Marginal Mutterings - a place to discuss ideas from the fringe

[Bluenose]

I'm going to kick this off with some thoughts I have been pondering over for some little while.

The only thing I would ask the reader is to read all of this article before jumping to any conclusions.

What is a human being?

When I think about this subject I have a number of thoughts/ideas rather than a simple (and simplistic) definition.  In my view a complete adult human body is not the definition, because people suffer injuries or disease and lose body parts all the time and these things do not make them any less human.  I had my appendix out a few years ago ( It was actually quite an emergency, it had ruptured and yet I never felt the extreme pain that is usually associated with the condition.  Thank God I have a good surgeon.  [I am aware of the irony of that statement from a confirmed athiest, but the expression conveys the desired strength of meaning, so I will stick to it.])  Anyway, I do not consider myself to have been diminished in any way because of it.  My uncle lost his lower leg after a motor cycle accident many years ago, it certainly never made any difference that I can detect as to his "human-ness".  I am sure we can go on about all manner of similar things, people who have been born without various limbs, yet live full and fruitful lives and so on.

So it seems obvious to me that an intact body is not what makes us human.  Of course, the parts removed (or never there in the case of birth defects etc) obviously are not a human, my appendix has no existence outside my body, although it is (or more correctly was) human tissue, it could never be considered to be a human being in its own right.

What makes us human must be something to do with the "me" part of me - and to be fair, the "you" part of you too!  What is that, though? 

Well, my maternal grandmother died from Alzheimer's disease (actually it was pneumonia that eventually finished her off, but that is really quibbling).  It was pretty obvious to anyone who had known Nana that well before her physical body had died, or indeed was really physically very sick, the "Nana" part of her had departed, never to return.  We know that Alzheimer's is a disease of the brain, and similarly for people that suffer catastrophic brain injury and so on.  So it seems pretty obvious to me that "me" is a property of the brain, whatever else it may be - you may call it a soul, I call it an emergent property of the electro-chemical behaviour of the brain and nervous system.

So where am I going with this?

Today when I was driving I passed some "Pro Life" protesters outside an abortion clinic, as I often do, since it is on my way to work.  It made me think about the issues and I suppose it crystallised something in my mind.  The whole basic assumption of these people is flawed, IMHO.  They label an embryo a "baby" and then get all excited about "killing" it and call it "murder".  Now the main thing I am trying to get to here is that I think these people are neither bad people nor acting without good intentions, but they are IMHO misguided.  They are attributing to a small bunch of human cells that may not even have a nervous system at all, a property that it certainly does not have - the property of what it is that makes a human being.  Or worse, they are talking about potential.  If that is their argument then they should also be protesting about every time some couple do not have sex, or use contraceptives, because there is a lost potential to have a child.  Or what about all the spontaneously aborted embryos, which happen to be more than those which successfully carry to term?  If we talk about potential we are really getting ourselves very confused.

So we are not talking about potential, we are talking about an actual property that makes us human beings.  Does my thumb have this property?  No, of course not.  Does my arm?  It has a nervous system, but it does not have a brain or consciousness, so no it does not.  Does a new-born baby?  It is not so easy to see, but it is certain that a newborn does not have any sense of self or consciousness - if indeed it has that much- above that of say a cow or a sheep which we quite happily dispatch to the abattoir (well, at least most of us do, in any case very few people would equate a human life with that of an animal). So again no, a newborn does not have that quality that makes us human.  In fact, it does not acquire that property at least until some time after the nervous system has fully myelinated and the child has reached a point of full self consciousness.  When is this?  I don't know.  A newborn does not have this, but a normal child of 6 does.  So sometime, at a guess based on my own limited experience as a father of two now adult children, between the age of about 2 or 3 months and 6 years an infant becomes a human being in much the same sense that you and I are human beings.  My best guess is at around the age of 18 months to two years, but I am not wedded to that figure, I admit it is only a guess.

Now I am not suggesting for a single moment that we should degrade the status of newly born babies and encourage or excuse infanticide, only that I believe an intelligent and honest assessment of "humanness" must conclude that new born does not have that quality which we call a human being. Thus using the point of birth as an arbitrary point of what we legally call a human being, is safely on the side of caution, being before the child acquires that quality which we quite rightly value. Perhaps it may well be better for most purposes to use the end of the second trimester, but in extremis I have no problem with late term abortion from the point of view of destroying a human being and I think for legal purposes relating to medical procedures I think birth is a better end/beginning point.  It is just easier to use an earlier, less controversial decision point - end of second trimester - for most purposes and require some sort of review for later interventions, but we should not kid ourselves that we are doing this for any real reason other than to assuage our conscience, it does not IMHO bear up logically.

I have deliberately avoided the issues of women's reproductive rights here.  Those arguments have been made very well by many other people and do not need me to re-iterate them, except to say that I agree that those arguments have merit and i strongly support any woman who had had to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy.  I have personally known several women close to me that have made this choice and they have had my unreserved support, and still do.  No woman would place herself in this position out of choice, it is an abuse IMO to subject her to the sort of taunting and offensive behaviour that the Pro Lifers seem to go for.  Let alone those zealots that think they have the right to kill doctors who work in these places.  I am sure that they think they are acting in an entirely moral way, but anyone who equates potential with an actual living breathing human being probably with a spouse, children, parents, relatives and friends and justifies taking away the latter with all its consequent grief etc in order to protect mere potential has a very distorted view of reality IMO.

