Fired for being Atheist (?)

whydoibother?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am curious if those who think the OP did the wrong thing are of the opinion this is a fixed rule… in that you do not interfere with what parents wants to teach a child on any level… or whether there is a continuum…. In that do they feel there are some ideas that if discovered inside the head of a 7 year old are perfectly ok to challenge and show are wrong and / or dangerous.

If the latter then how does one move on that continuum. Where or how does one identify the line (or what criteria must be used) in a given situation to decide which way is right and which is wrong?

I would think someone brought into the home to look after a child should not knowingly, directly contradict what a parent is teaching. I wouldn't expect this person to actively promote an ideology they disagree with unless they had agreed to on taking the job or it was made clear it was a condition to teach the child these things.

The main exception I would see to this idea of not contradicting parents would be if the parent was teaching something dangerous. Now we all have our own idea of what is "dangerous" and religion may be dangerous in some people's eyes, so for the sake of having an objective standard, lets go with illegal.

A social worker or the gardaí, could, for example, interfere with what a parent wants to do with their kids. Others who disagree, need to go through these sorts of official channels imo.

Morbert

I'm not sure how I feel about this. While I can understand the issue of boundaries. I am much more concerned with the idea that parents have carte blanche when it comes to what they tell their child.

The Israeli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am curious if those who think the OP did the wrong thing are of the opinion this is a fixed rule… in that you do not interfere with what parents wants to teach a child on any level… or whether there is a continuum…. In that do they feel there are some ideas that if discovered inside the head of a 7 year old are perfectly ok to challenge and show are wrong and / or dangerous.

If the latter then how does one move on that continuum. Where or how does one identify the line (or what criteria must be used) in a given situation to decide which way is right and which is wrong?

Ah that's philosophy and common sense..

If the child has a habit of licking objects, you should tell.
If the child is aggressive or systematically doesn't comply with your basic requests (doesn't sit while eating lunch, throws toys at you and etc) you should put him in order.
If the child tells you that his parents beat him, you go to the police.

If the child tells you something harmless but controversial it's not of your business, because of the unsigned agreement between the parents and the au-pair.

Nevertheless, the op hasn't committed a crime..

The Mad Hatter

As a teacher, this actually comes up quite a lot for me. I find it's best to just give a vague non-answer (eg. "Which church do you go to mass in?" "Not one you'd know."), and then change the subject as quickly as possible.

deravarra

The Israeli wrote: »

Ah that's philosophy and common sense..

If the child has a habit of licking objects, you should tell.
If the child is aggressive or systematically doesn't comply with your basic requests (doesn't sit while eating lunch, throws toys at you and etc) you should put him in order.
If the child tells you that his parents beat him, you go to the police.

If the child tells you something harmless but controversial it's not of your business, because of the unsigned agreement between the parents and the au-pair.

Nevertheless, the op hasn't committed a crime..

Perfect common sense. I'm thinking that this was just an excuse being used and came in very handy for them. nothing at all to do with religion, but a convenient escape clause.

nozzferrahhtoo

Morbert wrote: »

I'm not sure how I feel about this. While I can understand the issue of boundaries. I am much more concerned with the idea that parents have carte blanche when it comes to what they tell their child.

That is indeed the concern I am poking gently at when I asked my question above.

Not sure how “objective” it being illegal is as the criteria for deciding as one user above suggests. Seems a rather arbitrary choice to me. Maybe I just have a more active imagination than most but I can envision quite a number of ideas that are so disgusting that I think the right thing to do would be to point out they are wrong if I find them in anyone, regardless of age.

Not important though, the point is that there is a continuum regardless of the role the person is in at the time as child carer or casual acquaintance. So that means there is a useful discourse to have on how to move on that continuum... rather than the more general sweeping statements that generally tell you "stay out of it totally" that I see on the thread.

I find myself uncomfortable with the general notion I am seeing form in the thread that parents are somehow the owners of children and have the right to pour what they like into their heads unhindered or unchallenged. Ownership of children is an idea that always makes me somewhat uneasy. I would find it healthier to consider parents, at most, Stewards of their children personally.

I am a firm believer in firing people if they do not do the job as they were hired to do it, so if the OP did something they were expressly asked not to do then of course… fire her. It sounds like she did no such thing however.

