Should it be illegal to force a child to believe in a religion or ideology?

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    It would make it against the law to use force, coercion, undue influence or blackmail in order to make a child believe/practise a religion or ideology.

    So, refusing a child dinner if they did not attend church would be unlawful, as would using pressure on a child to make them fast for Ramadan or Lent ('you will be grounded if you don't fast', etc.)

    It would not be unlawful to give the child the option: 'do you want to go to church with us today?'

    Views?
    There's a lot of idiotic responses to this post.

    I do believe that religious indoctrination is a coercive use of power by parents who want their children to abide by religious principles, but it is unrealistic to make illegal a parent having influence over the decisions their children choose to make.

    I think the best way we can promulgate freedom of choice is to rid the country of faith schools and promote controversial talking points in religious studies classes. My best friend growing up was a Muslim, but having went to a comprehensive school and by not isolating himself from non-Muslims he developed into a science-loving atheist. Luckily, he comes from a tolerant family who are indifferent to his leaving Islam but that's much harder for other Muslims or minority groups. Nevertheless, if religious views are challenged in an academic environment and we don't appease religious tolerance because of political correctness then young people will develop into free-thinking individuals who don't acquiesce to their parents' demands.

    This, however, won't happen. The left won't do it because they risk alienating the minority vote whom they rely heavily on, and the right won't do it because Christianity and religious leaders still play an influential in the Conservative Party.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why they're forced to believe the shoa religion. I bet more Western children have been in their museums than churches.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    x
    I can't quote your most recent post for some reason, so I'll have to quote your previous one.

    If "atheism" was included as an ideology, then this would affect atheist parents as much as religious parents.

    However, a lot of this debate depends on what we define as the default. If we choose agnosticism as the only "valid" default, and anything that is not that as an "ideology", then atheism would be included. If we thought that not being a theist is the default so as to use this policy against religious families, then yes, I would agree with your point that you are giving certain families privileges over others.

    I would, however, contend that a move to remove privileges from religious families to prevent them from indoctrinating the young could be justified for a host of reasons, some of which were expanded upon in my previous post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    It would make it against the law to use force, coercion, undue influence or blackmail in order to make a child believe/practise a religion or ideology.

    So, refusing a child dinner if they did not attend church would be unlawful, as would using pressure on a child to make them fast for Ramadan or Lent ('you will be grounded if you don't fast', etc.)

    It would not be unlawful to give the child the option: 'do you want to go to church with us today?'

    Views?
    I think children should try to follow the religion that their parents follow but if they don't feel any connection what so ever then parent's should not force this upon them. After all, religion is something very personal to you.
    This should not be made unlawful but these actions should be discouraged in our society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grand High Witch)
    It would make it against the law to use force, coercion, undue influence or blackmail in order to make a child believe/practise a religion or ideology.

    So, refusing a child dinner if they did not attend church would be unlawful, as would using pressure on a child to make them fast for Ramadan or Lent ('you will be grounded if you don't fast', etc.)

    It would not be unlawful to give the child the option: 'do you want to go to church with us today?'

    Views?
    Without using religion(heaven or hell), explain to me why raping or murdering is bad for ME? This is a though experiment, hypothetically im the head of a crime syndicate: i rape, murder, rob and I am rich. No one can touch me im living as a king. Now tell me what im doing is bad without using religion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think it should be made illegal for children to openly follow any part of their religion until they are 16/18 and old enough to decide for themselves instead of having it shoved through their throats. Including fasting, attending your place of worship or wearing religious dress like hijab etc. I find it so sad when I see toddlers and very young children in religious dress - do they even understand what it means? Of course not. Just pushy parents. It's sad.

    Never going happen, but this is my personal opinion. And preferably you should have to have a qualification in RE that you are aware of the teachings of all the major religions before you pick just one. ^^
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gman786)
    Without using religion(heaven or hell), explain to me why raping or murdering is bad for ME? This is a though experiment, hypothetically im the head of a crime syndicate: i rape, murder, rob and I am rich. No one can touch me im living as a king. Now tell me what im doing is bad without using religion.
    Because you've hurt another fellow human being?? Do you not have respect for other people outside of your religion?

    God shouldn't have to tell you what is wrong and right. There's a law, follow it. Also just be a nice person... It's really not hard. If the threat of hell is all that's keeping you from rape and theft then you need to take a look at your morals.

    Disturbing o.o
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gman786)
    Without using religion(heaven or hell), explain to me why raping or murdering is bad for ME? This is a though experiment, hypothetically im the head of a crime syndicate: i rape, murder, rob and I am rich. No one can touch me im living as a king. Now tell me what im doing is bad without using religion.
    If you want to know where morals come from I'd say that there is probably good evoloutionary reasons not to harm other people.Humans are weak creatures,the only advantage we have is our big brains.If we stuck together and didnt harm each other then we were more likely to survive against the predators that would harm us.In the same way we were more likely to catch prey if we cooperated with each other.Those early humans that did harm each other,that didnt cooperate with each other died out so didnt reproduce.Hence morality is selected for because humans that werent moral to other people in their group died out.Im not a biologist so thats just a theory,I could be wrong but you can see how there could be evoloutionary reasons to be nice to each other.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnGreek)
    I can't quote your most recent post for some reason, so I'll have to quote your previous one.

    If "atheism" was included as an ideology, then this would affect atheist parents as much as religious parents.

    However, a lot of this debate depends on what we define as the default. If we choose agnosticism as the only "valid" default, and anything that is not that as an "ideology", then atheism would be included. If we thought that not being a theist is the default so as to use this policy against religious families, then yes, I would agree with your point that you are giving certain families privileges over others.

    I would, however, contend that a move to remove privileges from religious families to prevent them from indoctrinating the young could be justified for a host of reasons, some of which were expanded upon in my previous post.
    I would dispute that Agnostocism is the only valid default.Atheism is a much more valid default.You're assuming that its equally likely there is not a god as there is.However its much more like 99% vs 1%.Im as much an atheist as I am an Afairyist or an Aleprachaunist,but you wouldnt say that leprachauns and fairys are just as likely to be real as not real.Atheism is the valid default because no one is born believing in God.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    Because you've hurt another fellow human being?? Do you not have respect for other people outside of your religion?

    God shouldn't have to tell you what is wrong and right. There's a law, follow it. Also just be a nice person... It's really not hard. If the threat of hell is all that's keeping you from rape and theft then you need to take a look at your morals.

    Disturbing o.o
    Do you know what a though experiment is? Clearly not...

    Right and wrong is subjective. What might be good for you, maybe bad for someone else.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Its worth googling 'pascals wager'...for the ones who are logical.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    If you want to know where morals come from I'd say that there is probably good evoloutionary reasons not to harm other people.Humans are weak creatures,the only advantage we have is our big brains.If we stuck together and didnt harm each other then we were more likely to survive against the predators that would harm us.In the same way we were more likely to catch prey if we cooperated with each other.Those early humans that did harm each other,that didnt cooperate with each other died out so didnt reproduce.Hence morality is selected for because humans that werent moral to other people in their group died out.Im not a biologist so thats just a theory,I could be wrong but you can see how there could be evoloutionary reasons to be nice to each other.

    Early humans did not harm each other?? I take it history is not your strong suit. Out of the homo genus, homo sapiens are the only species to survive. We literally wiped out the neandarthals.

    Natural selection/survival of the fittest ring a bell?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gman786)
    Do you know what a though experiment is? Clearly not...

    Right and wrong is subjective. What might be good for you, maybe bad for someone else.
    Do you know what common sense is? Clearly not...

    Rape, murder, thievery - without religion, we're barbarians. That explains why so many people live in complete and utter fear of what athiests will do to them if they get near to one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gman786)
    Its worth googling 'pascals wager'...for the ones who are logical.
    That's actually very interesting - thanks for the heads up.

    Though of course, that only applies if you think of Heaven as a good place to be - which indeed it does not seem to be, to me anyways.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    forcing a child to be an atheist is indoctrination of the most pernicious kind.

    :hat2:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    That's actually very interesting - thanks for the heads up.

    Though of course, that only applies if you think of Heaven as a good place to be - which indeed it does not seem to be, to me anyways.
    Why isn't heaven a good place according to you?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    forcing a child to be an atheist is indoctrination of the most pernicious kind.

    :hat2:
    Have you any evidence that any parent has ever done so?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Have you any evidence that any parent has ever done so?
    yes i keep it in a special box
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gman786)
    Early humans did not harm each other?? I take it history is not your strong suit. Out of the homo genus, homo sapiens are the only species to survive. We literally wiped out the neandarthals.

    Natural selection/survival of the fittest ring a bell?
    When I said early humans I meant homo sapiens and their anscestors.I meant that its makes sense for humans not to harm members of our own species as this would give us an advantage over predators if we cooperated within groups.Also its not proven that we wiped out the neanderthals,their are quite a few theories as to how they met their end but nothings been proven.It is known that we interbred with them.And for the record this isnt really history but prehistory.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 23, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
What is your favourite day of the week
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.