(of all faiths) if it were illegal for kids under the age of 18 to go to church services of any kind? I realize that was nearly the case in some of the communist countries last century, but I don't think it lasted long enough or was complete enough (asking favors of the Orthodox church, etc.) to get a good idea of how it would all work out. I think it would take a few generations or more to gauge the true impact. I know many would just have services of some sort at home, but I have to wonder how much impact the organized portion and groups has to do with it all - that sense of fitting in, group-think, etc. Just a thought experiment and curious to the thoughts of others on it.
It would make religion and new hip underground scene because of how rebellious and anti-authoritarian it would be to go to religious services.
IMO services are not the problem because there is a higher level of care applied when speaking to a large audience and a collection of adults are around to object, reject what's being said. The big problem is ideological indoctrination of all kinds in the home from a young age. It is a serious abuse of children's rights IMO when you "teach" them something which has a scope greater than they can possibly grasp. You're a guardian not a slave owner, you should teach the kid every thing as objectively as you feel possible such that they can slowly come to their own decision when they grow up.
The unemployment office gets flooded with Sunday school teachers. While TV pastors like Osteen bank even more money, as families stay at home and watch service on TV. There may be a growth of the religious TV channel for all religions that have enough followers to support broadcasting. Amish would probably pack up and move to Canada or just get thrown in jail, since they won't be using a TV for service.
Ignoring the fact that I sincerely believe that parents try far, far too hard to be their children's "friend" or something like that, who enforces that right?
I don't know. But I'm sure there are a whole host of imperfect solutions better than what's going on right now. I wonder if this could fall under a wider remit for child protection services or something?
"Hi, I'm going to call CPS and put a family through the trauma that that process is because they aren't teaching their children enough liberal or conservative viewpoints. Or, rather, they aren't teaching their kids the democratic socialism that I believe in." You ever heard of the "the perfect is the enemy of the good?" Because frankly Mathloon, a LOT of your ideals fall under that statement.
I find it sad how some people are so arrogant in their beliefs, from the extreme religious side to the anti religious side. Lets just ignore child obesity, emotional abuse or the lack of being a proper parent in modern society.
Not at all, I conceded that it would always be imperfect and I'm always up front when I suggest idealistic ideas. On the other hand, I find that you cannot fathom a better way for anything to happen than the way it currently happens. From my experience, I feel that you are (excuse my poor vocabulary) an ultra-realist. Seems to be a recipe for nothing ever changing. For example, your assumption that CPS must continue to behave the same way in all instances even if given a wider remit. What's to say they couldn't operate with fines or cuts in benefits or something less harsh but still appropriately effective? CPS already will take your kid away if you physically or psychologically abuse them if I'm not mistaken. This problem is similar to psychological abuse IMO as long as it's not described as sarcastically as you have above. I do sincerely appreciate your viewpoint because it challenges my own thinking, but it wouldn't hurt for you to spend a little more time making suggestions rather than shooting down ideas. I'm completely aware of the difficulty in finding a good solution for enforcing a child's rights objectively (which is a wider issue), but I think there is clear room for improvement. I also think you don't believe in the concepts of objectivity and independence - not by any organization, individual(s), committees, nothing. Am I right? If so, I think this is a mistake. There is a way to diversify bias to a bare minimum such that the bias does not systematically affect the outcome of the subject matter. Perhaps you would be more concerned about this if you walked into a conservative mosque/church and declared that: "You do not own your own children." and see the dirty and disgusted looks you'd get.
Can't really be sure what the effect would be but I would imagine it would the same as the Santa Clause effect. Majority of the people who grew up in the US, at one point in time believed in Santa. The reason why kids were able to easily drop this belief is because once you had your doubts about the validity of Santa, you did not get a lot of people reassuring you that Santa exists. They knew you discovered the hoax and they left it at that. You might also have even been ridiculed by kids your own age if you kept believing it With organized religion, it is able to keep indoctrinating you with their beliefs. Services plays a big part of that indoctrination and having to be around a lot of people who agrees with the same philosophy (good or bad) gives you a feeling of reassurance and the thought of questioning (which never happens on services) never occurs.
I'm not sure the effect on religion, but I'm pretty sure it would be the beginning of an overthrow of government, and rightfully so. The government has no reason to make such a law, and it would violate any number of core principles of the country.
Fully-grown adults convert to Scientology and Mormonism all the time. Being older doesn't inoculate you against credulity.
Yes but again, there is a variety of peers and media outlets espousing a variety of views. Believe me, I think it's also highly detrimental but less so than 1 or 2 people banging the same idea into your head for at least 16 consecutive formative years on a daily basis and living it out before your eyes at the same time. In the most extreme of cases, we have to keep a leash on these things.
No one has ever proven God doesn't exist, so your Santa story, cute and all, doesn't work. Especially because he was a real person that did great things for others and he believed that Jesus was God.
Excuse me? This is a bunch of bull. I guess If I tried to teach my kid Calculus at 8 . . . I'd be abusing them too Basically . . .they should raise their children the way YOU THINK THEY SHOULD AND D*MN THEIR OPINIONS OR THOUGHTS. Rocket River All geniuses were so abused. . .
I have a hard time with my son when he mentions Jesus or God. You won't find it in my house. Of course my family is filled with varying levels of Christians. When he tells me this or that I usually tell him some people believe that. I went to church as a kid, but am not religous. I allow my sons to go to church with my dad and grandma sometimes. It isn't going to hurt them.
The burden of proof belongs to the ones who claim it to be true. Do you constantly have to prove the non existence of that fairies, Zeus, Rah and all the other mythical gods? Nice try of trying to shift the burden but no cigar. The reference to Santa was not about if he really existed or not. I used it as an example to show that even a very commonly accepted belief(somebody handing out gifts to children all over the world in a span of 24 hours) is also categorized as a myth. Santa story has more truth than the bible because as a kid, you will see a gift and a signed card for him.
