Time for age limits on religion?

As more countries consider following Australia’s lead in banning or restricting children and young people from accessing social media, I wonder why we don’t similarly consider a ban on religion for anyone under 16? Surely, if we want to protect our children from the potential harm caused by social media, we should include religious faith as having similar harmful effects on young minds.

I appreciate this may sound deliberately contentious, but bear with me. I come to this suggestion from a number of perspectives.

First, my own position on “god” and faith-based beliefs sits somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. For those who say “you’re just sitting on the fence” or “you’re hedging your bets”, I would reply I simply don’t have that die-hard certainty in theological beliefs or conviction of faith that is usually required (if not enforced) by most religions and cults. I have no problem with people practising or adhering to their own faiths. But in liberal, progressive, pluralistic and democratic societies the right to “freedom of religion” is balanced with the right to “freedom from religion”. Meaning I shouldn’t be disadvantaged or persecuted solely for my choice of a specific religion, or my choice of no religion. I would also side with the humanists and secularists who argue that your freedom to exercise your religion should not cause any harm to others, especially not to those who do not follow your particular persuasion. And your religious practices and preferences certainly shouldn’t curb my individual rights to things like legal birth control, divorce, gender equality etc. I would also argue that an individual’s freedom to choose their own religion (not have it imposed at birth as if it formed part of our DNA) should be based on an informed, independent and personal decision. Just as we have age limits for voting, driving, marriage and sexual relations, I think we should have minimum age limits for religious membership and participation.

Second, many of my ancestors were subjected to religious persecution. My French ancestors were protestants (Huguenots) and were effectively driven out of France; my Irish ancestors were catholics, and endured the strictures of British colonialism. Both suffered due to religious sectarianism – so I have little time for religious practices that foster discrimination, forced conversion or violence born of intolerance, fanaticism, extremism and fundamentalism. I certainly don’t want to live under theocratic rule!

Third, I spent much of my A-Level History course studying the Protestant Reformation, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. From a political and cultural perspective, it is an extremely important period, and many of the key events and outcomes are echoed in today’s geo-political landscape. For example, Henry VIII’s break with Rome can be seen as the first Brexit; while vernacular translations of the bible and other religious texts (rather than the Latin versions imposed by the Catholic Church) were important for helping to spread literacy, and they have helped to inform notions of self-determination by nation states and ethnic minorities.

Fourth, those A-Level studies also exposed much of the nonsense that is spouted in the name of religion, for example: theological disputes around predestination and transubstantiation, and debates about how many angels can fit on the head of a needle. Much earlier in my life, I was a member of a church choir. I recall, aged 7 or 8, having to read out aloud during Sunday services some passages from the bible which I just didn’t understand (and which no-one in church could rationally explain). Yet, because they represented the “word of god”, they had to be true, and I was required to believe them, otherwise I was going to burn in hell. That’s surely not how we should be educating children, is it?

If we do want to teach ideas about religion to children under the age of 16, perhaps we need a different approach. While schools may offer classes in comparative religion, it’s largely under the auspices of religious education or religious instruction (or maybe social studies). Whereas, I think sacred texts should be taught as literature (fiction or poetry), and open to the same level of critical analysis applied to Shakespeare, Jane Austen or George Orwell. Maybe these texts could be studied and critiqued in philosophy classes, but certainly not taught as part of science or history subjects!

The current public debate around “religious freedom” is often tied up in torturous arguments about protected beliefs, freedom of speech, and the “right” to cause offence against someone’s personal beliefs. Increasingly, taking a secular or non-sectarian stance against religious overbearance (whether in the form of Islamic Jihadism, Christian Nationalism, Zionism, Hindu Nationalism or Buddhist ethno-nationalism) is dismissed and even prosecuted as evidence of racism, xenophobia, religious discrimination or incitement to violence. And as for the Federal government’s back-flip on launching a Royal Commission in the aftermath of the Bondi massacre, I think the Prime Minister was probably right to change his mind about holding an enquiry, but got it totally wrong by framing it in the context of only one form of religion. Instead, he should have made it a broader examination of religious extremism and sectarian intolerance of all kinds, and the harm this is having on society and our personal freedoms.

Next week: The cost of AI

“When I’m Sixty-Four”

Last week, I achieved the eponymous age of The Beatles’ song, “When I’m Sixty-Four”, as featured on their “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” album. Like many of the people who commented on YouTube, I was just a kid when I heard this song on its release; and I, too, could not imagine being that age.

For one thing, at that time, back in the late 1960s, my grandparents, great uncles and great aunts were all in their mid- to late-sixties; to me they were already so old, even ancient. God forbid that I should end up like that! Of course, given their life experiences, perhaps it was not surprising that they seemed so wizened (physically and metaphorically) before their time. Living through two world wars and a deep economic depression takes its toll. Also, in 1967, life expectancy was around 72 years; now it’s close to 82. And back then, the UK state pension age was 65. Consequently, people seemed “old” because that’s how they were expected to behave, and they were treated as such by government and society alike.