However that is a different issue as to whether the OP did the right thing or not. If a child asks me a question, regardless of the role I am in when that child asks, I will generally give them the answer as truthfully as I see it… with some small exceptions where I feel the information is such that it actually is best suited to come from a relative or parent.

whydoibother?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure how “objective” it being illegal is as the criteria for deciding as one user above suggests. Seems a rather arbitrary choice to me. Maybe I just have a more active imagination than most but I can envision quite a number of ideas that are so disgusting that I think the right thing to do would be to point out they are wrong if I find them in anyone, regardless of age.

Whether something is illegal is objective in the sense that it can usually be clearly defined and is relatively fixed. A poster asked for criteria that could be used.

Most other things are too subjective. The person speaking to the child feels that they are imparting wisdom/saving them from a life of narrow-minded ignorance/[insert any other intention of choice]. The parent feels they are interfering inappropriately. It's just all too vague.

deravarra

whydoibother? wrote: »

Whether something is illegal is objective in the sense that it can usually be clearly defined and is relatively fixed. A poster asked for criteria that could be used.

Most other things are too subjective. The person speaking to the child feels that they are imparting wisdom/saving them from a life of narrow-minded ignorance/[insert any other intention of choice]. The parent feels they are interfering inappropriately. It's just all too vague.

Again ... just very convenient an excuse to sack her

nozzferrahhtoo

The vaugeness is my point exactly. Simply drawing the line through what is legal and what is not I think is not good enough. It is a simple answer, yes, and perfectly workable in a good number of situations, but I think it is too simple an answer to be serviceable when moving on such a continuum such as this.

I can imagine some perfectly legal things that a parent could pour into their childs head that I would have absolutely no moral compunction with attempting to derail should a child endowed with such ideas come before me at any age.

As soon as you grant a single example of such a thing, whether you think of it yourself or other people spend time adumbrating examples, then you admit of a continuum of discourse which I think negates much of the sweeping statements that I have seen on the thread so far. It certainly would challenge any notion that the brain of a child is a possession of the parent and they are in any way sole arbiters of what goes into it.

Sefirah

One thing I don't understand in this thread is the association being made between telling a child Santa isn't real, and telling a child that they themselves don't believe in God. At least (in the vast majority of cases) the idea of Santa is a force for good, which brings joy to a child's life, and which eventually ends later in their childhood. I would argue that religion is not a force for good, as it imposes a sense of fear in a child from a young age, fosters intolerance and is a lie which permeates their life. I just don't see the connection between the two

mikhail

Sefirah wrote: »

One thing I don't understand in this thread is the association being made between telling a child Santa isn't real, and telling a child that they themselves don't believe in God. At least (in the vast majority of cases) the idea of Santa is a force for good, which brings joy to a child's life, and which eventually ends later in their childhood. I would argue that religion is not a force for good, as it imposes a sense of fear in a child from a young age, fosters intolerance and is a lie which permeates their life. I just don't see the connection between the two

crucamim

Common sense is not very common. And that applies to members of the teachng profession.

This thread is an excellent argument for Jews having Jewish schools, Catholics having Catholic schools, Muslims having Muslim schools, secularists have secular schools etc, etc.

The OP was not fired for being an atheist. She was fired for inappropriate conduct.

The Israeli

Sefirah wrote: »

One thing I don't understand in this thread is the association being made between telling a child Santa isn't real, and telling a child that they themselves don't believe in God. At least (in the vast majority of cases) the idea of Santa is a force for good, which brings joy to a child's life, and which eventually ends later in their childhood. I would argue that religion is not a force for good, as it imposes a sense of fear in a child from a young age, fosters intolerance and is a lie which permeates their life. I just don't see the connection between the two

Well, you shouldn't tell a young child that Santa isn't real, if she loves Santa
Both atheists and believers grown ups know that Santa isn't real. However, they disagree on the existence of God.
Therefore.. If it's not your child and the mom trusts her child in your hands for a day, and you see that the child carries controversial ideas that are probably of her parents, you know not to discuss it with her.

The vaugeness is my point exactly. Simply drawing the line through what is legal and what is not I think is not good enough. It is a simple answer, yes, and perfectly workable in a good number of situations, but I think it is too simple an answer to be serviceable when moving on such a continuum such as this.

It very depends on the situation. In this situation specifically, she should have been more careful. After all, it's her job. If you are ready to break social codes - you have to be ready for the consequences.
I think that the OP wasn't aware that she was breaking any social code.

I am not sure that this was just an excuse to sack her, simply because we can't know for sure. Maybe the mother was a bit wacky, and instead of just summing her up for a talk, she decided to fire. But as I know how these situations roll, I agree that there must be more to it..

