Fired for being Atheist (?)

Sefirah

deman wrote: »

How can you be baffled? What you did was totally irresponsible. Whether or not your points are valid is not up for discussion. Your opinions mean nothing. How dare you try to confuse a young child that people trusted you to look after.

How about we retitle the thread "Fired for mentally abusing a child!"

Jaysus, talk about an over-reaction :S I've already admitted that it was a lesson learned, but I by no means 'mentally abused' the kid

tallaghtmick

Sefirah wrote: »

Yeah, on a side note- the pay situation was ridiculous, and not only was the stated pay crap, but she'd only give me a fraction of it before making up some excuse about problems with ATMs and whatnot. And she never left any food in the house for her kid, so I'd have to drag her daughter out of bed to go to the shop in the morning to buy something to eat for breakfast- with my own money, of course :S

get your ass back to ireland and claim the dole;)

anyway if i was in your shoes id have told the kid im god and to kill all jews in my name.....and quickly do a legger back home

deman

Sefirah wrote: »

Jaysus, talk about an over-reaction :S I've already admitted that it was a lesson learned, but I by no means 'mentally abused' the kid

So do you honestly believe that you were fired on the sole basis that you are an atheist?

Sefirah

Had I been a Jew, things would be very different. That said, I do understand that I went over the line. However, I still feel your view that I 'abused' the child is rather hysterical

magicbastarder

Sefirah wrote: »

What if I said I was Jewish, and believed in all their philsophies? Had I spoken about this- no bother. It's the fact that what I believe wasn't in line with theirs which was the issue

in future, change the subject.
the notion that you mentally abused the child did give me a chuckle, though.

The Israeli

Well, as I see it (shh, listen):
I think that there is more into it besides the story of sefirah, but if answering only on what was told, I think that they both were wrong.

The mother was clearly got drifted by her anger, as she seems like a very religious person who's concerned about her daughter's "right" education.

Did you notice how religious they were before that conversation with the child?
If yes, you shouldn't have expressed your own believes, because it's not your place.

There are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed. Crossing these boundaries puts the religious parent under a heavy stress due to the important role of religion in their lives, and the knowledge that someone close sabotaging their efforts.

If this was the only reason for firing you, then your are better off without her, for the sake of both of you. She sounds like an explosive person.

btw, It's not too bad not to work during a vacation, especially when you can earn much more back at home.

Sefirah

The Israeli wrote: »

Well, as I see it (shh, listen):
I think that there is more into it besides the story of sefirah, but if answering only on what was told, I think that they both were wrong.

The mother was clearly got drifted by her anger, as she seems like a very religious person who's concerned about her daughter's "right" education.

Did you notice how religious they were before that conversation with the child?
If yes, you shouldn't have expressed your own believes, because it's not your place.

There are boundaries that shouldn't be crossed. Crossing these boundaries puts the religious parent under a heavy stress due to the important role of religion in their lives, and the knowledge that someone close sabotaging their efforts.

If this was the only reason for firing you, then your are better off without her, for the sake of both of you. She sounds like an explosive person.

btw, It's not too bad not to work during a vacation, especially when you can earn much more back at home.

Thing is, they're not 'religious' - just idealistic. They don't keep kosher, attend the synagogue, keep shabbat or anything and the mother is a reform Judaism convert (so really, she shouldn't literally believe in such things as Noah's ark to begin with). And yeah, the job was no dream to begin with- the pay situation, her not leaving food for the kid- it was just depressing. And true, maybe I'm better off just getting a job back home (although I don't have a clue how I'll do it- there doesn't seem to be anything there). Apart from the money issue, I just like having something to do with my days here. I'm leaving next September, so it's a long stint

The Israeli

I must say that the girl seems pretty clever to me - to come up with an answer like that at her age. heh. I guess that most of the children at her age would just shrug their shoulders.

Basing only on your side and without hearing their side, and knowing how sensible they are about the subject, I understand that religion was not a concern in that house, therefore you didn't say anything wrong.

But nobody would know. In the future, try to avoid subjects that might arise problems. Refer to the current event as a learning experience.

Sefirah

Indeed. She also told me that she believes in fairies- perhaps I should have worked on that one instead Thanks for the advice!

robindch

Sefirah wrote: »

I wasn't indoctrinating her, I was simply asking her a question and answering the ones she put to me

As long as you said that this was your belief, rather than saying that it was a matter of fact, then -- while the mum's reaction was over the top -- I don't really see too much of a problem with it. Though I would avoid conversations like this as much as possible, particularly in places where religion is a major social problem.

If you'd said outright that the kid's views were wrong and stated your position as if it was fact, or clearly implied that the mum's position was baloney, then that certainly would have been inappropriate in the context.

Was on the receiving end of this last weekend when an elderly relative decided to discuss nothing but religion with my kid. A respectful request to avoid the topic produced an unhinged fifteen-minute rant on the theme of "You're intolerant, arrogant and narrow-minded and you will not deny me my identity!"