I know that this is a controversial idea, and I am fully prepared to receive a blast about it, but I just feel that the emperor has been wearing the new clothes for too long and it is high time someone pointed out the fact that in fact he is naked.  An embryo is not a human being.

Sibling Bluenose

[Sibling Chatty]

Yep. You right.

I'm adamantly pro-chooice, to the point of "viability". If you're 8 months along and decide THEN you don't want to have a baby, induce labor, sign off parental rights and go on with your indecisive self.

The entire issue of "partial birth abortion" is such a STUPID issue. An intact dilation and extraction is the proper name of the procedure. It's done in VERY rare cases, for VERY rare medical circumstances. Most OB docs go an entire career without doing one, unless it's a high-risk pregnancy facility, or a literal life and death thing.

These looneys that make it sound like someone just *decides* to have this done are criminally mentally ill. Mentally unhinged and criminally insane to think that this is a procedure of choice. When Clinton protected the ability of doctors to do the procedure, he was surrounded by women who'd had to have it done. A number of them were pro-life Republicans. This is a procedure used to remove a totally NON-viable fetus (often dead or dying in utero) before it damages the health of the 'mother'. ~One woman described the trauma it caused her to be referred to as "the mother" when she wasn't going to BE a mother, just a mourner for a fetus that died at 6 months, although her HMO wouldn't allow the testing to be done again for another 28 days.~

There's as much medical science behind the "ban of the partial birth abortion" as there is behind those wonderful medical pronouncements from World News Daily that Housework Prevents Breast Cancer and that eating tofu and other soy products gives you Teh Gay!!11!! (Oh NOEZ!!11!!!).

Besides, when it's not your body, ya don't make the medical decisions. If I can't keep somebody from using Viagra, or having cosmetic surgery, or a boob job, or a 'penis lengthening' or Botoxing their face into a frozen mask, WHY can other people make medical decisions, especially such important ones, for young women?
=============================================

Now, ya wanna hear the interesting thing about the end of the second trimester??

That's the time that's referred to in the Bible as The Quickening. Not the time when the fetus first moves, but when there's movement that's more 'determined'. (You push at the baby, the baby may push back.)

It's also about the time that is the 'practical' edge of viability. Yes, babies more premature have survived, but that's the 'early but don't have hysterical panics, just regular panic will do' dividing line.

Even tiny babies have individual personalities. They're not generally too reactive to outside stimulus until later, but there's differences.

However, i'm beginning to think that from age 11 to about age 18, they should not be allowed in public without shock collars... Two 15 year olds having a food fight in a restaurant today threw General Tso's Chicken in my hair.  Maybe just lock 'em up until they're 19? 20??

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

However, i'm beginning to think that from age 11 to about age 18, they should not be allowed in public without shock collars... Two 15 year olds having a food fight in a restaurant today threw General Tso's Chicken in my hair.  Maybe just lock 'em up until they're 19? 20??

Sam Clemens (Mark Twain) reputadely said that boys should be raised in a whiskey barrel until 18, and fed through the bung-hole.

Then, at 18, you could decide to either let him out, or drive in the bung...

______________________________

Bluenose, your very well worded thoughts, echo's much of my own thinking--and not ironically, for much of the same reason.

Something you left out of your thoughtful words, however, was mental defects.  Perhaps deliberately?

I agree-- to be human, or the essence of being human is all in the mind.

The body, although we are deeply welded to it's functioning, is just a shell-- a carrier.  Metaphysically, that is.

So.  Are those folk who's brain function is not "normal" still human? At what point?

Or, being essentially moral, ethical AND merciful folk, do we include those with limited brain function as "human" simply "because"?

It's a very, VERY, very fine line-- if we choose to include those folk, why not extend that mercy to fertilized fetus? (playing the devil's advocate, here... )

Hmmm. It IS food for thought.

But, in an attempt to cover everything I can think of, the individual with a "limited brain function" IS just that:  an individual.  Able to exist on his/her own (more or less, depending).  But, not requiring a specific other person for survival--anyone caring , willing and able will suffice. 

A fertilized human ovum is in a singularly unique situation:  it is totally dependent on another human being for it's physical existence-- and not just ANY human being, either.

So. Perhaps THAT is the distinction we (as a society) make?

[The Meromorph]

Well, my maternal grandmother died from Alzheimer's disease (actually it was pneumonia that eventually finished her off, but that is really quibbling).  It was pretty obvious to anyone who had known Nana that well before her physical body had died, or indeed was really physically very sick, the "Nana" part of her had departed, never to return.  We know that Alzheimer's is a disease of the brain, and similarly for people that suffer catastrophic brain injury and so on.  So it seems pretty obvious to me that "me" is a property of the brain, whatever else it may be - you may call it a soul, I call it an emergent property of the electro-chemical behaviour of the brain and nervous system.

