Category: Parent Talk
it's my opinion that religion shouldn't be forced into children's lives. if you're a religious parent, educating your children about said beliefs is fine; however, it's just as crucial to educate them about different beliefs (whether they be atheism, islam, or something else).
in my opinion, the following letter is a perfect illustration of how an ideal parent should present things to their child:
dear Juliet,
now that you’re 10, I want to write to you about something that’s important to me. have you ever wondered how we know the things we know? how do we know, for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the sun and are very far away? how do we know earth is a smaller ball whirling around one of those stars, the sun?
the answer to these questions is "evidence". sometimes evidence means actually seeing, hearing, feeling, or smelling that something is true. for instance, astronauts have travelled far enough from earth to see with their own eyes that it’s round.
sometimes, however, our eyes need help. the evening star looks like a bright twinkle in the sky, but with a telescope, you can see it’s a beautiful ball (the planet we call venus).
something you learn by direct seeing, hearing, or feeling, is called an observation. often, evidence isn't just an observation on its own; still, that particular thing always lies at the back of it. if there has been a murder, nobody (except the murderer and the victim) actually observed what happened. however, detectives can gather together other observations which may all point toward a particular suspect.
if a person's fingerprints match those found on a dagger, this is evidence that he touched it. it doesn't prove he did the murder, but it can help when joined up with other things. sometimes a detective can think about various observations, realizing they make sense if so and so did the murder.
scientists (the specialists in discovering what’s true about the world and the universe) work like detectives. they make a guess called a hypothesis about what might be true. they then say to themselves, "if that were actually the case, we oughta see so and so".
this is called a prediction. for example, if the world is really round, we can predict that a traveler going on and on in the same direction, should eventually find himself back where he started. when a doctor says you have the measles, he doesn't take one look at you and see them. his first look gives him a hypothesis that they're a possibility.
then, he says to himself, "if she has measles, I oughta see such and such". he then runs through the list of predictions, and tests them. have you got spots? is your forehead hot? does your chest wheeze in a measly way? only then does he make a final decision and say, "I diagnose that the child has measles".
the way scientists use evidence to learn about the world is much cleverer and more complicated than I can say in a short letter. now, however, I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something, and warn you against three bad reasons for believing anything. they’re called "tradition", "authority", and "revelation".
first, tradition. a few months ago, I went on television to have a discussion with about fifty children. they were invited cause they had been raised with different religions. some had been brought up as christians; others as jews, muslims, hindus, and sikhs. the man with the microphone went from child to child, asking them what they believed.
what they said shows exactly what I mean by "tradition". their beliefs turned out to have no connection with evidence; they just trotted out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents which, in turn, weren’t based upon evidence, either.
they said things like, "we hindus believe so and so", "we muslims believe such and such", "we christians believe something else". since they all believed different things, though, everyone couldn't be correct. even so, the man with the microphone seemed to think this proper; he didn't even try to get them to argue out their differences with each other.
that isn't the point I want to make for the moment; I simply want to ask where their beliefs come from. they came from tradition. tradition means beliefs handed down from grandparent, to parent, to child. or, from books handed down through the centuries.
traditional beliefs often start from almost nothing; perhaps somebody just makes them up originally, like the stories about Thor and Zeus. after they've been handed down over some centuries, the mere fact they’re so old makes them seem special. people believe things simply cause people have believed the same thing over the centuries. that's tradition.
the trouble with tradition is that, no matter how long ago a story was invented, it’s still exactly as true or untrue as the original one. if you make up a story that isn't true, handing it down over a number of centuries doesn't make it any truer!!
most people in england have been baptized into the church of england, but that’s only one branch of the christian religion. There are other branches such as russian orthodox, roman catholic, and methodist churches. however, they all believe different things.
people who believe slightly different things from each other go to war over their disagreements. so, you might think they must have some pretty good reasons "evidence" for believing what they do. actually, their different beliefs are entirely due to different traditions.
let's talk about one in particular. roman catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was so special that she didn't die but was lifted bodily into heaven. other christian traditions disagree, saying Mary did die like anybody else. these other religions don't talk about much and, unlike roman catholics, they don't call her the queen of heaven.
the tradition that Mary's body was lifted into heaven isn’t an old one. the bible says nothing on how she died; in fact, the poor woman is scarcely mentioned at all. the belief that her body was lifted into heaven wasn't invented till about 6 centuries after Jesus's time.
at first, it was just made up, in the same way any story like snow white was. over the centuries, it grew into a tradition and people took it seriously simply cause it had been handed down over so many generations.
the older the tradition became, the more people took it seriously. it finally was written down as an official roman catholic belief in 1950, when I was the age you are now. still, it was no more true back then than when it was invented 600 years after Mary's death.
I'll come back to tradition at the end of my letter, and look at it in another way. first, however, I must focus on the two other bad reasons for believing in anything. they’re referred to by religious people as "authority", and "revelation".
authority, as a reason for believing something, means believing in it cause you’re told to believe it by somebody important. in the roman catholic church, the pope is the most important person; people believe he must be right just cause of who he is. in one branch of the muslim religion, the important people are the old men with beards called ayatollahs.
when I say it was only in 1950 that roman catholics were finally told they had to believe Mary's body shot off to heaven, what I mean is that in 1950, the pope told people they had to believe it. that was it; the pope said it was true, so it had to be!!
now, probably some things he said in his life were true, and some weren’t. there’s no good reason why, just cause he was the pope, you should believe everything he said any more than you believe everything other people say.
the present pope (1995) has ordered his followers not to limit the number of babies they have. if people follow this authority as slavishly as he’d wish, the results could be terrible famines, diseases, and wars, caused by overcrowding.
of course, even in science, sometimes we haven't seen the evidence ourselves and we have to take somebody else's word for it. I haven't, with my own eyes, seen the evidence that light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. instead, I believe books that tell me the speed. this looks like "authority". actually, though, it’s much better cause the people who wrote said books have seen the evidence and others are free to look carefully at it any time. that’s very comforting; however, not even priests claim there’s any evidence for their story about Mary's body zooming off to heaven.
the third kind of bad reason for believing anything is called "revelation". if you had asked the pope in 1950 how he knew Mary's body disappeared into heaven, he probably would’ve said it was "revealed" to him. he shut himself in his room, and prayed for guidance. he thought and thought, eventually becoming more sure of his feelings by the minute.
when religious people simply have a feeling inside themselves that something must be true, even though there’s no evidence that it actually is, they call their feeling "revelation". it isn't only popes who claim to have revelations, though; lots of religious people do. it’s one of their main reasons for believing the things they do. however, is it a good reason?
suppose I told you your dog was dead. you'd be very upset, and would probably say, "are you sure? how do you know? how did it happen"? now, suppose I answered, "I don't actually know whether he's dead. I have no evidence; I simply have a funny feeling deep inside that he is".
you'd be pretty cross with me for scaring you, cause you'd know an inside "feeling" on its own isn’t a good reason for believing a pet is dead. you need evidence. the only way to be sure an animal is dead is to see it for yourself, hear that its heart has stopped beating, or be told by someone who has seen or heard real evidence of that actually being the case.
sure we all have inside feelings from time to time; sometimes they turn out to be right, and others they couldn’t be more wrong. still, different people have opposite feelings; so, how are we to decide whose feeling is right?
people sometimes say you must believe in feelings deep inside, otherwise, you'd never be confident of things like "my wife loves me". however, that’s a bad argument. there can be plenty of evidence that a person loves you.
when you’re with someone who loves you, you see and hear lots of little tidbits of evidence; they all add up. it isn't a purely inside feeling, like the feeling priests call "revelation". There are outside things to back up the inside feeling such as looks in the eye, tender notes in the voice, and little favors and kindnesses. this is all real evidence.
sometimes people have a strong inside feeling that somebody loves them when it isn’t based upon any evidence, and then they’re likely to be completely wrong. There are people with a strong inside feeling that a famous film star loves them, when really the person in question hasn't even met them. people like that’re ill in their minds. inside feelings must be backed up by evidence, otherwise you can't trust them.
inside feelings are valuable in science, too, but only for giving you ideas you later test by looking for evidence. for example, a scientist can have a "hunch" about an idea that just "feels" right. in itself, this isn’t a good reason for believing something. however, it can be a good reason for doing a particular experiment, or looking in a certain way for evidence. scientists use inside feelings all the time to get ideas, but they aren’t worth anything till they’re supported by evidence.
I promised I'd come back to tradition, and look at it in another way. I want to try to explain why it's so important to us. all animals are built by the process called evolution to survive in the normal place in which their kind live. lions are built to be good at surviving on the plains of africa. crayfish are good at surviving in fresh water, while lobsters are built to be good at surviving in the salt sea. people are animals, too; we’re built to be good at surviving in a world full of other people.
most of us don't hunt for our own food like lions or lobsters, though; we buy it from other people who’ve bought it from yet other people. we swim through a sea of people. just as a fish needs gills to survive in water, we need brains that make us able to deal with others. just as the sea is full of salt water, the sea of people is full of difficult things to learn (like language).
you speak english, but your friend Ann Kathrin speaks german. you each speak the language that fits you to swim about in your own separate people sea. language is passed down by tradition; there’s no other way. in england, pepe is a dog. in germany, he’s ein hund. neither of these words is more correct, or more true than the other; both are simply handed down.
in order to be good at swimming about in their people sea, children have to learn the language of their own country, and lots of other things about their own people; this means they have to absorb, like blotting paper, an enormous amount of traditional information. remember, that just means things that’re handed down from grandparents, to parents, to children. the child's brain has to be a sucker for traditional information; he or she can't be expected to sort out good and useful things, like the words of a language, from bad or silly things, like believing in witches, devils, and ever living virgins.
it's a pity, but it can't help being the case, that cause children have to be suckers for traditional information, they’re likely to believe anything grown ups tell them (whether true or false, right or wrong). lots of what grown ups tell them is true and based on evidence, or at least sensible. however, if some of it’s false, silly, or even wicked, there’s nothing to stop them believing it.
now, when they grow up, what happens? they tell the stories to the next generation of kids. so, once something gets itself strongly believed, even if it’s completely untrue and there never was any reason to believe it in the first place, it can go on forever.
could this be what has happened with religions? belief that there’s a god or gods, belief in heaven, belief that Mary never died, belief that Jesus never had a human father, belief that prayers are answered, belief that wine turns into blood. not one of these beliefs is backed up by any good evidence; yet, millions of people believe them. perhaps it’s cause they were told to, when they were young enough to believe anything.
millions of other people believe differently, cause they were told other things when they were children. muslim children are told different things from christian children; yet, both grow up utterly convinced they’re right and the others are wrong. even within christians, roman catholics believe different things from church of england people, episcopalians, shakers, quakers, mormons, and holy rollers. still, they’re all utterly convinced they’re right and the others are wrong.
they believe different things for exactly the same kind of reason you speak english and Ann Kathrin speaks german. both languages are, in their own country, the right language to speak. however, it can't be true that different religions are right in their own countries, cause different religions claim opposite things are true. Mary can't be alive in catholic southern ireland, but dead in protestant northern ireland.
what can we do about all this? it isn’t easy for you to do anything, cause you’re only 10. even so, you could try this: next time someone tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself, "is this the kind of thing people probably know cause of evidence? or, is it the kind of thing they only believe cause of tradition, authority, or revelation? also, next time somebody tells you something is true, why not say to them, "what kind of evidence is there for that"? if they can't give you a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.
your loving dad.
