The ‘Christian Post’ recently announced the use of child labor to evangelize for Christ, in an effort to recruit other children online. Do you agree with this? The organzier of the online missions said this was a "two-week opportunity for all of us to bombard Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Twitter, whatever social places you go to online, with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Their original announcement can be found here: http://christianpost.com/Missions/Evangelism/2009/01/christian-youth-prepare-for-cyber-missions-trip-11/index.html
I sent a letter to the organizer, Tim Schmoyer - which follows:
Tim,
I honestly think it's disturbing that you are encouraging these churches to use vulnerable children to push their message of religiosity to other children. A child cannot make the distinction between reason and reality, let alone teach it to others. These children have not had the opportunity to learn about Secular Humanism, Buddhism, Islam, Hindu, or any other religion. These children are not Christians – they are the offspring of Christian parents, and nothing more. They do not have the capacity to accept Christianity as truth yet. Having Christian parents does not qualify them to become evangelists for Christ, and requesting them to do so is brainwashing, mental child abuse, and forcible child labor for your cause.
Tim, why don't you give these children the opportunity to grow up on their own, and instead of scaring them with the notions of Hell and prompting them to make fearful decisions, encourage them to make educated ones? Before they go on 'your mission,' which they don't fully understand, let them read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, or 'Atheism Advanced' by David Eller which completely deconstructs all religions piece by piece. Even let them read my blog! Then, when they have obtained equal knowledge on the topics of religion you have pushed on them, let them compare that to the logic of the Holy Bible where things appeared and vanished, based on a god saying "Let there be _______."
This use of child labor is an outrage. Please use only willing adults to push your message.
I have posted this message and a link to your story on my blog for all my readers to see. You are welcome to visit the blog and state your case if you feel the need - because I am simply outraged by this call of action to use children in an effort to promote your religious beliefs.
David Smalley
http://davidsmalley.blogspot.com
30 comments:
Hey David! Thanks for the letter. I appreciate your feedback and I think it's clear that we have very different perspectives on this whole thing. I won't waste either of our time in an argument that will ultimately be futile, but I will respond by saying that 1) these are teenagers, not little children -- 16 and 17 years olds certainly have the capacity to choose their own belief system; 2) there is nothing that forces teens to participate in this Online Missions Trip -- if they choose to join us, it is totally an optional act of their free will; 3) you're obviously using the Internet to spread your belief system, there's no reason why we can't do the same.
Thanks for your feedback, David.
I'm with Tim on this matter. David, please explain to me how this missions opportunity is "using children"? If you read the website that explains the trip and it's objective as a whole, it's an opportunity offered to those who are interested, who like to take the next step in their relationship with God. Please be careful in how you approach these matters - sir.
To call this 'child labor' is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. I'd love to hear how you would compare this to such exploitive child labor practices as forced military service or prostitution.
Yep. I'd have to agree with everyone else on this one. If they were being forced against their will, I'd say you have a point. But as it is, they aren't. So I don't see what you have to stand on.
Tim, Albert, & ‘Afraid to be mentioned,’
Please tell me why these same 16-year olds cannot enter into a legal agreement. Why can’t they buy a car, sign a lease, purchase alcohol, use tobacco, become wed, enter the military, or otherwise act independently in a social structure?
It’s because it is widely accepted that teenagers do not yet have the capacity to fully understand what they are getting themselves into. It is obvious that this is not unlawful ‘child labor’ in the legal sense, but you are coercing young minds that have been influenced from your teachings starting at an early age, and utilizing that coercion to create immature robot evangelizers to spread your popular cult’s message on the web.
Then, what happens when teens in your area reach out to other teens, and they show up to your church? More tithes! That’s what happens. You will be financially gaining from the works and labors of children in the name of a god, by coercing them to ‘bombard’ secular websites.
Would you not be disturbed if you witnessed 16-year old children of Wicca parents knocking on doors, informing the general public of the uses of goat’s blood? Surely that would bother you, just the same as this bothers me. You are creating an army of mentally immature web-soldiers to spread a message they don’t fully understand.
