God is a word for a concept; not a name for a being.
I agree. But I also think that any religious parent who thought their child was truly “in danger” by becoming a jew or an atheist rather than, say, a catholic, is unrealistic in their process of determining what is a danger to their child. I believe all religion is damaging to some degree. But I certainly wouldn’t equate the damage from christianity with the damage from believing one can hitch a ride to eternity on the tail of a comet.
I’m sorry, Bob. I see your point, but I disagree. The decision to endorse or denounce religious practice is not black or white.
In the United States, religious freedom is a fundamental right. In the US, parents have custody of children until age 18. But the age of accountability varies from person to person, and in many examples human rights evolve well before age 18.
If an 8 year old girl uses backtalk rather than raking the leaves, her father might choose to spank her as punishment. If a 15 year old girl uses backtalk rather than raking the leaves, spanking becomes inappropriate and something akin to abuse. Spanking a 15 year old girl could well be seen by the courts as a violation of human rights.
If an 8 year old girl sticks a pin in a light socket, her father might give her a stern lecture concerning safety and electricity. If a 15 year old girl sticks a pin in a light socket, her father might ground her for doing something so foolish. Is the variation in punishment a violation of human rights? No- because we expect the 15 year old to know better.
In these scenarios there is a learning curve, and there is an age of accountability. No parent would have the same expectations of an 8 year old and a 15 year old. The expectations change as more variables are added: what if this is the second time the 8 year old stuck a pin in a light socket? Ground her? Or lecture her?
What if the 15 year old objected to the concept of a punishing Old Testament God and became afraid of rather than comforted by the church? What if the 8 year old expressed an interest in Judaism because she read that Madonna was interested in Kabbalah? Is it not the child’s right to forgo church or at least explore and learn about another faith?
One of the religous parents explained in another thread that majority rules: if Mommy and Daddy want to attend church, then 8 year old daughter is going. After all, the 8 year old is too young to stay home alone, and has to attend Mommy’s doctor’s appointments and Daddy’s trips to the auto repair shop. Accompanying parents during chores is a given. But following a religious doctrine is not equal to running an errand. It requires conformity and adherence to a standard of rules that are not legally enforceable.
If the 8 year old and the 15 year old willingly accompany Mom and Dad to church until age 18, there is no question of the violation human rights. But if either of those children presents a moral objection to attending church, I feel strongly that it should be considered, explored, and in the case that the child decides to leave the church: honored. I do not believe that forcing a child of any age to attend church against their will benefits anyone but the parents.
A lot of Americans think of the Amish as backwards and old fashioned. But the Amish have a radical idea of religious consent: Rumspringa. This rite of passage encourages older children to leave the church and consider the alternatives. The idea is that the decision to follow the teachings of Christ must be fair and informed. I agree with this wholeheartedly. It is unfortunate that many more modern religious practices do not encourage freedom of choice. It is equally unfortunate that many parents with mainstream religious beliefs do not consider the rights of the child when enforcing church attendance.
But Carol Stream didn’t say “grammatically correct people capatalise these words”, she said polite, adult people. Adult i’ll give her, since children are more likely to make grammar-related faux pas, but polite? Is it polite to use a certain style of grammar? I certainly haven’t been bollocked for using “colour”, “honour” or any other words that are fine to an English speller but not to the American majority of the board. So why is it impolite to not capatalise Catholic, Jewish etc. yet perfectly polite to use atheist?
Beaucarnea, I think it was actually in this thread where we discussed bringing the child to church because it was something the parents are doing, and of course, an 8-year-old can’t be left at home alone. Of course, that is one of the reasons to bring the child along, but I would certainly not mean to imply by it that there is not an attempt to teach the child about the religion in question…certainly, that is the clear intention. I think the OP’s question is an interesting one…is it unethical to steer a child in one religious direction or another? The problem with the question, as I see it, is that it would be almost impossible not to…no matter what the parent tells the child, it is a form of teaching them something…even dead silence on the issue is sending a message, and indeed, any good parent is going to teach the child something about morals & values, in whatever context it is meaningful to them.