Re post 1 I don't know that raising a child in a particular faith "forces" religion on them. When kids aren't raised with one particular tradition, even if that tradition is secularism or atheism, they grow up with a void in their lives, and based on experience it isn't easy "choosing a path" in adulthood. That is what happens to some kids in interfaith marriages, perhaps, say, mom was Christian and dad was Jewish, or they grow up observing two traditions but not formally accepting either, and IMO it's worse than being brought up in a particular one.
A coworker of mine was talking about a boy whose parents rejected I think blood transfusion for a Witness or chemo for Christian scientist or something like that. Now there are blood substitutes, and I have known Jehovas' witnesses who received 'em. But the latter example? Even Christian scientists preach common sense, not to shun conventional medicine altogether when prayer hasn't changed the results. The court stepped in on the Christian Scientists, who let their son die from leukemia, and said parents fled to Mexico. When they returned here to Massachusetts, they were captured as fugitives.
Co-worker said, "Well if you want to live out a religion, fine, but don't force that choice on your kid(s)." I'm sorry, but what is parenting if not instructing a child in a particular way of life? Are we just supposed to be adults who just stand idly by while the kids make their own choices from day 1? Not that's lunacy!
No, your supposed to give the kid the tools to make their own decisions. Your not supposed to make the decisions for them. If you just do everything for your kid, they'll never learn anything, and when your gone, they'll be a sucker for anything. You let them make decisions, and they will make bad ones, when you do, you pick them up, wipe off the blood, and push them back out into the world to do it again.
Being a parent is a guide, it isn't a shield.
I agree with Squid. even if you are raising your child without a religious belief at all, you are still raising them in a particular worldview. So are you, by raising them in your worldview, shoving it off on them? Of course you are! You can be an atheist, educate your child about islam, judaism or buddhism, but your child will pick up from your own example that you are an atheist. perhaps they will be more educated about religions, but ultimately a parent's job is to instruct the child in their worldview, and like if or not, that's what any responsible parent would do.
part of properly educating your child is saying, "this is what I believe; others in the world think differently, and that's perfectly ok. I don't go to church, but if you're interested in going with friends to see what it's like for yourself, you're certainly free to do so".
that isn't shoving anything on them, but rather, giving them tools that help them feel secure in who they are. that shows them, "ok, my mommy will love me whether I'm an atheist, christian, or what have you". whereas, when children are raised hearing something like, "God is always with you; we have to say our nightly/daily prayers and live his will", they're more likely to be fearful of their parent's reaction should they choose a different path.
I like actor Harrison Ford's take on this. He was brought up in a Jewish/Christian home, and I'm not sure that he was raised in either. When asked what his religion is, he says, "Democrat, 'cause I can't stick with anything else."
That's great for an adult, but a child foundering in this area? Not knowing how to answer the question, or being brought up with a little bit of this, a little bit of that? It's got to get confusing.
I'm not a practitioner of the religion I've chosen some years ago, and am raising my daughter to believe in a creator, but we are largely secular and nonobservant. Should my daughter choose something else as an adult, or decide to be observant, that's fine, she's still my daughter and I still love her.
The point of confusion here I think is the response by some to a hostile environment where parents clearly place their beliefs above their kids. Like it or not, we raise kids as citizens of a nation, even a state or region of origin, with certain prejudices for and against things.
And that goes for the least dogmatic of us. Obviously it is important for them to have the tools and skills to survive, think for themselves,sort things out with their minds rather than their feelings. But predisposing towards one thing or another is pretty human. And it's pretty ignorant to either imagine your predisposition is the only one, or that all predispositions are equal. My take on the whole parental rejection of kids based on ideology is the same as my take on the genderless child: you don't raise offspring to create more of an ideal, or to prove a point. It is an unnatural, and dare I say abhorrent, behavior to reject one's child on the basis of ideology. Perhaps it is the human equivalent of mice eating their young or birds occasionally throwing out otherwise fit offspring from the nest.
So when rejection is involved, I doubt that the religion, faith, or lack thereof, has anything at all to do with it: more probably it's a failure or fault in the rejecter. Though a bit ironic when it comes from a quarter whose tenants espouse that a 19th-century English-style Nuclear family existance is the main building-block of society.
This letter is a great inspiration to me, and displays exactly how I want to raise any potential kids in the future in regards to religion. the father in the letter didn't say "do not, under any circumstances believe in a God". he just said "Be very careful when choosing which words to believe and which ones not to", and, better yet, he explained why this was so. If you're going to bring religion into your child's life, that's fine, but you should do so from an educational standpoint, not a factual one. You could say something like, "Jesus has been the greatest influence on my life, and I feel the need to thank him every day for that. However, there do exist people who think differently, and whose lives are not influenced by god's presence.". You're educating your child about your religion and about how important it is to you, but you're not forcing it on him or her, and you're at least letting him or her know that other beliefs do exist, and that if your children should decide that they don't feel god's presence in their lives, they're at least not alone.
Indoctrinating children into any religious belief not only emotionally damages children but it also closes their minds to many opportunities and experiences.
Children are often forced to be labeled with their parents religion, for instance we will often see a child as a christian child, or a muslim child, rather then what they should be seen as....a child.
Children are notorious for labeling one another, "He's fat", "She's rich", "Hes poor" and the countless other labels are often echoed in school yards.
Do children really need yet another label?
This religious labeling starts at a very young age and will often stop friendships or close bonds from forming and these children rarely, if ever are exposed to different cultures or ideas.
This is one reason that I believe indoctrination is child abuse. Many children, even into adulthood, will ostracize, or force their parents beliefs on anyone who is different from themselves, all because of religion. I am reminded of a youtube video of two young girls trying to convert their hindu friend into christianity, by forcing her to pray through peer pressure, and trying to make her like them.
You could see this young girl felt very uncomfortable in the situation, and was made to feel like "the odd man out" all because of indoctrination into religion.
I have personally lost many perspective friends and girl friends due to them being indoctrinated into their parents religion. I had no problems seeing their qualities, but because these people had the scales of religion over their eyes they were unable to see mine.
it's quite sad, really. I, too, have known fellow classmates who used to come up to me and say, "My Mommy and Daddy say you and anyone else who doesn't accept Jesus is going to Hell". what if, for instance, you have a Muslim kid in the same class who comes to school preaching the religion their parents taught them? Well, if the kids idolize their parents enough, a fight is probaby eventually going to break out, all because they grew up believing their religion is right and everyone else's is wrong.
resumblance, follow up blindly. these are the things kids will do. if we clap, the kid will do the same. if we throw a paper, he or she will do it as how we did. this is what became a traddition. doing something which our yelders did without thinking of it.
But I'm sure after the kid is growing up to one stage, if he or she is a normal kid, will think of his own and will take a decision and will come to a conclusion as which one is correct and which one is wrong.
I was born as an hindu. I studied in christian institutions my schoolings and colleges. I was even going to the church more often than the christian students did at that time. but now, I'm not a religious person. I believe in nature power. likewise. let them decide as their own.
Raaj.
Raaj, one of the problems with indoctrination is that it's a form of brain washing, so even has adults these people have difficulty adjusting.
one point I missed in my previous post is the mental abuse of telling a child that if they don't believe as their parents do they will burn eternally in fire. There are few things worse then purposely traumatizing a child with hell fire.
If you constantly tell a child that there is only one way to do things, and never expose them to anything else, then they will never set foot outside that mindset. If the only thing they ever know is christianity, then they'll be faithful, obedient, and unquestioning christians all their lives.
Now, the key is, you can't just show them, they have to experience it. You can't just go, look kids, those are atheists, they think we're descended from monkeys, isn't that silly? If they never taste the dishes, how will they know what is their favorite food? A child who has eaten nothing but potatoes his entire life, and has only seen carrots and broccoli, will still think potatoes are his favorite. You have to dish him up some other stuff too.
the major problem with that is, most of these parents who are guilty of the one dish montre, were never exposed themselves. it goes back generations, without anyone ever having been exposed to anything other than what they're parents wanted them to be exposed to. Why do you think visionaries are so often laughed at and riddiculed?
I think the letter might be a little over the top here, but I really like what Jessica says in Post 10.
This topic came up the other day because I chose to send my 2 1/2 year old daughter to vacation bible school.
In my opinion, the letter is over the top.
I find it sad that people can believe that in general Indoctrination is child abuse. This actually offends me a bit.
I am and will teach my daughter to love. My religion is part of that for me. At her age, she isn't old enough to learn about other religions or lack there of. When she is at an appropriate age, I will teach her about everything I can. That goes for more than just religion.
At her age now, she does go to church with me. I don't make her sit and stand when I do. I don't make her follow along. The only thing I make her do is keep quiet.
I can see the points in the letters and that others have made. I believe the important things are to teach my daughter to love and respect others, to be accepting of others who are different than she is because diversity is a good thing, and I want her to know that just because I believe something, doesn't mean that she has to be like me. This doesn't just apply to our religion. It applies to things such as if my daughter chose to be gay, chose a career that I don't agree with, etc. It's her life and not my place to run it. But it is my place to give her the moral backbone that everyone should have. I choose to do it partly through my religion.
I don't see how it could ever be said that I'm abusing my daughter.
A healthy balance is key in all aspects of life...
If she isn't old enough to learn about other religions, what makes you think she's old enough to learn yours? Other than that, I can at least respect what you're saying. As long as you're teaching your children to be open minded, well, I'll give credit where it's due, and I wouldn't call that abuse. what I think of as abuse is when parents say their religion is what is, nothing else is right, everyone who thinks differently is going to hell, and that includes you, my child.
I think a lot of us on here tend to be a little too anti-religion. As much as I am not really religious anymore, I grew up with Christianity and was taught that others may believe differently. I turned out OK.
Let me clarify what I meant by my daughter not being old enough to learn other religions. I simply meant that at her age she isn't ready for 10 different choices. She struggles to decide what kind of fruit she wants with her lunch.
And she's ready to start with my religion, because there has to be a starting point. As her mother, that is my decision just like many other things in her life.
Leaffan, I'd agree that many people are very anti religion, which is their choice. Something that I've repeatedly heard Christians cut down for is their lack of acceptance. This should be a 2 way street.
My choosing to believe in God and teach my daughter what I choose to teach her isn't hurting of having any sort of affect on most lives, so why do you care? And that's a general question, not directed at Leaffan.
Why do people have the right to judge my decisions just because they choose not to believe what I do? This is where the hatred comes in. It's not just religion that causes hatred. It takes place all over the world, no matter what is believed.
As a parent it is my responsibility to make many decisions for my daughter. She is not at an age where she can decide things. Part of being a parent is to teach. That's what I'm doing.
post 17: shoving your religion down your child's throat is definitely considered abuse, in my book. having her go to church with you is your choice, but I don't agree. if *you* wanna go, fine; taking her along is cruel, though (especially being that she isn't even old enough to understand *your* religion).
as far as the poster claiming we're being "too anti religious", that's silly. I don't think there's such a thing, but to each their own.
in regards to an earlier post: if I'm seen as irresponsible by some simply cause I choose not to raise my child with a particular religion in their life, oh well. if it wasn't my atheism, people would find something else to criticize. so, it's best to have a backbone, be confident in my decisions, and always do what I feel is right for my child.
