Children's freedom?

[tekkengod]

My dad and i got into this discussion the other night. Apparently most religious folk find it absolutely fine to take their kids to church at the ripe old age of oh....6 or 7. Before they can really grasp any of it, but thats aside the point. Lets say that your child decides they want to explore a DIFFRENT religion, do you allow them the luxury and take the to a diffrent service? or do you force your own beliefs on them? what would YOU do? :eek:

[aikiMac]

Lets say that your child decides they want to explore a DIFFRENT religion, do you allow them the luxury and take the to a diffrent service? or do you force your own beliefs on them?
Dude, where do you live? That scenario bears no resemblance to the world I live in where there are many, many children. I've interacted with more families with young children than I can count. None of the children, zero of them, zip, zilch, nada, none of them wanted to do a different religion at such a young age. Every child wants to imitate mommy and daddy.

[narcsarge]

I have not crammed "my" religion down my childs throat. I explain my beliefs and why I believe in them. I do not tell him that he has to believe what I am telling him but I can show where I get my information. I also telling, that he can make up his own mind about what I believe but that he will have to provide facts, and logical reasoning, to back up his decisions. Yes, if he wanted to explore another religion, or none at all, he is free to do that.

[NewLearner]

Since my children have expressed a desire to not go to school, do I honor that desire too? I know of kids that loved to explore the burners on stoves, do we honor that desire? I hope you would answer no to both of those.

As a parent, I take a great deal of thought to what I want to expose my kids to. Part of that is religion. Although I have kids older than you, I have never had them say, I am not going to church. If they did and are at an age where they can make reasonable decisions, I would honor it. But at 7? They are going to go to church just like they are going to clean their room and attend school.

[bcullen]

Since my children have expressed a desire to not go to school, do I honor that desire too? I know of kids that loved to explore the burners on stoves, do we honor that desire? I hope you would answer no to both of those.

As a parent, I take a great deal of thought to what I want to expose my kids to. Part of that is religion. Although I have kids older than you, I have never had them say, I am not going to church. If they did and are at an age where they can make reasonable decisions, I would honor it. But at 7? They are going to go to church just like they are going to clean their room and attend school.


I don’t think you can compare things like going to school and cleaning their room with religious/philosophical studies. Teaching discipline, basic skills, common courtesy etc… are the job of a parent. Defining your relationship with the world is a personal matter and it’s something that comes in its own time (for some it may come at age 6, for others still it hasn’t come at age 80). It’s my job to nurture the idea but not to make the decision.

I’ve always thought it a bit odd that we associate knowledge of sex as the end of innocence when it’s actually the knowledge of your own mortality that ends childhood.

[aikiMac]

Dude, are you really saying that you've encountered a 6 or 7 year old who wanted to explore a different religion? 'Cause I don't think that happens.

[Davey Bones]

Dude, are you really saying that you've encountered a 6 or 7 year old who wanted to explore a different religion? 'Cause I don't think that happens.


THANK YOU!!!

Seriously, I never met a seven year old who walked in the front door one day and said "mommy and daddy, I find your religious beliefs oppressive and will be converting immediately."

They have a basic (and I mean *basic*) understanding of religion, and certainly don't have the knowledge or experience to differentiate between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Realistically, they wouldn't be able to understand the difference between Wicca and Christianity.

Would it be a good idea to expose kids to other religions, sure. Will they be exposed to them through life, of course. But the only thing they know at that age is one day of gifts versus seven.

[Yohan]

I don’t think you can compare things like going to school and cleaning their room with religious/philosophical studies.

Personally, I beleive that educating your children in the matters of spirituality and philosiphy are as integral to their growth as putting them through school and making them do things they don't want to (like cleaning their room).

I don't have kids, but that's my opinion.

[bcullen]

Dude, are you really saying that you've encountered a 6 or 7 year old who wanted to explore a different religion? 'Cause I don't think that happens.

I find it very rare that they even want to enter into the subject of religion at all, without some outside influence. When they start to ask those types of questions it's time to start thinking about exposing them to the material and think about involvement with organizations. Until that time I think it's best to let them be, there will be plenty of time to ponder the heavy questions later in life. Childhood is the one magical time when you are completley free of these types of concerns.

[wrydolphin]

That's a mighty advanced 6 year old you got going there, Tekken. At 6 years old, children do not have the capacity to make important decisions for themselves like that. I mean, would you make a 6 year old decide what career path they are going to take and make them stick to it? There would be a lot of ballarinas, princesses, firement and astronaughts running about and not a heck of a lot else.

At 6 years old, the parent's job is enculturation. This is when the child learns what is right and wrong in the culture in which they are growing. Children start becoming individuals (in the abstract sense) in adolescence and as a young adult. If a 16 year old came up and said they wanted to explore a different religion, then that is worth talking over. If a 6 year old declared they no longer wanted to go to church, well, that's just too bad.

Further, there is a propensity to attempt to treat small children like small adults. I have heard parents trying to work out compromises and negotiations with 4 year olds. Four year olds have no concept of the future, but there's Mommy trying to explain how Sally is going to regret touching a hot stove in 10 years when she gets scarred. Jesus!

[Thelistmaker]

Perhaps we could alter the question slightly to fit with 6 year olds?

Perhaps we could ask ourselves what we would do if we have an otherwise obedient child cries and screams blue murder whenever they are taken to the church/temple/mosque and says every time they enter they’re uneasy and just hate the place (in a much stronger way then just 'I dont want to go').

If they have a very negative reaction every time you took them in what would you do?

[aikiMac]

I'd beat my kid senseless until he concedes to my demand.

Right? That is the right answer, isn't it?

-----
Really, what kind of question is that?!?! Really!!

Church, school, neighbor's house, uncle's house, etc -- it's all the same. I'd find out why junior is reacting that way. It will take all of 117 seconds to learn what's up.

[kmguy8]

....
I’ve always thought it a bit odd that we associate knowledge of sex as the end of innocence when it’s actually the knowledge of your own mortality that ends childhood.

damn, GREAT quote!

[Thelistmaker]

Church, school, neighbor's house, uncle's house, etc -- it's all the same. I'd find out why junior is reacting that way. It will take all of 117 seconds to learn what's up.

What if they say they just get a 'very bad feeling' whenever they enter the church/temple/stone circle? no apparent reason, just a very bad feeling. I know it would be very rare for a 6 year but it is Conceivable. A relative of mine had this sort of experiance whilst they where being force to go to church.

Remember we'er not just talking 'I dont want to go' we'er talking kid practicaly throws up when you even mention your choosen place of worship

[wrydolphin]

I think that would be more of an indication that someone is hurting my child then a condemnation of the religion I choose. Children don't know if the religion or beliefs of their parents are right or wrong at that stage because they are only beginning to develope right and wrong.

[aikiMac]

What if they say they just get a 'very bad feeling' whenever they enter the church/temple/stone circle? no apparent reason, just a very bad feeling.
What if one day I wake up, and, like, the grass is blue and the sky is green? You know, it's conceivable too.

(No apparent reason? Not. I've been around too many children to buy into that.)


Remember we'er not just talking 'I dont want to go' we'er talking kid practicaly throws up when you even mention your choosen place of worship.
What Wry said: someone is hurting junior.

[Topher]

I find it very rare that they even want to enter into the subject of religion at all, without some outside influence. When they start to ask those types of questions it's time to start thinking about exposing them to the material and think about involvement with organizations. Until that time I think it's best to let them be, there will be plenty of time to ponder the heavy questions later in life. Childhood is the one magical time when you are completley free of these types of concerns.
I agree.

I agree with Richard Dawkins when he calls it a form of child abuse to label a 6 year old a ‘Catholic child’ or a ‘Muslim child.’ And that includes an ‘Atheist child’ (despite it being the default position.)

Children simply don’t have the intellect to have knowledge and an opinion on the cosmos, and make life affecting decisions, yet society simply assumes that a child inherits their parent’s views on such issues. We don’t assume this with other issues, we don't assume a child is ‘Liberal child’, or a ‘Conservative child.’

I don’t believe Children should grow up ignorant just because their parents are.

[narcsarge]

I agree.

I agree with Richard Dawkins when he calls it a form of child abuse to label a 6 year old a ‘Catholic child’ or a ‘Muslim child.’ And that includes an ‘Atheist child’ (despite it being the default position.)

Children simply don’t have the intellect to have knowledge and an opinion on the cosmos, and make life affecting decisions, yet society simply assumes that a child inherits their parent’s views on such issues. We don’t assume this with other issues, we don't assume a child is ‘Liberal child’, or a ‘Conservative child.’

I don’t believe Children should grow up ignorant just because their parents are.

Homer J, uh yeah, most children do inherit at least one of their parent's religion. In my case, it was the Catholic faith. In my friends case, Judeism (sp?). In my son's case, Christian. Is he labeled a Christian? Maybe by someone who would ask his mother or me what faith he is, or if they ask him. Would someone then label him? Is it not fair to assume that children would learn what their parent's find important? Including religion? No, did he make the decision to be Christian? No, of course not. No more then he made the decision to go to the school he attends, or the do jang he attends, or the MA he studies. Why did I, as a parent (ignorant or not), make these decisions for my child? Because I think exposure to these things will provide structure, discipline, focus, critical thinking. I believe each will play a role in completing his growth as a responsible, productive, citizen. Is he bound my decree that he accept my religion. No, he can make his choice whenever he feels it important to do so. For me, it took 33 years to make that change. :D

[NewLearner]

I agree.

I agree with Richard Dawkins when he calls it a form of child abuse to label a 6 year old a ‘Catholic child’ or a ‘Muslim child.’ And that includes an ‘Atheist child’ (despite it being the default position.)

Children simply don’t have the intellect to have knowledge and an opinion on the cosmos, and make life affecting decisions, yet society simply assumes that a child inherits their parent’s views on such issues. We don’t assume this with other issues, we don't assume a child is ‘Liberal child’, or a ‘Conservative child.’

I don’t believe Children should grow up ignorant just because their parents are.

I really don't see anyone referring to any children as Catholics. Usually that is something you say about adults or about the family. The same way with any of the other religions.

Are you really trying to imply that teaching my children about religion is child abuse?

[narcsarge]

I really don't see anyone referring to any children as Catholics. Usually that is something you say about adults or about the family. The same way with any of the other religions.

Are you really trying to imply that teaching my children about religion is child abuse?


Bump^^!

[Davey Bones]

I agree.

I agree with Richard Dawkins when he calls it a form of child abuse to label a 6 year old a ‘Catholic child’ or a ‘Muslim child.’ And that includes an ‘Atheist child’ (despite it being the default position.)

Children simply don’t have the intellect to have knowledge and an opinion on the cosmos, and make life affecting decisions, yet society simply assumes that a child inherits their parent’s views on such issues. We don’t assume this with other issues, we don't assume a child is ‘Liberal child’, or a ‘Conservative child.’

I don’t believe Children should grow up ignorant just because their parents are.

What a bunch of utter drivel.

Families are the primary means of transmitting social norms, like it or not. And along with transmitting said norms comes transmitting religions. Assuming that you choose to hand your child a bunch of books on religion (which would certainly overwhelm most 6 year olds) or let them decide whether they want to go to church or be "labeled", you're missing the big picture.

Children will *never* be insulated from what mommy and daddy do. If a parent says grace in front of their child, that child learns something about religion. If a parent lights the menorah, the child learns something. Any religious activity is by the parent is going to shape the child's worldview. That's the role of a family. So unless we're going to put our kids into some sort of institution where we take them from their families and ensure they'll never see *any* religions, it all comes down to mommy and daddy.

And knock of the churlish comments about religious people being ignorant. You're not coming across as witty or cute; you're the one coming across as ignorant.

[LJoll]

I really don't see anyone referring to any children as Catholics. Usually that is something you say about adults or about the family. The same way with any of the other religions.

Are you really trying to imply that teaching my children about religion is child abuse?

The thing is, it's not exactly teaching them about religion, it seems to be usually telling them that the religion is true. I don't think much of us would say that it's a coincidence that the majority of Christians were brought up as Christians and the same with Muslims ect. If you are brought up believing something, it's hard to change your mind later in life, despite any evidence. This applies to religious people and atheists, although possibley less to athiests, as they don't have to give anything up as such, although this is not really relevant to the thread. If people generally stay the same faith for their whole lives, i don't agree that it's fair to teach them that there is a God when they are young and esspecially not to force them to attend church.

[aikiMac]

If people generally stay the same faith for their whole lives, i don't agree that it's fair to teach them that there is a God when they are young and esspecially not to force them to attend church.
Not sending them to church does the same thing: it teaches them that God is irrelevant. That's a religious claim.

Effectively, then, you would promote doing the thing that speak against? Hmm. I'm not following that line of thought.

[narcsarge]

What a bunch of utter drivel.

And knock of the churlish comments about religious people being ignorant. You're not coming across as witty or cute; you're the one coming across as ignorant.

Hey GC, do you really think that he would understand 'churlish'? oh yeah, BIG BUMP^^^ :Angel:

[ryanTKD]

My dad and i got into this discussion the other night. Apparently most religious folk find it absolutely fine to take their kids to church at the ripe old age of oh....6 or 7. Before they can really grasp any of it, but thats aside the point. Lets say that your child decides they want to explore a DIFFRENT religion, do you allow them the luxury and take the to a diffrent service? or do you force your own beliefs on them? what would YOU do? :eek:

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford Prof. who I find is a complete toss pot, raised this point in his series The Root of all Evil and made a comparison that you probably wouldn't force your own political beliefs on your child, so why your religious ones?

[aikiMac]

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford Prof. who I find is a complete toss pot, raised this point in his series The Root of all Evil and made a comparison that you probably wouldn't force your own political beliefs on your child, so why your religious ones?
I don't know if a "toss pot" is a good thing or bad thing, but, um, does this mean that if Dawkins' six-year-old son wanted to attend a Christian church, that Dawkins would drive him there every Sunday?

'Cause, you know, we wouldn't want to stifle the child's wishes now, would we?

[narcsarge]

Richard Dawkins, an Oxford Prof. who I find is a complete toss pot, raised this point in his series The Root of all Evil and made a comparison that you probably wouldn't force your own political beliefs on your child, so why your religious ones?

What rubish. I have a political point of view based entirely on my parents. I did not realize it until I was in my late 20's but heck yes. They formed my "political " ideology. Did they "push it on me"? Hell no but I have it none the less. :Angel:

[ryanTKD]

I don't know if a "toss pot" is a good thing or bad thing, but, um, does this mean that if Dawkins' six-year-old son wanted to attend a Christian church, that Dawkins would drive him there every Sunday?

'Cause, you know, we wouldn't want to stifle the child's wishes now, would we?

Toss pot is a bad thing yes, I hate him. I don't quite understand the rest of your point.

[ryanTKD]

What rubish. I have a political point of view based entirely on my parents. I did not realize it until I was in my late 20's but heck yes. They formed my "political " ideology. Did they "push it on me"? Hell no but I have it none the less. :Angel:

Exactly. They didn't actually force it upon, but when I was taken to church I wasn't allowed not to go. Your point just seems to further mine.

[CanuckMA]

Exactly. They didn't actually force it upon, but when I was taken to church I wasn't allowed not to go. Your point just seems to further mine.

You likely weren't allowed to not go to school either. Those of us who believe religion is an integral part of our lives also believe in teaching our children our faith. It's that simple. I find the 'child abuse' thing always comes from people who are not religious to begin with, and can't abide the idea that somebody else might be.

[ryanTKD]

You likely weren't allowed to not go to school either. Those of us who believe religion is an integral part of our lives also believe in teaching our children our faith. It's that simple. I find the 'child abuse' thing always comes from people who are not religious to begin with, and can't abide the idea that somebody else might be.

I was religious for roughly 14 years of my life. You have just said "us who believe religion is an integeral part of our lives", exactly you believe, not your child who seems not to have any decision.

[aikiMac]

I don't quite understand the rest of your point.
Richard Dawkins is evangelistically atheist, but according to the posts in this thread he does not want parents to force their views about God upon their children. So, taking the age from Tekken's original post (ages 6 or 7), in a hypothetical world where Dawkins has a 6-year-old boy, I wonder if Dawkins would live up to his own words and drive that boy to church every Sunday if the boy wanted to go.

I assume the answer is going to be "no, Dawkins wouldn't do it."

[Davey Bones]

Not sending them to church does the same thing: it teaches them that God is irrelevant. That's a religious claim.

Y'know, I *have* to expand on this.

It's very easy to talk about hypotheticals about exposing your child to different religions, but how do you effectively do that if you provide no basis whatsoever for any initial religious experience?

I grew up Catholic. We're talking "off the boat from Italy" Catholic. I spent 8 years in Catholic school, even though I effectively stopped going to Church when I was 14 and still in Catholic school. Did I go through all the motions? Sure, kinda had to. Did it mean anything except time off from class? Nope. I wouldn't be able to recall my Confirmation, for example, if you put a gun to my head and told me "your Confirmation name or your life".

Well, when I got to college, I had a framework to work with. I was able to say "this is what I do and do not want from religion". I was able to spend the last 16 years searching and thinking about religion precisely because I was exposed to religion as a child.

I'm just curious how people who say "you need to let your children explore religion" (a good thing, IMO) can also say "don't expose your children to religion because it will ensure they won't ever explore different religions". It's an utter contradiction to me, to be honest. Without that initial exposure to religion, how does anyone have any experiences to work off of? What, are we just to assume that someone will wake up one day and decide "gee, I want religion, so let me just start hopping from worship to worship"? That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

On the other hand, you may respond with, "Well, it will be based on the people they meet and interact with on a daily basis as the get older." OK, same thing happens to people raised with religion, folks.

