Year: 2010

Taken from the comments, slightly modified to make it general rather than a reply.

The literal meaning of the term “indoctrination” indicates the matter at issue quite clearly. Here’s a very standard definition from Dictionary.com: “to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc.” Children are not merely instructed in doctrine, of course, they are also inducted into the ranks of religious organizations in various ways: not just educationally, but socially, ritually, and so on. Moreover, inducting children into the ranks of their chosen religion is the explicit primary purpose of most parents who emphasize their children’s religious education, which is what makes it indoctrination rather than mere education: The word “education,” when unmodified, is generally used to indicate instruction in knowledge and skills, not instruction in doctrine or ideology. Using a term like “religious education” – which I also used – doesn’t change a thing about either the purpose or results of the process.

Which leads me back to my main argument: Children’s membership in religious organizations is by definition not voluntary because children (at least young children) cannot legally, morally, or psychologically be judged capable of informed consent. The assertion that parents have the right to pass their religious beliefs on to their children is entirely irrelevant, because I have granted that exact same right. But acknowledging parents’ right to raise their children in their religious tradition does have the inevitable consequence that membership in religious organizations has a very large, elephant-in-the-room-sized non-voluntary component. I’ll grant that many of the things parents make children do are not voluntary by this standard, including ordinary education – but involuntarily imposing membership in religious organizations on children has different consequences from involuntarily imposing vaccinations or school attendance or violin lessons or whatever. Why? Because religious organizations frequently violate basic principles of justice and equality.

I also granted that religious liberty deserves special protection, and that this protection could even extend to letting religious organizations violate basic principles of justice and equality within their ranks. But for any religious organization’s freedom to discriminate within its ranks to be consistent with a free society’s protection of all rights for all citizens – this is, for it not to unduly privilege religious freedom above other basic rights, nor to unduly privilege some citizens above others simply because they were fortunate that their parents happened to have raised them outside of any discriminatory religious organization – no one can ever be coerced to join a discriminatory religious organization, and every member must be genuinely free to leave those ranks as they will. I will state it even more clearly: Permitting religious organizations to engage in discrimination is morally wrong if membership in religious organizations is not genuinely, fully voluntary. I deliberately chose not to emphasize or dwell on the matter of coercing adults to stay within the ranks of religious organizations because it is genuinely trickier, for many reasons – but how free one really is to leave the ranks doesn’t matter one bit if entering those ranks in the first place is not voluntary, and for the most part it is not.

Religious organizations and institutions do in fact discriminate, and they do in fact involuntarily induct many members into their ranks who cannot conceivably give informed consent – not just many, but the overwhelming majority. These facts create a fundamental conflict between the free exercise of religion and other fundamental rights – including the basic rights of self-determination and equal treatment, which are de facto denied to those unfortunate enough to be born to parents who raise them within the confines of discriminatory religious organizations. Since the basic rights of self-determination and equal treatment are the ultimate rationale for guaranteeing every citizen’s freedom of religion in the first place, this conflict is particularly acute.

I am not denying the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit (within reasonable limits), nor am I denying that religious organizations and institutions have the right to conduct their own religious business as they see fit (within reasonable limits), and that the latter right can reasonably be extended even to practices that discriminate on the basis of religion, gender, behavior, etc. What I am asserting is that these rights in combination generate a genuine logical and moral conflict with basic rights to self-determination: The right of religious organizations to engage in discriminatory practices can only avoid conflict with basic rights to equal treatment and self-determination if and when membership in religious organizations is genuinely voluntary – i.e. you aren’t being discriminated against if you entered the discriminatory group of your own free will and can leave at any time – and parents’ rights to impose religion on their children means that an overwhelming majority of members in religious organizations do not become members voluntarily by any reasonable definition.

Of the fundamental rights at stake, I think equality should trump the special protections offered to religion based on the principle of religious liberty: Religious beliefs include bigoted beliefs; I am loathe to extend special protection to the institutionalized practice and enforcement of bigotry simply because it falls under the heading of religion. The presumption that protecting religous freedom always and automatically does require the state to grant unfettered free reign to religiously-grounded sexism (and heterosexism, and so on) simply because it’s religious is exactly the presumption that Ophelia rightly calls into question in her post.

But how best to deal with this in practice is not at all clear. One thing that might help the situation comes from the other line of argument I made: Free democratic states need to fully disentangle themselves from religions, making them the truly private membership organizations they should be.

A good start would be doing more to keep indoctrination out of public schools, and in its place to ensure that children in public education are exposed to neutral, historical and sociological religious education that paints a realistic, non-judgmental picture of religious diversity. That would greatly reduce the coercive character of parental indoctrination: Even if children are taught “the One True Way” at home and church, they will be in a better position to make their own decisions as adults if they have at least been positively exposed to the idea that there are lots of other ways.