@ Blondie;
Do you not see the contradiction in your post? Your child is too young to learn about other religions, yet she isn't too young to learn about yours.
Your daughters brain has not fully developed so she is incapable of the abstract thought that religion requires. As she gets older this indoctrination your forcing on her will close her mind to any other possibilities and can cause detrimental emotional affects, much like brainwashing does to emotionally abused children. So yes indoctrination IS child abuse.
Your forcing on her teachings that are designed to instill the fear of hell and eternal torment Obviously she is too young to understand these concepts but what happens when she can?
The idea of indoctrination is child abuse offends you because you know full well you are closing your child's mind to other possibilities. You are forcing a dogma that teaches everyone else is wrong and going to hell and were right. This is nothing short of brainwashing, and last I checked brainwashing is a form of child abuse.
As she becomes older she will no longer follow your religion out of love, as you say but out of the fear of torment of hell that you're forcing on her.
I have to wonder what will you say when your daughter asks about hell, What will you say when she asks who's going to hell? Are you going to tell her the biblical answer that everyone except christians are going to burn forever, or will you lie to her?
So.... is it cruel and abusive to teach children to eat vegetables? if one is cruel for taking a child to church, then why is it not cruel to take children to the grocery store. After all, if you don't eat vegetables... you won't be healthy.
Kate
Also, Happy Heart, I didn't say that you would be irresponsible for living your life as an atheist and raising your child in that worldview; what I did say was that it is irresponsible and naive to think that a child would not pick up on mommy and daddy's viewpoints. Educate all you would like, please, but don't think that your son or daughter won't pick up on the fact that you believe that God is a lie... because he or she will
Crazy your basing your argument on a logical fallacy. Indoctrination has serious emotional and psychological affects, so much so that some psychologists have made entire careers repairing the damage caused by indoctrination.
Another fallacy in your argument (I use the term loosely) Is equating eating Vegetables to a religious dogma. Religion, can and often does have detrimental affects on people, vegetables on the other hand, have no such affects.
Religion has been used to justify wars, bigotry, racism, slavery, genocide and many other atrocities.
Lastly Vegetables are required for nutritional health. We require the vitamins and anti-oxidants found in vegetables. In other words we require vegetables for our health and for survival. Religion on the other hand has no such benefits.
we would not make a child a member of a political party when they are not even old enough to speak, because we know that a child cannot possibly have an opinion on politics. this is why we do not let children vote.
so why, therefore, do we allow children to be baptised in the name of a god that they themselves are too young to understand, too young to grasp the rules that that god says they should live by and the contract that that ritual invokes?
I am very definite about the consent of people, and children are not old enough to give such consent, thus I do not believe any matters which do not threaten their physical being should be decided for them by their parents.
CM, nowhere in any of my posts did I say my children wouldn't pick up on my beliefs. I said I'd educate them about what I believe, while also making it clear that others believe differently. there's a big difference.
HH, I agree. I am just referring to your post:
in regards to an earlier post: if I'm seen as irresponsible by some simply cause I choose not to raise my child with a particular religion in their life,
oh well. if it wasn't my atheism, people would find something else to criticize. so, it's best to have a backbone, be confident in my decisions, and always
do what I feel is right for my child.
wich was in response to my post:
You can be an atheist, educate your child about islam, judaism or buddhism,
but your child will pick up from your own example that you are an atheist. perhaps they will be more educated about religions, but ultimately a parent's
job is to instruct the child in their worldview, and like if or not, that's what any responsible parent would do.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.
Kate
Okay CM I can agree with most of what you said, however I think a parent should allow a child to form their own ideas on religion, sure they will pick some up from their parents, but a parent should never force it on the child.
Happy Heart, first off, I don't shove religion down my daughter's throat, and taking her to church with me is not cruel. What would be cruel and abuse would be to leave her at home, alone, attended by only the dogs. You don't know me and yet you judge me. And because I believe in God, I'm the bad person?
Dracula, if you read everything I wrote, you'd see that I said there had to be a starting point. I choose to start by teaching my religion. I'm her mom, it's my right. It doesn't make it wrong. Would you think it were wrong if I chose to start by teaching her the things outlined in the letter as in there isn't a God?
Also, her mind isn't fully developed enough to get abstract things such as parts of math. Does that mean I shouldn't start with the foundation of that and teach her what numbers are and how to count?
Again if you read anything that I've written, I do and will continue to teach my daughter to have an open mind. You should try having one yourself.
You don't know what I'm teaching my daughter, other than what I've written here. This is one of my major points to all of this. You are generalizing religion. It's not black and white.
Think what you want, but you couldn't be more wrong about why your ignorant statement of what I'm doing, is child abuse. I force nothing upon my daughter. I do not brain wash her in anyway.
As she becomes older, I hope that she will choose to follow what she believes because I've given her the confidence and self respect to know that she is her own person. I'll love my daughter no matter what she chooses to believe.
Swiss Griff, by your statement then, a parent shouldn't have the right to decide whether or not their child attends school or which school they attend. Hmmm I think I'll just leave that up to my daughter. Wonderful idea...
Life isn't black and white y'all. I don't completely disagree with some of the points that have been made against what I'm saying. Going to an extreme on either side of religion or many other aspects of life isn't a good thing. That is my main point here. Again, you shouldn't judge all by the actions of some.
Before I go, I have a question. How many posting to this topic actually have children? I'm just curious.
whether or not I have children doesn't, and shouldn't factor into this discussion.
having been raised to believe that religion in ones life is the only way to live, I've experienced what affects that kinda brainwashing has (and can have) on a person.
so, for anyone to claim that not having children gives me no right to feel as I do, is by far the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
lol way to jump to conclusions there. Did I say anything along those lines? Nope I sure didn't. Just asked how many here have children...
Pipi, in all fairness, when most people ask that question, they do ask it with that intent, particularly when exhibiting behavior patterns you already have. Was it right for her to jump to that conclusion, not really. But, it is as it is.
Blondie,
Ya there needs to be a starting point to expose children to religion, but forcing a 2 and a half year old to go to vacation bible school is indoctrination, why not wait and ask her when she can better understand what's happening? Why not allow her brain to develop before you start "teaching" her?
Hell even back in the day when I was a christian and helping my sister raise her daughters I knew, even then, that indoctrination is wrong, I would never have thought to force those kids into anything. What I did do was waited until my nieces were old enough to understand complex ideas (ages 9 and 8 respectively) and I asked them if they wanted to go.
Your not teaching your daughter anything, you are forcing it on her, plain and simple. You are not giving her the option to say no, your pushing it on her. thats indoctrination, and that's wrong.
No two year old can grasp the simplest concepts of math or any scientific concept, they can barely talk FFS, religion is no different, so this argument of yours is drastically flawed.
Would you teach a 2 year old algebra, or division, no because their brains can't grasp the concept. on average, Most children do not even truly learn to count until they are around 4 to 5 years old, anything before hand is just mimicry because the idea is "lost" on them.
To equate teaching numbers and teaching religion is stretching the boundaries of logic to the breaking point.
Indoctrinating a child into religion is not going to teach them to have an open mind, it never has and it never will. What will happen is she will end up having a closed mind to anything other then what was thrust upon her.
As far as you saying that I should try having an open mind, perhaps mommy is the one who needs the open mind? I never forced my religion on my nieces, nor am I the one who sent a 2 and a half year to vacation bible school. I never indoctrinated any child into my religion, so maybe it's you who needs the open mind and not me.
Obviously I don't know everything your teaching your kid, however if you are teaching her the bible then I have a very good idea of what will be forced on her.
Also just so you know religion is definitely black and white, all religions are.
Religion has the "you're either with us or against us" mentality.
Which reminds me of Matthew 12:30
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."
Sounds pretty black and white to me.
I love this part of your reply.
"you couldn't be more wrong about why your ignorant statement of what I'm doing, is child abuse. I force nothing upon my daughter. I do not brain wash her in anyway."
Funny you still say that indoctrination is not child abuse when many, if not most child psychologists agree with me. I also find it sad that you still don't think your forcing something on a child who obviously has no say in the matter. If you really weren't forcing anything on her, then you would wait until she reached the an age of reason.
I truly raised my nieces (My oldest nephew was still too young) to think for themselves, and I never forced any of my beliefs on them at all. Because of this they had a real chance to think for themselves without the brainwashing from any set dogma. They are both happy, the oldest is in fact an atheist, the youngest is now an agnostic who shows interest an Buddhism.
Another funny story about not indoctrinating a child. my brother has a daughter who is 10 years old named Maya. One Sunday my mom tricked her into going to church, and when Maya returned I asked her what she thought about it. She looked at me and responded that "church was boring" I then asked her what she thought about god, and she just looked at me like I was crazy.
So maybe part of you feels the need to get to her before she can use any reasoning to dismiss your beliefs.
Lastly your question about if any of us having kids reeks of being a bait and switch tactic.
to answer an earlier question, no, I do not have children.
Being the fairly rare exception that I am, having been raised by an atheist family, but having grown up with mostly religious friends, I can see this from both sides. As far as beliefs are concerned, I was raised the way I want to raise my children, if I ever have any. My mother, whom I spent most of my childhood life with, is atheist, and yes, although she answered my questions with an open mind, of course they were answered from an atheist prospective. However, I was free to pray if I wanted, go to church with friends if I wanted, and ask any types of questions about any type of religion if I wanted. My mom never stopped me from making friends with people with different beliefs. However, I found myself avoiding spending a lot of time at these people's houses, because of the things I wasn't allowed to discuss, and because of the fact that I found prayer before meals a waste of *my* time. I just wanted to sit down and eat at meal times, sleep in and have a lazy Sunday morning, and simply go to sleep when I was tired instead of making sure I remembered to say my prayers. I didn't share in these people's beliefs and didn't understand why they were forcing me to take part in their traditions. It's like the fact that I didn't believe wasn't even an option. But my mom always told me that when you're under someone else's roof, you must respect their rules even if you don't agree. so I justavoided putting myself in these types of situations, since my mom at least gave me that option as one of my choices. However, when I had friends over who happened to be Christian, they were allowed to pray whenever they wanted, so long as they didn't force us to participate. they were allowed to leave and go to church at any time so long as they didn't disturb anyone. But if ever I attended religious camps, or hung out with Christian friends, the people at these places always told me that my mom's way of thinking was sad, and that I should pray for her to find Jesus somehow. I couldn't understand it, though. How walking on egg shells when discussing certain matters, not being allowed to eat until I've prayed while the food is sitting right in front of me on a plate getting cold, and having to get up early to go to church every Sunday whether you feel like it or not is the way to live, while having the freedom to choose these things is...somehow wrong? Okay, so I'm sure many of you are going to say some things in life, like school and chores, are manditory, but here's the difference: if you don't go to school, you won't be able to read, write, or get a job, and therefore you won't be able to live on your own and pay your bills. if you don't do your chores, food is going to rot, your house is going to be filthy, which is not only a health issue, but nobody is going to want to socialize with you. But if you don't say your prayers, or go to church, you're....what? going to hell? or at the very least, you're straying away from god? Although this cannot be disproven, it can't be proven either like bills or rotting food can. the other thing I could never wrap my head around is that my Christian friends were still allowed to be openly christian among a family of atheists. however, I wasn't allowed to be openly atheist among a family of Christians. Sure, I didn't have to buy it, but I couldn't speak my mind about it, either. Eventually, after so many people told me the same thing-that people like myself and my mother were going to hell, I started to question not only the way I was being raised, but whether or not my mom cared about my well being at all. But she did. She provided me food, shelter, physical and mental protection, love, attention, and most of all, the freedom to choose my own path in life. My mom isn't perfect by any means, as is nobody else, but I'll be thanking her for the way she raised me for the rest of my life.
