shadows of echoes of memories of songs

Hmm. No easy answers, perhaps.

There are if you don't accept the validity of that system of beliefs :-)

I don't actually see any huge issue with the "commitment" aspects, since as an adult you can choose to renounce those commitments without any negative consequences - indeed, for someone that doesn't believe, they have no meaning. It's like when my aunt tells me she's praying for me - it irritates me, but it doesn't actually have any impact on me.

On the other hand, for a Muslim, to abandon your faith is apostasy, and renders you liable to being killed and your possessions taken (according to the Koran or Sharia law or both, AIUI). I think in some Muslim countries this is actually enforced. This might be considered a bit of an issue if you were such a person and wanted to visit such a country.

Ideally (in my view) children wouldn't be "brainwashed", but how do you define or enforce that? Where does it stop? It's clearly completely impractical, even if society as a whole wanted to. OTOH, teaching in schools _should_ be religion neutral.

From:

Hmm. No easy answers, perhaps.

There are if you don't accept the validity of that system of beliefs :-)

Argh. No, no, no. Listen: SOME PEOPLE DO ACCEPT THE VALIDITY OF THAT SYSTEM OF BELIEFS. Given that situation (which, like it or not, IS THE CASE) there are very few "easy" answers.

I don't actually see any huge issue with the "commitment" aspects, since as an adult you can choose to renounce those commitments without any negative consequences

Have you ever held any religious beliefs?

Some things to think about:

1. It's not always as black-and-white as "I believe all of this" and "I believe none of this". If you've always believed something but suddenly you find that those beliefs conflict with other things you discover/learn/begin to believe/etc., then you may struggle to reconcile the old belief system with the new data. Or else you may simply find yourself questioning some aspects of the belief system, and struggling to reconcile the doubts in one area with the still-strong beliefs in another area. For some people, these inward struggles can be extremely traumatic.

2. The loss of belief can in itself feel like a negative consequence to someone who's used to having a faith -- imagine that all your childhood you've firmly believed that there was a loving God, and the "point" of life (insofar as you thought about such things) was to be good so that you'd go to Heaven. (Grossly oversimplified, but run with the example for now.) As a teenager, you start doubting this; perhaps you can no longer reconcile the idea of "a loving God" with the fact that Bad Things Happen To Good People (more gross oversimplification). Suddenly, you're faced with other options: perhaps God *isn't* loving? (If you've never believed in any higher power, obviously this won't bother you -- try imagining that you're suddenly faced with the possibility that your parents are murderers.) Perhaps God doesn't exist at all? If that's the case, what (you may ask yourself) is the point of life? For some people, coming to that sort of question and -- for the first time -- not being able to answer it is unsettling, upsetting, traumatic.

In summary, if you put your faith in something -- anything -- and then you lose that faith, it will have an effect. Think of losing trust in a friend or a family member; think of the PhD student realising halfway through their thesis that the subject they're researching is irrelevant and benefits nobody. It's as though a bit of mental ground which you believed to be solid suddenly turns out to be quicksand. And if the mental ground underpins every single facet of your life -- as religions tend to do -- then the effect may well be far-reaching.

2. If your belief system is one which you previously accepted without question from your parents/friends/teachers/elders/etc., then beginning to question that belief may result in rejection by the people who previously acted as your family/mentors/friends. Are you really saying that (to take an extreme example) being disowned by one's parents would count as "no negative consequences" -- even for an adult? Would you shrug and carry on regardless if former friends suddenly turned against you? (Have you ever felt emotional attachments to another human being?)

And even if their reaction is still accepting, you may feel that you can no longer relate to them, or even no longer trust them, since they are still running their lives according to a system of beliefs which you now believe to be false. And this (I shouldn't need to explain this, but given your post I feel I do) can be upsetting.

From:

Argh. No, no, no. Listen: SOME PEOPLE DO ACCEPT THE VALIDITY OF THAT SYSTEM OF BELIEFS. Given that situation (which, like it or not, IS THE CASE) there are very few "easy" answers.

There are plenty of easy answers for me - with regard to myself, had I been baptised it would be of no particular consequence to me (although I might have filled out a "Certificate of Debaptisement" to make a point).