Have you taught these kids about Genesis 22, and had them think of what it must have been like to be Isaac? Do they understand how wrathful the supposed god appears to be in the religious doctrine you support as fact?
Do these kids know about Mithra – and the familiar similarities of where Christianity stole its basis? Have they been taught of the Winter Solstice, and pagan traditions that began what you now call ‘Christmas’?
No, they have only been taught your bias view on Christianity, and told that if they do not follow, they will burn in Hell. That sickens me.
Albert, I need not be careful in any sense. Your army of children is being told to bombard secular websites to push your message. I think it is you that needs to tread carefully.
As for my knowledge of religion, it is often said that an Atheist is not one that knows too little about religion, but often one that knows too much. I know your canned, scripted responses before you think them. I know your Bible better than you, because I have proven most of it to be full of fallacies. It is you and your group that needs the education.
Please, just stop using children to further your agenda. You are only hurting your own religion’s reputation.
@ David I am with you all the way. I find your title very provocative and hilarious.
I hope the others engage your questions. I dont think your points are being intellectual dihonest, rather i think you are being very intellectual honest. We have to engage the theological implications regarding our methods.
I thank you for this post, because what you have articulate is a great picture of adolescent spiritual development process.
Why push a campaign for peer online evangelism, when teenagers are bi-polar in the sense of emotionally, psychically, cognitively, and spiritually.
Teenagers are changing at many levels, so why force our teenagers to share such a huge and revolutionary message that has such responsibility and accountability tagged with it?
How can we ensure that our teenagers will keep their verbal witness, when in three years the same kids they evangelized they are drinking buddies with?
Sharing the gospel message is a big deal, not everyone should do it, especially during the teenage years, which are such a formative and unstable time.
I strongly argue that every kid go and be the Kingdom to other, which means bless, love, serve others. If necessary use words.
I think you and I are smoking the same thing. I would be interested what you think about my critique of Deep and Wide YM model. Check it out here: WWW.SMALLTOWNYOUTHMINISTRY.COM
i even like you more now because you are an atheist with a cause and you are not shy to speak up and critique a flawed method in how Christians attempt to spread the Gospel message.
grace and peace my friend.
Thank you Jeremy. I appreciate that. It's good to see that reason still exists within the religious mind.
By the way, I think you meant 'smalltownyouthpastor.com' but I found it nonetheless. I will take a look as time permits.
Thank you again for being bold enough to agree with an Atheist during a religious battle. I have a ton of respect for you because of that.
Dave, just because you can "buy a car, sign a lease, purchase alcohol, use tobacco, become wed, enter the military, or otherwise act independently in a social structure" does not mean that you "yet have the capacity to fully understand what [you] are getting... into." We can agree that the age of 18 is historically and culturally meaningless, can we not?
@ Dave I am sorry...you are right regarding the web address.
@ben regardless of the historical and cultural meaningless of age we still have to highly consider the value maturity. and more than likely maturity is linked with age.
what would be an interesting sociological study would be to observe a cluster of teenage students for over 15 years. in this study that statistian would note how many identities the student takes on over the 15 years.
even the fact that: over 85% of students who graduate from our youth groups never step back into the church. and what makes me even more sick is that fact that some of those 85% intensively verbalize their faith to their friends who subscribe to paganism because their youth pastor CHALLENGED them to vocalize their faith to prove that they were spiritually mature.
First of all, I will not be convinced for one moment that only 16 and 17-year olds are participating. We all know that younger children are taking part, but Tim wouldn't admit that in his reply to me.
Regardless, the meaningful purpose of the age 18 will forever be debatable, but the point is not the specific number, Ben. It is the conceptual view that our society separates children from adults for specific reasons. Children lack certain capacities, and we adults frown upon others that take advantage of those shortcomings. Tim and his group are attempting to capitalize on using children for their own agenda, and the children do not know enough to refute his claims.