[ryanTKD]

Richard Dawkins is evangelistically atheist, but according to the posts in this thread he does not want parents to force their views about God upon their children. So, taking the age from Tekken's original post (ages 6 or 7), in a hypothetical world where Dawkins has a 6-year-old boy, I wonder if Dawkins would live up to his own words and drive that boy to church every Sunday if the boy wanted to go.

I assume the answer is going to be "no, Dawkins wouldn't do it."

Yes Dawkins would do it.

[narcsarge]

Exactly. They didn't actually force it upon, but when I was taken to church I wasn't allowed not to go. Your point just seems to further mine.
Maybe I am not understanding your point then. I thought you were quoting the "toss pot" as saying that it was wrong to "force" religion on your children. I too was "dragged" to church and sent to Sunday School. I did not have a choice in the matter. Did I want to stay home, sleep late, like my father did? Heck yes. But I did as my Mom and Dad asked. As grew older, we went less often to church but for several different reasons. I don't think it wrong that a parent requires a child to attend church services any more then having the child do his homework or take out the trash! :Angel:

[aikiMac]

Yes Dawkins would do it.
I don't believe you. No parent would honor a 6-year-old's wishes on a matter such as this. Make the boy 16, and we'd have a different situation.

[ryanTKD]

aikiMac - You think a 6 year old is incompetent?
Well a 16 year old could take himself.

narcsarge - So religion was forced upon you?

[Davey Bones]

aikiMac - You think a 6 year old is incompetent?

6 year olds can't even decide what they want for breakfast or who's their best friend from day-to-day, and you think they can somehow magically make decisions about religion?

[aikiMac]

aikiMac - You think a 6 year old is incompetent?

Pffftttt !! Um, yes. Very much so. What Gangrel said.

[GB-UK]

So both parents are religious and attend some religious institution. What do they do with the kid if they want to follow Dorkins view of not indoctinating the child? Leave it at home maybe? Now that would be child abuse :bang:

[LJoll]

Not sending them to church does the same thing: it teaches them that God is irrelevant. That's a religious claim.

Effectively, then, you would promote doing the thing that speak against? Hmm. I'm not following that line of thought.

Not sending them to church does not neseccarily teach them that God is irrelevant. That's like saying that not sending your child to mosques is teaching them that other religions are irrelevant.

In an ideal world, I believe the best way would be to present a balanced view to their child, but in realisty it's almost impossible to have a balanced view yourself. Despite this I still think it would be good to teach them about as many different views as possible while they are young, including religious and non-religious. Although some of your own views will inevitabley be conveyed, I still believe it is better than forcing one belief upon them at a young age.

Two seperate, but slightly related questions.

1) Do you believe that if you were raised as an atheist, you would be a Christian now? (ignore if you were as an athiest)

2) If you were raised as a Muslim, do you believe that you would be a Christian now?

[bcullen]

Y'know, I *have* to expand on this.

It's very easy to talk about hypotheticals about exposing your child to different religions, but how do you effectively do that if you provide no basis whatsoever for any initial religious experience?

I grew up Catholic. We're talking "off the boat from Italy" Catholic. I spent 8 years in Catholic school, even though I effectively stopped going to Church when I was 14 and still in Catholic school. Did I go through all the motions? Sure, kinda had to. Did it mean anything except time off from class? Nope. I wouldn't be able to recall my Confirmation, for example, if you put a gun to my head and told me "your Confirmation name or your life".

Well, when I got to college, I had a framework to work with. I was able to say "this is what I do and do not want from religion". I was able to spend the last 16 years searching and thinking about religion precisely because I was exposed to religion as a child.

I'm just curious how people who say "you need to let your children explore religion" (a good thing, IMO) can also say "don't expose your children to religion because it will ensure they won't ever explore different religions". It's an utter contradiction to me, to be honest. Without that initial exposure to religion, how does anyone have any experiences to work off of? What, are we just to assume that someone will wake up one day and decide "gee, I want religion, so let me just start hopping from worship to worship"? That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

On the other hand, you may respond with, "Well, it will be based on the people they meet and interact with on a daily basis as the get older." OK, same thing happens to people raised with religion, folks.

The question becomes at what age do you introduce the child? I say wait until the child starts to ask these questions, usually 8-10 years old. In most cases children below that age won't understand anything but the most basic concepts and any religion I've studied has been a very complex subject. What we are talking about is "The Ultimate Question" most adults aren't ready to have a go at this and you want to expose children to it?

I say let them be children, when they are old enough to start asking the question, then it's time to let them explore. Obviously the first place they will look is at whatever their parents are into, however, this differs from forcing them into a religion by attempting to plant ideas at a very impressionable age before they are ready to deal with the subject matter or should even have to deal with the matter at hand.

This is an area where it is not the parents place to dictate what the child will be: Are you going to chose the child's, career, mate, social circle etc... as well? If you are going to force something as personal as a philosophical worldview why not live their life for them by proxy?

[aikiMac]

This is an area where it is not the parents place to dictate what the child will be: Are you going to chose the child's, career, mate, social circle etc... as well? If you are going to force something as personal as a philosophical worldview why not live their life for them by proxy?
Why would you force a parent to live as though God doesn't matter? If the parents' religious belief is that God is matters, then we should respect their choice in forcing their children to participate in that religion. As Gangrel pointed out, a non-believer can easily go through the motions without suffering harm.

It's that old adage: "Under my roof, you obey my rules. When you have your own house, you can make the rules."

[Topher]

I really don't see anyone referring to any children as Catholics. Usually that is something you say about adults or about the family. The same way with any of the other religions.

Are you really trying to imply that teaching my children about religion is child abuse?
I don’t see why children should have the views of their parents forced onto them.

Just look at the troubles in Northern Ireland

[aikiMac]

Not sending them to church does not neseccarily teach them that God is irrelevant.
Yes, it does, if church attendance is normal for that religion. If you don't care enough to show up for a couple hours once a week, then you can't tell me that God is relevant in your life.


Two seperate, but slightly related questions.

1) Do you believe that if you were raised as an atheist, you would be a Christian now? (ignore if you were as an athiest)

2) If you were raised as a Muslim, do you believe that you would be a Christian now?
There's a thread on this somewhere. I don't feel like using the search feature right now. The answer is "I'd be the same, except more handsome."

Everyone knows my religion. That you would ask these questions of me indicates that you don't know Christianity very well. Should you not be spending a little more time studying Christianity? I thought you were promoting the study of all religions so as to make a truly informed decision. Perhaps I misunderstood your position. :confused:

[Topher]

Children will *never* be insulated from what mommy and daddy do. If a parent says grace in front of their child, that child learns something about religion. If a parent lights the menorah, the child learns something. Any religious activity is by the parent is going to shape the child's worldview. That's the role of a family. So unless we're going to put our kids into some sort of institution where we take them from their families and ensure they'll never see *any* religions, it all comes down to mommy and daddy.
I've no probelm about teaching children about different religions, but how many religious people teach their children about the different religions out there, and not just the one they practice?

And knock of the churlish comments about religious people being ignorant. You're not coming across as witty or cute; you're the one coming across as ignorant.
So a creationist teaching their children that mainstream science is wrong and their holy manuscript is right is not passing ignorance to their child?

[Topher]

To add to the child abuse thing, the idea of hell peticularly stands out. Telling a child they will roast in hell if they don't accept the beliefs is psychological abuse in my eyes.

Here's the show ryanTKD mentioned, "The Root of All Evil?"

Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230)
Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127)

The second part has a piece on "Hell Houses"

[Topher]

Yes, it does, if church attendance is normal for that religion. If you don't care enough to show up for a couple hours once a week, then you can't tell me that God is relevant in your life.
And children are in the position to decide if God is relevant to them?

[LJoll]

To add to the child abuse thing, the idea of hell peticularly stands out. Telling a child they will roast in hell if they don't accept the beliefs is psychological abuse in my eyes.

Here's the show ryanTKD mentioned, "The Root of All Evil?"

Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230)
Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127)

The second part has a piece on "Hell Houses"

Thanks a lot. I missed that when it was on channel four, but I really wanted to see it.

[LJoll]

Yes, it does, if church attendance is normal for that religion. If you don't care enough to show up for a couple hours once a week, then you can't tell me that God is relevant in your life.

Ok, fine. I actaully agree. Not sending to church might teach them that Christianity is irrelevent in their lives. But at the same time not taking them to a mosque may teach them that Islam is irrelevant. When I said that it does not teach them that God is irrelevant, I meant as an idea, or something to think about, not as in a major part of their life. I wouldn't expect a child to read the origin of species to understand that science or evolution is relevant. Basicaly I don't agree that forcing a doctrine upon them is showing them that something is relevant. They should be made aware.


There's a thread on this somewhere. I don't feel like using the search feature right now. The answer is "I'd be the same, except more handsome."

Everyone knows my religion. That you would ask these questions of me indicates that you don't know Christianity very well. Should you not be spending a little more time studying Christianity? I thought you were promoting the study of all religions so as to make a truly informed decision. Perhaps I misunderstood your position. :confused:

Firstly, why do you believe that if you were born a Muslim you would have converted to Christianity?

You obviously do seem to have misunderstood my position. What exactly indicates that I've misunderstood Christianity? I think that acknowledging the possibility that some Christians would be Muslims if they were brought up that way isn't misunderstanding Christianity. Do you feel it's a coincidence that the majority of Muslims were brought up as Muslims and the majority of Christians were brought up as Christians, or are you trying to imply that it's genetic or something?

[Topher]

Ok, fine. I actaully agree. Not sending might teach them that Christianity is irrelevent in thier lives.
Why should it be relevant in their life?

[Davey Bones]

So a creationist teaching their children that mainstream science is wrong and their holy manuscript is right is not passing ignorance to their child?

Nice evasion technique, but that's not what you said, nor is it the context in which it was said, HJS.

[aikiMac]

Ok, fine. I actaully agree. Not sending might teach them that Christianity is irrelevent in thier lives. But at the same time not taking them to a mosque may teach them that Islam is irrelevant.
If the hypothetical parents are Christians, why would you expect them to attend a Moslem mosque with any regularity? It seems to me that demanding that they attend the Mosque is equivalent to demanding that they forsake core tenets of the Christian faith. Now who's being preachy, eh?


Firstly, why do you believe that if you were born a Muslim you would have converted to Christianity?
Because that's what the Reformers taught, and they had a good reason for teaching it. And now we're drifting into a long, deep lesson on Christian beliefs. That's a fine thing to study, but we have to be careful how we do it. Sometimes MAP is not the right forum.


What exactly indicates that I've misunderstood Christianity?
^^ the prior question

[LJoll]

If the hypothetical parents are Christians, why would you expect them to attend a Moslem mosque with any regularity? It seems to me that demanding that they attend the Mosque is equivalent to demanding that they forsake core tenets of the Christian faith. Now who's being preachy, eh?

You said that not taking them to church will teach them that God is irrelevant. I'm asking why we should teach them that that God is relevant, while other religions aren't.


Because that's what the Reformers taught, and they had a good reason for teaching it. And now we're drifting into a long, deep lesson on Christian beliefs. That's a fine thing to study, but we have to be careful how we do it. Sometimes MAP is not the right forum.



^^ the prior question

What did the Reformers teach? And where is the right place to talk?

[LJoll]

Why should it be relevant in their life?

Umm.. that was what I was trying to say, albeit unclearly; I'm quite tired. I think they should be aware of Christianity and the relavance of God, but not neccecarily in their lives. they can we aware of different religions and their beliefs without practising them. What exactly did you think I was trying to say?

ps. I apologise if this too is incomprehensible, I need some sleep.

[LJoll]

To add to the child abuse thing, the idea of hell peticularly stands out. Telling a child they will roast in hell if they don't accept the beliefs is psychological abuse in my eyes.

Here's the show ryanTKD mentioned, "The Root of All Evil?"

Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230)
Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127)

The second part has a piece on "Hell Houses"

That Muslim guy near the end of the first one is a complete nut job.

[aikiMac]

You said that not taking them to church will teach them that God is irrelevant. I'm asking why we should teach them that that God is relevant, while other religions aren't.
Which religion besides atheism is teaching them that God is irrelevant? :confused:



What did the Reformers teach? And where is the right place to talk?
The Reformers taught that I would still be a Christian. As to the second, if a lesson on Christianity is to come of this then a new thread should be started. Recognize, however, that very indepth treatment often cannot be given over an internet forum. This medium of communication is, well, limitted.

[Topher]

Nice evasion technique, but that's not what you said, nor is it the context in which it was said, HJS.
No, it's exactly what i meant. "I don’t believe children should grow up ignorant just because their parents are." i.e. if a parent is ignorant of something (or simply disagrees with something) I don't see why that opinion should be forced on their children. My example illustrated that. A creationist who passes their creation belief to their child, as truth, will make them ignorant of modern science/biology.

[Topher]

Which religion besides atheism is teaching them that God is irrelevant? :confused:
Buddhism. It doesn’t deny or affirm the exit of God, it just thinks it is irrelevant.

[LJoll]

Which religion besides atheism is teaching them that God is irrelevant? :confused:

Ok, sorry, I meant to type your God. The church doesn't teach children that other Gods are relavent, so why is your God more important?


The Reformers taught that I would still be a Christian. As to the second, if a lesson on Christianity is to come of this then a new thread should be started. Recognize, however, that very indepth treatment often cannot be given over an internet forum. This medium of communication is, well, limitted.

I'm really tired and my concentration is rapidly deteriating so I'm going to head off to bed. Could you start a new thread, or send me an email explaining briefly what the Reformers taught?

[Topher]

Umm.. that was what I was trying to say, albeit unclearly; I'm quite tired. I think they should be aware of Christianity and the relavance of God, but not neccecarily in their lives. they can we aware of different religions and their beliefs without practising them. What exactly did you think I was trying to say?

ps. I apologise if this too is incomprehensible, I need some sleep.
You said "Not sending might teach them that Christianity is irrelevent in thier lives." hence me asking why should it be relevant in the first place.

I agree they should be aware of the various religious beliefs/views along with non-religious beliefs/views, however I think it up to the individual to decide if god is relevant at all, let alone in their life.

[Capt Ann]

Several people on this thread have argued, repeatedly, that we should not assume that God should be relevent in a child's life. The fact that you would even raise such an argument shows that you have already denied even the possibility that Christianity may actually be true.

The "let-each-decide-don't-expose-children-to-Christianity" approach only makes any sense if you have already been able to prove that Chritsiainty is false. The fact that Christianity is true, and Jesus Christ really is Lord, makes it relevent to everyone, everywhere, for all times.

Consider: If Christianity is true, then an all-powerful creator-God really did make each individual, uniquely, for a specific purpose, and with inherent value simply because they are created in His image. This God really does give us life, purpose, hope, and a reason for living. This God really does love us and offer each individual a relationship with Him, where we can know and understand His character, His plan, and our place in that plan. We really have offended Him by our willfull rejection of His will and by our rebellion and self-centeredness. He really did step into time/space and walk among us, as the Man, Christ Jesus. Jesus really did live a perfect, sinless life, then offer Himself as a sacrifice to die on the cross for our sins. Jesus really did die, but three days later, He really did rise from the dead, proving that our sins were forgiven, that He is God, and that we could have hope of eternal life after death. Jesus really will return to judge everyone still alive and everyone who has already died; those who have placed their trust in Jesus really will enjoy eternity with Him, while those who have rejected Him really will spend eternity in torment without Him.

My children know and understand this, and they have seen it to be true, already, in their lives.

[Topher]

The Reformers taught that I would still be a Christian. As to the second, if a lesson on Christianity is to come of this then a new thread should be started. Recognize, however, that very indepth treatment often cannot be given over an internet forum. This medium of communication is, well, limitted.
So if you were born, raised and lived in Afghanistan or any other Muslim nation, you would not be a Muslim?

[Topher]

Several people on this thread have argued, repeatedly, that we should not assume that God should be relevent in a child's life. The fact that you would even raise such an argument shows that you have already denied even the possibility that Christianity may actually be true.
No, it shows that it is a decision the individual should make.

The fact that Christianity is true, and Jesus Christ really is Lord, makes it relevent to everyone, everywhere, for all times.
Which is your opinion, your desire.

Funny that almost all religions believe the non-believers of that religion are wrong.

Consider: If Christianity is true, then an all-powerful creator-God really did make each individual, uniquely, for a specific purpose, and with inherent value simply because they are created in His image.
In which case, why would god punish me for being exactly how he created me. Being omnipotent/omniscience, he would have known I would have been a non-believer, yet he still created me in spite of that knowledge. I can only conclude that he wanted me to live how he created me.

This God really does give us life, purpose, hope, and a reason for living. This God really does love us and offer each individual a relationship with Him, where we can know and understand His character, His plan, and our place in that plan. We really have offended Him by our willfull rejection of His will and by our rebellion and self-centeredness. He really did step into time/space and walk among us, as the Man, Christ Jesus. Jesus really did live a perfect, sinless life, then offer Himself as a sacrifice to die on the cross for our sins. Jesus really did die, but three days later, He really did rise from the dead, proving that our sins were forgiven, that He is God, and that we could have hope of eternal life after death. Jesus really will return to judge everyone still alive and everyone who has already died; those who have placed their trust in Jesus really will enjoy eternity with Him, while those who have rejected Him really [b]will[b] spend eternity in torment without Him.
Evidence?

P.S. Why would kill himself?

[bcullen]

Why would you force a parent to live as though God doesn't matter? If the parents' religious belief is that God is matters, then we should respect their choice in forcing their children to participate in that religion. As Gangrel pointed out, a non-believer can easily go through the motions without suffering harm.

It's that old adage: "Under my roof, you obey my rules. When you have your own house, you can make the rules."

I don't find God irrelevant, but I do find churches more relevant in the eyes of men then I believe them to be in the eyes of God.

