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

Joey the lips

ColmDawson wrote: »

And what about the story of Santa Claus?

Are we discussing santa clause or religion....?

Is your issue being told what to believe or being told something you dont believe...

after all dont tell me you dont believe in santa clause....

axer

Joey the lips wrote: »

Thats aside the point... You tell a child the fire is hot but they only know when they get burnt... In otherwords either is indifferent... The child decided one day if what you said is right or wrong... They rearly these days follow the flock so to speak...

Thats massively different. Telling a child that they will get burnt is a fact not an opinion. They will know that they get burnt when they touch the fire because they have been told time and time again. They will know what it feels like when they get burnt the first time.

People still follow the flock to this day. Group Psychology proves this.

A "good" christian parent hammers into their child that there is a god just like fire is hot thus the child will think there is a god at an early age.

iUseVi

Joey the lips wrote: »

Are we discussing santa clause or religion....?

What's the difference?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning that children accept what they are told by their parents? Did you figure out for yourself that the road is dangerous and that you shouldn't drink drain cleaner?

I'm questioning the assumption that if people are taught about religion that they will automatically share the same view as their parents come adulthood.

Hence why I asked you why you weren't still Christian.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so if this is something a person should only tackle when a teenager or adult, what is the purpose of telling your kids about Christianity?

I never said should, just to note. It's when it generally happens for a lot of people.

Sharing about Christianity, is about empiricism I guess. One must have something to reason upon.

It's kind of like saying we shouldn't teach children about Irish history, so that they can reason it all for themselves when they are older. However, how can you seriously expect this unless there is nothing to reason upon.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the contradiction here. You are saying you are going to teach your kids Christianity and then let them make their own mind up. But if that is the case why not simply not teach them Christianity and let them make their own mind up with then get older?

It's not about "letting". People do this anyway, irrespective of whether or not they are in a house where militant atheism is encouraged, or in a house which takes a rather extreme approach to teaching about Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it does. Parents worry about their children not becoming the same religion as them because they associate so much of good with religious membership.

It's not because of association, it's due to actuality in many cases.

Wicknight wrote: »

By instilling in them very young the parents religion they greatly increase the odds that they will become the same religion as them.

By giving their children the right tools to reason upon with, and to make sense of a certain faith in time. That's radically different to unquestioning belief.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which of course contradicts the notion that they want them to discover it themselves when they get older, which to be honest I think is a hallow claim.

Well, I'm merely saying from my experience of it. That's the way it's happened. I've found it out for myself, in a far, far deeper way than I was ever taught in school.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are quite sure of this based on what exactly? That they are Christians and all Christians are good people/parents?

Call it anecdotal, but I don't believe that Christians are worse parents than atheists because they teach their children about God.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which should mean you shouldn't want to take advantage of innate biological forms of implanting knowledge in my head.

This is getting ridiculous now Wicknight. Teaching about Christianity, allows for people to think about it, and to reason about it. It's not "implanting" or setting a duplicate disk image on another drive in computery terms.

It's allowing people to see it as reasonable for themselves.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example I'm sure you would agree that it would be pointless to the goals of Christianity to teach me about God while I'm under the effects of a suggestion drug. I would end up accepting what you say without rationally accepting what you say.

I think it's pointless to tell anyone anything if they aren't willing to rationally think about what you are going to say.

Wicknight wrote: »

Same thing applies with children. Children accept what they are told by their parents without rationally determining what they are told.

This is nonsense again. Read what I said after the first quotation in this post.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is wrong to use that biological relationship to instill religious beliefs in your children if you believe that it is important that they do in fact figure it out for themselves.

It's no more wrong to teach about Christianity, than common ethical sense, language, history or anything else. It is up for people to decide if they want to continue in this understanding of faith, and if they don't that's their prerogative.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Surely you believe that anyone teaching their child that any religion but christianity is true (or that no religion is true) is the worst form of child abuse possible because they are drastically increasing the possibility that their child will go to hell.

No I don't actually. I think parents in most cases do what they think is best for their child. If they turn out to be wrong, I would not call them child abusers. If you guys are correct about the non-existance of God, it still does not make the Christian a child abuser. I find that such pejorative terms are just propagandist 'shocker' words, which is why in my post I said 'if you truly believe its child abuse'.

Why don't you look to legislate to stop this?

There's no need to. I don't see a child raised well, by loving parents, but also as an atheist, a big issue. We all grow up at some point. I would hope that all good parents will teach their children how to think, and to question etc. This does not equate to never instructing them though.

meditraitor

ColmDawson wrote: »

I've answered your question. No more food for you.

If your only form of answer is by implying I am a troll then your answer falls way too short and is indictative of a narrow mind.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

No I don't actually. I think parents in most cases do what they think is best for their child. If they turn out to be wrong, I would not call them child abusers. If you guys are correct about the non-existance of God, it still does not make the Christian a child abuser. I find that such pejorative terms are just propagandist 'shocker' words, which is why in my post I said 'if you truly believe its child abuse'.