While I broadly, substantially, and enthusiastically, agree with your whole post, and commend you for it, this conclusion is unjustified.
If you have a working radio receiving and playing a program, and you remove the battery, and the radio stops receiving and playing the program, would you be justified in saying the program is a property of the battery?
If you simply switched the radio off, have you switched off the program? (Think about that one  )
If the radio becomes defective, does the program become defective?

I am by no means claiming that 'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain'. But that would be as good an explanation as the one you chose. (Occam's razor does not apply here, both hypotheses assume facts not in evidence.)

It does not, in my opinion, invalidate your argument, to not have a provable explanation of what personhood is. But a mere assertion of what personhood is, on shaky logical foundations, renders your valuable real argument vulnerable to irrelevant attack.

[Aggie]

I am by no means claiming that 'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain'. But that would be as good an explanation as the one you chose. (Occam's razor does not apply here, both hypotheses assume facts not in evidence.)

It does not, in my opinion, invalidate your argument, to not have a provable explanation of what personhood is. But a mere assertion of what personhood is, on shaky logical foundations, renders your valuable real argument vulnerable to irrelevant attack.

Well, since this is the Marginal Mutterings thread....  if  'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain', then there would be little moral opposition to smashing the radio, unless it's the particular properties of the radio that are defining the final content of the transmitted program.

[The Meromorph]

I am by no means claiming that 'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain'. But that would be as good an explanation as the one you chose. (Occam's razor does not apply here, both hypotheses assume facts not in evidence.)

It does not, in my opinion, invalidate your argument, to not have a provable explanation of what personhood is. But a mere assertion of what personhood is, on shaky logical foundations, renders your valuable real argument vulnerable to irrelevant attack.

Well, since this is the Marginal Mutterings thread....  if  'the person' is an external event 'transmitted through the brain', then there would be little moral opposition to smashing the radio, unless it's the particular properties of the radio that are defining the final content of the transmitted program.

Yet this is, I think, a (simplified) description of the Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist positions on 'souls', is it not? (Please understand that this is not my position, and I rarely adopt it except for 'what if' thoughts).
I have never been able to come up with a 'workable' explanation of an interaction between the two (soul and body).


Edit: But I think we are proving my point about this detail being a major distraction from Bluenose's real point.

[Bluenose]

Well, yes, but it has relevance.

My main point (I think) was that the discussion on abortion runs aground at the first step because of the sometimes unspoken assumption that an embryo is a person.  As I stated, I don't think a child really becomes a person - in the strict sense only of what it is that makes us a human being as distinct from just another animal - until some time after birth.  Thus using the end of third trimester for most purposes and the time of birth for extreme cases, allows for a wide safety margin.

Of course the idea that a newborn baby is in someway not a human being is likely to be a controversial point and I am not suggesting any change in the legal definition of a person beyond the point of birth.  I have held my new born children in my arms and I know the sense of wonder that simple act can bring.  However, when framing ethical and indeed legal rules, we need to be more rational and base our rules on more than just the emotional responses of a few people (or even a lot).

Getting back to an earlier point, I know that in my original post I skimmed over the issue of the human identity being a product of the brain's electrochemical activity.  IMO the critical point is the concept of emergent behaviour. I recommend Douglas Hofstadter's excellent book Gödel, Escher & Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid for a full explanation of this characteristic and how complex things like the human mind can come about as the result of essentially simple activity at a lower level (although admittedly a lot of simple activity).  This is a very big book in all senses of the word and I would not do it any justice to try and explain it here.  Suffice it to say that the way that Hofstadter demonstrates how such a wonderful thingas a human mind can come about without the need to any external cause is profound in the extreme.

Now I'm off in the weeds!  To bring us back on topic, I will simply state that I have been trying to open up a new way of looking at the abortion debate that avoids the well worn arguments usually employed.  If nothing else, I hope I have opened a small window to shed a little light on a very murky subject.

Sibling Bluenose

[The Meromorph]

Bluenose,
Your point is completely valid (IMHO), And I don't think any rational person could disagree, exceept in minor details.
The real problem, (No disrespect to you, but you obviously don't encounter the rabid anti-abortionists we have over here, in the millions) is that your 'opponents are not into rational debate. They simply want to define a fertilised human zygote to have full human rights (and women to have none).
I give you an extreme example:
"[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she'll always be like this

god tests every one of us "

http://www.penny-arcade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=25365986&highlight=#25365986

This is an (admittedly extreme) example of the kind of people you're wanting to have a rational discussion with! 

[Griffin NoName]

I am going to go a bit off topic here so I'll address on topic first.

Personal view: each individual has the right to determine what happens to their own body, including a woman who is carrying what in effect is a parasite. Viability, yes ok, but consider the new born, still unable to function without total support system; in the animal kingdom a newborn without its mother would probably die. For the woman the birth carries the issue of what happens to the baby, who cares for it. Are these pro-lifers prepared to bring up every unwanted child they insist gets born?