Additionally, I don’t think that a belief that one’s religion is “The Truth” (or even just the best way to reach God, even if it isn’t the only way) is in any way an unethical opinion. And if one believes this, isn’t it an obligation to pass it along to ones’ children? I think that from an agnostic or atheist point of view, it makes perfect sense to believe that all religions are the same…but if this was a natural thought from a believer’s point of view, then there wouldn’t be all these options in the first place. Even within religions, there are different points of view, and no one person teaches their child the exact same thing the exact same way…as with anything, it is colored by the parent’s own opinions and experiences. I think someone said upthread that it would be like trying to raise a child culturally neutral…sure, you can teach them to be open-minded and accept other cultures as equal…but you can only raise them with one. If having a religion is part of your culture, it would be the next thing to impossible not to at least influence the child in that direction, anyway.
Of course, as a child gets older, parents have to be flexible and understanding that the child is different from them. They have to realize that the child may or may not adhere to the religion the way the parent would wish. This is a natural part of life. Sometimes, a parent has to accept that a child doesn’t want to go to college, when the parent has dreamed their whole life that the kid would be a doctor. You know, things don’t always go as planned. But was it wrong to try to influence the kid to go to college? Was it wrong to talk about it from a young age and try to convey the benefits of going, even if the child ends up not being cut out for it for whatever reason? It’s just one more value the parent is trying to instill. It’s not that the parent necessarily thinks other options are wrong or bad…they are just trying to do what they think is best for the child’s future.
In terms of letting the child make a decision, your Amish example is a good one (I’ve always been interested in the Rumspringa concept…what fortitude it must take for the parents! Not only do they risk the child’s future with their church, but their entire relationship with the child is at stake.) Keep in mind, though, that this is taking place at the end of adolesence…after the child has been trained up in that church more thoroughly than any child ever could be in what we call “mainstream” society. In our culture, it is probably the equivilant of sending the kids off to college…where they are outside of our influence, testing their wings, and making their own decisions. Eventually, each of us has to do this in one way or another, and the parent who believes that it will not happen is simply deluding themselves.
Actually lower-case-c-catholic means "common’ or “universal”,something different from Catholic, an abbreviation for Roman Catholic, a proper noun. And god is not the same as the proper noun God. If it is being done inadvertently, you are being imprecise. If it is being done deliberately to give offense, you are being a Doper I don’t feed.
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly what I was getting at, but expressed better.
Incidentally, Kalhoun manages to capitalize Allah in her posts. Seems strange that one would capitalize the Arabic version, Allah, but not the English version, God. Unless “god” is being used deliberately to give offense, of course.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7050328&postcount=21
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6857225&postcount=47
Religions get capitalized for the same reason that political parties, social groups, and other formal organizations get capitalized. Whether the members are Baptists, Elks, Dodger fans, or Democrats, their organizations or institutions are capitalized in English.
On the other hand, atheists, agnostics, and theists and deists do not get capitalized because the words name general groups of people with similar beliefs(or lack thereof), not actual institutions. (Given the vehemence with which various atheists on this board argue that atheism is NOT a religion, it would appear that that distinction should be pretty obvious.)
That said, this thread is sufficiently contentious for its substantive views without encouraging more hostility over forms of expression. I am not sure that we really need to hash this issue out here when we have a whole Forum devoted to this sort of bickering. (I am also quite sure that it is against the rules to imply in this Forum that another poster is a troll, so that sort of remark will be met with a formal Warning if it is repeated.)
[ /Moderating ]
Fair enough, I can agree with this.
It was an oversight. I generally do all religious references in lower-case to emphasize the fact that they don’t mean anything to me.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now that you have clarified your intentions, I see that it was inappropriate to do so.
Regards,
Shodan
Look…I didn’t say it couldn’t mean anything to you…it means nothing to me. Nothing inappropriate about it.
Not inappropriate for you to do it - inappropriate for me to assume that you were merely being imprecise. You’ve made your intentions clear.
Surely, rebellious 16-year old refuses to attend parent’s church services-dad threatens child with being "grounded’ if he won’t go.
Child contacts local ACLU chapter…claims parents are violating his right to religious freedom.
Parents have to hire lawyer to dend themselves-have to mortgage house to pay legal bills.
Parents lose house!