Should religious induction of children be banned?

Temptamperu · 17-05-2014 08:26PM

Birroc wrote: »

Controversial maybe but I think religion makes people stupid.

Well why look for real answers when you can just say god did it?

poundapunnet · 17-05-2014 08:32PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Well why look for real answers when you can just say god did it?

Yeah, or why actually engage with the real and often very complex realities of religious belief when you can just boil down dozens of them to 'they think god did it lol' and get a load of internet high fives from other teenagers. Either actual teenagers or those who have stalled at the teenage state of development that thinks crap like 'well what if I believed in a flying spaghetti monster?' is incisive and witty.

I'm an atheist too, but yous are all as bad as each other, seriously.

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 08:33PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Well why look for real answers when you can just say god did it?

It's no coincidence that most inmates find Christ and release.

I'd believe too, to be perfectly honest if I could get a shorter sentence or not get beheaded in Saudi Arabia whiles on holiday like.

The Worst example is Bush talking to God. But his enemies actually believe in a God so I'd give him that on tactical grounds, but he lied.

poundapunnet · 17-05-2014 08:35PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It's no coincidence that most inmates find Christ and release.

I'd believe too, to be perfectly honest if I could get a shorter sentence or not get beheaded in Saudi Arabia whiles on holiday like.

The Worst example is Bush talking to God. But his enemies actually believe in a God so I'd give him that on tactical grounds, but he lied.

what does any of this have to do with Bunreacht na hÉireann? Any time this subject comes up you're like an uzi of atheism.

FunLover18 · 17-05-2014 08:43PM

Can we stay on topic, this isn't a debate on religion. The issue is whether or not indoctrinating minors is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 08:48PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

what does any of this have to do with Bunreacht na hÉireann? Any time this subject comes up you're like an uzi of atheism.

I have to admit that this is going over my head.

Uzi of Atheism! I am humbled and indeed honoured and as I think of it, even proud.

That's a compliment, thanks.

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 08:50PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

Can we stay on topic, this isn't a debate on religion. The issue is whether or not indoctrinating minors is a violation of their constitutional rights.

So right, may I purpose that it is moved to politics than.

FunLover18 · 17-05-2014 08:59PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

So right, may I purpose that it is moved to politics than.

If mods want to move it to politics I won't complain but it's been going well in AH. Either way the debate on pros/cons of religion should be kept to the Christianity/Atheism forums

fran17 · 17-05-2014 09:23PM

what kind of poll is that

kylith · 17-05-2014 09:25PM

I would have no problem with parents educating their children in their religion of choice and bringing them to mass and so forth, but I don't think that baptism and the other sacraments should be able to be entered into until the age at which one can legally enter into a contract, which is what baptism is.

FunLover18 · 17-05-2014 09:26PM

fran17 wrote: »

what kind of poll is that

I already said sorry

catallus · 17-05-2014 09:31PM

fran17 wrote: »

what kind of poll is that

The kind that re-enforces a circle-jerk mentality between bumptious sciolics who revel in their silly sententiousness?

FunLover18 wrote: »

I already said sorry

And so you should be! :mad::pac:

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 09:32PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

If mods want to move it to politics I won't complain but it's been going well in AH. Either way the debate on pros/cons of religion should be kept to the Christianity/Atheism forums

It can't, AH is after all an open forum with an open charter.

Mods will of course take whatever action they deem necessary, IMO, if brought to their attention, on your posts alone, they will move it and delete most of the content.

As I think of it, it's probably better in the Legal Forum as a matter of fact. But that's pedantic, IMO.

No serious discussion can or should be ensued in After Hours. Period. After Hours, is shooting the breeze after all.

FunLover18 · 17-05-2014 09:34PM

catallus wrote: »

The kind that re-enforces a circle-jerk mentality between bumptious sciolics who revel in their silly sententiousness?

And so you should be! :mad::pac:

I automatically assumed he was talking about the confusing options

I shall never apologise for my sententiousness

FunLover18 · 17-05-2014 09:37PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It can't, AH is after all an open forum with an open charter.

Mods will of course take whatever action they deem necessary, IMO, if brought to their attention, on your posts alone, they will move it and delete most of the content.

As I think of it, it's probably better in the Legal Forum as a matter of fact. But that's pedantic, IMO.

