In this thread, you advise non-religious parents to propagandize for the afterlife they don’t believe in when talking their own child, because “you have to answer her honestly as well, that you do not believe in a heaven, but other people do.”
Of course, I may owe you an apology, if you also think, in the interests of being fair and totally honest, you would also advocate (in the same imperative mood) that when religious parents are asked “How did the world begin?”, they devote equal time to a purely scientific explanation as to a religious one, and betray none of their own prejudices in doing so. In fact, they really should be there all day (for you not to be a flaming hypocrite, that is), explaining how the Jainists think the world began, and the Buddhists, and the Akwesane Indians, and every other belief system in the known universe, because to do otherwise would be fail to comply with your own standard of “answer[ing]… honestly” and not prejudicing her beliefs with their own.
So what’s it’s going to be: were you out of line, or are you a religious-biased hypocrite?
In any case, his advice was absolutely freaking bonkers. Someone who doesn’t believe in heaven isn’t being honest with their kids by not mentioning it? Are you kidding me? If you tell your kids something is true because you genuinely believe it to be true, how is that anything less than honest?
I shudder to think how Mr. Moto would answer other questions where disagreement exists:
Q: Does God hate gay people?
A: Well, I think God loves everyone, but some people (e.g., Fred Phelps) disagree.
Q: Is murder wrong?
A: Well, I think it is, but some people (e.g., nazis) disagree.
Q: If I jump out the window, will I fly?
A: Well, I think so, but some people (e.g., lunatics) would probably disagree.
It’s one thing to disagree, but are you certain this is pit material? What he’s saying is that it might be helpful to give the child both a theist and a non-theist viewpoint. It’s not bad advice. If you only offer a non-theist response, the child will become confused when she inevitably encounters various religious sentiments from others.
I do kind of wonder how Mr. Moto answers his own kids’ questions about death:
Q. Where’s Grandmommy now?
A. She’s gone to heaven, sweetie, where she’s watching down on us. To be fair, some people think that there is no heaven, and when she dies, there’s nothing left of her except for her decomposing body.
I dunno. His advice there seems pretty unrealistic to me, but it doesn’t really upset me.
You guys are way overboard here. Mr. Moto said, “She may have questions about where her teacher ‘went’, especially if her classmates talk about heaven or an afterlife. If she asks you about this, you have to answer her honestly as well, that you do not believe in a heaven, but other people do.”
To me, this statement seems like an ordinary statement of fact, beyond controversy. And way, way, beyond pitworthy.
While I disagree with his mandate that you “have” to tell your child that other people believe in heaven, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea. In fact, that’s what I told my son. Fortunately we didn’t have to have that talk around a specific incident, but I did want to both let him know that he’ll be around others who believe in heaven, and allow for the possibility that he might one day believe it as well.
He’s actually been quite strong about it - he talks about incidents of being badgered or taunted by classmates for not believing, but he has been steadfast in his own beliefs. Of course, were this Bill O’Reilly’s world, we would be suing the school for allowing the expression of religious beliefs in the school, and suing the parents of the other children for expressing them.
On second reading, I think you’re right. The bit that made me raise my eyebrows was the idea that children aren’t wired for atheism. That just seems kind of an odd thing to say.
Of course, Mr. Moto’s advice was far better than Clothahump’s.
Yup, this is what I’m pitting. He’s insisting that the non-religious are somehow oblilged, in the interests of fairness and honesty, to embrace the religious beliefs that Mr. Moto happens to hold, but I’ll bet the sun that he wouldn’t tell the parents, if they were devoutly religious along Mr. Moto’s preferred bias, to muck up their answer about Heaven with all the beliefs held by atheists, agnostics, Zoroastrians, etc.
There were others in the thread who also mentioned that “heaven” or some other sort of afterlife should be addressed.
I don’t think that this is the occasion on which to give the poor kid a lesson in alternative mythology - and don’t you think maybe, possibly, there’s the slight chance that the child has been exposed to the idea of Jesus seeing as how we’ve just finished this whole … CHRISTMAS thing?