Sefirah

The Israeli wrote: »

Well, you shouldn't tell a young child that Santa isn't real, if she loves Santa

What if she's afraid that if she isn't good, then 'Santa' will send her to hell? And what if an older person believes in Santa and does wacky stuff because of it- do you tell?

People are concerned here about what a parent is telling their child, but if you have problems then the parent is the first port of call, not the child.
Particularly if you've been brought into the home as a caregiver

mikhail

crucamim wrote: »

Common sense is not very common. And that applies to members of the teachng profession.

This thread is an excellent argument for Jews having Jewish schools, Catholics having Catholic schools, Muslims having Muslim schools, secularists have secular schools etc, etc.

The OP was not fired for being an atheist. She was fired for inappropriate conduct.

Teachers have extensive training. Au-pairs do not.

The Israeli

Sefirah wrote: »

What if she's afraid that if she isn't good, then 'Santa' will send her to hell?

Ask her why does she think so. If she says that it's what her parents told her, you can talk to her parents about that. "bluewolf" is right.
After they explain that to you, you should decide if it's legal and not harming.
Probably it's their way of educating the child to behave well.
If you go against the parents in trivial matters (and against people in general) you will cause yourself unnecessary problems.

And what if an older person believes in Santa and does wacky stuff because of it?

If it's wacky - against the law, report to the police / social authorities.
If it's just weird and unacceptable, think if an optional confrontation with the parent worth it.
Maybe it is. But know, that if you lose the job, you lose a future influence on the child too.

mewso

crucamim wrote: »

Common sense is not very common. And that applies to members of the teachng profession.

This thread is an excellent argument for Jews having Jewish schools, Catholics having Catholic schools, Muslims having Muslim schools, secularists have secular schools etc, etc.

The OP was not fired for being an atheist. She was fired for inappropriate conduct.

Yes indeed. Keep all those anti-catholic teachers out of catholic schools. Anyone like the posters here who obviously want to corrupt catholic children. Oh wait...

strobe

crucamim wrote: »

Common sense is not very common. And that applies to members of the teachng profession.

This thread is an excellent argument for Jews having Jewish schools, Catholics having Catholic schools, Muslims having Muslim schools, secularists have secular schools etc, etc.

No it's not an excellent argument for anything other than au-pairs deferring to parents when they are unsure of something involving the children.

You Crucamin, are just an unapologetic bigot of the worst possible kind. Now a Mod may call me up on that for being personal abuse but I'd contend that if I can show you being clearly bigoted, which would be simple, considering your posts in politics, AH and elsewhere, then it is merely a statement of fact.

The world would be a better place if people like you were removed from it.

mewso

strobe wrote: »

The world would be a better place if people like you were removed from it.

Ah now steady on. Plenty of uses for brick walls.

tallaghtmick

^^^^just noticed mewso is an unreal mod:pac: ok ok back to topic....theres no santa claus:(

recedite

Sefirah wrote: »

I just have found that since I got here, people are so hopelessly brainwashed, and now I see this kid going down the exact same road, and it's depressing

Things have sure changed since January when you were all newly jewed up and loved all things Israeli including the IDF.......

Sefirah wrote:

My situation is that I'm converting to Judaism....

You'd be really surprised- for the 'Holy Land' I found it to be very secular, and the vast majority of Israelis are 'hilonim' and don't practice religion at all. I'd say about 95% if my Israeli friends fell into this category.........

Obviously not every single person will be shomer shabbat and keep kosher, but why can't they be allowed the opportunity to do so? Especially as a convert, I intend to keep all of the following, and this is made extremely difficult in Ireland....

not that there's anything wrong with changing your mind as new facts come to light, I make a point of doing that all the time myself (and hopefully that little jewish kid will do the same in time)

miss no stars

I worked in the states with kids. It's a religious country and most people could be expected to be aware of that. When a kid ever asked me anything religious, I'd firstly ask them why they wanted to know. I found that was a good (yet subtle) way of making them think about the relevance of the question. Did it really matter what my personal beliefs are? If they were just curious I'd tell them that I don't follow any set of beliefs as laid down by organized religion, but I admire and respect people who have religion as part of their lives. I also talk about how I've benefitted so much from meeting people from different faiths and backgrounds and that I've learnt a lot from them. None of that is untrue and I would guess it true of most people. Then, before kiddo can dwell on it, ask about their beliefs and be very positive about them. "oh wow! That's really interesting! It seems like your faith is really important to you, you seem to know a lot about it. Do you study the bible/torrah?"

