Is Religious Indoctrination Criminal?

[parmalee]

I think LG's use of the word knowingly is important because when someone consciously makes the decision to convert another person, it implies that premeditation & motive existed prior to the conversion. IOW's a deliberate act is perpetrated upon another person. Now whether you think that's criminal or not is the question.

the problem is whether or not we think something is criminal is inconsequential; the "law" decides what is criminal. and it is the proper legal sense which you intend, correct?

I could take it a step further and ask if violating the rights of an individual is a criminal act. Does a person have the right to decide their religious destiny without interference from religion, as in Hapsburg's case? Does a religious organization or a member of that group have the right to indoctrinate as many people into their fold as possible?

you must first demonstrate that "indoctrination" is a "violation of rights."

as far as the u.s. (where i'm stuck at the moment) is concerned, there is no crime. of course, the rest of the world doesn't matter anyways, for they hate "us." they hate "us" for our freedom. they're freedom-haters. (no crime there, right?)

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

the problem is whether or not we think something is criminal is inconsequential; the "law" decides what is criminal. and it is the proper legal sense which you intend, correct?

In the proper legal sense I don't believe indoctrination is illegal in any part of the world. Since I realize this then it should be obvious that legality in the proper sense is not my intention. I am asking to see if people have opinions on its legality, whether or not a wrong is being committed or a right violated.

All criminal acts on the books didn't get there overnight. Some took centuries, not to say they were always criminal but as the human species and their society evolves, what was then is not what it is now.

In this thread I'm looking for people's thoughts on the matter. I'm trying to remain neutral but my reputation precedes me. So I will admit that I tend to favor the rights of individuals to include non interference from religion. That's as far as I'll go right now.

 

[lightgigantic]

If I wasn't convinced it was a crime to kill someone and you convinced me it was then I don't see how that makes you a criminal. I see your reasoning, the crime in reference to the thread title would be atheism and religious indoctrination the crime preventer. Something like that?:shrug:

there is of course good arguments why killing can be a crime ... all you've done with the issue of conversion however is point the finger at one person swaying the mind of another ... which is arguably the standard dialogue of human culture since day one.

:shrug:

 

[(Q)]

Is there a crime committed and what is the crime(s) when......

A person or persons of faith knowingly convert someone non-religious to their particular religion by any means possible.

Indoctrination is legal. It isn't a crime. Childhood religious indoctrination isn't a crime, but it certainly falls under the childhood abuse category for educational neglect. Such indoctrination practices can also include physical abuse.

If someone is indoctrinated without expressing an original interest in the religion of faith of their converter then have they been violated?

Of course, but they are free to walk away anytime, if the could. Detainment or imprisonment is not part of the indoctrination process.

Children, on the other hand, don't just simply walk away, and since children have a tendency towards teleology, they will believe their parents whether it's Santa, the Easter Bunny or a god. Children cannot formulate nor understand the concepts held by their parents religions and wouldn't have an interest in the faith. They are told over and over that whatever is in their scriptures is the unquestionable truth. Santa and the Easter Bunny were just little white lies to entertain, but god is definitely real.

It would be very interesting to study those children at the ages in which they realized Santa and the Easter Bunny were myths, yet they were being told their god was real.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

there is of course good arguments why killing can be a crime ... all you've done with the issue of conversion however is point the finger at one person swaying the mind of another ... which is arguably the standard dialogue of human culture since day one.

Still don't follow. Are you saying there is no criminal activity taking place if for instance I were to convince someone that killing someone is ok or will be rewarded?

 

[Bishadi]

Indoctrination is legal. It isn't a crime. Childhood religious indoctrination isn't a crime, but it certainly falls under the childhood abuse category for educational neglect. Such indoctrination practices can also include physical abuse.

so one minute it is legal

the next, childhood abuse

and then topped off with

Such indoctrination practices can also include physical abuse.

but

Indoctrination is legal. It isn't a crime. (per you)

question: you don't have kids do you?

