lie and/or suffer from an extremely uncomfortable situation. What if they then grow to hate that program and speak out against it? They may have personal records in there? They were once a part of that organization.Well, first let me say that I was previously debating under a misconception that the US Scouts were like the UK Scouts - clearly that is not the case.
I would like to see the US Scouts adopt the same policies that the UK Scouts do - then I believe the potential problem would disappear.
Specifically:
a) Ensure that any child who did not wish to be a member did not have to be one
b) Drop all the bigotry - any child should be welcome
c) Of course, if required, delete records on later request.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Well, first let me say that I was previously debating under a misconception that the US Scouts were like the UK Scouts - clearly that is not the case.
I would like to see the US Scouts adopt the same policies that the UK Scouts do - then I believe the potential problem would disappear.
Specifically:
a) Ensure that any child who did not wish to be a member did not have to be one
b) Drop all the bigotry - any child should be welcome
c) Of course, if required, delete records on later request. |
a) So a child shouldn't have to be a member if they do not want to be one? Their parents may put them in the organization because they think it will be good for their development, yet their children can just override that decision because they don't want to do it? While I probably wouldn't force my children to stay in (I suppose it depends on the situation), just letting them have their way like that and quitting might show a bad example that they can always get their way... It might be some sort of lesson in its self that you can just quit things that you do not like (many children do not enjoy school).
b) I definitely see the value in that and think that policy should be adopted.
c) I've been arguing that from the beginning. That was my whole point. Parents place their children in. They decide they hate the organization and so they have their records removed and deleted completely with no trace of them. That's what I argued for religion from the beginning. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | Well, first let me say that I was previously debating under a misconception that the US Scouts were like the UK Scouts - clearly that is not the case.
I would like to see the US Scouts adopt the same policies that the UK Scouts do - then I believe the potential problem would disappear.
Specifically:
a) Ensure that any child who did not wish to be a member did not have to be one
b) Drop all the bigotry - any child should be welcome
c) Of course, if required, delete records on later request. |
a) So a child shouldn't have to be a member if they do not want to be one? Their parents may put them in the organization because they think it will be good for their development, yet their children can just override that decision because they don't want to do it? While I probably wouldn't force my children to stay in (I suppose it depends on the situation), just letting them have their way like that and quitting might show a bad example that they can always get their way... It might be some sort of lesson in its self that you can just quit things that you do not like (many children do not enjoy school).
b) I definitely see the value in that and think that policy should be adopted.
c) I've been arguing that from the beginning. That was my whole point. Parents place their children in. They decide they hate the organization and so they have their records removed and deleted completely with no trace of them. That's what I argued for religion from the beginning. |
a) children will either be scared into it (hell, burning for eternity etc) or they would leave instantly so they wouldnt have too get up on sundays
b)no children should not be allowed anywhere near religion until they become aware of all the available options, some people are influenced a lot easier then others so when a kid gets told god and jesus and hell blah blah he would believe it even if you tell him evolution makes more sense (look at half the religious adults even if you point out the fact that religion doesnt make sense they still fallow it)
c)there should not be a record religion is a personal choice it should not be a giant organization with records and info (maybe records of how many fallow religion) but no records should be recorded of who is religious and who is not...
ps you cant GET rid of a record, more then likely some for of written or hidden record will always be kept with your name on it... | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| a) So a child shouldn't have to be a member if they do not want to be one? Their parents may put them in the organization because they think it will be good for their development, yet their children can just override that decision because they don't want to do it? While I probably wouldn't force my children to stay in (I suppose it depends on the situation), just letting them have their way like that and quitting might show a bad example that they can always get their way... It might be some sort of lesson in its self that you can just quit things that you do not like (many children do not enjoy school). |
Yes, the child should NOT be a member if they do not wish it. I'm not talking about a 'bad day' when the child is sulking, but if the child genuinely expresses the wish not to be in the scouts then they should not be. The scouts are set-up for the benefit of the child, not the parents. | Bannik wrote: |
a) children will either be scared into it (hell, burning for eternity etc) or they would leave instantly so they wouldnt have too get up on sundays
b)no children should not be allowed anywhere near religion until they become aware of all the available options, some people are influenced a lot easier then others so when a kid gets told god and jesus and hell blah blah he would believe it even if you tell him evolution makes more sense (look at half the religious adults even if you point out the fact that religion doesnt make sense they still fallow it)
c)there should not be a record religion is a personal choice it should not be a giant organization with records and info (maybe records of how many fallow religion) but no records should be recorded of who is religious and who is not...
ps you cant GET rid of a record, more then likely some for of written or hidden record will always be kept with your name on it... |
a) Which is a popular misconception. Not every church thrives off of scaring people with Hell. I was hardly ever scared with that when I was young. The church my parents forced me to go more often focused with the "good" aspects of Christianity like the the "love" of God and eternal life.
b) So religious parents should have their children taken away from them because they are almost certainly going to teach their children about religion? Why shouldn't parents be able be able to teach their kids their beliefs? If the school systems are successful (which I keep saying the school's are society's part in raising children), the kids will learn the other side of the argument. Parents should have the right to baptize their children. Even if their kids turn out to hate the religion (like me), it can at least be justified as a family tradition or something... It's not like you're doing something terrible to your child.
c) Almost every organization keeps track of the records of their members. If you leave you should be able to have your records destroyed.
