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

PeterIanStaker

I'd argue a lot of Irish people get their children baptised/confirmed/communion etc so as to please the grandparents. Understandable but uneccessary.

sublunar

this is definitely true, of most of my friends in fact. it's heartening in a way, as it means that the practice will die out sooner than you might think. a friend of mine and i were recently discussing the likelihood of religion fading away in ireland in the next decade or two, and she was emphatic that the most effective way of helping this process along is not to try and control it too much, because religion thrives under "persecution." as soon as the church can claim that its people are being oppressed, the numbers start to grow. if you let it keep ****ing up by itself while becoming less and less relevant to our lives, people abandon it simply because they don't need it any more - pretty much what's already happening. i think she's right.

Coriolanus

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.

axer

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.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course atheists see it as selfish, as it suits their agenda to stop Christians expressing their beliefs publically

Er plenty of religious people think teaching their children about their religion at a young age is a bad idea as well Jakkass.

Despite your best efforts to turn the debate that way this really has nothing to do with atheism vs theism, and everything to do with good vs bad parenting.

Sam Vimes

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.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course atheists see it as selfish, as it suits their agenda to stop Christians expressing their beliefs publically

On the contrary, in recent days every time a figure from the catholic church opens their mouth they put another nail in the coffin of their own organisation.

Dades

axer wrote: »

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.

Don't bring up schools - different question altogether!

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

----

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?

ColmDawson

Strong wish.

axer

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.

iUseVi

Strong wish. Think its really not cool, but I'm not going to be bashing any doors down.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Er plenty of religious people think teaching their children about their religion at a young age is a bad idea as well Jakkass.

Despite your best efforts to turn the debate that way this really has nothing to do with atheism vs theism, and everything to do with good vs bad parenting.

Of course it does.

Invoking good or bad parenting again. There is nothing to suggest that parents who teach their children about Christianity are worse parents than those who don't.

The ultimate reality of what your suggestions would bring about would be a society which doesn't reflect Christianity in its public life. That for me would be a bad thing.

rovert

You teach children right from wrong without resorting to confusing mumbo jumbo

rovert

You can teach children right from wrong without resorting to confusing mumbo jumbo

meditraitor

rovert wrote: »

You can teach children right from wrong without resorting to confusing mumbo jumbo

Try to ban santa clause and see how far that gets you!

Ickle Magoo

Yes, I think it is selfish to foist something as deeply personal as religion onto a child, rather than give them the options and allow them to come to their own conclusions but in saying that, I don't think it's done selfishly. I think theists believe indoctrinating their children is in the child's best interests - to the extent that they don't even see it as indoctrination. Scary.

Dades

axer wrote: »

I don't think the thread was really about state intervention - I don't know how that creeped in.

It was brought up - probably best summed up here:

JimiTime wrote: »

Both myself and Jackass have asked the following question, but it is mixed up in other posts we wrote. I think its a very good question for those who think a parent teaching a child a particular religion is wrong. here it goes:

Those who think teaching their children with relation to their religion is wrong, what do you propose be done? is it a case that you just want to talk about it, or are you looking to legislate or do something against it?
If so, what do you propose be done?

philologos

rovert wrote: »

You teach children right from wrong without resorting to confusing mumbo jumbo

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

Ickle Magoo: The reasoning for using the word "indoctrination" is itself sparse.

Fighting Irish

Yes

Sam Vimes

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.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: The reasoning for using the word "indoctrination" is itself sparse.

Sparse?! Hardly. Indoctrination is something that people neck deep in personal conviction can't see - it's completely apt.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Telling the truth is always better than telling a lie

By the by, it isn't "just because God says so". It is also possible to explain why God said so, and why He commands in the first place. I.E for our welfare, so that we might more fully enjoy and understand His creation as He intended.

This is the typical, just because you believe in God you can't think for yourself argument, which is just plain bogus.

Ickle Magoo: Of course its sparse. It's hyperbole in fact. None of the examples that people have given on this thread, actually match the definition of indoctrination. The disagreement lies in teaching ones child, something that atheists don't agree with. That's basically it, there's no real need to dress it up as anything else.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Telling the truth is always better than telling a lie

By the by, it isn't "just because God says so". It is also possible to explain why God said so, and why He commands in the first place. I.E for our welfare, so that we might more fully enjoy and understand His creation as He intended.

This is the typical, just because you believe in God you can't think for yourself argument, which is just plain bogus.

If god had any criteria whatsoever that he used to determine whether something is good or not then morality is independent of god and we can conclude ourselves what is good without any reference to him. Either god decided what is good, which means he could have decided that rape and murder are moral actions, or rape and murder are wrong independently of god because of the harm they do and he's just passing this knowledge on to us.

