Upbringing of children (Split from "Should religion be illegal")

[Hyacinth]

Should religion be illegal? That’s quite a board question.

Clearly we can’t control what people believe, to try to do so would be futile and counterproductive. Moreover, religion as a private practice I have no issue with (what consenting adults do with one another or by themselves in the privacy of their homes I have no issue with).

That being said, though, I would take issue with certain public displays of religion. Evangelizing I don’t think should be tolerated. By that I’m not suggesting that we actually ban the practice, but we don’t have to promote it or support it in any way. I wouldn’t wish to provide the resources necessary for religions to be spread: no publishing should be devoted to reproduction of religious literature en masse (the exception being for university textbooks), we shouldn’t provide public building for use for religious services, etc.

As well, the other issue with respect to religion that I think needs regulation is the upbringing of children. Children should not be treated as the property of parents who can (as in the present system) decide what sort of superstition to indoctrinate their children into. Proselytizing to children should be prohibited and not treated lightly.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Presumably the reason why you believe children should not be exposed to religion is because you believe religion is a lie. But on that principle, we should make it illegal for parents to lie to their children. Is that what you want?

[Kami]

Presumably the reason why you believe children should not be exposed to religion is because you believe religion is a lie. But on that principle, we should make it illegal for parents to lie to their children. Is that what you want?Religion is something that can not be prooven to be true, whether it is true or not; in this situation, belief is a matter of informed, personal choice. The point is, children cannot be deemed responsible or informed enough to make this choice.

[Hyacinth]

Presumably the reason why you believe children should not be exposed to religion is because you believe religion is a lie. But on that principle, we should make it illegal for parents to lie to their children. Is that what you want?
It isn’t only a question of falsehood, since, to question the truth of a religion is one thing, and to question its usefulness is another. Apart from believing that religion is false, I moreover maintain that it is harmful, especially to children who are more credulous than adults. The psychological impact on a child, who, say, for example, might be homosexual or bisexual, being taught that their desires are sinful. Or even, for that matter, being taught that sex or masturbation are a sin. Both I regard as developmentally harmful to the child.

[Kami]

Ok... so it should be illegal for parents to tell their children anything that cannot be proven to be true?
No, I'm not arguing anything should be illegal here (it would be silly to make lying illegal), only that it's obviously immoral, and anyone with an ounce of decency wouldn't do it; would anyone here raise their child as a "marxist child"? Wouldn't it be stupid to label a child "capitalist"?
As to whether you should lie to children at all; I'd say no, but it could be argued yes if there were some sort of good to come of it (e.g. "Don't go over the yellow line at the railway station, or the monster will eat you!"). There's a line to be drawn though; the above example would even by a child be seen as a half-joke, most likely, but if, for example, we were to go into burning forever in the sulphuric fires of hell!, that's just plain abusive.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It isn’t only a question of falsehood, since, to question the truth of a religion is one thing, and to question its usefulness is another. Apart from believing that religion is false, I moreover maintain that it is harmful, especially to children who are more credulous than adults. The psychological impact on a child, who, say, for example, might be homosexual or bisexual, being taught that their desires are sinful. Or even, for that matter, being taught that sex or masturbation are a sin. Both I regard as developmentally harmful to the child.
Alright, so you do not oppose parents telling their children lies, you oppose parents telling their children harmful lies. Fair enough, but two issues arise:

1. Surely you should be opposing the actual harmful message, rather than the religious wrappings of that message. Your example above, for instance, provides a reason for a law against parents telling their children that their sexuality is evil. It does not provide a reason for a law against parents telling their children about religion, since (a) not all religion carries the harmful message you described, and (b) the very same message can easily be told to children without religious undertones - parents could claim that masturbation will make you go blind, for example. Religious parents would simply have to invent secular reasons why their children should do (or not do) certain things.

2. How could we possibly enforce any laws or rules regulating private communication between parents and children? What evidence could possibly be used to determine guilt?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No, I'm not arguing anything should be illegal here (it would be silly to make lying illegal), only that it's obviously immoral, and anyone with an ounce of decency wouldn't do it; would anyone here raise their child as a "marxist child"? Wouldn't it be stupid to label a child "capitalist"?
As to whether you should lie to children at all; I'd say no, but it could be argued yes if there were some sort of good to come of it (e.g. "Don't go over the yellow line at the railway station, or the monster will eat you!"). There's a line to be drawn though; the above example would even by a child be seen as a half-joke, most likely, but if, for example, we were to go into burning forever in the sulphuric fires of hell!, that's just plain abusive.
If you're arguing that religious indoctrination of children is immoral and/or should be met with social disapproval, then I have no objection. I'm only trying to show the absurdity of any attempt to have rules or laws regulating what parents may or may not tell their children. First of all it's very difficult to come up with a rule that applies to religion and religion alone (as opposed to making all lying illegal), and second of all it's impossible to regulate what people say inside a private home - and it would be horrendously totalitarian even if it were possible.