No serious discussion can or should be ensued in After Hours. Period. After Hours, is shooting the breeze after all.

OK that's my bad. I did consider it posting it in a different forum but I wanted to see what AH made of it, as I have seen some fairly serious issues in here.

foggy_lad · 17-05-2014 09:37PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

First off, apologies for the confusion regarding poll options

<snip>

Personally when I'm voting in a poll I like to vote objectively. It's just a personal choice, you can view them without voting, it's just an extra click

Are the results being used for something other than the entertainment of boards users?

I have already voted and would not have done so if I had known the results were not going to be published openly. how can I find out the results now?

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 09:38PM

FunLover18 wrote: »

Christianity/Atheism forums

You may or not be aware that discussion in the Christianity forum, according to the charter, demands, faith and belief, one can challenge theological issues, but not the basis of faith.

IN other words, I can't go into Christianity and say Christ is fake. It is actually odd that Atheism is a sub forum ~

I can here in After Hours.

poundapunnet · 17-05-2014 09:40PM

kylith wrote: »

I would have no problem with parents educating their children in their religion of choice and bringing them to mass and so forth, but I don't think that baptism and the other sacraments should be able to be entered into until the age at which one can legally enter into a contract, which is what baptism is.

I appreciate the spirit of that, but I think that on terms of weighing up the actual practicalities of enforcing it against the benefits of it being fully enforced it's a non-starter. In the Catholic faith getting the child baptised ASAP is a big part of the whole thing, for the salvation of their soul and all. Think it's pretty similar in a lot of that Protestant stuff too. Saying 'you are free to practice your faith and raise your child in that faith, but you are banned from doing this big part of it until they're 18' doesn't work.

And again, I think legislating against religious sacraments is pointless and implies that they're much more meaningful and significant than one would imagine most atheists believe. I've had dozens of communion crackers, I'm baptised, had my confession, I'm confirmed. It does not make me Catholic against my will, and I couldn't care less if Catholics believe that it does.

catallus wrote: »

The kind that re-enforces a circle-jerk mentality between bumptious sciolics who revel in their silly sententiousness?

Taking the words right out of everyone's mouths as usual, I see.

FunLover18 · 17-05-2014 09:40PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Are the results being used for something other than the entertainment of boards users?

I have already voted and would not have done so if I had known the results were not going to be published openly. how can I find out the results now?

No, the results are for no other purposes. They are open you just have to click the 'view results' options

FunLover18 · 17-05-2014 09:42PM

**** I just realised that I have actually hidden the results from everyone, I did not mean to do that. Can I undo that?

As it stands:

Yes 88 59.86%
Down with this sort of thing 32 21.77%
Careful now 27 18.37%

kylith · 17-05-2014 10:28PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

I appreciate the spirit of that, but I think that on terms of weighing up the actual practicalities of enforcing it against the benefits of it being fully enforced it's a non-starter. In the Catholic faith getting the child baptised ASAP is a big part of the whole thing, for the salvation of their soul and all. Think it's pretty similar in a lot of that Protestant stuff too. Saying 'you are free to practice your faith and raise your child in that faith, but you are banned from doing this big part of it until they're 18' doesn't work.

Now that limbo has been done away with the pope has said that unbaptised children go to heaven if they should die so the salvation of their soul is immaterial as it is already saved by the acceptance of Jesus as their personal saviour. At the very least a baptism should be rendered null and void at the age of 18. Or at the very, very least I should be able to write a letter to a bishop and receive an acknowledgement that my membership of the RCC is now over and they no longer consider me one of their number.

My parents cannot enter me into a mortgage contract without my permission. They cannot enter me into a work contract without my permission. Why should they be able to enter me into an unbreakable contract for something that they believe to be of supreme importance without my permission?

Red Pepper · 17-05-2014 10:38PM

kylith wrote: »

Now that limbo has been done away with the pope has said that unbaptised children go to heaven if they should die so the salvation of their soul is immaterial as it is already saved by the acceptance of Jesus as their personal saviour.

I pass a little children's graveyard every day. It is called a "cillín". It is for those children that died unbaptised. A few standing stones mark their grave site. It always make me very very sad and also angry that the Roman church made parents do this.

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 10:46PM

Red Pepper wrote: »

I pass a little children's graveyard every day. It is called a "cillín". It is for those children that died unbaptised. A few standing stones mark their grave site. It always make me very very sad and also angry that the Roman church made parents do this.