I don't have children, but would like to. and I am totally firm with my husband on this, they are not going to be baptised or confirmed or whatever his religion do, because they cannot consent to it themselves.
children believe what they are told, what they are taught. hense, we teach them that santa and the toothfairy and all kinds of other stuff exists, and because we seem to believe and play along, it's real to them, and it's the same with god.
going to school is a necessary part of life, both to function in society and to abide by laws, hense that decision should be made by parents, however religious beliefs and baptisms etc are not a necessary part of life, the same as politics are or anything else like that for that matter, hense that should be left up to the child to choose later on in life when he or she is old enough to understand.
I intend to educate my child about religions, all kinds of religions as well as atheism, but what I do not intend to do is to allow them to participate in any of it, or go to a religious school, because he/she will not be old enough to understand the consiquences of saying they accept and believe something.
the child who lives at my place wants to be baptised as a catholic, but he's too young to understand that the catholic church oppresses women and gay people, and I want my child to be old enough to understand all the facts of the decision they make before they make it.
Ocean dream, I believe that your name is Jessica. I honestly wish that more families had been like yours then. I am and will continue to be one. Your mom, did the right thing in my opinion and her allowing others to believe and do what they did, even in her home, is how I want to be. It is sad that you didn't have the same rights as your friends did.
Dracula, it's apparent that this forum isn't going to accomplish much between the 2 of us. Yet again, I did not force my daughter to go to vbs. She only attended 3 out of 4 days because she didn't want to go one day. At her age, in her group, she made paper plate art, learned a song and dances to it, made a clay horse that she should have painted the night she missed, and she made a coloring book that includes recipes from green eggs and ham. She participated in meals and activities with children her own age. Again I ask, where is the harm in this?
Did you ever stop to think about why I chose to send my daughter to vbs? Or do you just assume it's because i'm a brain washing abusive bible beating freak who is forcing it upon my daughter. I signed her up for vbs because as a stay at home mom, in a small town, she does not attend daycare, there are no mom meet up groups, or play date opportunities here. Because of how her birthday falls, she will not be able to attend preschool for another 2 years. While she is a very bright child, one who can count among other things, she needs the socialization with other children her own age. I was given this opportunity with vbs, so I took it.
When I say that religion isn't black and white, I mean that just because someone like myself, who believes in God and attends church, doesn't mean that I'm not an open minded person who can respect and see that others have their beliefs which are different from mine. Not wrong, but different.
Louy, there is actually an interesting thing called unschooling that people do practice here. While I don't agree with it, I can see how it could work for some. I also respect your choices about how you wish to handle religion when you do have children. It's not how I am doing it, but again, it doesn't mean that you or I are wrong. At least not in my opinion.
The only reason that I wrote on this topic in the first place is to say that not everyone who believes in God and chooses to teach their children that, are bad, abusive, or brain washing their children. I truly feel and know I'm one of these people, despite what others think.
It isn't so black and white.
But you're teaching your child that *you* believe in God, not that this religion is the end all be all of life, and you either believe or go to hell. This topic is speaking out against those particular types of people.
and I don't actually necessarily think that teaching a child that you believe something is wrong, what I believe is wrong is indoctrination. so sending a child to a religious school that might actively teach that other religions are wrong, or that gay people are sinners etc is totally against my beliefs, the same as making a religious choice for your child such as baptism, which is terribly hard to have undone to you in later life should you choose.
I would give anything to have my baptism discounted.
Kind of ironic, isn't it, that until the age of consent, you can't commit your life to another living, breathing human being, but your parents can baptize you and make you give your life to god the day you're born?
Swissgrif, I understand what you mean, having been baptized at an early age. But baptism is ultimately something we ourselves fashioned, isn't it? Plenty of people place extreme importance on it, but it's really only as meaningful as you make it. Just water. Or, depending on where you are, maybe something more potent.
Let me start off by saying that letter contained excellent points, but it looks like it was written by a junior high student.
Now to the matter at hand.
I don't approve of parents baptizing their children before the child knows what is happening and why. In order to get into Heaven, one must get saved. In order to get saved, one must confess that they believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins. In order to confess, one must understand language and the religion itself. Infants do not have this understanding.
My siblings and I were raised as Christians, and none of us were baptized until we decided we were ready. I think it's okay for parents to bring up their children with their beliefs. What I don't agree with is:
a. parents openly undermining and belittling their child for having different views,
b. parents disowning or abusing their child because the child has a different set of beliefs and views, and
c. parents prohibiting their children from befriending children who have different beliefs.
That is what I call close-minded.
If raising a child with one's own religious beliefs constitutes brain-washing, then sobeit; I don't have a problem with that. If I ever chose to become a parent, my children would have more than just my religious beliefs "shoved down their throats." I would not only teach them my religious beliefs, but my prejudices and my beliefs concerning language, writing, and reading. Why? Because I think that they are right. I would want my children to be right, so I would pass it on to them.
Also, if we're pointing out fallacies, I see a hasty generalization in the following:
"Indoctrinating children into any religious belief not only emotionally damages children but it also closes their minds to many opportunities and experiences. ... one of the problems with indoctrination is that it's a form of brain washing, so even has adults these people have difficulty adjusting."
Before I progress with my point, a couple questions for you Dracula:
1. As a person who was subjected to indoctrination, what will I have trouble adjusting to?
2. What emotional damage am I likely to have suffered as a result of indoctrination?
3. What opportunities and experiences will or am I likely to have missed out on due to my close-mindedness that resulted from indoctrination?
And please don't answer this with a response along the lines of: "Well, I can't speak for you in particular." You did in the above statement because it was universal, not particular.
I can name several different things that caused emotional damage in my life, and my parents raising me as a Christian wouldn't make the list. It might for others, but not me.
As for learning about other religions, isn't that required of all of us? I don't know about every high schools requirements, but I took world history as a freshman. In that class, I learned about Islam, Buddhism, and other religions outside of my own. And even before that, I was exposed to people who were Jehovah's witnesses, Jewish, and belonged to other denominations. In addition, I have talked to the Jehovah's witnesses who come to the door, and attended different churches. I've gone to a mosque. and I've gone to church with a friend who is apostolic pentacostal. My parents diametrically oppose homosexuality, but frankly, I don't care. I have friends who are homosexuals, and greatly appreciate their company. I don't think that's close-minded, but that's just me. Point? I'm one of the people who was "brain-washed," and I turned out just fine.
How a child turns out depends on how strictly their parents adheres to, not only their religious beliefs, but the beliefs of their pastor and congregation. For example, the parents of my friend who is apostolic pentacostal are extremely strict. Their rules are unbelievable! No computer, no TV, no friends who don't believe in God, no going to parties, no spending the night at friends houses, no boyfriends, can't stay out past nine, and on and on and on. That's when I think it's abusive. No matter what a person believes, I think sheltering a child is abusive because when the child finally escapes, they don't have all the proper skills necessary to get by in society.
Sure, there are plenty of religious people who are close-minded. They won't and won't let their children associate with people who belong to a different faith, different race, different sexuality, or different social class. But there are people who aren't religious and do the same thing. It doesn't seem like being religious is the problem then, does it?
Just out of curiosity, how does the opposing party suggest parents inform their children about different religions, so as not to force their own religion on the child, but to help them make an informed decision? Do you suggest the parent has talks with the child discussing different religions? Or perhaps parents should present their children with books and reputable websites concerning other religions? Or maybe even take the child to temple one week, mosque the next, then kingdom hall, Catholic church, baptist church, and a non-denominational church? What age do you think is appropriate to start informing a child about different faiths and why?
Of course we learn about other religions at school, and hopefully outside of school as well. if we don't, how are we really forming a true opinion about what we do and do not believe. we learn about what many different faiths believe, and why, but we are not learning that any particular faith is right or wrong. of course parents are going to be somewhat biased toward their particular faith, because they believe it's right, and as you said, want their children to thrive the best they can in life. and there's no problem addressing this to your child, but you should also be making it known that this is your opinion; not the way of the world. to put it another way, take fast food, for example. some parents keep it out of their childrens' diet completely because it's unhealthy. this is perfectly okay, but what's not okay is telling your child fast food wouldn't taste good, or something ridiculous like, "Fast food has worms and bugs crawling in it". although I don't know any particular cases where a parent has taken it to that extreme, some parents will tell their kids untruthful things about fast food to hopefully discourage them from eating it, even when the child is outside the home. Once again, this is taking an opinion and making it into the way the child *must* live. What the parent should be saying is, well, the truth. "I don't allow you, my child, to eat fast food here because it's unhealthy. But I'm sure it does taste good, and if you want to try it for yourself, you're free to do so at a friend's house. Just be mindful of the health risks when consumed in large amounts". here, you're letting your child know why you're concerned with him or her eating fast food, and why you won't include that as a part of the diet at home, but that as a fellow human being, your child does have the right to make some decisions, as long as he or she has the knowledge about what consequences the decision could have later on down the road. Beliefs are a similar matter. if you're christian, of course that's going to be a part of how you raise your child. Of course you'll pray for the child in front of them, as well as other things, and of course you'll find yourself talking about God in front of your child sometimes, but if they decide it's not how they want to live their lives, they should be free to feel this way. and of course, atheists have no more of a right to force their children to live without a God if that's what they've decided they want.
To Inquisitive Intensity, I found your questions interesting, so I'm going to answer them.
1. As a person who was subjected to indoctrination, what will I have trouble adjusting to? I believe the poster who often spoke of indoctrination was referring to a lot of the extremes you talk about in your post, such as not allowing tv, exposure to other beliefs in the way of friends or boyfriends/girlfriends with opposing beliefs, etc. That, to me, is abuse, and the child will suffer as a result. As an adult, they won't know how to think for themselves. If they want to break away from the faith they were raised with, and this is if they're lucky, they will probably experience so much fear and shame not only about their own soul and what it means for them to question their beliefs, but also the fear of what their family will do to them should they choose not to live in that way anymore. Add other things into the mix such as if the child turns out to be homosexual, or falls in love with someone of a different faith, and the whole thing gets even messier. So what will the child have trouble adjusting to as an adult? Everything, I say. Living as a whole person, living with their own fears and discomforts, and reconciling differences with a closed-minded family. This could lead to depression or even suicide.
2. What emotional damage am I likely to have suffered as a result of indoctrination? As I previously stated, the person who later opens their mind, however secretively, is vulnerable to depression and abandonment. The person who goes on living their life this way, passing their beliefs onto their children and on and on through the generations, sees no wrong in what they're doing, which is a whole other set of emotional damages of its own. Turning a blind eye to your child's individuality is a bit sociopathic.
3. What opportunities and experiences will or am I likely to have missed out on due to my close-mindedness that resulted from indoctrination? Simply put, the freedom to live a normal, happy life regardless of what beliefs you may or may not have, and healthy relationships with family, friends and significant others.
to answer the question of when atheists like myself think it's fair to start educating children about religion, it depends. each child is different; I don't think a number can be placed on that sort of thing, just as I don't feel there's a set age for children to start potty training.
still, as the letter pointed out, I think 10 was a great age to have this type of discussion. the child is old enough to ask questions, and begin to think things through.
fire and rain answered Raven's questions perfectly; very well said. I couldn't agree more.