Sefirah

robindch wrote: »

As long as you said that this was your belief, rather than saying that it was a matter of fact, then -- while the mum's reaction was over the top -- I don't really see too much of a problem with it. Though I would avoid conversations like this as much as possible, particularly in places where religion is a major social problem.

If you'd said outright that the kid's views were wrong and stated your position as if it was fact, or clearly implied that the mum's position was baloney, then that certainly would have been inappropriate in the context.

Was on the receiving end of this last weekend when an elderly relative decided to discuss nothing but religion with my kid. A respectful request to avoid the topic produced an unhinged fifteen-minute rant on the theme of "You're intolerant, arrogant and narrow-minded and you will not deny me my identity!"

I didn't state it as fact, it was more like "this is what I believe in"- I said at the end something to the effect of lots of people having many different ideas on the subject, but it's true that it's a whole lot easier to just say nothing altogether- especially since kids tend to blurt out the most awkward stuff at very inconvenient times...! Like I was chatting to her about my boyfriend who moved to Israel at the same age alone with his mom, and said that he now lives with his mom, brother and sister- then her mom came home and she told her "Hey, mom! <my name> said that you're going to make me brothers and sisters now that we're here!" Gaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Lol- oldies can be tough to reason with. Or anyone who makes religion a part of their fundamental identity, come to that

robindch

Sefirah wrote: »

I didn't state it as fact, it was more like "this is what I believe in"- I said at the end something to the effect of lots of people having many different ideas on the subject [...]

Well, if the kid asks you a question, it's not unreasonable to answer it. At least briefly and avoiding dwelling on the topic if it's a controversial one.

Did the mum explicitly ask you not to discuss religion or science?

ShooterSF

I think it was fair for you to answer her question. I can't believe anyone would want to hide a view from their child.
Where you crossed the line was pointing out how ludicrous Noah's ark is. Best not to pick apart a child's parent's religion with the child.

Just as an aside is there anyone that thinks the OP would still have been in the wrong simply answering the child's question?

The Israeli

ShooterSF wrote: »

Just as an aside is there anyone that thinks the OP would still have been in the wrong simply answering the child's question?

It's a matter of who you are dealing with. In this case it was a child of the age of 7 with strong religious believes.
It was not wrong answering to the child about the op's own believes (though it was smarter to avoid it in the first place), but it was wrong crashing the child's believes.
If she was talking to a grown up child which wasn't under her supervision, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

The issue here is not religion, but it is boundaries between people.
In the average case, this alone wouldn't case to firing.

ShooterSF

The Israeli wrote: »

It's a matter of who you are dealing with. In this case it was a child of the age of 7 with strong religious believes.
It was not wrong answering to the child about the op's own believes (though it was smarter to avoid it in the first place), but it was wrong crashing the child's believes.
If she was talking to a grown up child which wasn't under her supervision, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.

The issue here is not religion at all, but boundaries between people.
In the average case, this alone wouldn't case to firing.

I mostly agree though I don't think it's smarter not to answer the child. If I had a child they would by 7 know about as many beliefs as I could tell them about not just my own. The only reason for the OP to hide their belief is if the parent is warping the child's mind about atheists.
Also saying "a child of 7 with strong religious beliefs" should be accompanied by a strong shudder especially if the parents are determined to shield the child from information about other beliefs. Indoctrination at it's finest.

The Israeli

ShooterSF wrote: »

I mostly agree though I don't think it's smarter not to answer the child. If I had a child they would by 7 know about as many beliefs as I could tell them about not just my own. The only reason for the OP to hide their belief is if the parent is warping the child's mind about atheists.
Also saying "a child of 7 with strong religious beliefs" should be accompanied by a strong shudder especially if the parents are determined to shield the child from information about other beliefs. Indoctrination at it's finest.

I agree with you that there are better ways to raise a child, but OP was an au-pair, and it wasn't of her job.

nozzferrahhtoo

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?

whydoibother?

Sefirah wrote: »

But surely she should be given the option to hear differing opinions? It feels like living in a bubble here sometimes- especially with new immigrants- they create their own little Jewish world, and anything outside of that is simply not acceptable

That's her parents decision.

sink

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?

It depends or your role, if you are appointed as a caregiver in the case of the OP, then you should pretty much follow the letter of what the parents want, within reason. If you are just an acquaintance and you are asked a direct question by a child, then it is up to you to answer it as you please.

mikhail

It's interesting to read this thread in the light of the recent debate on religious education in schools.

It's utterly obvious from the replies here that the vast majority of atheists here (who, one might imagine are self-selected to be among the more vocal atheists) firmly believe that parents have a right to control their children's religious education.

I had already suspected as much, but it does give the lie to the oft-insisted idea that as proponents of secular education we want to interfere with that right.

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