Got the concept off of a discussion about whether religion should be forced on minors by their parents. An interesting question, but to me it raised another - when are kidlets capable of making their own decisions?
It's pretty obvious that up to some developmental point children should be restricted. If you disagree with this, please feel free to hand over booze, a gun, and your car keys to your 5-year old brother. Or not...
So when do children become mature enough to handle "adult" decisions? 18, when you can drive? 21, when you can drink? (thank god they didn't put those two dates together)
sorry, gtg to be continued, eh?
Excuse me, but I fully believe you took what I said and turned it into this "lets let children run their own lives". Not everyone believes the same thing, not every teenager is capable of making their own choices. When they feel they are mature enough to actually seek out something instead of saying "well I'm only doing this cause my parents want me to do something else." You've failed to realize that religion isn't an "adult" decision. Religion is geared towards any age and each and every teenager should have the freedom as to what they'd like to discover.
And I stated again, in my blog, that past the age of 14 are they ready to start going out on their own and breaking away from whatever it is they were taught.
Sorry if this isn't how you wanted this taken, but it's how I took it.
As a side note... in the states I've been in, you can get your permit to drive when you're 15, and your license when you're 16. In SC, the first license is restricted, and you get a full license at 17. Just wanted to point that out.
~C
Visit my blog.
Most things should be 18. You have finished, or are about to finish, your necessary education, and you have seen enough of life and been exposed to enough to at least make choices for yourself. Mistakes will happen, and 18 isn't perfect, some 16 year olds can easily handle their own affairs, some 20 year olds can't. I think 18 is a good bet and a happy medium, legally. I would say drinking and driving (not together) should be at 16 and voting, gambling at 18.
In the home parents need to pay attention to how mature their children are and parent appropriately. Things like religion should be the child's choice the minute they express an interest in making it. Even a five year old can question faith, and if he or she doesn't wish to attend church, don't make them. Likely they will drift back after awhile. Most decisions should be at least open for discussion by 16.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
Quick responses, I like.
Sorry if I came across as misinterpreting. I usually start with an exaggerated view of something, then find a balance, but this time i ran out of time mid-post.
anyone know if you can save a draft?
also missed editing. 16 to drive. (even worse)
I like the phrase "happy medium". My examples, overboard as they are, were intended to look at decisions that children obviously should not be making. They aren't emotionally ready, and - I hate to say it this way - their brains haven't fully developed yet, leaving them incapable of the level of thought of a healthy adult.
I wanted to discuss the somewhat complex issue of how to legally limit the activities and rights of the young. Individuals mature at different ages, and there is no definitive, non-insulting way to measure maturity. 18 could be a happy medium, but that still leaves people too immature to be given the rights afforded 18-year-olds, as well as people mature enough to have them years earlier.
My thoughts were that, though many may be ready for said rights at an earlier age than the law permits, most don't need them. Truly mature individuals would have the patience to wait.
I fear this conversation has strayed from it's parent, the religious bit. Which is why I had it separate. But since that's been brought back, I'll say that I do interpret religion as an adult decision. A personal relationship with "God", however it is cast (be it Christianity, Islam, ...) is not restricted to adults, but children should have some sense of consistency in religion.
Examples were used in the religion discussion of a church that was ... I'd like to say corrupt. Children should be able to deny the members and leaders of that church as corrupt, but should keep their corruption separate from the religion. That religion is, for the time being, the child's relationship with "God", and it should be kept strong, sacred, and important. Switching religions doesn't help - each has its flaws, it's misinterpretations, its corruption.
The child's initial religion is better, not by which one it is, but by the fact that it is the first the child has known and it is probably the parents' religion as well. That initial bond with "God", that trust, is important to maintain. The explanation and fellowship that can come ONLY from parents who practice and believe the same religion as the child is important.
Deciding how to define one's religion is an adult decision. The bond and trust should first be established, because breaking those bonds too early can leave a child incapable of that trust in any form.
By the way, I have a loose interpretation of what was once my religion, so I had an easier time denying the finer points. God, to me, is not white, nor male, nor is he bound by morality that can be expressed in any language. So my thoeries on religion might not apply as well to someone who will argue that the world was built in 6 (or 7, i forget which it was for Christians) days.
--
Oh, also: does anybody know the name of the song that plays during the dogfight scene of Cowboy Bebop, The Movie?
If so, please let me know @ gatorrelay251@gmail.com
Best movie EVER. Maybe. Definitely best Anime to hit the U.S.
I think i have to disagree with your ideas on religion. By confining a child to the single religion of their parents, which is quite often forced or otherwise not open for discussion, we retard our children potentially finding a more meaningful connection with some kind of god in favor of tradition. You have a very Christian Protestant, or non-denominational view on this idea of personal relationship with god. Certainly the child will not solidify their religious beliefs, but an early start on questioning, questing and learning are far more valuable than the oppression of familial tradition.
We constantly find that children will often live up to whatever standards we expect of them. They will converse with us exactly as we converse with them, and rise to whatever challenges we set before them. Their initial decisions of faith will be quite naive, but a faith based on deep questioning and searching is worth far more, and likely to be far more full, than a faith based on indoctrination.
An adult role model with strong faith is a good role model for children in attitude and intelligent devotion, but an undue push to accept parental beliefs has created many an atheist (not that I have a problem with atheists. I have a problem with stupid atheists who are just mad at their parents.) An example of strong and reasoned faith will bring children with strong and reasoned faith, even if that faith doesn't lie in line with the parents.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.