If god is the source of morality then we cannot think for ourselves because there is no reason behind it, it's revealed truth. But if there is a reason why murder and rape are bad then god is just a messenger of morality and we can figure it out for ourselves. It's the good old Euthyphro dilemma

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If god had any criteria whatsoever that he used to determine whether something is good or not then morality is independent of god and we can conclude ourselves what is good without any reference to him. Either god decided what is good, which means he could have decided that rape and murder are moral actions, or rape and murder are wrong independently of god because of the harm they do and he's just passing this knowledge on to us.

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If god is the source of morality then we cannot reason it out for ourselves because there is no reason behind but if there is a reason why murder and rape are bad then god is just the messenger of morality and we can figure it out for ourselves.

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.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Ickle Magoo: Of course its sparse. It's hyperbole in fact. None of the examples that people have given on this thread, actually match the definition of indoctrination. The disagreement lies in teaching ones child, something that atheists don't agree with. That's basically it, there's no real need to dress it up as anything else.

I have looked up several definition of indoctrination and they all give religion more than a passing mention so to try to infer they are in no way related and the term is not relevant to religion is less than honest. I don't know many (any?) theists than raise children to be critical of their beliefs and that is the difference between education and indoctrination.

I don't think I'm the one attempting to dress up anything - I'm all for calling a spade a spade.

Sam Vimes

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"

token56

Jakkass wrote: »

Telling the truth is always better than telling a lie

Telling a child that you are saying something is morally wrong rather than God says its morally wrong is not lying. You do believe its morally wrong, so saying just that is not lying. You are just not telling them what your personal reasons are for why this is. Again this is not lying its just not telling them what I would think is unnecessary information, until they are old enough to understand what you personally believe and then let them decide for themselves. Why is it unnecessary, well God is not needed to explain to a child why something is morally right or wrong, indeed common sense is normally enough to explain these things.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote:

Even if god is the determinant of what is right or wrong you don't have to tell the child that.

Nobody should have to hide the view that God is the determinant of morality. People should be honest about what they regard as truth. It would be effectively dishonest for me to regard it otherwise.

The idea that Christian parents should secularise themselves around their children is just ridiculous. Christianity is a part of who they are, and I don't see why they should have to deny it at home of all places.

pinksoir

"Nobody should have to hide the view that black people are inferior. People should be honest about what they regard as truth. It would be effectively dishonest for me to regard it otherwise.

The idea that white supremacist parents should secularise themselves around their children is just ridiculous. Racism is a part of who they are, and I don't see why they should have to deny it at home of all places."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOYOGc-zUE

Of course it's the right of the parent to indoctrinate their child if they so wish. It doesn't make it any less depressing though. And it certainly isn't good parenting.

philologos

You're actually comparing belief in God to racism? Seriously?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You're actually comparing belief in God to racism? Seriously?

It is nothing to do with what you are teaching them.

They will believe it unquestioningly. As I already asked you why do you think Christianity would be any different.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity is a part of who they are, and I don't see why they should have to deny it at home of all places.

Well because you claim (and this is getting more and more like a hollow claim) to care that your children accept Christianity based on their own rational decision to.

It is interesting thought that you keep coming back to what you want, not what your children want.

Only a few pages ago you were asking what is selfish about all this.

philologos

I think there was more to the comparison than just this Wicknight. Do you really think it is appropriate or accurate to compare a belief in God to racism?

As for your last post, the point remains, why should the Christian have to secularise their life in the home, or have to less genuinely express their faith? People are influenced by their parents and how they act and live the whole time even in matters other than religion.

Nevyn

I think that it's a set of beliefs which can be corrupted to set people apart and to look down on those who are not the same. People do indoctrinate their kids to treat people differently due to race and creed ect.
The idea that their morals are the right ones or better then that of others is always a problem.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I think there was more to the comparison than just this Wicknight. Do you really think it is appropriate or accurate to compare a belief in God to racism?

I think it is unnecessary, or should be, to pick such an extreme example of how children accept the doctrine of their parents without any rational determination on their own.

But given that you have simply chosen to ignore less extreme examples, perhaps an extreme example is what you need to fact the reality of the situation here.

Unless you want to explain how this isn't an example of children accepting what they are told by their parents unquestioningly?

When you say "compare a belief in God to racism" you seem to be admitting that Christians do do this with their children, but it is ok because Christianity is not as bad a racism?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is unnecessary, or should be, to pick such an extreme example of how children accept the doctrine of their parents without any rational determination on their own.

But given that you have simply chosen to ignore less extreme examples, perhaps an extreme example is what you need to fact the reality of the situation here.

Unless you want to explain how this isn't an example of children accepting what they are told by their parents unquestioningly?

I'm amazed, slightly amused to a certain extent, that someone has compared average Christian conviction to racism on this forum. That's something that is worthy of being addressed. It merely shows, how many people on this forum are unwilling to look into the human side of Christian faith and conviction.