I’d say that tim314 is right in his assessment, but I’d take it one step further: if this had been a Christian family, would it have been valid to tell the poor thing, “Well Teacher was sent to Heaven, but some Christians think she’s burning in Hell for all eternity because she was a sinner.” We must be tolerant of other beliefs, after all. And hey, they’re still Christians too, right?
It’s fucking ridiculous, is what it is. OP specifically ASKS for secular responses and the besieged Christians STILL insist on pitching their mythology on the pile.
Where’s the propaganda? I can’t speak for Mr Moto (indeed, I have no desire to), but some of these kids are going to be talking about heaven and God and angels and Evil.
The OP doesn’t mention if the kids already know about these concepts, but just like when kids start to question parents about “where did I come from?”, it is most helpful to be somewhat thorough.
How is it wrong to say, " Ms B is gone from us now. A man hurt her with a knife, so badly that she died." etc and when the inevitable question comes, “where did Ms B go?”, to answer with “Nowhere, she just died.”
As the kid watches the offerings being left at the scene and the prayers and “moments of silence” etc–kid is bound to have more questions. How is it wrong to have a discussion about different beliefs? Is that not allowed in atheist families? That makes no sense.
Kindergartner’s still have some magical thinking–heaven is more of magical place to them, rather than a theological construct. This kid may insist that the teacher went to heaven–despite the parent’s insistence that it doesn’t exist. Rather than make the kid and the parent at odds with one another–why not use the moment for openness and honesty?
It can be covered simply and easily by mentioning that <gasp> some people have beliefs different from ours. It’s just like a kid coming home and telling you that Josh had a weird sandwich today–made from a cracker…and then you talk about Passover and Judaism. (fill in the different culture of your choice here)
This tragedy is also a teaching moment–a time when tolerance and respect for others’ POV can be modeled.
Were I an atheist, raising children in an overwhelmingly Christian country, I at some point would tell my kids that some people believe in heaven.
I intend to teach my children some day that some people do not. Given the fact that all three of them are still in diapers, they’re a little young for the lesson.
Parents ought to teach kids about the various religious beliefs held by their friends and classmates, as a way to encourage tolerance and respect toward them. In this particular case, such a lesson might have to be expedited due to a particularly tragic event, and talk about a classroom.
Also, freedom of religion does not end at the family’s edge, but extends to the individual. If the litttle girl in question starts to ask questions of a religious nature, they ought to be answered honestly.
No, he’s not. The fact is that this kid is going to hear from a LOT of other kids about how the teacher is in heaven right now. That’s how kids are. They are going to parrot whatever their own parents told them to the other kids. I think it makes sense for Pochacco to prepare his kid to hear this from the other children.
Well, really, kids aren’t wired for athiesm. They aren’t wired for *anything *until the parents install the appropriate wiring harness.
Except fear. Kids are scared of a lot of things; that seems to be built-in. So maybe the parents should keep it simple and just tell the kid that her teacher was sliced to ribbons by her crazy boyfriend who set himself on fire and lived anyway, and don’t open the closet door at night.
Ok, fair enough. I was worried you meant honestly as in “A lot of your classmates may believe this way. Mommy and I believe this way, and we’re right”. Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
I’m sure she’s heard of the concepts of Good and Evil and Heaven. Saying that her parents really ought to tell her that other people believe this fairy tale would probably feel, to her, like they were trying to explain that some people really believe that little boys and girls really get eaten by witches who live in candy houses in the woods. How does that help her cope with the fact of her teacher’s death? Assuming she needs THAT much help coping in the first place?
But will you choose the death of a familiar person as the occasion, you insensitive shit?
That’s not precisely true; human kids pick up language lots faster than, say, goat kids. But I get your point.
The problem is, it’s not particularly significant: if they’re not hardwired for atheism in this sense, they’re also not hardwired for Christianity. Kids may have a hard time understanding the idea that somebody ceases to exist, but they also have a hard time understanding that Mommy and Daddy don’t love each other any more, or that their big brother did a very bad thing and is in jail, or that Daddy got laid off from work and so there’s not going to be as many toys this year. WHen a kid has a hard time understanding something, you work with them until they understand it.