I understand it. You have to understand that religious jewelry is a whole nother ball game from other stuff. I grew up Christian, converted to Judaism, and haven’t had kids yet, but plan to raise them Jewish when I do. I’d be very unhappy if I thought my parents were trying to push Christianity on any kids of mine. In an interfaith relationship, the couple and (when they’re older) the kids themselves get to decide what religion or religions (if any) will be taught to the kids. I could see how the OP’s wife could think this was a start to pushing Christianity on their daughter, especially if the mother has made negative comments about non-Christians in the past.
Fortunately, I’m not quite in the OP’s family situation. I’d have handled that situation by saying, “Sorry, Mom, we’ve decided to raise our children Jewish, and I think that would just confuse the issue for them”.
See, this is another thread and I don’t want to hijack the current discussion. But I think that position is mistaken. A gift of a pendant with a torii, a khanda, or a star does not in any way (it seems to me) brainwash a child into becoming shinto, sikh, or baha’i, nor does it seem to me likely to be confusing. By the time the child get the thing (I assume no one actually lets an infant have possession of gold jewelry) I figure they will know from whom it came (or I would tell them) and that it was given to them because it meant something to that person, who wanted to share that with them. Because that person loved them and wanted to tell them that in ways meaningful to them.
It is not as though the child will never see a cross unless her grandmother gives it to her. I just think it is generally wrong headed to try to limit exposure in that way. However, I also think the “let them decide as adults” meme is also wrong headed since they will anyway. Might as well actually share with them what you believe.
However, the mother apparently knew this was not the approach the parents owudl take as she asked first and did not persist – unless of course she bought it anyway and plans to leave it to the child in her will/give it to her on her 16th birthday/what have you. So I suspect she is not as out of bounds as most here seem to think.
No. Of course a cross necklace won’t make someone grow up to be Christian (I’m living proof of that). But I’d want to make sure my mother understood 100% that I was planning to raise the kids Jewish and not Christian, and that I would not tolerate any interference from her on that issue. A gold cross necklace is symbolic, though, and is not just another piece of pretty jewelry.
Come to think of it, I could see an atheist from a Christian background who wants to raise their kids without religion facing this same issue.
I agree. Every adult decides what religion they are going to believe in and practice, even if they don’t do it consciously.
I do think his wife was overreacting in that case. But I understand where the overreaction was coming from.
Things look really different from the perspective of a person of a minority religion.
A minority-religion person is already fighting upstream when it comes to maintaining his or her religious identity in the face of the pervasive Christian culture of the United States. Being given a potent symbol of Christianity is far more impactful than being given a symbol of some other minority religion.
I’m Jewish. I’ve always been Jewish. The ex is Jewish. The kid is Jewish. I live in an area with a high Jewish population and very few Bible-thumpers. So I pretty much have it as easy as possible when it comes to this stuff. But a person who has either converted to a minority religion or has married into a family of the majority religion will be much more sensitive to these issues. And understandably so.
Yes, I understand. And I have become aware of my minority status in this regard. I don’t really know whether there has been a shift in the approach to parenting in this area or whether my own parents simply were alternate in this way. Here is what I mean: my parents did not require our extended family to not interfere with their decisions in this way, and I don’t require it either with regard to my own children. With very few exceptions (car seat belts come to mind; alas, my children will never know the simple pleasure of riding in a pickup bed with the dogs in the summer sun if I have anything to say abotu it) I no more instructed my extended family with regard to what they might or might not do with my children than I would my husband. Sharing one’s beliefs/experiences/what have you with a child is not interference; it is love.
My mother feared that I would not ever get around to having my kids baptized, so she went ahead and did it herself. I thought it was touching, it never occurred to me that it was interfering. In general, I want my children to be bigger, not smaller. To know more about other people as they are, not less.
I expect there are boundaries on this kind of approach as the things people get up to amaze me all the time. But I have not personally encountered any.
It occurs to me that if I married into a family of bible thumpers I might expect to have my child exposed to the bible, and that if this were really repulsive to me I might consider marrying a person of my own religion. No?
I understand that it is easier to be surrounded by people with like values and beliefs – seems to be working for the Amish after all. And there is a certain appealing simplicity about raising a child in the One True whatever. I am just not sure it is the best way, unless of course one plans for the child to remain in the same place through adulthood.
However, as much as I enjoy the symbolism and theater and so on of the big RC, I don’t think that its symbols have any special magic power. I don’t think any faith’s symbols have any special magic power. I don’t think any of the teachings have any special magic power either.
Maybe I misunderstand. Do you mean your mother called the church and scheduled the baptism with your full knowledge and consent? I hope that’s what you meant. Otherwise, it is not touching. It’s disrespectful and crosses parental boundaries.
No, to be simple about it, any Catholic may validly baptize. She did it in the sink, one in her house and one I think in the hospital. As I say, I understand that the whole disrespectful and blah blah thing is the majority position. I just think it’s wrong. What is important is the intention, not the act. And her intention was pure. Now, I don’t think she achieved anything with it – I expect their little souls were left intact – but that is not my problem.