I haven't "ignored" anything Wicknight. I've merely disagreed with your view as it isn't anywhere close to what I've seen in reality.

The extreme example, isn't an example at all. It's just something that shows that the poster has underlying issues in how they regard Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

When you say "compare a belief in God to racism" you seem to be admitting that Christians do do this with their children, but it is ok because Christianity is not as bad a racism?

I'm not "admitting" anything. I believe what you are doing is plucking at straws.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have looked up several definition of indoctrination and they all give religion more than a passing mention so to try to infer they are in no way related and the term is not relevant to religion is less than honest. I don't know many (any?) theists than raise children to be critical of their beliefs and that is the difference between education and indoctrination.

I know no situation where parents don't encourage questioning of their children in relation to their faith. It seems we have two parallel realities going on here, or just radically different experiences of how Christians live.

I think it's perfectly honest, to say that "indoctrination" wouldn't be applicable in any of these cases.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't think I'm the one attempting to dress up anything - I'm all for calling a spade a spade.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this as we usually do.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

As for your last post, the point remains, why should the Christian have to secularise their life in the home, or have to less genuinely express their faith? People are influenced by their parents and how they act and live the whole time even in matters other than religion.

I think the example above and Wicknight's post sums up the problem as such and why indoctrinating children is a selfish act.

Are the racist parents above being selfish by teaching their children to be racist? or are they doing it for the children's "good"? Surely the parents believe that racism is right.

Racism and Christianity are not being compared here. It is indoctrinate no matter what the belief is is what is being argued i.e. that you can teach any sort of belief to a child and they will go with it as if it is the way to be. Indoctrinating is never for the children's benefit since if what is being thought is true then the child will be able to come to that conclusion as an adult anyway but at least they will be unbiased in their learning.

philologos

axer wrote: »

I think the example above and Wicknight's post sums up the problem as such and why indoctrinating children is a selfish act.

Are the racist parents above being selfish by teaching their children to be racist? or are they doing it for the children's good?

Christianity and racism aren't comparable in any way.

I think it's absurd to expect that Christians would throw their faith out at home, and that this is the "best option" for the child, to have their parents deny who they are? It's particularly absurd considering that these people believe that faith is true hope, the source of true living, and an enormous benefit to any human being. It is the best thing one can possibly share to people like us.

magicbastarder

Wicknight wrote: »

It is interesting thought that you keep coming back to what you want, not what your children want.

hang on - are we talking about children or adults here? children generally do not want to have to wash themselves, etc.; basing an argument on what children want is not a basis on which to make a point, because children need guidance, often unwanted.

Rev Hellfire

axer wrote: »

Are the racist parents above being selfish by teaching their children to be racist? or are they doing it for the children's good?

Clearly they are, no parent I know teaches their child things to spite them.

By the logic displayed here we should perhaps not teach our children anything about morality either and leave it to them to discover it for themselves, I mean to do so would be selfish. Its parents indoctrinating their children with their morality. The list is endless.

The whole thing is such a nonsense.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity and racism aren't comparable in any way.

Jakkass no one is claiming this, honestly. You seem eager to claim someone is, but they just are not.

It's the unquestioning child accepting a particular creed which is the comparison.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity and racism aren't comparable in any way.

I even made it clear that Christianity and racism are not being compared here - indoctrinating is.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's absurd to expect that Christians would throw their faith out at home, and that this is the "best option" for the child, to have their parents deny who they are? It's particularly absurd considering that these people believe that faith is true hope, the source of true living, and an enormous benefit to any human being. It is the best thing one can possibly share to people like us.

Why can't the child come to that conclusion as an adult if it is correct instead of indoctrinating them since their birth?

philologos

iUseVi: I think that such examples, only serve to obfuscate the discussion rather than contribute anything useful to it.

From experience, unquestioning faith tends to be very much the minority. Most people who believe at least from what I've seen do wrestle with questions, most people do think rather seriously about it.

axer: I question the entire notion of "indoctrination" when it comes to Christianity. I have agreed that the initiation rites are perhaps the closest we can get to it.

axer

magicbastarder wrote: »

hang on - are we talking about children or adults here? children generally do not want to have to wash themselves, etc.; basing an argument on what children want is not a basis on which to make a point, because children need guidance, often unwanted.

That is completely different as that is based on fact i.e. that washing yourself and hygene increases their lifespan.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm amazed, slightly amused to a certain extent, that someone has compared average Christian conviction to racism on this forum.

Ok. I'm unfortunately not amazed that you are using that to avoid the actual issue here.

Jakkass wrote: »

That's something that is worthy of being addressed. It merely shows, how many people on this forum are unwilling to look into the human side of Christian faith and conviction.

I think everyone here is looking at the human side apart from you. You are ignore simply human biology, the bond between parent and child, simply because it does not fit what you want to be the case.

