|
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
 Posted - 03/28/2005 : 22:30:22
|
Here's an issue that perhaps should be addressed in 21st century America: children's first amendment rights. It's weird - some of those rights are on hold until the person turns 18 - the right to vote, make contracts [except in the limited situation in which parents can approve a marriage contract for a teen marriage]. Some rights are allowed to children, at least theoretically - like the rights of free speech and assembly [although parents try to control these, the state, in general, does not] Yet one of the most important of first amendment rights is trumped by the parents - the parents choose the religious practices of the under 18.
Considering the fact that the American citizens who are most likely to suffer the most dire consequences of religious practice are children whose parents withhold medicine, the issue crosses from a question of freedom of how to live one's life, to life and death. If an adult belongs to a church that disapproves of medicine and becomes ill, the adult has choices available that children do not currently have - the option to secretly get the disapproved treatment, the option to leave the church.
It seems that, putting the first amendment right to religion on "hold" until 18 would not have dire consequences for children of less-extreme religions, but might save the lives of children of faith-healer and their followers. Another plus, if children could not be recruited in their minority, churches [and parents] might have motivation to be nicer to recruit kids, instead of recruting by scaring them.
|
trish |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 07:17:57 [Permalink]
|
As pointed out on this page and elsewhere, the Supreme Court has, for a long time, said that the First Amendment does not protect all religious actions, even if it does protect all religious beliefs. Just like the use of marijuana for Rastafarians is illegal, as is the use of peyote for southwestern American Indians (off reservations), as is human sacrifice for worshippers of Kali, the First Amendment does not give parents the right to allow harm to come to their children through medical or other neglect.
As a side note, while parents may attempt to indoctrinate their children into their preferred religion at an early age, and may even punish children for failure to abide by their religion's "rules," parents cannot truly control what their children think (especially the willful and/or stubborn kids). So it's not entirely accurate to suggest that parents choose their children's religion for them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 08:42:33 [Permalink]
|
Children, and particularly teens are rebellious be nature. They are asserting their independence as selves, separate from their parents. When it comes to things like religion, it seems to me that the more the parent pushes, the more a teen is likely to push back. That, of course, does not mean that they will all bolt from whatever religion the parents are pushing. Some do and then come back when they find out that their parents are not simply the imbeciles that (most) teens think their parents are. Some never return.
That said, I know too many adults who have not embraced the religion of their parents. A process that probably started in teen-hood and continued into adulthood.
I went on a half assed spiritual search that, among other things, eventually lead to my becoming a skeptic and agnostic. I did not marry a Jewish woman either time I married.
I have friends who describe themselves as recovering Catholics. Born again perhaps, but with an almost complete rejection of their parent's religion.
Judging by my own experience, that of my friends and acquaintances, a parent can only lead (or drag) their teen aged horses to the water. They can't make them float on it. Of course, all of this is anecdotal. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are studies somewhere that support these musings. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 09:03:39 [Permalink]
|
| Well, a parent can terrify their kids into religious obediance, too ("If you don't wash behind your ears, Timmy, God won't love you and you'll burn in Hell for eternity"), but I would consider such cases borderline child abuse, anyway. And that's so far outside the mainstream, I doubt serious statistics exist for this sort of thing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 13:41:19 [Permalink]
|
According to Madlyn Murray O'Hair's book, the Catholic Church considers one a member from [infant] baptism on. In fact, there is no way to get off their list as an adult! As far as I know, Protestants consider people full members from confirmation [early teens], Jewish teens count as members from the Bar Mitsvah/Bat Mitsvah, etc.
One thing I'm thinking is that chuhrches shouldn't be allowed to count as members those in their minority.
Another thing I worry about are the children, usually small, who wind up dying from lack of medical care [or even food, as in the recent case of The Body in Massachussetts] A lot of things that rational people would consider "borderline child abuse" are business as usual for religious groups, which often get a break in the criminal justice system just because they are religions. For instance, in many states, religion is a defnse against charges of child abuse, child endangerment or even murder, in the case of withheld medicine. These kids don't have a chance to realize that their parents' religion isn't the ony way.
I find it interesting/troubling that a child can, in their minority, claim full membership in a church, yet can't make a contract to purchase a scooter. Or, in the case of Catholics, their membership can be declared by their parents before they can even speak. Yes, many people overcome this, but should we have to? |
trish |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 13:57:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
According to Madlyn Murray O'Hair's book, the Catholic Church considers one a member from [infant] baptism on. In fact, there is no way to get off their list as an adult! As far as I know, Protestants consider people full members from confirmation [early teens], Jewish teens count as members from the Bar Mitsvah/Bat Mitsvah, etc.
One thing I'm thinking is that chuhrches shouldn't be allowed to count as members those in their minority.
That's just a sign of the religions' insecurity. They're claiming members which may not exist in order to pump themselves up. No big deal there.
The good thing is that churches - as institutions - do not (in the US, at least) have the ability to prohibit people from leaving.quote:
A lot of things that rational people would consider "borderline child abuse" are business as usual for religious groups, which often get a break in the criminal justice system just because they are religions. For instance, in many states, religion is a defnse against charges of child abuse, child endangerment or even murder, in the case of withheld medicine.