Well yeah it is a shocker word. It's obviously not like physical or sexual abuse but parents are still teaching their child that something is true when they cannot possibly know that it is. It's not something I'd go marching in the streets over but I'd rather parents let their children make up their own minds

JimiTime wrote: »

There's no need to. I don't see a child raised well, by loving parents, but also as an atheist, a big issue. We all grow up at some point. I would hope that all good parents will teach their children how to think, and to question etc. This does not equate to never instructing them though.

You don't see any problem with someone dooming their child to eternal damnation through their own ignorance? Really?

magicbastarder

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's obviously not like physical or sexual abuse but parents are still teaching their child that something is true when they cannot possibly know that it is. It's not something I'd go marching in the streets over but I'd rather parents let their children make up their own minds

you mean in the sense of presenting the pros and cons of the major world religions to your five year old and asking them to make up their own mind?

i don't *know* that my values are right. i believe they are. i would happily teach them to my child. to suggest that a parent should not teach their children what they themselves believe is an argument i'm still trying to get my head around.

philologos

The point is Sam, if it were child abuse, you would be marching on the streets, or at least if you were led by conscience you would.

This is perhaps the reason why JimiTime and I, question whether or not you are being sincere when using the "child abuse" card, or are you just throwing it around gratuitously.

axer

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean in the sense of presenting the pros and cons of the major world religions to your five year old and asking them to make up their own mind?

i don't *know* that my values are right. i believe they are. i would happily teach them to my child. to suggest that a parent should not teach their children what they themselves believe is an argument i'm still trying to get my head around.

Values does not equal teaching that there is a god. Nobody *needs* to teach that there is a god since nobody knows.

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

This is perhaps the reason why JimiTime and I, question whether or not you are being sincere when using the "child abuse" card, or are you just throwing it around gratuitously.

I'm sure Sam Vimes will respond to that, but I might as well give my take on it.

I think the use of the term in this case refers to an abuse of the position of power an adult has over a child, i.e. the fact that a young child will generally believe what a parent tells them. I think the use of the term 'child abuse' is accurate in this sense, and is not equating religious upbringing with the beating or rape of children.

magicbastarder

axer wrote: »

Values does not equal teaching that there is a god. Nobody *needs* to teach that there is a god since nobody knows.

i thought that the criteria here were whether kids were taught things which are factual?

this debate is fatuous. there is merit in discussing the point of view regarding whether kids can meaningfully be described as religious, etc., but the debate about whether parents should be able to raise their kids as religious is a non-starter.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm questioning the assumption that if people are taught about religion that they will automatically share the same view as their parents come adulthood.

Why are you questioning that?

What makes religion as a topic immune to natural biology?

Jakkass wrote: »

Hence why I asked you why you weren't still Christian.

I wasn't raised a Christian.

I am though scared of standing in the middle of a road and have been since I was a little boy.

The vast vast vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents. I'm sure you can dig up examples where this isn't the case, but they are irrelevant to the point at hand, that being that children have a natural biological tendency to accept what they are told as children by their parents.

Does this work every single time for every single instance? No, like all biological systems it isn't exact. Does that mean it doesn't exist at all? Nope.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's kind of like saying we shouldn't teach children about Irish history, so that they can reason it all for themselves when they are older. However, how can you seriously expect this unless there is nothing to reason upon.

I would be as careful about teaching my children about Irish history as I would be about Christianity. I knew of a guy in secondary school who attacked a teacher over teaching of the Rising (he threw a folder at him after a rather heated debate). Unsurprising after that happened we found out his parents had strong Republican views, that had obviously been passed down to their children.

Now admittedly this is an extreme case, but it again highlights the nativity of the view that children will just figure it out for themselves as they get older what they were taught by their parents.

People should be very careful about teaching their children stuff that they then hope their children will figure out later. You can't ignore that they will be biased toward the position you present to them because you are their parents, or ignore than viewing information your parents give you as wrong can be a lot harder and more emotionally charged than with other things.

The phrase "Everything I was taught is a lie" is more often than not associated with learning what your parents taught you is wrong. People tend not to get as emotional about finding out something their 2nd year college professor taught them was wrong.

I've no problem teaching my children stuff I want them to consider unquestioningly. I want my child to unquestioningly think that playing out on the road with the trucks is a bad idea. I want my child to unquestioningly think that stealing his friends ice cream is bad.

If you want your child to accept Christianity unquestioningly that is fair enough, but don't pretend you don't and then go about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about "letting". People do this anyway, irrespective of whether or not they are in a house where militant atheism is encouraged, or in a house which takes a rather extreme approach to teaching about Christianity.

No, some people do. The vast majority seem not to.

The person changing religion from the religion of their religious parents is the exception rather than the rule. Most people with religious parents stay in the religion they were raised in.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not because of association, it's due to actuality in many cases.

Well that is an argument for whether the religion is true or not, which isn't really the point.

Even if you believe your religion is true you should recognize the limits of that opinion, particularly if you want your children to make up their own minds.

Jakkass wrote: »

By giving their children the right tools to reason upon with, and to make sense of a certain faith in time. That's radically different to unquestioning belief.

It is, but it is also radically different to what you are talking about.