On the topic of what I shall refer to as personality, my two sons came ready made. Within days my firstborn asserted his own life view. In my arms he would struggle away from my body, and was only happy if I walked around with him giving him visual stimulus. He feasted his eyes on his surroundings. He found patterned wallpaper fascinating, being fully alert and studying it intently, fighting me in my arms if moved in a way that took his desired object out of view. I stress, this was at a few days old. My younger son, by contrast, was only happy if totally cuddled and snuggled like a cocoon in my arms. These characteristics continued to be observable during their childhood, altough now as adults they have transmuted somewhat !!

This is where I go off topic.

Human. Yesterday we had an almighty riot in discussion in college over the use of the word human. Is this synchronicity?

It focused around "idiot savant", ferral children, Casper Howser. The class was for regarding these as NOT human. I was angry. I asked if they dug up, years later, the skeleton of such, would they say they were not human remains? 

The Nazi's claimed Jews were not human. I think this is all very dodgy ground and it is vital to be clear about it.

The point for me is the word itself "human". I do not believe that the quality of functionality or power of thought or action has anything to do with being "human" and that other words should be used for that. Even human foetal remains are for me "human" remains. If the word "human" carries this confusion with it, then IMO it needs to be banned from use - with our current issues around what is PC, this matters as much, if not more, than all those words we are no longer allowed to use !

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Now I'm off in the weeds!  To bring us back on topic, I will simply state that I have been trying to open up a new way of looking at the abortion debate that avoids the well worn arguments usually employed.  If nothing else, I hope I have opened a small window to shed a little light on a very murky subject.

To make things murkier, the criteria we develop for one end of a person's life can apply to the other, too.

At the time, I know I felt like my father died well before his body stopped functioning.

Hmm... now I'm off in the weeds.  And a bit morbid.

Even human foetal remains are for me "human" remains. If the word "human" carries this confusion with it, then IMO it needs to be banned from use - with our current issues around what is PC, this matters as much, if not more, than all those words we are no longer allowed to use !

An arm by itself would be "human remains" as well, but I don't think there's anyone in the debate over sanctity of life who would argue that an arm is, by itself, a person.

But I do agree: sometimes words do hold baggage in their meaning that can colour the perception of an issue.

[Griffin NoName]

Even human foetal remains are for me "human" remains. If the word "human" carries this confusion with it, then IMO it needs to be banned from use - with our current issues around what is PC, this matters as much, if not more, than all those words we are no longer allowed to use !

An arm by itself would be "human remains" as well, but I don't think there's anyone in the debate over sanctity of life who would argue that an arm is, by itself, a person.

But I do agree: sometimes words do hold baggage in their meaning that can colour the perception of an issue.

Yes, that's my point. "Human" applied to remains as an adjective has a precise meaning. I don't like this word diluted in meaning. "Person" is preferable if ability is being addressed. I respect your feeling about your father. I have different feelings. My nephew, in a deep deep coma, for six years aged 17 to 23, before dying, never seemed to me to be not human.

[Bluenose]

I entirely take your point.

The problem is that I am trying to talk about a concept that is not clearly defined in the English language.  The words human and person are not exactly what I mean, but I hope I managed to convey an idea of what I mean with my no doubt imperfect usage of what is an imperfect tool.

Sibling Bluenose

[Griffin NoName]

Your bolded line at the start of the thread was "human being". I think that's a whole heap different to "human" which is what made me mad in college.

Pedantically, I think it's the deterioration of use of English that leads to imperfect transmission of meaning. But then I'm probably a prime candidate for the BBC program Grumpy Old Women (an off-shoot of Grumpy Old Men). I think you conveyed your idea fine... I was drifting off topic.

"No amount of human having or human doing can make up for a deficit in human being." - John Adams.

For light relief on the (off) topic take the Human Being/Human Doing Test

[Sibling Chatty]

What a mean test. I don't want to be driven and compassionate.

I want to be a lump. I strive for lumpitude.

[Bluenose]

A hug for my favourite lump!

Actually I was just looking for an excuse to give you hug No 101  :toadfish:

Sibling Bluenose

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

What a mean test. I don't want to be driven and compassionate.

I want to be a lump. I strive for lumpitude.

I got those results as well.  No WONDER I like reading what you write!

[The Meromorph]

Getting back to Bluenose's original post...
In reference to the part about personality being an effect of the brain etc., I was re-reading Stephen Pinker (The Blank Slate), and he cited a poem of EMily Dickenson's as - well, singularly appropriate and convincing on the subject...



The Brain—is wider than the Sky
Emily Dickinson


The brain is wider than the Sky,
for, put them side by side,
the one the other will contain
with ease, and you beside.

The brain is deeper than the sea,
for, hold them, blue to blue,
the one the other will absorb,
as sponges, buckets do.

The brain is just the weight of God,
for, heft them, pound for pound,
and they will differ, if they do,
as syllable from sound.

[Bluenose]

I've been ruminating for a few days about some things to do with the rights of children and religious freedom.

This is partly prompted by the discussion in another thread about the sextuplets in BC and the government taking them out of the their JW pearents' care so that they may receive necessary medical treatment.

I think I could say with a fair degree of certainly that we all agree (here at least) that everyone is entitled to the religion of their choice and to exercise their religious practice how they see fit, within reasonable bounds.

However, this is where I think things begin to get a bit sticky.