It doesn't take a lot of cop on to realize that israel is a religious place and that an American living in Israel probably wants to raise their child in Judaism. It's not your place to question or undermine this, no matter how absurd it seems to you.

Questions around children can be answered honestly while tactfully. You seem to acknowledge that you crossed a line so I won't labour that point. I would suggest that you appologise to the mother. Tell her that you were caught slightly off-guard by the question and meant no harm, but that you completely understand her position. In hindsight you realise that your comments were out of line and you wanted to offer her your unconditional apology, as you adore the daughter and wouldn't like to leave things on bad terms with them.

You might even be able to get a decent reference from her.

pH

Leaving aside the strange Catholicism -> Judaism -> Atheism thing mentioned a few posts above, I really feel that those agreeing with the mother and telling the OP she got what she deserved and next time to STFU are way out of line.

Say I posted the following:

I had a really strange experience last week, and not sure if I should be angry, or simply laugh at the whole thing. We recently got an Israeli au-pair for our 7 year old daughter. Things were going dandy, til one day my daughter told the au-pair she didn't believe in God and quizzed the au-pair about her religious beliefs. The au-pair told my daughter that she believed in God. (As a properly indoctrinated atheist) My daughter was (obviously) shocked by this. When she (eventually) managed to get over the shock (her mouth literally fell open) she started asking the au-pair about her religious beliefs, where she thought people came from and who created the world. The au-pair then explained the basics of Judaism to her, and her beliefs about creationism, the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve and Noah, being a literal account of early human history,

SO I FIRED THE BITCH.

I reckon the same posters telling the OP that she crossed a line etc. would not agree with my actions, and would be saying exactly the same things to me.

miss no stars

pH wrote: »

Leaving aside the strange Catholicism -> Judaism -> Atheism thing mentioned a few posts above, I really feel that those agreeing with the mother and telling the OP she got what she deserved and next time to STFU are way out of line.

Say I posted the following:

I had a really strange experience last week, and not sure if I should be angry, or simply laugh at the whole thing. We recently got an Israeli au-pair for our 7 year old daughter. Things were going dandy, til one day my daughter told the au-pair she didn't believe in God and quizzed the au-pair about her religious beliefs. The au-pair told my daughter that she believed in God. (As a properly indoctrinated atheist) My daughter was (obviously) shocked by this. When she (eventually) managed to get over the shock (her mouth literally fell open) she started asking the au-pair about her religious beliefs, where she thought people came from and who created the world. The au-pair then explained the basics of Judaism to her, and her beliefs about creationism, the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve and Noah, being a literal account of early human history,

SO I FIRED THE BITCH.

I reckon the same posters telling the OP that she crossed a line etc. would not agree with my actions, and would be saying exactly the same things to me.

The difference between your version and what we've been told happened is that the OP pretty much ridiculed the kid's beliefs. THAT is what's so out of line tbh. It's basically trying to undermine what the kid's mother told her and replace it with the OPs version. Or to at least actively seek to create doubt in the child's mind. And if the roles were switched around as you indicated, with the addition that the au pere tried to grill my child on what she sees as the flaws in her beliefs (or lack thereof) to try and get her to consider Judaism as an alternative to atheism (ie to try and influence her), then I would STILL think the au pere had crossed a line. I wouldn't see it as unreasonable to not want someone around the child who had actively sought to undermine what a parent has taught them. What would it be next time???

The issue isn't that the OP was honest about her beliefs, it's that she tried to pick holes in what a 7 YEAR OLD believes, which was actively intended (or at least appeared to be intended) to undermine what the child had been taught so far under the guidance of her mother. If you can't see what's so wrong about that, I hope you don't have access to other people's kids.

pH

miss no stars wrote: »

The difference between your version and what we've been told happened is that the OP pretty much ridiculed the kid's beliefs. THAT is what's so out of line tbh.

Mine is pretty much word for word the original, can you point out the ridicule in the OP which is not included in mine?

Mine includes a religious person telling a child that the child's beliefs are wrong, that God exists, and that she believes in the literal truth of Genesis.

I'm genuinely interested in were you find the ridicule in the OP that's not in mine.

robindch

miss no stars wrote: »

the OP pretty much ridiculed the kid's beliefs. THAT is what's so out of line tbh.

