Part of the UU (we visited other churches as well) decision was the fundy neighbors infecting one of the kids with their strange stories of demons and supposed psychokinetic powers. I don’t know why neighbors are so scared of Harry Potter but think that lighting their BBQ pit with mind power is cool (and, of course, Dad was nearby with lighter fluid and a lighter, but whatever).
So far one kid seems resistant to religious mythology, and one thinks it is likely Go got the ball rolling and then split the scene. I don’t really mind what they believe, but I would definitely not like them to get too heavily involved with the neighbors strange beliefs.
I’m not a parent, but I have to respectfully disagree with this.
Whilst I see the point you’re trying to make, I don’t agree that religion is a particularly good source for morality given that people who claim to belong to religions frequently don’t follow their own scriptures - often it’s simply a legitimiser for what they want to do, or for their own prejudice.
It’s extremely easy to point out the glaring contradictions within the bible that both simulataneously condemns homosexuality and wearing mixed fabric clothing. One continues to be perceived as a moral issue, one definitely is no longer, therefore the argument that religion is a good source of morality is clearly not very strong if you can seemingly randomly decide which bits you’re going to pay attention to and which bits you don’t.
Naturally, explaining that many people derive their morality from religion, how they do it and how it affects their approach to life is a very important lesson to teach a child. But actually giving them an exposure to religion in the hopes that it’ll make them more moral? The logical progression of this is that someone raised without religion will be less moral, and I don’t see any evidence for this in reality. The notion that religious people are more principled or moral simply for being religious is laughable, given what religion drives people to do, or makes them feel they have licence to do (even if that’s just priggishly judging others for being less religious/moral than them).
Yeah, there is so much of our symbolic systems that comes from religious stories, and so many things about the history and art of the world which need a knowledge of religion to be explained (money may make the world go round or even boom!, but religion and sex have greased the machinery many times). Starting with polytheism follows the historical path of religion, too, it sort of starts building on the whole “this is linked to History” theme.
Certainly, religion justifies a lot of bad behavior, but secularism has as well. Done well, religion can help you be a better person and provide community - but is not necessary for either. The idea behind giving non-religious children a religious understanding should not be to teach them intolerance, but instead to help them understand why some people choose to exist within a religious framework and what that means for society as a whole. Whatever path you choose, you want one that teaches respect and tolerance, or you are no better than the worst of the “fundies” - “hey, look at the fairy stories, aren’t those people stupid” isn’t a way to get there - nor is it any more valid of a way to look at the world of religions as a whole than “look at the communities created,” “look at the traditions that exist” or “look at the moral framework this provides” - which vary quite a bit from religion to religion - even within Christian sects.
The reason why I don’t feel the need to teach my children to respect and tolerate religions is because I don’t like what that means for society as a whole. I would never teach them to be rude or judgmental, but I see no need to teach them to respect religions of any kind. To me, they are all damaging in one way or another.
But that’s just it. Religion can provide a moral framework, but secularism can as well. I just don’t see the point of taking a framework that has “gays are bad” and picking that part out, rather than starting from nothing and putting in “don’t kill people.”
My problem is this. Religious morality can stem from basic ethical principles, or it can be supposedly given by God. If the former, I thought (and I was right) that we could teach those principles without religion or gods. If the latter, then there is little to prevent a religious leader from teaching that God wants you to do something that we would call unethical. There is certainly plenty of that going around these days - and all days. So, using religion to teach morality is no better than not doing so, and possibly a good deal worse.
Of course kids and parents can screw up despite this, but there are plenty of hoods and Mafioso who go to church.
My husband is an atheist. I am not. I am Pagan; however, we both agree that our child is going to believe whatever she wants.
Neither of us pushes her toward our way of thinking (although, it is more difficult for my husband). We have always exposed her to many religious beliefs, explaining that many people around the world believe many different things and it very often affects laws and customs. We keep several texts from various religions around. Since she was old enough to walk, she and I have the spring ritual of taking her walking stick and “waking up the earth” and inviting back the plants and animals. I don’t ascribe any gods/goddesses to this activity–just a tradition we do. She attends vacation Bible school with my mother-in-law each year. She knows that almost everyone we know considers themselves Christians and the basics of their beliefs. She knows my religious beliefs and she understands that her father is an atheist.