Also, state intervention in religion need not be overt or directly coercive. Perhaps the stance of a well-structured, genuinely free democracy ought to be something like the following: “Of course religious organizations have every right to set codes of conduct for their members, determine who they hire and promote to leadership positions, and so on. But we are only willing to grant tax exempt status to non-profit organizations – religious or otherwise – which are willing to make such decisions within the bounds of secular equal rights legislation that apply equally to all citizens and citizen organizations. If the Catholic Church wishes to be a ‘boys only’ club, then they can pay taxes like any other private club or association.”

The approach outlined above seems very defensible to me. There may be reasons to grant religious organizations some special protections and presumptive legal latitude simply because they are religious, in defense of freedom of religion for all citizens: But insofar as freedom of religion entails freedom from religion for those who abjure such affiliations, there should be a principled assumption *against* extending protection or latitude to such a degree that religious organizations and institutions are afforded positive benefits not available to similarly constituted but non-religious organizations and institutions. If a private membership club is not permitted to discriminate, a religious organization should not be: Or, if the state does allow religious organizations to discriminate (on the basis of sex, race, or some other protected category aside from religion itself) in order to maximize freedom of religion, at the very least the state has a legitimate compelling interest (upholding equal rights for all citizens) in and an objective justification for treating a religious organization that discriminates differently from one that does not discriminate. In the U.S., churches that engage in overtly partisan politics theoretically risk losing their tax-exempt status – although in practice this is true more in the breach than the observance. Why not impose the same sort of limitation on churches that engage in hiring discrimination?

The Telegraph speaks up for inequality.

Toleration is one of the most fundamental values of a liberal society. It is also appears to be the one that some Labour ministers find hardest to understand. It requires accepting that other people are entitled to arrange their lives and institutions around their religious beliefs – even when those beliefs appear, to those who do not adhere to the religion in question, to be wrong-headed, or even discriminatory.

Really? Does it? ‘Toleration’ requires accepting that other people are entitled to arrange their institutions around their religious beliefs, no matter how oppressive and powerful and influential those institutions are? Really? So toleration requires accepting that a few other people are entitled to arrange institutions that control and oppress millions or billions of other people who are carefully and explicitly and permanently excluded from any power within those institutions? Really? No exceptions? So if a gang of clerics ‘arranges’ an institution that divides people into slave and free, toleration requires everyone to accept that?

Oh no no no – that’s not what we meant at all, The Telegraph would perhaps reply. No no, of course not. We meant the institutions that already exist, and have always excluded women from any power and any role in shaping the very rules that exclude them. That’s all. That’s quite a different thing, obviously; not like slavery at all. Obviously slavery is horrendous and no people can be allowed to ‘arrange their institutions’ in such a way as to allow slavery. God no. But it’s fine to exclude women – obviously – because women are…you know…well they’re not quite complete people, that’s all; they’re represented by the men they’re related to; so nothing is lost if they are excluded. Surely that’s obvious enough?

No, it’s not, actually, but it is obvious enough that that’s what unthinking smug comfortable people think on the subject. It’s also obvious that they’re careful to word things in such a way that that doesn’t jump off the page. It’s very sly to talk of ‘other people’ arranging ‘their lives and institutions around their religious beliefs’ as if it were a matter of all the people in question agreeing on how to arrange the institution when the exclusion of half those people from any possibility of participating in that process is precisely the issue. It’s not that ‘people’ arrange the institutions in such a way that women have no say, it’s that clerical men do. It can’t be called ‘toleration’ to accept the arrangement of institutions that officially permanently disenfranchise half their members at the outset. Yet The Telegraph feels entitled to do just that. Three cheers for the status quo.

I have this obstinate cold that is being very slow about going away. While it’s packing its things and checking its passport, it sometimes wakes me up in the night by making me cough so hard that it murders sleep. It did that last night at 2 a.m., so I got up and had some lemon zinger tea and listened to the World Service for an hour and then went back to sleep. This means I had the thrill of hearing a program called ‘Heart and Soul’ which on this occasion was about God and football. It was mind-bogglingly stupid.

There was some vicar doing most of the talking, and he sounded like an adult and everything, but he talked the most ridiculous childish nonsense as if it were perfectly normal and reasonable. He simply assumed that believing in something called ‘God’ is unremarkable and entirely sensible. He and everyone else had the most inane ideas about what this ‘God’ adds to football.

Apparently they find it thrilling and exciting to think that when a player does something remarkable, it is God making the player do it. Why? Why would that make it more thrilling rather than much less thrilling? There was a passage on a goal-keeper who did something called a scorpion kick, and they were all excited about saying that was God. But when a human does something extraordinarily agile or graceful or beautiful or difficult or all those – why isn’t it exciting that the human did it? Why would it be more exciting to say a hidden magician caused the human to do it? Why do they think ‘God’ adds something? It’s beyond me.

There was also lots of patronizing stuff about how believers can see that football has multiple facets and secular people can’t, and about how in the absence of ‘God’ there is only consumerism. Stupid, untrue, shallow, calumnious shit like that. It made me cross.

I still went back to sleep though. Can’t complain.