The link I provided earlier claims the opposite: that not a single case of withheld medicine has been ruled on by the Supreme Court in favor of "religious freedom." There may be "religious exemption" laws in many states, but they appear to be unconstitutional. It seems only to be a matter of time before they are ruled as such.quote:
I find it interesting/troubling that a child can, in their minority, claim full membership in a church, yet can't make a contract to purchase a scooter. Or, in the case of Catholics, their membership can be declared by their parents before they can even speak. Yes, many people overcome this, but should we have to?
Unfortunately, given the First Amendment, churches can pretty much claim whatever they want to. It doesn't make them correct, and if their numbers are too far off, they'll lose credibility, and thus lose members, which is the opposite of the intent.
Hell, if the Catholics claim members from baptism, then I'm probably still counted as an Episcopalian, despite the fact that I haven't been to services since I was 14, and lost whatever faith I may have had years before then. If they're so desperate for members that they still count me as one, I feel pity for them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 15:01:58 [Permalink]
|
Richard Dawkings, in his essay Is Science a Religion?, pretty much makes this same argument. In it he writes:quote:
Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse. In a 1995 issue of the Independent, one of London's leading newspapers, there was a photograph of a rather sweet and touching scene. It was Christmas time, and the picture showed three children dressed up as the three wise men for a nativity play. The accompanying story described one child as a Muslim, one as a Hindu, and one as a Christian. The supposedly sweet and touching point of the story was that they were all taking part in this Nativity play.
What is not sweet and touching is that these children were all four years old. How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist? Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican? There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/29/2005 15:03:28 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 15:32:53 [Permalink]
|
This might be a bit tangetal, but children do have First Amendment rights. The government has to afford them every reasonable accomidation for religion and speech.
These rights have limits, though. The basic "fire" in a crowded theater bits and slander.
SCOTUS has even ruled on this in the 1969 with Tinker v. Des Moines School District (393 US 503)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=393&invol=503
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2005 : 15:44:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
I have friends who describe themselves as recovering Catholics. Born again perhaps, but with an almost complete rejection of their parent's religion.
Judging by my own experience, that of my friends and acquaintances, a parent can only lead (or drag) their teen aged horses to the water. They can't make them float on it. Of course, all of this is anecdotal. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there are studies somewhere that support these musings.
See, I would bet the complete opposite. I'm guessing the vast majority of those of religious persuasion are of the same faith as their parents. (I'd say somewhere around 85-90%) Even going from Catholic to being "born again" is a change of maybe intensity or focus, merely. It's still all Christianity. It isn't the same as going from, say, Catholic to Hindu.
I'm at work and tried doing a quick search for any study that would shed some light on this matter, but was unable to discovery anything. I'll try again when I have more time, unless anyone else is able to come up with anything.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/29/2005 19:03:28 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 09:38:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
See, I would bet the complete opposite. I'm guessing the vast majority of those of religious persuasion are of the same faith as their parents.
I have three children and two step-children. I am agnostic, and my husband is Christian. I do not attend church. He goes pretty regularly. I find that with the teenagers the most important thing is what their friends are doing. If the church has social things going on and their friends are going, they ask to go and I let them. If their friends are not involved in church or faith-based clubs like the Fellowship for Christian Athletes, they show no interest.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I'm at work and tried doing a quick search for any study that would shed some light on this matter, but was unable to discovery anything. I'll try again when I have more time, unless anyone else is able to come up with anything.
I'm at work, too. I didn't come up with much, but here's a long (and somewhat dated) study by the Lutheran Church on Religious Socialization. The first few paragraphs on page five reflect my own experience.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2005 : 15:31:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
I'm at work, too. I didn't come up with much, but here's a long (and somewhat dated) study by the Lutheran Church on Religious Socialization. The first few paragraphs on page five reflect my own experience.
I did not have time to read the enitre article, but the point it seemed to be making is that it isn't merely the beliefs of one's parents that influence one's beliefs, but the beliefs of all those who inhabit one's social sphere, including peers and educators. While that may be true, it is obvious that most parents choose to plant their children in a community basically in tune with their own beliefs, making the community an extension of the parents beliefs by default.
Note that I'm not arguing that parents are the sole influence on their children's religious beliefs or that it is impossible for children to disentangle themselves from their parents belief system, only that it generally isn't the case.
But do let me know if your children start asking you to take them to Jewish temple.  |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/30/2005 15:33:15 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 08:22:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
But do let me know if your children start asking you to take them to Jewish temple.
My youngest did, as a matter of fact. A couple of years ago she noticed that a girl in her class always brought her lunch on pizza day. This is freakishly unusual for kids, as pizza day is considered a happy day for all. She asked this child what the deal was, and the little girl explained that she is Jewish and her religion places restrictions on what she can eat.
My daughter, Jessica, (the same name as the daughter of Shylock, Jewish Merchant of Venice) announced she wanted to be Jewish. 
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