Jakkass wrote: »

Call it anecdotal, but I don't believe that Christians are worse parents than atheists because they teach their children about God.

Great, but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you do Christians do this. You seem now to be saying Not any more than atheists, which wasn't the issue.

Forget about how good or bad atheist parents are. That isn't the issue here. Atheists parents can teach their children things in as bad a way (look at the guy who get physically violent because a history teacher was questioning what his parents had taught him about the Rising, nothing to do with religion)

Jakkass wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now Wicknight. Teaching about Christianity, allows for people to think about it, and to reason about it.

It does if you are teaching your 17 year old about it Jakkass. It doesn't if you are teaching your 5 year old about it.

There is a very good evolutionary reason why that is, it is too dangerous for children to "reason about" what they are told by their parents when they are young.

If your mother says don't go near the lions and you have a good think about that and decide ah I think she is mistaken, you get eaten.

The fallacy in your argument Jakkass is the assumption that children think about stuff in the same way adults do. They don't. This has nothing to do with religion, if you teach your 5 year old that black people are dirty they will think that until they are much older.

It is evolutionarily advantageous for children to listen and accept what they are told by their parents.

You seem to be simply ignoring this fact about children because it doesn't fit with what you want to do with your children.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's pointless to tell anyone anything if they aren't willing to rationally think about what you are going to say.

Great, we agree. Don't tell you children about Christianity, since they aren't willing/able (for very good evolutionary reasons) to rationally critique what you are telling them.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is nonsense again. Read what I said after the first quotation in this post.

It is not nonsense it is basic child psychology and it is very useful. It stops your children wandering out under a bus.

You are simply choosing to ignore this because you want to teach your children about Christianity. Which is fair enough, but then don't pretend that you are all interested in them rationally figuring it out for themselves since you clearly aren't

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Why are you questioning that?

What makes religion as a topic immune to natural biology?

Of course I'm questioning it, because it doesn't reflect the reality of how I and others have accepted Christianity.

It's nonsense to suggest that if you are taught about Christianity in the home you will automatically have the exact same conception about it.

Reality seems to suggest that people don't become exact duplicates of their parents. Especially if independent reading of the Bible occurs. That requires individual reasoning.

Wicknight wrote: »

I wasn't raised a Christian.

Apologies, I had thought from previous posts that you were.

Wicknight wrote: »

The vast vast vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents. I'm sure you can dig up examples where this isn't the case, but they are irrelevant to the point at hand, that being that children have a natural biological tendency to accept what they are told as children by their parents.

I again challenge this assumption, that we have exactly the same regard concerning religion as our parents.

I've already mentioned previous in this thread, that I differ with my parents, and other family members about how I regard Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Does this work every single time for every single instance? No, like all biological systems it isn't exact. Does that mean it doesn't exist at all? Nope.

Irrespective of biology, which I think you are only invoking to make the lame claim that "this is science", from what I have noted anecdotally, both in my own experience and in that of other Christians I'd disagree with you.

Wicknight wrote: »

Even if you believe your religion is true you should recognize the limits of that opinion, particularly if you want your children to make up their own minds.

What limits are these?

Wicknight wrote: »

Great, but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you do Christians do this. You seem now to be saying Not any more than atheists, which wasn't the issue.

It's something you've left unanswered. You've referred to teaching ones children about their faith as bad parenting, but you have failed to answer if atheists are better parents than Christians as a result of this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Forget about how good or bad atheist parents are. That isn't the issue here. Atheists parents can teach their children things in as bad a way (look at the guy who get physically violent because a history teacher was questioning what his parents had taught him about the Rising, nothing to do with religion)

It's pivotal to your argument and it needs clarifying.

Wicknight wrote: »

It does if you are teaching your 17 year old about it Jakkass. It doesn't if you are teaching your 5 year old about it.

This assumes that parents stop sharing their faith after their child hits the age of reason.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is evolutionarily advantageous for children to listen and accept what they are told by their parents.

You seem to be simply ignoring this fact about children because it doesn't fit with what you want to do with your children.

I'm disregarding (not ignoring) this because it doesn't seem to square with reality in a lot of cases, if not most that I have encountered. Most of my friends who were raised in Christian homes, now don't believe.

Wicknight wrote: »

Great, we agree. Don't tell you children about Christianity, since they aren't willing/able (for very good evolutionary reasons) to rationally critique what you are telling them.

Why wouldn't I if I regarded it the best thing I could possibly share with anyone? It's kind of like how I wouldn't ignore friends when they want to talk about Christianity with me.

Sam Vimes

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean in the sense of presenting the pros and cons of the major world religions to your five year old and asking them to make up their own mind?

i don't *know* that my values are right. i believe they are. i would happily teach them to my child. to suggest that a parent should not teach their children what they themselves believe is an argument i'm still trying to get my head around.

Religion is a personal choice, one that a five year old is not old enough to make. You'd never hear someone refer to a socialist child, a fascist child or a libertarian child but you hear people refer to catholic and protestant children as if they have any idea what a resurrection is. Teaching a child all of the options is fine, telling a child what you believe is fine but telling a child what they believe is not fine. Yes children do need instruction in things like "don't walk off cliffs" and basic ethical values but that does not extend to teaching them that the source of these values is an invisible being that watches them all the time and is going to punish them eternally for the crime of being born unless they believe a particular magic story.