Again, these are the same reasons police do not typically question 16-year olds after crimes unless an attorney is present, because they know the subjectiveness of children could be altered by a powerful adult figure, and said testimony, even a confession, would likely be thrown out.
The same goes here. Tim mentioned in his first reply to me, that these children are not being used, but that this is 'totally an optional act of their free will'. Albert then stated that this was an opportunity for those wanting to 'take the next step in their relationship with God.' Don't you see what's happening here? No, these children are not being physically forced to work in a sweat shop, but do they really have a choice under such circumstances?
Christianity teaches that if you refuse their god, you will burn in Hell. Furthermore, Matthew 7:21 states that knowing this god is not simply enough, but in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, one must 'doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.' - So you tell me, does it sound like these children have a choice?
How can things be seen as "child labor" when youth have as much of a choice to participate in something like this as much as you have a choice to write a blog about it? No one is forced to entertain religious beliefs just as no one forced you to become an active athiest.
People have a choice to participate or not to participate. Find out more about the purpose before you decide to attack someone's personal choices.
You have a choice to serve the homeless, or serve your fellow human. Because you may choose so does not by any means make you a slave to the system, or a human trafficing victim. likewise a person that participates in such an activity is not forced to become a child slave.
First of all, I am not one to make assumptions based on partial facts. We have words for those people, and we call them theists. I assure you, I have read the plans of the online mission in its entirety and was disgusted by every word.
I find it funny that both you and Tim have compared my blog to child labor. Do you really not see the difference? I'm a grown man that was a Christian, and researched religion, and then decided that secular humanism is the most correct answer of how life should be lived. Moreover, I am on this journey with adults only. My child goes to school, and still says the 'Pledge of Allegiance' even though I don't agree with it, just so I won't be getting him involved by having him refuse in protest. I don't feel he would understand what he's protesting, so I leave him out of it. I have decency. The religiosity in you, and in Tim, has stripped that from your very fibers.
These kids haven't had a chance at life.
You Christian apologists have come on this debate site and repeatedly stated how these children are consenting to do this, so it should be okay! So let me pose this question to all of you. How could sex with a 16-year old be considered child molesting, as long as the 16-year old gives consent? Because they do not have the frame of mind to determine that consent! - That's how. A child's consent is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, and I am horribly saddened by those enemies who choose to take full advantage of that weakness.
These kids are being told to follow the bible, (but only the specific parts they are taught) and if they don't, they will surely burn in Hell. Furthermore, they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven if they do not do 'God's will', which is but spreading the gospel of Jesus!
Again, I ask ALL OF YOU, even the ones afraid to share your name - what choice do these children really have? In their minds, if they do not partake, they will be eternally punished in the pits of fire for not doing 'God's will.'
If you want to use the web to spread your word, by all means, go for it! We all have that right as adults. But when I start telling my son to text his friends to push my secular humanist values, and evolutionary statements, then you will have a leg to stand on in comparing our methods of communication. Fortunately for my family, I don't obtain my values from your god, so that will never happen.
I'm with David. Teenagers, especially those who have grown up within the church, have been severely indoctrinated. It was a HUGE step for me to reject my Baptist upbringing and become an Atheist. The religion sticks to you like parasites. It took me until I was in my twenties until I realized I was gay--I was a virgin until I was 23--because I couldn't understand how I could sexually desire men when I was already a Baptist. BTW, I 'became' gay before I 'became' an Atheist. My point is that religion clouds one's mind.
Bill Hampl
What we need is a way to prevent children from being indoctrinated into religions. The best would be simple religious education - explaining, not indoctrinating.
One should only be able to join a religion after they become an adult (I fight the urge to vomit when I think of children growing up in polygamous cults). I'm sure theists will reject the idea as absurd but much of what they already believe is absurd. Watching a child evangelize is not touching nor fills me with hope; it disgusts me when I think of the level of their ignorance.
Maybe in a hundred years our descendants will look back at this era as the time where the rationalists finally took control away from the thousands of years of fog-minded delusionalists.
The sad part is, this is all I can do about it. Many times we will see children be dragged to 'pretend worship' or 'evangelize' and it's just as sad as watching children in the KKK screaming hate messages. They don't know any more about what they are screaming, than Christian or Muslim children understand what they are praying about.
Manipulation is at the core, because ultimately, Tim and his church will financially gain from these childrens' actions. When he sits back there counting down all the cash brough it in by teenagers that fell to peer pressure, I sure hope he can go home, look his wife in the eye, and sleep that night, because I couldn't.
Dave,
I know this is an old post but I felt compelled to respond. Having discoursed with you on several occasions I always admired your desire to be fair. In this case, however, you have not only pronounced a moral judgment on Tim, which shows inconsistency because there are no absolutes for your ethic, but you have also somehow peered into his heart and determined why he does what he does. And they say Christians are judgmental. This is below you Dave.
Bill,
I'm actually very proud of this post, so perhaps you don't know me as well as you'd like to think. These poor children are being taken advantage of and lied to, so he and his church can benefit financially from new members, and I stood up for them. That is nothing to be ashamed of and I don't care where his heart is; his actions speak loud enough. It's wrong to use children to further a religious agenda, and it really irritates me to witness the child abuse.
My house is probably the most visited home on the block with several 4-10 year olds on our street. I'm always playing with the kids, trying to ride "Rip-Sticks" or letting them swim in my pool. I have nick-names for all the kids and they refer to me as "Superman." I have a great relationship with their parents, and constantly have kids staying the night with mine. I've been there over 3 years, and not a single family on the block knows I'm Atheist as of yet. I don't hide it, and when my book releases, I'm sure the word will get around, but I NEVER push my agenda on my neighbors, or use my children to "bombard" their friends with my non-belief. It's ridiculous to do so.
Just the other day my own child walked in the door with a pink flyer, handed it to me, rolled his eyes and said "Dad, here's some more Jesus stuff." My kids are always being handed religious material by the neighbors; how well do you think that would go over if I started printing my blogs and passing them out? - or better yet, having my children take it to their friends?
But the children have free will, right? "Go to church or you're going to burn in hell and be visited by demons; but it's totally up to you!"
This is not below me; I wish I had the bandwidth to make this my full time concern, to protect these children from brainwashing and child labor before it's too late.
Dave,
I have never doubted that you are a great guy. I am not arguing regarding your right to feel as you do about the subject but rather the impugning of motives. This Tim fellow may be the most money loving, money grubbing guy in the world but that does not mean that everyone who is religious and associates himself with a local church is. I've seen you paint with this large brush before. It would be like me saying that the only reason you are an atheist is because you don't like rules or being accountable to anyone but yourself. That could be true, it may be true for many non-believers, but I could never know that unless I could peer into your heart and know what you're thinking. It is much better to assume that you believe what you do based on your own study separate and apart from what your motives may be. No, I don't know you that well but I would certainly like to and I apologize that I've dropped the ball so many times regarding our meeting. Also, I appreciate you telling me your nickname because from now on you are no longer "Dave" but I will affectionately refer to you as "Superman" :).
Painting with a large brush: "In this case, however, you have not only pronounced a moral judgment on Tim, which shows inconsistency because there are no absolutes for your ethic..."
My integrity is constantly in question by those that paint with large brushes, because I have no book of morals to follow. Here's the general formula of ignorance:
Morals = Ethics = Good = Christian
No Morals = No Ethics = Bad = Atheist
The repetitive defense of my own integrity is a major distraction from the ultimate cause. Any time I say, "what he did was bad," we no longer address what 'he' did, we address how an Atheist could possibly know what 'bad' means!
I've said this before; but if you were punched in the face, would you need a pain-o-meter to say it hurt? No. You know what pain feels like and you know it's not pleasant. The same holds true for ethics. If you know it hurts you, don't do it to someone else. That's how I know what 'bad' is. I've been used and taken advantage of when I didn't know any better, and I see the same thing happening to these children. I need no moral code to see it.
Besides, if there were an absolute moral source, the followers of that source wouldn't be so conflicted on moral issues. Homosexuality, Suppression of Women, Slavery, Abortion, Death Penalty - you name it and there are Christians on both sides of the argument. Your "Christian morals" are nothing more than humanistic ethics with a metaphysical label, because when it really comes down to it, you make the judgment call based on what you feel in your heart, not what "God" wants. Need proof? Genesis 22:1-19. You wouldn't do it, and you know it.
Also, I never said that all Christians use children. Our mutual preacher friend doesn't do that, nor does he teach his children that Christmas is the birthday of Jesus. - He doesn't lie to them. - My brush isn't as large as it appears in the picture you painted with even a larger brush!
I have a feeling that by the time we're done, my nick-name will be "Correct," and yours shall be "De-converted" :)
Superman Dave,
I hope I haven't angered you. I also hope that while you were giving the "punched in the face" argument for your side you weren't thinking of how nice it would be for me to be the punchee.
I don't think I fall under the "ignorance" category that you mention as it pertains to your formula. Neither example holds true all of the time. There are Christians who do not live ethically and there are atheists who do. I've never said that all Christians are good and all atheists bad. What I have said is that other than subjective feelings the atheist has no room to judge others for what they do.
Example: 1) John punches Steve in the face 2)Dave says its wrong because it hurt Steve and therefore John should never punch him again. 3) John says to Dave, "Why should I listen to you, I enjoy punching Steve in the face." 4) Dave says, "You should be nice, kind and loving to people. 5) John says, "Why..." 6) Dave says "because it's best..." 7) John says, "That's your opinion, I like punching people in the face 7) And John is right 8) If there are no absolutes one man's opinion is as good as another. You can say a man should do this or that but you can never say he "must" or "ought."
Also, it is true that there are divergent views held by those who use the Scriptures regarding a number of different topics. That doesn't mean that every view is correct and true. If two people hold differing views then either one is right, the other is wrong or both or wrong. Whether I am right or wrong on the matter doesn't cancel the source/ standard.
Regarding Genesis 22, if like Abraham, the supernatural God of heaven had appeared to me on multiple occasions, called me from my homeland and provided my wife and myself a child miraculously when neither of us were physically able to do so according to natural means I think I would be highly likely to do whatever he asked. Of course, God hasn't appeared to me as such and based on the cessation of miracles (1 Cor. 13:8-10; Eph. 4:13-15) I don't expect him to.
Regarding your last statement, I did not accuse you of saying all Christians take advantage of children I said that you accused the man of doing what he did for monetary gain. He may have but you could never know that unless you could read his heart. The broad brush I was referencing, and I've seen you write it before, is that religion is always about the money. For a host of us it has nothing to do with it. If I've used the same big brush in some way I graciously ask your forgiveness.
I have one last question for you Dave, if you could be persuaded from an intellectual standpoint in the reasonableness of God, Jesus, Scripture, the Church, etc, would you be willing to accept it? Or would you still be content to do your own thing?
Mr. Dee Konvertedknotyet
Mr. Dee Konvertedsoon,
You haven't angered me at all. I understand going into these discussions that I am viewed as the heathen, the infidel, the godless debater doing "Satan's work" as I pull children away from Jesus, while attempting to hide my horns under a hat when I volunteer in the community. Having to defend my integrity and answering why I don't kill kittens for sport has become a normal part of daily conversation. Besides, if I let those perceptions cause anger, I would play into the storyline, thereby perpetuating the stereotype. I've thought this through.
You said an Atheist can't judge anyone, because we have no absolutes. We’ve determined that you know a punch hurts without being able to measure it. But what if you witnessed a punch in the face as a third party; would you be able to say it hurt that person? How could you possibly make that statement without a way to measure pain?
Let me correct your mock-conversation. Example: 1) John punches Steve in the face 2)Dave says its wrong because it hurt Steve and therefore John should never punch him again. 3) John says to Dave, "Why should I listen to you, I enjoy punching Steve in the face." 4) Dave says, "You should be nice, kind and loving to people. 5) John says, "Why..." 6) Dave says "because you know it hurts to be punched in the face, and you wouldn't want someone to do it to you." 7) Then Dave punches John in the face and says..."See?"
Atheists are all for freedom and doing what one enjoys, until it infringes on someone else's right to live peacefully. John infringed on Steve's personal rights, so it crossed the ethical line.
Your Question: "...if you could be persuaded from an intellectual standpoint in the reasonableness of God, Jesus, Scripture, the Church, etc, would you be willing to accept it?" Persuasion is the wrong word to use with an Atheist. I would have to be convinced beyond all doubt, not persuaded to accept it as the best possible answer based on deductive and/or circular reasoning. I would have to see through positivism that it’s true. Then yes, I would accept whatever answer I found to be the truth. Your problem is, whatever you use to prove your truth, another religion will be your best counter-argument, because they have the truth too, as you worship a false god. (and they can prove it)
Your answer for Genesis 22 has me in awe. That's where we have a complete disconnect, and it amazes me that otherwise intelligent people would obey such horrid acts when commanded by what they believe is a 'good' source, instead of the request causing them to evalute the validity of said source. I would tell whatever god that was to punish me eternally before I could hurt a child. I guess we're just different - and you're the moral one.
Dave,
I'm really enjoying the conversation. Let me reiterate I have never, and I repeat, never gone into a discussion with you where I began by thinking that you were some sort of a terrible human being. I would not care to meet you if I felt that way. If I did not find something likable about you I would not even spend my time conversing with you. As I said in another place, I'm thankful that you practice the things you do. I do not think your ethic demands it (no absolutes) but I'm thankful that you do.
I really want to focus on one thing you said, "Atheists are all for freedom and doing what one enjoys until it infringes on someone elses right to live peaceably." Who says, however, that I "must" or "ought" to care about whether or not others live peacably? And back to the pretend conversation, just because Dave punches John in the face doesn't mean it will convince John that its worth forfeiting his pleasure as it pertains to punching others. I would imagine that John would work a little harder at not getting punched in the future. So my point is, since you make up your rules as you go subjectively, other than personal dislike, there's really no reason to look down on what others may do. You may hate, as I do what Hilter and Nazi Germany did to millions of Jews, but sadly you can never say that it was absolutely wrong. Think about it, the best you can say is I don't like it, I don't agree with it but not, "That's absolutely wrong for all times and places"-- and your the moral one.
I might also mention that because relgion A claims truth and religion B claims truth doesn't mean they are both correct. Again, either one is right and one is wrong, but both can't be right. And whether or not it can be determined boils down to what one believes regarding epistemology.
Based on earlier comments, let me ask you this, "What evidence would you need to believe in the God of the Bible, Jesus, etc.?" Would you have to have some supernatural occurence take place? Would some law of nature have to be upheld or suspended? Would a priori reasoning based on credible evidence be enough? Here's what I think and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Somewhere along the line you became angry at God and the Bible. That doesn't make it true or false but I have a feeling that no amount of evidence would change your mind because you don't want your mind changed. This may not be true at all. I would have to be able to look inside your heart to know but I've been wondering.
Finally, regarding Genesis 22, we cannot forget that it was a one time situation never to be repeated. Abraham was not in the dark about God's existence he knew based on personal experience and empirical evidence that the God he served was real. His son Isaac was probably somewhere between 17 and 20 at the time therefore there's no doubt that he could have balked at what was going on but didn't. His faith must have been as great as his father's. Then, at the same time, there was the belief that even if the act was carried out GOD WOULD RAISE HIM FROM THE DEAD {(Heb 11:19), I'm not shouting just emphasizing}. I would like to think if it would have been me instead of Abram I would have the same measure of faith. You cannot use that example to mirror some situation today. It cannot be paralleled.
