Children should be permitted to make up their own minds about religion

[exchemist]

But can he ever hope to inderstand the Iliad or the Odyssey?

I do not think children who are raised without religion suffer as much as your anecdote implies. I can acknowledge many social or cultural benefits of being raised within a religion, but I do not agree that there are any intellectual benefits.

He'll understand Homer as well as anyone - in fact better than most, seeing as he is interested in Greek and Roman mythology. History is his main academic interest: to understand European history a knowledge of Christianity is very useful. My mother taught English literature for many years at our local 6th Form college and, towards the end, bitterly lamented the inability of most students to understand a religious reference. I'm a choral singer so I am well aware how much of the serious vocal music repertoire concerns religious subjects. And so on.

One little example: I've been to Ephesus and seen the chi rho egraved on the stones. If you can think to yourself, "So this is where St Paul preached and wrote to the Ephesians, as we hear in church on Sundays", it brings the ancient stones to life.

I don't argue it is critical, but it certainly helps quite a bit to understand what motivated and inspired the people of the past.

 

[viole]

Secularism itself is a "religion".

True. i knee every night in front of my bed , before going to sleep, and recite the pythagorean theorem and the evolutionary path of some holy species.

Ciao

- viole

 

[JJ50]

True. i knee every night in front of my bed , before going to sleep, and recite the pythagorean theorem and the evolutionary path of some holy species.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Curious George]

He'll understand Homer as well as anyone - in fact better than most, seeing as he is interested in Greek and Roman mythology. History is his main academic interest: to understand European history a knowledge of Christianity is very useful. My mother taught English literature for many years at our local 6th Form college and, towards the end, bitterly lamented the inability of most students to understand a religious reference. I'm a choral singer so I am well aware how much of the serious vocal music repertoire concerns religious subjects. And so on.

One little example: I've been to Ephesus and seen the chi rho egraved on the stones. If you can think to yourself, "So this is where St Paul preached and wrote to the Ephesians, as we hear in church on Sundays", it brings the ancient stones to life.

I don't argue it is critical, but it certainly helps quite a bit to understand what motivated and inspired the people of the past.

Perhaps modern day mythology would hold his interest less than the Greek mythology?

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps modern day mythology would hold his interest less than the Greek mythology?

Well yes, yes, haha, OK, I get the picture, you have to get in a dig against Christianity somehow.

 

[Marcion]

Religious dogma should not be forced on children but spiritual discipline should definitely be taught at an early age so that it can become a habit without which it is much harder to change your ways when you are grown up.

Just like you teach your kids how to daily brush their teeth and keep their body clean, you can also introduce them in a playful way to spiritual practices such as simplified forms of meditation, chanting, bhajan singing, attending spiritual retreats and reading spiritual scriptures.

But there should never be any force to do anything they dislike at a young age or even when older.
If a child e.g. decides to start eating meat after the age of let's say 12 years, they should be told why that is a bad thing but they should make that choice freely (outside the home). You can't and should not force a spiritual life style on anyone.

 

[Curious George]

Well yes, yes, haha, OK, I get the picture, you have to get in a dig against Christianity somehow.

No, no. Just pointing out that you are sure that he can understand Homer better than most but would be less capable when it comes to Christian mythology. I don't think that it was a dig. And I certainly acknowledge there are benefits to practicing and learning the practices of the major religions. I just think that the insider vs. outsider aspect does not serve more intellectually advantageous. It certainly isn't disadvantageous.

 

[Skwim]

the problem with the whole thing is that even as everybody around us preaches the separation of church and state, that is the furthest thing from the minds of...anybody.

This is quite a sweeping statement, and quite erroneous. First of all, there are a lot of people who don't like the separation of church and state, and would dearly love to see their brand of religion celebrated by the state. (I get the distinct feeling youre probably one of them.) Secondly, a lot of people, myself included, are quite concerned to see that the separation of church and state is preserved.

Today, it is 'state without church.'

Not sure what this means, but if it means more than the implication inherent in the term "separation of church and state" please share.

The state is going the wrong way here. Right now, it's about indoctrinating children into the notion that religion is 'bad.' and individual cultures are 'bad.'