If it's true, then it certainly is way out of line, but I don't believe that's what happened -- I got the impression that it was done respectfully, and without trying to undermine the parents, or ridicule their beliefs.

Sefirah?

kippy

Sefirah wrote: »

I didn't mean to interfere, I just don't like the thought of lying to a kid- be it mine or someone else's

Okay, this is completely the wrong context but:
Would you lie to a kid if they asked you about Santa, The Tooth Fairy, The Boogyman etc.........
Also, I don't think you were fired for your beliefs or lack of them, specificilly.

sink

pH wrote: »

I reckon the same posters telling the OP that she crossed a line etc. would not agree with my actions, and would be saying exactly the same things to me.

She was employed by the parents in a private capacity to do a job to their specifications, she failed to do that. I may disagree with their beliefs and what they may or may not teach their child but that is not my decision to make, I can no more force them to hire someone who goes against their wishes than they can force me to hire an outspoken Zionist to look after my kids.

It's not a matter of what I think is right for their kids, it's a matter of parents prerogative.

Dades

pH wrote: »

Leaving aside the strange Catholicism -> Judaism -> Atheism thing mentioned a few posts above, I really feel that those agreeing with the mother and telling the OP she got what she deserved and next time to STFU are way out of line.

Say I posted the following:

I reckon the same posters telling the OP that she crossed a line etc. would not agree with my actions, and would be saying exactly the same things to me.

There's a difference between explaining a different belief and undermining an existing one.

The OPs discussion with the child unfortunately could be perceived to be the latter, following the Noah's ark conversation.

miss no stars

pH wrote: »

miss no stars wrote: »

The difference between your version and what we've been told happened is that the OP pretty much ridiculed the kid's beliefs. THAT is what's so out of line tbh.

Mine is pretty much word for word the original, can you point out the ridicule in the OP which is not included in mine?

Mine includes a religious person telling a child that the child's beliefs are wrong, that God exists, and that she believes in the literal truth of Genesis.

I'm genuinely interested in were you find the ridicule in the OP that's not in mine.

The OP told the kid she believed the biblical version far fetched and tried to pick holes in the story of noah's ark. That might be ok if you were dealing with a teenager who is better able to assimilate and dissect other viewpoints, but you're dealing with a young child here. Most 7 year olds look up to and want to impress the adults in their life. A response like the OP's could be quite upsetting to a kid - they could end up worrying that a person they like will go to hell and also worry that a person they look up to thinks they're stupid. Obviously the kid was upset as it was playing on her mind enough that she mentioned afterwards to the mother. The boundaries of what constitutes ridicule change when you're dealing with kids in a mentor-child type relationship. Any disagreement has to be carefully phrased so the kid doesn't feel like the person thinks that they're silly. Picking holes in what a kid believes is ridiculing their beliefs. They aren't old enough to have purely intellectual debate. They WILL take it personally.

miss no stars

Forgot to mention, the above is just dealing with how it is ridicule, never mind how out of line it is to undermine what a parent teaches a child to, in their eyes, look after a child's spiritual well being.

pH

kippy wrote: »

Okay, this is completely the wrong context but:
Would you lie to a kid if they asked you about Santa, The Tooth Fairy, The Boogyman etc.........
Also, I don't think you were fired for your beliefs or lack of them, specificilly.

So you're saying the au pair should have lied to the kid right? In the same way as the au pair doesn't believe in Santa, she'd lie to the kid and tell her Santa exists, she should also lie to the kid and tell her God exists?

Would you expect a Christian or Muslim to do the same. Has an atheist parent the right to expect a Christian/Muslim au pair to lie to the child about her (the au pair's) beliefs? I.e. if the atheist child asks the au pair about God, then the au pair must lie and tell the kid that she doesn't believe in God?

Malari

pH wrote: »

So you're saying the au pair should have lied to the kid right? In the same way as the au pair doesn't believe in Santa, she'd lie to the kid and tell her Santa exists, she should also lie to the kid and tell her God exists?

Would you expect a Christian or Muslim to do the same. Has an atheist parent the right to expect a Christian/Muslim au pair to lie to the child about her (the au pair's) beliefs? I.e. if the atheist child asks the au pair about God, then the au pair must lie and tell the kid that she doesn't believe in God?

Parents must spend half their lives lying to kids!
- there are no sweets left
- I have no more money to buy you that toy
- I'm going to eat your dinner if you don't

If the au pair was asked about sex do you think the au pair should have given the full run down about her preferences to the child? Come on!