Children (especially small children) are granted a special status and indeed protection before the law because we recognise that they are not competent to make decisions for themselves.  Generally, we allow indeed expect, parents to make important decisions on behalf of their children.  This is fine when we are talking about the physical needs of a child.

The problem I see is when we start to talk about notions of religious freedom and children.  What choice does a child have when it comes to religion?  None, in the vast majority of cases.  The single most significant determinant in what religion a person will have is what religion did his/her parents have.  IIRC it was Ignatius Loyola who said "give me the child until age 7 and I will give you the man", or words to that effect.  This oft-quoted statement neatly sums up exactly what I think is wrong.  A young child is in no position to judge the truth/reasonableness/likelihood or otherwise of what is being taught.  If the adult(s) upon whom the child's very existence depend espouse some idea or other, especially if they add that not believing will result in some dire consequences is it any surprise that that most children grow up into adults who believe what they were taught when they were too small to evaluate?

Just because the parents believe that they are doing the right thing does not make it right.  I wonder whether in fact, it could be characterised as a form of child abuse.

By analogy, pedophiles often justify their actions by claiming that they "love" their victims and that the children were willing participants.  Even if those children actually are willing, I think we all recognise that, as I said before, children are not competent to make such choices.  Everyone, except perhaps the perpetrators of such horrors, recognise that it is wrong.

However, as soon as we come across religion, we back off.  If someone is bringing their child up as a good little Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Zoro Astrian or whatever, then we allow the parents to do basically whatever they want to the minds of their children in the name of that religion.  What happenned to the rights of the child here?  If the religious ideas are really so persuasive, why is it necessary to indoctrinate children in those ideas before they have the critical faculties to evaluate them?  Indeed, if the ideas really are so persuasive, why not wait until the child is old enough and then explain why the religion of the parents is so superior to all others?

In the Christian faith, God is said to have granted man free will.  Why then do Christian parents not allow their children the opportunity of exercising that free will?

I think the answer is held within Loyola's saying (or whoever actually said it) - there is an unspoken recognition that you can get a small child to believe anything you want.  By the age of 7, most people have the patterns of their though pretty well fixed and the majority never experience anything to shake those core beliefs.  I have come across many different ways that this idea is expressed, in the world of Transactional Analysis there is the concept of the Inner Child, Rudolf Steiner talked about the growth of children being broken up into fairly distinct 7 year episodes IIRC, the first 7 years are when the child is "coming into being".  There are many other examples.  The thing is they all recognise the unique position of a very young person as being that time when core ideas and beliefs are formed.  The child's brain is developing its pathways at this time and ideas, concepts and indeed prejudices formed then are very difficult to change later.

In the wider scheme of things, I believe that this issue is fundamental to the problem of fundamentalists.  (Bad pun intended)  Frankly, I do not think that the suicide bombers are evil people, or morally bankrupt.  On the contrary, I think they are very moral people who take their religion very seriously and actually believe that they are performing God's will and so will receive their reward in paradise.  The problem is simply that they do believe what they were taught as children.  In just about any religion you can name, faith is considered the highest virtue.  Yes, man was given free will, but he is expected to exercise in in accordance with holy scripture. Think about what that really means.  The Bible (about which I know much more than other holy texts) is full of examples of murder, sacrifice and slavery all sanctioned by the God, indeed usually seen as being required by God.

We are taught to respect religion, which is something I support.  However, I do not agree that that respect has to or indeed should extend to everything that is done in the name of religion.  The way women under many religious codes are suppressed, the methods of ritual slaughter employed under a number of religions (methods which would be illegal in most places if carried out for any other reason) the way religion is often used to promote an "us" versus "them" mentality and a host of other examples of repression, mental and even physical torture (I don't know how else to describe hacking off pieces of innocent babies without anaesthetic can be described) are all expected, even demanded, to be respected in the name of religion.

I am sorry, and with all due respect to those of faith, I think that this sort of "respect" for religious ides is pernicious and ultimately leads to the horrors of sectarian violence all over the world and to such atrocities as the World Trade Centre attack, the Bali bombings and on it goes.

I don't know what the solution is, if indeed there is one.  I don't think we want the State to interfere in all aspects of family life.  However, I think I would like to get people thinking about this idea.  You may not agree with me, but regardless, I still get uneasy when I think about children being brainwashed into thinking ideas that have no visible means of support.  Is it really right that we should propagate religious ideas in this way?

Sibling Bluenose

[Sibling Chatty]

I cannot comment on other societies and religions, but in most of the the English speaking world, unless you keep your child completely away from any outside influences in school, at play and in any form of entertainment (movies, TV, whatever) they WILL have any religious indoctrination questioned, often and repeatedly, and sometimes quite abruptly.

If MY faith was challenged (and denigrated) in science classes 40 years ago, do you think that there's any LESS challenge (except where the ID folks are still running things, and that's not very widespread, is it?) in the science classes today?

Even in private schools, other that the strictest fundamentalists ones, high school science classes completely challenge any religious teachings about origins. Case in point... Episcopal High School, as you may have guessed, is owned by the Episcopal Diocese in Houston. Their science department teaches evolution from a non-theistic angle completely. When challenged, the priest that is headmaster pointed out that none of the students there had grown up in a vacuum, and that a regular challenge of faith is vital to growing an adult faith.

