On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

I find it interesting that you decide to quote that particular paragraph, rather than the one immediately preceding it, or the one before that. Particularly since you have been quite vocal in your objections to being quoted uncharitably yourself.

It is generally accepted that there are limits to parents' prerogatives. It is also generally accepted that there are limits to what caretakers may impose upon those society has for whatever reason judged incompetent (children among them). It is not by any means obvious, then, that religious indoctrination (or political - did I forget to clarify that I find it equally inappropriate to enroll children in a political party?) should fall on one side of that boundary or the other.

Reasonable people may disagree, both on which side of the line religious or political indoctrination falls, and on what constitutes indoctrination.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 01:46:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

JakeS:

I find it interesting that you decide to quote that particular paragraph, rather than the one immediately preceding it, or the one before that.

Do you find I quoted you uncharitably or worse, misrepresentingly?

JakeS:

It is generally accepted that there are limits to parents' prerogatives. It is also generally accepted that there are limits to what caretakers may impose upon those society has for whatever reason judged incompetent (children among them).

True.

JakeS:

It is not by any means obvious, then, that religious indoctrination (or political - did I forget to clarify that I find it equally inappropriate to enroll children in a political party?) should fall on one side of that boundary or the other.

It is by no means obvious that the presence of religion has to be treated differently from the absence of religion! That is our point of disagreement here. You cannot live in a parent-child-relationship without showing and teaching (by being a model, for instance) your value system and what it is based in. It would be child abuse if you tried. So, the presence or absence of religion naturally is at the core of parents' rights to determine their children's education. Teachers (in the public education system) have a duty to neutrality, for reasons of separation of state and church.

All this is not really contested in un-exotic places, I think. There is a wider debate on headscarf-bans and the like. There is another debate on circumcision for religious reasons. But a debate about the right of parents to raise their children in a religion (as opposed to raising them without religion, which you find okay) is something unusual. I don't think it is a topic outside ET. (It is not even a topic of conflict between my non-religious husband and me, by the way.) ET is a very weird place...

JakeS:

Reasonable people may disagree, both on which side of the line religious or political indoctrination falls, and on what constitutes indoctrination.

I note that you failed to list non-religious indoctrination, and I don't think you merely forgot it. Remarkable prejudice, I must say.

By the way, when I went to a demonstration for the first time, I was 12 years old.

by Katrin on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 04:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Do you find I quoted you uncharitably or worse, misrepresentingly?

In this case I think the quoted selection misrepresents the comment, yes. Whether that was the intent or not, I leave to the resident mind-readers to divine, but that was the outcome.

It is by no means obvious that the presence of religion has to be treated differently from the absence of religion!

No reason other than freedom of religion: If I am not free from your religion, then I am not free to practice my own.

So, the presence or absence of religion naturally is at the core of parents' rights to determine their children's education.

That right is also not uncontroversial. The Jacobin position, for instance, disputes it outright. I would disagree with the Jacobin stance on this, but I would still argue that it is a prerogative which comes with certain limitations. Precisely where those limitations are drawn is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree.

I note that you failed to list non-religious indoctrination, and I don't think you merely forgot it.

I'm not clear on how you'd go about indoctrinating people to not-believe something, except by indoctrinating them to believe something mutually exclusive. There are certain explicitly atheist philosophical schools that I suppose someone could be indoctrinated into, but I would class that under political indoctrination.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 12th, 2014 at 07:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Okay. I still don't see in what way I distorted your view by focusing on that one paragraph, but I can try to say something on the other paragraphs as well.

JakeS:

Proselytizing to people you hold power over is not generally held to be an important part of freedom of religion

I don't see the position of parents towards their children as a position of power in the first place. It is complicated in what ways parents exercise power even in families where biological parenthood, legal guardianship, and social parentship are the same (which in my family is not the case, because my children are foster children--with whom I am entrusted by the public child welfare). Let's look at the places where you see power relations at work which would preclude attempts at proselytising. The school system is neutral for reasons of separation of church and state, so the question doesn't arise here, I think. The same is true for the prison system. Work relations? I wonder where that would arise: probably only in the most exploitative work places (where it wouldn't be the most urgent problem by comparison) anyway, because elsewhere people aren't quite defenceless. That leaves of your examples the doctor. Yes, I remember a particularly nasty and painful treatment during which the doctor started talking extremely reactionary politics. I resented that a lot of course, and I find that behaviour highly unethical, but I fail to see how efficient proselytising in such a position of power can take place.

So, in short, I fail to see the relevance of the power argument, unless in connection with your paragraph on misinformation, which I answered. What's more, I would find an education style abusive that tries to hide such an important part of one's personality: education by the parents is education by the entire personality of the parents.

Was this really so central to your argument that my leaving it out amounted to a distortion of what you said? I still don't see it.