Thanks, I appreciate the comments, and seemingly, they were in breech of the constitution, even then.

THOUGH ~ Religious Rule Was Always Precedent ~ in their own control areas.

RobertKK · 17-05-2014 11:07PM

This is silly about banning a child from receiving religious instruction. I mean my parents lived their faith, one still does, the other has died, their faith/religion is a part of who they are.
To say something should be banned is to say a parent cannot be seen to be following their faith in front of their child before it would influence the child.
A parent in this case would not have the freedom to be who they are.
It is saying a child should be kept in ignorance of the faith that their family has had for generations upon generations in most case, until older.
Children are part of families and should be included in what the family stands for from early on, not treated as if they are not part of the family and what the family stands for.
If one is atheist then their child is probably more likely to be atheist, influenced by the parent, should this be banned as it is an adult influencing a child and one could say depriving the child of knowledge towards religion which maybe comes from a hate towards religion?

Freedom of religion is a human right, you can't ban families from bringing up their children in a way they see fit when it comes towards religion.

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 11:07PM

poundapunnet wrote: »

I was referring to the famous closing lines:

Written in 1945.

I don't it has come to pass.

D1stant · 17-05-2014 11:13PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It can't, AH is after all an open forum with an open charter.

Mods will of course take whatever action they deem necessary, IMO, if brought to their attention, on your posts alone, they will move it and delete most of the content.

As I think of it, it's probably better in the Legal Forum as a matter of fact. But that's pedantic, IMO.

No serious discussion can or should be ensued in After Hours. Period. After Hours, is shooting the breeze after all.

I dont understand this "AH is the domain of the mad ones" attitude. Kind of infantile. Boards is a bullletin board, & AH is a forum that has the broadest and most viewed content.

Red Nissan · 17-05-2014 11:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Freedom of religion is a human right, you can't ban families from bringing up their children in a way they see fit when it comes towards religion.

It SHOULD NOT BE.

It might happen, but the child comes FIRST, that disavows parental rights. I'm actually in disagreement that it is a human right.

200 Islamic children are being sold into sexual slavery in Nigera as we speak.

Not a human right by any stretch of the imagination, IMO.

Cazzoenorme · 17-05-2014 11:17PM

RobertKK wrote: »

This is silly about banning a child from receiving religious instruction. I mean my parents lived their faith, one still does, the other has died, their faith/religion is a part of who they are.
To say something should be banned is to say a parent cannot be seen to be following their faith in front of their child before it would influence the child.
A parent in this case would not have the freedom to be who they are.
It is saying a child should be kept in ignorance of the faith that their family has had for generations upon generations in most case, until older.
Children are part of families and should be included in what the family stands for from early on, not treated as if they are not part of the family and what the family stands for.
If one is atheist then their child is probably more likely to be atheist, influenced by the parent, should this be banned as it is an adult influencing a child and one could say depriving the child of knowledge towards religion which maybe comes from a hate towards religion?

Freedom of religion is a human right, you can't ban families from bringing up their children in a way they see fit when it comes towards religion.

It's simple, the parent can have their own beliefs and explain their beliefs, but they should also let thw child knoe that they can have whatever beliefs they want too and theu don't have to believe what their parents do.

D1stant · 17-05-2014 11:17PM

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

I am not religious but voted no.

It's communion month now. A lot of local businesses in my town have had a lift because of it - barbers, restaurants, clothes shops. Is that a bad thing?

Wow :eek:

RobertKK · 17-05-2014 11:18PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It SHOULD NOT BE.

It might happen, but the child comes FIRST, that disavows parental rights. I'm actually in disagreement that it is a human right.

200 Islamic children are being sold into sexual slavery in Nigera as we speak.

Not a human right by any stretch of the imagination, IMO.

So human rights groups are wrong for example when they complain about Christian churches being knocked down in China, people being held for practicing their religion.
If it is not a human right it allows things like this and the holocaust to be justified.
The Jews had a human right to be able to practice their religion freely, it was denied them with a great cost, we have to stand up for the rights of others to not be discriminated because of their religion.
This is why it is a human right.

Those children are Christian who have been forced to convert by a terrorist group who don't believe in the freedom of religion.

Should religious induction of children be banned?

Comments