Personally I think forcing certain ASPECTS of a parent's faith on a child are cruel. For example, what child, when faced with a serious illness, should have to ask why he or she can't have access to medical treatment that will help him or her get better? What screwball of a parent tells 'em, "Our religion allows only prayer as medicine." This is screwball even as far as Christian Science goes. Even they don't believe in total abandonment of traditional medicine if it means loss of life, or prayers aren't leading to change in the patient's condition. One couple even went so far as to "pray" over a child stung by large numbers of bees, and the child died.
It is cruel to force a girl child as young as mine to have the outermost part of her God given genitalia crudely torn off as is done in many Islamic majority parts of the world. There is even a specialist at Brigham and Womens' hospital who treats adult and other victims of this barbaric practice for complications involving urination, the sexual relation, complicated pregnancy and childbirth.
Any religious ritual that involves maiming or loss of life is cruel and should be abandoned. However, I don't think it's cruel to educate a child in a particular path as a reference point in a creator or nonbelief in one. Perhaps when said child is in the double digit years, they could explore what other paths have to teach, perhaps as adults choose something else. But they should IMO have some point of reference, because speaking from experience it is awkward when asked in the middle school years "What's your religion?" not having a definite answer. I don't think teaching about faith or lack thereof is any more cruel than trying to instill correct eating habits, hygiene habits, or setting aside certain times of day for stuff like homework, meals with family, exercise, etc.
FireAndRain, your answers to my first two questions provided clarification. However, I think your answer to my third question was vague.
I don't think there's anyone who lives a normal, happy life with healthy relationships with all their friends, significant others, and family members. We all go through tough emotional times. And while one person can strive to have a healthy relationship, the other person/people may not put forth as much effort; and that's whether that person is a relative or not. It's not reasonable to conclude that "victims" of indoctrination will have mostly unhealthy relationships. Healthiness of a relationship depends on the two people in it, not one or the other.
Also, I think unhealthy relationships are sometimes a necessary part of life because those are the ones from which we learn some of the most difficult and important lessons.
As for my third question, I want to know if there are particular opportunities and experiences that "victims" of indoctrination will or are likely to miss out on. I don't believe they will miss out on anymore opportunities and experiences than anyone who was sheltered or restricted somehow. It's possible for victims of any kind of abuse or brain-washing to overcome their mental restraints. That's dependent on several factors including amount of support, motivation, and determination. Also, remember that people who are victims of any kind of brain-washing go one of two ways when they are released from the care of their guardians. They either continue to adhere to what they were taught, or they veer away from how they were raised and explore other ways of living.
Some of these people do end up leading "normal lives."
Raven, I completely disagree with your opinion that religion in a child's life isn't considered indoctrination. as fire and rain said, that sort of thing makes it even more difficult for children to think for themselves.
since you're gonna ask how, I'll lay it out for you: as someone who was raised by an incredibly religious family, forced to attend church even through my adulthood (till I decided to move out), I've personally experienced unnecessary hardships.
I'm comfortable with my atheism now, but coming to terms with it was more of a struggle than you could possibly imagine...and all in the name of being told being christian was the only way to live.
also, I wanna address your earlier comment about the letter seeming like it was written from a middle schooler's perspective.
of course it was written in simpler terms than you or I write, cause the child was 10 years old. this goes back to what I said earlier about relaying information to children on a level they can understand.
it's really sad that a question like "what's your religion?" is as awkward as it is. Seriously, what's wrong with saying "I haven't found one I truly want to follow yet", or, "I want to explore other faiths before I come to a decision about what I want to believe".
or, better yet, "I don't subscribe to any religion, but am an atheist".
I guess the simple answer to that is that kids can be especially cruel when it comes to differences. In some peer groups, having a different religious view could get you excluded. Of course as an adult petty things like that don't matter, but it is a big deal in middle and high school, and having not been there all that long ago myself, I can definitely say that religion does matter in your circle of friends more than you might think.
As to the post about needing to have unhealthy relationships in your life to balance out the healthy ones, that's one of the most ass backwards things I've ever heard. No one is perfect, and we all swing on a pendulum that goes to the unhealthy side sometimes, but are you saying that it's good to live in an abusive environment, or at least know an abuser, so that you can appreciate the good people you have? I hope not.
battism has to be given only if the child is getting major and after consulting with that child. giving battism in the early stage before the kid is 18 could be a forcing one, in my opinion.
Let them decide, I say. there are few parents, who never let their kids even to play with other religious people, you know? which means they are forcing their religion and scared of whether that child would get diverted from it. This is cruel. I can even say it's a child abuse.
Raaj.
that's exactly the point I've been trying to make, Raaj. you've got it, my friend.
I read a study yesterday that showed that the US, which has the highest level of child religious structure, also has the highest levels of teen suicide, teen pregnancy, and teen violence. Now of course, it is entirely possible that these two facts are completely unrelated. However, it is strange to think that, in civilized countries that have the lowest numbers of children and teenagers who are forced into a religion, have the lowest numbers of troubled teens, teen pregnancy, and teen violence. Whereas, in the US, where we have an extremely high number, the measure of teen pregnancy and the like is also extremely high. Coincidence perhaps, but when you consider the fact that religion is constantly telling you that something is wrong, it kind of makes sense.
I'll explain. How many of us, when told not to do something, but not given a tangible reason, went out the first chance we got, and did it, just to find out why we weren't allowed to do it? I know I'm guilty of this. If I was told I couldn't do something, the first thing i wanted to do was to do that something. Making something taboo, makes you want to do it. Take swearing for instance, tell a child they're not allowed to swear, and the minute they're out of your hearing, they curse like a sailor, just to see if its really as bad as you made it seem. You give it power.
Now lets take religion. Religion tells you not to have sex, not to masterbate, not to be homosexual, not to dress provokatively, not to lie, not to steal, not to cheat, not to hate, not to be quick to anger, not to murder, not to be rich, not to react if your attacked, and the list goes on and on and on. Its a lot of things your not allowed to do. Now imagine that your simply told, "don't do this because I tell you you'll go to hell", that is basically what parents are telling children at these young ages. They have no conception of what hell is, they're too young to understand it. That misunderstanding grows, until they're teenagers.
We all remember being teenagers, things were all around us, drugs, sex, violence, gangs, more sex, cheating on tests, all the sinful things we faced as teenagers. Now, as religious people, we've been told not to do all these things, because we'd go to hell, but something in us makes this little connection of, "Hey, those people over their are doing it, and nothing seems to be happening to them." Suddenly the dominos start falling, we try one little thing, maybe we feel a girl up in the back of the school bus, and it snowballs from there.
Now, if we hadn't been told not to do those things for such a vague reason as hell, it might, and I'm saying might, not have worked out that way. Perhaps if we were to sit down with our children and have an open discussion with them, it might be better. Maybe if our children felt more comfortable talking to us as parents, they'd be more willing to discuss the things we don't want them to do, and then we might be able to keep them from making that little connection.
I know when I was growing up in a very religious family, I stopped asking questions about bad things. I never talked about sex with my parents, never talked about masterbation or any of those things, because they were sinful, and because they were sinful, they were not allowed to be talked about. It was idiotic.
So maybe that's why america has the highest levels of teen sin in the civilized world, because we also have the highest level of forced religion as children.
Atheism is just as valid a religious standpoint, and therefore atheists are just as capable of indoctrination as christians or muslims.
I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I want to force my child to be one as well because I think it's logical. I dislike the idea that my beliefs should be my child's beliefs just because I say so or because I think I'm right.
I want my child to be an atheist, of course I do, but because I want he or she to see the illogical nature of the existance of a higher power and choose to be an atheist, I want this because I would like to see more people become logical rather than remain bound by superstition.
but an atheist, or a person of any religion for that matter should gain no pleasure from gaining a believer just because they teach them from a young age to believe certain things.
very well said, Loui and Cody.
Okay, I'm going to try to expound on some points I made earlier that were misconstrued.
"Raven, I completely disagree with your opinion that religion in a child's life isn't considered indoctrination..."
I never denied that raising a child with one's own religious views was indoctrination or brain-washing.
"As to the post about needing to have unhealthy relationships in your life to balance out the healthy ones, that's one of the most ass backwards things I've ever heard. No one is perfect, and we all swing on a pendulum that goes to the unhealthy side sometimes, but are you saying that it's good to live in an abusive environment, or at least know an abuser, so that you can appreciate the good people you have? I hope not."
Well, you're hoping correctly. First, an unhealthy relationship does not always involve abuse. And if a person thinks that all unhealthy relationships involve abuse, then I'll just say our definitions of the word differ.
I did not say that we must have unhealthy relationships to balance out the healthy ones. What I said is that sometimes unhealthy relationships are necessary because those are the ones from which we learn some of the most difficult and important lessons. Now this is not to say everyone must have multiple unhealthy relationships; because sometimes all it takes is one, or just watching another person's unhealthy relationship to teach you a couple things. None of these lessons have to be appreciation. From unhealthy relationships, I think we can learn things about ourselves and life. One can learn about their own level of tolerance, how to stand up for themselves and others, how they can handle different situations better, and what type of people to avoid in the future -- just to name a few. In short, no struggle, no strength.
Kids are cruel regardless of whether religion is factored in or not. Kids will always find something to make fun of or exclude a person for whether it is their appearance, their parents' appearance, what they eat, how they behave, how they talk, what they do outside of school, and so on.
And what countries, other than the US, were accounted for in this survey?
Rather than have you take my word on this study, I'm going to post the link to it. To answer your question vaguely though, seventeen countries were used, all of them first world nations, save one which is considered a second world nation. Here is the link if you would like to read the study.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
yep turn me in to CPS I bring my child to church. I also teach her that there's a god that loves her. Wow. Everyone needs a starting point. when she's a teenager she can explore all she likes. It's required to study different religions in this state in histery if nothing else. Religion is an adult choice. She will make it on her own. It will be up to her, but it's up to me to give building blocks. See me as abusing hur if that's what you see fit.
Studying, is not believing in. I study bhudism, doesn't mean I'm a bhudist. You also are probably required to learn about evolution and darwinism, doesn't make you an atheist.
Taking your child to church is not study, no matter how much you want to claim it is. i remember how it was to be a child, being forced to go to church, it wasn't a building block for anything. I got up, got dressed in uncomfortable clothes, and went to a building that smelled funny, where I sat in uncomfortable chairs and was forced to sit still and stay awake to hear some old fat guy shout about something called god.
Kids can't understand religion. Sure, children's bible school could teach them about jona and the whale or something, but will they get the underlying meanings of it? I highly doubt it, to them there's little difference between jona and the whale, and charlette's web or james and the giant peach. Neither of which are exactly considered religious dogma.
i go to a house churche. we study in someone's home. if kids sit in which they're not required to do they like the adults can ask questions at any time. we sing we pray and we study. The whole point of the house church I attend is that it's done in smaller groups so if people arent' understanding something we can all look it up together and be supportive. Again kids aren't required to sit through it if they would rather play, and coutches are generally not uncomterable. lol
So you take your child to church, then give her the choice of being religious, or playing. Yet, religion is an adult choice. So are you really taking her to church, or a playtime with bibles?
i take her to both in a sense, and do and will teach her my beliefs. does this mean we won't talk about sex, masterbation etc in the future? I'm not stupid of course the talk will come up as it should in any family. The answers should not be no because I say so, but this is our beliefs. You'll choose what you want, and here's the real world conciquences. Just because you have a belief doesn't mean you hide from the rest of the world. sounds like allot of people against me teaching my child about faith had parents that either taught them with out reason, or were not open people. Not everyone is that way. This includes myself and Pipi. I've also noticed allot of you that have posted haven't been truely faced with the decission yet. So there's just another scrap to chew on.
