Redefining Freedom of Religon for national security.

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
From what we have been able to oserve in the last few years, religious extremism in on the rise in all diresctions, from Christian Reconstructionism in North America to Islamic fanaticism and Zionism in the Middle East. They are all becomming more intense, while the west is paralised by our current definition of freedom of religion.

At the moment, freedom of religion lies in the hands of parents until maturity, and then in ones own hands thereafter. Due to an attitude that the state must never interfere in matters of church, the result has been that the education system has failed to teach children how to analise religion as they do maths, science, grammar and other fields of activity. Thus while it would be difficult to convince an educated person that 1+1=3 or that the sky is red, it is easy to make one believe anything about religion.

If one should get into a discussion about a verse from the Qur'an with an educated Muslim, for instance, many will refuse to discuss the matter with "sorry, but I'm not qualified to discuss such matters; I will ask my local imam or some scholar who can answer the question better than I can". How can one not be qualified to discuss matters relating to his own spirituality, putting such an important subject which can determine the course of his life, in the hands of some scholar?

This notion that the state has no right to interfere in matters of church at all has lead to a vacuum which has been filled by home schoolers who are often caught up in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Muslim scholars who can easily cause the local Muslim populaiton to follow their own wishes due to a lack of confidence on the part of the Muslim community to read the Qur'an and ahadith and analise them for themselves, and Zionist rabbis who can easily prey on ignorant Jews who believe they themselves are not qualified to read the Bible for themselves, but need the advice of a wise scholar to help them. This puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of Mullahs, Rabbis, Pastors and Homeschooling parents who can manipulate thier children or followers into believing dangerous superstitions and fanaticism, ideas which can and have lead to wars, civil wars and bloodshed the world over. Are we going to wait for this to reach our own soil before we react?

I believe we need to redefine freedom of Religion along the lines of Religious responsibility. In other words, if the state intends to give freedom of religion, then it must also ensure that the sacred texts of the world's religions must be taught as a compulsory subject in primary and secondary schools so as to give students the ability to take personal responsibility for their own independant study of their faith. To some extent, this would also be for the purpose of wrestling power from the hands of those who could be teaching ideas which could put national security at risk in future from the hands of homeschoolers and religious leaders who have highjacked spirituality from the people. After all, what is freedom of religion if one dos not know how to exercise it and thus merely hands it over to his leader? How irresponsible it is to give society freedom of religion without teaching it how to take personal responsibility for it! That would be like giving someone a loaded shot gun without teaching him how to use it first.

To redefine Freedom of Religion in this way, I suspect the Canadian Charter would need to be revised, not to mention that there would be tremendous resistance from the very religious leaders who currently hold power over their flock through churches and homeschooling organisations, as well as those who fear moving into such new uncharted territory requiring a redefinition of freedom of religion never seen before in Canada.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
You have the reasoning that the state knows better than the parents or individuals. I can't see any logic in this whatsoever. Besides, from other posts of yours you seem to be in favor of maintaining cultures, religion is an aspect of culture and I can't see how you are willing to have the state intervene.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I think not said:
You have the reasoning that the state knows better than the parents or individuals. I can't see any logic in this whatsoever. Besides, from other posts of yours you seem to be in favor of maintaining cultures, religion is an aspect of culture and I can't see how you are willing to have the state intervene.

Here I was not suggesting that the state impose a particular interpretation of faith, but rather teach the students how to read the sacred texts of their various faiths more critically. Effectively, the teaching of their sacred literature could be taught in the same light as literature in English class (i.e., the teacher doesn't pretend to have the answer, but rather gives the students the intellectual tools necessary to read these texts for themselves rather than beleiving that while it's OK to read other texts critically, that they must for whatever reason shut off their minds and turn to scholars to interpret their sacred texts for them.

And yes you are right; I'm for freedom of religion, preserving minority languages, etc. But from what I've seen lately, I'm getting the feeling that religious leaders are using public ignorance of religion for militarist purposes on all sides, be they Christian Reconstructionist, Zionist or Muslim fundamentalist. At that stage, religion becomes an issue of national security, and at that stage the government needs to act. I can see different ways of doing so:

1. The government does nothing while Christian Reconstructionist, Zionist and Muslim fanatical elements continue to feed off the ingorance of their flock until the situation becomes so severe that the police is required to clamp down violently on religion at home and the military abroad. Or

2. The government teaches children, even if against the will of religious leaders and their flock, including their own parents, to take responsibility for their own spirituality. This does not mean imposing any religion; the child is free to be an atheist if he wants to, but would know what different religions teach so that, in future, should he decide to explore religon for himself, is less likely to be manipulated by religious leadership for militaristic purposes. And while the child is free to believe what he wants to believe, he would be taught to take active ownership of his beliefs. If he's a Christian, fine. But he ought to read the Gospel, know its contents and know how to read it critically. If Muslim, same. If Jewish, same. This would break the power of various White Suppremacist, fundamentalist, terrorist and other groups which try to manipulate believers for their own ends. Even parents are quite capable of teaching their child how to hate, false history, dangerous ideologies and even associate their child with fanatical elements, terrorist organisations or ideologies, survivalist and other organisations at an early age. So no, I am not for the idea that parents have a right to teach their child waht they want when this threatens the safety of the rest of the population.