That said, she has some of her own beliefs from her own mind and other sources. She believes in “the weather goddess” from an episode of The Backyardigans (and hypothesized on her own that since there was a goddess of weather, there must be goddesses of seasons and animals and time and other things.)
So far as the ubiquitous Christianity she encounters? She chastises her cousin for being afraid of a little red man who lives underground who makes bad things happen. (We keep explaining to her that’s just what he believes and as long as he isn’t hurting anyone, it’s okay but she loves to correct ANYTHING he does that she sees as “wrong”–from video games to shoe-tying.) At 8-years of age she has developed a rather unique way of understanding it. As she explains it, she likens Jesus/God to Spongebob Squarepants. Lots of people like him and watch him. Sometimes he teaches us good lessons and shows us how to do things the right way but he’s just a character and not real in real life. We can see him whenever we want but he’s not a real person or anything.
While I’m sure that will not be her life-long religious beliefs, right now, it amuses me.
It was just an example. I’m sure I could find other things to complain about in most religions that make me wonder why you’d start with their moral framework and pick out the bad rather than starting with a blank and putting in good.
Since you brought it up, however, the mainstream branches of the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) all condemn homosexuality. In fact, if this wiki page is to be believed, most of the religions frown on homosexuality. Granted some of them are doing so because it happens (in most of the world) outside of marriage, but it’s almost universally condemned, or at best not discussed.
Care to name me some religions that don’t? The only ones that spring to mind are Wicca and Satanism. And are you completely unaware of all the people being executed in the Sharia law countries for the crime of homosexuality? :dubious:
Every major world religion says that homosexuality is either an abomination (using that actual word) or detrimental to morality and family and should be discouraged and avoided.
Really? I don’t see physically throwing out the money changers from the temple as a terribly pacifist thing to do. Sure you’re not just picking and choosing the bits of religion that suit the way you want to see it?
Re: the idea that religion can provide moral instruction. I’m not sure that this accords with my experience. I don’t remember church services being a place where important moral lessons were taught; and I primarily remember church youth group as a place of boredom and cliquishness. I probably learned more about honesty and integrity from the Louis L’Amour books I obsessively read as a kid. (Interestingly, a friend of mine who is an atheist says that much of her moral education was provided by reading Laura Ingalls Wilder as a girl, although she notes the strong strain of religious moralism that ran through that series.)
If I do read religious books with my kid, we will be critiquing them from the standpoint of secular morality; so she needs a grounding in non-religious ethics anyhow. I mean, most religious myths are chock full of the grossest immorality. I mentioned the Passover story earlier—you have to admit, God is kind of a psycho in the unexpurgated version of the story. And the Old Testament is full of morally abhorrent laws. And Paul is a misogynist, in my view. Why not just directly teach my daughter right and wrong? I don’t know that most religious texts are a very good moral guide.
Again with the picking and choosing. Why can’t we just not bother with religion as a source of morality and avoid having to go through all this wrangling? Is the notion of humans just coming up with a set of precepts by which to live without god being involved so hard to come to terms with?
UUCs, Quakers and UUs all have tolerant beliefs towards homosexuals. UUs have been performing marriage ceremonies for the GLBT community for 20 years.
The Dalai Lama is the leader of one type of Buddhism, Tibetian Buddhism. He does not speak for, or lead, all Buddhists any more than the Pope represents all Christians.
Just like atheism is responsible for the horrible supression of human rights in China and the former Soviet Union? Seriously guys, if you are going to paint all religions and religious people with the same brush, you are no better than they are.
It wasn’t atheism that caused those crimes to happen, it was the political regimes that were in control. Atheism is not a belief system, it doesn’t make people do anything, and this frequently trotted out accusation against it is both tired and specious.
I’m well aware that the Dalai Lama isn’t the Bhuddist pope, my point is that it’s not entirely devoid of criticism in this area - Bhuddists can’t say “yeah we’re all cool with you gays” when their main spiritual leader is on the record as saying he isn’t.
Whatever, I’m aware I’m now hijacking this thread so will shut up.
He isn’t their main spiritual leader any more than Lenin is the values giver for atheist. Zen Buddhists (the worlds largest Buddhist population) think the Dalai Lama is a nice guy, like many Christians and atheists do.
When you insist on lumping religions together despite facts to the contrary, atheism becomes a belief system.
There are also several branches of Christianity that do not have a problem with homosexuality, but feel free to paint them all with one big intolerant brush.