With regard to others, I feel sorry for those whose lives have been negatively tainted by religion in the way you describe, and I am strongly in favour of practical efforts to reduce the chances of this kind of thing happening (e.g. by ensuring that schools do make it clear to children that alternatives exist). But in the end, the answer for me is that systems of belief that lead to that kind of effect are fundamentally abusive and should be condemned as such. There's no easy *solution*, however.

Have you ever held any religious beliefs?

Yes, but only because my teachers up till the age of 11 taught the Bible as an established fact. So through ignorance, not faith.

From:

There are plenty of easy answers for me

You missed the smug smiley this time.

But in the end, the answer for me is that systems of belief that lead to that kind of effect are fundamentally abusive and should be condemned as such.

Are relationships also "fundamentally abusive" because people get hurt when they fall apart?

From:

You missed the smug smiley this time.

Correct.

Are relationships also "fundamentally abusive" because people get hurt when they fall apart?

People enter into relationships when adults or at least heading towards adulthood.

From:

People enter into relationships when adults or at least heading towards adulthood.

I'm talking about "relationships" in the broadest sense: engaging with other people on any kind of personal, social and/or emotional level.

Are families and friendships "fundamentally abusive" because people get hurt when they fall apart?

From:

Friendships are also entered into voluntarily and for the most part (perhaps excluding very young children) by people who are competent to make the decision.

Families - yes, there's an element of compulsion about such relationships for children, but the alternative is far worse, so there's a clear benefit in having them that outweighs that. Parents have to make _some_ decisions on behalf of their children.

From:

Tough.

The potential for emotional upset is precisely why one should think twice before assuming that children will follow the faith of their parents, which is a point Dawkins often makes.

Life is complicated. Data do not fit our assumptions. We do the best we can with working models of morality and psychology.

The belief system of several million people was lost when communism collapsed. Tough. Why the fuck should we pussyfoot around religion?

From:

Dear me, I expected better reading comprehension from you! Of course, while atheism may not "count" as a "religion", it has just as much power to make its adherents lose their intellectual faculties.

Quick recap. for the sor(r)el(l)y challenged:

Ganesh said (and I paraphrase) "Bringing kids up religious isn't a problem because adults can just forget about all that religious nonsense when they grow up."

I argued that this reasoning was flawed; that imposing faith on people affects them deeply, even if (perhaps especially if?) they later reject that faith, and that therefore imposing one's faith on one's offspring (or students, etc.) was potentially "a problem", and was to be avoided.

You, apparently, agree that it's a bad idea to assume that children will follow the faith of the parents.

... You know, if you want to pick a fight with somebody on usenet^H^H^H^H^H^Hlivejournal, it works better if you can choose something where you disagree with them.

* * *

Ultimately, though, yes, it's "tough" if people are emotionally scarred by their parents' (or schools', or whatever's) misguided attempts to bring them up in a faith (or indeed absence of faith) which they later resent and/or reject. (They may not mean to, etc.) Worse things, as they say, happen at sea.

Clearly we need to strike at the root of the problem: accordingly, I propose that we move to legislate against "promoting" emotions in schools.

From:

Ganesh said (and I paraphrase) "Bringing kids up religious isn't a problem because adults can just forget about all that religious nonsense when they grow up."

You paraphrase badly. What I said was that religiously symbolic acts (baptism, confirmation etc) are generally of no relevance to an unbeliever. I never suggested that the transition from believer to unbeliever was easy.

From:

Ah, gotcha.

I propose that we move to legislate against "promoting" emotions in schools.

Is that satire? Because I think it's a bloody good idea.

From:

I don't think emotions should be "promoted" any more than homosexuality. Does that answer your question? (Look at it this way: if everybody gets irrationally weepy over Judy Garland, we'll all drown.)

From:

and furthermore:

Ideally (in my view) children wouldn't be "brainwashed", but how do you define or enforce that? Where does it stop? It's clearly completely impractical, even if society as a whole wanted to. OTOH, teaching in schools _should_ be religion neutral.

And what do you mean by "religion neutral"? Do you mean that teachers should not be allowed to mention their own religion? Should not be allowed to mention any religion? (Does "any religion" include atheism for the purposes of this argument?) Or if one religion is mentioned, do all others also have to be mentioned in the same breath? Think how impractical trying to implement (never mind trying to enforce) any of these options would be.