As these movements grow under the guise of religion, arming our children with a knowledge of religion will be critical. This is no longer a question of freedom of religion, but rather one of national defence, law enforcement and security.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Just another point here. What is the use of freedom of religion if one doesnt' know how to take responsibility for it and all he can do is hand it over to some leader. Once one hands that responsibility over to another, there is no freedom of religion anymore, but rather slavery under religious leadership. Sure one has the right to hand over responsibility for his own spirituality to another. but what happens that that same neglect can lead to 9/11s
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Machjo said:
I believe we need to redefine freedom of Religion along the lines of Religious responsibility. In other words, if the state intends to give freedom of religion, then it must also ensure that the sacred texts of the world's religions must be taught as a compulsory subject in primary and secondary schools so as to give students the ability to take personal responsibility for their own independant study of their faith.

Freedom of Religion also includes freedom from religion if one so choses, and this means you don't force teach religion to my kids.

I think we should absolutely maintain the separation of church and state. State sponsored religion in school is not the answer.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
If I have kids, I am going to teach them about Asatru. No one is going to stop me. Now, if they say, "Dad I don't want to learn about your religion", I will say fine, do whatever spiritually or religiously you will like.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I am not a religious person, in particular. However, if I do have children (gay though, so not one hundred percent sure on the particulars here, lol), I would plan to introduce them to every one of them; I have Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jewish and Buddhist friends, so it should not be particularly hard to give my children a flavour of each, and allow them to decide for themselves from the start in which direction they would tend to lean (or in none at all).
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Freethinker said:
Machjo said:
I believe we need to redefine freedom of Religion along the lines of Religious responsibility. In other words, if the state intends to give freedom of religion, then it must also ensure that the sacred texts of the world's religions must be taught as a compulsory subject in primary and secondary schools so as to give students the ability to take personal responsibility for their own independant study of their faith.

Freedom of Religion also includes freedom from religion if one so choses, and this means you don't force teach religion to my kids.

I think we should absolutely maintain the separation of church and state. State sponsored religion in school is not the answer.

Tehn you did not understand what i meant. Certainly your kid is free to not believe in any religion. But there is nothing to say that, sooner or later, he won't develop an interest of his own in religion. And if he knows nothing of it, he becomes prey to wolves in sheep's clothing. I'd rather yur son know something of religion and choose atheism than know nothing about religion and be a raving fanatic.

Remember likewise that I don't know you. For all I know, you could be teaching your kid that to take over the government and impose theocracy is his divine obligation, even if he should use force to do so! Yet if the government prvides no counterbalance, then your kid could potentially kill someone later.

Same could apply to me. How do you know that I'm not a raving loonatic who's been teaching my kid since birth that to please god, he must kill all the infidels?

If the government is not teaching my kid any critical thinking skills with regard to religion, then how do you think my kid will turn out.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Re: RE: Redefining Freedom of Religon for national security

FiveParadox said:
I am not a religious person, in particular. However, if I do have children (gay though, so not one hundred percent sure on the particulars here, lol), I would plan to introduce them to every one of them; I have Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jewish and Buddhist friends, so it should not be particularly hard to give my children a flavour of each, and allow them to decide for themselves from the start in which direction they would tend to lean (or in none at all).

I would want my kid to learn about different world religions too. The issue is though, and that's wonderful. but if I'm teaching my kid that to kill infidels is a good thing, what kind of counterbalance ought to be provided. Sure you could say the police could arrest me. But how do they know I'm even teaching this to my kid? Question him? Sure, so I'll just teach him more subtly in the beginning and then be more explicit when he's a teenager, while teaching him that the reason they're questioning him is becasue the government has been taken over by satan and the war of Armageddon is nigh. then once he's old enough I introduce him to some survivalist milita. Or if muslim, Al-Qaeda, or if not that, then just a general attitude that all apostates are evil and must be chased out of the community.
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Machjo said:
Tehn you did not understand what i meant. Certainly your kid is free to not believe in any religion. But there is nothing to say that, sooner or later, he won't develop an interest of his own in religion. And if he knows nothing of it, he becomes prey to wolves in sheep's clothing. I'd rather yur son know something of religion and choose atheism than know nothing about religion and be a raving fanatic.

This is further integration of church and state. It would be terribly administered, easliy spun by whoever teaches it. I think I could teach my child everything they needed to know about religion, but I don't want the state essentially pushing more religion.

Want to teach critical thinking. Teach "The Demon Haunted world: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan. Or "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" by Michael Shermer. It is not just religion that takes people in. You don't need to force the study of religion, to protect from religious charlatans. Critical thinking is the key thing to teach.

Both have their points, but I preferred Sagan book BTW.

Some good Critical thinking links:
http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/detector.html
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Re: RE: Redefining Freedom of

darkbeaver said:
Instructing children in religion before critical thinking is child abuse! The state must intervene.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily child abuse, but I agree that it can be if it's for the purpose of indoctrinating a child.

But practically, I don't know how the state would go about stopping this, realistically. So it would seem that the best solution would simply be to require schools to teach children critical thinking skills as it relates to religion. Again, I'm not suggesting the schools must be anti-religion, merely that they teach thildren to take responsibility for their own spirituality or lack thereof rather than just follow some lunitic telling him to take up arms.