the tyranny of religion within democracy

Post Reply New Topic

I would have zero problems with passing a law forbidding the teaching of religion to children.

Sure, religion is innocuous if you believe that it dissolves under a 'serious examination' but the problem is that a child that spends the first 18 years of his life memorizing the Quran or being told about Jesus etc, will find himself unable to examine those teachings rationally. This is not an extreme position to take up. We already wait for our children to be of age before they can vote or drink or make medical decisions; it's inevitable that we give the same treatment to religion.

Because you are not a group that would fall under that kind of law. If that law were set up with the totality it should hold then it would be the death of society. Religion is only a particular kind of world view, it is only a specific kind of philosophy and frankly, NO PARENT can avoid indoctrinating a child in their philosophy. Religion is not something separate or distinct from any other aspect of our nature.

Ok, so? You don't think that our sacred cows aren't common? The things that we don't view rationally are EVERYWHERE! They are found in atheists, they are found in theists, they are found in "freethinkers", I have not met a single person who truly looked at the world rationally. The ones who claim to are merely too deluded to recognize how limited their rational mind is. This IS an extreme view to the greatest extent, if we merely replaced religion with "philosophy" then the problems might become more apparent, however, you seem to think that there is somehow a purely rational, non-indoctrinating position and such a position is completely non-existent so this is merely coercive regulation to impose a personal view upon others. If you doubt me then prove the proper moral view of the world.

You cannot eliminate the views of a parent in a child. It is a standard reaction in most children to revolt against parental beliefs in adolescence but original indoctrination is usually deeply embedded in the emotional structure of children. Sometimes children can free themselves and become original thinkers. It is not an easy process.

Awesomelyglorious - Where did I mention the 'dissolution of the family'?

You have leapt feet first into assumptions that are insulting at best.

Perhaps I was talking about broadening the responsibilities of a community and the concept of family? you obviously have no experience beyond a very limited idea of what family means.
For one, you don't own your children, second the extended family is much more capable of giving any developing mind the diversity of experiences and ideas to find their role comfortably and in a secure and supportive environment rather than seeing their very kith and kin as a threat or competition.
I would very much appreciate it if you were to respond to what I have said rather than what you wish I said or assumed I said. I live in a very different culture to you, my norms are different and I have yet to see any American actually understand it enough to actually really fit in here let alone belong.
Any problems you have with non christian, non patriarchal, non nuclear family living are your problems and your baggage don't leave it on my step, peace j

1. That is not a significant problem. We can just borrow a concept from the Jedi and simply take children away from their families once they are born only to be raised by the state.

2. Saying that irrationality is everywhere simply shows that eliminating it will be a difficult task, not that it would be an impossible task.

3. There are plenty of purely rational, non-indoctrinating positions and atheism is one of them.

You didn't, however, the idea of communal parenting does dissolve the traditional family in some ways. Frankly, you never explained your concept so I simply took the idea that actually instituted some change.
Insulting? You didn't define your concept at all, what was I to assume? Perhaps it is made worse by the fact that I was just thinking of Plato's republic earlier today but still, you did push a switch to a different paradigm and frankly, this change cannot exist with the current family structure.

That is a cultural change that has very little to do with the current situation anyway. I already addressed the issue of parental choice AND greater community saying that it would really not be much different than just parental choice because parents will pick people who share their values.

Somebody must as the brats aren't old enough to own themselves.

Not really, especially given that extended families can often include jerks, rednecks, and pedophiles, and given that the extended family will often be bound by common values. Frankly, kith and kin often suck so therefore the individual family unit plus whatever helpers is a better model.

Well, otherwise what you said was merely a load of empty words. You never explained your position, you left me with nothing to go off of so I simply assumed something that would result in change. If you have a problem with that then elaborate on your views and your idea of change, but don't get upset that people will misunderstand you if you leave things open enough to be misunderstood.

Dude, I frankly don't care about that matter, I merely care about proper assignment of child ownership rights within a society. If children cannot own themselves, which they cannot, then they must be owned. Right now most societies have a dual-ownership program of some form where parents possess children so long as they meet certain requirements. I merely was putting forward the view of ownership rights of children being more slanted towards the guardians. Don't take your anti-American, anti-conservative nonsense out on me.