How do you know we haven't been faced with a decision? Just because we didn't post about all our struggles doesn't mean we haven't faced any. Mine, I'll admit, haven't been as much of a struggle because of my upbringing, but that doesn't mean I didn't have to decide for myself who I believed was right or wrong. I went to a very religious camp three times, and I used to be a part of girl guides. In all cases, we all had to pray, and in all cases, I was told that my mother was wrong for being atheist, even though she never accused them of being wrong because they were Christian. and eventually, yes, I did have to come to a decision to say, no. I don't believe in a god. I don't believe my mother is wrong, and I don't need any help from prayer or otherwise to figure that out. At least I knew I had one supporter, unlike a few other atheist posters on here, but when one person tells you you're perfectly justified for believing there is no god while everyone else either flat out says you're wrong, or they will pray that one day you will come to accept your father and savior, eventually I started to question my sanity as well as my mom's. and this is coming from the person who had an open-minded upbringing. I can't imagine how my childhood would've been, and what the decision would have been like if I had been raised by parents who talk about god like he's in the room. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a decision in my mind. Oh well. I guess ignorance is bliss.
I was lucky enough to move out of a situation where any questions were thought of as sins, into a situation where, if you didn't talk about it, it didn't exist. To this day, the mere mention of the word atheist in my house is met with scorn and riddicule from my own family.
You may say your open now, but will you be when you are actually faced with that decision. You say we're inexperienced because we haven't raised children. In many ways, we're more experienced than you. We've been there, made that decision, and now have to live with the consequences. I hope you are as open in a decade or so when your daughter tells you she's homosexual, or an atheist, or something else that goes completely against your beliefs. I wonder how you will react then. I know how people reacted when it happened to me. So who is really the inexperienced one?
I'm with Cody 1000 percent on this; I'll take it so far as saying those who claim you'd be open minded if your child came to you saying they've chosen a different religious path than the one they were raised with, or none at all, you'd be singing a completely different tune.
I, like Cody, was forced to go to church while living under the roof of my blood relatives, and not a one lesson did I learn. if anything, fear was instilled in me. the fear that, if I dared choose another path, or turn out to be attracted to the same gender, my life was pretty much over.
if you think that's a pleasant way to live, think again. and, I'll be damned if I put my children through something that, as a child, always made me incredibly scared and uncomfortable.
"Everyone needs a starting point. when she's a teenager she can explore all she likes."
Well if everyone needs a starting point then why not wait till shes at the age of reason, rather then doing it now? You say she can explore when she's a teen, but by then one of two things will happen;
1 she will be closed minded and refuse any other possibilities.
2 She will grow to detest the church and your beliefs because you made her go to church.
Also as others have stated you say that she can explore once she's older, however if that ever happens chances are you will not be so open about it.
"Religion is an adult choice. She will make it on her own. It will be up to her, but it's up to me to give building blocks."
This is a contradictory statement if I ever heard one.
If religion is an adult choice then why force your daughter into a religion? Why make her go to church with you? If religion is an adult choice then she is obviously too young for you to "teach" her anything yet.
By you "teaching" her, you're not allowing her to make the decision on her own you're making it for her by indoctrinating her into your religion. These so called "building blocks" are nothing more then indoctrination so daughter will be a christian just like mommy. I have seen it too many times to not notice it here.
"i go to a house churche. we study in someone's home. if kids sit in which they're not required to do they like the adults can ask questions at any time."
I'm sorry but I have to call shenanigans here. If the kids aren't required to sit with you during these "church" services then why take your daughter at all then? Seems to me like it would be a waste of time to even bring her. I know most kids have the attention span of a gnat and would rather play then pray. Something tells me they don't have nearly the freedom that you let on.
"we sing we pray and we study."
Which your daughter is far too young to understand the significance of any of it. So begging the question. Why take her at all?
"i take her to both in a sense, and do and will teach her my beliefs."
Which is called, Are you ready for this? indoctrination.
"does this mean we won't talk about sex, masterbation etc in the future?"
Actually most likely it will never come up, because as she moves into her preteen years she will learn that sex outside marriage is wrong, and masturbation is a sin. All because you follow a book written by ignorant sheep shaggers.
"I'm not stupid of course the talk will come up as it should in any family."
No, no it won't. mainly because religion is so sexually oppressive, especially towards women. By indoctrinating her you will affectively close the doors of communication simply because of the sexual oppression.
Christian teens have the highest pregnancy rate among any other group? Also ever wonder why christians have the highest divorce rate?
Your book sets unrealistic rules that no one (not even your own god) can follow. It sets demands that can be unhealthy and in the end these rules are scare tactics to keep people in line.
"The answers should not be no because I say so, but this is our beliefs."
Here is where the rubber meets the road "but this is OUR beliefs", not my beliefs or the bibles beliefs. This one comment speaks volumes. This shows that you really don't plan for your daughter to think for herself, but rather you want her to regurgitate your own dogma. You really don't want her to find her own way, or her own beliefs, this simple sentence shows how closed you really are.
"You'll choose what you want, and here's the real world conciquences."
This begs the question what happens when or if she chooses against your beliefs? I promise you that you won't be so open if your daughter turns out to be a practicing witch, or a lesbian.
Most if not all christians detest the idea of their children thinking for themselves, however these parents outwardly denounce indoctrination, while in private it's a whole other story.
"Just because you have a belief doesn't mean you hide from the rest of the world. sounds like allot of people against me teaching my child about faith had parents that either taught them with out reason, or were not open people. Not everyone is that way. This includes myself and Pipi. I've also noticed allot of you that have posted haven't been truely faced with the decission yet. So there's just another scrap to chew on."
You're wrong here on so many counts. My parents never forced any religion on me as a kid, they even waited till we were older before they asked any of us (myself, my brother and my sister) if we wanted to go to church.
What I see with people like yourself and Pipi is that you really can not handle if your child denounces your faith so you use indoctrination under the cloak of teaching tolerance later, but later will never come.
Exactly. If you tell your child there's a god that loves you like it's proven fact, well, if that's the only thing they grow up believing, what are they going to have to question. Most aren't going to even want to go exploring because, well, there's a god that loves them, right? what else do they need? that's like telling a child there's only one country in the world, and it's the one we live in, and then later saying to them, O, but you're free to go look for others if you want. who would do that? Not many people. You'd have to have a very curious personality, which some of us do, but I don't think it's worth assuming.
I am done with this thread. There is entirely too many people judging me when they know nothing about me and choose not to listen or believe what I have shared here. I'm not even angry about it, but there is no point in even trying to discuss things. Some have their predetermined ideas of what I'm doing and what I will do in the future based on a generalization. My whole point here was that you can't generalize everyone who does or doesn't believe in God. It isn't black and white.
But yes, please continue calling me a child abuser. Just because you do, doesn't make it true. :)
Enjoy your topic here.
I just hope that one day there will be more accepting people on both sides of the coin.
@Blondie
Our problem is not that you're a christian, but that you and others have said your children are too young to learn about other religions, yet at the same time their not too young to learn about yours.
You and Damia both claim that you are open minded, and that you plan to raise your children the same way, yet you only "teach" them your beliefs and nothing else.
Atheists are very accepting of religions, we just disagree on the indoctrination aspect. Christians are the ones who are not accepting of other peoples beliefs, thats why they have started wars, tortured non-believers, committed genocide, infanticide, and a myriad of other atrocities all because others don't believe in a fairy tale.
there are certainly some atheists, not necessarily on this topic, but in existence, that are guilty of closed minded beliefs, but they exist on the religious side of things, too, so don't claim it's just us. and hey, to anyone who wants to be closed minded in any way, more power to you. Just don't extend those closed minded beliefs to your children.
On a side note, I think it's really amusing that people post about how they don't like the way the discussion is going, and that they're not going to post anymore.
There has to be a starting point when teaching a child about religion, and I think starting withe the parent/s' religion is a good point.
If I had a child, I would teach them more than one language. However, I would start off with English. Why? Because it's my native language, I understand it best, and it would come easiest for my child because it's what they would hear people speak every day.
As atheists, I'm sure if any of you had children, you would raise them as atheists until what you think is an age-of-reason. If you started teaching your child about different religions from that point, it's likely they will be learning about them from an atheistic viewpoint.
I only have two memories of going to church as a todler. We didn't attend church very often when I was a todler, so those were probably the only two times. I didn't start regularly attending church until I was nine or ten. However, I did have a firm belief in God as far back as five or six. I often find myself wishing that in addition to my disastrous childhood, I would have attended church regularly. I feel like I could have spent more time learning about and establishing a relationship with God. Also, I feel that because I did not attend church until my life "smoothed out," I had something precious stolen from me.
As far as open-mindedness and close-mindedness go, I think it's a choice. What's so wrong if a person is close-minded and refuses to explore other beliefs? If people don't question what they do and believe in, and they find it's comfortable and right for them, it's likely they won't explore other options. For example, instead of trying something new or different, I order a cheeseburger every time I go out to eat, excluding restaurants that don't serve them. Why? Because it's my favorite food and 9.8 out of ten times, I'm not let down.
If a person feels this way or better about their beliefs, their not going to want anything different for themselves or their children. Telling a close-minded person not to teach and raise their children with their beliefs is like telling a Republican they should raise their children as Democrats. Not happening.
If a person finds that their parents' beliefs don't work for them, they develop a set of their own.
Also, if a person doesn't share the belief of another, they don't accept that person's beliefs. Atheists do not accept the beliefs of Christians and vice versa.
Believing and forcing is two different concept. if you're kid is believing something means he or she is accepting it with his or her's own mind after reading, discussing, through media, experience and etc etc. that will happen only after he or she is getting matured. So as per most of our decisions, the maturity age is 18. So let them decide after that? Why you people are forcing your kid for battism before he or she is getting matured? Are you scared of your kid's mind may get diverted and will become an atheist?
Let them decide, you know.
Raaj.
Baptizing someone will not prevent them from following a different religion or becoming an atheist.
And we all decide what we choose to believe regardless of how others feel.
I have to agree that baptizing someone won't make the difference between believing or not believing. However, I agree whole-heartedly that believing and forcing are two very different things. No, I will not raise children *atheist*. I will raise them neutral. Yes, they will know what I believe, but they are free to go to church at as early an age as they want to, so long as they actually voice their interest in wanting to go to church. the reason we teach our children our native language is because most schools in the country teach in this language, other people are going to be speaking this language, and you have to be able to speak this language to be a citizen in this country. You do not have to be christian to be a citizen. And if they are interested in learning a second language, they are free to do so.
"Baptizing someone will not prevent them from following a different religion or becoming an atheist."
no, but there is a big difference between informed and uninformed consent.
when you baptise a child you are effectively making a decision for them that, at that point, is not life threatening, not of huge importance for their medical wellbeing, and thus, unnecessary. you are effectively binding them to something that at that point, they cannot understand.
one point at which I do agree with the mormons is that they do not baptise their children until the age of 8, and while they get indoctrinated to the hilt between that time, it is at least in part, their decision, though I think that 8 is still to young to decide.
Kids believe all kinds of stuff when they are young. they believe in things that we enforce in their lives. they believe in santa because many of us will go along with it and put wine or beer out for him and food for the raindeer. We enforce belief in the toothfairy because we encourage children to leave a tooth under the pillow for which they receive money. Kids believe what their parents tell them, especially when they arte young and overly trusting.
and I don't have a problem with children learning about god, as long as they learn about all the other kinds of things that humans believe in. I have a problem with religious schooling because there is little option for a child to learn that their might be another way of looking at the world, and I especially dislike any religion that teaches that it is the only way forward and that gay people are evil and abortion is wrong, for example.
as far as I'm concerned there should be more respect for society and the rules we choose to make ourselves than for religion.
"If I had a child, I would teach them more than one language. However, I would start off with English. Why? Because it's my native language, I understand it best, and it would come easiest for my child because it's what they would hear people speak every day."
Indoctrinating a child and teaching a language are two completely different things for two main reasons.
1 Religion is not necessary for communication, learning or a childs well being, whereas language is.
2 You don't indoctrinate or force unhealthy concepts on a child (ie. hell or sexual oppression) with language.
"As atheists, I'm sure if any of you had children, you would raise them as atheists until what you think is an age-of-reason. If you started teaching your child about different religions from that point, it's likely they will be learning about them from an atheistic viewpoint."
Even when I was a bible thumper I never indoctrinated, or forced my beliefs on my two nieces that I helped raise and they turned out just fine. Even now as an atheist I would never force my beliefs on a child. btw indoctrinating a child into atheism is a bit of a misnomer considering that atheism is NOT a religion.
"What's so wrong if a person is close-minded and refuses to explore other beliefs? If people don't question what they do and believe in, and they find it's comfortable and right for them, it's likely they won't explore other options."
People who are close minded due to religion tend to be more ignorant, less educated and more likely to exhibit bigoted or prejudice traits towards those different from themselves. Another major problem with this closed mindedness is these people are incapable of questioning their beliefs or even thinking for themselves. These problems help lead some to fly planes into buildings or commit genocide, or a myriad of other atrocities done in the name of religion. All because these people are so close minded they simply are incapable of questioning their own beliefs.
"If a person feels this way or better about their beliefs, their not going to want anything different for themselves or their children."
.....And this is where the problems lie. If a child decides to question, or even leave said religion then there are a multitude of consequences, such as; physical, and emotional abuse, disownment from the family, Emotional or psychological trauma and in some case death from either suicide or honor killing. this reminds me of a forum post I saw a few years back of a christian mother who's son was a homosexual. She couldn't come to terms with what her son was due to her religiosity so she nagged him, told him he was hellbound, and repeatedly push her "faith" on him. Her son later committed suicide because of his mothers closed mindedness.
Now try and tell me that being close minded in this way is harmless.
"If a person finds that their parents' beliefs don't work for them, they develop a set of their own."
Some children do find their own way, however due to religious indoctrination this can be, and usually is a traumatic experience. Often times these children as adults are so fearful they dare not say anything to family members for fear of the above mentioned repercussions. In many cases, especially when homosexuality is concerned these children, now adults choose to kill themselves rather then face the consequences of being different, and why? because of either religious indoctrination or their parents prejudice from being closed minded.
First, atheism is not a religion, but it is a way of believing and viewing the world.
Second, just because you don't believe religion is key for someone's well-being doesn't mean it isn't. Remember that, in our religion, we raise our children with our beliefs because it's their souls on the line. We believe in hell, and we haven't heard anything good about it. I'm not trying to go there, and if I had children I would pray for them and teach them as much as I could to keep them from going there. What they do with that information is their choice.
Obviously, some people take it to the extreme, and that's what your talking about. But it looks like you're trying to give all Christians a bad name and say that we're all a bunch of ignorant, brain-washed abuse victims fearful of believing otherwise because of a possible separation or feud with our families or communities, and this is not true for all. It's unfortunate that people think that they can beat their religious beliefs into someone. I will not blame these acts on indoctrination. It comes from not knowing how to problem-solve and compromise. Just as there are people who are indoctrinated and turn away from the Christian faith, there are others who are indoctrinated and are completely okay with it. Everyone who follows a faith doesn't do it blindly and just because it's what they were taught. And for those who do, there are people who aren't religious who do the same thing. They deal with a situation, solve a problem, or always do an act a certain way, simply because it's what they were taught.
I cannot speak for other faiths, but I will say that as Christians, we encounter situations or people which cause us to question what we believe and why. Some people simply ignore these situations and turn away, fearful of the fact that it caused them to question their beliefs, while others take them on in search of answers.
My point is that you are committing a hasty generalization by grouping Christians together under a foul blanket. As I have stated on another thread, people often twist the word of God. They tailor it to their fleshly desires, and ignore and change the parts that are against what they want. People will do this regardless of whether they were indoctrinated. I don't think putting a stop to indoctrination would solve this problem.
and if your god is the type of person that would send a child, unable to fully grasp the concept of his existance properly, off to hell simply because he/she wasn't baptised or taught about him from the outset, then my opinion of him, as being not worth my worship should he ever be proven to exist does not change in the slightest.
and atheism is a perfectly valid religion. religion is belief in a god, atheism is the definite belief that there is no god.
True Atheists like myself believe in no higher power and believe that the way forward for humanity is to let go of the idea of a higher power.
Agnosticism is not a religion, but a religious standpoint. that is the difference.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up about atheism.
My point was not to say whether or not God would send a child to hell. My point was that as parents, Christians indoctrinate their children because their souls are on the line. Christian parents are responsible for providing their children with a Christian foundation so that they form and continue their relationship with God into adulthood. Hopefully, the person chooses salvation, and are thus given a place in Heaven. None of us wants to go to hell, so we should and do want the same for our children. What we've heard about hell isn't good, and we're not trying to figure out more details.
This probably sounds like claptrap to atheists, but I'm just explaining the purpose of indoctrination.
As I've said, it's unfortunate when parents think they can force any beliefs on their children in a way that is abusive, but this does not occur in all cases of indoctrination.
Raven, you teach your kids because they're soul is on the line, you indoctrinate them because you fear anything that is not your own special brand of good behavior. You so absolutely sure that being gay is evil, that the mere idea of your child ending up that way is physically frightening. Thus, you make as damn sure as you can that they will think that if they are gay, they will go to a burning fiery pit for the rest of eternity. Cuz really, who wants that? I mean, sun block wouldn't even work there, its florida on a bad day.
Teaching, and indoctrinating are two very different things.
As a disclaimer, when I said you, I did not mean raven, I happen to know raven, and she has no children. I meant the people who indoctrinate their children in their religion, which raven was representing at the time. I hope this did not make any of your heads balloon into masses of bloody confusion, and I appologize for any headaches or concusions that have resulted.
Cody, I understand that. But you know that a part of that teaching is going to church. Most of us who are raised in any religion start when we're young.
According to this thread, raising a child from day one and simply taking them to church without their request falls under indoctrination, so that's the definition I've assumed for this argument.
now hang on a moment,
god, apparently gave us free will, so that we can choose to follow him or not.
I choose not to, because I believe that he doesn't exist, and I disagree that we have free will in abundance in any case because of neurophysics, but that's another discussion entirely.
now, how is it, that a child can have free will to follow a god if he/she isn't allowed to choose for him/herself and is instead indoctrinated from an early age?
I agree with post 83 here. if he or she exists, how come he or she's being partial with his or her production? as some are born blind, some are autistic and few are deaf and dumb from birth onwards??
Raaj
People may be forced to go to church, but no one is forced to believe in God. Everyone chooses whether they believe or not.
So raven, let me get this straight. You think that the following situation is perfectly acceptible.
Parent: "Lets take little johnny to church."
parent 2: "But he's six months old."
parent: "I know, but its good for him to know god's love."
parent 2: "But he's six months old, he doesn't even know his own nose is actually attached to him, how can he possibly know god's love?"
parent: "Well, lets take him to church anyway. And lets get him baptized."
parent 2: "Well what church should we take him too?"
parent: "Why our church, of course, what other church would we take him too?"
parent 2: "Ok, lets take johnny to church, and get him baptized, at six months old."
Ten years in the future...
Johnny: "Mommy, who goes to heaven?"
mommy: "Well good people go to heaven Johnny. Its like the paster said in church. All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of god, but god forgives, because he loves us. Its like when you broke the vase last week, I forgave you, because I love you."
Johnny: "So do all good people go to heaven?"
mommy: "Yes sweetie, all good people who accept jesus christ as their lord and savior."
Johnny: "Well Mommy. I heard the paster talking about catholics today, and he said they're sinners. Does that mean they won't go to heaven?"
mommy: "yes johnny, catholics do not follow god's word, so they won't go to heaven."
Johnny: "Well my friend Billy says he's a catholic mommy. Does that mean Billy won't go to heaven?"
Mommy: "Not if he's a catholic Johnny. He has to accept jesus into his heart. You should invite Billy to go to our church."
ten years later
Johnny: "No Billy, we can't kiss anymore, its wrong."
Billy: "But I love you Johnny, and that doesn't feel wrong. I've loved you since middle school in football practice, you know that. I thought you loved me too."
long uncomfortable pause
Johnny: "No, no I can't , the bible says its wrong Billy, and I can't do it anymore."
exit Johnny
two hours later
Billy, (holding a razor) "I don't know what to do. My parents think I'm evil and vile, my father won't even talk to me, and my mom can't be in the same room as me without crying. The one person I thought I could trust was Johnny, and now he's gone."
Billy dies
Two years later
Johnny, at the foot of his parents bed as they sleep), whispering: "I gave up everything. I told Billy I didn't love him, and he killed himself. I followed everything you told me, I read the bible every day, I prayed every morning and every night and before every meal. You always told me god loves me, but if he loves me, why does he make me feel such pain. Nothing can be worth this, no love should be this painful."
Next day:
headline:
Young man leaves suicide note saying that he felt abandoned by god. Kills parents before turning the gun on himself.
Now certainly, this is a drastic example, but I can tell you its happened. You can look through news files for the stories if you want. I'm not saying atheists don't do it too, they most certainly do. But, who is it who is most appressive of homosexuals, atheists, other religions, and even women, in the country of america these days? I'll give you a fact that might speed your answer of that rhetorical question; the KKK has bibles at all of their meetings, the terrorist in europe last week, claimed his works were religious. I challenge you to name the last time an atheist blew themselves up in the name of darwin; it doesn't happen.
Religion, of any kind, and perhaps especially christianity, oppresses people. The list of people who have been oppressed throughout history by the christians alone would be enormous. We as a country throw our hatred toward muslims nowadays because we see them as terrorists, yet we did exactly the same thing to them, and still do in many instances.
Certainly, religions have nice people, but if you truly take the word of god for what it says, at least in the case of the bible, those nice people don't actually follow what it says.
Even you raven, in putting this post against me, have broken a law set down in the bible. Do I agree with that law, of course not, I know you and know well how intelligent you are, but that does not change the fact that you break a tenet of christianity by posting your opinion on this board.
Cody, I have no problem with parents taking their children to church, no matter their age. Some think that there is no purpose to this. My position is: what harm can come from it? The child is with its parents, and the parents don't have to worry over arranging for a sitter. Is it somehow abusive to sit in a pew and listen to songs and sermons?
I have stated at least once that I oppose infant baptisms. No one should be baptized until they say they are ready and willing to commit their lives to Christ.
I cannot stress enough that people misuse the Bible to support their violent crimes. People will tailor the Bible to justify acts of violence and hatred. However, this does not mean the Bible justifies it. I understand people have used the Bible to justify racism, sexism, genocide, homicide, slavery, and the list goes on. But none of this is right, justified, or Christian-like. We are taught that Satan knows the Bible, and even Shakespeare said that even the devil will cite Scripture for his purpose. The fact that people use Scripture to support their prejudices and hatred proves this.
A gamut of people misinterpret the Bible and choose to follow their misunderstandings. People don't consider that their interpretations might be wrong. Most people don't want to admit to or think they may be wrong, which is a problem on it's own.
Before I discuss homosexuality in Biblical verse, I will say that Jesus would not turn away anyone who sought him and his salvation. I never read about Jesus healing anyone of homosexuality in the Bible.
Also, I think that Christians do not realize they are making the devil proud and joyous when they use God's word to fuel their hatred and violence towards other people.
Now here is where I might lose you because this concerns interpreting the Bible. It's my understanding that some take the Bible literally, and others believe some verses hold a symbolic or alternative meaning that is not commonly understood today. I'm one of the others.
The first time I see the word homosexual mentioned in the Bible is 1 Corinthians 6: 9, where Paul lists the people who will not inherit God's kingdom unless they accept salvation. From what I have learned, there was no word in Greek or Hebrew for homosexual as we define it today. When Paul lists off the people who won't inherit God's kingdom, there are two words in that list whose translations were unclear. Homosexual was assigned to one of these words, arsenokoitai, in the twentieth century. Arsenokoitai, used in the first century, referred to shrine prostitution, rape, and sex with angels.
Aside from that, just as there are antiquated and outdated beliefs concerning virginity, I think the same goes for homosexuality. There are many old misconceptions about it that still exist.
I think it's people with the prejudice, not God. No one chooses their sexuality, just as no one chooses their sex. If gays could really choose who they were attracted to, would they choose to face constant and repetitious oppression, rejection, patronizing, abuse, and mistreatment?
Even if people think the Bible condemns homosexuals, they should not use this to abuse and discriminate against gays or anyone else.
Also, for those who think it is a sin, remember that whoever believes in Christ will have eternal life. God loves everyone, and no sin is more evil or deadly than the next.
Let us say for a moment raven, that there is a song, lets call this song... oh... helter skelter. Its a funny name, right, the song can't be all that bad. And in fact, it isn't, its a pretty pointless song really. You can go listen to it if you like, its by the beatles.
Now, lets say that a guy, lets name him charles, just for the sake of argument, decides that the words to helter skelter tell him to murder people, and write the name of the song on the walls. Now, I've listened to helter skelter, and you can go do it yourself if you don't believe my claim, that ain't in there. The song doesn't talk about murdering families and making the bloodstains into impressionist art. I'm telling you, go listen to it, it doesn't.
So, does this mean that charles, who is more commonly known as charles manson, had some higher plane of understanding of the word helter skelter? Why no, because the beatles themselves came out and said, "That wasn't what the song is about man". Of course they said it with british accents, but still, they said pretty much that.
So, what does that make charles manson? Well it makes him fuckin' nuts, and a murderer, and fuckin' nuts, and crazy, and fuckin' nuts. In a nutshell, he's wrong, and mostly fuckin' nuts.
Now, we have a book, that you can hold, and read, and throw at people. If you can't find one, there's one in every hotel room. We call it the holy bible. It is full of words, whole bunches of words, that all have meanings.
Now christians claim, "this is the word of god". Ok, sure, we think god could use a modern english class, but whatever, word of god. Then, christians say, "you have to take what the words say god meant, not what the words say god said".
So now we're dealing with two different things here. We have the word of god, as its written down, and the word of god as you pull it out of the air. So, this begs a question, what basis are you taking your interpretation from?
I can take the verse, "he wept" the shortest bible verse, and read it as this, a guy cried, probably pretty bitterly since it used the word wept. I can't really see any other meaning from that. You can't take, "he wept" and make it, "he skipped merrily", it doesn't work that way, "wept" means cried, it doesn't mean "skipped merrily".
So where do you base your interpretation raven, tell me that? And while your telling me that, show me the verse in the bible that said you get to interpret it any way you want to? Doesn't that make you god, and not god, and isn't that blasphemus, which is a sin, which means you'll go to hell, which I'm told is a bad vacation spot?
Oh, and as for not killing in the bible, did you know that god ordered the kill ing of over a million people in the bible, and the bible records over three hundred thousand people who were killed by god directly. If that doesn't condone killing, I don't know what does.
And as for the homosexuals. If you think paul is the first guy to talk about them, you need to flip back a few pages. How many pages exactly, well, pretty much the entire book. In fact, it would be shorter for you to shut the bible, and start from the beginning. We're talking the third book of the bible here. That's the whole bible, not the new testament, whole bible.
We're talking, your favorite bible verse and mine, the lovely and talented, leviticus 20:13. I'm not going to quote it here, I want you to go and read it yourself, then come back and tell us what it actually means. That might give us, and by us I mean the readers of this board, some insight as to what your basing your arbitrary interpretation on
Actually, My favorite verse is in the New Testament.
Anyhow, I am familiar with and understand Leviticus 18: 22 and 20: 13.
It does not say that gays will go to hell, it says a man with a man is an abomination.
How about this: go type or paste arsenokoitai into Google. Look at some of the results and tell me what you think.
I found discussions about shrine prostitution, self-mutilation, same-sex relations, men molesting children, and a large conflict over this one word's translation, as well as the translation of malakoi. Maybe you'll find something different?
No matter what the church preaches against, if anyone accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior and commits their life to him, then they will inherit God's kingdom. If one seeks salvation and a relationship with God, He will not turn them away, and neither should any church.
Everyone sins, and all sins are equal.
My position remains that I don't find a problem in raising a child up in the Lord. The problem comes in when people stick to following what their pastor and congregation say, instead of reading and listening to what God says. Also, people often want to take the wheel and do things their way, instead of putting matters in the hands of the Lord and allowing him to take care of their problems.
So why do you attend church Raven?
Well, I go for the music, food, and hot guys. Doesn't everyone else? Oh, and that Welches grape juice on the first Sunday of every month is absolutely deliciocious.
Okay seriously, I attend church to
a. worship God,
b. receive God's word,
c. understand the Bible better,
d. learn how to improve my relationship with God and other people,
e. learn to defend myself against nonbelievers,
f learn to behave and live Christian-like in an unbelieving and evil world,
g. fellowship with other Christians.
Those are some of the primary reasons.
Okay, I did not intend to downplay or undermine the purpose of church members in my previous post. I'm saying that many Christians will often take their dilemmas to other people, including their pastor and members of the congregation, before they take their problems to God. They will consider the opinions of others before they consult with God.
So your pastor is a conduit for something absolutely useless? If god is someone you can simply approach and ask for information and insight, yet you still go to receive the word of god from your pastor. Why in the world would you go to church, and waste hours that you could be going to god to get the information straight from the source?
I'm a history major, and if I had a time machine, and can tell you, I wouldn't be going to class to learn about something I could go back and experience. If I were learning about the civil war in class, I'd just go back to the 1860's, rather than going and sitting in class.
that means that the pastor must give you something that you cannot get yourself. Otherwise church is just a social event, and for that, I'm sure your church has pot lucks or something that you could attend that didn't involve that pesky pastor guy who always wants to talk his ass off.
So what do you get from the pastor that you can't just approach god and get yourself?
What the pastors at my church are giving me is interpretation of the Bible. These men interpret the stories, the lessons to draw from them, the commandments and laws, and so on.
God is giving me this understanding of the Bible through these men, just as he provides me with shelter via my parents or provides me with a college education via my professors. Of course, it is my job to do research outside of church, just as I do research outside of the classroom to verify and maybe get a closer look at what the teacher is saying.
Just as my professors have degrees and are certified in what they teach, so do the ministers at my church. They know more about the Bible than I do because they have studied it longer than I have and have been teaching it longer than I have. This does not mean that everything they say is good, true, and solid. It's God's word coming from Man's mouth. As humans, we like to sometimes edit out the parts we don't like or add on our personal opinion. Since people do that, it's up to us to figure out what's missing or what was changed and examine it.
So, you go to church to get a guy's opinion, but since that's flawed, you go home, and read it on your own, hoping to god (pun intended), that your abilities will somehow be more adept at bible reading than they were half an hour ago when you were in church, and thus you will gain some mystical insight into what the bible is telling you. Completely disregarding the fact that the same falibility which plagues the preacher, also afflicts you, even when your at home, and that newfound understanding you gain, is just you putting your own meaning on something, and not actually some inspiration. Basically, you put whatever meaning you want on the bible, and claim that its true.
Your twisting the bible to meet whatever criteria you need. You need comfort, you got it from the bible, you need solace, you got it, inspiration, ability, talent, understanding, compassion, cherity, healing, strength, restraint, anything, you got it from the bible, because you put it there. You know who else gets that kind of thing from the bible? People like Hitler and the leader of the jone's town movement, who fed their children poison, then half of them poisoned the other half, and then shot themselves. all of that was from the bible.
Your putting whatever meaning you want on the bbook Raven. That's not faith, its not religion, its not christianity, its you making up whatever you want in order to feel good. You put it in the guise of the christian faith so that you can feel more accepted and have something to fall back on, but that doesn't change the fact that your putting whatever meaning you feel the situation calls for onto what your reading.
the inner strength, comfort, solace or will power doesn't come from god, it comes from you, your just too blinded by years of christian dogma to admit that to yourself. That's the only way that you could take something that is supposedly so pure and perfect as god's word, and make it both poison innocent children, and make you feel better. You make it into whatever you want it to be, and that isn't faith, its weakness.
That's fine if you feel that way. I would expect nothing less than your response. You don't believe, so I expect you to ridicule and undermine my faith.
You turned your back to God, so in your world of science and tangibility, he is nonexistent.
I thank you for your criticism, thought-provoking questions and examples. They have caused me to do a closer examination of my Christian self and the Bible, and have strengthened my faith and brought me closer to God.
But how can you possibly have faith, when you don't even know what it is you have faith in?
Your still learning about it, obviously, because you go to church to learn. this means you don't know about it yet, so how can you have faith in something you admit you do not, cannot, and will not understand? If god's word through man's mouth is flawed, then your understanding will always be flawed, so you have faith in nothing. You believe what humans say, thus, not god. You cannot have faith in god if you do not know god. Since the only thing you will ever be able to have is the word of man, then you will never have faith in god.
Okay Cody. And I must not know how to write either, because I'm reading books and taking classes on writing.
Don't be silly. I have an ever-growing relationship with God. I pray to Him for understanding before I read the Bible. I go to church to improve and increase my knowledge. I know exactly who I have faith in and who I worship.
Of course, you will say I have faith in nothing because God does not exist in your opinion. You do not know God; you do not know who I have faith in; all you have is the word of man, and so your understanding will always be flawed. You speak to yourself and don't realize it.