Should religious induction of children be banned?

Czarcasm · 19-05-2014 01:08AM

FunLover18 wrote: »

The right to educate, yes. I see no mention of indoctrination, and there is a difference. I don't have to be baptised in order to be educated about the Catholic church.

Basically what it boils down to is that Constitution says that the parents have the right to bring their children up in their faith, and the State will not interfere with that right as long as the children are not being harmed.

Of course they violated your rights. You may not care but they did. Why should the parents right to raise a child in their tradition come before the child's right to choose their faith? Yes for Christian it's a splash of water but where Jews and Muslims are concerned males are circumcised and yet this isn't classified as child abuse because it's in the name of some god that the child may or may not grow up to believe in.

The state is not interfering in religious practise and it is not preventing children from being educated in religion. But indoctrination of children is surely a violation of their rights to free practice of religion.

PS the current poll results stand thus. I have updated them in the first post also

Yes 220 votes 64.33%
No 65 votes 19.01%
Don't Care/Undecided 57 votes 16.67%

The children are free to practice their religion, that's the whole point. Circumcision has long been practiced as part of Jewish and Islamic faith and is an inherent part of their beliefs. It might not be to your taste, but it's not child abuse.

feargale · 19-05-2014 01:56AM

Pwindedd wrote: »

Yes OP what were you thinking.
Our reasoned debate and polite interchange are all for nothing because of your ill considered yet topically and culturally relevant poll options.
What about the Atari Jaguarists among us?

Anybody can be fair to like-minded people. Being fair to people of opposing views is what democracy is all about,

P_1 · 19-05-2014 01:57AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Basically what it boils down to is that Constitution says that the parents have the right to bring their children up in their faith, and the State will not interfere with that right as long as the children are not being harmed.

The children are free to practice their religion, that's the whole point. Circumcision has long been practiced as part of Jewish and Islamic faith and is an inherent part of their beliefs. It might not be to your taste, but it's not child abuse.

Tell that to the child who has just had a fairly intimate part of their body cut off (or in some cases mutilated) without their consent. By all means they should be free to undergo it if they want to but it needs to be their decision, not their parent's or religious leader's.

Czarcasm · 19-05-2014 02:14AM

P_1 wrote: »

Tell that to the child who has just had a fairly intimate part of their body cut off (or in some cases mutilated) without their consent. By all means they should be free to undergo it if they want to but it needs to be their decision, not their parent's or religious leader's.

It's not child abuse, and to label circumcision as such, does a disservice to children who actually ARE abused. "Abuse" is obviously going to get a reaction, but classifying circumcision based on religious beliefs as child abuse, and people are going to stop taking you seriously.

Parents make decisions for their children all the time, from their diet to medical procedures, their right to do this is protected by the constitution.

If secularism is at all to be taken seriously in this country, then the way to do it is not to object to other people who choose to practice their religion, but to show leadership in your own actions. Set an example you would want your children to follow, rather than telling other people how to parent their children.

P_1 · 19-05-2014 02:19AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's not child abuse, and to label circumcision as such, does a disservice to children who actually ARE abused. "Abuse" is obviously going to get a reaction, but classifying circumcision based on religious beliefs as child abuse, and people are going to stop taking you seriously.

Parents make decisions for their children all the time, from their diet to medical procedures, their right to do this is protected by the constitution.

If secularism is at all to be taken seriously in this country, then the way to do it is not to object to other people who choose to practice their religion, but to show leadership in your own actions. Set an example you would want your children to follow, rather than telling other people how to parent their children.

True child abuse probably isn't the best term but it isn't ideal for the child either. Parent's making decisions on their child's diet or medical treatment is one thing, usually they are in the child's best interest but you can't really claim that forcing the child through a ritual mutilation is.

Czarcasm · 19-05-2014 02:34AM

P_1 wrote: »

True child abuse probably isn't the best term but it isn't ideal for the child either. Parent's making decisions on their child's diet or medical treatment is one thing, usually they are in the child's best interest but you can't really claim that forcing the child through a ritual mutilation is.

It wouldn't matter tbh what I would or wouldn't claim, or what anyone else would claim for that matter. The parents of the child believe it is in the child's best interest according to their religious beliefs that the child be circumcised.

pauldla · 19-05-2014 03:38AM

Personally I would consider subjecting a child to an unnecessary and potentially dangerous surgical procedure to be very akin to child abuse, and I don't see how 'religious belief' provides a Get Out of Jail Free Card in this context.

Czarcasm · 19-05-2014 04:14AM

pauldla wrote: »

Personally I would consider subjecting a child to an unnecessary and potentially dangerous surgical procedure to be very akin to child abuse, and I don't see how 'religious belief' provides a Get Out of Jail Free Card in this context.

Personally I'm no fan of the old snip-snip myself, but then I also abstain from shaking hands with a muslim who extends his left hand to shake mine as it shows a lack of respect for me who doesn't share his beliefs.

I'm not going to insist that he shake with his right hand, in the very same way as I'm not going to tell him that he has no right to have his children circumcised. He also has no right to tell me how to raise my child.

In the same way - it's not really relevant to a muslim or a jew whether you believe or not what they are doing is wrong, or akin to child abuse or any of the rest of it. You would object to them forcing their will on you, so why should you expect to be able to force your will on them?

All you can do is lead by example, and hope that future generations follow your example. Actually now I think of it - Reformist Jews aren't too pushed about circumcision, but it's still a deal breaker in Islam, even for converts!

bogwalrus · 19-05-2014 04:35AM

It is just bad parenting to force one particular religion on a child. Educate about the world's religions and let them decide if they want to follow one.

For me forcing your religious views on your child is like teaching them to smoke from a young age.

Once you create a space for religion you will always need that filled. This is why it can be so hard to leave your religion and why some move to s different religion instead of becoming atheist. The void needs to be filled in someway.

Czarcasm · 19-05-2014 05:02AM

bogwalrus wrote: »

It is just bad parenting to force one particular religion on a child. Educate about the world's religions and let them decide if they want to follow one.

For me forcing your religious views on your child is like teaching them to smoke from a young age.

Is that not just you imposing your standards on another person though? Same thing then surely, the way a vegetarian would say feeding a child meat is bad parenting, or forcing them to attend school is stifling their creativity, etc. There are so many pressures on parents besides just religion and everyone wants to have their say in how someone else should parent their children or they're abusing the child, because what parent wants to think they're abusing their child? Most parents try to do their best for their children, and when you come out with statements comparing religious beliefs to forcing their children to smoke, people just aren't going to be able to take you seriously.

Once you create a space for religion you will always need that filled. This is why it can be so hard to leave your religion and why some move to s different religion instead of becoming atheist. The void needs to be filled in someway.

How is a lack of something going to fill a void? Unless there is no void and religion is just a philosophy like atheism is a philosophy?

pauldla · 19-05-2014 07:16AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Personally I'm no fan of the old snip-snip myself, but then I also abstain from shaking hands with a muslim who extends his left hand to shake mine as it shows a lack of respect for me who doesn't share his beliefs.

I'm not going to insist that he shake with his right hand, in the very same way as I'm not going to tell him that he has no right to have his children circumcised. He also has no right to tell me how to raise my child.

In the same way - it's not really relevant to a muslim or a jew whether you believe or not what they are doing is wrong, or akin to child abuse or any of the rest of it. You would object to them forcing their will on you, so why should you expect to be able to force your will on them?

All you can do is lead by example, and hope that future generations follow your example. Actually now I think of it - Reformist Jews aren't too pushed about circumcision, but it's still a deal breaker in Islam, even for converts!

Shaking hands is hardly the same thing as removing a foreskin, Czarcasm. I'm not forcing my will on anybody (or at least, until I have perfected my army of flying monkeys); I'm just wondering why ritual genital mutilation of minors is not considered child abuse. Why does 'It's our belief!' give a free pass to such activities? If the Spartans were still on the go today, would we allow them to leave babies on mountaintops overnight on the understanding that it was their religious belief?

Cazzoenorme · 19-05-2014 07:44AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Personally I'm no fan of the old snip-snip myself, but then I also abstain from shaking hands with a muslim who extends his left hand to shake mine as it shows a lack of respect for me who doesn't share his beliefs.

I'm not going to insist that he shake with his right hand, in the very same way as I'm not going to tell him that he has no right to have his children circumcised. He also has no right to tell me how to raise my child.

In the same way - it's not really relevant to a muslim or a jew whether you believe or not what they are doing is wrong, or akin to child abuse or any of the rest of it. You would object to them forcing their will on you, so why should you expect to be able to force your will on them?

All you can do is lead by example, and hope that future generations follow your example. Actually now I think of it - Reformist Jews aren't too pushed about circumcision, but it's still a deal breaker in Islam, even for converts!

Well you should tell him he doesn't have the right to circumcise his children, it's barbaric. Putting a baby in agony like that for no good reason is disgusting.

kylith · 19-05-2014 08:00AM

RobertKK wrote: »

The church changes despite what people think, it changed its policy on executions when prisons became a place where highly dangerous people couldn't escape from.
In the past prison breaks were common, no one wants a psychopath loose and killing due to escaping from prison.
The church can see that a prison in bible times was not secure and executions were part of justice, there was no high security prisons for example...

The previous Pope did a great job in regards to child abuse, when he was in the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, it was the Cardinal from Colombia who was in charge of priests - in the congregation for the clergy. There are articles about a power struggle between Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Hoyos. Cardinal Ratzinger was not happy with how Cardinal Hoyos was dealing with the abuse cases.
Cardinal Ratzinger won the power struggle, and the dealing of abuse cases moved from Hoyos to Ratzinger in 2001. Hoyos was against the reporting to civil authorities, Hoyos was against denouncing the abusers.
Cardinal Ratzinger called the people who abused as being "filth" and he has been the architect in child protection within the church, and made a point of meeting people who had been abused. To say he covered up abuse is to rewrite history.
He was the one who went out of his way to take control of it when we had a Pope who should have resigned due to health reasons and who had not been in a position to deal with it.

Yeah, the previous pope did a fantastic job in relation to child abuse, particularly how he wrote a letter as head of the Doctrine of the Faith reminding everyone not to report it, or else.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

Pwindedd · 19-05-2014 08:23AM

feargale wrote: »

Anybody can be fair to like-minded people. Being fair to people of opposing views is what democracy is all about,

In fairness the op made a complete balls of the poll from the start and is now stuck updating it in posts. If the yes option also had a father ted reference would that make it credible again. I'd rather like to know on which side of the fence you sit. This debate could do with some fresh eyes.

applehunter · 19-05-2014 08:23AM

pajosjunkbox wrote: »

I'm a primary school teacher. My class are making their first communion tomorrow. It was my job to prepare them for it. The church has schools in ireland by the balls. Religion has no place in schools. It's a joke ! Hard to speak out though - definitely would affect career !

You poor thing !

keano_afc · 19-05-2014 08:41AM

Considering some of the statuses i've seen on FB this weekend, I think the parents would suffer more if occassions like First Communion were a choice rather than a compulsion.

AudreyHepburn · 19-05-2014 08:56AM

Indoctrination should absolutely be banned, I don't think any rational person would say otherwise.

Allowing the State and/or those who don't share your beliefs or lack of beliefs to dictate how you raise and educate your children though....that's going too far.

Ans as for those who equate sending your child to a school with a religious ethos with child abuse, that is just hysterical nonsense.