The fundamentalists will NEVER allow access to their children by any 'organized' group set to "unteach" their so-called indoctrination. At the point that Loyola made his statement, exactly HOW prevalent was universal education? How prevalent was the encouragement to seek and learn? That currently 7 year old indoctrinare may well become the 10 to 15 years from now agnostic, atheist, Satanist, etc. You're giving these 7 year olds NO credit for growing beyond their indoctrination. Lots do. MANY do. Look at the people here. How many generations back were most of our ancestors "very devout" out of lack of exposure to anything different?

Do you doubt the exposure to  other thought-modes will ever happen? Do you doubt the "angry young man" rebelling thing that so many here have gone through? What would be the point in attempting to "get them while they're young" at the risk of starting a cultural war with their parents? Where do you find a workable model for doing ANYTHING against the wishes of parents without igniting a tinderbox?

Your Bible examples are pretty much Old Testament. That's the place to find what you want to condemn  Abrahmic faiths. This one...

(I don't know how else to describe hacking off pieces of innocent babies without anaesthetic can be described)

..well, are we talking the Jews who give the baby sweet wine (even the Orthodox I know use a STRONG wine) and there's a good body of evidence to support the traditional mohel's version over the surgical procedure...or are we talking things like female ritual circumcision?
(For Jewish male circumcision, see http://www.torahview.com/bris/html/the_bris.html
Especially read The Mohel, and look at the questions...about anesthesia particularly, and the contrast with MD circs.) Female ritual circumcision is pretty barbaric, especially as it's usually done with no anesthesia, and in less than sanitary conditions, and NOT to infants...not to mention the problems caused by sewing the area up so tightly that childbirth is often unrelieved hell, or even death.

So, who do you stop from teaching their own children their own beliefs? What makes YOUR value system the right one to make the choice? Or mine? Or anybody else's? There are intelligent people that have good educations and yet believe that a parent is remiss, even neglectful, if they don't provide a type of religious upbringing for their children.

At what point does A Policy became The Right Policy? After all, there were people in your country not too long ago that believed that taking Aboriginal children from their families and having them raised by childless white families or in special 'schools' was The Right Thing To Do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_River_Native_Settlement

...the ambition to turn the settlement into a farming community failed because the land was unsuitable for cultivation, and during the 1920s its purpose shifted towards fulfilling the broader functions of orphanage, creche, relief depot and home for old persons, unmarried mothers, the unwell and children. The inmate population became increasingly mixed as Aborigines came in from various parts of the state, with some coming from as far away as the Kimberleys and Pilbara. Many of the Aboriginal children were sent, generally against their will, as part of the so-called Stolen Generation.
[SNIP]
Between 1918 and 1952, 346 deaths were recorded at Moore River Native Settlement, 42% of which were children aged 1-5.

Socially, Moore River Native Settlement practiced strict segregation of the sexes and separated children from their parents under the dormitory system.

I have a DEEP distrust for any school of thought that seeks to set itself as judge and jury (and executioner) on the aspects of childrearing of others, if the child is not physically endangered.

[Griffin NoName]

Freud's developmental phases run through to puberty. Erik Erikson, who makes a lot of sense to me, extended Freud's human development ideas through to age fifty onwards.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I've been ruminating for a few days about some things to do with the rights of children and religious freedom.

<edit for length>

I have thought of this one myself, and have pretty much concluded the same thing as you.

And yet- I have oft defended religion, on the grounds that it's a "tried and true" method of turning babies into adults.  It just works-- even WITH all it's flaws.

It has the test of time behind it.

That being said, I sometimes wonder of the more extreme forms shouldn't be suppressed-- but of course, as soon as I wonder THAT, I have to ask: "were to draw the line? Here? Why? Why not here?"

And, so I fall back to religious freedom. Again.

Chatty has some strong points to raise, too-- we may be too quick to take the saying "give me them until they are 7, and they are mine" too literally, and as Universal Truth.  When, in fact, this may be changing for humanity.

I think we are seeing a growing number of adults who are NOT religious extremists at all, who are open to new ideas, in spite of their upbringing sometimes. I think the percent of the human population with this view is expanding, not shrinking.

And, someday, we MAY BE in a position to demand that religious extremism is not allowed to children.  Because, we have a system that IS clearly and objectively superior method of turning selfish "me! me!" individuals into social, gets along with neighbors, adults. [social, as in humans are social beings].

On that day, we may see the end of the insanity-- it will likely take a couple of generations, to let the adults who still hold to it's view time to pass on.  And, humanity may emerge with it's first Adult Culture. Who knows?

I don't expect to live so long.  I can but hope for the future.

[Bluenose]

Bob and Chatty,

The points you raise are indeed valid and this is the reason why this whole subject is one that I have difficulty with resolving myself.

I do not trust the line of reasoning that says that anyone would impose their ideas on others, but then I see that raising children often involves just that, and I wonder do children not also deserve the right to make up their own minds about moral issues?