Children, on the other hand, don't just simply walk away, and since children have a tendency towards teleology, they will believe their parents whether it's Santa, the Easter Bunny or a god. Children cannot formulate nor understand the concepts held by their parents religions and wouldn't have an interest in the faith. They are told over and over that whatever is in their scriptures is the unquestionable truth.

could that be under some law on brain washing?

Santa and the Easter Bunny were just little white lies to entertain, but god is definitely real.

so little lies are ok for entertainment

and then life-affecting claims (which could be full blown lies) and you could care less?

It would be very interesting to study those children at the ages in which they realized Santa and the Easter Bunny were myths, yet they were being told their god was real.

didn't anyone tell you: you are our case study

for entertainment

 

[lightgigantic]

Still don't follow. Are you saying there is no criminal activity taking place if for instance I were to convince someone that killing someone is ok or will be rewarded?

No

I'm saying you haven't explained why converting someone to a theistic discipline is a crime. All you have pointed out is that there is a concerted initiative to change another's mind ..... which is something you, along with every other person who thought they had a good idea have been doing since time immemorial

 

[wynn]

If someone is indoctrinated without expressing an original interest in the religion of faith of their converter then have they been violated?

Yes, if that supposed religion is actually teaching falsities.

The problem is that unless one has walked the proposed religious path to its end, to see what results it brings, one can't know whether it is a falsity or not.

Which means that if one has been converted like that, one can't know whether one has been violated or not without actually going through with the proposed path.

*As an afterthought.....Is something similar to the Stockholm Syndrome at work in the minds of the indoctrinated?

I think sometimes, this is the case, yes. A person can be held captive physically or psychologically, and then develop a kind of approval or cooperation with the captor. Such a person then "believes against their will", which is a very disturbing state of mind to be in.

 

[wynn]

Of course there are already laws on the books for some things. This is a given. Yes, known criminal acts can be committed in the course of indoctrination. However the actual intent, to convert, would precede any act of persuasion...deemed criminal or otherwise.

In Chinese Buddhism, for example, they believe that the karmic consequences for someone who teaches others the wrong teachings will be blindness in the next life time.

 

[(Q)]

so one minute it is legal

the next, childhood abuse

and then topped off with

Such indoctrination practices can also include physical abuse.

but

Indoctrination is legal. It isn't a crime. (per you)

Would you get a fucking clue, please? They are free to anyone who wants them.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Still don't follow. Are you saying there is no criminal activity taking place if for instance I were to convince someone that killing someone is ok or will be rewarded?

look at war..and at the penal system..
in that context they say killing someone is not a crime..

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

No

I'm saying you haven't explained why converting someone to a theistic discipline is a crime. All you have pointed out is that there is a concerted initiative to change another's mind ..... which is something you, along with every other person who thought they had a good idea have been doing since time immemorial

When did I say it was a crime?

Yes, regular dialogue, bouncing ideas of one another have been the norm for thousands of years. However times change, what is considered criminal today was not in the past. Maybe slavery should be reinstituted as a legal act seeing how it was once ok in some parts of the world?

All I'm saying is that times change and perhaps some of the things we take for granted should be examined for any harmful affects on a person's basic human rights as a whole. We do this all the time too. Laws don't magically appear.

 

[wynn]

I think LG's use of the word knowingly is important because when someone consciously makes the decision to convert another person, it implies that premeditation & motive existed prior to the conversion. IOW's a deliberate act is perpetrated upon another person. Now whether you think that's criminal or not is the question.

That depends on the motive for the conversion attempt.

Does the converter have proper knowledge of the Absolute truth and acts in line with it, for the greater good of the convert-to-be?

Does the converter not have proper knowledge of the Absolute truth but merely presumes to have it, and acts in line with whatever knowledge he has, for the greater good of the convert-to-be?

Does the converter have the intention to use whatever knowledge he has in order to gain converts who will idolize him or to collect money from them?


Secondly, it's not clear what exactly an attempt to convert is.
For example, someone says "I believe in God" and there are some people who will say that this is an attempt to convert them.

I could take it a step further and ask if violating the rights of an individual is a criminal act. Does a person have the right to decide their religious destiny without interference from religion, as in Hapsburg's case?

