A child cannot choose it's religion. You admit it, but you don't act like it, or you don't care when religion is forced on them (once more, freedom of religion for everyone except children).
A free society in which a child is able to choose their own religion when old enough to think about it is a good one. I think we can both agree on that, as we don't force religion on people that are old enough to be "responsible for themselves"... in Germany, you can change your religion at the age of 12.
On the other hand, before that, you can justify doing whatever you want to a child because somehow you assume that they believe in Christ or whatever -- including brutally tearing off a piece of their penis because your God gets kicks out of it.
I have yet to see what benefit there is with children being forced into a religious belief that they aren't able to accept. So so far we have some societal standard that is decided arbitrarily that has no real evidence of being beneficial, just that "it's been around, so it MUST be good", as if that's some kind of logical argument. Not sure why I should find that convincing, one way or the other.
As for who's better off: The child is. They will be better able to make critical thinking skills in a society that desperately needs critical thinking, if they are given reason to actually choose their religion for themselves instead of being beaten, threatened, or disowned because their parents don't like when their child suddenly "comes out" that he doesn't believe in God or Christ, even though he went to church all his life and got a piece ripped off of his penis as part of some religious ritual.
I also think that religion should be taught in high school or middle school, objectively and giving time to ALL religions and religious arguments (including agnostic and atheist arguments), for people to be able to see what other religions are, and to clear up any misconceptions as to what those religions are about. This would include the more mainstream religions at first, with minor religions on the periphery. I'd prefer if all religions got covered, but I know that's probably impossible.
Of course, I would rather such a class be more used for historical and philosophical contexts.
I have to say, Lonewolf, I agree with you completely. I think that your argument should also apply to the concept of private property.
There is no evidence that the idea of personal "ownership" is in any way scientifically right. Perhaps everyone should share everything - taking whatever one needs out of the homes of anyone else and even sleeping in that home if one desires.
Some people, when they become adults, choose to live in a true communal society. But always these people are hampered by the fact that they have been raised with the concept of respecting people's property rights. It is very hard to really cast off these concepts and embrace total sharing of everything including sexual partners, toothbrushes, cars and Big Macs.
I think it is absolutely disgusting that parents indoctrinate their children into the concepts of private ownership before the child is even able to think about these things for himself. After all, anyone who has watched one year olds at play knows that the idea of private ownership is not inate. Why, just the other day I saw a baby pick up a toy another child was playing with and the mother took it away from her, saying, "No, no. That's Jonah's toy." Well, I wanted to pick up a two-by-four and smash it into that woman's face! Doesn't she know she's MUTILATING HER DAUGHTER'S MIND???!!! That poor infant will never have the chance to really, freely decide for herself whether she wants to accept the concept of personal property.
And I'll tell you, I feel the same way about language. How does that mother know that when her daughter is 18 she will want to speak English as a first language? The language a person speaks containst thousands, perhaps millions of unwritten assumptions about how we should understand and experience the world. If we learn them as infants, we have no control over how our own minds are programmed. Once again, freedom of speech EXCEPT FOR CHILDREN!!Eleventy!!!
Take as an example the word milk. In english, milk means, well, milk. But in spanish, one would say "la leche," giving milk a female denotation. Spanish speakers feel a natural tenderness and softeness towards the female "leche" that we as english speakers miss out on entirely. Now, we may learn spanish and we may train ourselves as adults to say "la leche," but it's never really the same. We never have an inbred, instinctive feel for the femaleness of the milk.
Thus, I am sure you agree with me that parents should not speak any language to their children at all ever under any circumstances. As adults children should be able to choose their own language. Anything else would be child abuse.
Oh, wait ... those ideas are insane. As are yours.
This is your idea of rational reasoning? If something has been a workable societal standard for all of human history, I think it's a bit irrational to change it dramatically without having convincing evidence that the change will be beneficial. I have yet to see such evidence for your suggestion.