Where would you draw the line anyway? Would you ban parents from practising a religion? Or only from explaining what they are doing? And are you really saying that the Jacobin stance on religion is less controversial than the right of parents to determine their children's religion?

JakeS:

I'm not clear on how you'd go about indoctrinating people to not-believe something, except by indoctrinating them to believe something mutually exclusive.

I assume that you believe there is no God. You can't know though. You are free to believe that, and to teach it to your children. That's what I mean when I want the presence of religion treated in the same way as the absence of religion. It doesn't contradict your statement at all:
JakeS:

No reason other than freedom of religion: If I am not free from your religion, then I am not free to practice my own.

Right. Agree completely. And if I am not free from your a-religion, then I am not free to practice my religion. Do you agree?

by Katrin on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 08:34:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Right. Agree completely. And if I am not free from your a-religion, then I am not free to practice my religion. Do you agree?

That depends whether you believe 'practice' automatically includes the right to force your religion on your kids in ways that will cripple their ability to make free adult choices about spirituality later in life.

Look - this isn't hard. The Jesuits know how this works. Francis Xavier said 'Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.'

Considering how tolerant the Jesuits were, it's unlikely he meant '...Because my tender care is the best way to promote free spiritual choice for adults.'

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 09:33:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

In practice, it may mean that they could mould his personality, not necessarily make him a believer: See Fidel Castro, James Joyce, and Alfred Hitchcock for examples.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:12:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

That depends whether you believe 'practice' automatically includes the right to force your religion on your kids in ways that will cripple their ability to make free adult choices about spirituality later in life.

I haven't given you the slightest reason to assume I wanted to force or cripple children or their abilities, and I resent that you insinuate I did.

by Katrin on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 10:59:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Well, it's true you've claimed that isn't your intent. And I think that's likely true.

Unfortunately that doesn't alter the fact that you're promoting systems of belief that can have that effect in practice, while heroically ignoring all the arguments and evidence that they do.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 07:32:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

you're promoting systems of belief that can have that effect in practice

while you are representing the totally unblemished record of atheist movements. I see.

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 03:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

I don't see the position of parents towards their children as a position of power in the first place.

Then you are using an extremely non-standard version of the English language.

It is complicated in what ways parents exercise power

No, that's actually quite straightforward. If somebody decides where your bed is, what you eat, when you sleep, how much money you have to spend, what you can spend it on, where you spend the majority of your waking hours, and even to some extent who you am allowed to socialize with in your free time, then they wield power over you.

Power is not a bad thing per se, but it does come with certain responsibilities, which is why it is extremely worrisome when people who hold power over others pretend that they do not.

The school system is neutral for reasons of separation of church and state,

No, the school and penal systems should be neutral because they wield power over its inmates. The fact that they are state institutions (in most of the first world) is neither here nor there - the fixation on protecting citizens from the state, rather than from abuse of asymmetric power relationships in general - is a pernicious Libertarian obsession.

Work relations? I wonder where that would arise: probably only in the most exploitative work places (where it wouldn't be the most urgent problem by comparison) anyway, because elsewhere people aren't quite defenceless.

That is not true for sexual or racial harassment. Why should we expect it to be for religious?

That leaves of your examples the doctor. Yes, I remember a particularly nasty and painful treatment during which the doctor started talking extremely reactionary politics. I resented that a lot of course, and I find that behaviour highly unethical, but I fail to see how efficient proselytising in such a position of power can take place.

Orac put it best:

Does Dr. Schroder really believe he's being non-coercive? I mean, seriously. Think about it. Let's say you're an atheist. You're about to go under the knife for, let's say, a cholecystectomy. Your surgeon, after explaining once again the risks and benefits of surgery, asks you if you want to pray with him? Do you refuse? Or are you intimidated because you don't want to piss off the man who is about to cut into your body in order to forcibly rearrange your anatomy for therapeutic effect?
[...]
It's one thing if the patient asks the surgeon if he wants to pray with him, completely unprompted. In that case, I don't see a problem. In fact, even I would probably join in (after trying to beg off once perhaps), because in the end to me it's all about the patient and I'm not about to do anything that makes the patient feel uncomfortable or lose confidence in me, my heathen tendencies notwithstanding. But that's not what Dr. Schroder is talking about.

And in answer to the obvious objection: No, people generally do internalize beliefs they are coerced to outwardly ape.

Where would you draw the line anyway? Would you ban parents from practising a religion? Or only from explaining what they are doing?

In terms of legality, I draw the line at physical harm or the use of social control techniques (enforced isolation, pervasive and arbitrary invasions of privacy, extreme in-group/out-group identification, infantilizaton, etc.).

In terms of propriety, I draw the line at actively initiating. As with the doctor-patient relationship, it is one thing for the party in power to answer honestly (or even to answer what they believe the other party needs to hear). It is quite another to start pushing answers in search of questions.

