Do catholic upbringing and conv. of human rights contradict each other?

[Linnyo]

I wondered if children are brought up in the church is this breaking the convention of human rights. The CHR says that people cannot be forced to be a certain religion. The RCC baptises as infants and performs communion, reconciliation and confirmation in children who are not of an age where they can make an informed decision.
Could a cradle catholic win a court case against the church for denying them their rights to choose their own religion?

 

[LRThunder]

That would be scary if true. If a court ruled in favor of that cradle Catholic, could then children not legally have to be subject to discipline of their parents if taken on that “logical” course?

 

[vz71]

I suppose the case could be made. But everyone already has the right to leave whenever they want.

No one is being held here by the church.

 

[Linnyo]

LRThunder:

That would be scary if true. If a court ruled in favor of that cradle Catholic, could then children not legally have to be subject to discipline of their parents if taken on that “logical” course?

I’m not sure that I know what you mean. Do you not think it is better for a person to return to God through choice than through upbringing? Think of the prodical son.

 

[LRThunder]

Linnyo:

I’m not sure that I know what you mean. Do you not think it is better for a person to return to God through choice than through upbringing? Think of the prodical son.

Good point, but I’m fearful of the fact of any court ruling or treaty that could “take away” or “diminish” the rights of parents to bring their children up in a religious setting.

If a person falls away from the church, I don’t want to see it “approved” or supported by a treaty or court decision.

 

[Linnyo]

vz71:

I suppose the case could be made. But everyone already has the right to leave whenever they want.

No one is being held here by the church.

I’m not so sure that people can leave something that has been ingrained that deeply. As we grow up we develop beliefs and if something is repeated often enough from early on until adulthood the belief would become a core belief and it is incredibly difficult to leave such strong beliefs behind because they are too deeply ingrained. It is a bit like trying to unlearn your two times table.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

The human rights also include the parents’ rights and responsibility to raise their child and educate him or her. This would include religious upbringings.

 

[1ke]

Linnyo:

I wondered if children are brought up in the church is this breaking the convention of human rights. The CHR says that people cannot be forced to be a certain religion. The RCC baptises as infants and performs communion, reconciliation and confirmation in children who are not of an age where they can make an informed decision.
Could a cradle catholic win a court case against the church for denying them their rights to choose their own religion?

These sorts of things are why the UN documents on human rights and the “rights” of a child must be put in the grave. Thank goodness the US has not ratified them-- but many other nations have.

 

[vz71]

Linnyo:

I’m not so sure that people can leave something that has been ingrained that deeply. As we grow up we develop beliefs and if something is repeated often enough from early on until adulthood the belief would become a core belief and it is incredibly difficult to leave such strong beliefs behind because they are too deeply ingrained. It is a bit like trying to unlearn your two times table.

I have known enough people that have left the church to believe otherwise.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

vz71:

I have known enough people that have left the church to believe otherwise.

vz71:

I left for over 20 years - It can most definitely be done, but God has the most inventive ways of bringing even the prodigal back.

I believe the Persecution to come will start with some court using something like the Universal Declaration of Human rights or the Canadian Human Rights Laws (Gay Marraige) or the recent Mass. rulings requiring recognition of Gay Marraige.

Remember, Freedom of Religion is not something the world really takes seriously, esp. if that religion begins to threaten the world order and the new morality the elite want to impose on the people.

Things just might get ugly in the next few years, and it won’t be the Islamists.

In Christ, Michael

 

[LeahInancsi]

Linnyo:

I wondered if children are brought up in the church is this breaking the convention of human rights. The CHR says that people cannot be forced to be a certain religion. The RCC baptises as infants and performs communion, reconciliation and confirmation in children who are not of an age where they can make an informed decision.
Could a cradle catholic win a court case against the church for denying them their rights to choose their own religion?

I’m of the opinion that confirmation, becoming a Catholic, takes place when an individual is old enough to make an informed decision. If a parent has done their job in educating their child in the teachings of the Catholic church, then the child when in their mid-teens should be able to make an informed decision. That is not to say that the parents are informed, but it’s almost certain that the parents want the best for their children, i.e., Catholicism.

Even more than that, a person has the freedom to change religion when they are adults. It’s not a permanent condition.

 

[deb1]

Linnyo:

I’m not so sure that people can leave something that has been ingrained that deeply. As we grow up we develop beliefs and if something is repeated often enough from early on until adulthood the belief would become a core belief and it is incredibly difficult to leave such strong beliefs behind because they are too deeply ingrained. It is a bit like trying to unlearn your two times table.