From:

Er, no. There shouldn't be any school-organised religious worship, given the impossibility of catering to everyone's beliefs. People should be taught *about* religion (and the alternatives), rather than to be religious.

From:

I agree that school is not the place for organised worship.

(You said "teaching in schools should be religion neutral", so, er, I thought you meant teaching rather than worship.)

From:

Well, I did mean teaching. My RE lessons up until the age of 11 or so were essentially treating the Bible as a history textbook, so "lessons" certainly can be entirely biased (I'm not sure if that would happen now, though).

But I'd view an organised act of worship led by teachers as a (subtle) form of teaching, too.

From:

Shame that schools are required (http://www.humanism.org.uk/educationresources/forteachers/collectiveworship.shtml) to organise worship (and nominally non-religious schools must organise worship a majority of which has a 'broadly Christian' character).

From:

Yeah. And on this thread, I think it would be really dangerous to have some kind of religious version of Clause 28, where teachers aren't allowed to "promote" any kind of religion.

From:

Well, the whole idea that people were "promoting" homosexuality was ridiculous anyway. As far as I can see, the problem with Clause 28 were the negative vibes it caused by singling out homosexuality, and that it created a risk of people going over the top in trying to comply.

I think this is really a question of professional ethics, rather than anything else. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that you're a Christian, but trying to suggest to pupils that they should go to church is completely unacceptable (except possibly if it was in response to a request for advice about Christianity or something). Same as for a teacher with political views - discussing them is fine, persuading pupils to join their party isn't. And obviously you have to have some regard for the age/maturity of the people you're dealing with.

From:

Well, the whole idea that people were "promoting" homosexuality was ridiculous anyway.

That's what I was trying to say; that having a law against "promoting" something may well result in people being afraid to even mention it. And a lot of teachers did go over the top, as you put it, to the extent of ignoring homophobic bullying, etc. I'm afraid that a similar law against "promoting" religion in schools would indirectly result in racist bullying.

I think this is really a question of professional ethics, rather than anything else.

I think you're absolutely right.

From:

Yes, we all know that, and I suspect most of the people who are bothering to read this agree that it's a bad idea & should be abolished, etc. etc.

Can we move on to something more interesting now, please?

From:

Yes, we all know that, and I suspect most of the people who are bothering to read this agree that it's a bad idea & should be abolished, etc. etc.

Can we move on to something more interesting now, please?

Are you talking to me? - I'm sorry I joined in stating the obvious. But I was trying to stay away from the subtle and satirical because it didn't fit in with the general tone of earnestness, and I just really didn't feel like making jokes and having them heavily and slowly misinterpreted.

From:

Are you talking to me?

No, I was talking to

addedentry, who Should Know Better. I mean, not that you shouldn't know better, more that you already do know better, so I didn't need to talk to you. Except in a Venusian sense of conversation-as-bonding rather than conversation-as-transmission of-road-names. ... Hi!

I just really didn't feel like making jokes and having them heavily and slowly misinterpreted.

I know the feeling. As the nun said to the Nazi. Ho ho! Only kidding. Mary, Mary (virgin, mother, CRONE, WHORE), quite contrary (because that's the only way to FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY), how does your sorrel grow? Not to say, of course, that women should be gardening instead of FIGHTING and DRINKING.

Talking of w(h)i(t)ch... I'll never drink again.

From:

a Venusian sense of conversation-as-bonding rather than conversation-as-transmission of-road-names.

Phatic communion, tap it with a spoon-y-un. Sharing of experience through lower-class song.
Chastity as moon-y-un, ymdidanwreic's a boon-y-un, how to make it right when it FEELS ALL WRONG.

From:

By which, of course, I meant:

"I don't recall reading that people on Venus talk differently; in point of fact, I was not aware that people on Venus talk at all, or indeed that there were people on Venus to do the aforementioned speaking. Correct me if I am in error, however.
I believe you are correct about the fact that I don't need to know better, but you are actually illustrating your own tautology by saying that that's because I already know better. Surely the very fact that I do know better is evidence of the fact that I need to know better? Often we already have the things we need, you see. To give an example of the above theory - I need air, and get to breathe it every day."

From:

TOO REAL! I preferred the version with the spoon in it.

From:

As the bishop said to the flesh-as-cutlery supplier. I'm afraid I was very, very drunk.

From: