Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child

Nevore wrote: »

I think that it's generally wrong and misguided but that doesn't mean that the state should have a role in family life by somehow monitoring what parents are telling their kids.
We're at the start of a lot of ethical slippery slopes here in Ireland and in the broader world and this is one area that I concerned for. The state should not have so pervasive a role in family life.

I don't think the state has any role in telling parents what they are or are not allowed to tell their children with regards religion but at the same time the state should not be supporting religion either e.g. by funding religious schools with my tax money.

JimiTime wrote: »

Too many variables tbh. Simply because its a cult does not make it unacceptable that a child is raised by its parents in it. It really depends what the cult entails. Again though, if you are not looking to do anything about it, then terms like 'acceptable' are pretty meaningless are they not? Its simply going, 'tut, tut, that is unacceptable, pass me ciggies'.

But why, if you view it as abuse of a child?

I agree that they are not getting the best start. Their journey to Christ may be a much harder one.

If we take your above assumptions etc, what do you suggest I do? Use Coercion? Try get a legislation whereby its considered abusive and lock up the parents? remove the child?

From where I'm standing, Christians must be beacons of Christs light and transmit the good news in voice and in action. That to me is the only way.

You ask what I suggest you do about all of these children that are being raised in a manner that makes eternal damnation a near certainty and give two ridiculous examples that you would of course never do: use coercion and try to get legislation passed and lock up the parents. But that's exactly what you're suggesting I do and you say that if I don't do that then pointing out that I don't like it is meaningless and I might as well say "That's unacceptable, pass me ciggies". My version of being "a beacon of christ's light and transmitting the good news" is talking about the problem in the hopes that christian parents will realise they should allow their children to make up their own minds about their religion. I don't want to force anyone to do anything any more than you do, I want people to realise that what they're doing is wrong and stop doing it.

Dades wrote: »

Don't bring up schools - different question altogether!

We're talking about parents teaching their beliefs to (or forcing on) their kids here.

My point is that the government should deal with religion with things that they are involved with e.g. schools but don't have any business going into families and telling parents what they can or cannot say.

Dades wrote: »

Question to all: does anyone here actually advocate state intervention in matters of faith between parent and child? Or are responses here just a "strong wish" that parents would not 'indoctrinate' their kids?

I don't think the thread was really about state intervention - I don't know how that creeped in. It is about whether it is selfish for a parent to force their religion on their children by the act of telling them it is truth and fact at a young age.

I think it is selfish and takes advantage of children by making them believe the unbelievable while their brains are still developing and learning thus they are more inclined to believe it when they are older because it feels right rather than because it sounds right. That is the way the brain works and that is why similiarly those that are abused as children are more likely to abuse as adults.

Jakkass wrote: »

A bit difficult for people who believe that God is the determinant of what is right from what is wrong.

Even if god is the determinant of what is right or wrong you don't have to tell the child that. "Stealing is wrong because I say so" makes just as much sense and is just as binding to a 5 year old as "stealing is wrong because god says so". When your entire view of morality is based on an argument from authority and not determining yourself whether something is right or wrong based on whether or not it does harm to others it doesn't really matter who the unquestionable authority figure is. You don't have to explain why something is wrong, it's just wrong because an authority figure has declared it to be so.

Jakkass wrote: »

When have I argued that God derived morality external to Himself? Rather He is the author of what is good from what is evil. Christians believe He gave us a conscience so as to better ascertain His will, which is ultimately the best way we can live in His creation.

Why can't we? Since when is discussing about God and why He would deem certain things good from other things evil, devoid of reason?

I think you are taking liberties with the term reason itself.

If god is the author of what is good then good and bad could be absolutely anything he wanted it to be. He no more had to decide that murder is bad than that bees would be black and yellow or that we'd have wisdom teeth. If god is the author of right and wrong then right and wrong is completely arbitrary.

If god had a reason for deciding that murder is wrong then it's not wrong because he decided it would be, he determined that it was wrong based on external criteria. It wouldn't be a case of "it's wrong because god says so", it would be "god says it's wrong because it is, independently of him"