Your statement, although it might seem logical at first, actually is defied by human experience. People adopt new religions everyday. For example, if everything that I have read is correct, Islam is growing very quickly. The converts to Islam are from other religions.

I, myself , was brought up Baptist and am now becoming Catholic.

I didn’t realize that there was a document to keep parents from teaching their religion and culture to their children. Which UN document? There should be a push from all religious leaders: Buddhists, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant and Pagan to bring such a document to the public’s attention.

 

[deb1]

My sons have asked me why other religions can have truth and beauty in them and not be Christian. I explained to them that God put a basic desire in all of him to search us out. The natural laws written in men’s hearts mean that when he follows those laws, he will invent a religion that has some of the same moral codes as ours.

Religion also teaches traditions. Can you imagine how empty an religions holiday would seem if children are not taught why they are celebrating the event?

What worries me is that if a parent doesn’t teach a child their religion then a vacuum will be created within that child’s heart. Now imagine that child multiplied many times over and a generation of teenagers and young adult looking, searching for something but unable to decide what is best. It seems to me a perfect opening for the state to move in and help these poor kids.:ehh: Pretty scary to me.

 

[nova147]

I don’t think that the CHR is contradictory to a religious upbringing. Raising a child in a certain religion does not “force” that child into the religion . . . I was raised a United Methodist and converted as an adult. I know others who’ve converted from other Protestant faiths and from the Jewish religion. I think the idea of not forcing a person into a religion is more related to governments; i.e. Communist countries or more currently the Islamic governments trying those who convert out of Islam. Plus, the CHR also guarentees a right to privacy of personal and family life, which suggests to me that the governements subscribing to the CHR have no right to tell their citzens that they can’t raise their children with a specific religion. Just my 2 cents.

 

[TAS2000]

I wondered if children are brought up in the church is this breaking the convention of human rights. The CHR says that people cannot be forced to be a certain religion. The RCC baptises as infants and performs communion, reconciliation and confirmation in children who are not of an age where they can make an informed decision.

Your original question contains several premises that simply are NOT supportable.

First it presupposes that being rasied in a religious setting is force. What do you have to back up that assertion? The CHR says nothing about informed decisions, it says force. Where is the force?

Second, it assumes that there is information enough to make a decision. (The RCC does not confirm infants; I was a sophmore in highschool. Was I unable to decide for myself?) How, may I enquire, will they get to BE informed if not taught by their parents? We know the government can’t be relied on to teach anything right. Not to mention the shear amount of time it would take to adequately inform anyone of all the beliefs of all the world religions. You’d be 80 before you covered them all. While it is true that they are not capable of choice as infants, that is totally irrelevant, as MANY chioces are made for children by their parents. Vaccinations, the schools they will go to, the clothes they will wear. It is simply not possible, or even smart to think someone else is better equipped to provide these decisions than the parents.

Thirdly, it also implies that NOT having any religious upbringing is beneficial to their well being, or at the least, not harmful. Do you have anything to back that up? 'Cause I’d like to point you to several studies that show children with religious upbringing are less likely overall to have problems than children from homes with no religous upbringing. For example, the American Phycistric Association studdy on suicide rates for the depressed indicated:

**RESULTS: **Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

The CHR is supposed to be for the benefit of all people. Can you support a position that that not raising a child with religion is beneficial?

Lastly, the question requires a knowledge of the future and application of laws designed for instituitions to be applied to individuals. Try this analogy: My parents live on a farm, and I am raised eating meat and potatoes as a child. Later in life, I join a religion that doesn’t believe in eating meat. There are laws for goverment institutions that says a vegetarian alternative must be avialable. I sue my parents and the food pyramid people who provided the guidelines, trying to apply this law to them, since they “forced” me to eat meat before I later decided I didn’t want to. My parents did what they thought was good for me, providing balanced meals before I could decide for myself. They could not look into the future and know I would choose something different for myself later. And the law about providing alternatives was writtten to protect my rights, but in a goverment setting, not a private one. To try to apply it to my parents is ridiculous. Equally so to try to sue the group providing the guidelines my parents followed.

The RCC doesn’t force anyone to do anything. You can choose to follow or not. And to say they are to blame for providing the parents the guidleines on how to raise their children is as ridiculous as trying to sue the food pyramid guys for providing the guidelines about nutrition.

 

[Linnyo]

TAS2000:

Your original question contains several premises that simply are NOT supportable.

First it presupposes that being rasied in a religious setting is force. What do you have to back up that assertion? The CHR says nothing about informed decisions, it says force. Where is the force?

