Should religious induction of children be banned?

Spring Onion wrote: »

I also think the world will be a much better place without religion.

They are trying that in North Korea, anyone found practicing a religion is sent to a concentration camp along with their extended families.

We need to be more like North Korea, right?

catallus wrote: »

Are you being deliberately opaque here, or do you just get a kick out of blithely displaying banal discrimination? What exactly is your problem with this "bible-belt"? Is it because it has the word "bible" in it?

Leave her be.

It's just standard childish thanks whoring.

Wondering what a country would be like with religion as a minority?

Look at Sweden.

It's no coincidence that it is one of the best run countries in the world and always up near the top of those 'Best places to live in the world' studies/polls.

I think religion is a good idea and is all sweet and innocent when it starts but when you get older you see it for what it is. But then it is still nice to know things, think perhaps all religions should be thought or given an introduction to for kids. Maybe around the age of 7 they should be thought a little about all religions and maybe shown more about all their connections to eachother, than how all but one is good..

Can be scary for kids I know my own nephew was scared when the teacher told him dead people turn to angels and are always watching he was terrified.. hence he doesn't attend class anymore kids are kids let them be kids

eviltwin wrote: »

From one extreme to another eh? Having a secular state does not mean banning religion or persecution of people of faith.

I was replying to "I also think the world will be a much better place without religion."

It is not I who brought in extremes.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Wondering what a country would be like with religion as a minority?

Look at Sweden.

It's no coincidence that it is one of the best run countries in the world and always up near the top of those 'Best places to live in the world' studies/polls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

The many nonbelievers he interviewed, both informally and in structured, taped and transcribed sessions, were anything but antireligious, for example. They typically balked at the label “atheist.” An overwhelming majority had in fact been baptized, and many had been confirmed or married in church.
Though they denied most of the traditional teachings of Christianity, they called themselves Christians, and most were content to remain in the Danish National Church or the Church of Sweden, the traditional national branches of Lutheranism.

Maybe non-religious Irish people shouldn't be so hostile to religion. Where they make it an issue.

This cultural religion may partly explain aspects of Denmark and Sweden that he admires.
At one point, he queries Jens, a 68-year-old nonbeliever, about the sources of Denmark’s very ethical culture. Jens replies: “We are Lutherans in our souls — I’m an atheist, but still have the Lutheran perceptions of many: to help your neighbor. Yeah. It’s an old, good, moral thought.”

Grayson wrote: »

That's different. That's still a belief system.

How about this. The world would be better without patently unbelievable belief systems that need a populace indoctinerated from birth to exist.



My problem with them is that they're idiots.

So you end up replacing one belief system with another.
I don't believe the North Koreans have this belief in their dear leader, I believe they live a life playing charades so they can live.
North Korea uses terror to control the people.

Being here in quite a multi-cultural part of London, I regularly see children who are Catholic (particularly as it is communion/confirmation month), Protestant, Muslim and Hindu tipping around the area. There doesn't seem to be a peep out of any of them and they don't show any problems that I am aware of.

Try and ban Muslims raising their children with Islam and look at the backlash that you will get!!

As far as there are no problems, no, religious induction of children should not be banned.

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0



Maybe non-religious Irish people shouldn't be so hostile to religion. Where they make it an issue.

Non religious New Zealanders are not hostile to religion either (so long as, unlike myself they remain in secular countries). Hostility toward religion happens when other peoples religion is forced upon you (eg Irish Education system). When religion does not intrude into the lives of non religious people, there is very little reason to have issue. I never in my life harboured a negative thought toward religion or even identified as an athiest until I moved to Ireland. The imposition of Catholicism has since turned me into a pretty *militant* athiest who now sees religion as something very negative and intrusive.

Perhaps Ireland should become properly secular, as is fitting for a First World Western Country, and then non religious Irish people would not feel negatively toward religion either, just like the majority of non religious Swedes and NZers.

FunLover18 wrote: »

People have clearly seen this idea as an infringement on their rights to practice religion when that could not be further from the truth. Article 42, Section 2.1 which I have quoted as the basis of this argument guarantees 'freedom of conscience and the free profession & and practice of religion'. How is it that everyone has this right except children where the decision is made for them by their parents.

Has anyone who posted on this thread either for or against CHOSEN a religion without having been indoctrinated into it first as child?

I suppose my MAJOR issue with religion in Ireland is that it is forced on my child via the school system. It should be my right to bring my child up without having him taught (particularly by professionals employed by the State) that any religion is fact or reality.

I see complete secularisation of all public institutions as the answer to this issue. Going full circle and imposing on the current imposers is just as bad. Parents should be free to bring their children up as they see fit so long as it dosn't cross the abuse line.

catallus wrote: »

Are you being deliberately opaque here, or do you just get a kick out of blithely displaying banal discrimination? What exactly is your problem with this "bible-belt"? Is it because it has the word "bible" in it?

No, the problem is that it's a hotbed of bigotry. The "Bible Belt" was the bastion of the Jim Crow Laws before the intervention of the federal government, and it took until 2003 for "anti-sodomy" laws across the "Bible Belt" to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

As for "being deliberately opaque", I would laugh if I wasn't so worn down by your frustrating hypocrisy.