That's one of the problems with specifically teaching christianity btw, that one of its core beliefs is that the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to believe it. If the parent is to honestly teach the child christian beliefs it can't simply be "this is what I believe, take it or leave it", it must be "this is what the person you trust most in the world believes and if you don't accept it you're gonna fry (or so I believe)"

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is Sam, if it were child abuse, you would be marching on the streets, or at least if you were led by conscience you would.

This is perhaps the reason why JimiTime and I, question whether or not you are being sincere when using the "child abuse" card, or are you just throwing it around gratuitously.

Child abuse is an emotive term meant to make a point. I consider smacking children and smoking around them to be child abuse too as in the parent is abusing the position of trust they have been placed in but if I see either happen I don't wrestle the child out of the parent's grip

Tim Robbins

Indoctrination is a completly ridiculous from a logical perspective. But then nearly every single aspect of Religion also is. At least there's consistency.

magicbastarder

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion is a personal choice, one that a five year old is not old enough to make. You'd never hear someone refer to a socialist child, a fascist child or a libertarian child but you hear people refer to catholic and protestant children as if they have any idea what a resurrection is. Teaching a child all of the options is fine, telling a child what you believe is fine but telling a child what they believe is not fine. Yes children do need instruction in things like "don't walk off cliffs" and basic ethical values but that does not extend to teaching them that the source of these values is an invisible being that watches them all the time and is going to punish them eternally for the crime of being born unless they believe a particular magic story.

That's one of the problems with specifically teaching christianity btw, that one of its core beliefs is that the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to believe it. If the parent is to honestly teach the child christian beliefs it can't simply be "this is what I believe, take it or leave it", it must be "this is what the person you trust most in the world believes and if you don't accept it you're gonna fry (or so I believe)"

i get it - you don't like that kids are raised as christian. neither do i, in the sense that i'd prefer they weren't taught something i don't believe in.

what gets my goat is the argument that parents shouldn't teach kids what they themselves believe in (i'll leave the obvious things such as racism to one side). that's the parents call, and that's how it should be.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course I'm questioning it, because it doesn't reflect the reality of how I and others have accepted Christianity.

What does that have to do with anything?

Are you saying that you did not accept what you are told by your parents as a child? Not specially about Christianity but about anything?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nonsense to suggest that if you are taught about Christianity in the home you will automatically have the exact same conception about it.

You keep dropping in "automatically" into that concept, which suggests to me some straw man slight of hand there Jakkass

Do you think it is nonsense to suggest that if you are taught about something, anything, by your parents at a young age you are more likely to accept it as true and less likely to rationally question it?

Forget Christianity for a minute. When was the last time you saw a 7 year old having a deep rational debate with their parents over the pros and cons of playing on the road?

Jakkass wrote: »

Reality seems to suggest that people don't become exact duplicates of their parents.

"Automatic", "exact duplicates" :rolleyes:

You always know you have won the argument when you guys start introduce straw men that are far easier to argue against.

Reality doesn't suggest you become exact duplicates of your parents but we both know that isn't what the argument is.

Reality does suggest that children of a young age are much more like to accept unquestioningly what they are told by their parents than if they were older or if they got the information from other sources.

Can I take it that your slight of hand to misrepresent that argument into something easier to argue against means you accept that initial premise.

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies, I had thought from previous posts that you were.

it is also not relevant to the actual point, only to your straw man point.

If I was saying that will certainly become an exact duplicate of your parents then it is easy to find examples where that is not the case, a person raised in an atheist family who finds Christianity, or a Christian who converts to Islam.

But we both know that isn't the actual argument (as much as you would like it to be).

The argument is that children are more likely to accept what they are told by their parents. Not that they certainly will. And this is reflected to a staggering degree by the amount of people who are in the same religion as their parents.

Jakkass wrote: »

I again challenge this assumption, that we have exactly the same regard concerning religion as our parents.

Straw man, see above.

Jakkass wrote: »

What limits are these?

Well for a start 2.2 billion people think you are wrong and you haven't figured out a way yet to demonstrate otherwise.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's something you've left unanswered. You've referred to teaching ones children about their faith as bad parenting, but you have failed to answer if atheists are better parents than Christians as a result of this.
It's pivotal to your argument and it needs clarifying.

It is not pivotal at all.

I have "failed" to answer that question because I have no idea what atheists teach their children.

An atheist teaching their children that Jews are trying to take over the world is not a better parent than a Christian teaching their children that Jesus loves them.

Atheism not a belief system. I can't infer what an atheist is teaching their children simply because they are atheist.

Jakkass wrote: »

This assumes that parents stop sharing their faith after their child hits the age of reason.

No it doesn't.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm disregarding (not ignoring) this because it doesn't seem to square with reality in a lot of cases, if not most that I have encountered. Most of my friends who were raised in Christian homes, now don't believe.

Your friends are exceptions to the wider statistics.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why wouldn't I if I regarded it the best thing I could possibly share with anyone?