I was not trying to propose a solution to the problem, only trying, imperfectly no doubt, to discuss the issue and perhaps prompt some discussion and indeed thought on the subject.

I do not wish to impose my view of the world on others, although I would be a liar if I did not admit that it would please me if my arguments convinced people of their worth (but that is a discussion for another place and time).  What I am trying to do is work at the contradiction I see in the way we want ourselves to be treated - granted religious freedom etc - and the way we treat our children.  I can only state that when I was raising my children I did not try to influence them about religion one way or another.  What I did try to do was set a good example for moral behaviour and try to get them to use their undoubted intelligence to work things out for themselves.  This does not mean that we allowed our kids to run riot, but that we expected them to think about the consequences of their actions.  when I had to take corrective action when they had been playing up, I always (I hope) tried to make the response one that was a direct consequence of their actions so that they could see that the response was appropriate and not something arbitrary.  Was I perfect parent?  I doubt it, but I am heartened by the way they have both grown up to be responsible adults who take responsibility for their actions - what more could a parent want.

OTOH, could this way of raring children be mandated?  (Leaving aside the issue of should it.) The simple answer is no.  Unless the parent is committed to a way of thinking that I rather suspect is not in the majority, then it simply would not work anyway and I am a firm believer that laws that will be ignored by the majority of people are bad laws.  From what I have observed most people regard their children more as property in their complete control, rather than as thinking individuals with rights of their own separate from those of their parents.

This is not a simple thing to deal with.  It is fundamentally paradoxical, but I do think we need as a society to deal with some of these issues in a less lassaiz fare manner.

This reply was prompted by two things, firstly I did not want to jump in too soon after Chatty's post because I felt that I may have taken some of what she said in a way it was not intended.  After enough time, I see that that assessment was correct.  Secondly, yesterday I heard about a court case here in Oz that concerns me greatly.

A father who is separated from his wife has just won a court case to have access to his children.  His ex wife is a member of the Exclusive Brethren (as indeed was the husband prior to him leaving the group) and had refused to comply with court access orders because the Brethren have told her she must not communicate with anyone outside the group - including her husband.  Now the court has ordered that the husband is to be given fortnightly weekend access at his home, but has imposed the additional condition that the children are not to speak to anyone else during the access visits.

Now it seems to me that this has been done out of "respect" for the mother's religious beliefs but it raises a question in my mind.  Why does the mother's religion trump the father's?  And what about the children's rights to a normal life?  Is this how we want our society to function?

I don't know the answers, but I have plenty more questions.

Sibling Bluenose

[Griffin NoName]

From what I have observed most people regard their children more as property in their complete control, rather than as thinking individuals with rights of their own separate from those of their parents.

Increasingly in the UK we have a third category of parent who appear to believe their children have nothing to do with them at all. Often I believe because they themselves were never "parented". It seems to be worsening every generation.

Now the court has ordered that the husband is to be given fortnightly weekend access at his home, but has imposed the additional condition that the children are not to speak to anyone else during the access visits.

Now it seems to me that this has been done out of "respect" for the mother's religious beliefs but it raises a question in my mind.  Why does the mother's religion trump the father's?  And what about the children's rights to a normal life?  Is this how we want our society to function?

The additional condition is plain daft. Unimposable. Unless the visits are always accompanied by a social worker which is sometimes the solution here.

What happens if you take the notion of religion out of this? Regard the mother as having strict rules, the father less strict rules. Is the Judge then merely doing their best to ameliorate the two. Returning to the bible, it smacks of cutting the baby in half.

I'm playing devil's advocate because an acquaintance was in a very distressed state today having regarded some mistreatment as racist but the incident didn't appear to be racist to me at all and I am quite highly tuned to such.

I don't mean to disregard the fact that the visitation access involves religious issues. Merely that it is hard without hearing or reading a Judge's reasoning to be sure of the factors they are judging. And the Law's an Ass. 

[Sibling Chatty]

More and more here in the 'fundamentalist South' of the US, I see parents that just hope their children don't grow up to be totally amoral, no matter how tightly bound they have tried to raise them.

I doubt it's a matter of socialization or education. Even those people that homeschool and raise their kids outside the 'pressures of the secular world' have to let them go eventually. And all it takes is one inquiring mind to "pollute" the rest. Thus, the Assembly of God "Teen Minister" that I knew as a hich schooler became a professional comic, and I wasn't shocked. Guy named Sam Kinison. The tight reigns break. The REAL zealots are usually first gen, not a lot make second gen, and third gen is very rare.

Now, if you take away the most egregious examples (anything to the sane side of the lunatic in Kansas picketing funerals) there's a 'settling out' process. Yes, the Exclusive Brethren in Australia have a lot of power in their areas. The US has some similar groups, but they're much more diverse, much more disjointed, and much LESS able to actually affect anything that has to do with minor children. I don't know about the rest of Europe, but the German group is becoming quite active, and wants to be influential. The British Brethren, however, have pretty much died out. (Even though that's where the movement started. Google Plymouth Brethren. Heck there's even http://brethrenpedia.com/wiki/BrethrenPedia for their viewpoint on their impact.
Also interesting: http://www.bruederbewegung.de/english.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren
=========================================

Most Evangelicals will fight to the death the concept that anyone else has the right to interfere in their childraising. Ya know what?? So will anyone else!! Until it's as much a threat that the religious will take YOUR kids away, don't even pretend to think there's a legitimate way of prohibiting them from teaching their children as they please.