Dude, no. Your ideas are radical and extreme, and I would not give the government that power. That is step one towards a fascist/totalitarian state, perhaps the greatest evil that could be known. It is a significant problem for anyone who has a brain to recognize the power of controlling the youth. Frankly, this is merely an attempt of control over people.

No, it is an impossible task, people are fundamentally not rational. The fact that we aren't rational allows us to work. We live based upon emotional drives, ridiculous premises, and things of that nature. The idea of pure rationality is an ideal of someone who has not truly examined the nature of philosophy or human psychology, for if either is examined then we know that we are limited.

No, there aren't. Like I said, prove morality. If you cannot prove morality then any stance that suggests a morality is indoctrination. Not only that but atheism isn't non-indoctrination because there is no way to disprove a deity, agnosticism is the neutral position because of that, and still you haven't avoided the entire philosophical problems "how should I live?" and "why am I here?" and these are so essential that any functioning being must have answers to them. Heck, frankly, I have met so many ideological atheists that your entire position seems nonsensical, for historical proof just look at marxism and one sees a powerful atheistic indoctrinating ideology.

Awesomelyglorious - you have some f****d up attitudes and leap to dumb assumptions.

Defining what one is not, is [in some more civilised cultures] not presumed to be a defining of what one is against, in pluralistic societies it is possible to listen to and voice or support a variety of ideas while retaining your own.
You have again gone off on one blaming me for your assumptions, keep typing and I will learn to see the humour in your foolishness and arrogance but at the moment you are just another loud voice in a very noisy room.
peace j

1. It wouldn't be fascist or totalitarian if it was done by consent or democratic process. Additionally, this is not an 'attempt of control'. Rationalism can't be forced down their throat, people only accept it once they realize that it is an objectively superior form of thought.

2. Well we could asymptotically strive for pure rationality even if we never achieve it. It can even be rational at times to let an emotion influence our decision making skill. The fact that it was a factor in your decision does not make the decision irrational.

3. If you don't know by now how to live or why you're here then I doubt you'll find the answer in a chat room. The simple answers are, live the life that makes you happiest and you're here because of evolution and the fact that your ancestors were good at having sex.

3. b. Marxism made claims about the natural world that were verifiable and testable. However the claims were never scrutinized or tested and thus fail the criteria for a rational system of government. An actual atheist government would ALSO base itself on theories about the natural world but not accept them as faith but rather test them and make sure that they are correct. A better example of an atheist government would be the temporary government of the French Revolution or the government of the United States in the 18th century. Both were governments based on rationality and not indoctrination. The key difference being that people accepted democracy freely because they knew it was a superior system of government.

Hunh? What is wrong with my attitude? You are the one who goes on the pity party about being misunderstood, it is an internet forum after all. Frankly, there is no reason from my perspective to not jump to that assumption because the extended family would not seem to result in much change in beliefs which is what we were talking about.
I don't believe much in civilization, but, what are you even getting at? You are still off on some side rant, internet forums are not the best places for communicating on communicating unless that is a forum topic.
Yes, because whining about being misunderstood on an internet forum is the height of wisdom and humility. Dude, you didn't elaborate your position enough for me to fully understand your position, I am not a mind reader and I shouldn't have to tell you to elaborate. I didn't resort to personal insults, and I might have said that I held my position strongly at a point, however, still, this is an internet forum. Being misunderstood and perhaps horribly so is part of the game, I have had it happen a few times, I am not trying to deliberately insult you either, so don't cop this stupid "RedHanrahan vs the world/forum/US" attitude as it is unmerited in this situation, just stop being a p**** and recognize that I don't know you well enough to fill in your blanks and that communication processes are imperfect. Does that blustery folly and arrogance fill you with joyous laughter?

Democratic processes do not prevent totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a way of running a system, democracy is a way of ruling it. It is an attempt at control, you do not know the actual nature of rationality and how it relates to humanity. Trust me, people can say whatever they want about any belief system, I have had mystics insult my rationality and I have insulted some mystics, you just don't know the limits of rationality.