Because you want them to realize this themselves, not accept it simply because you told them it. Or at least you claim you do.

If I'm under a suggestive drug and you tell me Christianity is great and I accept that because of the drug I'm not realizing that myself.

Likewise if you tell your children about how great Christianity is and they accept that because their parents told them this, not because they had a good old think themselves and came to the same conclusion as you, they are not realizing it themselves either.

Which, like I said, fair enough. But don't pretend you care about them coming to agreement with you through rational consideration.

Ghost Buster

kippy wrote: »

Seriously, you'd leave them at home?
Theres lots of "good" things to take from the church teachings as well.

And lets face it. Its the ideal time to introduce kids to religion. They will believe absolutely anything at a young age.

axer

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And lets face it. Its the ideal time to introduce kids to religion. They will believe absolutely anything at a young age.

Reminds me of a story my brother in law told me. His kids were at his fathers house for christmas and one of them at 10 still believed in santa. My brother in law's father said with surprise when he heard "Tommy still believes in santa at 10?" to which my brother in law quipped "sure you still believe in god and you are 60!".

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well yeah it is a shocker word. It's obviously not like physical or sexual abuse but parents are still teaching their child that something is true when they cannot possibly know that it is.

If a parent believes something to be true, then thats all it takes. If the parent also believes that teaching the child such things is for the childs benefit then thats it. An action of love by the parent, by teaching something they believe to be very impotant to their child whom they love.

I'd rather parents let their children make up their own minds

You are entitled to your gripe. Once you don't go looking for legislation, I don't mind the odd scoffer. There are many things I wish some parents did or didn't do too.

You don't see any problem with someone dooming their child to eternal damnation through their own ignorance? Really?

I don't see it as 'dooming their child to eternal damnation'. I would see it as a parent believing something, and feeling that they are doing whats best for their child. Christians tend to evangelise, and share the good news of Christ though. A true relationship with God is not coerced, so parents are free to choose to accept or reject the message themselves and in turn, those they are guardians of.

sublunar

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you want them to realize this themselves, not accept it simply because you told them it. Or at least you claim you do.

If I'm under a suggestive drug and you tell me Christianity is great and I accept that because of the drug I'm not realizing that myself.

Likewise if you tell your children about how great Christianity is and they accept that because their parents told them this, not because they had a good old think themselves and came to the same conclusion as you, they are not realizing it themselves either.

Which, like I said, fair enough. But don't pretend you care about them coming to agreement with you through rational consideration.

agreed. if religious folk truly wanted their offspring to find the "truth", as they see it, by themselves, they'd wait until they hit 18 to hand them a bible. but even religious people know, deep down, that if children weren't indoctrinated, religion would die out.

it's no coincidence that the uptake, as adults, of religious belief by people who were raised with no religion is less than 0.5%. almost no one who is introduced to religion for the first time as an adult actually believes in it.

as to whether it's child abuse, it depends how far the indoctrination goes. á la carte catholicism, which is becoming the norm in ireland, seems to be harmless for the large part.

but strict catholicism, by-the-book, is pretty harmful. i know i'll be contested here, but speaking from the standard catholic bible alone, the parts that are explicitly written (though let's just wait for the "interpretation!!!" argument), a catholic child is presented with a world where they have to stone their brother to death if he goes through a buddhist phase, gay people are "morally evil" (that's at least 10% of the population right there, by conservative estimates), women are subordinate and it's ok to rape them (they must also be avoided completely for about five days a month), and you go to hell if you forget yourself and do homework on a sunday. that's only a small sample. but the overarching message is not to question it. all the answers are there, and god will smite you if you try and do some investigating for yourself. child abuse? i think so.

JimiTime

sublunar wrote: »

agreed. if religious folk truly wanted their offspring to find the "truth", as they see it, by themselves, they'd wait until they hit 18 to hand them a bible. but even religious people know, deep down, that if children weren't indoctrinated, religion would die out. .

TBH, its this ignorance of a believers motives that tend to lead to the whole 'child abuse', 'why don't you just keep your religious views to yourself' type positions. Maybe all these arguements are simply treating symptoms and not the root. I.E. You have no idea what having a relationship with God is.

philologos

Even the word "indoctrination" is mere sensationalism.

It's evident that nobody actually believes it is child abuse, because if they did, they would deem it worthy of reporting to higher authorities.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Even the word "indoctrination" is mere sensationalism.

Could you clarify that please?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

If a parent believes something to be true, then thats all it takes. If the parent also believes that teaching the child such things is for the childs benefit then thats it. An action of love by the parent, by teaching something they believe to be very impotant to their child whom they love.

In most cases those who indoctrinate people into cults truly believe what they're saying. Do you think this is acceptable?

JimiTime wrote: »

You are entitled to your gripe. Once you don't go looking for legislation, I don't mind the odd scoffer. There are many things I wish some parents did or didn't do too.

well of course we're not going to go looking for legislation. We all disagree with things that we don't lobby to have banned. In fact people who try to get things banned because they personally don't like them bug the crap out of me.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't see it as 'dooming their child to eternal damnation'. I would see it as a parent believing something, and feeling that they are doing whats best for their child. Christians tend to evangelise, and share the good news of Christ though. A true relationship with God is not coerced, so parents are free to choose to accept or reject the message themselves and in turn, those they are guardians of.