You don't have to lie to avoid telling the truth.

kippy

pH wrote: »

So you're saying the au pair should have lied to the kid right? In the same way as the au pair doesn't believe in Santa, she'd lie to the kid and tell her Santa exists, she should also lie to the kid and tell her God exists?

Would you expect a Christian or Muslim to do the same. Has an atheist parent the right to expect a Christian/Muslim au pair to lie to the child about her (the au pair's) beliefs? I.e. if the atheist child asks the au pair about God, then the au pair must lie and tell the kid that she doesn't believe in God?

The OP believes it's not right to lie to kids, I was making the point that parents and guardians lie to kids all the time.
There were other ways to avoid answering the direct question the child asked without bring completly honest with the child and opening up some issues for the parents to address and the OP made no attempt to do this.

The post from Malari probably said it better than I could have.

pH

Malari wrote: »

Parents must spend half their lives lying to kids!
- there are no sweets left
- I have no more money to buy you that toy
- I'm going to eat your dinner if you don't

If the au pair was asked about sex do you think the au pair should have given the full run down about her preferences to the child? Come on!

You don't have to lie to avoid telling the truth.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you saying that you'd expect a Christian or Muslim au pair to lie about their beliefs or "avoid telling the truth" to the child that they believed in God?

Dades wrote:

There's a difference between explaining a different belief and undermining an existing one.

Surely if beliefs are contradictory, explaining one undermines the other.

I mean some posters above (and yourself?) seem to be saying that telling the child you don't believe in God is fine, but having the temerity to spend 30 seconds pointing out the obvious flaws in reading Noah's story (hardly really a foundational piece of doctrine even in Judaism) in a literal way is the problem?

Anyway, I think the juxtaposition of this thread (5 minutes of 1 child hearing an opposing view), parents rights etc = au paired Fired versus threads about children getting state sponsored religious indoctrination every school day for 14 years of their lives is quite surreal.

mikemac

seamus wrote: »

Never mix business with religion or politics. It will not end well.

I've read the thread but this is what I wanted to say

Nothing good comes from it.

Sefirah wrote: »

Possibly a good idea....!! Luckily I didn't like the job anyway, so perhaps it turned out for the best- I was working 6am-8pm 5 days a week for the equivalent of 60 euros.

A Jew tight with money? :eek:

kippy

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you saying that you'd expect a Christian or Muslim au pair to lie about their beliefs or "avoid telling the truth" to the child that they believed in God?



Surely if beliefs are contradictory, explaining one undermines the other.

I mean some posters above (and yourself?) seem to be saying that telling the child you don't believe in God is fine, but having the temerity to spend 30 seconds pointing out the obvious flaws in reading Noah's story (hardly really a foundational piece of doctrine even in Judaism) in a literal way is the problem?

Anyway, I think the juxtaposition of this thread (5 minutes of 1 child hearing an opposing view), parents rights etc = au paired Fired versus threads about children getting state sponsored religious indoctrination every school day for 14 years of their lives is quite surreal.

I think you need to step back for a second and take off the glasses of your religion or lack thereof.
As a parent, I would like whoever looks after my child to maintain the status quo - it is not their place to make extra work for me and if the attitude of the person looking after my child is "Children shouldnt be told lies", I'd be fairly worried about them and how they would "manage" my child.

The simple fact of the matter is, the OP could have sidestepped the questions very easily, but chose not to.

Malari

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you saying that you'd expect a Christian or Muslim au pair to lie about their beliefs or "avoid telling the truth" to the child that they believed in God?

I'd expect a person of any religion or none to respect the views of the child's parents when I was specifically charged to be a guardian for that child. Sure you can accept that saying something along the lines of "god is a personal thing to everyone and sometimes people don't want to talk about it."

pH wrote: »

Surely if beliefs are contradictory, explaining one undermines the other.

Certainly not. You can remain agnostic on the position. :cool:

pH wrote: »

I mean some posters above (and yourself?) seem to be saying that telling the child you don't believe in God is fine, but having the temerity to spend 30 seconds pointing out the obvious flaws in reading Noah's story (hardly really a foundational piece of doctrine even in Judaism) in a literal way is the problem?