Superman Dave, I really do have a lot of respect for you. Just from our short discourses I believe your a great dad, husband, citizen and friend. I would love to get to know you, be friends with you and meet your family even if you remain an atheist/ secular humanist all your life. So, although we may disagree, I like to consider you a friend or at least one in prospect.
Dee
I didn't see the change to "konvertedsoon." laughed out loud.
I happen to be an atheist teenager, and this isn't really child labor, but I do think that ALL teens of all religions should be introduced to all religions and atheism, and then they should pick. But sadly by the time most people are introduced to atheism, they are blinded by religion and refuse to listen.
Well said, Carolyn.
I used the term Child Labor, because in effect, they are using children to get more members, which ultimately leads to more money.
I didn't like seeing the children used in that way.
To indicate this is somehow child abuse is extreme. We have laws that you need to be 21 to drink below that you are too irresponsible. But then we say you can vote at 18, below that age you cannot be informed enough. Then we say you can drink at 18 if you are on a military base. Then we say at 16 you are trusted to drive, below that age you are not responsible enough. Why pick 18 as an age for people to decide on faith questions?
Also the Dawkins idea that there are no Christian children is funny. Why not let Christians decide who is and who is not a Christian. My kids are not Christians, I don't think they are old enough to understand what Christianity is and unless the eventually believe for themselves they will not be Christians. This has yet to be determined but it probably will be determined before they are 18.
There are better books out there refuting religion than the God Delusion. “Listening to Richard Dawkins talk about religion is like listening to Anne Coulter talk about democrats” ~ Heard it somewhere.
I agree. Its dishonest to say that 16 year olds are doing what they believe. Parents have spent every day of their lives teaching that only their faith was true. If kids have never been exposed to other faiths, how can their decision be an informed one? The answer is that its not. Christians say that teenagers are able to make an informed decision, however they are afraid of sex education, saying that to teach teens agout sex will encourage them to have sex. If their values were so well taught than why can't they be trusted with information? Kids are born a blank slate, and untill they learn about the world, they are dependant on adults for everything.
David A. Morse MA 02180
Robb,
This is where having duel interests in, and receiving formal education in both religion and clinical psychology simultaneously, really come into play.
The part of our brains that control decision making, consequence weighing, and long-term judgments, is not formed until early adulthood. It's actually just behind your forehead, in the anterior portion of the frontal lobe, known as the 'prefrontal cortex.' This is why it's so difficult to convict children for crimes.
Dr. Ruben C. Gur, neuropsychologist and Director of the Brain Behavior Laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania put it best: “The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable…Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ‘biological’ age of maturity.”
Jay Giedd, a researcher at the National Institute of Mental Health, explains that during adolescence the “part of the brain that is helping organization, planning and strategizing is not done being built yet…. It’s sort of unfair to expect [adolescents] to have adult levels of organizational skills or decision making before their brain is finished being built.”
Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd of Harvard Medical School explains, “one of the things that teenagers seem to do is to respond more strongly with gut response than they do with evaluating the consequences of what they’re doing.”
Having a child of 10, 13, or 16 doing your religious recruiting of other young minds is both child labor, and abuse, for they know not what they do. They think they have a grasp, but they are only regurgitating their leaders' thoughts. It's no different than taking your child to work and making them do your job.
Look at this way, if your child came to you at 13 and said he/she was Muslim, you wouldn't accept that. You'd pour research down their throats and take them to more bible study groups. But if they came to you wanting to accept Jesus as their savior at that same age, you'd welcome that with arms wide open! What's the difference? The liability is the same. The knowledge is the same. The understanding of religious concept is the same.
One pleases you, and one doesn't. That's it. Neither have to do with what's best for the cognitive development of the child.
REFERENCE
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
David, i agree with you on this one, except for one part. i dont necessarily believe this tim guy is just doing it for the money. he may actually believe but not all xians are greedy sleezebags... i think... :)
anyways i dont think its fair for you to say that he is doing it for the tithe if you dont have objective proof. but i still think what hes doing is wrong
-best regards
Shane
Post a Comment