The religious indoctrination of our children: Where do you stand?

[gutter_trash]

as a kid, I liked to pick out books about the animal kingdom and collect Safari Cards.

Then came books on dinosaurs and prehistoric mammals, then I got into that big time.

Then comes that religious kid in class who starts saying the Earth is only 5000 years old. That confused the hell out of me because my dinosaur book has dinosaurs dating back from 64 million years in the past and more.

I am thankful that animal kingdom books and dinosaur books landed on my lap at an early age ever before getting confused by teachers and students about religious alternative facts.

 

[wizard]

Make sure you give him the history of buddhism and how its as vile as any other religion on this planet.

 

[Omegasquash]

I believe that learning about religion is far better than being raised in it, if that makes any sense. I was raised in it, and it did not go well. My wife earnestly wanted to be married in a Catholic church, and our children have been baptized Catholic, but they do not attend church. I was direct with my wife, and let her know that I would only attend if the kids were involved in some way that week (alter, choir, whatever), but not on the day to day.

I've discussed with my son that I do not know if there's a God. I've shared that some believe, and some do not, and all of that is fine, as faith is personal. So long as that faith doesn't hurt anyone or anything (i.e. "I believe in God and a woman's right to choose" or something like that), it's fine. I shared that people kill and die in the name of religion and, while I do not attempt to speak on behalf of a God that probably doesn't exist, I do not believe that is what it would want.

For me, religion was a source of fear, and never (in memory) a joyous or love creating thing. I don't want my children crying in the bathroom because they're afraid that the devil will come and get them. I don't want them thinking they're damned for eternity for normal human feelings and physiological changes their body goes through, either.

Religion is a source of lots of things. Art, architecture, culture, etc, are a wonder to behold. Inspiration to create and truly express oneself is a beautiful thing. But I don't believe that religion is a requirement for that. If anything, personally, it has served as a barrier. I wouldn't change a thing (for the most part) about my life experiences, and how "God" has impacted them. I can say that my life would be different were it not for that influence. But I do not believe that others should have that hanging on them. Guilt, fear, and bruises were the return on the investment I had in religion by chance of birth. To each their own, but I will continue to share with my children that I don't know, that no one really knows, no one has ever really known. They believe. I don't believe. Whatever my children believe, they have my support so long as what they share with their children (if they have them) is shared, and not forced on them.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Trump supporters: "Muslim people are bad because of Islam and terrorists, keep them out."

ResetERA: "Those intolerant deplorables, what is wrong with them?"

ResetERA: "Teaching religion is child abuse, what is wrong with people indoctrinating their children with fairy tails?"

Click to shrink...

If you want to ignore that people have repeatedly pointed out that they view the threat of hell as child abuse.
If you want to ignore that people are not saying "don't teach religion", but "don't force religion onto a child".
If you want to ignore that nobody is saying that religious people should be "kept out" or "are bad".
If you want to act like "we shouldn't keep someone out or treat them as outsiders because of their faith" directly translates to "We shouldn't indoctrinate children".
Then yeah, sure, your post kinda works.

But no. You're trying to make a terrible comparison. Just like here:

Yelling "You have to believe in God!" or "Son, this whole religion stuff is bullshit!" is basically the same. Both parents think they are right. Neither one or the other is the "sure way" to produce "better grown ups".
Especially because there are millions of shades inbetween over-the-top-religious parents and over-the-top-atheist parents.

Click to shrink...

Really? Telling a 4 year old child "You will go to hell if you don't believe in God" is the same as telling them it's all bullshit? Now mind you, I believe that neither over-the-top attempt is correct, but if you honestly think it's "basically the same", you aren't paying attention.

EDIT: I gotta say. Trying to equate what people are saying here with Trump supporters is just preposterous.

 

[Captain Smoker]

If you want to ignore that people have repeatedly pointed out that they view the threat of hell as child abuse.
If you want to ignore that people are not saying "don't teach religion", but "don't force religion onto a child".
If you want to ignore that nobody is saying that religious people should be "kept out" or "are bad".
If you want to act like "we shouldn't keep someone out or treat them as outsiders because of their faith" directly translates to "We shouldn't indoctrinate children".
Then yeah, sure, your post kinda works.

Click to shrink...

It's an exaggeration.

This image of religious parents threatening their children with "Believe in God or go to Hell" is kind of naive. Yes there are people like this, but this doesn't scale to everyone.


And please don't tell me this is just about "hell" and ignore that there aren't people who are against religion from the get go, quotes from this thread:

"Teach your children how to think, not what to think."

"I hate it. In my country the problem starts in kindergarten. Unless you can afford to have your kid stay at home or go to private facility there's nothing you can do avoid the child making contact with the Catholic religion and its indoctrination coming via priest visits, learning to sing Christmas carols or celebrating Catholic holy days."

"It's brainwashing. Straight up."

"I think it's pretty sick."

"Wish it wasn't allowed - personally I want to think religions shouldn't be forced on children rather they only can seek it on there own."

Really? Telling a 4 year old child "You will go to hell if you don't believe in God" is the same as telling them it's all bullshit? Now mind you, I believe that neither over-the-top attempt is correct, but if you honestly think it's "basically the same", you aren't paying attention.

Click to shrink...

You added the part with hell, I didn't mention it.

And it's not about the exact phrases, it's about the attitude of "I teach my child what I think is the right thing, be it God or Science or Think whatever you want", this is the comparison I'm making.

 

[Westbahnhof]

It's an exaggeration.

Click to shrink...

Yes it is, and an extreme one that you shouldn't have made because it's a terrible argument, equating the two.

This image of religious parents threatening their children with "Believe in God or go to Hell" is kind of naive. Yes there are people like this, but this doesn't scale to everyone.

Click to shrink...

I'm speaking from experience, these people exist, and what they are doing is child abuse. I (and most others if not all others in here) never claimed that this was about everyone.

And please don't tell me this is just about "hell" and ignore that there aren't people who are against religion from the get go, quotes from this thread:

"Teach your children how to think, not what to think."
"I hate it. In my country the problem starts in kindergarten. Unless you can afford to have your kid stay at home or go to private facility there's nothing you can do avoid the child making contact with the Catholic religion and its indoctrination coming via priest visits, learning to sing Christmas carols or celebrating Catholic holy days."
"It's brainwashing. Straight up."
"I think it's pretty sick."
"Wish it wasn't allowed - personally I want to think religions shouldn't be forced on children rather they only can seek it on there own."

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure what your point is.
Yes, many people are against religion in general. So what? How can you relate this to someone saying people of a religion should, by law, not be allowed to live with us?
What point are you trying to make here? People are against religion and religious teaching or indoctrination.

You added the part with hell, I didn't mention it.
And it's not about the exact phrases, it's about the attitude of "I teach my child what I think is the right thing, be it God or Science or Think whatever you want", this is the comparison I'm making.

Click to shrink...

I didn't add the part with hell, the people who didn't just drive-by post and mentioned abuse did. But I agree that in general, you shouldn't call it abuse.
Now about your final sentence... yeah. That's a problem for me. Because you are acting like "God" and "Science" are somehow opposed. They aren't, but let's assume they are:
Do you think someone saying "God is wrong, we'll form our views based on science, ignoring God" is on the same level as someone saying "Science is wrong, we'll form our views based on God, ignoring science"?

 

[Tbm24]

I stay away from it. My mother in law was dead set on getting my daughter christened. She's greek orthodox(so if my wife in name only) the priests dunk the child all the way under the water. Told her she can forget it, but she can't help herself but bring it up. It's genuinely caused my concerned that she's going to say something stupid to my daughter about as she gets older and is babysat by her.

 

[Chojin]

I take our baby to Church (Catholic) and we had her baptized.

I leave it up to her by the time Confirmation rolls around at age 14. I'm gonna raise her with a healty amount of skepticism curiosity and if she comes to the conclusion that its not for her I'll respect that.

Was raised not to take the bible literally and the only indoctrination I'm going to impose on her is to have an open mind.

My wife on the other hand... Well I'll table that reaction should my kid reject religion for now. We got 13.5 years until that happens.

 

[Thornquist]

As someone who was raised in a conservative christian family and turned agnostic, I think I would limit my children to the good philosophical ideas Jesus put out.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Turn the other cheek.
Let the first man who has no sin throw the first stone.
etc.

 

[LionPride]

I was raised in a Christian household, but it was never a big deal for me personally

As I've gotten older, my mom and I will have conversations about how I don't like the church bc it's all dependent on the pastor and when you have a pastor saying some dumb shit, a person can clock out quickly. She kind of respects the fact that I'm not Christian per se, but even if I called myself that, I'd still do what I used to do, which is use the Bible as a moral guide for certain things and ignore the fuck shit in it

 

[Deleted member 4461]

I'm more or less complicit. While not religious myself, my family is. So for the younger kids, if they say something religious in nature, I mostly agree.

What that means, I don't know. They're not my kids, and I'm agnostic anyways. Why ruin someone else's faith?

 

[Skade]

This brings me to a question I've been asking myself quite a while. Was religion invented to control the masses? And is that why it still exists?

Click to shrink...

I think it was invented in good faith (ah !) and aimed at the time to procure some kind of answers about how the world works.

The thing is, humans are humans and they will always find a way to gain some advantage with whatever they can. And a religion is one of the best opportunities someone could find to gain power and money. There is so many examples of this over history that it is undeniable. Not just history btw, simply take a look at some evangelical preachers and tell me they don't use religion as a way to enrich themselves. I dare you.

I might be a bit too cynical but humans are fucking manipulating assholes.

That's also one of the reasons that i won't ever follow any dogma of any religion, even if i was led to believe there is indeed some sort of divinity watching over us. The dogmas are defined by some sort of "holy scripture", "holy book" or whatever that is claimed to be the word of god and yet are clearly written by human beings, sometimes in iterations spanning several centuries. Yeah... Right... Totaly not susceptible of being written or rewritten by dudes with suspicious intentions. Not at all.

So yeah. They might have been created with good intentions. But they clearly got hijacked very early on by assholes who used a dominant position to steer them in a state that they could use to dominate others.

 

[Hindle]

I wont mention anything of any religion in my household. The whole concept is stupid.

 

[Ponn]

I think it was invented in good faith (ah !) and aimed at the time to procure some kind of answers about how the world works.

The thing is, humans are humans and they will always find a way to gain some advantage with whatever they can. And a religion is one of the best opportunities someone could find to gain power and money. There is so many examples of this over history that it is undeniable. Not just history btw, simply take a look at some evangelical preachers and tell me they don't use religion as a way to enrich themselves. I dare you.

I might be a bit too cynical but humans are fucking manipulating assholes.

That's also one of the reasons that i won't ever follow any dogma of any religion, even if i was led to believe there is indeed some sort of divinity watching over us. The dogmas are defined by some sort of "holy scripture", "holy book" or whatever that is claimed to be the word of god and yet are clearly written by human beings, sometimes in iterations spanning several centuries. Yeah... Right... Totaly not susceptible of being written or rewritten by dudes with suspicious intentions. Not at all.

So yeah. They might have been created with good intentions. But they clearly got hijacked very early on by assholes who used a dominant position to steer them in a state that they could use to dominate others.

Click to shrink...

It's easier to create armies and get mass amounts of people to die for you if you can convince them they are going to paradise when they die.

 

[New Fang]

I don't see religion as bringing anything positive into this world, so of course I'd never want to introduce a child to it's claims.

 

[activepassive]

I don't see religion as bringing anything positive into this world, so of course I'd never want to introduce a child to it's claims.

Click to shrink...

This is objectively false though.

It's as useful a claim as "I don't see humans as bringing anything positive in the world, so of course I'm just going to kill myself."

 

[New Fang]

This is objectively false though.

It's as useful a claim as "I don't see humans as bringing anything positive in the world, so of course I'm just going to kill myself."

Click to shrink...

Maybe you should explain how it's objectively false then.

 

[activepassive]

Maybe you should explain how it's objectively false then.

Click to shrink...

Find an orphanage or a hospital over 100 years old in the US that isn't tied to some branch of Christianity.

 

[New Fang]

Find a church or a hospital over 100 years old in the US that isn't tied to some branch of Christianity.

Click to shrink...

Did you word that right? Finding a church is proof of religion being good?

Regarding hospitals. Are you suggesting hospitals wouldn't exist without religion? lol

 

[activepassive]

Did you word that right? Finding a church is proof of religion being good?

Regarding hospitals. Are you suggesting hospitals wouldn't exist without religion? lol

Click to shrink...

Fixed my post. I wasn't focused.

I'm saying you made an ostentatious claim that religion doesn't bring anything positive to the world, and religion has always been closely tied to caring for the infirm and orphans. To claim otherwise is not being intellectually honest.

 

[New Fang]

Fixed my post. I wasn't focused.

I'm saying you made an ostentatious claim that religion doesn't bring anything positive to the world, and religion has always been closely tied to caring for the infirm and orphans. To claim otherwise is not being intellectually honest.

Click to shrink...

OK.

I don't see a net positive on society from religion. Good enough?

 

[Skade]

Find an orphanage or a hospital over 100 years old in the US that isn't tied to some branch of Christianity.

Click to shrink...

Find ANYTHING over 100 years old in the US that isn't tied to some branch of Christianity.

It does not mean that those hospitals wouldn't have been built if there was no Christians around. Hospitals and orphanage are a necessity. They would have existed with or without religion. They just happened to have been built by christians. Wich is obvious since finding someone or some organisation that was not christian in the US at the time was kinda hard. At least some that was not christian and with enough money to build an hospital.

 

[activepassive]

OK.

I don't see a net positive on society from religion. Good enough?

Click to shrink...

I don't see a net positive on society from the internet, and yet...?

What massive historical institution do you see a net positive from?

 

[THErest]

"There is no empirical evidence for the existence of a creator/interventionist god. Furthermore the creation stories in scripture are directly contradicted by the scientific evidence we do have. Anyone purporting to know otherwise should be treated with the utmost suspicion. Indoctrination complete."

Click to shrink...

The first two sentences are literally facts. Like, a priest could say that first sentence, and lead into a faith discussion.

That last sentence is not required or typical of atheists. Sure, some choose to be assholes. But there's still a choice.

Indoctrination not detected.

 

[Captain Smoker]

Yes it is, and an extreme one that you shouldn't have made because it's a terrible argument, equating the two.

Click to shrink...

The analogy I made isn't about "You are equal to a Trump supporter", it's about the style of the argument: generalizations used to support someones argument.

On the one hand you criticise Trump supporters for their generalizations, then you use the same style of argumentation to prove another point.

Whereas Trump supporters use it to defend their xenophobia, other people generalize aspects of religion to support their view that it's a destructive part of society.
Granted, the first one is worse because of real life applications, fuck them (alt-right, trumpsters, etc.).

I hope you understand my point better now.

I'm not sure what your point is.
Yes, many people are against religion in general. So what? How can you relate this to someone saying people of a religion should, by law, not be allowed to live with us?
What point are you trying to make here? People are against religion and religious teaching or indoctrination.

Click to shrink...

See the first part of my post.

I'll take these two quotes:

• "Teach your children how to think, not what to think."
• "It's brainwashing. Straight up."
• "I think it's pretty sick."
• "I wont mention anything of any religion in my household. The whole concept is stupid."

My Trump-post was marked as "trolling, arguing in bad faith, false equivalencies", whereas these are some drive-by posts without any explanation, telling that you brainwash your children, it's sick and suggesting that children aren't able to think on their own if teached religion. Like, come on, tell me why this is better.

Now about your final sentence... yeah. That's a problem for me. Because you are acting like "God" and "Science" are somehow opposed. They aren't, but let's assume they are:
Do you think someone saying "God is wrong, we'll form our views based on science, ignoring God" is on the same level as someone saying "Science is wrong, we'll form our views based on God, ignoring science"?

Click to shrink...

I'll try to explain it again:

My whole point is that the goal of parenting is producing decent human beings, I hope we agree.

As I said there are millions of shades inbetween religious and non-religious parents and that neither parenting-style is a "sure way" to produce a decent human being.

And even the "Hell" - analogy which some people equal with child abuse is just a small part of the whole picture, they can still be better parents than other people who don't preach this at all or they can be worse parents, it's different from case to case. I don't know what this should prove aside from the fact that it's a stupid way to control the behaviour of your children in a particular moment.

 

[MCN]

Religion is a lot like a penis. It's OK to have one, and to be proud of it, but keep it the hell away from my kids.

 

[New Fang]

I don't see a net positive on society from the internet, and yet...?

What massive historical institution do you see a net positive from?

Click to shrink...

It would probably be best if you just make it clear that you're a big fan of religion and leave it at that. This back and forth isn't worthwhile.

For me to even consider something as a positive I first have to believe it's even a real thing, worthy of existing. So by that simple metric I've got no use for religion.

 

[ctcatsby]

Indoctrination is such a loaded, polemical term you might as well have asked us if we plan to brainwash our children.

I was raised atheist, converted to Christianity later in life. We will absolutely raise our daughter and subsequent children in the faith, if only to spare them the intellectual asphyxiation that popularly passes for atheism. That most of this thread reads like a dialogue between teenagers as they discuss their favorite Bad Religion song really only hammers home that point.

(But fear not, free-thinkers: studies have shown that children raised by their parents in any sufficiently dogmatic framework—religious or secular—often do a 180 from their parents' belief systems. Whether you raise them in Catholicism or Dawkinsism, your children likely apostatize, sometimes just to spite you.)

 

[activepassive]

It would probably be best if you just make it clear that you're a big fan of religion and leave it at that. This back and forth isn't worthwhile.

For me to even consider something as a positive I first have to believe it's even a real thing, worthy of existing. So by that simple metric I've got no use for religion.

Click to shrink...

I didn't know you were the sole decided in the history of humankind of whether something was worthy of existing or not. My bad.

 

[AoM]

Dawkinsism

Click to shrink...

All us damned atheists, infecting kids with "Dawkinsism".

Anybody have a "Gospel of Dawkins" I can borrow?

 

[AstralTurfWarrior]

I think it's all fake so obviously I think it's wrong.

But even so, I can see that if you truly honestly believe it, then you probably see it as your duty to make another person believe. And really, in a lot of cases it's not the biggest deal.

That said, I'll still say it's objectively better at least generally speaking to teach the child about all religions and to think about them critically. Also trying to make them see why people believe what they believe and respect it. And if your god is truly the correct one of all the infinite images of gods, then I am sure that person would naturally come to see the light when they're older and capable to think and compare the religions properly.

But yeah, I'm not gonna judge you if you pass your religion on your child, as long as you don't try to force it on them if they show resistance and as long as you don't scare them with hell talk or give them negative views of LGBT, and stuff like that.

Moral and justified. I like the social values of many religions, and think it's something our society could learn from.

On the subject of children, It's easier to say "if you punch him you go to hell" instead of "if you punch him you go to court and face a judge"

Sometimes, the directness of religious teachings is actually a good way to communicate with kids who lack the tools to understand adult perceptions of those issues.

Kids aren't adults. You can communicate with them differently.

Click to shrink...

It's certainly easier to say to a kid that they go to hell if they do a bad thing than explain the legal system, but holy shit it's a terrible thing to say to an impressionable mind. I really hope you don't do this to kids.

That is exactly what some people have talked about in this thread when they mention how religious upbringing can potentially leave some serious traumas. Telling a kid that they go to hell - burning for eternity - if they do a bad thing when they're upset (and let's face it, a lot of kids, at least ones with siblings, will do it at some point), is a horrible thing that can seriously affect the child.

I hope you wouldn't consider doing something like that. There are far better ways to teach kids to not do wrong. You don't need to explain anything about the law to achieve that.

 

[BocoDragon]

Make sure you give him the history of buddhism and how its as vile as any other religion on this planet.

Click to shrink...

This one is hard to qualify, but I'm gonna call bullshit. Read the history of Buddhism and the history of Islam side by side. One of them is marked by some curious peasant uprisings and arcane theological disputes, and the other is typified by literal sectarian conflict, assassinations and exclusivist theocracy. Guess which is which.​

Christianity is somewhere in the middle. All ideas and groups do not have the same positive/negative impact on history.

 

[Grug]

The first two sentences are literally facts. Like, a priest could say that first sentence, and lead into a faith discussion.

That last sentence is not required or typical of atheists. Sure, some choose to be assholes. But there's still a choice.

Indoctrination not detected.

Click to shrink...

Call it assholish if you want, but teaching your kids to be skeptical of people who make grand claims (religious or otherwise) without evidence is a basic element of teaching critical thinking skills.

 

[Deleted member 1635]

It's brainwashing. Straight up.

Click to shrink...

That's my take. I think it's fine to be religious around children, but don't force them to partake in it or teach them that your religious beliefs are the objective truth. I'm glad this is the approach my parents took.

 

[New Fang]

I didn't know you were the sole decided in the history of humankind of whether something was worthy of existing or not. My bad.

Click to shrink...

Your childish defensiveness is palpable. I have only given my own opinion on religion in this thread, just like people do on any topic on a message board. If you're unable to deal with opposing opinions you might want to stick to forums where everyone agrees with you.

 

[Westbahnhof]

My Trump-post was marked as "trolling, arguing in bad faith, false equivalencies", whereas these are some drive-by posts without any explanation, telling that you brainwash your children, it's sick and suggesting that children aren't able to think on their own if teached religion. Like, come on, tell me why this is better.

Click to shrink...

Look at the quotes you keep using:
• "Teach your children how to think, not what to think." How is this wrong? Is it not better to teach critical thinking skills based on empathy to instill morals instead of giving them a set of "truths"?
• "It's brainwashing. Straight up." How is indoctrination of a child too young to question what you are teaching it anything but brainwashing? I could make a child believe ANYTHING if I kept at it. Tell me the difference.
• "I think it's pretty sick." Clearly, this person dislikes religion. ...so? Are you saying that finding indoctrination sick is equal to saying all religious people are bad? That's not what is happening here.
• "I wont mention anything of any religion in my household. The whole concept is stupid." Again... so? What's wrong with this statement of opinion?
Unlike your "Trump supporter quote", these people are not condemning the followers of a religion or proposing that their rights should be taken away. One huge difference right there.
You say that "the analogy [you] made isn't about "You are equal to a Trump supporter", it's about the style of the argument: generalizations used to support someones argument."
If that was the point, then the analogy failed, because the two can barely be compared. The generalizations you quoted ("I think it's pretty sick" and "The whole concept is stupid") are opinions that are not used to support an argument.

My whole point is that the goal of parenting is producing decent human beings, I hope we agree.

Click to shrink...

Almost. The goal of parenting should be to help the child become a good human being, yes, but without the use of abusive methods.

And even the "Hell" - analogy which some people equal with child abuse is just a small part of the whole picture, they can still be better parents than other people who don't preach this at all or they can be worse parents, it's different from case to case. I don't know what this should prove aside from the fact that it's a stupid way to control the behaviour of your children in a particular moment.

Click to shrink...

Sure they can be better parents than the worst out there.
Someone who threatens there child with hell can be better than someone who doesn't, but beats them regularly.
Someone who beats their child regularly can be better than someone who sexually abuses then instead.
That is 100% meaningless.
It's all abuse. It's all wrong. If you tell you child is has to act a certain way to avoid the eternal torment of hell, you are wrong to do so.

This thread is about child indoctrination, something which you, by the way, have not tried to defend yet. You keep relativizing and saying that "other things are worse" or "other things are just as bad".
I believe you feel that (your?) faith is under attack, you think this is bad, and you jump into action without considering the circumstances.

Dawkinsism

Click to shrink...

Not even going to pretend to take this subject seriously huh?

 

[passepied joe]

Don't care. I wouldn't do it, but I don't care about other people and their children when it comes to religion.

Spoiler

Actually maybe I would so they don't end up being elitist atheists lol

 

[THErest]

Call it assholish if you want, but teaching your kids to be skeptical of people who make grand claims (religious or otherwise) without evidence is a basic element of teaching critical thinking skills.

Click to shrink...

I agree. I misread your post as presenting indoctrination as inherently negative, and painting atheism in this negative light, and I singled out your last sentence as your "gotcha".

 

[Ponn]

The analogy I made isn't about "You are equal to a Trump supporter", it's about the style of the argument: generalizations used to support someones argument.

On the one hand you criticise Trump supporters for their generalizations, then you use the same style of argumentation to prove another point.

Whereas Trump supporters use it to defend their xenophobia, other people generalize aspects of religion to support their view that it's a destructive part of society.
Granted, the first one is worse because of real life applications, fuck them (alt-right, trumpsters, etc.).

I hope you understand my point better now.



See the first part of my post.

I'll take these two quotes:

• "Teach your children how to think, not what to think."
• "It's brainwashing. Straight up."
• "I think it's pretty sick."
• "I wont mention anything of any religion in my household. The whole concept is stupid."

My Trump-post was marked as "trolling, arguing in bad faith, false equivalencies", whereas these are some drive-by posts without any explanation, telling that you brainwash your children, it's sick and suggesting that children aren't able to think on their own if teached religion. Like, come on, tell me why this is better.



I'll try to explain it again:

My whole point is that the goal of parenting is producing decent human beings, I hope we agree.

As I said there are millions of shades inbetween religious and non-religious parents and that neither parenting-style is a "sure way" to produce a decent human being.

And even the "Hell" - analogy which some people equal with child abuse is just a small part of the whole picture, they can still be better parents than other people who don't preach this at all or they can be worse parents, it's different from case to case. I don't know what this should prove aside from the fact that it's a stupid way to control the behaviour of your children in a particular moment.

Click to shrink...

The reason people bring up "brainwashing" with religion is the same reason there's a fine line between cults and religion and often much overlap. Religion hinges upon Faith and a belief system of accepting things that can't be proven (and as they would put it, can't be disproved). This belief system starts with pretty general concepts but becomes more intrinsic as you get deeper into the Faith. For instance with Christianity you start with the basic concept of Heaven and God. Then you move to Christ but now Christ died for your sins and the only way into heaven is through him (which makes it pretty hard to avoid the concept of Hell and punishment). Okay great good stuff, so what does accepting Jesus into my life entail since you got me this far?

And that's where things are heavily dependent on the community and church you are in, the pastors and religious leaders you are putting your faith and trust into and your parents if you are raised into this. All of this is tied together with a belief system that is carefully formed around not pulling at strings or asking for evidence or it all breaks down. And it's easier to instill this in the younger and more malleable minds.

 

[Felt]

My parents tried to indoctrinate me but I was too edgy and woke for them, so I broke free. LOL

Seriously, I will introduce my children to religion the way it is done in university. Just teach them the history of religion. Let them decide if they believe. Church, mosques, temples, and the like are all good influences that teach moral behavior when not taken so literally, so I have no problem letting my kids go sometimes. I would prefer they are like me, and not be religious, but I don't care either way. As long as they ain't torturing animals I'm fine.

 

[activepassive]

Your childish defensiveness is palpable. I have only given my own opinion on religion in this thread, just like people do on any topic on a message board. If you're unable to deal with opposing opinions you might want to stick to forums where everyone agrees with you.

Click to shrink...

You've given me nothing to engage with. I realize you're not the only one here who is flippantly disparaging religion whole cloth.

 

[Noroi_Kisaragi]

Lots of good communities arent based around a religion. It's more that good people and a sense of doing what's right for the community can come from any community, it isn't a special factor unique to religious ones.

Click to shrink...

Fair. I fight certain aspects of the individualist movement mostly because basic moral values and respect don't stem from individualist ideas, and I don't ever want to see those disappear, but constantly in my age group i'm seeing signs of it disappearing. Thus, I argue against topics like this occasionally.
Fact of the matter is, religious institutions are the only real establishments that are still able to functionally teach moral skills things to kids.

As an example, if I go to another country, I can learn about its religion to get a basic sketch of what is expected of me in those societies. Not many other institutions let you do that other than taking who knows how many courses in school.
You're right in saying that involvement in any community has this ability, but basic communities don't delve into moral values at the deep philosophical level that religious communities tend to.

Thank you for your insight, Crayon. I'll take it to heart.

 

[Stiler]

I grew up southern baptist, it was all I was told/taught. They even got us in public elementary school here (they had an afterschool program and came to the school to get kids to sign up for it, with promises of having ice cream after services and a "party" at the local skating rink when it was over, lots of kids signed up for those two things).

As I grew up and started to question/examine things myself I grew away from that, became agnostic (not an atheist, which to me is different, atheist = belief there is no god or higher being, agnostic = there might be a god but we don't know yet).

If I ever have kids I would want them to make up their own mind about their spirituality and beliefs. I think one can be a morally good person while still not strictly following any current religions.

 

[Lexad]

One thing I always appreciated about baptists, you have to make the choice to be baptised and they refuse child baptisms. I know i was resentful of being baptised as an infant in Methodist church because it felt like a choice was taken from me. Realized at a baptist church I can choose to have my own baptism which I did.

 

[Lexad]

I firmly believe that requiring children to believe things are true even if they cant be demonstrated is harmful.

ie telling a child that Santa isnt real but insisting that Jesus is definitely real fundamentally compromises their ability to seek out and evaluate factual information.

Click to shrink...

As a believer that has been something I have thought a lot about and don't plan on teaching them about Santa

 

[-PXG-]

Once in a while I make sure to thank my parents for never taking me to church or ever introducing me to religion. I know I'm better off without it's influence.

Within a historical context, it is fascinating. But at the end of the day, it's no different than any other mythology. Just fairy tales.

 

[VaporSnake]

You've kind of biased the entire debate by referring to it as 'indoctrination' right off the bat.

Click to shrink...

Someone doesn't know the definition of indoctrination it seems.

 

[Thornquist]

What bothers me most is that the morality taught in the bible isn't -by any definition- morally just by 2018 standards. And using the bible, even a truncated and moderated children's bible, as the only guide to morality doesn't lead to moral people.

This is why sermons often omit parts of the bible that aren't just. No preacher is going to teach you that it's morally unjust to eat shellfish. Or that it's morally fine to own other humans as slaves. He will certainly not tell you that it's okay to beat your slaves into submission, as long as they survive after two days. Yes, there are things one would consider moral in the bible. But there are many things that any sane person these days finds completely immoral. And teaching your child that morality is exclusive to the bible is, in my opinion, one of the worst things you can do.

And certainly, many religious people will reason this away. Point to other passages, point to interpretations, etc. But at the end of the day, there are many things in the good book that do not lead to moral and just actions. There's fear mongering, advocating slavery, advocating the rape of women and pillaging of cities, and many more morally reprehensible passages in the bible, which people are teaching their kids is the ultimate word of god and the guide to morality. That personally scares me, and why I feel that the bible, even a truncated Children's edition, should be handled with extreme care when dealing with impressionable young minds.

Click to shrink...

I feel that pointing out horrific things in the Old Testament (which there are plenty of) is pointless and shows the lack of knowledge on Christianity.
A big part of Christianity historically was that Jesus abolished the old laws and practices found there. There are a lot of contradictions found in the Bible, but most people of faith would say that the example of Jesus would always be the most theological sound position.
I'll repeat some famous quotes again:
"Turn the other cheek. Love your neighbor as yourself. The one without sin can throw the first stone."

The Old Testament have traditionally been used as:
1. A history document. To trace the history of Israel and the creation of the world.
2. As a prophecy pointing forward to Jesus (Isaiah 53:5 is a good example)

This isn't to say that people haven't used the Old Testament to justify atrocities. There are bad apples everywhere. Especially something as huge and diverse as Christianity. But to say that this is anywhere close to common tradition among Christians historically, is false.

The history of Christianity had its start among the lowest ranking people in the Roman Empire. It was very popular among slaves and women for example.
The reformation proves this. Luther wasn't an activist who wanted to throw away the authority of the Pope for some political reason. He was a devout christian who found very real passages in the New Testament that questioned Theocracy.

This brings me to a question I've been asking myself quite a while. Was religion invented to control the masses? And is that why it still exists?

Click to shrink...

Christianity would soundly crush that myth, atleast. It was targeted and hated by the Roman Empire quite a bit, before Constantine converted (almost 300 years later).
Christianity rose because the ideas there were appealing to a lot of people. Elevating humans to equal ground, regardless of class, gender or race. It also promised salvation for the believers (and condemnation to those that didn't). It also put a huge emphasis on spreading the belief.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

I'm an atheist. I think religion is fiction at best. I don't see any way to justify telling children that something is true when it isn't. That said, exposing them to various belief systems is perfectly fine (and should be encouraged) as long as you aren't telling them what they should believe.

 

[ninjabot]

People who grow up to be morally righteous and respectable human beings due to religion do so in spite of their religion, not because of it. They typically ignore all of the shit in the bible that's problematic, like the pro-slavery stuff, the homophobia, the child abuse, etc.

But not all of them do. And those that do, still tend to lie about it to avoid coming off as unfaithful to their religion. They'll handwave it away as "being a different time" or "God working in mysterious ways." And that's why faith is a problem. Because ANYTHING can be taken on faith. And anything can be excused based on faith.

Anyway, on topic: as stated you should teach your kid how to think, not what to think. Raise them how you see fit, but don't lie to them.

If I had a religious SO (I'm agnostic atheist, was raised southern baptist), and we were raising children, I'd just speak to them as if they were adults. Tell them they don't see me at church as much as they'd like because I don't believe in God. And explain to them why. And I'll ask them if they believe in God, and if they do or don't, I'll ask why. If the resulting conversation leaves them wanting to keep going with mom to church, I'd be fine with it. If not, I'd be ecstatic.