:eek: Her intention was not pure. Her intention was to usurp your authority as a parent and her behavior completely disrespectful to you and your husband. She imposed her religion and her will onto her grandchildren without their parents’ consent! Whether or not she did it in the sink does not alter the fact that she crossed boundaries. The fact that this is just fine with you is simply astounding to me! Does your mother also choose your children’s wardrobe? Replace the food you give them with food she believes is better? Move them into the school of her choice? She’s already clearly shown what she thinks of your parenting skills and your beliefs as an independent adult. Good grief!
I am sure you are in a better position to judge my mother’s intentions than I am. However, I think you are mistaken in your assessment. I parent very much as she did, like most people. If you plan to raise your children in an extended family you have to give up the parental power trip or go mad quickly.
Of course it is just fine with me. When my children are with my mother, she certainly has been known to buy them clothes. She feeds them what she has in the house, as do my father, my neighbors, the parents of their friends when they are having dinner there. I don’t send the food with them when they eat meals at other people’s houses, no. I expect that were I not living on another continent, she would offer to pay to send them to Catholic school if I did not do that, though I don’t know that for sure. Certainly she has taken on the trasportation burden to get my niece to and from Catholic school, in the absence of which I expect the child would be in public school, and who is paying the tuition is not my business.
My children are members of a family, which includes many people, some of whom are related in traditional ways and some not. Their relationship with their family is not mediated through me but by me. Absent some danger to the children, I don’t see why I need to control every aspect of their lives. I can think of no harm which came to them by the magical sprinkling of water over their heads. My brother in law has also promised to pray for them in the Ganges river since his recent conversion to something or other, and I surely hope he does, I can think of no harm associated with that either.
I think there is something wrong with the notion that children are the property of their parents and will in some way be tainted or corrupted by outside influence.
I don’t think that you have the right to decide whether anyone should be baptized (or subjected to any other religious ritual) unless it is you yourself, or you are the parent. I’d be PISSED if someone baptized one of my (hypothetical) kids without my permission. Or if they made them recite the Shahada, for that matter.
Not at all, quite the opposite. Except that if you intend to stick to your own kind then I think you should do so. That was in response to this comment: A minority-religion person is already fighting upstream when it comes to maintaining his or her religious identity in the face of the pervasive Christian culture of the United States.
I am sure this is true. But the whole fighting upstream thing is not going to be made easier by marrying a member of the pervasive christian culture of the United States. It seems to me not really reasonable to do that and then get mad that the people in yor new family are, um, pervading.
If it is repulsive to you that your children be exposed to that pervasive culture then indeed I think you ought at a minimum to warn your future spouse that in your view, you are not marrying into their family of origin; they are marrying out of it.
I know, most people would. It is just not clear to me why this is true. As I say, I don’t think it had any marvelous effect nor do I thnk it indelibly marked their souls with the Blood of the Lamb or anything. At least, last time I looked at their souls they were pretty much in the state you would expect the souls of 8 and 10 year old boys to be in.
I learned the Shahada at Catholic school, from Sister Karen Marie. Nevertheless, I am not so far as I know a muslim. The magical formula alas failed to take.
If they wanted to take my (hypothetical) kids to church, and asked me before doing so, I’d be OK with that if the kids wanted to go. I’d be a little miffed if they just did it without asking first, but not majorly pissed. I’d actually encourage that- exposing kids to other religions is a good thing, in my book.
Baptism or another initiation rite into a faith is a much bigger deal than that. I don’t think any initiation rite into any faith is something anyone should do unless they (or their parents) really intend to live a life according to that faith. It’s not something that you should do “just in case”.
I’m atheist and I would be pretty horrified if my mother-in-law decided to baptize my kids. The sheer arrogance of it…
I’ve read this whole thread and have been in cross-cultural relationships, am in one now. Why, if I want to maintain my own cultural identity, should I have to only marry my own kind? I mean, his family should and could be understanding and accepting of MY culture, too. I am not trying to convert their son to anything. If anything, I may open his eyes to a wider culture and show him more things.
I find it so weird that it’s somehow OK for the in-laws to enforce their religious beliefs without asking.
But, I agree with the cross being kind of a non-issue. I have an Om pendant from my grandmother and the thought had crossed my mind to give it to my niece, who is half-christian half-jewish. Just because I don’t have any kids.
We’ll see if she warrants it though. It’s rather dear to me.
I think we agree more than we disagree, and as I say, it has been made most clear to me that most people were not raised in an extended family nor do they wish to raise their kids in one. The power lines really are different, and I do get that most people find them unacceptable.
A lot of Catholics of my mother’s generation really believe that babies’ little immortal souls are in danger if they are not baptized, so babies have been quietly baptized in sinks by grandmothers all across the US. I do not myself think that their little souls were in danger of limbo, nor do I think it exists, so I wasn’t worried about it. And the kids’ initiation into the faith took place within and in the witnessing presence of the community of the faith, when I had them baptized. And it’s why I did, I still don’t think any kind of mystical transformation took place in either case. My mother felt better, and my kids got their foreheads wet. No harm, no foul.
The repulsiveness comment was another conversation, I did not mean to relate that to this exchange with you but to a comment made by greenbean and picked up by Really not all that Bright..
It’s rather dear to me.