Why force someone to live a lie? Not that I'm saying Christianity is a lie, but I do not believe everyone has the same calling in life and whatever path they need to follow they should be allowed find. There's no worse state in life then to know that who you are trying to be, is not the real you.

[Capt Ann]

P.S. Why would kill himself?It's the basic message of Christianity - Jesus loved you so much that He was willing to give His life as a ransom for yours. You couldn't save yourself; He could.

[Capt Ann]

I don't find God irrelevant, but I do find churches more relevant in the eyes of men then I believe them to be in the eyes of God. Actually, I agree with you there. But keep in mind that there's a difference between 'a church' (i.e., a building where people get together), and the Church (the family of all believers in Jesus Christ). The second is a family, not a building, and not a meeting. That 'family' is the center of God's plan for mankind - His love for us would so change us that we would have the same love for one another.

Why force someone to live a lie? Not that I'm saying Christianity is a lie, but I do not believe everyone has the same calling in life and whatever path they need to follow they should be allowed find. There's no worse state in life then to know that who you are trying to be, is not the real you.And no one could force anyone to live a lie. At some point, everyone must make their own decisions and face the consequences (good and bad) of their own choices. But age 6 is not the time or place for that, on such major issues. If a 6-year-old is too young to make a major decision on religion, he is certainly too young to suffer from feeling he is being forced to live a lie.

Actually, this example sounds like it hit close to home. Were you in a situation where you felt you were being forced to live a lie?

[Topher]

It's the basic message of Christianity - Jesus loved you so much that He was willing to give His life as a ransom for yours. You couldn't save yourself; He could.
God was Jesus in the flesh, right?

In which case, why didn't god just forgive.

What was the point of turning himself into a man, then having himself killed. If god wanted us to all know of 'him' and his message, he can let is know.

[aikiMac]

Ok, sorry, I meant to type your God. The church doesn't teach children that other Gods are relavent, so why is your God more important?
and
Why force someone to live a lie?
Exactly. Why should you force parents to live a lie? That was the point. Let parents do as they see best. They are, after all, the parent.

If junior ain't mature and able enough to live on his own, I see no reason for him to complain about his caregivers. "Biting the hand that feeds you," you know. It's rather rude, I say.

[NewLearner]

The question becomes at what age do you introduce the child? I say wait until the child starts to ask these questions, usually 8-10 years old. In most cases children below that age won't understand anything but the most basic concepts and any religion I've studied has been a very complex subject. What we are talking about is "The Ultimate Question" most adults aren't ready to have a go at this and you want to expose children to it?

I say let them be children, when they are old enough to start asking the question, then it's time to let them explore. Obviously the first place they will look is at whatever their parents are into, however, this differs from forcing them into a religion by attempting to plant ideas at a very impressionable age before they are ready to deal with the subject matter or should even have to deal with the matter at hand.

This is an area where it is not the parents place to dictate what the child will be: Are you going to chose the child's, career, mate, social circle etc... as well? If you are going to force something as personal as a philosophical worldview why not live their life for them by proxy?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are effectively suggesting that a family should put on hold their religion until a child is old enough to think about religion. By that point, you will have definitely steered them towards atheism.

If you think that I am not going to offer input into my kids social circle, career, and mate, you are sadly mistaken. Do you have any children?

[NewLearner]

God was Jesus in the flesh, right?

In which case, why didn't god just forgive.

What was the point of turning himself into a man, then having himself killed. If god wanted us to all know of 'him' and his message, he can let is know.


But Homer, didn't you have a lot of posts telling us it is impossible to know anything about God? Now you say He can just let us know. Which one is it?

[Capt Ann]

God was Jesus in the flesh, right?Actually, Jesus was God in the flesh. It is a significant difference, but I'll leave you to ponder why.

In which case, why didn't god just forgive.There is a difference between 'forgiving' and just 'overlooking'. Sin is still sin, evil is still evil, rebellion from God is still wrong and deserving of punishment.

If god wanted us to all know of 'him' and his message, he can let is know.He did. The message is available. The problem is that you want God to come to you on your terms. That's got to be the the height of arrogance, and the perfect example of choosing selfish rebellion over grateful submission to God.

[aikiMac]

But Homer, didn't you have a lot of posts telling us it is impossible to know anything about God? Now you say He can just let us know. Which one is it?
And following that excellent point, in the past Homer you always refused to allow these questions to be answered from the point of view of one who actually believes in the God about whom you are actually asking.

I cannot think of a single time when you asked a question specifically about the Christian God, and then allowed the answer to be given from the point of view of one who (gasp!) believes in that very same Christian God you were asking about. Maybe there was a time, but the point is that you have a reputation for asking questions of people while simultaneously denying them space to answer.

Query then, will you again refuse? Or will you, finally, allow the question to be answered?

Hmmm.

[bcullen]

And no one could force anyone to live a lie. At some point, everyone must make their own decisions and face the consequences (good and bad) of their own choices. But age 6 is not the time or place for that, on such major issues. If a 6-year-old is too young to make a major decision on religion, he is certainly too young to suffer from feeling he is being forced to live a lie.

Pushing someone into religion at such an early phase of development where they do not have the reasoning ability to make a decision is more like indoctrination or coercion then teaching. They don't have the ability to discern if this is what they want yet. Why not wait for a while and let them choose when they are capable of a more rational decision?

Actually, this example sounds like it hit close to home. Were you in a situation where you felt you were being forced to live a lie?

I come from an extremely WASPish area, so much so that I did not really know that there were other religions outside of Christianity until around age fourteen. Up until that point I was not comfortable with the faith, however, when all you know and see is shaped by a faith you are the odd man out, so if there's a problem it must be you, as you're the only one with the problem right?

Finding out that there were alternatives and that all people were not Christians was a true relief for me that, "So I'm not the only one" type of feeling.



Exactly. Why should you force parents to live a lie? That was the point. Let parents do as they see best. They are, after all, the parent.

If junior ain't mature and able enough to live on his own, I see no reason for him to complain about his caregivers. "Biting the hand that feeds you," you know. It's rather rude, I say.

I'm not saying that everyone should cease, I'm saying that those who choose not to be a part of or that are too young should not be pressured or given too much information on the subject.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are effectively suggesting that a family should put on hold their religion until a child is old enough to think about religion. By that point, you will have definitely steered them towards atheism.

If you think that I am not going to offer input into my kids social circle, career, and mate, you are sadly mistaken. Do you have any children?

Once again, I'm not suggesting all family activities be put on hold until the children are older. I'm suggesting people should be more critical of what and how much religious activity very young children are exposed to.

Why would they be predisposed to atheism? Surely if the religion is able to stand on it's own merit a few years will not make a difference?

Yes, I have two children, and I'll support them whether they decide to be Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist etc... I hope that they will be into the things that I am (e.g. martial arts), however I understand that they must become what is in their hearts and that may not be what I want them to be. I will love them and be proud of them regardless. My job is to nurture and guide, not make them what I want them to be.

[NewLearner]

Once again, I'm not suggesting all family activities be put on hold until the children are older. I'm suggesting people should be more critical of what and how much religious activity very young children are exposed to.

I thought you were suggesting not to take kids to church. Because if you suggest that we shouldn't take kids to church and people have on average 3 kids spaced out 2 years each, you are talking about 14 years till the last kid hits 10.

Why would they be predisposed to atheism? Surely if the religion is able to stand on it's own merit a few years will not make a difference?

Surely you understand that if the parent doesn't do something or doesn't do it with their kids, the kids are far less likely to do it. If the parent doesn't attend church, the kid will rightly assume that the parent doesn't think it important enough to go.

Yes, I have two children, and I'll support them whether they decide to be Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist etc... I hope that they will be into the things that I am (e.g. martial arts), however I understand that they must become what is in their hearts and that may not be what I want them to be. I will love them and be proud of them regardless. My job is to nurture and guide, not make them what I want them to be.

But the reality is that you are doing your best to raise them as atheists because that is your view. Unless I am mistaken and you are taking them to a variety of churches on an at least weekly basis. Since you aren't taking them, you are telling them your view every single day. But you see a problem with me doing the same thing?

[blessed_samurai]

In which case, why would god punish me for being exactly how he created me. Being omnipotent/omniscience, he would have known I would have been a non-believer, yet he still created me in spite of that knowledge. I can only conclude that he wanted me to live how he created me.



Then your conclusion would be that God would only create drones and individuals who had no will of their own. This is prob. dragging this off topic but...individuals are given information to make decisions; your decision to not be a Christian is your own and one that God is not making for you or forcing you to take. He did not create you to be an unbeliever; your decision to not believe in Christ is your active decision on the situation.

The logic you're using is almost similar to
Hitler is male. Hitler is evil. Males are evil.

[bcullen]

Surely you understand that if the parent doesn't do something or doesn't do it with their kids, the kids are far less likely to do it. If the parent doesn't attend church, the kid will rightly assume that the parent doesn't think it important enough to go.

My brother and I are both avid martial artists even though our parents were not. One was just not interested and the other was completely opposed to the idea (too violent :rolleyes: ) .

It was not their calling, however it was their childrens calling.



But the reality is that you are doing your best to raise them as atheists because that is your view. Unless I am mistaken and you are taking them to a variety of churches on an at least weekly basis. Since you aren't taking them, you are telling them your view every single day. But you see a problem with me doing the same thing?

Nope, I'm not an atheist and they are two and four respectively so it's not on the radar yet. When the time comes I will give them a rundown of options and encourage them to investigate them. Look at the faiths major tenants, go to a service etc.. Chances are they will go through many different phases; heck, I'm still working on my personal life's philosophy; there's new information to reconcile daily. The search for the big answers goes on until God actually shows himself in person or you die. I don't see a problem with giving them 6-7 years of not having to deal with a question that will follow them the rest of their lives.

The problem is many faiths assume themselves to be the ultimate answer, to follow this tradition is "the way". I don't see it as such, I see it as you have found "a way" that works for you.

[aikiMac]

The problem is many faiths assume themselves to be the ultimate answer, to follow this tradition is "the way". I don't see it as such, I see it as you have found "a way" that works for you.
That's a religious view. You are presenting it as one, and, I have personally known avid Bahia and Buddhist practitioners who held this as a major tenet of their respective religions. Hypothetically, if your next-door neighbor held with equal fervor the religious view that NOT all paths are equal, then surely you would respect his decision to teach his child what he believes, right?

If one religious view is okay, then the other is, 'cause all paths are equal, right?

I would think so. It sounds fair to me.

[LJoll]

You said "Not sending might teach them that Christianity is irrelevent in thier lives." hence me asking why should it be relevant in the first place.

I agree they should be aware of the various religious beliefs/views along with non-religious beliefs/views, however I think it up to the individual to decide if god is relevant at all, let alone in their life.

I said "Not sending might teach them that Christianity is irrelevent in thier lives." But I didn't say it should be relevant to their lives.

[LJoll]

And no one could force anyone to live a lie. At some point, everyone must make their own decisions and face the consequences (good and bad) of their own choices. But age 6 is not the time or place for that, on such major issues. If a 6-year-old is too young to make a major decision on religion, he is certainly too young to suffer from feeling he is being forced to live a lie.

Actually, this example sounds like it hit close to home. Were you in a situation where you felt you were being forced to live a lie?

If age six is too young to make a major decision on religion, don't you think that it's a bit wrong to start indoctrinating them that your religion is the one true religion? Don't you think you should allow then to make a decision at an age when they are able to make major choices, rather than forcing it upon them while they're too young to refute it?

[blessed_samurai]

If age six is too young to make a major decision on religion, don't you think that it's a bit wrong to start indoctrinating them that your religion is the one true religion? Don't you think you should allow then to make a decision at an age when they are able to make major choices, rather than forcing it upon them while they're too young to refute it?

No. The six year old going to Sunday school to learn that Jesus gave his life for our sins and to love the world around you and coloring pictures is a far-fetch from some of the 'forcing the doctrine of X belief down their throat'. What do we say? "Oh no, honey...we can't go to church. We wouldn't want little Johnny brainwashed into our religious beliefs so we'll just not go to church."

And why is this even a bad thing? Aren't we 'indoctinated' into a lot of things at young ages? I mean, by simply having rules and guidelines to live by, don't we show children what values we find important and make them live by (don't lie, murder, to much sugar is bad, don't call fat people "fat" to their face, etc).

Here's a statistic-
Kids are 'forced' to go to church as a child, stop going to church when they move out, and then when they have kids they go back to church.

[LJoll]

No. The six year old going to Sunday school to learn that Jesus gave his life for our sins and to love the world around you and coloring pictures is a far-fetch from some of the 'forcing the doctrine of X belief down their throat'. What do we say? "Oh no, honey...we can't go to church. We wouldn't want little Johnny brainwashed into our religious beliefs so we'll just not go to church."

Why is it different from forcing doctine X down their throats?

And why is this even a bad thing? Aren't we 'indoctinated' into a lot of things at young ages? I mean, by simply having rules and guidelines to live by, don't we show children what values we find important and make them live by (don't lie, murder, to much sugar is bad, don't call fat people "fat" to their face, etc).

That's true. But completley different. Most of them are ethical issues, apart from too much sugar is bad for you, and aren't a matter of definite right and wrongs. I don't have a problem with children being taught "christian" values and you to say that you believe that they are the right. It's different to say that you know they're right because God told you and if you don't follow them you're going to hell.

Here's a statistic-
Kids are 'forced' to go to church as a child, stop going to church when they move out, and then when they have kids they go back to church.

In what way is that a statistic?

[Capt Ann]

If age six is too young to make a major decision on religion, don't you think that it's a bit wrong to start indoctrinating them that your religion is the one true religion? Don't you think you should allow then to make a decision at an age when they are able to make major choices, rather than forcing it upon them while they're too young to refute it?Maybe you have a point. I am going to stop sending my kids to school, because I don't want to force my beliefs upon them. When they are older (14? 16?) then they can decide if learning to read is a good thing. Maybe doing maths isn't in their 'path'. Perhaps I should let them choose if they want to believe that 3 x 4 = 12 or not. After all, it might not be true, for them.

As a matter of fact, I am forcing my cultural beliefs on them every day. Maybe they will one day choose to speak Greek or German, or even ancient Sanskrit in their homes. I shouldn't indoctrinate them by speaking English to them.

Thank you. I have seen the light. From now on, I won't read to, speak to, or make any demands on my children until they're at least 14 :rolleyes: ;)

The truth as I'm sure you can see, is that everything we show our children gives them a base and a starting point for learning and exploring new things. Instead of depriving them my taking them to church, I am providing them with the tools they will need to be able to make those personal decisions you are talking about, later in life. They will be able to learn other languages because they have a foundation in English. They will be able to study calculus because they have a foundation in basic maths. They will be able to study anything they choose because they can read. They will be able to explore other religions and philosophies because they have a foundation in Christianity.

[Moosey]

I'm not sure if anyone's posted this observation already (this is a looong thread!) but a lot of people are treating a Christian taking their kids to church as indoctrinating the child in a belief system. If you are a devout Christian, church is not where a child is taught one particular philosophy, it's where they're taught the facts.

By nature of being a specific religion (assuming you're devout) you accept that particular religion as being the true story. Taking your child to learn about your religion is no different to taking them to a physics class to learn about why a ball falls downwards. A devout Muslim will take their child to the mosque to learn the truth about the way they should live their life. It is not a matter of letting the child make a decision about their philosophies - it is a choice between them learning the truth, learning lies or learning nothing. Who would want to deprive their child of the truth?

[narcsarge]

Maybe you have a point. I am going to stop sending my kids to school, because I don't want to force my beliefs upon them. When they are older (14? 16?) then they can decide if learning to read is a good thing. Maybe doing maths isn't in their 'path'. Perhaps I should let them choose if they want to believe that 3 x 4 = 12 or not. After all, it might not be true, for them.

As a matter of fact, I am forcing my cultural beliefs on them every day. Maybe they will one day choose to speak Greek or German, or even ancient Sanskrit in their homes. I shouldn't indoctrinate them by speaking English to them.

Thank you. I have seen the light. From now on, I won't read to, speak to, or make any demands on my children until they're at least 14 :rolleyes: ;)

The truth as I'm sure you can see, is that everything we show our children gives them a base and a starting point for learning and exploring new things. Instead of depriving them my taking them to church, I am providing them with the tools they will need to be able to make those personal decisions you are talking about, later in life. They will be able to learn other languages because they have a foundation in English. They will be able to study calculus because they have a foundation in basic maths. They will be able to study anything they choose because they can read. They will be able to explore other religions and philosophies because they have a foundation in Christianity.

Bump! Bump! This is where I was heading and you said so well. Is it that I am forcing my, better yet SOCIETY's, view on my children because I make them wear clothing? How about using utensils to eat? What about racial or ethnic slurs? Heaven forbid I expose my children to these things. Look, I am not and will not 'force' my child to accept my religion. Will he be exposed to it? Of course. Will I discuss it? Yes I will. Was my parents' religion forced upon me? Maybe, but so what? I learned about other religions, cultures, races, etc. from my surroundings, from friends, and my neighborhood. Apparently some people don't want a religion, other then what they determine to be acceptable, introduced to children until the child has the capacity to understand the subject matter. I am not sure I understand how that view benefits the child or society. :Angel:

[medi]

Perhaps we could alter the question slightly to fit with 6 year olds?

Perhaps we could ask ourselves what we would do if we have an otherwise obedient child cries and screams blue murder whenever they are taken to the church/temple/mosque and says every time they enter they’re uneasy and just hate the place (in a much stronger way then just 'I dont want to go').




http://img.lenta.ru/news/2005/08/01/damien/picture.jpg

[holyheadjch]

Maybe you have a point. I am going to stop sending my kids to school, because I don't want to force my beliefs upon them. When they are older (14? 16?) then they can decide if learning to read is a good thing. Maybe doing maths isn't in their 'path'. Perhaps I should let them choose if they want to believe that 3 x 4 = 12 or not. After all, it might not be true, for them.