You cannot dictate what people teach their children. You can't set up a big enough system to control it. You can TRY... But, I REALLY don't see any value to schools/organizations teaching kids to inform on parents the way the Politburo had Russian children inform on their non-Party Member parents. (Nazis did something similar.)

The BEST approach seems to be the concept of behaving well, raising one's own children well, and not trying to control what other people do, unless they are physically harming their children. And tread lightly there.

Be a decent example. DO NOT be a lightening rod for dissent. Sam Harris (and to some extent Richard Dawkins) have geared up another tightly bound generation of highly motivated devoutly Evangelistic folks that might have been less dogmatic, less energized. But, they've been given a common enemy, they perceive a distinct threat. Whatever else Sam Harris (or Dawkins, or both) has done, he's set a whole new American generation against the idea that Athiesm is an acceptable alternative, because he allows NO OTHER alternative.

If you wish to be taken seriously, extend the courtesy. If you wist to impart your thoughts, extend that courtesy. And if you want to not be persecuted or mocked for your beliefs, or lack of beliefs, don't start up after anybody else's.

The guy with the visitation problem in Australia?? Well, in a way, he's lost already. HE was the head of the household under the Brethren. He chose to leave without convincing his wife to came along. At what point did he change his mind? At what point is the law responsible for providing him relief from a problem HE initiated? No, I don't think it's right, but HE was a part of the structure that his ex-wife and children are following. All he can do is try to use his time well. I hope he is successful.

[Griffin NoName]

Sam Harris (and to some extent Richard Dawkins) have geared up another tightly bound generation of highly motivated devoutly Evangelistic folks that might have been less dogmatic, less energized. But, they've been given a common enemy, they perceive a distinct threat. Whatever else Sam Harris (or Dawkins, or both) has done, he's set a whole new American generation against the idea that Athiesm is an acceptable alternative, because he allows NO OTHER alternative.

Extracting Dawkins - where does responsibility lie? I find it interesting that his expression of his ideas have different effects in the US than his home land. I guess I'm wondering about the conditions that promoted the Plymouth Brethren in the first place, why the waves have largely died away here, how they arise, ebb, and flow.

[Sibling Chatty]

I think the general US citizen's naive faith in equality under the law, fairness, and all that fine-sounding crap that doesn't really exist gives us a finer drawn sense of righteous indignation.

It's not considered a very patriotic attitude to feel, as I do, that there's damn little truth, and almost no justice, in The American Way. The sad truth that the entire world runs on a different Golden Rule than the one you hear about in Sunday School hasn't sunk in some places, even though the truth is there in plain, everyday occurrences. He who has the gold makes the rules. Any of this "do unto others" stuff isn't relevant.

Other people from older countries have more or less accepted this. Optimistic Americans have not. They still believe that what they do, what they say, can have an impact. While that's an admirable trait, optimism, it's not such a good basis for life in the real world we're stuck with now.

There's still a belief that things could be better here if people lived a more 'righteous' life. Some of it doesn't even involve religion, only a sense of fair play and decent treatment of one's fellowman. My country hasn't caught on yet that the fix is in, and it's never going to really work that way, especially as the 'leadership' is more and more "Christian" by name, and more and more venial by deed, as time passes.

Dawkins is more acceptable in the UK, because fewer people there buy the total bullshit package.

[Griffin NoName]

Following the older countries/optimism line is taking me down the path of evolutionary mind-sets.

I often ponder over the pattern of new-born-infant-teen-> learning afresh by experience - (ie. not learning by communication, but by experience) - then, assuming a full life-time is not interrupted by early death - conking out when the lessons have been learnt (theoretically) - then the whole pattern repeats, new child -> 

Extrapolating, this would then be what happens with "countries" too?

It all seems pretty inefficient.

[beagle]

I personally think it's a more complex interplay of factors, including amongst others, history, multicuturalism, science v religion, population density and power.

In densely populated multicultural countries the ability to get on with people with wildly different views is an essential survival technique.

I also think power is a key factor. A century ago Britons believed in God, King and Country just as Americans believe in God, Constitution and American Way. When you're the superpower it's easy and convenient to believe there's a God, and He's on your side. When you lose power, and a generation of young men in a World War the doubts can set in. When you're in a country with large Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh contingents it borders on rudeness to assume and promote a Christian God. Without that certainty of correctness driving familial handing on of religion, and in the absence of persecution to provide a focus, religion can just seem an irrelevance.

I'm not convinced that optimism is a big factor associated with, or provided by, religion. After all the Sixties in Britain were an optimistic time, based on a (oversold) vision in which religion and the Establishment (of which it was viewed as a part) would be consigned to the dustbin of history by the power of technological progress and rationality.

A Dawkins fan might say by the way that he's just being intellectually honest, as befits an Oxford professor.  If religious leaders have no problem using the word "wrong" about ideas or behaviour, why should he? There's no obligation to believe any of them.