Opinion on the video?
[quote]Top scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss advocate for children, arguing children should be allowed to develop as critical thinkers and be protected from religious indoctrination.
Speaking with The Irish Times, Dawkins, a leading biologist, and Krauss, a leading physicist, defended a child’s right to a proper education.
Dawkins said:
[quote] There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents. Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.[/quote]
Krauss said:
[quote]That means parents have a limited — it seems to be — limited rights in determining what the curriculum is. The state is providing the education, it’s trying to make sure all children have equal opportunity.
And parents of course have concerns and a say, but they don’t have the right to shield their children from knowledge. That’s not a right any more than they have the right to shield their children from health care or medicine.
And those parents that do that are often tried and imprisoned when they refuse to allow their children to get blood transfusions or whatever is necessary for their health. And this is necessary for their mental health.[/quote]
Dawkins, Krauss, and other intellectuals make an interesting and compelling claim: forcing children to accept the religious superstitions of their parents can be a form of child abuse. [u]For example[/u], teaching children Biblical creationism as a legitimate scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a form of child abuse.
Yet if we are to accept this claim, what are the implications for social policy? Should the government step in and protect children from the religious superstitions of their parents?
Or should parents retain the right to force their religious beliefs upon their children, even when those beliefs are demonstrably harmful to the education of the child, as is the case with teaching creationism, or even teaching kids a woman's role according to islam?
And what about religious schools, as well as homeschoolers, engaged in the explicit task of indoctrinating children?
How does society protect children from the damaging excesses of religion?
How does society defend a child’s right to a proper education, even if that education violates the sincerely held religious beliefs of their parents?[/quote]
Opinions?
-
That straight up murders the whole idea of freedom of religion, so no.
-
What happened to freedom of religion?
-
I might have to necro this
-
I mean I'm going to start the Spartan Program one day so bugger off with this
-
I think you shouldn't TRY to get a kid to believe something but just when you think they're ready show them a bit of everything and whatever they so chose support them as much as you think is right, if their mind changes don't scold them just keep supporting, honestly I think a child shouldn't have to put up with being forced to believe in something.
-
It's a difficult question. By "protecting" someone from being influenced by a certain system of belief, you're enforcing your own belief on them. There are many non- religious equivalents as well, such as political affiliation. Another would be vegetarianism. If parents believe eating animals is cruel, should we "protect" the children by forcing the parents to feed them well rounded meals? Or should we make it so no children eat meat until they're old enough to make their own decisions on what, if any, rights animals may have? To truly "protect" someone from outside influence, you'd have to teach them nothing and just let them live wild and free until they were old enough to form their own interpretation, but that would lead to some very underdeveloped people. My personal opinion is that people should raise their own kids, but not shield them from alternative opinions. (limits on what they can watch on TV or what kind of video games are age appropriate are fine, but be willing to discuss why you've established those limits)
-
Belief systems are a bit forced upon family. Yet ultimately it is up to the individual to determine what they believe. My family for example: Family of 6,3 guys, 3 girls. Parents were Episcopalian Christians and as such me,my brother and my 2 sisters all had to go to church. We weren't given a choice on it. Yet now I'm an atheist, my brother jewish, one of my sisters is pagan/her own belief and the other a mix of all I think, while the parents stayed Christian. I feel bad for those whose families were not accepting though. We all were forced into Christian belief, yet all came out of it. Ultimately it is up to tbe individual, but perhaps some protection does need to be in place. I doubt it would work or even have a chance of being supported, but what I think would be fair to the children themselves is to forbid religious exposure until a certain age,then introduce them to the world of it,and let them make their own choice. Parents would most likely scream bloody murder,and it'd be understandable. It is often taken that children can't make decisions for themselves,and I think this would probably fall under that category too at the same time as above. I mean, a child of a divorced family cant decide who they want to live with until theyre 14, and at 16 can only get married with parental consent.(At least here.) It does feel trickery and perhaps impossible to balance the child's right to believe what they want, free of their parents, with a parents right to raise their children. I really don't know. Not quite a fun thing either way.
-
What I think about indoctrination is it is unfair for the kids. When parents force their children to go to their place of worship, it takes away that persons right to decide what to believe in for themselves. I was brought up to be indifferent about religion. I was never forced to believe anything and I'm happy it happened that way.
-
"Innocent people die!" "And if they don't?" Think of the children, Shepard!
-
Just block fox news
-
We should just kill the children and cut out the middle man
-
If you really think of it as child abuse, you've gone too far into anti-religion. Seriously. Stop.
-
Government protection is oxymoronic.
-
Let's think about this for a moment... the secular part of society tend to leans left politically, included in these numbers are teachers, professors and main stream media (including Hollywood)... so please, tell me about this fear of indoctrination you feel from religion.
-
Edited by Smarkdow: 2/28/2015 11:24:09 PMYes, we don't want our children ending up like this^.
-
S*** like this is why kids aren't worth crap these days
-
TL;DR
-
I was not brought up with a religion, so it's difficult for me to understand how much of an impairment religious indoctrination can be. In my own experience, I have friends in scientific research who are doing just fine-- despite their indoctrinations. I'm sure there are forms of religious teachings that can be considered abusive, but I'm not convinced that it's all bad news. And I believe parents have the right to teach their children what they want.
-
Why would we give our children to the Reapers?
-
No -blam!-ing scientist needs to tell everyone how to raise their own child this kind of thing is ridiculous. Worry about yourself and your life. Live and let live
-
The last thing we want is a controlling and oppressive society.
-
I'm nervous that Reapers are here now, and indoctrinating people and no one is crying out. How can OP be so calm about it when we have thousands of 20 story high killing machines ready to wipe us out????
-
What we need, is real separation. Separate those of faith, from those who lack faith. After a while, thanks to the logical minds of those who do not follow organised religion, their technology will inevitably become far superior. At this point, the only logical step would be to drop a-bombs on the "faith colonies". Thereby removing [b]THE[/b] problem with humanity. Problem solved.
-
Most people are born free..as it should be..kids should be given a choice when they reach appropriate age..18 or something like that.
-
Well, that article already seems extremely anti-theistic, but this is what I say: Some religious beliefs, such as that medical treatments like blood transfusions are bad, I don't know how any person could believe that, and I'm really certain that there is no logical reasoning behind it, or at least there isn't any in the Christian faith. That is just basic keeping your kids safe and healthy. And, for other beliefs such as Creationism, I think it would be utterly stupid to have that considered child abuse, because then eventually teaching [i]any[/i] religious beliefs at all would be considered child abuse, more bans, and eventually there will be no more freedom of religion. And besides, at least in the USA, religion is not taught in schools; the public schools teach secular curriculum, and the religious stuff is taught by churches and parents. Of course I'm kind of uncomfortable with over-extreme religious zealotry in many cases, so I wouldn't mind discouraging some of the more extreme and immoral religious beliefs, but let the schools teach the "proper education" and let the parents teach religion and take their children to church. Prohibiting that would be a step backwards for individual rights and a step forward for more government oppression.
-
Im gonna assume the entire make up of the statement is to limit or eliminate the impact of religion to a child. The child should have the option to choose. It should neither be denied or forced upon them.