You pretend that children will rationally evaluate what they are told by their parents, and when presented with a blatant example of how that isn't the case (the racist children who are racist not because they have figured out some deep logical reason why black people suck but simply because their parents told them this is the case) you choose to ignore this by faking offense.

Jakkass wrote: »

I haven't "ignored" anything Wicknight. I've merely disagreed with your view as it isn't anywhere close to what I've seen in reality.

What you personally have seen in reality is largely irrelevant given that you don't seem to have looked very hard. Are you a child psychologist? Have you studied learning and behavioral patterns in children? I imagine not, which leads me to wonder why you take your experience as meaning anything at all, if it isn't simply an excuse to ignore the reality and retreat to the position you wish to be true.

Imagine how much weight you would put in a atheist poster coming to the Christian forum saying they have never met a Christian who wasn't nuts. They would probably be told to simply get out and about more.

Jakkass wrote: »

The extreme example, isn't an example at all.

Of course it is an example! What you think these kids decided that black people were inferior through rational discussion and evidence?

They were told it by their parents and children believe their parents.

Jakkass wrote: »

I know no situation where parents don't encourage questioning of their children in relation to their faith.

Once again you change your position. :rolleyes:

So you agree that children believe what they are told by their parents unquestioningly, and therefore it is necessary for their parents to frame what they tell them in a particular way in order to get them to question what they are told, ie not tell them as facts but tell them that it is just the parents opinion and that the children should not accept it as true and should figure it out for themselves, that there are lots of different religions and that it is up to the child to work out what is right for them, and more importantly the parent shouldn't tell their children about any of this until they are actually at an age where they can rationally question what they are being told.

Or do you mean they should teach them Christianity for most of their lives and then when they are 17 go "Oh by the way, you should question this stuff? Whats that, you still want to be a Chrisitan? What are the odds!"

The only issue here is whether you genuinely want your children to arrive at Christian faith on their own having rationally decided they want to be Christian when they are at a place in their lives where they can actually decide that, or do you just want them to be Christians.

pinksoir

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity and racism aren't comparable in any way.

I think it's absurd to expect that Christians would throw their faith out at home, and that this is the "best option" for the child, to have their parents deny who they are? It's particularly absurd considering that these people believe that faith is true hope, the source of true living, and an enormous benefit to any human being. It is the best thing one can possibly share to people like us.

Per usual Jakkass, you are willfully misinterpreting the point of the post in order to sidestep the issue. I can't believe how often you are intentionally obtuse. The point is that children are sponges, not that Christianity and racism are equatable.

I could make comparisons between the two, in the same way I could make comparisons between any two world views, particularly ones that are held contrary to evidence, but that is absolutely not the point I was trying to make.

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote: »

hang on - are we talking about children or adults here? children generally do not want to have to wash themselves, etc.; basing an argument on what children want is not a basis on which to make a point, because children need guidance, often unwanted.

That wasn't really my point. I want my children to get washed. I want them to not play on the road. I want them to share their toys. I've no problem saying that.

If Jakkass simply says I want my children to be Christian, that is fair enough. It is quite easy to make that happen, or at least greatly increase the odds that they will be. You simply start teaching them about it as if it was fact from an early age. As pinksior says children are sponges, and in fact there are very good evolutionary reasons why they are sponges.

The issue is this little dance we are all having where he claims he wants his children to rationally decide for themselves that they want to to be Christians, yet he wants to teach his children Christianity from a young age, where they will simply accept what they are told.

There is a contradiction here.

philologos

I totally disagree with you then pinksoir. Christian belief and racism are entirely two different kettles of fish.

I also don't regard Christianity as "contrary to evidence".

Wicknight wrote:

The issue is this little dance we are all having where he claims he wants his children to rationally decide for themselves that they want to to be Christians, yet he wants to teach his children Christianity from a young age, where they will simply accept what they are told.

Yes, I want them (hypothetical children) to understand Christ for themselves and think about it for themselves like I did. I've never said that they will "simply accept" what they are told, I personally would like them to think about it, and consider it, and hopefully accept it for themselves. Whether they do or not is up to them.

I don't see how that is an issue, apart from someone who has a pre-conceived notion that people never question their faith. That to me is demonstrably false.

magicbastarder

this thread seems to be going round in circles. seems to be one of those issues where there's no common ground, so people just end up dancing around each other. i can see both sides of the argument, and it seems to be just one of those c'est la vie things.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

axer: I question the entire notion of "indoctrination" when it comes to Christianity. I have agreed that the initiation rites are perhaps the closest we can get to it.

Do you disagree with this definition?

Indoctrinate: to fill with a certain teaching or set of opinions, beliefs etc

It seems correct to me and it seems to be what religious parents do generally to children.