NSG Senate Chamber [NSG Senate] - Version 3

[HumanSanity]

Thank you Dragomere. I verify that I am readding my sponsorship to the bill

[New Bierstaat]

What would probably happen is that by banning parents from making their kids go to church, a large percentage of our children would grow up to be atheists, and eventually we'd have a voting majority willing to vote to ban religion.

I request you to withdraw this statement immediately, senator, for it is a blatant attack on atheism. Atheists as a matter of course do not want to ban religion, and many like myself actually believe religion should be respected and kept as a part of culture for those who wish to practice it. Those who wish to ban religion are called extreme anti-theists, and they are a very small portion of the atheist population.

Negative. You're attacking a strawman. I never said anything bad about atheists; I merely said that the result of a law banning public religious participation in children under 12 would result in people becoming less religious and less apt to defend religion, and thus society would be more susceptible to those you call "anti-theists" and their push for state atheism. I suppose you could have interpreted my statement as saying that atheists want to ban religion, but that's not the case.

So no, the statement will not be retracted under any circumstance. It's admittedly irrelevent to this discussion, though.

[Threlizdun]

Negative. You're attacking a strawman. I never said anything bad about atheists; I merely said that the result of a law banning public religious participation in children under 12 would result in people becoming less religious and less apt to defend religion, and thus society would be more susceptible to those you call "anti-theists" and their push for state atheism. I suppose you could have interpreted my statement as saying that atheists want to ban religion, but that's not the case.

So no, the statement will not be retracted under any circumstance. It's admittedly irrelevent to this discussion, though.

No, you are attacking atheists with that statement by implying we will be likely to ban religion if the majority of the population are atheists. You also are wrong in believing all anti-theists, or even a significant portion of them, support banning religion. I am an anti-theist and support no such thing. You also appear to be saying religion is largely dependent upon indoctrinating children at a young age, and while this is something I would agree with, it does very little to help your case.

[Maklohi Vai]

I request you to withdraw this statement immediately, senator, for it is a blatant attack on atheism. Atheists as a matter of course do not want to ban religion, and many like myself actually believe religion should be respected and kept as a part of culture for those who wish to practice it. Those who wish to ban religion are called extreme anti-theists, and they are a very small portion of the atheist population.

Negative. You're attacking a strawman. I never said anything bad about atheists; I merely said that the result of a law banning public religious participation in children under 12 would result in people becoming less religious and less apt to defend religion¹, and thus society would be more susceptible to those you call "anti-theists" and their push for state atheism². I suppose you could have interpreted my statement as saying that atheists want to ban religion, but that's not the case.³

So no, the statement will not be retracted under any circumstance. It's admittedly irrelevent to this discussion, though.

1. Less religious ≠ less apt to defend religion, senator. As I just said, the majority of atheists respect religion and wish for it to be kept for those who want to practice it.
2. Another fallacy here, as even anti-theists typically don't want an atheist state, they just want a community without religion in its presence, an uncommitted state if you will.
3. My apologies, that is how I originally read it, and now I see that's not what you were getting at. However, you're still wrong that we'd have a voting majority to ban religion, unless extremist anti-theism makes a gigantic push; that push will not happen just because kids don't go to church. And for the record, I will not vote for the bill if it maintains the clause restricting a child's freedom of religion.

[New Bierstaat]

Negative. You're attacking a strawman. I never said anything bad about atheists; I merely said that the result of a law banning public religious participation in children under 12 would result in people becoming less religious and less apt to defend religion, and thus society would be more susceptible to those you call "anti-theists" and their push for state atheism. I suppose you could have interpreted my statement as saying that atheists want to ban religion, but that's not the case.

So no, the statement will not be retracted under any circumstance. It's admittedly irrelevent to this discussion, though.

No, you are attacking atheists with that statement by implying we will be likely to ban religion if the majority of the population are atheists. You also are wrong in believing all anti-theists, or even a significant portion of them, support banning religion. I am an anti-theist and support no such thing. You also appear to be saying religion is largely dependent upon indoctrinating children at a young age, and while this is something I would agree with, it does very little to help your case.

It only takes one that wants it and a majority who could be swayed to want it. I will not be debating this matter any further. My stance on this bill is for another reason entirely, namely the right of all people to be able to choose their own religion.

And as children who are religious at a young age have a higher propensity to be religious as adults, children who are atheist at a young age have a higher propensity to be atheist as adults.

Again, I will not be debating this matter any further, and will not apologize for my opinion. Period.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

So as stated before, parents should have the right to decide if they want to introduce their children to any religious organization or not.

[Mediciano]

So as stated before, parents should have the right to decide if they want to introduce their children to any religious organization or not.

Absolutely.