Response to your p.s. Have you actually read a freakin' word that I've said? I keep saying, there needs to be legislation requiring records being destroyed! The church couldn't keep "secret records," and why would they even want to? Without too much difficulty, someone could expose that the church lies about their numbers, proving that they keep "secret files (which would be pointless)," and if they proper legislation existed, sue the hell out of the church. | Quote: |
| Why shouldn't parents be able be able to teach their kids their beliefs? If the school systems are successful (which I keep saying the school's are society's part in raising children), the kids will learn the other side of the argument. Parents should have the right to baptize their children. Even if their kids turn out to hate the religion (like me), it can at least be justified as a family tradition or something... It's not like you're doing something terrible to your child. |
Interesting question. Given that we know children are incredibly susceptible to propaganda and really want to believe what their parents tell them, is it OK? I know many children who have been very definitely harmed by their parents controlling influence. Is it enough to justify this in terms of 'tradition'? There are many practices that used to be 'tradition' which would now be considered criminal...
The idea that the public school system 'balances out' the idiocy of some parents is a nice one and I wish it were true, but it isn't. If the parents have the right to send their children to whatever 'school' they like, then what 'balance' is there? | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | Why shouldn't parents be able be able to teach their kids their beliefs? If the school systems are successful (which I keep saying the school's are society's part in raising children), the kids will learn the other side of the argument. Parents should have the right to baptize their children. Even if their kids turn out to hate the religion (like me), it can at least be justified as a family tradition or something... It's not like you're doing something terrible to your child. |
Interesting question. Given that we know children are incredibly susceptible to propaganda and really want to believe what their parents tell them, is it OK? I know many children who have been very definitely harmed by their parents controlling influence. Is it enough to justify this in terms of 'tradition'? There are many practices that used to be 'tradition' which would now be considered criminal...
The idea that the public school system 'balances out' the idiocy of some parents is a nice one and I wish it were true, but it isn't. If the parents have the right to send their children to whatever 'school' they like, then what 'balance' is there? |
Well... I think I've said three of four times in this discussion that I think private schools and home schooling should be banned. The society has a responsibility to provide a secular and non-bigoted education. I've stressed that at least three or four times in this thread... I think we even agree there that home schooling is a bad idea (although I do not know if you think it should be banned) and that private schools should be banned (I've said that and I've seen you say that). And this discussion keeps sidetracking from the main point by bringing up extreme points. Of course an extremely controlling and extremist parent teaching their children their extremist views is wrong, but is teaching your children religion in general wrong (well I actually think that it is but not something that should be banned or require an age of consent).My apologies - I forgot your stance on education (actually I mixed it up with another poster).
In that case, of course, that particular objection is removed.
The overall point remains, however. The damage inflicted on children by their parent's irrational beliefs is profound and any attempt by the public school system to overcome this is simply fire-fighting. You are at your most impressionable long before us teachers get our hands on you...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The overall point remains, however. The damage inflicted on children by their parent's irrational beliefs is profound and any attempt by the public school system to overcome this is simply fire-fighting. You are at your most impressionable long before us teachers get our hands on you... |
Well kids may be brainwashed by the time they reach the schools... I agree with you on that. And I do agree that brainwashing and religion is bad. But that's a discussion for another place.
The reason why that's a discussion for another place is because it actually has nothing to do with this topic (signing your kids up for a religion). Because EVEN IF there was legislation creating an age of consent for religion, the fact of the matter is that parents would still brainwash their kids in their beliefs, force them to go to church, etc. The only difference would be in church records. There would practically be no difference. That's one of the reasons why I do not think there needs to be an age of consent. There are bigger issues here. An age of consent would practically change nothing - it would only change a few statistics that almost no one pays attention to anyways.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Why should a religion be allowed to include new born babies amongst the membership when that implies some element of personal choice? Once you are baptised then you have no way to 'opt out' of the membership statistics - I know because I have tried. |
I think I've made my points that as long as legislation requires the church to remove all documentation of people who decide to leave the church (rather they joined unwillingly because of their parents or they joined willingly but then changed their mind) and society provides good education so that people can "grow out" of religion, then parents should be able to sign their children up.