Yes it is. I'm surprised you don't see the difference. What if the child asked something about the parents and if you were friends or if you liked them? You gonna be honest with that too, or are you going to make a politically prudent decision to decline to answer, while giving the impression you have actually answered.

pH wrote: »

Anyway, I think the juxtaposition of this thread (5 minutes of 1 child hearing an opposing view), parents rights etc = au paired Fired versus threads about children getting state sponsored religious indoctrination every school day for 14 years of their lives is quite surreal.

Look, I actually think being fired for this is a little extreme. I don't believe there is an au pair in history who had to be taken aside and told "actually, we'd prefer you don't do X, Y, Z with our child." It's the parent's perogative, however, as with state sponsored religious eductaion in school. People who want Catholic control eased in schools are not about to suggest they can affect what happens to the child's indoctrination in the hands of their parents outside of school.

Oh, and I say all the above despite NOT being a parent and never wanting kids.

ShooterSF

The sad thing in all this is that society has still not made progress towards the idea that indoctrinating your child as a parent is not good parenting. I don't mean raising the kid as jewish but seemingly shielding it from the real world and it's many other beliefs in an effort to bias it's already vulnerable decision making.

I don't think any legal ramifications could (or should) ever be created but if I was in the OP's position I would see it as the mental version of smoking around your kid or feeding them nothing but fast food and would have quit before my lip started to bleed from my teeth diggin into it. If not I would have given the parent a good earful (away from the child).

I say that while still agreeing that the OP did make a mistake in handling the situation.

Malari

ShooterSF wrote: »

The sad thing in all this is that society has still not made progress towards the idea that indoctrinating your child as a parent is not good parenting. I don't mean raising the kid as jewish but seemingly shielding it from the real world and it's many other beliefs in an effort to bias it's already vulnerable decision making.

I don't think any legal ramifications could (or should) ever be created but if I was in the OP's position I would see it as the mental version of smoking around your kid or feeding them nothing but fast food and would have quit before my lip started to bleed from my teeth diggin into it. If not I would have given the parent a good earful (away from the child).

I say that while still agreeing that the OP did make a mistake in handling the situation.

Well, yes, but it's sort of a separate issue. If a child, whose parents are not employing me to look after, asks me about god I'll tell them what I think. If a parent employs an au pair to look after the child in a manner they dicate then you really have to go along with that.

ShooterSF

I agree Malari. It's why I'd never stick the job. In my eyes it would be the same as if they wanted the child fed McDonalds every day. It would not be my place as an employee to question their decision but I couldn't work for them either.

OP was probably better off long term.

kippy

ShooterSF wrote: »

The sad thing in all this is that society has still not made progress towards the idea that indoctrinating your child as a parent is not good parenting. I don't mean raising the kid as jewish but seemingly shielding it from the real world and it's many other beliefs in an effort to bias it's already vulnerable decision making.

I don't think any legal ramifications could (or should) ever be created but if I was in the OP's position I would see it as the mental version of smoking around your kid or feeding them nothing but fast food and would have quit before my lip started to bleed from my teeth diggin into it. If not I would have given the parent a good earful (away from the child).

I say that while still agreeing that the OP did make a mistake in handling the situation.

I don't really want to get into this too much but there are major differences between the proven ill effects of smoking around a child, bad diet for a child and bringing up your child in a religious setting. I don't think you can in any way compare all three.
As for your assertion that bringing up your child in a religious setting is bad parenting - well - I don't know, I cant really agree with to be honest.
Either way, these are different aspects than that which the OP outlined.

Malari

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree Malari. It's why I'd never stick the job. In my eyes it would be the same as if they wanted the child fed McDonalds every day. It would not be my place as an employee to question their decision but I couldn't work for them either.

OP was probably better off long term.

You know I actually do know a wealthy family who employed a chef to cook nothing but chicken nuggets, chips, beans, fishfingers for their kids. He got into trouble for cooking them some basic healthy chicken, pasta and sauce when he didn't realise there were no frozen nuggets left. Crazy, but them's the rules.

Dades

pH wrote: »

I mean some posters above (and yourself?) seem to be saying that telling the child you don't believe in God is fine, but having the temerity to spend 30 seconds pointing out the obvious flaws in reading Noah's story (hardly really a foundational piece of doctrine even in Judaism) in a literal way is the problem?

I can see how a religious parent might see it as a problem, in this case.

If the situation was reversed and one of my kids was chatting with an au pair, I'd have no problem with the au pair saying she (he?) believe in a god.

If however the au pair asked why my potentially agnostic/undecided child believed the universe could come from nothing when everything required a creator (i.e. undermining a held belief) I would have strong words with her about keeping her beliefs to herself.