As a matter of fact, I am forcing my cultural beliefs on them every day. Maybe they will one day choose to speak Greek or German, or even ancient Sanskrit in their homes. I shouldn't indoctrinate them by speaking English to them.

Thank you. I have seen the light. From now on, I won't read to, speak to, or make any demands on my children until they're at least 14 :rolleyes: ;)

The truth as I'm sure you can see, is that everything we show our children gives them a base and a starting point for learning and exploring new things. Instead of depriving them my taking them to church, I am providing them with the tools they will need to be able to make those personal decisions you are talking about, later in life. They will be able to learn other languages because they have a foundation in English. They will be able to study calculus because they have a foundation in basic maths. They will be able to study anything they choose because they can read. They will be able to explore other religions and philosophies because they have a foundation in Christianity.
tut tut tut, losing an argument is no excuse to start being silly.
Comparing Religion to mathematics is so utterly ridiculous I actually feel embarrased for you.

[narcsarge]

http://img.lenta.ru/news/2005/08/01/damien/picture.jpg


Ha! Perfect! :D

[Davey Bones]

tut tut tut, losing an argument is no excuse to start being silly.
Comparing Religion to mathematics is so utterly ridiculous I actually feel embarrased for you.

You so completely missed her point it's sad. You so completely missed the point about cultural indoctrination on so many levels that by asking Ann to not be Christian in her home you have to ask her to stop expressing any beliefs in her home, thereby completely halting the cultural and social development of her children...so I shall now get on the soapbox:

Obviously there are certain people posting in this thread who could stand to take a refresher course or two on sociology and the family's role in society. Ann has a great point. EVEYTHING parents do is indoctrination on one level or another; politics, cultural assimilation, etc. Hell, even the news channel you watch will indoctrinate your children!

But in an even bigger picture, I'm still utterly unable to grasp what some of you expect. A sterile household with nothing in it which could be perceived as "indoctrination"? Homer made a comment earlier about Christian Creationists and whether or not they should be allowed to teach their children creationism at the neglect of science (which, unless the kiddies are homeschooled, ain't gonna happen once they step foot into a classroom, but that's another story). Are parents not supposed to say grace at the dinner table? Can they not pray before they go to bed because their children might see it? Why is it such a big deal to teach a child Creation (as if they can really grasp it at 6, but anyway, working with the hypo).

Are we supposed to stop living life once we have kids? I'm supposed to not express my beliefs because an atheist thinks it's "indoctrination"? I'm supposed to empty my bookshelves and take down anything which could be misconstrued by someone as "too religious"? Or, worse, I'm supposed to decorate my home with something from every possible religion out there just to appease the local atheists who feel as though the expression of my beliefs is "indoctrination"?

Are you seriously saying that Ann or Aiki's faith is supposed to be suppressed because YOU disagree with it, and can produce NO evidence to show that exposure to religion as a child really has any detrimental impact on a child? That seems to be it. Well, bye-bye Christmas and say good riddance to the Easter Bunny, then, because personally, I'd rather not celebrate any holiday than take away the meaning behind the holiday while succumbing to consumerism. And that's exactly what some of you are saying. Strip the parents of their rights to express themselves because of some pseudo-intellectual argument that children should be exposed to every possible religion and yet be exposed to none.

Y'know I hear this crap everyday. Substitute "gay" for "christian" (which is really what this thread boils down to), and this is what you get with the gay marriage and gay adoption arguments; I'm "indoctrinating" my children by virtue of having a male partner. Yeah, right, sure. This is just another form of discrimination. But folks don't yell so loudly about it because it's become trendy to hate the Christians.

We get so focused on the Fallwells and Phelpses and other right wing nuts, we forget about people like Ann and AikiMac who are good people just trying to raise their children the best way they can, and probably doing a damn good job of it.

And I'm really tired of the fact that we're supposed to encourage multiculturalism and diversity, but only in a specific manner. Taking a child to a gay pride parade is acceptable, but Church isn't. Taking a child to an African exhibit at the museum is good, but going to the same synagogue generations of your family has attended is bad. Teaching them the pagan meaning behind Halloween is "multiculturalism", but God forbid you bring your child with you to Mosque. So the end result of muticulturalism, at least for some people, is that we're allowed to be everything but what we are.

[narcsarge]

Perfectly stated Gangrel. Like the point I made in the thread on "Why Whites are the only Racists". The punishment for children of color to call my son cracker, honkey, white bread is a talking to by the Prinipal. Yet that very Principal told us that if my son had made racial statements he would have been suspended. Why is it that one culture, or religion, or sexual orientation, has some basic right to define, frame, and judge the way I raise my child? Why is that my views and opinions on how I raise my child are judged by others as 'indoctrination' or 'coersive"? From what I have seen of other children, I think their parents need to force a few more things on them before I do! But that would only land me in court! :D

[CosmicFish]

In these kind of debates I normally side with the atheists, but I really can't see where this one is going. How the hell can anyone argue that a parent shouldn't teach their children their own religious beliefs? And the whole argument that it's "ramming religion down their throats" is just absurd. In a small minority of cases, maybe, but the vast majority are just well balanced adults passing on their own personal beliefs.

And let's face it, when the kids reach their teens they think they know everything anyway. :D

I plan to bring my child up in an atheistic environment but to be open minded to other beliefs. I strongly suspect the vast majority of religious believers will do likewise.

[Moosey]

I plan to bring my child up in an atheistic environment but to be open minded to other beliefs. I strongly suspect the vast majority of religious believers will do likewise.
I plan to bring my children up in a small cult which worships me as the supreme deity and understands that it is the supreme heresy to question my decisions.

:Angel:

[CosmicFish]

I plan to bring my children up in a small cult which worships me as the supreme deity and understands that it is the supreme heresy to question my decisions.

:Angel:
I wish I'd thought of that. Do you suppose it's too late for me to start?

[Moosey]

I wish I'd thought of that. Do you suppose it's too late for me to start?
It's never too late to start your own cult - look at L. Ron Hubbard! :D

[Davey Bones]

I plan to bring my children up in a small cult which worships me as the supreme deity and understands that it is the supreme heresy to question my decisions.

:Angel:

Not even a dad yet and you already have fatherhood figured out! ;)

[LJoll]

Maybe you have a point. I am going to stop sending my kids to school, because I don't want to force my beliefs upon them. When they are older (14? 16?) then they can decide if learning to read is a good thing. Maybe doing maths isn't in their 'path'. Perhaps I should let them choose if they want to believe that 3 x 4 = 12 or not. After all, it might not be true, for them.

As a matter of fact, I am forcing my cultural beliefs on them every day. Maybe they will one day choose to speak Greek or German, or even ancient Sanskrit in their homes. I shouldn't indoctrinate them by speaking English to them.

Thank you. I have seen the light. From now on, I won't read to, speak to, or make any demands on my children until they're at least 14 :rolleyes: ;)

The truth as I'm sure you can see, is that everything we show our children gives them a base and a starting point for learning and exploring new things. Instead of depriving them my taking them to church, I am providing them with the tools they will need to be able to make those personal decisions you are talking about, later in life. They will be able to learn other languages because they have a foundation in English. They will be able to study calculus because they have a foundation in basic maths. They will be able to study anything they choose because they can read. They will be able to explore other religions and philosophies because they have a foundation in Christianity.

Look, I am not and will not 'force' my child to accept my religion. Will he be exposed to it? Of course.

I'm supposed to not express my beliefs because an atheist thinks it's "indoctrination"?

It's not a matter of seperating them from Christian beliefs. It's a matter of teaching them a wide balanced variety of beliefs and not that you are following the only right one.

The school point is not a fair comparison in my opinion. At school you are taught a wide range subjects and usually with a balanced view, in my experience. How would you feel if you sent your child to school and they refused to teach him anything other than Shakespeare as they consider him to be the ultimate example of genius? I don't agree that it's a matter of protecting them from Christian beliefs, but they should learn about enough things to have a choice or at least to know that there is a choice.

[LJoll]

Perhaps I should let them choose if they want to believe that 3 x 4 = 12 or not.

If they had a good reason for not believing that 3 x 4 = 12, then maybe they shouldn't believe it.

[holyheadjch]

It's not a matter of seperating them from Christian beliefs. It's a matter of teaching them a wide balanced variety of beliefs and not that you are following the only right one.

The school point is not a fair comparison in my opinion. At school you are taught a wide range subjects and usually with a balanced view, in my experience. How would you feel if you sent your child to school and they refused to teach him anything other than Shakespeare as they consider him to be the ultimate example of genius? I don't agree that it's a matter of protecting them from Christian beliefs, but they should learn about enough things to have a choice or at least to know that there is a choice.
I agree, if you took your children to a variety of religious gatherings, to a church, to a mosque, to a temple etc and then let them decide which they believed then thats fine, that is equipping your child to make an informed choice. But by only taking them to the church or the mosque or the temple is pushing that religion on them. Had I not been raised Catholic and taught that there were other religions, I may well have chosen Islam or Hinduism (frankly the idea of reincarnation really appeals to me) but as it was I was pushed to church because my parents were catholic and wanted me to go to a catholic school.

[narcsarge]

I think I see where zhán shi is going. I just wonder how I am suppose to "teach" of that which I have not practiced? I can discuss Judiesm, Christianity, Catholocism, and Wiccan. But I can only 'really' understand Christianity and Catholocism. So therefore, how should I expose my child to other religions, or experiences, that I have not knowledge of? I can discuss and listen to anything but I can not speak intelligently about things I just don't know about. And if you think your child gets a BALANCED view from his school, think again. Your child gets taught what the School District has deemed important. Balanced? Not in my experience. :eek:

[holyheadjch]

Schools teach accepted subjects, 2+2 always = 4, its not a case of balance, its about accuracy. Religion is different because its not right and wrong.

[narcsarge]

I agree, if you took your children to a variety of religious gatherings, to a church, to a mosque, to a temple etc and then let them decide which they believed then thats fine, that is equipping your child to make an informed choice. But by only taking them to the church or the mosque or the temple is pushing that religion on them. Had I not been raised Catholic and taught that there were other religions, I may well have chosen Islam or Hinduism (frankly the idea of reincarnation really appeals to me) but as it was I was pushed to church because my parents were catholic and wanted me to go to a catholic school.

So change now if you have decided that it is what you want. Maybe the dentist should introduce you to bamboo for your brushing needs. Isn't he/she forcing you, along with your parents, society, and the ad people to use synthetic toothbrushes? :confused:

[holyheadjch]

Synthetic toothbrushes work just fine, I have never experienced bamboo brushing, but would certainly never rule it out.

[LJoll]

I think I see where zhán shi is going. I just wonder how I am suppose to "teach" of that which I have not practiced? I can discuss Judiesm, Christianity, Catholocism, and Wiccan. But I can only 'really' understand Christianity and Catholocism. So therefore, how should I expose my child to other religions, or experiences, that I have not knowledge of? I can discuss and listen to anything but I can not speak intelligently about things I just don't know about. And if you think your child gets a BALANCED view from his school, think again. Your child gets taught what the School District has deemed important. Balanced? Not in my experience. :eek:

I agree. In a perfect world you would be able to speak intellegently on all subjects, but in reality who can? I still think that it would be beneficial to make some sort of attempts though.

[bcullen]

That's a religious view. You are presenting it as one, and, I have personally known avid Bahia and Buddhist practitioners who held this as a major tenet of their respective religions. Hypothetically, if your next-door neighbor held with equal fervor the religious view that NOT all paths are equal, then surely you would respect his decision to teach his child what he believes, right?

If one religious view is okay, then the other is, 'cause all paths are equal, right?

I would think so. It sounds fair to me.

I'm not saying that they should not express their religious views with their children. I'm saying that it should be addressed when the child is ready to take that step.

He's welcome to his opinion, however, what if he wanted to teach his child that not all races are equal? There's enough prejudice and intolerance in the world as is, I see no reason to add to it.

A child is not meant to be a clone of the parents; the apple usually does not fall far from the tree, but it cannot be expected that they adopt everything the parent has.

If I'm a carpenter I will hope that my son wants to be one as well. What if he doesn't enjoy the profession? If I force him to be a carpenter I'm imposing my will on him to the detriment of his well being. The complete opposite of what a parent is supposed to do.

[aikiMac]

It's not a matter of seperating them from Christian beliefs. It's a matter of teaching them a wide balanced variety of beliefs and not that you are following the only right one.
Your religious belief is that the Christians are not following the ONLY right path. The Christians do not share your belief. I don't understand how you don't see your own hypocrisy? :confused:


If I'm a carpenter I will hope that my son wants to be one as well. What if he doesn't enjoy the profession? If I force him to be a carpenter I'm imposing my will on him to the detriment of his well being. The complete opposite of what a parent is supposed to do.
I think you forgot the context. We're not talking about a 20-something-year-old child. We're talking about a 6- or 7-year-old child. That makes all the difference.

[holyheadjch]

you believe that if you were raised a Muslim that you would still be a christian, yet you are totally unwilling to put that to the test. How very interesting.

[LJoll]

Your religious belief is that the Christians are not following the ONLY right path. The Christians do not share your belief. I don't understand how you don't see your own hypocrisy? :confused:


Christians should be able to ackowledge that not everyone agrees with thier beliefs. They may feel that they're following the only right path, that does not mean that they should not acknowledge that other people have other beliefs. While Christians feel they are following the only right path, should they force their children to follow that path?

[narcsarge]

Christians should be able to ackowledge that not everyone agrees with thier beliefs. They may feel that they're following the only right path, that does not mean that they should not acknowledge that other people have other beliefs. While Christians feel they are following the only right path, should they force their children to follow that path?
I think you are using the word "force" incorrectly. I am a Christian and as such I am told not to judge any man. Do I think my religion is 'more right' then anyone elses? Who am I to judge that? Our crusades were no more right then todays islamic jihads. But by exposing my child to my religion, and the news exposing him to Islam and Judeism, I think he can make his own choice. Heck, I am reading right now about Tsao Tzu and Confuscious. I want to learn more about Buddism too. No one forced this on me and I am not going to judge someone as wrong because of their faith.

[LJoll]

I think you are using the word "force" incorrectly. I am a Christian and as such I am told not to judge any man. Do I think my religion is 'more right' then anyone elses? Who am I to judge that? Our crusades were no more right then todays islamic jihads. But by exposing my child to my religion, and the news exposing him to Islam and Judeism, I think he can make his own choice. Heck, I am reading right now about Tsao Tzu and Confuscious. I want to learn more about Buddism too. No one forced this on me and I am not going to judge someone as wrong because of their faith.

What I said was in response to aikiMac saying:

Your religious belief is that the Christians are not following the ONLY right path. The Christians do not share your belief. I don't understand how you don't see your own hypocrisy?


That would imply that at least one Christian feels that his religion is "more right" than any others.

[narcsarge]

What I said was in response to aikiMac saying:




That would imply that at least one Christian feels that his religion is "more right" than any others.

Ahh. Ok, bump to you then. :Angel:

[Davey Bones]

It's not a matter of seperating them from Christian beliefs. It's a matter of teaching them a wide balanced variety of beliefs and not that you are following the only right one.

So basically, you're saying that parents should ignore their own faith in an attempt to be "multicultural". I don't see how you can phrase it any other way. You're also working under the belief that parents should teach and/or expose their children to what may not only be distasteful to, but blatantly is a smack in the face to, their religious beliefs.

I'm curious where you draw the line? Should a parent, as a Christian, take their child to a synagogue, for example, which is going to contradict the idea that Christ is Lord and Saviour? Jews don't believe in Christ as the Messiah. Or, perhaps to go a step further, should a Christian parent take a child to a Black Mass? After all, Satanism is a religion, like it or not. Or to be a bit less dramatic, should they find a local grove or coven perhaps, to expose thier children to Paganism? It's still a violation of the 1st Commandment.

No matter how you phrase it, you're basically saying that parents should live in "religion neutral" households and put their beliefs aside based on some pseudo-intellectual idea of "variety" and "multiculturalism" which a six year old isn't even smart enough to understand.

The school point is not a fair comparison in my opinion.

Actually, it is a very fair point, I just don't think you grasp it. Language, history, culture, social sciences; they're all part of the socialization process.

[narcsarge]

Again Gangrel you are succinct. Bump^^. I am not sure how to clarify things any more then you have. I think that this is the problem we are facing in our country today. We have to accept everyone elses position, religion, culture, etc. but the same courtesy is not extended if you have a personal view that is not Multi-cultural. :cool:

[Davey Bones]

Again Gangrel you are succinct. Bump^^. I am not sure how to clarify things any more then you have. I think that this is the problem we are facing in our country today. We have to accept everyone elses position, religion, culture, etc. but the same courtesy is not extended if you have a personal view that is not Multi-cultural. :cool:

Actually, the last sentence is very succint and says it all. We are being asked to embrace diversity as long as it is not white anglo-saxon Protestant. We're free to be ourselves, but embracing our own heritages as Christians, whites, etc, makes us bigoted and intolerant. It really is very politically correct, but not very sensible.

[narcsarge]

Actually, the last sentence is very succint and says it all. We are being asked to embrace diversity as long as it is not white anglo-saxon Protestant. We're free to be ourselves, but embracing our own heritages as Christians, whites, etc, makes us bigoted and intolerant. It really is very politically correct, but not very sensible.

Precisely why I have no problem stating my point of view and the reasons for it. I will not denegrate anybody because of their view but I won't swallow it if it is not well reasoned. You and I have had our discussions and we remain civil even if we disagree. I am personally better because of it. :eek: :bang:

[LJoll]

So basically, you're saying that parents should ignore their own faith in an attempt to be "multicultural". I don't see how you can phrase it any other way. You're also working under the belief that parents should teach and/or expose their children to what may not only be distasteful to, but blatantly is a smack in the face to, their religious beliefs.

I'm curious where you draw the line? Should a parent, as a Christian, take their child to a synagogue, for example, which is going to contradict the idea that Christ is Lord and Saviour? Jews don't believe in Christ as the Messiah. Or, perhaps to go a step further, should a Christian parent take a child to a Black Mass? After all, Satanism is a religion, like it or not. Or to be a bit less dramatic, should they find a local grove or coven perhaps, to expose thier children to Paganism? It's still a violation of the 1st Commandment.

No matter how you phrase it, you're basically saying that parents should live in "religion neutral" households and put their beliefs aside based on some pseudo-intellectual idea of "variety" and "multiculturalism" which a six year old isn't even smart enough to understand.

Who claimed that any of this is about multiculturalism? It's about the choice of people to choose their religion. I don't believe that at 6 years old you should be made to go to church and be told that one God exists. A 6 year old is unlikely to consider that they may be wrong and will almost definatly become a Christian. Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians take their children to a mosque or a synagogue, but they should be made aware of other religions and beliefs, so they at least know that not everyone thinks the same way. Ofcourse in reality it is impossible to give an unbiased view to your children and you'd want your children to inherit your beliefs and you obviously consider them to be true. At the same time I feel not offering them any choice or making them aware of alternative beliefs will probably end up with them believing in what you think, no matter what they would have throught.

I still don't agree that parents have to live in a neutral religion stance, they can be open with their religion as long as they don't make their children believe that everyone thinks that way.

Are you honestly trying to say that you feel parents should hide all opinions other than their own from their children. I'm guessing that lots of children in Nazi Germany grew up hating Jews, homosexuals etc. because everyone else told them that it was the right way.

Actually, it is a very fair point, I just don't think you grasp it. Language, history, culture, social sciences; they're all part of the socialization process.

How can you claim that not believing in Christianity can be compared to not believing in mathematics. If there is good reason to doubt that 4 x 2 = 12, or there were a group or people arguing that 4 x 3 doesn't = 12 then I could understand someone wanting their child to be taught something other than 4 x 3 = 12. My original view is that children should be made aware of other views. With maths the only view on 3 x 4 seems to be that it = 12. So no, it's not really a fair point as they're completly different.

[aikiMac]

At the same time I feel not offering them any choice or making them aware of alternative beliefs will probably end up with them believing in what you think, no matter what they would have throught.
The original context was that of a 6 or 7 year old. What you are proposing is absurd, in that context, for at least two reasons: (1) Children at that age cannot do comparative theology or apologetics. They can't. Even adults have trouble with comparative theology and apologetics. We see that on MAP even. (2) You're impliedly making the religious claim that all faiths are equally true. If you held the religious belief that not all faiths are equally true, you would be offended by the assertion that you must expose your children to lies. Consider that. Consider further that if, as you maintain, all faiths are equally true, then no harm comes from limitting a child's exposure. If instead, as other people maintain, not all faiths are equally true, then no harm comes from limitting a child's exposure. Either way, then, no harm comes from limitting a child's exposure.

[narcsarge]

How can you say that I am forcing my religion on my child by simply exposing them to it? Again, I fail to make this connection. I don't make my child believe that our religion is the one and only. I don't have a pastor that talks about how this other religion is Satan's attempt to ... How is forcing if I am exposing him to this religion? Was I forcing some sort of view on my children because I sent him to swim lessons at the Y? How about Tae Kwon Do? Did I force him to go to Full Time gifted program over Part-time? I don't get the whole "force"/exposing dilema. :confused:

[bcullen]

I think you forgot the context. We're not talking about a 20-something-year-old child. We're talking about a 6- or 7-year-old child. That makes all the difference.

How so? When you make the declaration my child will be ____ and only expose them to _____, you have predisposed them to following that path and changing behaviors learned in early childhood is very difficult.

As mentioned earlier if I tell my son this is a family of carpenters and teach him to be a carpenter, even if he's unhappy with the job he's going to attempt to make it work, because that's what he was taught. He will grow up thinking there's something wrong with him since being a carpenter seems to be working for everyone else. Someday he may get the opportunity to try something else but until that moment he's stuck trying to shoehorn himself into a career that doesn't fit him and is blaming himself for a problem someone else created.

[LJoll]

The original context was that of a 6 or 7 year old. What you are proposing is absurd, in that context, for at least two reasons: (1) Children at that age cannot do comparative theology or apologetics. They can't. Even adults have trouble with comparative theology and apologetics. We see that on MAP even. (2) You're impliedly making the religious claim that all faiths are equally true. If you held the religious belief that not all faiths are equally true, you would be offended by the assertion that you must expose your children to lies. Consider that. Consider further that if, as you maintain, all faiths are equally true, then no harm comes from limitting a child's exposure. If instead, as other people maintain, not all faiths are equally true, then no harm comes from limitting a child's exposure. Either way, then, no harm comes from limitting a child's exposure.

Nobody said that all faiths are equally true. Just because you don't consider them to be equally true, you shouldn't only allow them to know of one faith.

To say that other faiths are lies is just crazy. Do you not believe that they too have faith?

Ok, different scenario. Imagine you were brought up by a Muslim family that never allowed you to know about Christianity. I think it's absurd to claim that you know for sure that you'd convert to Christianity. You would probably spend the rest of your life as a Muslim and would never consider conversion.

[LJoll]

How can you say that I am forcing my religion on my child by simply exposing them to it? Again, I fail to make this connection.

Please can you explain to me who said that by exposing your child to religion, you're forcing it upon them?

[narcsarge]

Nobody said that all faiths are equally true. Just because you don't consider them to be equally true, you shouldn't only allow them to know of one faith.

To say that other faiths are lies is just crazy. Do you not believe that they too have faith?

Ok, different scenario. Imagine you were brought up by a Muslim family that never allowed you to know about Christianity. I think it's absurd to claim that you know for sure that you'd convert to Christianity. You would probably spend the rest of your life as a Muslim and would never consider conversion.

I got what you are trying to say but where I lose you is when you say "you shouldn't allow..." Is that not precisely the type of sentiment you are arguing parents should not have! You are telling, those of with children, who attend religous services, what we should do. As if, our choice does not matter because you don't happen to agree with it. I have never been upset or told another parent, who does not actively participate in a religion, that they should do what I do. Am I off the mark here?

[aikiMac]

How so? When you make the declaration my child will be ____ and only expose them to _____, you have predisposed them to following that path and changing behaviors learned in early childhood is very difficult.
With respect to the subject of religion, the testimonies of people on MAP and my own knowledge of people lead me to disagree.

Furthermore, insofar as the religion at issue is one that teaches that NOT all faiths are equally true, your assertion that a parent should expose a 6-year-old to contrary faiths is literally an assertion that a parent should (1) give up his faith, and (2) expose his child to lies. I cannot support that, and I'm surprised that you would support it.


Just because you don't consider them to be equally true, you shouldn't only allow them to know of one faith. To say that other faiths are lies is just crazy.
To tell me what I may and may not believe is wholly arrogant of you, and narrow-minded of you, and inconsiderate, etc. You're doing exactly what you preach against.


Ok, different scenario. Imagine you were brought up by a Muslim family that never allowed you to know about Christianity. I think it's absurd to claim that you know for sure that you'd convert to Christianity. You would probably spend the rest of your life as a Muslim and would never consider conversion.
Classical Christian theology addresses this issue and defeats it. Keep studying.

[Davey Bones]

Who claimed that any of this is about multiculturalism? It's about the choice of people to choose their religion. I don't believe that at 6 years old you should be made to go to church and be told that one God exists. A 6 year old is unlikely to consider that they may be wrong and will almost definatly become a Christian. Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians take their children to a mosque or a synagogue, but they should be made aware of other religions and beliefs, so they at least know that not everyone thinks the same way. Ofcourse in reality it is impossible to give an unbiased view to your children and you'd want your children to inherit your beliefs and you obviously consider them to be true. At the same time I feel not offering them any choice or making them aware of alternative beliefs will probably end up with them believing in what you think, no matter what they would have throught.

You have been spewing the exact party line which, here in the states, defines "multiculturalism". You're also giving 6 year olds far too much credit, IMO, but we've been repeating that ad nauseum.

How do you propose people expose their children to other faiths than to actually experience them? There's no way out of exposing children to other faiths other than to experience them in some shape or form. You haven't provided any reasonable example of how to provide experience with those "other religions", so we're showing you how your comments are simply not realistic. Come up with something more than "you should do this", then we can talk. Otherwise it's a lot of hot air as far as I'm concerned. How can you know anything about a religion without experiencing it, and how can you experience it without attanding a service. Please, provide viable options, lest none of us take your position seriously.

This is exactly how multicuturalism works. Everyone wants it, but no one is prepared to explain HOW to do it. Typical PC bs.

I still don't agree that parents have to live in a neutral religion stance, they can be open with their religion as long as they don't make their children believe that everyone thinks that way.

Again, you haven't shown HOW. Your comments have made it clear that the only way to accomplish what you want to see is by living an utterly neutral life devoid of our own beliefs. How else can you guarantee the exposure and "open-mindedness" you're asking? You haven't provided any examples thus far.

Are you honestly trying to say that you feel parents should hide all opinions other than their own from their children. I'm guessing that lots of children in Nazi Germany grew up hating Jews, homosexuals etc. because everyone else told them that it was the right way.

Welcome to socialization. Although that's a rather extreme form. I hardly see Ann or Aiki turning their children into the Hitler Youth...regardless...

Remember, I'm not the one saying parents should hide, you are (for all intents and purposes, anyway). You're the one talking about how bad parents are for "forcing" their children to attend religious services, and yet you have not come up with one intelligent way to accomplish your politically correct goals of "exposure". Once again, we're showing you how your position can play itself out as you have failed to provide any examples.

Some post with a lot of numbers which fails to address any of my points.

I cited history, language, and social sciences. Talk about those and we can have a conversation. But if you cannot, or will not, understand how the transmission of culture occurs through language, history, the arts and humanities, then we're kind of stuck. You're clinging to the most extreme example Ann gave, and once again, you miss the broader point of her post.

[Davey Bones]

Ok, different scenario. Imagine you were brought up by a Muslim family that never allowed you to know about Christianity. I think it's absurd to claim that you know for sure that you'd convert to Christianity. You would probably spend the rest of your life as a Muslim and would never consider conversion.

Funny, I was raised by Italian Catholics, that's all I knew, and at various points in my life I practiced Wicca, Hellenic Reconstructionism, Taosim, and evangelical Christianity. Funny how meeting people can take people who have only ever learned one thing from their parents and open a world. Now please, answer the salient points and stop tossing off your silly examples about adults which are barely relevant to the conversation.

[narcsarge]

Funny, I was raised by Italian Catholics, that's all I knew, and at various points in my life I practiced Wicca, Hellenic Reconstructionism, Taosim, and evangelical Christianity. Funny how meeting people can take people who have only ever learned one thing from their parents and open a world. Now please, answer the salient points and stop tossing off your silly examples about adults which are barely relevant to the conversation.

Given that you were "Italian Catholic" how is that you have not burst into flames with your decisions? OMG! You are the anti-christ (no caps for a reason)! LMAO :D

[NewLearner]

How so? When you make the declaration my child will be ____ and only expose them to _____, you have predisposed them to following that path and changing behaviors learned in early childhood is very difficult.


Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. Those that want children not to be predisposed to the parents religion want it so that the child will have learned in early childhood that God and religion are irrelevant so that they will have those views later.

So, why exactly is it that atheists should be able to predispose their children and everyone elses to atheism but a Christian should not be able to predispose their own children to Christianity?

[LJoll]

I cited history, language, and social sciences. Talk about those and we can have a conversation. But if you cannot, or will not, understand how the transmission of culture occurs through language, history, the arts and humanities, then we're kind of stuck. You're clinging to the most extreme example Ann gave, and once again, you miss the broader point of her post.

Well done, you said history, language and social sciences. You didn't mention any connection or relevance to the thread.

If you are trying to say that you encourage lieing to your children so they will have the same beliefs as you, which if you are not then please explain what you do believe, then I think that is ridiculous and if your beliefs have any basis then surely hiding other beliefs would not be neccessary.

[Topher]

But Homer, didn't you have a lot of posts telling us it is impossible to know anything about God? Now you say He can just let us know. Which one is it?
Yes, we cannot know, however, I'm not working from my views, but rather from theists views! I'm taking the arguments, points, descriptions etc theists are making and showing the illogical problems with them. I'm not basing my arguments from my views.

[Topher]

He did. The message is available. The problem is that you want God to come to you on your terms. That's got to be the the height of arrogance, and the perfect example of choosing selfish rebellion over grateful submission to God.
And this message is in the Bible!

God made me a sceptic, therefore he would have know a book would not have been sufficent evidence.

[Topher]

And following that excellent point, in the past Homer you always refused to allow these questions to be answered from the point of view of one who actually believes in the God about whom you are actually asking.

I cannot think of a single time when you asked a question specifically about the Christian God, and then allowed the answer to be given from the point of view of one who (gasp!) believes in that very same Christian God you were asking about. Maybe there was a time, but the point is that you have a reputation for asking questions of people while simultaneously denying them space to answer.

Query then, will you again refuse? Or will you, finally, allow the question to be answered?

Hmmm.
If i ask a question your free to answer how you please. I'm also free to highlight the contradictions and/or fallacies in your answer. Yet when i do exactly that, you accuse me of not allowing you to answer, when the fact is i do allow you answer. What i certainly don't do is just accept it without justification. Don't confuse being asked to back up your claims with not being allowed to answer. It seems you think that when i ask for justification/evidence for claims, you read it as me not allowing you to provide an answer. I guess usually theists are rarely called on their claims when talking to other theists.

[Davey Bones]

Well done, you said history, language and social sciences. You didn't mention any connection or relevance to the thread.


How much more relevant can I get than repeating "these contribute to the process of socialization" over and over? If you don't know what socialization is, then perhaps you should go look it up and come back later when you understand how important the arts and humanities are in transmitting cultural ideas.

[LJoll]

How much more relevant can I get than repeating "these contribute to the process of socialization" over and over? If you don't know what socialization is, then perhaps you should go look it up and come back later when you understand how important the arts and humanities are in transmitting cultural ideas.

Ok. I admit that I didn't know what socialisation was until you mentioned it and I agree that all the things you mentioned contribute to the "socialization" of a person.

Can you please explain your opinion on: If you are trying to say that you encourage lieing to your children so they will have the same beliefs as you, which if you are not then please explain what you do believe, then I think that is ridiculous and if your beliefs have any basis then surely hiding other beliefs would not be neccessary.

[LJoll]

Now please, answer the salient points and stop tossing off your silly examples about adults which are barely relevant to the conversation.

Which are the salient points that I must answer?

[Davey Bones]

If you are trying to say that you encourage lieing to your children so they will have the same beliefs as you, which if you are not then please explain what you do believe, then I think that is ridiculous and if your beliefs have any basis then surely hiding other beliefs would not be neccessary.

*sigh* I didn't say I encourage lying to children. I said that's the way you're coming across. You still haven't presented any viable alternatives to how one is supposed to simultaneously protect children from their parents' values and expose them to other values at the same time. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your position.

[Topher]

Then your conclusion would be that God would only create drones and individuals who had no will of their own. This is prob. dragging this off topic but...individuals are given information to make decisions; your decision to not be a Christian is your own and one that God is not making for you or forcing you to take. He did not create you to be an unbeliever; your decision to not believe in Christ is your active decision on the situation.
As I said a few posts up… god made me as he made me, and he would know exactly what it would take for me to accept ‘him.’

If our lives are predetermind, he made me as an atheist/sceptic.
If however we have free will, he would have know what it would take for me become a believer.

[Topher]

I don't see a problem with giving them 6-7 years of not having to deal with a question that will follow them the rest of their lives.
Exactly!

Let them be kids and play in the mud or somthing. Why should they worry about issues such as hell at a time when such a concept is very real to a child!

[LJoll]

*sigh* I didn't say I encourage lying to children. I said that's the way you're coming across. You still haven't presented any viable alternatives to how one is supposed to simultaneously protect children from their parents' values and expose them to other values at the same time. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of your position.

I don't suggest protecting them from their parents views or anyone elses views. I think we both agree that that is not only impossible, but probably not desirable. I'm only suggesting that they should be made aware, nor neccesarily educated to any degree, in other beliefs. They don't even need to be aware of the details, they should be aware that Christianity/Islam/Hinduism is not the only thing out there. I'm not saying that a six year old is going to say, I disagree with the Christian doctrine, I prefer Buddhism. I'm just saying that their parents religion should not be presented as though it's a fact that the whole world agrees on.

[Topher]

Maybe you have a point. I am going to stop sending my kids to school, because I don't want to force my beliefs upon them. When they are older (14? 16?) then they can decide if learning to read is a good thing. Maybe doing maths isn't in their 'path'. Perhaps I should let them choose if they want to believe that 3 x 4 = 12 or not. After all, it might not be true, for them.

As a matter of fact, I am forcing my cultural beliefs on them every day. Maybe they will one day choose to speak Greek or German, or even ancient Sanskrit in their homes. I shouldn't indoctrinate them by speaking English to them.

Thank you. I have seen the light. From now on, I won't read to, speak to, or make any demands on my children until they're at least 14 :rolleyes: ;)

The truth as I'm sure you can see, is that everything we show our children gives them a base and a starting point for learning and exploring new things. Instead of depriving them my taking them to church, I am providing them with the tools they will need to be able to make those personal decisions you are talking about, later in life. They will be able to learn other languages because they have a foundation in English. They will be able to study calculus because they have a foundation in basic maths. They will be able to study anything they choose because they can read. They will be able to explore other religions and philosophies because they have a foundation in Christianity.
That is completely incomparable. Language, maths, reading, school and related issues etc are all necessary elements of life. Religion isn’t. It should be a decision an individual makes should they wish to make it.

One of the big problems with religion and faith is that it teaches children that it is a virtue to believe something, just because they believe it. To believe with evidence, and to not be sceptical.

[wrydolphin]

That is completely incomparable. Language, maths, reading, school and related issues etc are all necessary elements of life. Religion isn’t. It should be a decision an individual makes should they wish to make it.

One of the big problems with religion and faith is that it teaches children that it is a virtue to believe something, just because they believe it. To believe with evidence, and to not be sceptical.
No, they are all cultural elements. Just as religion is.

Children pick up those elements from their parents. Children are not taught deeper meanings at 6. When was the last time you had a conversation with a 6 year old? They aren't exactly ready to start digesting spiritual beliefs. When the child is older, then it is more appropriate for them to do comparisons. The whole premise that it is not ok to introduce your children to your own culture and beliefs because they may not choose them as adults is utterly rediculous.

[LJoll]

The whole premise that it is not ok to introduce your children to your own culture and beliefs because they may not choose them as adults is utterly rediculous.

There is a difference between introducing someone to your beliefs and telling them that it is fact and not giving them the knowledge that there are other people that don't believe it.

[wrydolphin]

There is a difference between introducing someone to your beliefs and telling them that it is fact and not giving them the knowledge that there are other people that don't believe it.
And that's not a discussion for a six year old. Once again, critical analysis can only occur when they are emotionally, mentally, and physiologically ready for it. Six year olds do not have the experience or the capacity to grasp abstract concepts such as this. Santa Clause is still a guy who lives at the North Pole and God lives up in the clouds somewhere. And me not introducing that child to my culture does not negate the black and white, overly literal world of a six year old anyway.

The basic premise of this thread seems to be, you should not teach your child things I don't agree with. To which I would answer, you teach your kids what you want and leave my kids alone. The secondary premise is that young children see the world in the exact same way as an adult would, including the grasping of abstracts concepts. Which is not upheld by ANY scientific research what so ever and is a wholly false premise.

[Topher]

It's not a matter of seperating them from Christian beliefs. It's a matter of teaching them a wide balanced variety of beliefs and not that you are following the only right one.

The school point is not a fair comparison in my opinion. At school you are taught a wide range subjects and usually with a balanced view, in my experience. How would you feel if you sent your child to school and they refused to teach him anything other than Shakespeare as they consider him to be the ultimate example of genius? I don't agree that it's a matter of protecting them from Christian beliefs, but they should learn about enough things to have a choice or at least to know that there is a choice.
To add to that point, there is only one 'type' of school. There is no "school A", "school B" or "school C." Maths and science etc are universal. Religion however is so varied, and any decision to join a belief system should be for the person joining it.

[Davey Bones]

I don't suggest protecting them from their parents views or anyone elses views. I think we both agree that that is not only impossible, but probably not desirable. I'm only suggesting that they should be made aware, nor neccesarily educated to any degree, in other beliefs. They don't even need to be aware of the details, they should be aware that Christianity/Islam/Hinduism is not the only thing out there. I'm not saying that a six year old is going to say, I disagree with the Christian doctrine, I prefer Buddhism. I'm just saying that their parents religion should not be presented as though it's a fact that the whole world agrees on.

And once again (or is it the 10th time, I've lost count)...

HOW

[Topher]

I think I see where zhán shi is going. I just wonder how I am suppose to "teach" of that which I have not practiced? I can discuss Judiesm, Christianity, Catholocism, and Wiccan. But I can only 'really' understand Christianity and Catholocism. So therefore, how should I expose my child to other religions, or experiences, that I have not knowledge of? I can discuss and listen to anything but I can not speak intelligently about things I just don't know about. And if you think your child gets a BALANCED view from his school, think again. Your child gets taught what the School District has deemed important. Balanced? Not in my experience. :eek:
Libraries, the Internet etc. If they ask about somthing, research it, and/or direct them to material.

[Davey Bones]

That is completely incomparable. Language, maths, reading, school and related issues etc are all necessary elements of life. Religion isn’t. It should be a decision an individual makes should they wish to make it.

One of the big problems with religion and faith is that it teaches children that it is a virtue to believe something, just because they believe it. To believe with evidence, and to not be sceptical.

What did you study at uni? Language, history, the humanities and the arts are a major way in which we socialize our children. From a young age we use words, pictures, drawings, etc to make subtle points about what is and is not socially acceptable, and then in later years it's combined with actually learning history and other more complex humanities. I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

And, much like zhan, you have yet to say HOW children should be exposed to your multicultural bliss. Until you can do so, you're not going to convince anyone here about the validity of your position. You say "direct them to the internet or the library", but that starts the initial interest how? If I am Christian and guide my child to the Jewish studies section of the library, you're running into the same damn problem you're fighting against... since Daddy and Mommy gave me a book on Judaism, it must be good, but since they never told me anything about Muslims, they must be bad people. It's going to be a never-ending cycle with you people.

[LJoll]

And that's not a discussion for a six year old. Once again, critical analysis can only occur when they are emotionally, mentally, and physiologically ready for it. Six year olds do not have the experience or the capacity to grasp abstract concepts such as this. Santa Clause is still a guy who lives at the North Pole and God lives up in the clouds somewhere. And me not introducing that child to my culture does not negate the black and white, overly literal world of a six year old anyway.

The basic premise of this thread seems to be, you should not teach your child things I don't agree with. To which I would answer, you teach your kids what you want and leave my kids alone. The secondary premise is that young children see the world in the exact same way as an adult would, including the grasping of abstracts concepts. Which is not upheld by ANY scientific research what so ever and is a wholly false premise.

Exactly. If they cannot critically analyse, then is it fair to teach them something that they will probably go on to believe for the rest of their lives when they are too young to reject it.

Let me clarify my point. I do not expect a young child to make a decision on whether he wants to be a Christian when he is 6 years old. I do think it would benefit from being exposed to other views, maybe not understanding them of agreeing or disagreeing, but ateast the knowledge that they exist. I'm sorry, but I can't understand why people would argue that children should be brought up with as limited range of views as possible. This seems absurd and worryingly close to brainwashing.

[Davey Bones]

I'm sorry, but I can't understand why people would argue that children should be brought up with as limited range of views as possible. This seems absurd and worryingly close to brainwashing.

OK, gotta ask...

At 15 what makes you such an expert on childrearing?!? You're still a child yourself!

[Topher]

So basically, you're saying that parents should ignore their own faith in an attempt to be "multicultural". I don't see how you can phrase it any other way. You're also working under the belief that parents should teach and/or expose their children to what may not only be distasteful to, but blatantly is a smack in the face to, their religious beliefs.

I'm curious where you draw the line? Should a parent, as a Christian, take their child to a synagogue, for example, which is going to contradict the idea that Christ is Lord and Saviour? Jews don't believe in Christ as the Messiah. Or, perhaps to go a step further, should a Christian parent take a child to a Black Mass? After all, Satanism is a religion, like it or not. Or to be a bit less dramatic, should they find a local grove or coven perhaps, to expose thier children to Paganism? It's still a violation of the 1st Commandment.
Tell the indivudual about the various belief systems, then allow them to make a conclusion. i.e Tell them about the Christian and Jewish views regarding Jesus, then allow them to conclude which they accept themselves. The fact that their conclusion may be different to what their parent believe should be irrelevant.

[Topher]

We have to accept everyone elses position, religion, culture, etc. but the same courtesy is not extended if you have a personal view that is not Multi-cultural. :cool:
Why do we have to accept someones religion and related views etc. In almost all other areas of life, when we disagree we say so, however when it comes to religion, we are expected to accept it by default. It's viewed as insulting to question.

[wrydolphin]

That's called multiculturalism. And its already being done in the education system. Explain to me again why I should not allow my children to be exposed to my cultural beliefs because you don't agree with them.

[LJoll]

OK, gotta ask...

At 15 what makes you such an expert on childrearing?!? You're still a child yourself!

lol. True (to an extent, i'm 16). I still have knowledge and experience of growing up and how I ended up believing what I currently do. I also see the effect of upbringing on the beliefs of people more often than you are at the moment (perhaps, obviously I can't be sure as I don't know you).

So, how many children do you have? As that now seems to be a qualification required to take place in this discussion.

[Davey Bones]

Tell the indivudual about the various belief systems, then allow them to make a conclusion. i.e Tell them about the Christian and Jewish views regarding Jesus, then allow them to conclude which they accept themselves. The fact that their conclusion may be different to what their parent believe should be irrelevant.

And yet... that leads us, as I said earlier, right back to the same condundrum. Still dealing with "parental approved" knowledge. AM I a bad parent for not talking about Muslims? Pagans? Maybe we should start a nationwide program on comparative religion in school... oh, wait, that would be offensive as well.

[Davey Bones]

So, how many children do you have? As that now seems to be a qualification required to take place in this discussion.

Depending on the time of the month, 100-200.

[LJoll]

And once again (or is it the 10th time, I've lost count)...

HOW

Instead of saying God created us etc. you could say, we believe God created us, although some people don't. For instance Uncle X. Strange name for an uncle but anyway. You could say he believed this because (insert appropriate explantation for belief). Just exlpain briefly that not everyone feels the same way as they do. They don't have to turn the children into experts or anything.

[LJoll]

Depending on the time of the month, 100-200.

lol. Are you a sea urchin or something?

[Davey Bones]

lol. Are you a sea urchin or something?

LOL. Bunny rabbit.

[Topher]

How can you say that I am forcing my religion on my child by simply exposing them to it? Again, I fail to make this connection. I don't make my child believe that our religion is the one and only. I don't have a pastor that talks about how this other religion is Satan's attempt to ... How is forcing if I am exposing him to this religion? Was I forcing some sort of view on my children because I sent him to swim lessons at the Y? How about Tae Kwon Do? Did I force him to go to Full Time gifted program over Part-time? I don't get the whole "force"/exposing dilema. :confused:
It depends if it is the only religion you expose them to and how they are exposed to it. If a child believes that it is the only belief system (on the basis it's the only one they've been exposed to) and therefore the ‘right’ belief system, the child will likely accept it. While you may not be forcing the belief on him directly, indirectly you are. Similarly, concept like hell, or that Jesus is the only way to be saved is essentially leaving a child in a vulnerable/scared position to accept it.

[Topher]

If you held the religious belief that not all faiths are equally true, you would be offended by the assertion that you must expose your children to lies.
Are you actually saying that anything but Christianity is a lie? :rolleyes:

[Topher]

No, they are all cultural elements. Just as religion is.
No, subjects such as maths, science, language etc are neccesary to life. They are also universal. Religion is neither.

[wrydolphin]

No, subjects such as maths, science, language etc are neccesary to life. They are also universal. Religion is neither.
Um hm.

Studied much cultural anthropology have we? Cause everyone NEEDS algebra. Everyone NEEDS to know that the mitochondria is the power house of the cell?

Your judgement is being affected by your personal beliefs.

[Topher]

Once again, critical analysis can only occur when they are emotionally, mentally, and physiologically ready for it. Six year olds do not have the experience or the capacity to grasp abstract concepts such as this.
Then why on earth introduce them to it!?!

If your argument against us suggesting informing them of various religion is because they are to young to understand such issues, then why would you argue then they should be informed on a single religion.

[Davey Bones]

No, subjects such as maths, science, language etc are neccesary to life. They are also universal. Religion is neither.

In your not-so-humble opinion, Homer. Considering we can use archaeology to trace religious rituals all the way back to our ancestors such as Cro Magnon and Homo sapiens neandertalensis, I think there is plenty of room to disagree... I can't think of a culture where religion and spirituality wasn't present.

[Topher]

That's called multiculturalism. And its already being done in the education system. Explain to me again why I should not allow my children to be exposed to my cultural beliefs because you don't agree with them.
No, i'm not saying they shouldn't be exposed because i disagree with them. I asking why should they be exposed to them, just because their parent wants them to be.

[Topher]

Um hm.

Studied much cultural anthropology have we? Cause everyone NEEDS algebra. Everyone NEEDS to know that the mitochondria is the power house of the cell?

Your judgement is being affected by your personal beliefs.
Who's talking about super advanced stuff here? Are you saying that knowing maths, english (or your native language), and maybe basic science are just as neccesary to like as religion. If so, on what basis.

A big different is that there is no a single, universal religion.

[wrydolphin]

Because it is a part of the culture in which they will grow up. Should I just leave them? Go to church myself and say, no, you can't go? That is utterly silly and well you should know it. Merely because you do not agree with religion does not mean that you should dictate that I should not raise my children within my religion. Especially as small children.

[bcullen]

And once again (or is it the 10th time, I've lost count)...

HOW

The same way you deal with any of the heavy questions at that age, for example:

Daughter: "Daddy why does my brother look different down there"
Daddy: "Because he's a boy and you are a girl."

That's it, that's all that need to be said, I don't have to get into why they are different and what boys and girls do when they're older, too much information for a six year old. If they probe further into the subject, it's grown up stuff and we'll talk about it when you're a little older.

Daughter: My friend _____ says that they are ________, what are we?
Daddy: Well your mother is _______ and I am _______, there are many different faiths like ________, __________,__________.

Answer any pertinent questions and defer the hard ones with that's kind of an adult thing, why don't we talk about that when you're older.

No, they are all cultural elements. Just as religion is.

Children pick up those elements from their parents. Children are not taught deeper meanings at 6. When was the last time you had a conversation with a 6 year old? They aren't exactly ready to start digesting spiritual beliefs. When the child is older, then it is more appropriate for them to do comparisons. The whole premise that it is not ok to introduce your children to your own culture and beliefs because they may not choose them as adults is utterly rediculous.

But ultimately culture and religion do not go hand in hand. There are plenty of Asian Christians and a good number of Anglo American Buddhists. You can teach them culture without religion. No one has said don't teach them your religion; they're saying wait until they have the faculties to deal with it before giving them in-depth exposure to the subject.

[Topher]

In your not-so-humble opinion, Homer. Considering we can use archaeology to trace religious rituals all the way back to our ancestors such as Cro Magnon and Homo sapiens neandertalensis, I think there is plenty of room to disagree... I can't think of a culture where religion and spirituality wasn't present.
There are good Darwinian explanations for religion. Look into "memes."

In any case, you cannot compare the importance of maths and science to religion. That's not to say religion is or isn't important, they just are not comparable. The truthfulness of maths for example is irrelevant to ones belief, whereas religion is entierly dependant on the individual.

[Davey Bones]

There are good Darwinian explanations for religion. Look into "memes."

In any case, you cannot compare the importance of maths and science to religion. That's not to say religion is or isn't important, they just are not comparable. The truthfulness of maths for example is irrelevant to ones belief, whereas religion is entierly dependant on the individual.

Memes are hardly reliable. Barely proven and practically worthless. They don't satisfactorily explain anything. Especially coming from someone who classifies religious classification as "child abuse" :rolleyes:

So, wanna try again to explain the presence of religious artifacts throughout mankind's history without reverting to someone so biased in your favour?

[Davey Bones]

That's it, that's all that need to be said, I don't have to get into why they are different and what boys and girls do when they're older, too much information for a six year old. If they probe further into the subject, it's grown up stuff and we'll talk about it when you're a little older.

I like yas cullen, but that doesn't work for me at all. That's not exposure, it sounds like a brush-off. That's beneficial how?

[wrydolphin]

Beyond the fact that Darwinian evolutionary theory does not well apply to human evolution once culture comes into play. Beyond ignoring Red Queen, which does apply, and beyond ignoring the fact that religion is a major component of culture. Try again.

[Topher]

Religion was essentially a means of "explanation" and comfort, especially in primitive minds, i.e. thoudends of years ago. However science has done away with the need for religion in terms of an explanation for anything, so it is really now just a comfort thing for those that need it.

Morality for example, commonly associated to religion, is actually innate in most social animals such as chimps, meerkats, gorillas etc so the idea that the source of morality is religion would be untenable, unless one could evidence religion in animals other than humans.

[NewLearner]

Ok. I admit that I didn't know what socialisation was until you mentioned it and I agree that all the things you mentioned contribute to the "socialization" of a person.


Not to make fun of you or anything but to ask a serious question. If at 16, you didn't know what socialization is and it's impact, would you agree that the far more complex issues of religion might be too difficult for a 10 year old to make decisions about? Would it be better to wait till they were 18 or 20?

[Davey Bones]

Religion was essentially a means of "explanation" and comfort, especially in primitive minds, i.e. thoudends of years ago. However science has done away with the need for religion in terms of an explanation for anything, so it is really now just a comfort thing for those that need it.

Uhm, huh? Religion has existed far longer than science, and is hardly just "comfort for those who need it".

[wrydolphin]

Science tells you HOW, not WHY. And there in lies the difference for myself and for many others.

[NewLearner]

Exactly. If they cannot critically analyse, then is it fair to teach them something that they will probably go on to believe for the rest of their lives when they are too young to reject it.

Let me clarify my point. I do not expect a young child to make a decision on whether he wants to be a Christian when he is 6 years old. I do think it would benefit from being exposed to other views, maybe not understanding them of agreeing or disagreeing, but ateast the knowledge that they exist. I'm sorry, but I can't understand why people would argue that children should be brought up with as limited range of views as possible. This seems absurd and worryingly close to brainwashing.


Is it fair to teach a 6 year old that they shouldn't shoot someone in the back, they shouldn't lie, they shouldn't steal, they shouldn't cheat on their wife? How can they critically analyze those things.

But you better talk early and often about the dangers of smoking tobacco.

[LJoll]

Not to make fun of you or anything but to ask a serious question. If at 16, you didn't know what socialization is and it's impact, would you agree that the far more complex issues of religion might be too difficult for a 10 year old to make decisions about? Would it be better to wait till they were 18 or 20?

What? I had not heard of the tearm socialization, therefore I should suppress every thought that I have on the subject of religion until I'm 20? I don't know how you worked that one out.

[Topher]

Uhm, huh? Religion has existed far longer than science, and is hardly just "comfort for those who need it".
I never said it didn't exist longer. However science has rendered the need for religion as an explanation for things essencially useless. It's only other use is comfort (i.e. death, afterlife, salvation etc). Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

[NewLearner]

That's called multiculturalism. And its already being done in the education system. Explain to me again why I should not allow my children to be exposed to my cultural beliefs because you don't agree with them.

Because they don't agree with them. It really is that simple. I don't buy for a second that anyone truly believes it is child abuse to teach your kids about your religion.

[LJoll]

Is it fair to teach a 6 year old that they shouldn't shoot someone in the back, they shouldn't lie, they shouldn't steal, they shouldn't cheat on their wife? How can they critically analyze those things.

But you better talk early and often about the dangers of smoking tobacco.

Well should should probably hear all the main perspecives on the subject. There happens to be only one main view, so I don't feel it is as much of an issue.

[Davey Bones]

I never said it didn't exist longer. However science has rendered the need for religion as an explanation for things essencially useless. It's only other use is comfort (i.e. death, afterlife, salvation etc). Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

You mean aside from the fact that in many cultures it was so inseperable from government, the arts, and cultural advancement that the concept of spearation of church and state would be utterly incomprehensible to them and they produced some of the most brilliant philosophers anyway?

[tcgohan]

We can't talk to animals, so how exactly do you know that animals do not have religion(s)?

[wrydolphin]

There are none of the cultural signifiers to religion.

Show me a cow building a temple, I might change my mind on this one.

[NewLearner]

What? I had not heard of the tearm socialization, therefore I should suppress every thought that I have on the subject of religion until I'm 20? I don't know how you worked that one out.

Like I said, it wasn't to pick on you. But socialization is a pretty simple concept and is usually taught by the 6th grade or so, here in the states. Comparitively, discussing religion is more complex. As you and a few others have pointed out, young children don't have the critical thinking skills to make decisions on religion. I believe that ages of 8-10 and even as high as 14 have been passed around on this thread as ages to maybe begin a discussion on religion. I am asking if you think that maybe that age is even too young. Since you are the age you are, I think you can provide an insight into that question.

[Topher]

You mean aside from the fact that in many cultures it was so inseperable from government, the arts, and cultural advancement that the concept of spearation of church and state would be utterly incomprehensible to them and they produced some of the most brilliant philosophers anyway?
Yet that doesn't evidence that fact that religion is nothing more than a comfort. In fact, it supports my point. In some cultures, the need for religion is so high, it becomes entangled in the politics of the country, and then we get a slippery slope where future generations rely on it and so on. Yet it's quite clear that countries can and do get on fine without a religious stronghold. What actual use is there for religion other than a comfort to people who need it?

Belief in god statistics… (I made a thread on this here ( http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54119))

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

[Topher]

There are none of the cultural signifiers to religion.

Show me a cow building a temple, I might change my mind on this one.
Exactly!

Religion was man made as an explanatory and comfort provider.

[LJoll]

Like I said, it wasn't to pick on you. But socialization is a pretty simple concept and is usually taught by the 6th grade or so, here in the states. Comparitively, discussing religion is more complex. As you and a few others have pointed out, young children don't have the critical thinking skills to make decisions on religion. I believe that ages of 8-10 and even as high as 14 have been passed around on this thread as ages to maybe begin a discussion on religion. I am asking if you think that maybe that age is even too young. Since you are the age you are, I think you can provide an insight into that question.

Ok. Firstly, I have never heard the term socialization used in school. Secondly, I feel that I am at an age where I can make a desicion about religion. I feel I have been able to for a while. I think the age when people are able to asses the situation is different for everyone and ther is no exact line that we cross when we are definitively able to make a desicion. Lets face it, none of us know whether God exists.

[tcgohan]

Native american tribes had different religions, believing in spirits and such yet they did not build temples. Religion does not require a temple.
What if I told you of a dog who watches television, can use the remote to switch to the programs it enjoys and watches a certain prophet with an air of reverence. Would you then consider the possibility that animals can and do have religious beliefs.

[NewLearner]

Well should should probably hear all the main perspecives on the subject. There happens to be only one main view, so I don't feel it is as much of an issue.

I think many criminals would disagree with those things being wrong. Who are we to say they shouldn't do those things? Should we teach kids that can't understand accounting rules that Ken Lay was wrong?

[Davey Bones]

I would argue that the ancient Greeks and Romans were hardly looking for comfort. Their entire socio-cultural and political system was built around religion, and they gave us some of the greatest thinkers of all time. and many were just as questioning of religion as modern folk are. They were hardly blinded by it.

[Topher]

Like I said, it wasn't to pick on you. But socialization is a pretty simple concept and is usually taught by the 6th grade or so, here in the states. Comparitively, discussing religion is more complex. As you and a few others have pointed out, young children don't have the critical thinking skills to make decisions on religion. I believe that ages of 8-10 and even as high as 14 have been passed around on this thread as ages to maybe begin a discussion on religion. I am asking if you think that maybe that age is even too young. Since you are the age you are, I think you can provide an insight into that question.
Why then, given that you think religion is far to complex for children to understand, should children be exposed to it?

[tcgohan]

Her name is Ogden Bailey.

[wrydolphin]

Comparative analysis is too much for small children to handle. The concept of a greater being who cares for them, not so much.

[tcgohan]

"Why then, given that you think religion is far to complex for children to understand, should children be exposed to it?"

At what age should children be exposed to math? Math has flaws and can be a very complex subject. Science too can be extremely complex, would teach quantam physics or newtonian physics to a 6 year old?
I believe it was Isaac Asimov who called physics "natural philosophy" what age in your opinion (anybody) should children learn about philosophy?

[NewLearner]

Why then, given that you think religion is far to complex for children to understand, should children be exposed to it?

You were exposed to complicated things before you could understand them, weren't you? If not, you wouldn't be talking here today.

[wrydolphin]

You also don't start at the top. No one teaches 6 year olds chemistry or evolutionary theories. They start off simple, basic. At a level they can understand and assimilate. Which is what happens with religion in churches.

[Topher]

I would argue that the ancient Greeks and Romans were hardly looking for comfort. Their entire socio-cultural and political system was built around religion, and they gave us some of the greatest thinkers of all time. and many were just as questioning of religion as modern folk are. They were hardly blinded by it.
However that was a time when religion was the main explanatory source for things such as the universe etc, so of course, it would be very important. Now however science renders that use of religion useless for such things. Comfort is its only real use in today’s world and i've yet to see any evidence against that view.

Religion and philosophy was the basis of most explaning in ancient times, yet dispite how advance they might seem in their time, a school child in todays world would almost certainly school Aristotle regarding most things in life. He was a great thinker, yet the advancement of science and therefore knowledge means almost anyone living today (with basic reasoning ability, i.e. no babies) would amaze him.

[Topher]

"Why then, given that you think religion is far to complex for children to understand, should children be exposed to it?"

At what age should children be exposed to math? Math has flaws and can be a very complex subject. Science too can be extremely complex, would teach quantam physics or newtonian physics to a 6 year old?
I believe it was Isaac Asimov who called physics "natural philosophy" what age in your opinion (anybody) should children learn about philosophy?
Maths and science are not relative to the individual. Religion is. Anyone who learns maths and science will learn the same maths and science. Yet then it comes to religion, not only do you get various religions, each religion itself varies! It is a personal and major life desicion and should only be made by the individual and no one else. They should do this if and when they are ready, and what to.

[tcgohan]

Homer:
Do your prefer the hole-flow or electron-flow theory of electricity?

[Topher]

You were exposed to complicated things before you could understand them, weren't you? If not, you wouldn't be talking here today.
There is a difference to exposing someone to something, and indoctrinating them in it. Exposing someone to a single religion, a saying it is truth is essentially indoctrinating them to it. You’re putting them in a vulnerable position. Even worse if you introduce the concepts of hell and Jesus being the only means of being 'saved'.

The reverse of that would be to inform them of various beliefs (at least of their existence, if not the basics) and saying they can, if they wish, explore it further when they are older. If they can understand the basics of one religion (i.e. Christianity) then they can understand the basics of a few others.

[Topher]

Homer:
Do your prefer the hole-flow or electron-flow theory of electricity?
And this is related how?

[AZeitung]

you believe that if you were raised a Muslim that you would still be a christian, yet you are totally unwilling to put that to the test. How very interesting.
Ok, ok. Fair enough.



:sigh: I'll get the time machine.

[MAnewbie]

There is a difference to exposing someone to something, and indoctrinating them in it. Exposing someone to a single religion, a saying it is truth is essentially indoctrinating them to it. You’re putting them in a vulnerable position. Even worse if you introduce the concepts of hell and Jesus being the only means of being 'saved'.

The reverse of that would be to inform them of various beliefs (at least of their existence, if not the basics) and saying they can, if they wish, explore it further when they are older. If they can understand the basics of one religion (i.e. Christianity) then they can understand the basics of a few others.

Please explain this to me:
If a parent believes that what they believe in is correct, why would they tell their child that they can believe in whatever they want? There is nothing wrong with the idea of teaching your children what you believe is correct. Why is there a problem with teaching your children that there is a God, but no problem with saying, for example, "don't lie" or "don't kill others."

I can't imagine tekkengod or homer telling their kids to believe in whatever they want, without adding that "religion is for morons and will cause the destruction of the human race."
Heh...actually... it would be hilarious if tekkengod's son ended up the pope or something.

[tcgohan]

Science disagrees with itself.

p.s. Even taking math in college I never understood the why of math , it was just considered necessary. So should math never have been taught? I never got too decide wether or not I wanted to learn it until I was 16

[Topher]

Science disagrees with itself.
Only when it isn't in a position to conclude with any certainty. But you'll find that usually those on an opposing side will join the accepted side when the evidence for that side is presented.

[Topher]

Please explain this to me:
If a parent believes that what they believe in is correct, why would they tell their child that they can believe in whatever they want?
What right does the parent have to say their child has to believe it?

I can't imagine tekkengod or homer telling their kids to believe in whatever they want, without adding that "religion is for morons and will cause the destruction of the human race."
Heh...actually... it would be hilarious if tekkengod's son ended up the pope or something.
To be honest, they can believe what they like then it comes to personal issues of religion/non-religion and philosophy. I will however bring up any children i have to question and always seek evidence. What they do from there is up to them.

[tcgohan]

people disagreeing about parenting what a surprise :rolleyes:

[MAnewbie]

What right does the parent have to say their child has to believe it?

What is the role of the parents? To only make the baby and give it food, and then leave it alone to figure out everything itself? Whether the parent teaches anything or not, the child will learn from the parent. The child will look at the parent and imitate the parent. It is natural to do. Why try to stop something that can't be stopped only because you have a problem with something a child may be learning?

Are you joking though? Who has more of a right to teach the kid than the parents of the child?

[bcullen]

Homer:
Do your prefer the hole-flow or electron-flow theory of electricity?

Those are based on the type of current you are studying, home electrical (AC) or battery power (DC) they are two different things.

[bcullen]

What is the role of the parents? To only make the baby and give it food, and then leave it alone to figure out everything itself? Whether the parent teaches anything or not, the child will learn from the parent. The child will look at the parent and imitate the parent. It is natural to do. Why try to stop something that can't be stopped only because you have a problem with something a child may be learning?

Are you joking though? Who has more of a right to teach the kid than the parents of the child?

No, if you go back a bit this has been covered, no one has said don't tell your children about your religion, they have said wait until such time as they are ready to start that phase of exploration. They deserve the respect to make up their own mind. In the mean time they should be just be kids and not have to worry about the subject.

[MAnewbie]

No, if you go back a bit this has been covered, no one has said don't tell your children about your religion, they have said wait until such time as they are ready to start that phase of exploration. They deserve the respect to make up their own mind. In the mean time they should be just be kids and not have to worry about the subject.
Well, if you make the assumption that all religions are wrong, then your reasoning holds. If everyone goes to heaven, or to oblivion, then whatever religion you choose does not matter. I actually believe that the religion I believe in is correct, so I would not teach my kids to follow something that I believe is incorrect. I'd start teaching them my religion from very early on.

If my kid later decided that the religion I taught him was not for him, I'd have a problem with it, because I'd think he/she was making a mistake.

What you are talking about is not practical at all. It would never happen.

[NewLearner]

Ok. Firstly, I have never heard the term socialization used in school. Secondly, I feel that I am at an age where I can make a desicion about religion. I feel I have been able to for a while. I think the age when people are able to asses the situation is different for everyone and ther is no exact line that we cross when we are definitively able to make a desicion. Lets face it, none of us know whether God exists.

What age would you say was it that you could make reasonable decisions about religion?

[NewLearner]

Only when it isn't in a position to conclude with any certainty. But you'll find that usually those on an opposing side will join the accepted side when the evidence for that side is presented.

Hogwash. There is as much spirited debate in scientific circles as there is in philsophy. Each calling the other wrong and ignorant.

[tcgohan]

Those are based on the type of current you are studying, home electrical (AC) or battery power (DC) they are two different things.

"You can think about current as the flow of electrons, which go from negative to positive, or as the flow of holes, which go the other way. If you are reallly into semi-conductor theory it makes a difference which one you use, but otherwise you aren't likely to care. We usually use hole flow because the direction agrees with the decision that the early scientists made when they had to pick a direction to use in their calculations. It's traditional."
-written by Lisa Denise Murphy at the University of Illinois
http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/murphy/HoleFlow/HoleFlow.html

Teaching of traditional values in the field of science. What NewLearner said.

[blessed_samurai]

C'mon guys...y'all are arguing about 6-7 year olds. I have 3 kids. Two of my children are over the 7 year old mark. My children also go to church nearly every week. Do you know what they worry about most of the time? Playing and friends.

How many of you reallllly think that even with a 6-7 year old going to church they are a spewing information and understanding of whatever religion their parents belong to or what church/mosque/etc they are taken to? Does anyone realllly think that my children would benefit more from being taken to a mosque one week, a Protestant church the next week, a Catholic church the following week, a Buddhist gathering the week after that, and etc and so-on every week so that they have a taste of each and every religious belief out there.

I guess maybe I'm simplifying this argument/discussion/whatever you want to call it...but we're talking about 6-7 year olds.

Some of you may disagree but if we're discussing age and comprehension/exposure/etc then we're discussing psychology more than anything. We're discussing Piaget, Skinner, Vygtosky, Erickson, Kohlberg, etc. This has turned into not a discussion on whether 6-7 year olds should be forced to go to religious structures but a psyhogical evaluation of at which age can children/adolescents grasp what is being taught to them.

[NewLearner]

C'mon guys...y'all are arguing about 6-7 year olds. I have 3 kids. Two of my children are over the 7 year old mark. My children also go to church nearly every week. Do you know what they worry about most of the time? Playing and friends.

How many of you reallllly think that even with a 6-7 year old going to church they are a spewing information and understanding of whatever religion their parents belong to or what church/mosque/etc they are taken to? Does anyone realllly think that my children would benefit more from being taken to a mosque one week, a Protestant church the next week, a Catholic church the following week, a Buddhist gathering the week after that, and etc and so-on every week so that they have a taste of each and every religious belief out there.

I guess maybe I'm simplifying this argument/discussion/whatever you want to call it...but we're talking about 6-7 year olds.

Some of you may disagree but if we're discussing age and comprehension/exposure/etc then we're discussing psychology more than anything. We're discussing Piaget, Skinner, Vygtosky, Erickson, Kohlberg, etc. This has turned into not a discussion on whether 6-7 year olds should be forced to go to religious structures but a psyhogical evaluation of at which age can children/adolescents grasp what is being taught to them.

I have to disagree. It really is a discussion about whether a parent should be able to take their kids to church. I view it as nothing less than a way to indoctrinate kids against religion.

Here is a paste of post 126.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcullen
How so? When you make the declaration my child will be ____ and only expose them to _____, you have predisposed them to following that path and changing behaviors learned in early childhood is very difficult.

Bingo. You hit the nail on the head. Those that want children not to be predisposed to the parents religion want it so that the child will have learned in early childhood that God and religion are irrelevant so that they will have those views later.

So, why exactly is it that atheists should be able to predispose their children and everyone elses to atheism but a Christian should not be able to predispose their own children to Christianity?

[blessed_samurai]

I have to disagree. It really is a discussion about whether a parent should be able to take their kids to church. I view it as nothing less than a way to indoctrinate kids against religion.


No. What this thread is about is if it's okay for your child to disagree with your religion at 6-7 years of age (go back to the first post) and it has continued sorta' in this fashion with some side-tracking and side-discussions amont the interrim. And you're right; this thread is also about whether it's okay to take their kids to school because it indoctirantes them against/for other religions.

My point still stands-what 6-7 year old despite going to a certain church is going to say, "No, I"m sorry...being a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Sihk/etc is wrong because....". Children at that age do not comprehend the full ramifications/implications of what being a Christian is. What kids at that age get from church is they get to play with other kids, they get to color and play with toys, they get snacks, and they learn that Jesus/God loves them. In other words, they learn socialization, play, and compassion.

But partially we're even talking about the rights of a 6 year old vs the parent. When's the last time you had an open discussion/argument with your 6-7 year old about where you were or weren't going in religious matters?