I've expressed my views and said everything I have to say on the subject. I think most people have also. So I think I am done with this discussion - I have nothing more to add and anything else I may try to say will most likely be a repeat.Err...this discussion was certainly not about parents signing their kids up for a religion. I know because I started it. It was about the 'right' of religions to include children in their membership AND to record that membership - a different matter entirely.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Err...this discussion was certainly not about parents signing their kids up for a religion. I know because I started it. It was about the 'right' of religions to include children in their membership AND to record that membership - a different matter entirely. |
What's the difference between that and signing children up for a religion? By signing them up for a religion, I mean physically signing the papers that go along with the baptism that are then kept in records that the church uses for statistics. I wouldn't really know what goes into it because I do not have any kids and even if I did, I wouldn't baptize them. But surely there's some paperwork that you have to fill out and sign when you baptize your child that then goes into record. Or do you just tell the priest your child's name and they take care of the paperwork? How else would the church have records of people they've baptized and put into the religion?Ahh...there's the rub.
The parents do indeed sign a baptismal register in most cases (certainly in the major Christian religions that I know about).
Now - does the Church then have the right to keep/store that record?
I say not.
Does the Church (as it does in England) then have the right to say that the majority of the population are Christian (with all that this implies in terms of representation and lobbying)? Again I say no.
Now, of course, you could say that if parents are just going to sign a document that is then discarded then what is the point? I would agree - there is no point. So why, then, does the religion wish to keep that record? Why not give it to the parents?
Well your biggest problem is the church having that information. Your second biggest problem is with the church using that data to lobby. Well I've been arguing from the beginning that there needs to be a data protection act or something along those lines requiring the church to completely destroy all records of people who do not want in. Problem fixed. Now I know what your likely counter is going to be - many people simply do not care enough to write to the church asking to be removed so there will still be many extra people in there that the church can then use to lobby with... Well that sounds like the problem is actually lobbying... I still think that the age of consent would be pointless because if the church is desperate enough to lobby, they'll probably be desperate enough to lie (keeping unwanted people in their numbers is already pretty close to lying). That can really be fixed by anyone politically active enough in England. I'm sure that without too much difficulty you can find out how many people actually go to church and hold their religion to be important to them and then counter-lobby the church... I've never actually been to England but I heard people are pretty secular there... Many people would probably support the cause and rally against the church's lobbying...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Well your biggest problem is the church having that information. Your second biggest problem is with the church using that data to lobby. Well I've been arguing from the beginning that there needs to be a data protection act or something along those lines requiring the church to completely destroy all records of people who do not want in. Problem fixed. Now I know what your likely counter is going to be - many people simply do not care enough to write to the church asking to be removed so there will still be many extra people in there that the church can then use to lobby with... Well that sounds like the problem is actually lobbying... I still think that the age of consent would be pointless because if the church is desperate enough to lobby, they'll probably be desperate enough to lie (keeping unwanted people in their numbers is already pretty close to lying). That can really be fixed by anyone politically active enough in England. I'm sure that without too much difficulty you can find out how many people actually go to church and hold their religion to be important to them and then counter-lobby the church... I've never actually been to England but I heard people are pretty secular there... Many people would probably support the cause and rally against the church's lobbying... |
This is a very poor argument.
You cannot frame policy on the assumption that the Church will lie anyway. You have to assume, when passing legislation, that the Church will honour it. Despite my problems with religion I don't think that the Church of England would blatantly lie - for a start it would be too easy to call them out.
You also have a simplistic notion of lobbying. Every organisation lobbies, based on its membership. There is nothing wrong or dishonourable about that. The fact is that religions lobby on the basis of incorrect data.
The simple fix is the one outlined - don't give them the misleading figures to start with.
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:21 am; edited 1 time in totalYou do not think the church will lie? I would consider the church lying when they say that they have X members when it's really true they have X-Y members because Y members have asked to leave. You have mentioned multiple times that you asked to be removed yet they still count you as a member? I'd consider that lying that they consider you to be a member. That's actually rather cult like - once you're in you can't get out.
Besides, my other point remains the same. If legislation required the church to remove members completely (no trace they'd ever been there), upon request, what would be the big deal? I think the only problem would be that thousands of people wouldn't care enough to write the letter or fill out the paperwork so they'd stay in and the church would still have a fairly decent number to lobby on.