Now I have reached this milestone myself, I realise more than ever before that aging is also a mental construct, not just a biological process. Hence the notion of “subjective age”. If you think you are too old to do something, then you are probably limiting your options (and narrowing your outlook). Little wonder that articles about “life begins at 60” seem popular!

I know have had a very different life experience to my grandparents. For example, two of them never went abroad, three of them never drove a car, and one didn’t live past the age of 50. Unlike them, I don’t have children or grand children, I have lived outside my country of birth for more than half my life, and I have traveled to far more countries than they ever did.

On the other hand, unlike many of my parents’ generation, many of whom enjoyed jobs with life-long career expectations, I have had a more erratic and inconsistent work experience – similar to my grandparents. In their cases, they either had to create their own work (e.g., small business owner) or endure periods of patchy employment. In my own case, I went into corporate employment at a relatively late age, and exited at age 50 – hitting something of a grey ceiling. Mainly for that reason, I have endeavoured to remain curious, stay open-minded, be flexible and willing to adapt – which I believe has helped me to maintain a “younger” subjective age. I think it also helps to have non-work pursuits and interests, so you can remain active if (and when) your employment comes to an end. Plus, having social interactions with people who are not all the same age as you can help to develop more of an inter-generational perspective.

One last comment – I was very surprised to read recently that according to a global study, boomers like me may be living longer, but not healthier, than our parents and grandparents. Despite medical advances, our lifestyles and other factors may result in more chronic disease and illness. I’m not suggesting that this decline is due to psychological ageing, but I can’t help thinking that if you say you are old, old age (and all its ailments) will soon catch up with you.

Next week: What “wallet” it say about you?

 

 

Does age matter?

When it comes to standing for President, how old is “too old”? When it comes to travelling alone abroad, how young is “too young”?

In the first example, Donald Trump mocked his opponent, Joe Biden about his age and infirmity. Now Trump could become the oldest ever candidate to be elected President, but he doesn’t countenance any criticism of his own mental or physical frailty….

In the second example, a parent has been criticised for allowing their 15-year old son to go Interrailing around Europe, with friends, but minus any adult supervision. The teenager doesn’t appear to have come to any harm – and has probably gained some maturity in the process!

When it comes to the US Presidency, first Trump and then Biden set the record for being the oldest candidates to assume Office (both being in their 70s at the time of their respective inaugurations). In general, Presidents get elected in their 50s or 60s; in the post-war era, only three Presidents have been elected in their 40s – JFK, Clinton and Obama. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, at the age of 61, Keir Starmer is the oldest person to become British Prime Minister since his Labour predecessor, James Callaghan, who took Office in 1976. I’m not sure what conclusions we can draw from this, but it’s interesting to note that while many countries have mandatory retirement ages for Judges, it seems there is no upper age limit to becoming (or remaining) President, Prime Minister or Head of State. So while old age may be seen as a barrier to dispensing justice in a Court of Law, there is no such concern about exercising political power.

Obviously, age should not be the sole or primary criteria for measuring one’s ability to perform one’s role, to fulfil one’s obligations and to meet one’s responsibilities. Factors such as capacity, cognition, experience, character and overall fitness (physical, mental and moral) should be the basis on which candidates are to be assessed and evaluated.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are several areas where the legal minimum age is being debated: for example, the age of criminal responsibility; the age when children and teenagers should be allowed access to social media; and the voting age. There are also related discussions on the age of consent, marriage, reproductive rights, access to birth control, and censorship controls.

While it is understandable and desirable to protect minors from harm (both by themselves and by others), setting universal minimum ages is not that easy. Individual children and adolescents develop at different rates – biology is simply not that uniform or consistent! I’m sure we all know of teenagers who are far more mature and responsible than adults in their 20s (and even 30s).

Part of the problem is that a fixed age limit does not allow for any sort of transition period. For example, at age 17 years and 364 days, I’m not allowed to buy alcohol; one day later, I can fill my boots! Logic and common sense would suggest that if teenagers had the opportunity to consume alcohol in moderation, in appropriate social and public settings, they would have a much better appreciation for its effects and greater understanding of their personal tolerance, without getting themselves into trouble.

My concern is that in too many areas we are denying young people any control over their own choices and decision-making, and as a result we are absolving them from any personal responsibility. Consequently, as a society we are undermining the concept of individual accountability; when things go wrong as a result of their own choices and actions – whether deliberate, reckless, negligent, careless, inconsiderate or simply idiotic – it’s other people who are left to pick up the pieces. The situation is not helped by the inconsistencies inherent in our definitions of “minor”, “legal age”, “adult”, etc. For example, people can legally drive, have sex and reproduce before they can legally vote, or get married without their parents’ consent.