But someone who is raised from birth to believe in a different religion just as strongly as you do in christianity is not in a position to have a truly free choice. To most of them converting to christianity would be as unthinkable as you converting to Islam because they were taught that their particular religion is true before when their brains were still malleable and accepting of whatever their parents told them. You don't feel any compulsion to help these children before the wrong religion and therefore eternal damnation is hard wired into their brain?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In most cases those who indoctrinate people into cults truly believe what they're saying. Do you think this is acceptable?

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'.

well of course we're not going to go looking for legislation. We all disagree with things that we don't lobby to have banned.

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

But someone who is raised from birth to believe in a different religion just as strongly as you do in christianity is not in a position to have a truly free choice.

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

To most of them converting to christianity would be as unthinkable as you converting to Islam because they were taught that their particular religion is true before when their brains were still malleable and accepting of whatever their parents told them. You don't feel any compulsion to help these children before the wrong religion and therefore eternal damnation is hard wired into their brain?

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.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Could you clarify that please?

It's excessive, and it actually doesn't describe the reality of how people generally share their faith with their children.

Indoctrination would seem to me to be drilling something into someones head repeatedly for several hours a day by memorisation without question. I'm sure sometimes it can get into that kind of territory, but the term is inaccurate when describing the average education that people get about Christianity.

A few definitions:
"teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically "
"Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

Indoctrination would seem to me to be drilling something into someones head repeatedly for several hours a day by memorisation without question. I'm sure sometimes it can get into that kind of territory, but the term is inaccurate when describing the average education that people get about Christianity."

I don't know about your denomination, but the average Catholic upbringing probably consists of going to mass and chanting with a crowd of people the words "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth..." and so on, amongst many other such passages. My mother's parents made the family say the rosary ever day. There seems to be enough of that kind of thing (even once a week or once each day) to justify use of the word 'indoctrination'.

iUseVi

ColmDawson wrote: »

I don't know about your denomination, but the average Catholic upbringing probably consists of going to mass and chanting with a crowd of people the words "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth..." and so on, amongst many other such passages. My mother's parents made the family say the rosary ever day. There seems to be enough of that kind of thing (even once a week or once each day) to justify use of the word 'indoctrination'.

Indeed, even if its only done once a week, that kind of constant repetition is enough to influence alright.

Nick_oliveri

ColmDawson wrote: »

I don't know about your denomination, but the average Catholic upbringing probably consists of going to mass and chanting with a crowd of people the words "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth..." and so on, amongst many other such passages. My mother's parents made the family say the rosary ever day. There seems to be enough of that kind of thing (even once a week or once each day) to justify use of the word 'indoctrination'.

Should also mention christening and confirmations....

philologos

For several hours repeatedly? Drilling it into the skull?

If you're calling saying the Apostles Creed (N.B You don't have to either), indoctrination, you really need to see what indoctrination really is, looking to totalitarian regimes for example.

As for my denomination, I would usually just refer to myself as a Christian, but I'm currently a member of the Anglican Communion (CofI). I do from time to time go to churches of differing denomination.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

For several hours repeatedly? Drilling it into the skull?

I do believe that was your interpretation of the word and not the definition you posted.

Jakkass wrote: »

A few definitions:
"teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically "

And I think we have pretty much covered that.

philologos

I don't think anyone has dealt with the "uncritical" part at all in the thread. Encouraging thoughtful faith is a rather different thing to encouraging unquestioning and uncritical faith.

As I said before, I'm glad to see this form of faith being promoted more in Christianity, to genuinely engage with peoples minds instead of giving them simple and unsatisfying answers.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think anyone has dealt with the "uncritical" part at all in the thread. Encouraging thoughtful faith is a rather different thing to encouraging unquestioning and uncritical faith.

Yes and I'm sure that children who are critical about religious doctrines they were forced into get all the time in the world to air their grievances and questions. Specifically the rites of passage, where one is "admitted to membership of the Church" through baptism. Not indoctrination at all, sure if the child is not old enough to speak, never mind criticise, its all fun and games.

Rites of passage are "thoughtful faith" now?

Edit, do you see where baptism skips the whole uncritical thing? I do..

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Edit, do you see where baptism skips the whole uncritical thing? I do..

Cutting to the core. Yes, I agree with you here. I'm personally skeptical of infant baptism, so I'm willing to give you the ground here*. It's puzzled me as to how one can genuinely commit themselves to Christianity without knowledge of doing so.

However, this isn't the main point is it? - For example, if one was teaching their child about Christianity, and went to one of the churches which don't practice infant baptism, would you consider it acceptable? I'm still willing to bargain no.

* Note, this doesn't represent a mainstream Anglican viewpoint.