[Threlizdun]

It only takes one that wants it and a majority who could be swayed to want it. I will not be debating this matter any further. My stance on this bill is for another reason entirely, namely the right of all people to be able to choose their own religion.

No, you don't believe in the right of people to choose their religion because you are opposing the right of all children to choose their religion. You cannot be pro-religious freedom and pro-forced conversion.

And as children who are religious at a young age have a higher propensity to be religious as adults, children who are atheist at a young age have a higher propensity to be atheist as adults.

More atheist children is not a problem. Altering national policy to try to prevent the spread of atheism is illegal.

Again, I will not be debating this matter any further, and will not apologize for my opinion. Period.

Very well

[Threlizdun]

So as stated before, parents should have the right to decide if they want to introduce their children to any religious organization or not.

And the child's right to reject these organizations and refuse to attend?

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

So as stated before, parents should have the right to decide if they want to introduce their children to any religious organization or not.

And the child's right to reject these organizations and refuse to attend?

It's more the right of the parents to decide as they are the child's legal guardians.

[Maklohi Vai]

And the child's right to reject these organizations and refuse to attend?

It's more the right of the parents to decide as they are the child's legal guardians.

That's infringing on the child's rights, then.

[Threlizdun]

It's more the right of the parents to decide as they are the child's legal guardians.

So children do not have freedom of religion and it is acceptable for parents to indoctrinate them is what you are saying?

[Gothmogs]

It's more the right of the parents to decide as they are the child's legal guardians.

That's infringing on the child's rights, then.

So children can not me made to go to school, go to the grocery store, or to the bowling ally if the child doesn't want to?

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

It's more the right of the parents to decide as they are the child's legal guardians.

So children do not have freedom of religion and it is acceptable for parents to indoctrinate them is what you are saying?

Nope, of course when they have a mature state of judgement, they can choose by themselves what to do.

[Threlizdun]

So children can not me made to go to school, go to the grocery store, or to the bowling ally if the child doesn't want to?

Do any of those involve indoctrinating the child?

So children do not have freedom of religion and it is acceptable for parents to indoctrinate them is what you are saying?

Nope, of course when they have a mature state of judgement, they can choose by themselves, what to do.

But until they have "a mature state of judgement", parents are free to do whatever they feel like to them then?

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

So children can not me made to go to school, go to the grocery store, or to the bowling ally if the child doesn't want to?

Do any of those involve indoctrinating the child?

Nope, of course when they have a mature state of judgement, they can choose by themselves, what to do.

But until they have "a mature state of judgement", parents are free to do whatever they feel like to them then?

Yes, because that's the responsibility of the parents, isn't it? Let us not forget that a child is still a child, not an adult.

[Venaleria]

That's infringing on the child's rights, then.

So children can not me made to go to school, go to the grocery store, or to the bowling ally if the child doesn't want to?

This is my way of thinking. Youth freedom of mind is very important, however, parents should be able to tell their children to do so.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

So children can not me made to go to school, go to the grocery store, or to the bowling ally if the child doesn't want to?

This is my way of thinking. Youth freedom of mind is very important, however, parents should be able to tell their children to do so.

Of course. I am not saying in anyway that children should be suppressed.

[Venaleria]

This is my way of thinking. Youth freedom of mind is very important, however, parents should be able to tell their children to do so.

Of course. I am not saying in anyway that children should be suppressed.

I wasn't responding to you.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Of course. I am not saying in anyway that children should be suppressed.

I wasn't responding to you.

Oh sorry, I thought part of it was directed towards my stance

[Britanno]

And the child's right to reject these organizations and refuse to attend?

It's more the right of the parents to decide as they are the child's legal guardians.

That's as much a human rights violation as this bill is. Children can decide who and how they wish to worship, if at all.

[Threlizdun]

Yes, because that's the responsibility of the parents, isn't it? Let us not forget that a child is still a child, not an adult.

No, indoctrination is not the responsibility of parents. A child is still a child, which is why we should wait instead of forcing belief systems into their head while they're still developing.

[Brissia]

May someone please direct me to a copy of the bill that we are currently debating on? Thank you in advance.

[Britanno]

I find it disgusting how some senators do not respect the will of children. With minor things like going to the shops then the parents can decide, but parents should not be able to force their children to think in a certain way, to view people in a certain way or to believe in a certain something. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child clearly states that children have the right to have a say in matters that affect them, hence why I wrote my Youth Senate bill.

[The Grand Republic of Hannover]

Yes, because that's the responsibility of the parents, isn't it? Let us not forget that a child is still a child, not an adult.

No, indoctrination is not the responsibility of parents. A child is still a child, which is why we should wait instead of forcing belief systems into their head while they're still developing.

Because they do not have a clear judgement at a very own age. Children have the right to decide of course, and they will decide, when the time comes. A child when he/she becomes a teenager will decide what to do about this.