And are you really saying that the Jacobin stance on religion is less controversial than the right of parents to determine their children's religion?

No, I am saying that reasonable people can disagree with the level of parental prerogative implied by a right to induct your children into a religion.

I assume that you believe there is no God. You can't know though. You are free to believe that, and to teach it to your children. That's what I mean when I want the presence of religion treated in the same way as the absence of religion.

I would find that inappropriate. I would want to teach any children of mine about the wide variety of things people believe, and that belief in any or all of these things is completely optional, and let them work things out on their own, at their own pace.

But then, I never had a problem with "nobody really knows the answer to that question." And, when they get a bit older, "nobody really knows if there is an answer to that question."

And if I am not free from your a-religion, then I am not free to practice my religion. Do you agree?

In principle. In practice, I am having some difficulty coming up with a realistic example of not-belief imposing on believers.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 02:02:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

JakeS:

No, that's actually quite straightforward. If somebody decides where your bed is, what you eat, when you sleep, how much money you have to spend, what you can spend it on, where you spend the majority of your waking hours, and even to some extent who you am allowed to socialize with in your free time, then they wield power over you

If, yes. In reality children aren't THAT weak-willed, and your parental options to enforce all that are limited, with good reason. And these limits enforce a more democratic education style than what was usual when I was a child. So, parental power depends to a certain extent on negotiation skills on both sides.

JakeS:

No, the school and penal systems should be neutral because they wield power over its inmates. The fact that they are state institutions (in most of the first world) is neither here nor there - the fixation on protecting citizens from the state, rather than from abuse of asymmetric power relationships in general - is a pernicious Libertarian obsession.

Ha, THAT can of worms probably deserves a better place than somewhere in this long thread. You probably don't deny how quickly democratic control of a state can break down, and how totalitarian the immense power of the state then becomes. I am quite fixated on protecting citizens from the state, and not shy about it.

No, institutions of the state should be neutral, because they are for all citizens, not only the religious ones. In a (theoretical) state of 100% voluntary adherents of the same religion it wouldn't matter.

JakeS:

That is not true for sexual or racial harassment. Why should we expect it to be for religious?

Because efficient proselytising implies persuasion, not harassment. I find it unlikely (or extremely rare), not impossible. But I really find the example of the doctor is where you can illustrate your point best, and I agree that the abuse of power is a problem. You cited this as an argument to limit parents' right to raise their children in a religion though. You asked how to deal with the combination of position of power and proselytising.

This is from the text you quote:

in the end to me it's all about the patient and I'm not about to do anything that makes the patient feel uncomfortable or lose confidence in me,

Indeed. That is the ethical position we expect from a doctor, and have a right to expect. And we can enforce it by sanctioning behaviour that disregards these responsibilities.

If you want an analogy to parents raising their children, you must look at what we expect as responsible behaviour there. I have no issue with rules to prevent abuse of power under the heading of what is (ir-)responsible behaviour for a defined group. I object to rules under the heading of limiting freedom of religion. This difference sounds perhaps academic, but I think it enables drawing the border between tolerable and intolerable behaviour accurately. The rules (and sanctions!) for a doctor must be different from those for parents.

I am afraid, I have an issue with your differentiation between legality and propriety. Propriety or moral are not political. Do you want to legally ban and sanction a certain behaviour? Or do you want to ape the politicians who lamented the use of "financial instruments" as improper that they had legalised? Well, if next they declare bicycle theft legal but improper, everyone is free to steal bicycles and that is all that counts. So the only question is what parents can do before you send out child welfare officers.

JakeS:

In principle. In practice, I am having some difficulty coming up with a realistic example of not-belief imposing on believers

At last. I am quite content with "in principle" and I have no issue with your lack of imagination. ;) I guess any thoughts what you are going to teach your own children are a bit premature, right? Only then you need to determine what is proper more than what is legal, of course.

by Katrin on Fri Feb 14th, 2014 at 12:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

If, yes. In reality children aren't THAT weak-willed, and your parental options to enforce all that are limited,

No, they really are not.

Pre-teen children have no formal voice on where they go to school (nevermind whether...).
Pre-teen children have no formal voice on where they live (unless their biological parents happen to have divorced and they live in one of the world's more progressive jurisdictions).
Pre-teen children have no personal finances, nor any legal means of obtaining a regular income. Which in an urbanized society means that they have no independent legal means of obtaining food and shelter.

Pretending that those barriers to self-determination can be overcome by sufficient application of willpower is nothing short of delusional.

Of course there are excellent reasons for society to recognize certain parental prerogatives and deny certain choices to pre-teen children. But the fact that there are good reasons for the asymmetric power relationship to be tolerated doesn't change the fact that you are talking about an asymmetric power relationship.

Because efficient proselytising implies persuasion, not harassment.