When I see media coverage that suggests that people in their 20s who have engaged in anti-social, irresponsible or unacceptable behaviour are “too young to know any better”, I can’t help thinking that these commentators are being too generous (or totally patronising). Some people in their 20s are responsible for making life-or-death decisions (first responders, emergency workers, police, medical staff, members of the military). Many more are in the workforce, fulfilling legal and contractual obligations on behalf of themselves and their employers. (And in some fields such as sport and entertainment, they get paid very handsomely to do so.)

Surely, we should treat people over the age of 18 as “responsible adults”. Likewise, we should really know the difference between “right and wrong” by the age of 8 or 9, and certainly by the time we start high school. But if, as some academics and social policy advocates suggest, “adults” don’t fully mature until they are in their mid-20s, perhaps we need to raise the minimum age for driving, marriage, consent and voting to at least 25!

Finally, on the issue of access to social media, I would argue that since the minimum age to enter into a legal contract is 18, and since a social media account is a form of contract (at the very least, it is a type of license?) then anyone under 18 needs to have their parents or legal guardians sign on their behalf to ensure compliance with the terms of use. Alternatively, underage users need to complete a test or undertake an assessment to demonstrate their understanding and competence to participate in these platforms.

Next week: “Megalopolis”? More like mega-flop it is!

 

Notes from the UK

I’ve just made my annual pilgrimage to the UK. It’s also 30 years since I emigrated, and with each passing year, I arrive feeling more and more like a visitor – although I am “from” there, I don’t always feel I am “of” there.

The following notes are some brief observations, in no particular order, based on a relatively short trip (2 weeks), and I was only in the Greater Manchester and Greater London areas.

  • I flew from Melbourne to Manchester, via Hong Kong. My in-bound flight to the UK was carrying a large number of overseas students from China – not surprising, as Manchester has one of the largest Chinese communities in Europe, and the city also boasts a UK Top Ten University.
  • A pint of cask ale in the north west cost me an average of GBP4.00 – in London, it was more like GBP6.00. I know some employees receive “London weighting” or a “London allowance” to cover the high cost of living, but I doubt salaries in the capital are 50% higher than the rest of the country. (Regional variations in property prices are a different matter altogether!)
  • On the other hand, a sour dough loaf from a local bakery in the Peak District cost me GBP3.00 – I would generally pay about 50-60% more for a similar product in Melbourne.
  • The in-coming Labour government, having won a huge majority in July’s General Election, has already hit the buffers. A combination of unpopular policies (cutting pensioners’ winter energy rebates), strange priorities (a ban on outdoor smoking), off-key messaging (“doom and gloom” rhetoric) and sleaze (donations of clothes, tickets and spectacles for the new Prime Minister and his wife) have brought the post-election honeymoon period to an abrupt end.
  • Staying with politics, there was a lot of despondency, if not anger, about the political climate. Despite Labour’s overwhelming success at the polls, it was hard to feel any love for the new government. And after more than four years since Brexit, no-one was jumping for joy at the outcomes, as the alleged promises and benefits fail to materialise. If anything, businesses are suffering due to the loss of access to EU markets and/or the additional costs of exporting.
  • Thankfully, the riots that erupted a few weeks ago have dissipated, but it felt like the underlying tensions remain. As well as having been triggered by malicious rumours and blatant disinformation, the social unrest revealed confusion about national identity (and what it means to be “British”), combined with contradictory views on immigration, multiculturalism and globalisation.
  • Meanwhile, the UK taste for “foreign” food continues unabated, along with a love of overseas holidays.
  • Despite producing some of the best television dramas in the world, UK content makers continue pumping out aging soap operas, stale game shows, endless talent contests and questionable reality TV. So, much like the rest of the world!
  • I paid GBP114.00 for a return train ticket from Manchester to London, which seems expensive for a 2.5 hour service. Both my outbound and return journeys were delayed by more than 15 minutes. Thanks to “Delay Repay”, I received a total of GBP42.00 in compensation. I can’t help thinking that the train and rail operators should focus on improving their services, rather than overcharging and delaying passengers, in the hope that the effort to claim is not worth customers’ time.
  • When visiting London, I usually use an Oyster card. This time, I forgot to take it – but thankfully, passengers can use contactless payment methods on trains, the Undergound and even short trips on buses (just remember to touch on and off with the same card on each journey!)
  • The autumn weather was especially mild, enabling me to indulge in long walks in the countryside, followed by a mandatory pint or two in a local pub (that great “British” institution!) Sadly, a combination of Covid lockdowns and changing social patterns means that many pubs have reduced their opening hours, or closed their doors for good.
  • As Australia’s near-duopolistic supermarkets face legal action for alleged misleading and deceptive price discounting, I’m reminded of the amount of choice UK shoppers have between supermarket chains, and across product ranges. No doubt that more competitive markets in Australia (for grocery shopping and beyond) would help alleviate the cost of living – but that requires structural and other changes for which successive Federal governments have had no appetite.

Next week: Does age matter?