Comment by Monkeyfinger664 on August 7, 2009 at 8:30am

I was not forced. Others should not be either.

Comment by Richard J. Collins on August 7, 2009 at 11:27am

We are not advocating a state role except for the re-examination of parental responsibility to acknowledge the rights of children as persons. The rights of children are well established in the secular democracies of Europe and other advanced nations around the world. Part of this is due to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which the US has not yet ratified or began to implement. Sec of State Clinton and Senator Boxer plan to introduce legislation in the senate to ratify the convention. It will take many years to implement fully.

We as a nation pride ourselves on holding the banner for human rights on high and extolling freedom. Yet our smallest citizens are not enjoying their rights or their freedom. In our liberal secular democracy if freedom means anything, it means the right of the individual to make decisions that effect their lives.

I wish I could be as sanguine as you. The threat to our open society is very real and not enough people have seen the danger yet.

Comment by Richard J. Collins on August 7, 2009 at 11:37am

Thanks Richard for your support. When I began to study this issue two years ago people told me I was on a fool's errand. Then I discovered facebook and the marvelous opportunities it offered to bind people together from around the world and many different cultures. My FB site now has around 555 people, but there are at least 5 other facebook sites advocating freedom of religion for children. Joe Winter's site has over 4,000 members. I congratulate him on his astute use of the picture from the documentary Jesus Camp. Wish I had thought of that.

Comment by Zeb on August 7, 2009 at 12:59pm

I would encourage the longer route, fight and keep religion out of the schools, let education deconvert and let the future parents breed more dirty lil heathens.
On principle I can agree with what you're saying, though I find the idea of how such a 'right' of children will be protected quite creepy and orwellian. We're just going to have to deal with the parent's right to instruct and raise their children without state intervention, if you please.

Comment by Richard J. Collins on August 7, 2009 at 2:41pm

Under what circumstances should freedom be limited? The standard
classical liberal response is that liberty should be restrained when the
exercise of one person’s liberty interferes with or harms another person.
This is generally called the “harm principle” among philosophers. The
liberal democratic state can legitimately pass laws that restrict your liberty
to harm other people.

What is key to understand is that liberal democracies enshrine the individual,
not groups or collectives. Each child is an individual, and while no
liberal democrat wants children to have the same status as an adult, the
fact remains that children have the same interest in freedom as adults do.
That is, children are born to freedom, though are not born in the condition
of being free.

The idea that enlightenment principles were so sound that everyone would eventually see the light was tried for hundreds of years. What was the result. The forces of unreason simply grew stronger and stronger until the now represent an existential threat to free societies. George Bush ushered in the ethically corrupt adminstration that nearly accomplished the nefarious goals of the rabid fundamentalists. These people are quite insane.

Comment by Richard J. Collins on August 7, 2009 at 2:44pm

I neglected to attribute the first two paragraphs of my previous post to Stanford professor Rob Reich. He was writing in defense of his position that home schools should be regulated.

Comment by Richard J. Collins on August 8, 2009 at 11:34am

I have carefully thought about Dark Stranger's and Ralph McRaes objections which are valid. I cannot attempt to go into detailed rebuttals here, but if you read our posts on the web site you may come away with altered views. I have been carrying on a conversation with parents on an Amazon discussion forum for over one year. For every objection the parents raised, I developed a counter point. My counterpoint file has over 50 entries. What people invariably miss in this issue is that change has to come about voluntarily and that will happen when enough people become convinced the status quo is unethical and unfair to children.

Comment by Richard J. Collins on August 8, 2009 at 12:12pm

The other point people miss is the damage the fear mongering and wish mongering does to fragile young minds. There is nothing at all benign about the process of mind control used to get children to accept superstitious dogma. If you think otherwise, I invite you to investigate the dozens of web sites devoted to helping people recover from religion or find the strength to leave. We all know that religion is divisive when it comes to communities and nations. What many people miss is just how divisive religion is among family members. There is something basically corrupt about a system that discourages honest conversation between children and their parents. Many children realize as early as age 7 or 8 that there is something problematical about religion. But, their questions are shushed. Blasphemy you know. Children innocently wander into forbidden territory with their questions. When the are shushed, the result is they learn the lesson not to think for themselves. Try having an honest intellectual discussion with the deluded people who come out of this mind control regime. They simply do not understand how to gather facts and develop a rational explanation of their position. They actually don't know how to separate fact from fiction.

Comment by Realizer on August 8, 2009 at 1:34pm

Signed......If you want to see the results of childhood indoctination visit Hilldale Ut-Colorado City Az. formerly Short Creek. Here is where the Elders marry their 14 year old cousins because god told the prophet via a vision.........

Comment by JayBarti on August 8, 2009 at 2:06pm

The issue is always going to butt up against private parental rights and child safety, as long as the majority is religious or self identified as such the child safety argument will probably not win.

I know a few culturally Christians, Catholics and others who did not seem to have been passed along the strength of fervor that their parents might have had. I certainly didn't have it passed along even though my great grandfather was a baptist minister. I know this, I have verified through records and even know where and when he died. For some reason, either my grandmother (who probably believed) or my mother (?) just decided not too pass along that part of the heritage along.

I know it is important to grow up free enough to make up your own mind. But it is still a majority vote society with minority protections. Making educational standards equal and nationally enforced for both home, private and public schooling might be a better starting place.

The issue changes then and your more likely to get the moderates on your side as well. Equal and fair access to education is a better argument. You might also get the poorer yet often more religious parents on board as well no matter what they might believe. Every parent on some level, wants better opportunity for their children, better education is an obvious path.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page