ShooterSF

kippy wrote: »

I don't really want to get into this too much but there are major differences between the proven ill effects of smoking around a child, bad diet for a child and bringing up your child in a religious setting. I don't think you can in any way compare all three.
As for your assertion that bringing up your child in a religious setting is bad parenting - well - I don't know, I cant really agree with to be honest.
Either way, these are different aspects than that which the OP outlined.

Just to correct my point in case I wasn't clear. I have no problem with someone raising a child in a religious setting if one still educates the child fairly about other beliefs or at least be open about discussing them as best one can.
I have a problem with a parent deciding a belief for a child and doing all in their power to make sure they can't evaluate their belief fairly. Children's decision making is vulnerable enough to those in authority without people making it even harder for them to make an informed decision at some point in their life by hiding or twisting other possibilities. Some don't even just hide or warp information but threaten children with shunning.

And it's not just religion. For example I have huge issue with raising a child in the Amish belief system for the reasons set out above. I consider it bad parenting and while mental issues are harder to see than physical ones, there is no way keeping this kind of information from a child is a good thing.

whydoibother?

I could be wrong, but it seems the majority think that it's not ok to undermine the parents are teaching under normal circumstances.

For me the more interesting question would therefore be, what if a parent decided that they didn't want an au pair of a different religion/no religion, when this person was willing to keep their views well out of their job and not influence the child with them. Something along the lines of Catholic schools wanting to teachers who live their lives in accordance with the ethos of the school. I remember a case (forgotten name) where a teacher was fired for having a child outside marriage? Are parents free to do the same? Or would that be religious discrimination?

kippy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Just to correct my point in case I wasn't clear. I have no problem with someone raising a child in a religious setting if one still educates the child fairly about other beliefs or at least be open about discussing them as best one can.
I have a problem with a parent deciding a belief for a child and doing all in their power to make sure they can't evaluate their belief fairly. Children's decision making is vulnerable enough to those in authority without people making it even harder for them to make an informed decision at some point in their life by hiding or twisting other possibilities. Some don't even just hide or warp information but threaten children with shunning.

And it's not just religion. For example I have huge issue with raising a child in the Amish belief system for the reasons set out above. I consider it bad parenting and while mental issues are harder to see than physical ones, there is no way keeping this kind of information from a child is a good thing.

Thats a fair standpoint, apologies, I picked you up wrong earlier.

DarylH

This is your fault. You have NO right to try and change or say things to a Child which is not your own child. The mother will bring that child into whatever religion she chooses and it is only up to the child if She wants to change her religion. You have 0 right to say anything. In Hindsight "Inappropriate" was the right word. Like a previous poster said. You should have been playing Hungry Hungry Hippos.

AudreyHepburn

Sefirah wrote: »

I had a really strange experience last week, and not sure if I should be angry, or simply laugh at the whole thing. I'm living in Israel, and recently got a job as an au-pair for an American single mom who recently moved here with her 7 year old daughter. Things were going dandy, til one day the daughter started spouting all kinds of nonsense about Noah's ark and drawing pictures etc. She started quizzing me about my religious beliefs, and I said that I didn't believe in God. When she (eventually) managed to get over the shock (her mouth literally fell open) she started asking me why and where I thought people came from and who created the world. I told her that I believed in the scientific explanation- the big bang, evolution etc, and felt that the biblical account was a little far fetched. I took the story of Noah's ark story as an example and asked her- What do you think the meat-eating animals ate while on the ark if there was only two of every animal? She gave me a pissed off look and started saying something about picking fish out of the sea, but then got distracted by the tv and that was the end of that. Or so I thought.

The next day, I got a text message from her mother saying that I "made comments to her daughter which were grossly inappropriate and completely unacceptable" and that she "didn't feel this was a good fit for a working relationship". I'm just baffled- is it that she's afraid that I would interfere with the indoctrination or her child, or allow her to see things from a different perspective? In hindsight, perhaps it wasn't my place to discuss these things to begin with with someone else's child?

Confusement...!!

It most certainly wasn't and that is likely why you were fired, not because of beliefs but because her parents probably felt you were trying to force them on their daughter.

You are of course completely entitled to your beliefs but you were not hired to convert the child. You overstepped the mark as an employee.

If it were me, and I felt that something the family believed in was incorrect or made me uncomfortable, I would simply have either not taken the job in the first place or left it.