At most you could have rules, laws or conventions against public religious displays aimed at or involving children.

[Hyacinth]

Alright, so you do not oppose parents telling their children lies, you oppose parents telling their children harmful lies. Fair enough, but two issues arise:

1. Surely you should be opposing the actual harmful message, rather than the religious wrappings of that message. Your example above, for instance, provides a reason for a law against parents telling their children that their sexuality is evil. It does not provide a reason for a law against parents telling their children about religion, since (a) not all religion carries the harmful message you described, and (b) the very same message can easily be told to children without religious undertones - parents could claim that masturbation will make you go blind, for example. Religious parents would simply have to invent secular reasons why their children should do (or not do) certain things.

2. How could we possibly enforce any laws or rules regulating private communication between parents and children? What evidence could possibly be used to determine guilt?
Indeed, it is the harmful message which is opposed, but I’m not as confident as you are with regards to the possibility of separating religion from such harmful messages. Religion is not something that exists in a vacuum, it is a social phenomenon which is a vestige from our pre-scientific worldview, and arose in rather barbaric conditions (by today’s standards). In opposing religion here I’m not referring to say the more philosophical religion of theologians; by and large their views are, while nonsense, not harmful in the same way that the Bible or the Koran are.

Religious parents who take seriously their religious holy texts are more predisposed to view things like homosexuality, masturbation, etc. as wrong (sinful) and hence would have a greater motivation in imposing these values on their children. While secular parents are just as capable of holding such reactionary views, they are not as predisposed to them as those who are religious. I am just as opposed to such harmful views be they in religious trappings or secular ones.

But as to the question of enforcement, as a practical matter I don’t support having some sort of thought police that goes around and ensures that parents are bringing their children up in an appropriate manner. I think the best measure that a communist society can have is to guarantee the economic independence of all individuals in that society, children included. A child who doesn’t like what their parents are doing should have the material means, and community support, to go live elsewhere.

Another way to combat both harmful and false views is via education. Presently parents have the right to deny their children access to information, or to decide what sort of education they will receive. A parent can choose to send a child to a religious institution, or deny them permission to take a sexual education course. All such rights that parents have should be abolished (I don’t think parents should have any rights with respect to children, only duties).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Indeed, it is the harmful message which is opposed, but I’m not as confident as you are with regards to the possibility of separating religion from such harmful messages. Religion is not something that exists in a vacuum, it is a social phenomenon which is a vestige from our pre-scientific worldview, and arose in rather barbaric conditions (by today’s standards). In opposing religion here I’m not referring to say the more philosophical religion of theologians; by and large their views are, while nonsense, not harmful in the same way that the Bible or the Koran are.
You are correct that religion does not exist in a vacuum and that it often has a strong association with reactionary ideas - even reactionary ideas that have no basis in the holy texts of the religion in question. Most current major world religions have had a close relationship with feudalism for centuries prior to the industrial revolution and have picked up a significant reactionary baggage as a result. Some are even carrying such baggage from the pre-feudal societies in which they first arose. However, I believe that fundamentally the only reason why religion is so often associated with reactionary ideas today is because religion has a lot of cultural inertia. Religious people are just more likely to be attached to past ways of life, and past ways of life come with reactionary ideas. But this attachment grows weaker as those ways of life fade further and further into the past, so I think there is good reason to hope that organized religion will shed its reactionary baggage in time.


Religious parents who take seriously their religious holy texts are more predisposed to view things like homosexuality, masturbation, etc. as wrong (sinful) and hence would have a greater motivation in imposing these values on their children. While secular parents are just as capable of holding such reactionary views, they are not as predisposed to them as those who are religious.
Well, I am religious, and I do not currently plan to have any children - but assuming I did have children, I would certainly not tell them that homosexuality or masturbation are sinful or bad, because I do not believe they are.

So, while I certainly agree that religious parents are statistically more likely to hold such views than secular parents, I wouldn't say that they are predisposed to them. There is correlation, but I am not convinced there is causation.


I am just as opposed to such harmful views be they in religious trappings or secular ones.

But as to the question of enforcement, as a practical matter I don’t support having some sort of thought police that goes around and ensures that parents are bringing their children up in an appropriate manner. I think the best measure that a communist society can have is to guarantee the economic independence of all individuals in that society, children included. A child who doesn’t like what their parents are doing should have the material means, and community support, to go live elsewhere.