Second, it assumes that there is information enough to make a decision. (The RCC does not confirm infants; I was a sophmore in highschool. Was I unable to decide for myself?) How, may I enquire, will they get to BE informed if not taught by their parents? We know the government can’t be relied on to teach anything right. Not to mention the shear amount of time it would take to adequately inform anyone of all the beliefs of all the world religions. You’d be 80 before you covered them all. While it is true that they are not capable of choice as infants, that is totally irrelevant, as MANY chioces are made for children by their parents. Vaccinations, the schools they will go to, the clothes they will wear. It is simply not possible, or even smart to think someone else is better equipped to provide these decisions than the parents.

Thirdly, it also implies that NOT having any religious upbringing is beneficial to their well being, or at the least, not harmful. Do you have anything to back that up? 'Cause I’d like to point you to several studies that show children with religious upbringing are less likely overall to have problems than children from homes with no religous upbringing. For example, the American Phycistric Association studdy on suicide rates for the depressed indicated:
The CHR is supposed to be for the benefit of all people. Can you support a position that that not raising a child with religion is beneficial?

Lastly, the question requires a knowledge of the future and application of laws designed for instituitions to be applied to individuals. Try this analogy: My parents live on a farm, and I am raised eating meat and potatoes as a child. Later in life, I join a religion that doesn’t believe in eating meat. There are laws for goverment institutions that says a vegetarian alternative must be avialable. I sue my parents and the food pyramid people who provided the guidelines, trying to apply this law to them, since they “forced” me to eat meat before I later decided I didn’t want to. My parents did what they thought was good for me, providing balanced meals before I could decide for myself. They could not look into the future and know I would choose something different for myself later. And the law about providing alternatives was writtten to protect my rights, but in a goverment setting, not a private one. To try to apply it to my parents is ridiculous. Equally so to try to sue the group providing the guidelines my parents followed.

The RCC doesn’t force anyone to do anything. You can choose to follow or not. And to say they are to blame for providing the parents the guidleines on how to raise their children is as ridiculous as trying to sue the food pyramid guys for providing the guidelines about nutrition.

The children where we are are indoctrinated from infancy until they are old enough to be confirmed at 9-11. It is assumed that all children will be confirmed as parents will decide for them. At such a young age children will do as they are told and at no time are they asked whether they want to go ahead. I, personally , think that is too young and it should be left till 14 or 15 at earliest cos then a majority of kids will actually be able to understand and express their own agreeance.

You said the RCC does not use force but what they do do is ensure that the kids will be confirmed by practicing it while they are young enough not to disagree. Some people might consider that as ‘force’.

To compare it to food, is a bit of a stretch of the imagination. Nice to see you have a good one!

 

[vz71]

Linnyo:

It is assumed that all children will be confirmed as parents will decide for them. At such a young age children will do as they are told and at no time are they asked whether they want to go ahead.

That actually runs contrary to what the sacrament of Confirmation is. I think you mean Baptism.

In Confirmation, one speaks for themselves. It is in Baptism where (often) an infant has parents and godparents speaking on their behalf.

 

[rayne89]

Linnyo:

The children where we are are indoctrinated from infancy until they are old enough to be confirmed at 9-11. It is assumed that all children will be confirmed as parents will decide for them. At such a young age children will do as they are told and at no time are they asked whether they want to go ahead. I, personally , think that is too young and it should be left till 14 or 15 at earliest cos then a majority of kids will actually be able to understand and express their own agreeance.

You said the RCC does not use force but what they do do is ensure that the kids will be confirmed by practicing it while they are young enough not to disagree. Some people might consider that as ‘force’.

To compare it to food, is a bit of a stretch of the imagination. Nice to see you have a good one!

I refused to be confirmed as a child (to the horror of my mother). I was actually confirmed when I was 25 years old. I’m not saying kids should wait until their adults but it is possible to refuse. Not that that should be the main point. Parents should have the right to raise their children as they see fit as long as it not abusive or neglectful. As a adults we can accept the values we were taught as kids or reject them -it happens all the time.

 

[Linnyo]

vz71:

That actually runs contrary to what the sacrament of Confirmation is. I think you mean Baptism.

In Confirmation, one speaks for themselves. It is in Baptism where (often) an infant has parents and godparents speaking on their behalf.

And who trains them in exactly what to say???

 

[vz71]

Linnyo:

And who trains them in exactly what to say???

Are you mistaking teaching for programming?
Just teaching someone the ritual does not taking their freedom away.