But I do still think that it would be possible to get together a political group large enough to counter the church's lobbying, or at least convince people that are not true Christians to fill out the paperwork necessary to remove them from the church. I've seen people in the U.S. register to vote simply because a couple of people are standing outside of a store with voter registration forms asking people to fill out the form real quick and that they'll even send it in for them.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Besides, my other point remains the same. If legislation required the church to remove members completely (no trace they'd ever been there), upon request, what would be the big deal? I think the only problem would be that thousands of people wouldn't care enough to write the letter or fill out the paperwork so they'd stay in and the church would still have a fairly decent number to lobby on. |
That would mean that the statistics were NEVER accurate.
Consider - in the current year we have 17 years of records of minors included as members. That would ALWAYS be the case. You are a mathematician - draw the graph....
PS - the church are not lying when they claim me as a member - because, according to the rules which WE allow them to maintain, I am. | Quote: |
| But I do still think that it would be possible to get together a political group large enough to counter the church's lobbying, or at least convince people that are not true Christians to fill out the paperwork necessary to remove them from the church |
Very tricky indeed. What is your rallying cry? Look what happened when a simple add was taken out on some London Buses saying that 'God probably doesn't exist' - huge institutional uproar.
The thing you have to realise is that the Church of England is the 'established' church here. That means it has its fingers in every pie - from local committees up to the House of Lords.
Yes, it is true that the UK is very secular - but HOW secular? We don't know because the damn churches insist on repeating statistics based on having non-consensual members....
It is very difficult to organise a lobby based on 'we don't believe....' | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
That was part of the point I was going for, because in this discussion it matters, but I do think it is slightly different from religion in the aspect of bigotry. I did mention that I should not have gotten my Eagle Scout because of my atheism, but I do not think that excluding atheists and homosexuals is on the same level of bigotry (although it still can be seen as bigotry) as religion, for example.
Religious groups openly try to affect people's lives outside of their religion. Religious groups trying to ban gay marriages is clearly bigotry. They're not letting people live their own lives even though they're not a part of the religion! The BSA, however, is basically saying, "This is a club for straight theists. Be a straight theist or quit." The difference would be like me saying, "I am going to create a Spanish club. You can only join if you speak Spanish because that's a club requirement." and then me saying, "Everyone in the world better learn Spanish! Learn it or die (or go to Hell)!" Is that a valid difference? If you start a club you can have whatever requirements you want because it's your club and you may just want it for a certain purpose. Would it be bigotry to not allow someone who doesn't speak Spanish, or isn't interested in learning it, into your Spanish club? I think not. But it is bigotry to think that only Spanish-speakers are worthy of living.
However... I did bring up the BSA for a reason - a reason similar to what you mentioned. That's that many kids didn't have a choice of joining. Many kids were forced into the organization by their parents. What if they were an atheist or homosexual deep down inside? Their parents would have forced them into a club that excludes their type and basically made them live a lie and/or suffer from an extremely uncomfortable situation. What if they then grow to hate that program and speak out against it? They may have personal records in there? They were once a part of that organization. |
While it would be unfortunate for a closeted or atheist child to be forced into scouting, it's not the same as a closeted or atheist child to be forced in Catholicism (for example).
Membership in the BSA does not means that you agree with its institutionalized bigotry, it just means that you've sworn to the law that states that "A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.". (That's the actual BSA Scout Law.) Scouting is about training the child to be a good member of society, and no part of the law or practises of scouting requires or implies bigotry against atheists or homosexuals. To hammer the point home, here is the scout oath (BSA version): | Quote: |
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty To God and my country
And to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. |
Now an atheist child might roll their eyes at swearing to do "their duty" to God, but the pledge doesn't imply that you believe God exists, and there is no harm in swearing to do duty to a fictional character - it is an empty promise. And it certainly doesn't say anything about looking down on either atheists or homosexuals.
No, the purpose of scouting is training and preparing children for life - whether that training is in how to survive in the wilderness, or whatever. That's the purpose of scouting. The fact that the current leadership of the BSA are a bunch of ****** doesn't change the fundamental purpose of what scouting is about: to prepare children for life. Basically, it's education. And, by default, there's no rational reason to want to "delete" education from your record - quite the opposite! Therefore it makes sense to record, by default, scouting membership and achievements. (Of course, if you feel strongly enough about the bigotry of the BSA's current leadership to erase that record, you should have the right.)
In summary, the purpose of scouting has no relationship with the bigotry of its current leadership. The training and education that comes from scouting has nothing to do with homophobia or anti-atheism, and it is something that any rational person would - under normal circumstances - want recorded. And when the bigots finally leave the organization, that training and education is still valid.
By contrast, the purpose of Catholicism is believing its nonsense. All of the bigotry inherent in Catholic doctrine is part of what a Catholic is supposed to have. The bigots can't leave the organization because the organization is the source of the bigotry.
A record of scouting is a record of training, not belief. A record of Catholicism is a record of belief, not training. The former is logical to keep under normal circumstances, the latter is not.