Another way to combat both harmful and false views is via education. Presently parents have the right to deny their children access to information, or to decide what sort of education they will receive. A parent can choose to send a child to a religious institution, or deny them permission to take a sexual education course. All such rights that parents have should be abolished (I don’t think parents should have any rights with respect to children, only duties).
Well said, comrade. I have nothing further to add to the above except to say that I agree completely.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don’t think parents should have any rights with respect to children, only duties

Please justify.

[Hyacinth]

Please justify. As it current stands parents are regarded, both socially as well as legally, as having the right to decide things regarding their children: the sort of education they should receive, what religion they are brought up in, etc. In fact, children have very little say in their upbringing from a legal perspective. Children are treated, for all intents and purposes, as property of their parents. With the exception of severe abuse, a parent can do more or less whatever they please with their child. Since children are people, and people should not be regarded as property, not should children be regarded as property of their parents, or anyone else. So when I say that parents have no rights vis-a-vis their children, I mean that children should not be treated as property of their parents, as they are now. The parent-child relation should not accord the parent any special privilege.

As for duties, children clearly occupy a special status morally (and politically) in that they are still persons, yet they do not have, at least during the early stages of their development, the necessary cognitive capacities to make decisions for themselves. During those stages of development parents, and the community as a whole, should have a duty to ensure that the child has its needs taken care of and that it develops in a healthy manner which will enable it to become a fully-functioning member of society.

[Plagueround]

A child who doesn’t like what their parents are doing should have the material means, and community support, to go live elsewhere.


I'm intrigued by your thoughts and I wish to subscribe to your news letter.
However, a few questions...
While I agree there are a lot of parents out there that make poor choices and restrict their child's ability to grow, how do you propose going about this when you also state:


As for duties, children clearly occupy a special status morally (and politically) in that they are still persons, yet they do not have, at least during the early stages of their development, the necessary cognitive capacities to make decisions for themselves. During those stages of development parents, and the community as a whole, should have a duty to ensure that the child has its needs taken care of and that it develops in a healthy manner which will enable it to become a fully-functioning member of society.


At what point do you feel a child is able to make realistic conscious decisions for themselves that they can decide whether or not their needs are being met? Children oftentimes confuse what they need for what they want. Many times when a parent is abusive the child wants to stay anyway because it's all they know and they love these abusive parents...or would you say that would be one of those special circumstances where a decision needs to be made for a child?

On the other end of the spectrum what if a child decided they didn't want to live with mom and dad for childish reasons like not wanting to "eat their veggies" and "go to bed at a certain time"?
Things like this I would say are part of the duty the parents and community should recognize in being in the child's best interest, despite the child's objection. With these two obvious extremes I've presented in mind, could you clarify what situations you feel a child should be able to make these decisions, as well as what maturity level/age?

[Hyacinth]

At what point do you feel a child is able to make realistic conscious decisions for themselves that they can decide whether or not their needs are being met?
I’m not a developmental psychologist, so I cannot give you an authoritative answer as to exactly when a person becomes mature enough to make certain decisions for themselves. But, what does seem clear is that cognitive capacity for decision making is something that develops progressively; that is, an 8-year old might not be old enough to, for example, consent to sex, but is likely old enough decide whether they should eat broccoli or not.


Children oftentimes confuse what they need for what they want. Many times when a parent is abusive the child wants to stay anyway because it's all they know and they love these abusive parents...or would you say that would be one of those special circumstances where a decision needs to be made for a child?
In cases of abuse where the victim is attached to the abuser, as in the example you give, I would indeed agree that this is one of those cases where intervention needs to take place. The sort of scenario that you describe occurs as a psychological defence mechanism; the victim will try to please the abuser, and develop attachment, because such a strategy tends to reduce instances of abuse (similar to what occurs in Stockholm syndrome).


On the other end of the spectrum what if a child decided they didn't want to live with mom and dad for childish reasons like not wanting to "eat their veggies" and "go to bed at a certain time"?
Things like this I would say are part of the duty the parents and community should recognize in being in the child's best interest, despite the child's objection. With these two obvious extremes I've presented in mind, could you clarify what situations you feel a child should be able to make these decisions, as well as what maturity level/age?
With respect to this I would have to disagree. After all, why should the child go to bed at a certain time or eat their vegetables (considering that their dietary requirements can be met in other, much more tasty, ways)? That is, I don’t see what demands like that would have to do with the child’s best interests, at least not in a communist society.