The question is whether a person has the capacity to decide their religious destiny without interference from anyone or anything.

Many people like to say they have come to their beliefs (whatever they may be) by their own free will. But I don't think this is possible. It seems that one would first have to reach full Buddhahood status in order to come to that capacity.

Does a religious organization or a member of that group have the right to indoctrinate as many people into their fold as possible?

I'd say that depends on what they want to do with those converts.

 

[parmalee]

In this thread I'm looking for people's thoughts on the matter. I'm trying to remain neutral but my reputation precedes me. So I will admit that I tend to favor the rights of individuals to include non interference from religion. That's as far as I'll go right now.

given that we are not discussing this in a strict legal sense, where do these "rights" come from? what are "rights" outside of the legal definition?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

That depends on the motive for the conversion attempt.

Does the converter have proper knowledge of the Absolute truth and acts in line with it, for the greater good of the convert-to-be?

If you had said "IF' instead of 'DOES' then society might be favorable to the legality of the situation. How is sharing the truth an illegal act?

Does the converter not have proper knowledge of the Absolute truth but merely presumes to have it, and acts in line with whatever knowledge he has, for the greater good of the convert-to-be?

The only problem is that the converter might not be aware that his/her knowledge is presumed. Therefore it might not be considered illegal. However if was decided that indoctrination was illegal or a right's violation then the 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' axiom may come into play.

Does the converter have the intention to use whatever knowledge he has in order to gain converts who will idolize him or to collect money from them?

I'd have no problem with this being illegal.

 

[wynn]

That depends on the motive for the conversion attempt.

Does the converter have proper knowledge of the Absolute truth and acts in line with it, for the greater good of the convert-to-be?

If you had said "IF' instead of 'DOES' then society might be favorable to the legality of the situation. How is sharing the truth an illegal act?

My sentence is a question, so your comment doesn't apply.

The only problem is that the converter might not be aware that his/her knowledge is presumed. Therefore it might not be considered illegal. However if was decided that indoctrination was illegal or a right's violation then the 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' axiom may come into play.

Sure. But it's not self-evident or common knowledge what the Absolute truth is.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

My sentence is a question, so your comment doesn't apply.

You're asking the answerer to presume that the indoctrinator knows the Absolute Truth. At least that is how I read it.

Sure. But it's not self-evident or common knowledge what the Absolute truth is.

There you go.

 

[wynn]

There you go.

That doesn't necessarily mean there is no Absolute truth or that it is impossible to know it and speak it adequately.

 

[Bishadi]

Would you get a fucking clue, please? They are free to anyone who wants them.

but you shared that in a sense, parents can impose (i said brainwash) kids before they even have an understanding of what the choices are.


so in the sense the thread is inquiring on whether, it is a crime (and in my words) to brainwash the children?


to me, in a real sense, it is (the kids have no choice and many grow up having to unravel the BS, their parents indoctrinated)

do you not see how rude it is?

it is like you keeping your old chevy because it is reliable in your eyes, and the kids show you how for the same dollar in fuel, you could do far better

the old, like what they like, and often the method polutes, abuses and corrupts far more, than is right, just for them having their complacent conveynance (acceptances/beliefs)

ie... the old timers will evolve or find (as theology shares) the kids will one day turn on their parents

i perfer evolving and honesty

you think it is ok to mislead, even when (per your own words) state

certainly falls under the childhood abuse category for educational neglect.

and even the real rude part

Such indoctrination practices can also include physical abuse.

nothing worse than mental abuse (in my opinion)

 

[lightgigantic]

When did I say it was a crime?

errr ... in the OP title for a start

Yes, regular dialogue, bouncing ideas of one another have been the norm for thousands of years. However times change, what is considered criminal today was not in the past. Maybe slavery should be reinstituted as a legal act seeing how it was once ok in some parts of the world?

some would argue that it already is, in the guise of consumerism

All I'm saying is that times change and perhaps some of the things we take for granted should be examined for any harmful affects on a person's basic human rights as a whole. We do this all the time too. Laws don't magically appear.

Hence somethings change and somethings don't .... so its BYO soap box
:shrug: