You highly doubt the possibility of this scenario, but plenty of people around here said they stopped going to church as adolescents because they simply didn’t believe or they didn’t agree with the way their family interpreted the bible and wanted something different. This is not a rare occurrence.
If they believe it to be true, then they consider it to be true. That doesn’t mean that there’s no element of uncertainty. One can have deep, abiding convictions in something, while still acknowledging the possibility of error.
Case in point: Many scientists firmly believe in the existence of extraterrestrial worlds, magnetic monopoles, dark matter and other unproven phenomena. Could these people be wrong? Certainly so, and I’m sure that mof them would admit that possibility. Nevertheless, they still believe that these phenomena exist, despite the possility of error.
“Lack of absolute certainty” is not the same as “lack of belief.” Not by any means.
I don’t doubt the possibility that a kid will have different opinions from mine, but those opinions can take a wide range. The scenario you described, which I reiterated above, is the one I was answering to.
I’m sure some people can see that difference, and I’m sure some don’t. I wasn’t necessarily arguing MY point of view on whether I think my specific religion is the “Truth,” but rather that I believe there are many, many people who feel that way about THEIR specific religion.
How about the scenario where your kid believes in god but wants to be a jew? Would you fund his synagogue, make sure he got there each week, assisted with religious education, or regularly participate in activities?
If he is old enough for his Bar Mitzvah, I guess I would have to.
OK, that was kind of a flip answer (although it was actually indicative of my feelings on the matter). I don’t know how this thread got to be about me, specifically, and how I plan to raise my kids. I tried to give my POV as a parent, and also just as a person, and somehow it got hijacked.
Let me attempt to give my overall philosophy on the matter one more time, as I really do not intend to keep giving answers to one hypothetical scenario after another. I believe that until the age of reason, a parent has the right to raise a child in their religion, in their culture, and with their values. (With the caveat that this cannot include anything that would reasonably be considered harmful or abuse, of course.) After the age of reason, I think a smart and reasonable parent will discuss issues with their children, try to influence the children in whatever direction they want to, but at the same time, giving the children opportunities to make their own decisions, right or wrong, and go their own way.
The “age of reason” I deliberately left ambiguous. I think this differs with each child, and that the parent has to use his or her judgement to decide whether or not the child is smart enough, and more importantly, mature enough, to make certain decisions on their own. Even teenagers need a certain amount of guidance…just because a kid has his own ideas about things, it doesn’t mean they should always be validated by the parent. On the other hand, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t, either…this is where the judgement comes in.
The only way that my personal intentions as far as how I will raise my kids is relevant is that I will use the above philosophy when making these decisions, and I will always try to listen, discuss, and be fair. Anyone who wants to try to nail me for being some sort of religious nutcase hardass who is going to put a kid in a straightjacket and drag him to have communion forced down his throat, really does not get me at all, and maybe just hasn’t read my posts too clearly? Or maybe just has such a negative view of religious people that they think that this is how we all think and behave? I’m not sure.
Kalhoun,
I think that most people would agree that there are situations where a child might have different religious convictions than his/her parent. We could sit and quibble about how likely that is to occur, and under what circumstances or age those differences are relevant, or we could actually deal with the questions in the OP, which are threefold:
To question one I would say yes. It in fact would be practically impossible to insist that a parent not bring up his or her child to believe the same fundamental truths about god(s) as (s)he does.
To question two I would say no. First, it’s a loaded question, calling it ‘taking advantage of’. Second, when we teach children anything, we are able to do so in a relatively easy fashion because they are ignorant to much of the world. How does teaching children anything not utilize the fact that they trust grown-ups to tell them truthful things? Teaching the innocent and ignorant is not morally wrong.
As for question three, I would also say no. Similarly to question one, this would in fact make all religious parents criminals. There is almost no way to believe in a religion and yet not impart any of that belief system, or your opinion that that belief system is the correct one, on your kids.
You really might as well fine or arrest people for having a religion in the first place.
Actually, yes, that is exactly the attitude espoused in this thread:
What other reason could a religious parent have for forcing her kids to go to church when they say they don’t believe it other than to take advantage of her dominant position to agressively coerce her child for the sheer thrill of it? Or, it’s an attempt at deliberate brainwashing.
None that I can think of…I like to rant, rave, and foam at the mouth while I am being completely unreasonable, as well…it’s very effective with children.
I believe it’s their ethical right as long as the child doesn’t object. Why would the basic American tenet of freedom of religion not extend to children? Now…I agree that at certain ages, a kid doesn’t know one way or the other. But I also feel that a 12-year-old has the reasoning power to determine if any of it makes sense or has any meaning for them. While some 12-year-olds may or may not have the ability to reason it through, I’d say most 14-year-olds are capable. I’d be interested in knowing if any children have taken the issue to court.