Examples please.

If they were not, why are they not spoken of, with any respect, in school?

Who says they're not? As far as I know, other than as issues germane to history, religion isn't brought up at all.

It SHOULD be...if a child has a religion or religious culture held to at home, then that culture, including the religion, should be spoken of, celebrated and respected in school.

Why?

Children should be taught that 11th Article of Faith, and it should be lived by. Even in school.

Then I assume the tenets of Satanism should also be taught like the fourth tenet of Satanism: "The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend." OR the fifth tenet: "Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs."

Religion...all religions or 'religious like' cultures and opinions should be, not taught by the teachers, but absolutely allowed. Christmas. Hannukah. the Festival of Lights from Hinduism. Ramadan. Easter. Jewish High Holy Days.

And Walpurgis Night, the Day of the Dead, Birth of the Bab, and Diwali.

If a student follows it, it should be welcomed in all areas outside the immediate topic of the classroom. There should be classes in comparative religions where students should be taught a little bit about every faith represented by the students or the larger community around them. Not the doctrines, so much as the culture and practices that go with them, so that they can understand each other. They should be separate classes, perhaps taught by, and certainly monitored by, the leaders of the faiths represented.

Then how about classes in the occult where they can learn about spiritualism; reading tarot cards, seances, divination, spells, and the ouija board?

And that should happen in early grade school.

Absolutely, because the sooner they're aware of the power of divination the better off they'll be.

Right now we have sympathy in the schools towards LBGT groups and issues.

And we shouldn't have sympathy toward them?

Why are we shoving religion into the closet those folks are breaking out of?

Well, for one thing, our constitution says that in public schools that's were religious practices belong.

Right now, the schools are enforcing the idea that religion, and religious belief, are BAD.

Examples please.

....and as another poster has pointed out, children are not adults. They are indoctrinated by everything around them, and children spend an ungodly amount of time in school. Pun intended.

I'm afraid you've missed the meaning of "indoctrination."

It's one thing to teach science in science class. It's quite another to enforce the 'no religion allowed around our precious students' at recess, at lunch, at band or football practice, at assemblies. School is for teaching, and schools teach, even if the students are not at desks texting each other instead of paying attention.

And schools are teaching that 'religion is bad.'

That is NOT secularism.

Gotta say, if you were honestly a teacher, I feel for your students.

.

.

 

[dianaiad]

This is quite a sweeping statement, and quite erroneous. First of all, there are a lot of people who don't like the separation of church and state, and would dearly love to see their brand of religion celebrated by the state. (I get the distinct feeling youre probably one of them.) Secondly, a lot of people, myself included, are quite concerned to see that the separation of church and state is preserved.


Not sure what this means, but if it means more than the implication inherent in the term "separation of church and state" please share.


Examples please.


Who says they're not? As far as I know, other than as issues germane to history, religion isn't brought up at all.


Why?


Then I assume the tenets of Satanism should also be taught like the fourth tenet of Satanism: "The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend." OR the fifth tenet: "Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs."


And Walpurgis Night, the Day of the Dead, Birth of the Bab, and Diwali.


Then how about classes in the occult where they can learn about spiritualism; reading tarot cards, seances, divination, spells, and the ouija board?


Absolutely, because the sooner they're aware of the power of divination the better off they'll be.


And we shouldn't have sympathy toward them?


Well, for one thing, our constitution says that in public schools that's were religious practices belong.


Examples please.


I'm afraid you've missed the meaning of "indoctrination."



Gotta say, if you were honestly a teacher, I feel for your students.

.

.

Y'know, another poster mentioned that you were one of the two people she put on her ignore list. this post is one of the reasons that you are going to be the first one on mine. You have altered my post, spent the whole thing on insults, and are just plain not worth the reading or responding time.

Oh...just because I DID read this one, I'll respond to the longest point you made, about all the different beliefs that you don't like, and expect that I wouldn't like either, being welcomed or explored in school; the 4th and 5th whatevers of Satanism (which is actually atheism in a fancy suit...at least that version is) divination, Dwali, a whole bunch of others....

My answer to this is...if those belief systems have students whose families follow them, then...

yes. They should be welcomed. Each and every one of 'em. Whether you approve of them or not.