Nick_oliveri

The principles are the same for nearly every religion. You don't tend to question it at that age. What age? Your whole childhood! Going to mass with the ma and da, repeating those mantras. If you are a religious parent then you see it as your duty to refer to (mostly) every aspect of your practised doctrines as factual and necessary. Referring to god as factual. "Well if daddy says God is real then he must be".

It may be with love or a sense of "protection" and urgency for the parent, but it is still a form of indoctrination, except its done from birth and unnecessary to drill into anyone's head because its ALWAYS been there.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, its this ignorance of a believers motives that tend to lead to the whole 'child abuse', 'why don't you just keep your religious views to yourself' type positions. Maybe all these arguements are simply treating symptoms and not the root. I.E. You have no idea what having a relationship with God is.

The problem with that logic though Jimi is the 4.4 billion other people who don't have a relationship with God and still act the exact same way.

Not all religions are true (or even can be true) but the vast majority of religions put emphasis on teaching children.

While you may believe that Christians specifically do it out of a desire to share the wonderful feeling of having a relationship with God with their children the reality suggests something quite different.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

The principles are the same for nearly every religion. You don't tend to question it at that age. What age? Your whole childhood! Going to mass with the ma and da, repeating those mantras. If you are a religious parent then you see it as your duty to refer to (mostly) every aspect of your practised doctrines as factual and necessary.

Leaving aside that you are only focusing on one very limited type of Christian practice.

I don't know a single person who has been convinced into believing by merely saying the responses to the prayers at church. Accepting Christianity is something much more complex than this, and certainly it was much more complex than this for me, and you'll find if you chat to many it was more complex for them.

You have nothing to fear by a child going to church and hearing the responses

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Referring to god as factual. "Well if daddy says God is real then he must be".

I know no Christian adult that has been convinced by merely the beliefs of their parents. It's presenting a fallacious version of the reality.

By the by, what do you suggest for the parents to do if they are going to church on Sunday morning? Get a babysitter, or bring them with them? I certainly wouldn't think many consider the former.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

It may be with love or a sense of "protection" and urgency for the parent, but it is still a form of indoctrination, except its done from birth and unnecessary to drill into anyone's head because its ALWAYS been there.

I disagree with the term indoctrination, especially since in the vast majority of situations I've seen, most parents are open to questions from their children.

In fact, most Christians are open to question, from anyone, including friends, and family members, no matter what age. For me, you seem to be promoting an idea that Christians don't allow for question when sharing their faith with others, which in my experience is totally false, in turn rendering the definition of indoctrination inapplicable in these circumstances.

sublunar

personally i'm extremely grateful that i wasn't indoctrinated in that way, considering that it's still so common in ireland. i have many friends who were brought up without religion, and having seen the trouble it causes other people, they're pretty thankful as well.

on the other hand, i've seen friends who've grown out of religious belief, having been brought up in religious homes, who have real trouble forgetting about all the scare stories and judgements they were brought up to believe. one girl i know ended a relationship with a guy she really loved because he had different religious beliefs; she's since realised she is an atheist and really regrets it. it's incredibly sad.

i'd like to see religious indoctrination acknowledged as the psychological and emotional abuse that it is, but i know it never will be as how could it ever be enforced? too orwellian to imagine...

although, they could address the actual rituals, like making official membership of a religion similar to membership of organisations, which would require a minimum age of 18. this would prevent people bringing kids to mass and all the rest of it, which would be a start. along with getting religion removed from schools, it would be real progress.

philologos

Secularism becomes state atheism quite quickly? - If you want Church - State separation, why do you want the State meddling in church affairs to promote an atheist agenda?

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Leaving aside that you are only focusing on one very limited type of Christian practice.

I don't know a single person who has been convinced into believing by merely saying the responses to the prayers at church. Accepting Christianity is something much more complex than this, and certainly it was much more complex than this for me, and you'll find if you chat to many it was more complex for them.

I know no Christian adult that has been convinced by merely the beliefs of their parents. It's presenting a fallacious version of the reality.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my position. By referring to your deity as factual to the child and tugging them along to mass you are practising a form of early religious indoctrination. I am not specifying whether it succeeded or not, that's not the point. The end result of such practises is not about whether the person was indoctrinated or not.

By the by, what do you suggest for the parents to do if they are going to church on Sunday morning? Get a babysitter, or bring them with them? I certainly wouldn't think many consider the former.

Of course parents are going to bring their kids to church, its what they want for their children. Its what they want them to follow.

I disagree with the term indoctrination, especially since in the vast majority of situations I've seen, most parents are open to questions from their children.

Questions after what? "Daddy, why did *** call me an Anglican?" How many people have you met who converted from their original forced relgion into another?

In fact, most Christians are open to question, from anyone, including friends, and family members, no matter what age. For me, you seem to be promoting an idea that Christians don't allow for question when sharing their faith with others, which in my experience is totally false, in turn rendering the definition of indoctrination inapplicable in these circumstances.

What? How are you avoiding the non critical (your definition critical!) aspect of being carted to church, saying prayers, lighting candles etc?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I know no Christian adult that has been convinced by merely the beliefs of their parents.

Is that supposed to be significant?

How many Christian adults do you know well enough that they would actual share this information with you if they had? 5? 10? Out of 2.2 billion?