I believe it is ethically wrong to teach one faith as The Truth. I believe that a responsible parent should acknowledge that no matter which religion they buy into, there are many options with regard to faith (including ‘none of the above’). They can tell their children what they believe and encourage them to explore all the options.
The word “illegal” is one I have a problem with. I do believe that forcing a kid to religion is wrong but ‘illegal’ would make it criminal, and while I have strong feelings on the subject, I don’t think jail time will benefit anyone.
I’m not saying it isn’t; i’m an athiest, and I believe pretty strongly in that, but i’m quite happy to accept the possibility i’m wrong. No, what i’m saying is that parents quite often aren’t actually raising their children in their own belief system.
To use your analogy, scientists do work which is then disseminated throughout the entire shard of scientific knowledge. When the results of a new study are published in a journal, even if there is shown to be evidence incredibly strongly to one conclusion, that article will still use the words evidence and *falsification * and not proof and certainty. And so other scientists will learn that the evidence in this case points very much one way - with a chance that it could be wrong or due to some other cause.
However, in the case with religious (or athiest) parents, they’re also often happy to say that yes, the evidence leads them to believe something in particular, and that there’s always the chance they’re wrong. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Then they go and send their child to church/synagogue/whatever, involve them in religious ceremonies (or not taken anywhere or invovled in religious affairs) and totally ignore that side of their beliefs which says “maybe i’m wrong”. Unlike the scientists, the parents pass on just one part of their beliefs and not the other (or expose them to a very poor amount of “other”). A lot of religious/athiest parents are just teaching their kids “Our religion is the right one/there is no true religion”, even when that’s not actually their own belief.
I still don’t get your reasoning as to why this freedom of religion is applicable to children, but other freedoms that adults enjoy do not? Should children always be able to make their own decisions, if they object to what their parents want? And at what age should this start? What about objecting to school? To certain subjects in school? To music lessons? To family activities that are uninteresting to them? To doing chores around the house? How are these things different from teaching children about religion?
I think that it might help you to look at it from the point of view of someone who actually thinks/believes that their religion IS The Truth. If this is a core belief, as deep as knowing the sky is blue, how can anything else reasonably be taught as equal? I think it’s demanding a bit much to expect a parent to be objective in this arena. (Did you teach YOUR child that all religions are equally as valid as not believing at all, and if so, how did this teaching manifest itself? Did you read books about all the religions, attend services, or speak to members of the religions? If not, why? Is it because you believe that YOUR beliefs or non-beliefs are The Truth?)
I can of course speak only for myself. But this just makes little sense to me. If my fourteen year old does not want to attend his brother’s birthday or some other family gathering because the notion of family doesn’t make sense or have any meaning for him I expect I would be looking at that disconnectedness and seeing if I could understand where it came from and what could be done about it. And what I would personally do in that situation I have no idea. But I certainly think requiring him to attend and be civil would be firmly within the range of options.
Because even when he doesn’t feel connected, he is connected and that is also a thing to learn and experience.
Culturally speaking I would also be rather at sea trying to raise my children without the experience of being RC, as it’s rather pervasive in my own background. You certainly could eat sopa do espirito santo and *pao doce * (but not together, please) without celebrating festa or observing Lent, but then it’s just soup and bread and you might just as well open a can or break out a package.
But I am having trouble with some of the basic concepts as they are being brought. Belief in God or Jesus or the Blessed Mother at any given moment is by no means the entire point, nor is it always the main point. I have disbelieved all those things at various points in my life; but I was always RC. It’s allowed.
Possibly this goes to the notion of a community of the faith which is by no means universal. I think most christian religions have some notion of a community of believers but it does not appear to me to be the same notion.
When I began to teach my own children to pray, I did not begin with formal prayers. I began by teaching them the examen of consciousness, which is a formal way of reflecting on and reviewing a day. It is not a terrible thing to do even if one does not believe in any deity. I find that I feel similarly about, say, learning the (or a) catechism. I can think of no harm in learning it and a number of good things resulting from learning it; and only a few of those hinge upon actual belief in the teachings contained therein. So probably they will learn large chunks of the CCC as well. And probably in question and answer format, it’s a good way to learn.
A twelve year old is probably old enough to start to learn enough about the doctrine and practice to decide whether they do or do not want to take on being a member of the RC as an adult and be confirmed. Part of that is of course the study of other religions. You cannot choose for or against something unless you have some notion of what it is that you are choosing for or against, can you? In my own family, fifteen is approximately the age at which a child is expected to make a decision about whether or not to be confirmed.
Do you know, I don’t think the Big RC has a lock on The Truth. But I also don’t think all religions are equally valid and I don’t think all versions of disbelief are equally valid either. I further don’t think that all religions are accessible to every person. But even though I think that the question of a god or gods is largely irrelevant to the question of teaching children about religion, I am not a buddhist. What they mean by “god”, by “irrelevant”, by “religion” are not the same thing I mean by them and they are not accessible to me except on an intellectial level. Which is a great deal of entertainment but is no real comfort.
I don’t give it to my children because it is The Truth; I give it to them because, well, it is theirs. Like lots of other notions – civic notions (like say freedom of religion), domestic notions (such as, what is a family and what does that mean), any number of things.
Hullo again folks. Thought i’d jump in about now and clarify a few points about my own position on the original questions i posed. Glad to see it’ generated quite a bit of debate, that was the idea.
First of all, as i imagine you’ve probably guessed, yes i’m one of these people that thinks religion is all a bit silly. Each to their own and all that, i accept i could be wrong just the same way i think all religious people are wrong but thats my view.
I also accept that actually implementing any restrictions on the way parents deal with religion is practically impossible. I was just interested in what people thought of the concept.
I find it hard to believe that without parents teaching children at a young age about religion (in a manner that suggests it to be fact), that anyone would grow up to be anything other than some form of atheist or agnostic.
Maybe i should start a new thread to expand on this but i guess where this is all going is :
If religion was never taught as fact and every parent ‘appeared’ to be non religious, would anyone ever become religious? I’m thinking like less than 1% would?
And if the answer to the above is generally accepted as no, how come the vast majority of the religious people in the world don’t realise they are only religious because of stuff they were incorrectly taught as fact when they were kids and lose their religious beliefs?
For clarity, i respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they want to, so no offence intended to anyone out there. However, there isn’t a religion in the world that doesn’t actively try to recruit people to their ‘correct’ world view so i make no apology for trying in my own little way to do the same about my view.
[QUOTE=rocksolidHowever, there isn’t a religion in the world that doesn’t actively try to recruit people to their ‘correct’ world view so I make no apology for trying in my own little way to do the same about my view.[/QUOTE]
The Amish? Mennonites? Judaism?
I agree with you, actually…I am not a big one for “The Truth,” personally. I think it’s something many people wrestle with their entire life. I was just trying to say that some people DO think their religion is “The Truth.” Just because you or I might think that is a tad simplistic, doesn’t make it an invalid point of view, and certainly, holding such a point of view would make it difficult on a parent to teach their child otherwise. What constitutes the “correct” values to raise a child with is widely subject to opinion, and I believe that holding a certain religious idea as “The Truth” is a perfecly valid view to hold & teach.
Actually, children CAN, at the age of 16, decide whether or not to attend school (and can decide much earlier that they’re not interested), to practice musical instruments, and the like. I allowed my child to attend church with friends, offered him information when he asked, and let him know how I felt about it. He also learned a bit about it in school (as I did). Teaching children *about * religions, as opposed to forcing them practice one, are two different things.
I understand that you believe your religion is The Truth. And you know that many people beg to differ. You also know that religion is a deeply personal thing that is different for each person. If this belief (and the ritual tied to that belief) is the cornerstone of a person’s very being, how could you not allow your child the same freedom of expression of self? I just feel that it is a decision that should come from within. The indoctrination of children robs them of independent choice and a wider experience.
Well, all I can say is that a degree of disconnect hits nearly every kid at one point or another, regardless of religious background. They start thinking bigger thoughts. They realize that regardless of family ties, they ARE independent beings with independent ideas. It’s all part of growing up. Of course you examine the root of a serious disconnect (i.e., a total withdrawal). But if a kid simply doesn’t believe in something that has never been proved, how can he be faulted? It is an abstract concept that even the believers can’t agree on…why would an individual be expected to “get it” the same way his parents or siblings or neighbors do?
So if a kid disbelieves, whether it is temporary or permanent, why put him through the forced hypocrisy? If he decides to join you in your flavor of worship, he’s welcome to do so. If not, he can pursue faith or non-faith as he sees fit.
A kid can have a sense of community, even within a family of believers, without being a believer. He can still feel connected to family, friends, and community without belonging to a church.
All these things can be accomplished without the underlayment of religion. Sitting around the dinner table discussing the day’s events…or as your statement points out, even a formal, personal review of those events, doesn’t have to include a deity.
I think your family’s way is better than how it was done when I was a child. Kids in my neighborhood were confirmed at a much younger age, and they did it whether they wanted to or not.