You seem to have a very rosy view of both how durable the human mind is under sustained harassment and how the currently dominant religions became the dominant religions.

Indeed. That is the ethical position we expect from a doctor, and have a right to expect. And we can enforce it by sanctioning behaviour that disregards these responsibilities.

I sincerely wish that your experiences with the healthcare system continue to be so positive as to permit you to maintain that outlook.

In practice, it's hard enough to even nail doctors for sexually abusing their patients, nevermind emotionally abusing them.

I object to rules under the heading of limiting freedom of religion.

So if the dude who decides whether you get to eat tonight - or any night at all for the next six to twelve years - insists that you say grace over the food before you get to eat it, then that's not a problem for your religious freedom?

Or is it that children have no religious freedom?

Or is it just that you don't understand how freedom from religion is an indispensable part of freedom of religion?

I am afraid, I have an issue with your differentiation between legality and propriety. Propriety or moral are not political. Do you want to legally ban and sanction a certain behaviour? Or do you want to ape the politicians who lamented the use of "financial instruments" as improper that they had legalised? Well, if next they declare bicycle theft legal but improper, everyone is free to steal bicycles and that is all that counts. So the only question is what parents can do before you send out child welfare officers.

I disagree with the idea that society has no escalation points between cheap talk and sending in child protection.

The difference between banks and parents is that where parents enjoy the presumption that they are reasonable and responsible, banks should be regulated under the presumption that they are Ponzi merchants and three-card monte dealers.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Feb 14th, 2014 at 10:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

mountebanks?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 07:37:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

JakeS:

So if the dude who decides whether you get to eat tonight - or any night at all for the next six to twelve years - insists that you say grace over the food before you get to eat it, then that's not a problem for your religious freedom?

Believe me, parents have no choice, they are obligated to feed their children. Actually the power of parents is limited--which really was what I have tried to convey. To shorten this part a bit: you are talking about relationships where people might be able to force persons into a religion. I don't advocate force or abuse of power or the like.

What you don't accept, I think, is the following: parents have a system of values which they pass on to their children. Religion is only one part of this, but, it IS part of what parents do by right. When you teach your children what your values and ethics and beliefs are (by conversations, setting an example or whatever) they have no real choice either. They are confronted with their parents' values and can only develop their own priorities when they are growing up. So, there is no real freedom from religion for the children of the religious or freedom to adopt religion for the children of atheists as long as they are children.

JakeS:

I disagree with the idea that society has no escalation points between cheap talk and sending in child protection.

I don't want to depend on somebody's opinion of what is proper or not. I have really strong views on arbitrariness and so. If society wants to set a norm, that's called a law, but you were talking about additional norms set by propriety. Say what behaviour you want to outlaw, and what interventions you dream of if the banned behaviour occurs. And if you want to limit any fundamental rights, kindly point out why your proposal is a proportionate measure of maintaining a conflicting fundamental right.

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 10:21:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

What you don't accept, I think, is the following: parents have a system of values which they pass on to their children. Religion is only one part of this, but, it IS part of what parents do by right. When you teach your children what your values and ethics and beliefs are (by conversations, setting an example or whatever) they have no real choice either. They are confronted with their parents' values and can only develop their own priorities when they are growing up. So, there is no real freedom from religion for the children of the religious or freedom to adopt religion for the children of atheists as long as they are children.

That is perfectly fair, and even if it were not it is obviously unavoidable.

It also falls quite far short of what is commonly understood by the purported parental "right" to induct children into a religion, or a political orientation. And even farther short of what is commonly justified by appeal to that "right."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 01:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

JakeS:

It also falls quite far short of what is commonly understood by the purported parental "right" to induct children into a religion, or a political orientation.

Does it? I wonder what "commonly understood" means for you? I really should ask you for evidence for that statement...

by Katrin on Sat Feb 15th, 2014 at 03:08:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

A blog policeman's lot is not a happy one

The Amazing thing that's happening in the US Presidential...

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Net Zero Energy - August 24, 2024

Recent Diaries

Post WWII: Building a Terror State Inside Europe

Tampered AP-900 Pagers Explode Across Lebanon

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Hasbara Content U.S. State Dep't Briefing

Trump's Loomer Agent Provocateur

Dominique De Villepin Se Rend Immortel

Al Jazeera Documentary Egyptian Icon Inji

Jewish Terror and Genocide - Israel Firster

Impunity the New Judeo-Evangelical Coalition

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

The EU In Inevitable Economic Backslide

Incoherent On Morals and Law & Order

Dutch Cabinet and Israeli Threats to ICC Prosecutors

Alan Dershowitz the Closet Republican

Israel Murders Peace Activists

GS: MAGA Policy Hits EU Economy Hard

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Trump Victory, Communism, Divine Intervention

City Agriculture - September 4, 2024

President Sees US NATO Policy Succeed in UA

Occasional Series