Why? There is purpose to these things, however, by that definition ANYTHING can be rational, which means the focus on rationality is foolish because we are inherently reaching our aims.

No, you won't. The answers you provide are inherently meaningless. People want purpose, neither of those provide purpose. Prove that we should live the lives that make us happiest, I prefer to think that we are here to all kill each other on March 21 2010. Really though, what if being indoctrinated in a religion at an early age really was the best way to reach happiness? Wouldn't your attempts to prevent that actually be irrational? Prove that I am here for that reason though. My response is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_minute_hypothesis If I am true then evolution and sex didn't bring me here.

Actually, no they didn't. They made historical claims that could never be disproven until the time that these supposed things actually happened. Actually, there is no such thing as a rational government because governments are set up for ends, and ends are not necessarily rational as they rely upon assumptions that cannot be empirically derived. Subjective ends if you will. What if I assume there is a deity because that makes me happy and is therefore rational, and because of that I set up a theocracy based upon idealistic impoverishment? Would that be good?

This is where I make the rational decision to stop responding.

This is not really an open minded attitude from you...
As a matter a fact you show same closed mind towards religion that you accuse religion for.



Democracy is tolerance between various mindsets.
After all,even education is form of indoctrination,in which you are convinced (through various authorities) in some world-view.



Would you teach your children about any other political system except democracy?



First you promote democracy,and then you want state intervention in belief system of others.
People have (in democracy) right to be closed minded.

And if you want all religions to be taught in fair light,does not this apply to political beliefs as well?
So you could have fair light to Communists,Anarchists,Fascists,Racists and even conservative religionists (that you oppose) to your own Democratic system...



And what you get here is tyranny of state under a facade of 'tolerance',and tiny nudge wink wink of Atheists and Agnostics being to only free ones.



This 'idea' of Democracy is totalitarian in same manner as Communism or Fascism,in term that you have 'enlightened' state that impose 'enlightenment' to its citizens.
But who have right to say what is right or wrong?...Well the 'Enlightened' elite,off course.
Same old story...as in Communism and Fascism.


P.S

Proposition,described by you is the same if I force you to be friend and hang up with people that you dislike,and have nothing in common with them.
By doing so I violate your right to dislike them,and your right to not be their friend.
Now,if I (as state) force you to raise your children as 'democracy' wants,then this is not your children,but children of state.
And by doing so,state deny your right of being parent,simply because your 'ideology' is 'bad one'.

Similar things were done by Hitler and Stalin.
Such democracy is very tyrannical.

The essential problem with parental influence in teaching religion is that young children have little or no critical capability in the process. The solution of removing children from parental influence raises such monstrous problems that it is entirely impractical.

That is the essential problem with parenting in general. Whether or not they teach religion they MUST teach a world view, religion is merely a type of world view. Frankly, these parents can also teach their children racism, sexism, fatalism, egoism, fascism, communism and just about every other societally disliked "ism" in the book, claiming religion is somehow special simply seems foolish and ill-conceived. I am sure that Christians would think and in their system have better grounds for thinking that atheists are unfit to express their thoughts because in their belief system these parents could be starting their children on a path that leads to eternal suffering and defiance of the true greatest good, so atheistic moralizing against religion in that context seems sort of stupid because they should be voting against your right to raise children with your beliefs more than the other way around. Face it, indoctrination is a part of parenting more than anything else, any complaint about the nature of parenting and children seems either moralizing or foolish.

People are always critical to things that they dislike,but will never be critical towards things they like.

Theist will always be critical to Atheism,while Atheist will always be critical towards Theism.
But there will never be a case in which Atheism criticize Atheism,or Theist Theism.

So when someone say that religious people are not critical,that mostly mean that this same critic is not religious.
But I doubt that this same critic would ever judge Atheism or Agnosticism.

So basically its pointless to accuse anyone for lack of criticism,since critics would never criticize themselves,but always others that don't share their views.


Second its pointless to ask from children 'critical thinking',when children by definition (with small exceptions) do not have critical capacity that comes with adulthood and experience.
Children must develop confidence,and this is developed through belief (any belief).
If we force children to be critical from early age,then we would get very insecure children,unable to make decisions.