So we've got this story that suddenly became international. An 11-year-old girl was ejected from a soccer game for wearing her hijab. She'd been playing for quite a while, but perhaps this is the first time she played in front of this particular official, I don't know. Anyway, it caused a big kerfuffle, and FIFA agreed to discuss it at their meeting, and apparently that didn't amount to much. A little synopsis is here .

Anyway, I have a solution, and I'm sure everyone here will agree that it's genius.

Basically, I think western societies should make it illegal for people under the age of 18 to be involved in organized religion. Make it an adults-only activity, like voting or pornography. Of course, we can't control what people do to their children in the privacy of their own homes (except in the obvious cases where verifiable abuse is taking place). But really, my brilliant plan solves so many problems.

Using kids as pawns in ideological battles, by taking photos of them looking sad while wearing a hijab and holding a soccer ball? Solved.

Tempting priests into carrying on special training sessions with the choirboys? Solved.

Jesus Camps? Kirpans in school? In-class prayer? Solved, solved, solved.

In fact, I can't see how my plan would cause any problems at all.

How about no wearing of religious symbols or garb in public institutions with the exception of those who's employment is in such garb.

No crosses, no skull caps, no hijabs, no orange sacks - make it universal.  That's an easy solution.

The problem with the first idea is that many kids are smart enough to figure out for themselves that there must be a God, and some are spiritually intelligent enough to get in touch with God.  Prohibition would be a waste of time in this situation.

The point isn't to prevent young people from being interested in religion, or to prohibit them from studying religion independently of established organizations. The point is to protect young people from being industrially indoctrinated before they have the capacity to reason for themselves fully.

Obviously "fully" is an inadequate word, as some people are very intelligent and self-directed by their early teens, while other people are extremely slow developers in these ways. But we set an arbitrary line to mark "adulthood" for other purposes, like driving permits, employment, purchasing cigarettes, or holding public office, so a similar approach for organized religion participation would have many potential precedents.

Even if we lower the bar to 16 -- which seems like a better age than 18 to me, now that I consider it -- it transforms the supplicant's eventual involvement in whatever church they affiliate with. "Going to church" changes from a habit ingrained by early imprinting and powerlessness to refuse to attend, into a consciously chosen decision (leaving aside, for the sake of argument, the force of social and familial expectations).

There will still be fanatic soldiers of every stripe, of course; even atheism has fanatics. This just moves kids a little further away from the center of the field of battle, and maybe gives the most at-risk kids a half a chance to see that there's such a thing as life outside of that fight as well.

- - - - -

As far as the costume thing goes, I've found that what you outline is generally suggested by the groups that have the least to lose from it: atheists and Christians. You have to admit, it's not really fair.

I don't care what my doctor or the cop that pulls me over or the librarian is wearing (as long as I can see their face -- I will admit that adherence to Western custom). I would, however, support a prohibition against the display or wearing of religious symbols (and objects and so forth) in all schools up until university/college level -- meaning both in the decor of the school and in the attire of students, teachers, and other staff.

JVSCant

You start with the supposition that somehow religion is evil and a dangerous influence, so your conclusions from that point are bound to be flawed.

Parents teach kids how to live their lives as best they know how.  They teach them about values, morals, ethics, safety, and generally how to get around in the world.  Now whether these lessons of life come from a Bible, or from the imagination of an atheist mind...they remain lessons the child will learn based upon the parent's understanding.

A parent who is spiritually aware will likely also pass on their knowledge in that area.  A parent who is not spiritually aware obviously can't.

If one parent can teach their child that they don't believe in God or any religion, and that in fact view themselves as the supreme entity in the universe...why can't another parent teach their child about God?  Seems fair to me...

The good thing about Christianity is that ultimately the decision is the individual's to make.  Any person forced or coerced into expressions of faith or beliefs they don't personally share isn't achieving much.  It must be a personal, conscious, free-will choice to be of any good.

I guess where I partly agree with you in where kids are completely isolated from society due to their religion and therefore never get the chance to develop the real world experiences, awareness and intelligence to make their own informed choices.  I often pass an Islamic school bus on the way to work.  The kids are raised in muslim homes, get on the islamic bus, go to the islamic school, associate only with islamic kids and adults, and then return the same way.  They have no chance at integrating with the wider society, or even questioning what they're being taught from a more informed pov.  In this sort of case there would be merit in somehow forcing the kids to spend some time in wider society...

I'd be interested to have you point out where I supposed that.

I personally believe that religion is a valid management system for any individual's pursuit of spiritual insight, interpretation of subjective God-feelings, need to formally codify ethical principles, and some other things I can't think of right now. I don't think religion is necessary at all for a person interested in these aims, but established systems are less work than fully researching one's own, and can have enriching social benefits as well. From the time I was young until today, some of my favorite people that I know happen to be quite serious and committed to their involvement in one of the Big Four religions.

That being said, piousness is a good cloak for the wicked and twisted, and we've seen enough examples of the abuse of power in religious institutions of every flavor that I won't rehash them now. Religion is as good as the people in it.

Further on that idea, if religious institutions only admitted people when they had reached the age of majority, it would certainly make those institutions smaller -- but it would also make them stronger. Built with a better ratio of willing warriors to reluctant ones, and less prone to abuse as a convenient flag of redemption by every politician and celebrity with a bad story in the press that month.

Better for people, better for religions.

- - - - - 

Other than the part I quoted, I agreed with the rest of your post. 

Sooooo, that would have been around the early 1800s, huh?

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Ah, you're very welcome, Chris.  I know you'd do the same for me.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I thought I'd let the anti-religionists fight it out amongst themselves, Chris. My thoughts on such multi-culti issues have been oft-expressed.

But since you asked, here is the raw feed I began before deciding to take a pass on this subject. Feel free to demean them if you like.  But I think I've heard the responses as frequently as I've heard my own views on this subject.  

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

About your comments about Jesus. Did you know that Jesus was raised from the dead? All that stuff and information that people have is either to make money or to try to prove to themselves that Jesus isn't real or that Jesus is dead. It isn't for someone who has encountered Him and knows Him. You will never prove to us that He isn't real, because we know He is. Trying to prove that to us is like trying to say Kentucky isn't real. You are not going to prove that to someone who has been there.

Also, about the REALM thing. You really only have access to the first (earth) and second heaven. You have some cool encounters there, even healing miracles, etc... But if you are going there without first going through the blood of Jesus. Let me warn you, you could eventually have a fragmented personailty or even death. Not trying to scare you just warn you. Some of the things that come againest you in the second realm can't come againest you in the third or higher realms (heavens), but you only can access them through Jesus.

You can encounter the Kingdom though. It came come to you. It is always here. The Kingdom is always near surrounding us. If you are in tune you can feel it.

Also, if you are doing asta travel ( I think that is what you call it, I call it being translated) If you are doing that without being covered by Jesus. Let me warn you that you could easly die. You can die if you can't get back or if someone decides to cut your cord. Do you know what I am talking about? Anyway, be blessed.