Of course, today it is the case that the world operates on a certain schedule whereby schools run from ~8am to ~3pm, give or take, and hence it is indeed in some sense best for the child to go to bed on time in order to be able to get up and go to school. But why would we, in a communist society, enforce such a schedule if kids don’t want to get up that early? Schools should be made for kids, not kids for school.

I won’t speculate, as I said earlier, about the exact age that someone is mature enough to make certain decisions. This is largely an empirical question which needs further study; but one thing is clear, the sort of decisions that a 4-year old can make are vastly different from those that an 8-year old can make, which in turn are also different that those that can be made by a 12-year old. The degree of autonomy that we give kids needs to reflect these differences in cognitive capacity at different ages, drawing an arbitrary line at some age (usually far older, IMO, than it need be) does a disservice to children, and doesn’t treat them as fully persons.

[Plagueround]

Thank you for clarifying. I suppose some of these things can only be speculation until we are able to reach that point, but I like your ideas and insight. I agree that people tend to place too much emphasis on age and not maturity levels. When I was younger I could read books far beyond the comprehension of most of my fellow students, but the librarian at my school wouldn't let me read anything on the shelf I couldn't reach. I think that experience, even before I could really explain it, inspired me to always try and look at a person's thoughts and ideas, not a figure as arbitrary as age.

The examples of bedtime and vegetables were in quotation marks because they are probably the most common examples of what is perceived as "good parenting" in modern society, not necessarily because I think every child should have to do those things without question. I was more interested in what you thought of a child simply not liking the way their parents did things, but your answer still covered that.

[Hyacinth]

Thank you for clarifying. I suppose some of these things can only be speculation until we are able to reach that point, but I like your ideas and insight. I agree that people tend to place too much emphasis on age and not maturity levels. When I was younger I could read books far beyond the comprehension of most of my fellow students, but the librarian at my school wouldn't let me read anything on the shelf I couldn't reach. I think that experience, even before I could really explain it, inspired me to always try and look at a person's thoughts and ideas, not a figure as arbitrary as age.

The examples of bedtime and vegetables were in quotation marks because they are probably the most common examples of what is perceived as "good parenting" in modern society, not necessarily because I think every child should have to do those things without question. I was more interested in what you thought of a child simply not liking the way their parents did things, but your answer still covered that.
Sorry that I interpreted your statements too literarily (it was rather late for me, I wasn’t paying close attention). I’m glad to find we’re in agreement.

That being said, I think the issue of children and their status under communism, or for that matter any society, is something that is largely ignored, despite the fact that it is intellectually rather interesting and morally rather important. But, once thing I think is certain, as your own example illustrates, we don’t take children as seriously as we ought to; we often forget that they are still people.

[MarxSchmarx]

As for duties, children clearly occupy a special status morally (and politically) in that they are still persons, yet they do not have, at least during the early stages of their development, the necessary cognitive capacities to make decisions for themselves. During those stages of development parents, and the community as a whole, should have a duty to ensure that the child has its needs taken care of and that it develops in a healthy manner which will enable it to become a fully-functioning member of society.

This brings up a very serious question - who has the right to "execute these duties" in the early stages of childhood? The principle of decentralization requires it should be those who know the child best, which are the parents. We both agree there are a few bad parents (e.g. religious zealot types, those who neglect their kids, etc...), but most parents are decent and want the best for their child.

I am not clear why it should be up to the "community" rather than the "parents" to decide what is best for the child. I think unless there is an egregious abuse of power, parents should be entrusted with the upbringing of the child. THere are plenty of "community values" at present I don't want my kids exposed to (e.g. crass consumerism). I imagine during socialism, there will be many capitalist vestiges in society. Many communist parents wouldn't want their kids exposed to such capitalist holdover values (e.g. rural-urban dichotomy(?)). Of course the better parents internalize the values of the Red Utopia the better, but in the mean time I have little compunction with deferring this highly personal matter to individual parents.

Indeed, there are plenty of socializing institutions like schools and workplaces that could counteract any reactionary tendencies in individual families. But a person's home is their castle, and I think state (community) intervention in parenting except in the most obvious cases of abuse is just too much of a gray area. Better err on the side of trusting the good will of individual parents.



That being said, I think the issue of children and their status under communism, or for that matter any society, is something that is largely ignored, despite the fact that it is intellectually rather interesting and morally rather important. But, once thing I think is certain, as your own example illustrates, we don’t take children as seriously as we ought to; we often forget that they are still people.

Yes indeed. I think the reason it is avoided is in part because there isn't a leftist theory of kin relationships - there is a leftist theory of economics, politics, hell even ontology, but when it comes to familial relationships, most leftists defer to sociology. This I think is a mistake and I'd happily like to see alternatives.

[Hyacinth]

This brings up a very serious question - who has the right to "execute these duties" in the early stages of childhood? The principle of decentralization requires it should be those who know the child best, which are the parents. We both agree there are a few bad parents (e.g. religious zealot types, those who neglect their kids, etc...), but most parents are decent and want the best for their child.

I am not clear why it should be up to the "community" rather than the "parents" to decide what is best for the child. I think unless there is an egregious abuse of power, parents should be entrusted with the upbringing of the child. THere are plenty of "community values" at present I don't want my kids exposed to (e.g. crass consumerism). I imagine during socialism, there will be many capitalist vestiges in society. Many communist parents wouldn't want their kids exposed to such capitalist holdover values (e.g. rural-urban dichotomy(?)). Of course the better parents internalize the values of the Red Utopia the better, but in the mean time I have little compunction with deferring this highly personal matter to individual parents.

Indeed, there are plenty of socializing institutions like schools and workplaces that could counteract any reactionary tendencies in individual families. But a person's home is their castle, and I think state (community) intervention in parenting except in the most obvious cases of abuse is just too much of a gray area. Better err on the side of trusting the good will of individual parents.

Yes indeed. I think the reason it is avoided is in part because there isn't a leftist theory of kin relationships - there is a leftist theory of economics, politics, hell even ontology, but when it comes to familial relationships, most leftists defer to sociology. This I think is a mistake and I'd happily like to see alternatives.
I can agree that most parents are indeed well-intentioned, if not exactly the most educated when it comes to child-rearing (IMO most first-time parents would benefit greatly from taking a course or two on child development, just to get an idea of what they’re in store for; it would be beneficial for both them and the child). In fact, I’m not in disagreement with you over here, if I came off otherwise I misspoke.

When I mentioned the community I had exactly institutions like schools, workplaces, community centers, youth organizations, etc. in mind. I don’t mean to suggest that he community is there to play the same role as the parents, it can’t do that, rather what I had in mind is that the community’s responsibilities, society’s responsibility if you will, is to provide amble resources, both material and cultural, as to ensure the healthy development of the child (thing such as the social institutions listed above).

[Hyacinth]

(I’m not sure if this discussion on the upbringing of children is off topic, perhaps the mods could split these posts from this thread and create a new one in Theory?)

[Random Precision]

I've split the posts dealing with the upbringing of children into the Theory Forum.

[JGH]

It appears to me that all members in this discussion assume (within the context of this discussion) that the 'family' with a parent - child structure is either natural or inevitable.

If alternatives to the nuclear family appear in the future, such as communes with shared child rearing, then the question of what rights parents have over their children would disappear. It would be a matter of what the community as a whole decides, or some other unknown arrangement.

To bring this back to the original discussion; it would be pointless task to make religion illegal, and neither would it be a good thing in my opinion as it would be a restriction of freedom. However, it does seem wise to limit the influence of any individual adult over a child in such matters, whether it is a parent or some other entrusted person. The best means to go about this in my opinion is to take education out of the hands of the religious and ensure all schools are secular; to teach religious studies in a neutral and critical light, with an examination of multiple religions, their conflicts, and alongside this, teaching of the lives of prominent atheists and agnostics and of the arguments against religions; and lastly, which has been mentioned above, giving children as much access to educational material as possible so that they can make up their own minds.

[Dean]

I'm surprised at this.

First off, religion is a social thing. So, we should be concerned with it. How we go about confronting the problem, however, should not be authoritarian. We should develop outstanding educational systems and let people decide for themselves.

It's a thin line where religious practice becomes abuse. I'm not in the position to say where that is, but that distinction is where we should intervene.

[Hyacinth]

It appears to me that all members in this discussion assume (within the context of this discussion) that the 'family' with a parent - child structure is either natural or inevitable.

If alternatives to the nuclear family appear in the future, such as communes with shared child rearing, then the question of what rights parents have over their children would disappear. It would be a matter of what the community as a whole decides, or some other unknown arrangement.
Excellent point. There is no reason to suppose that the nuclear family will, or should, remain under communism.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is not possible to control what parents tell children - even if legislation existed to punish parents who are found guilty of indoctrination, it is unlikely that the state would be able to effectively monitor the behaviour of every single family, and if such a monitoring system did exist, it would be met with strong opposition as an invasion of personal privacy.

However, children should still be protected from the dangers of religious abuse. Children should be encouraged to ask questions about how the world operates - but the current education system is based on children being told what they should think and there is limited scope for independent thought. Therefore, changes in the way education is organised (especially the social dynamics inside the classroom) are essential if the problems of religious indoctrination are to be solved.