If I said that every Christian I know has been convinced simply by their parents beliefs. Would you consider that in any way relevant?

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my position. By referring to your deity as factual to the child and tugging them along to mass you are practising a form of early religious indoctrination. I am not specifying whether it succeeded or not, that's not the point. The end result of such practises is not about whether the person was indoctrinated or not.

I think you are regarding a very different form of "indoctrination" from what the definition seems to be saying. Focusing on the unquestioning, uncritical aspect. Most churches I've been to have embraced questions, and I think there is a changing trend in Christian literature to emphasise that all reasonable people have questions about faith, and we need to think and reason about the possibilities.

Unfortunately, not all Christians fit the categorical box you want them to be in. I will concede to you that some are, but most aren't.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Of course parents are going to bring their kids to church, its what they want for their children. Its what they want them to follow.

I'm yet to see what is wrong with this. Apparently, this is the pinnacle of immorality to you guys.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Questions after what? "Daddy, why did *** call me an Anglican?" How many people have you met who converted from their original forced relgion into another?

Questions about what they have been told, about Jesus, the Bible and other things. Christians are very open to allowing their children the freedom to ask these questions. I have yet to see the unquestioning, uncritical side in this.

I've met quite a few who have moved from Catholicism into Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Pentecostalism and other denominations. I've also met people who have moved between Anglicanism and Pentecostalism.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

What? How are you avoiding the non critical (your definition critical!) aspect of being carted to church, saying prayers, lighting candles etc?

I'm not avoiding anything. If anything you are putting forward 1 single idea of what church is actually like.

I'm basing my viewpoint particularly on the over three years since I consciously decided that Christianity was reasonable, and that I wanted to follow Jesus. From the people I've seen, and met, questions have always been tolerated and welcomed. I will concede, that my experience has been more with Reformed churches rather than Catholic ones, but I have met a good few Catholics who are willing to engage in the hard questions too.

sublunar

"state atheism" is a myth often cited by the religious to try and paint the control of cult-like religious practices as a bad thing. if you mean communist or fascist regimes, they aren't state atheism - they're the replacement of religions by the alternative religion of an extreme political viewpoint. essentially, banning every religion that doesn't match the religion of the state - very similar to fundamentalist religious states.

preventing religions from indoctrinating children isn't "meddling in church affairs", merely subjecting religious organisations to the same laws that other organisations are subject to. in a secular state, adults are free to believe whatever they want to. the same can't be said for children who've been force-fed religious doctrine from the get-go - they'll never be truly free to decide for themselves.

the "atheist agenda" isn't an agenda. a secular state ultimately means that everyone is free to believe what they want, that religious groups are answerable to the law, and that church and state are separate. if child protection laws were followed to their logical conclusion, they would extend to protecting children from religious indoctrination.

philologos

What you are talking about isn't "secularism". It's about putting your atheism into politics, by seeking to deny the rights of believers to bring their children up according to their values.

It is meddling in church affairs to dictate how the church should deal with membership, or who they should, or should not allow into their churches.

This isn't secularism, as the way that secularism has worked in most Western countries is to celebrate freedom of religion, but as something distinct from the State. You want the State interfering in church practice, and restricting membership to churches.

IMO, I'm fairly sure people would still teach their children about Christianity even if it were illegal.

sublunar

yes, i want religions to be regulated in that children's involvement should be controlled. just like every other organisation. i don't think i need to point out the problems that arise when religions have free reign over children's education.

getting back to the original question - i think that religious belief is inherently quite selfish - believing that there is a deity listening to you and looking after you; that there is an afterlife waiting for; that humans are more important than other animals; that the world was created especially for us, and so on (speaking broadly about the major religions). but generally, religious people don't see their beliefs as selfish - you have to be non-religious to see it in that way.

in the same way, while atheists see child-indoctrination as selfish, the irony is that religious people themselves are never going to realise this, as they are invariably absolutely convinced that they're right.

philologos

Of course atheists see it as selfish, as it suits their agenda to stop Christians expressing their beliefs publically, and in the family.

Let's go through your list of reasons why we're selfish for believing in God:

believing that there is a deity listening to you and looking after you;

I don't see how this is selfish. In the Christian interpretation God cares for all creation, not just for us.

that there is an afterlife waiting for;

How is that selfish?

that humans are more important than other animals;

Humans have superior faculties of cognition to other animals. Nowhere does it say that God doesn't care about the rest of His creation.

that the world was created especially for us

Do I believe this? - I personally believe the universe is a reflection of God's glory. It isn't for us, and it isn't ours. It's God's, and we have a responsibility towards it.

magicbastarder

sublunar wrote: »

if child protection laws were followed to their logical conclusion, they would extend to protecting children from religious indoctrination.

this gave me a chuckle. keep it up.

mehfesto

The ideals of religion are too complex for children. And yet they get branded as catholic, Muslim... Etc etc

it's like dawkins said: you would say "look at that Marxist child, beside the tory kid, just past the communist Little one". Attaching religion to a child is like attaching a football team to a goldfish. You can do it I you want, but it achieves nothing more than satisfying yourself.