Perhaps my understanding is skewed but as a three-time parent, an active viewer of children in Sunday school, a soon-to-be teacher who has sit in class after class of psychological matters concerning children/adolescents, I feel that I have a semi-good grasp on children/adolescents.

[bcullen]

Well, if you make the assumption that all religions are wrong, then your reasoning holds. If everyone goes to heaven, or to oblivion, then whatever religion you choose does not matter. I actually believe that the religion I believe in is correct, so I would not teach my kids to follow something that I believe is incorrect. I'd start teaching them my religion from very early on.

If my kid later decided that the religion I taught him was not for him, I'd have a problem with it, because I'd think he/she was making a mistake.

What you are talking about is not practical at all. It would never happen.

Letting the child decide his own fate is wrong (not at age 6 of course, I'm speaking of later in life)?

I'm not assuming all religions are wrong, I'm assuming there is a right and wrong religion for everyone. The difference is that I only claim to know the right religion for me.

[bcullen]

"You can think about current as the flow of electrons, which go from negative to positive, or as the flow of holes, which go the other way. If you are reallly into semi-conductor theory it makes a difference which one you use, but otherwise you aren't likely to care. We usually use hole flow because the direction agrees with the decision that the early scientists made when they had to pick a direction to use in their calculations. It's traditional."
-written by Lisa Denise Murphy at the University of Illinois
http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/murphy/HoleFlow/HoleFlow.html

Teaching of traditional values in the field of science. What NewLearner said.

I didn't know how technical people here wanted to go, but you are essentially correct, it's not a matter of is it, positive to negative or negative to positive as both are occurring simultaneously in any event. The abstract direction of flow is a teaching tool and static general point of reference for what is a very dynamic real world occurrence.

...and I'm being pedantic, so I'll stop now. :cool:

[holyheadjch]

I'm not assuming all religions are wrong, I'm assuming there is a right and wrong religion for everyone. The difference is that I only claim to know the right religion for me.
I think that's key to this argument.

[LJoll]

Comparative analysis is too much for small children to handle. The concept of a greater being who cares for them, not so much.

So because they can understand, it they should be told that it is true?

[LJoll]

Well, if you make the assumption that all religions are wrong, then your reasoning holds. If everyone goes to heaven, or to oblivion, then whatever religion you choose does not matter. I actually believe that the religion I believe in is correct, so I would not teach my kids to follow something that I believe is incorrect. I'd start teaching them my religion from very early on.

If my kid later decided that the religion I taught him was not for him, I'd have a problem with it, because I'd think he/she was making a mistake.

What you are talking about is not practical at all. It would never happen.

The thing is, you believe it to be correct, but you don't know that it's correct. To force a belief founded on very dubious evidence onto a small child because you consider it correct is hardly fair. You believing it to be right doesn't make it right. Teaching your child Christian values is one thing, but to tell him that there is definatly a God, a Hell and Jesus was resurrected is different.

Don't you think that it would be more impressive in God's eyes if your child decided for himself to believe in the scriptures instead of being told them they're true from the moment he was born. Isn't that what faith's all about?

[Davey Bones]

Religion and philosophy was the basis of most explaning in ancient times, yet dispite how advance they might seem in their time, a school child in todays world would almost certainly school Aristotle regarding most things in life. He was a great thinker, yet the advancement of science and therefore knowledge means almost anyone living today (with basic reasoning ability, i.e. no babies) would amaze him.

Excuse me? Have you ever sat through intro philosophy, Homer? No, I can't evenb use that name to speak to you about this.

A child would never school Aristotle in anything. Neither would most adults, who can barely comprehend his philosophical views.

Wow, you are really stretching to prove your point, but please, keep going. You're so hellbent on proving a point, you're really beginnning to look foolish.

[holyheadjch]

Excuse me? Have you ever sat through intro philosophy, Homer? No, I can't evenb use that name to speak to you about this.

A child would never school Aristotle in anything. Neither would most adults, who can barely comprehend his philosophical views.

Wow, you are really stretching to prove your point, but please, keep going. You're so hellbent on proving a point, you're really beginnning to look foolish.
You're the one who is looking foolish.

Are you trying to suggest that if Aristotle showed up in the 21st centure he wouldn't be absolutely astounded by the world? He would, and he would be a long way behind a 12 year old child in terms of medicine and science. Sure he was very intelligent but to say that he would have nothing to learn from a child of this time is just ridiculous.

[LJoll]

Excuse me? Have you ever sat through intro philosophy, Homer? No, I can't evenb use that name to speak to you about this.

A child would never school Aristotle in anything. Neither would most adults, who can barely comprehend his philosophical views.

Wow, you are really stretching to prove your point, but please, keep going. You're so hellbent on proving a point, you're really beginnning to look foolish.

Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things that a child today would know about. Gravity for instance.

[CanuckMA]

Interesting thread. One of the basic assupmtion from the proponents of 'coosing' seems to be that religion is somthing you tack on to your life. For seriously religious people, it permeates your life. My religion is not something I do, it's imbedded in what I am. Simply by living with me, my kids will be exposed to my religion.

[wrydolphin]

So because they can understand, it they should be told that it is true?
If I, myself, believe it to be true, then why would I not convey that to my children? It is rediculous to expect parents to not impart their beliefs to their children. When (if) I have kids, I will teach them to think critically when they are old enough to do it. At the age we are discussing, children are learning what it means to be in the culture in which they find themselves. Part of that culture is religion. As children grow they learn about other cultures, as they become teens and young adults, they form a self identity. It is at that stage they will think critically about their religion and keep or change it.

[blessed_samurai]

The thing is, you believe it to be correct, but you don't know that it's correct. To force a belief founded on very dubious evidence onto a small child because you consider it correct is hardly fair. You believing it to be right doesn't make it right. Teaching your child Christian values is one thing, but to tell him that there is definatly a God, a Hell and Jesus was resurrected is different.


How would you suggest seperating Christian values and the basis of Christianity? And how would you suggest that the parent go to church without the child being exposed to Christianity?

Also, how many children do you know that when they age into teenagers even though going to church show themselves to be Christians? I'm not referring to "yes, I'm a Christian because I go to church." I'm referring to actively persuing Christ in their life.

I mean, what is religion essentially? It's a set of beliefs. The parents pass on their beliefs to their children. The children can later choose to accept or not accept these beliefs. At what point, as a parent, do we decide which beliefs we should pass on and which we shouldn't?

Since I think our discussion is revolving around more technologically advanced societies (i.e. usage of libraries and internet), there is more than enough chances for an adolescent to explore other religions.

Again, how many 6-7 year olds are unhappy about being exposed to church? Would the 6-7 year old be better off by visiting every single religious type of attendence rather than a single church?

What I think is more damaging is children that go to church and then see their parents cursing, treating others badly, not reading The Bible, etc...in other words being 'Sunday Christians.'

[narcsarge]

Libraries, the Internet etc. If they ask about somthing, research it, and/or direct them to material.

But wouldn't that be forcing my beliefs and culture on my child? I mean what if he just doesn't care? We have gone from exposing children to a religion (touted as forcing the religion on the child) to leading them by the nose to explore religions in general. How do we get them to that point without exposing them to some form of religion?

[narcsarge]

Why do we have to accept someones religion and related views etc. In almost all other areas of life, when we disagree we say so, however when it comes to religion, we are expected to accept it by default. It's viewed as insulting to question.

Is that not what the multiculturalist, aethists, etc. demand? They do not want to be "exposed" to religious teachings, sympols, expression of any kind unless it falls in line with what they believe. Which of course is "Everything is acceptable as long as it does not infringe on what I do". I have no problem that they believe what they believe. None at all. But they should also respect the right of others to have their beliefs too and not try to smother the wonderful diversity of our cultures and religions.

[narcsarge]

And yet... that leads us, as I said earlier, right back to the same condundrum. Still dealing with "parental approved" knowledge. AM I a bad parent for not talking about Muslims? Pagans? Maybe we should start a nationwide program on comparative religion in school... oh, wait, that would be offensive as well.


Don't forget the Constitutional requirement of Church/State separation! Sir. :D

[narcsarge]

You were exposed to complicated things before you could understand them, weren't you? If not, you wouldn't be talking here today.

Boo Ya! Bump^^

[Davey Bones]

You're the one who is looking foolish.

Are you trying to suggest that if Aristotle showed up in the 21st centure he wouldn't be absolutely astounded by the world? He would, and he would be a long way behind a 12 year old child in terms of medicine and science. Sure he was very intelligent but to say that he would have nothing to learn from a child of this time is just ridiculous.

To assume that the great philosphers of the ancient Greco-Roman era are somehow irrelevant because we have made technological advances is a ridiculous statement, as evidenced by the constant use of their philosophical views in the modern world.

I think some of you need to sit down and read Plato, Aristotle, Cicero (his "On the Nature of the Gods" is a brilliant treatise which completely disproves the notion that the Greeks and Romans just blindly followed religion without a care)... their views provide a good basis for modern philosophical thought. To dismiss them as some cute antiquated idealogues because "we have science" is utterly ridiculous and not something I'm going to take seriously.

[narcsarge]

Gangrel, does this not smell like the old science vs. religion arguement? I am not sure why things wonder so far off the point? Maybe because I wonder at my age!

[NewLearner]

You're the one who is looking foolish.

Are you trying to suggest that if Aristotle showed up in the 21st centure he wouldn't be absolutely astounded by the world? He would, and he would be a long way behind a 12 year old child in terms of medicine and science. Sure he was very intelligent but to say that he would have nothing to learn from a child of this time is just ridiculous.

Well of course a child could teach Aristotle how to play nintendo. But if you think a child could teach him about philsophy, you are the one that is foolish.

You knew that Gangrel was not referring to a child not every teaching him anything but rather anything of significance, particularly anything relevant to this discussion.

[Davey Bones]

Gangrel, does this not smell like the old science vs. religion arguement? I am not sure why things wonder so far off the point? Maybe because I wonder at my age!

The problem is that people aren't understanding the point I made, which doesn't necessarily surprise me anymore.

HJS's premise: Religion was just some sort of comfort for primitive people to explain the world. We don't need it now that we have science.

My counterpoint: Religion to several large empires in the past was an integral part of their culture, utterly inseperable from daily life, and despite the claims made by some of the "atheists", they managed to produce not only brilliant philosophy, but brilliant philosophy which questioned and criticized their religions despite the fact that religion was an integral part of their lives.

The "atheist" counter-counterpoint: Modern kids would pwn ancient Greek philosophers because of their knowledge of science.

Do you see how my point apparently went right over their heads?

[NewLearner]

The problem is that people aren't understanding the point I made, which doesn't necessarily surprise me anymore.

HJS's premise: Religion was just some sort of comfort for primitive people to explain the world. We don't need it now that we have science.

My counterpoint: Religion to several large empires in the past was an integral part of their culture, utterly inseperable from daily life, and despite the claims made by some of the "atheists", they managed to produce not only brilliant philosophy, but brilliant philosophy which questioned and criticized their religions despite the fact that religion was an integral part of their lives.

The "atheist" counter-counterpoint: Modern kids would pwn ancient Greek philosophers because of their knowledge of science.

Do you see how my point apparently went right over their heads?

I saw it quite clearly. Perhaps it is an age thing?

[Davey Bones]

HJS is 21, Holy-whatever is 22, and zhan is 15-16. Seems to me we have people old enough to grasp the concept, methinks they're choosing not to.

EDIT: of course, looking through the religion forums, HJS and Holy-whatever are two of the biggest anti-religionists around, so we also need to keep in mind that while they think we have an agenda, the same can be said for them.

[NewLearner]

There is a difference between being old enough to grasp the concept and being old enough to have the life experience to know what is being talked about and grasp it in more than just an intellectual form.

It reminds me of the cultural literacy debates. Did anyone else buy those books for their kids for every grade level?

[narcsarge]

Gangrel and New, of course it goes over their heads. Of course they missed the point. All of their reasoning has not taught them the very thing that they are seeking. Critical thinking. They believe that science is an end unto itself. Religion is smoke and mirrors, a "comfort" for the stupid! Never mind that religions, all religions, provided the first sense of law. The first sense of Hiearchy. And yes, religion has been at war with science for centuries. But it is like the chicken and the egg arguement. Did religion create scientists? Did Isaac Newton discover gravity because he was trying to disprove the existance of a supreme being? HJS and Holy have yet to present an point of view that contains facts and a well thought out and reasoned arguement. That is not to say they don't have a point to make, just that they have not achieved the ability to make sound arguements. Gangrel, you and I both know that it is one thing to say something is true and a whole other thing to prove it. And you lawyers have had me questioning whether I had ever been born. :D

[LJoll]

If I, myself, believe it to be true, then why would I not convey that to my children? It is rediculous to expect parents to not impart their beliefs to their children. When (if) I have kids, I will teach them to think critically when they are old enough to do it. At the age we are discussing, children are learning what it means to be in the culture in which they find themselves. Part of that culture is religion. As children grow they learn about other cultures, as they become teens and young adults, they form a self identity. It is at that stage they will think critically about their religion and keep or change it.

There is a difference between believing something to be true and knowing it. There is a difference between telling your child about your beliefs and presenting them as fact.

[LJoll]

How would you suggest seperating Christian values and the basis of Christianity? And how would you suggest that the parent go to church without the child being exposed to Christianity?

When exactly did I suggest that children shouldn't be exosed to Christianity? I have said about 20 times that that is not what I'm saying. If you havn't understood that yet I doubt you will now.

Also, how many children do you know that when they age into teenagers even though going to church show themselves to be Christians? I'm not referring to "yes, I'm a Christian because I go to church." I'm referring to actively persuing Christ in their life.

Well I don't know that many Christians, but I do know a lot of Muslims that would refer to themselves as Muslim and take it very seriously.

[narcsarge]

There is a difference between believing something to be true and knowing it. There is a difference between telling your child about your beliefs and presenting them as fact.

And thus the premise of your statement is that parents or churches present religion (or the existance of God) as a fact rather then a belief system. Hmmm! In all of my 44 years I have never had anyone tell me that what they believe about their religion was a fact.

[CanuckMA]

There is a difference between believing something to be true and knowing it. There is a difference between telling your child about your beliefs and presenting them as fact.

No there isn't. Because if you grow up in a religious home, your faith is true.

[narcsarge]

<grabs chips, and soda, and hits the recliner> :cool:

[LJoll]

No there isn't. Because if you grow up in a religious home, your faith is true.

No it isn't. It shold be true regardless of whether you have faith. If I have faith that I can fly, does that make it true?

[TheCount]

My dad and i got into this discussion the other night. Apparently most religious folk find it absolutely fine to take their kids to church at the ripe old age of oh....6 or 7. Before they can really grasp any of it, but thats aside the point. Lets say that your child decides they want to explore a DIFFRENT religion, do you allow them the luxury and take the to a diffrent service? or do you force your own beliefs on them? what would YOU do? :eek:

I was always brought up in a regligious family and always taken to church. However, after about age 11, I Chose I wanted to go to church. If I don't want to go to church my parents will object, if I want to be a budhist they also will object however they will not force anything on me. If it was my kids I would bring them up as christian, if they chose another believe I would undoubtedly believe them to be wrong, but people are only beyond animals because they have reason and can make choices. I would always aim to bring up my children in the best way I can, and I would never wish to restrict them

[narcsarge]

No it isn't. It shold be true regardless of whether you have faith. If I have faith that I can fly, does that make it true?
Understand how you are using the word faith. In your example, faith is defined as: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (dictionary.com) or Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Not that faith is the truth! Zhan, this is why we are saying look at what words you use and understand them. I am not dogging you or putting down your point of view. I hope that Gangrel and I are helping you hone your point and argument. :D

[LJoll]

Understand how you are using the word faith. In your example, faith is defined as: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (dictionary.com) or Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Not that faith is the truth! Zhan, this is why we are saying look at what words you use and understand them. I am not dogging you or putting down your point of view. I hope that Gangrel and I are helping you hone your point and argument. :D

When did I ever say that faith was the truth? That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

[bcullen]

How would you suggest seperating Christian values and the basis of Christianity? And how would you suggest that the parent go to church without the child being exposed to Christianity?

Every religion contains some universal ethical guidelines these things do not need to be put in a religious context e.g. don't steal, don't lie etc... If there's some dietary restrictions well you're planning the menu so they won't know. ;)

Would you take a very young child to a sports event? What do you do in that case, find a sitter or don't go (the constant dilemma that is my life now.) There's no point in making an energetic young child sit through something they aren't interested in and don't understand.


I mean, what is religion essentially? It's a set of beliefs. The parents pass on their beliefs to their children. The children can later choose to accept or not accept these beliefs. At what point, as a parent, do we decide which beliefs we should pass on and which we shouldn't?

If you can answer that you are one up on 99.999999999 percent of the world.



Again, how many 6-7 year olds are unhappy about being exposed to church? Would the 6-7 year old be better off by visiting every single religious type of attendence rather than a single church?

Exposed is one thing, being made to actively participate is another. They shouldn't have to participate in any religion or philosophy, that would include atheism as well but most folks don't take their kids to courses and seminars anyhow. Kids don't need to be involved in any kind of "ism" or like suffix.


What I think is more damaging is children that go to church and then see their parents cursing, treating others badly, not reading The Bible, etc...in other words being 'Sunday Christians.'

I'll agree with that, children learn by what you do, not say. Proving your faith isn't about showing up at a church, temple, mosque etc..., on a particular day it's about how you apply the religion in your life and your actions. Show your faith in deed and example and they will learn it.

[narcsarge]

When did I ever say that faith was the truth? That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

"It <meaning faith?> shold (sic) be true regardless of whether you have faith". My point was that the definitions of faith have a bearing on what some one believes is the truth (personal truth). Not what is true! If I have misread this I apologize.