RobertKK · 19-05-2014 09:02AM

kylith wrote: »

Yeah, the previous pope did a fantastic job in relation to child abuse, particularly how he wrote a letter as head of the Doctrine of the Faith reminding everyone not to report it, or else.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

That article jumps to conclusions - it equates a church investigation to that of a state investigation.
Nowhere does it stop any alleged victim going to civil authorities in that article.

kylith · 19-05-2014 09:25AM

RobertKK wrote: »

That article jumps to conclusions - it equates a church investigation to that of a state investigation.
Nowhere does it stop any alleged victim going to civil authorities in that article.

Try this one then. Here are some highlights:

"They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'"

"Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'. "

" There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm. "

RobertKK · 19-05-2014 09:30AM

kylith wrote: »

Try this one then. Here are some highlights:

"They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'"

"Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'. "

" There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm. "

The highlighted bit - the letter was about church investigations involving the confessional.

Does the state do excommunications?

pauldla · 19-05-2014 09:33AM

kylith wrote: »

Try this one then. Here are some highlights:

"They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'"

"Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'. "

" There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm. "

In other words, 'Don't tell anybody, or you'll get in trouble! And they won't believe you, anyway.'

Monsters. :mad:

RobertKK · 19-05-2014 09:41AM

pauldla wrote: »

In other words, 'Don't tell anybody, or you'll get in trouble! And they won't believe you, anyway.'

Monsters. :mad:

That is wrong, it is about the seal of the confessional and the confessional being secret as it always has been.

That does not stop any victim going to the civil authorities.

In the UK btw, the seal of the confessional is respected, the government here thinks it can be broken.

Akrasia · 19-05-2014 09:41AM

There's a preschool near me run by an evangelical church
No points for guessing what the primary focus of this preschool is.

It sends shivers down my spine to think of all these lovely little innocent children going out into the world on their own for the first time only to be left somwhere whose main purpose is to turn them into evangelical christians.

It genuinely makes me sad.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 19-05-2014 09:42AM

Terrible poll.

pauldla · 19-05-2014 09:48AM

RobertKK wrote: »

That is wrong, it is about the seal of the confessional and the confessional being secret as it always has been.

That does not stop any victim going to the civil authorities.

In the UK btw, the seal of the confessional is respected, the government here thinks it can be broken.

The victim was required to make the oath of secrecy, not the confessor. I repeat, the victim. The innocent party. The one who had done no wrong. The child.

Away with this craven nonsense, please.

RobertKK · 19-05-2014 09:58AM

pauldla wrote: »

The victim was required to make the oath of secrecy, not the confessor. I repeat, the victim. The innocent party. The one who had done no wrong. The child.

Away with this craven nonsense, please.

In terms of the church investigation. We should not equate a church investigation with a civil authorities investigation whom I don't think would be broadcasting all they know either until it reached a court.

Birroc · 19-05-2014 10:03AM

Akrasia wrote: »

There's a preschool near me run by an evangelical church
No points for guessing what the primary focus of this preschool is.

It sends shivers down my spine to think of all these lovely little innocent children going out into the world on their own for the first time only to be left somwhere whose main purpose is to turn them into evangelical christians.

It genuinely makes me sad.

I know. How can people condone filling little innocent children's head with all the negative crap that comes with most religions. It disgusts me to be honest.

padd b1975 · 19-05-2014 10:07AM

Birroc wrote: »

I know. How can people condone filling little innocent children's head with all the negative crap that comes with most religions. It disgusts me to be honest.

It's no one's business apart from the parents.

Birroc · 19-05-2014 10:08AM

RobertKK wrote: »

In terms of the church investigation. We should not equate a church investigation with a civil authorities investigation whom I don't think would be broadcasting all they know either until it reached a court.

Address the point and don't be a coward.

Is that vile man Sean Brady still leader of your organisation?

Drakares · 19-05-2014 10:09AM

Religion is as important as history. Hitler believed his call was a holy one and done what he done because he thought he was sent from God to do it. Shall we scratch that part out?

I don't get why people are so butthurt by religious education. Unless children are being forced and brainwashed (which I've not seen, in Ireland anyway) then I don't see the problem.

Should religious induction of children be banned?

Comments