And I wouldn't worry about my students, were I you. I taught English...reading to the kids who can't get past third grade, and students who were writing college level papers on the deeper meaning of "Ulysses." (which, in my opinion, can only have a deeper meaning, since a casual first read through isn't going to find one) .

Comparative religion never really came up much.

But I do notice the last, couldn't help it, could you, personal slam. I don't need that sort of thing.

 

[Skwim]

You have altered my post, spent the whole thing on insults,

Then I suggest you keep your conversations among the choir. Obviously you're far too thin skinned to actually debate issues in a debate forum.

But I do notice the last, couldn't help it, could you, personal slam. I don't need that sort of thing.

My "personal slam" was only made in response to your insulting presumption that RF readers here are dumb enough to fall for your ridiculous remarks. We aren't. So as far as I see it, we're even.

.




.

 

[Prestor John]

Not easy, nor necessarily good practice.
Children should be taught to think for themselves, and how to make choices.
These will not necessarily coincide with Parents "wishes or instructions"
Children should of course keep the "House Rules" even when they disagree with them.
However they should be given the opportunity to discuss them or anything they wish, and provide input for their parents to consider.
After all most parents are still learning what it means to be a parent.

Where did I say that a child should not think for themselves or make their own choices?

Where did I say that they shouldn't be given the opportunity to discuss things with their parents?

Where did I say that parents are always right?

All I said was that children, while they are still children and live at home, should do as their parents instruct them to do.

It is just like you said, "Children should of course keep the "House Rules" even when they disagree with them."

 

[Rational Agnostic]

What are you talking about?

You said that physicians can force medical procedures and medication on patients, when in fact, this is against the law.

 

[Prestor John]

That’s never been the difficult aspect (beyond getting children to do what they’re told ). The more significant question here is what parents should tell their children – especially older children - to do (or not do) in the context of religion and belief.

Whatever the parents want.

They are their beliefs and their children.

 

[HonestJoe]

Whatever the parents want.

They are their beliefs and their children.

You're missing the point. If the parents wanted their children to be suicide bombers, have sex with them or traffic drugs for them, I'd hope you'd recognise that as wrong. So again, it isn't just about the children doing whatever their parents want but also the parents doing the right thing for their children. With great power comes great responsibility.

 

[Prestor John]

On the surface, I can see how that might be attractive... but it is really quite terrible advice. I personally know and have heard many stories of parents that I believe wholeheartedly were consistently interacting with their kids in all the wrong ways. A "good Christian woman" who had two step-daughters and openly talked about their behavior, and the problems she had with them right in front of them to other people in her church's congregation. Openly denouncing them, embarrassing them, and doing no end of disservice to their self-esteem. With a situation like that you just know it is even worse behind closed doors. Explicitly, the parent isn't really asking them to do anything except conform... but in my heart I feel for that kid, and feel that their only hope with a parent like that is a keen and powerful rebellion. Perhaps not outward rebellion, but they should take to heart how horrible their parent is, know that they absolutely abhor that parent's behavior and want better for themselves and anyone they interact with. They should strive to make sure they never take any of that parent's advice that doesn't sit well, reject their advances to make peace if their behavior is consistently poor, and get out of that situation as quickly as they are able with as much of their self-respect intact as possible.

And even just out and about - seeing parents who roar profanity at 3 year olds at the grocery store for some mundane thing. Again, some conformity issue at the heart of it. That parent destroying their child's ideas of normal, human-to-human interaction. That is not a parent that should be followed, or looked up to. That's a parent who needs to be walked away from, back turned on - quarantined from the rest of their life for the sake of their own mental health. And yet these kids, most of them, have no choice. They're never going to get what they need. And their parent honestly needs a good, stiff smacking around. The kids themselves have the chance to do that emotionally or mentally, and granted, most of them won't do it "correctly" - without becoming somewhat monstrous themselves, but I am all for their standing up to the abuse, as long as they are up to it. And who are we to say our children shouldn't question what we do? Are we the ambassadors of perfection? That's a hearty laugh to even think about, that is. We're all... ALL idiots. The only hope we have is to realize it and be honest and humble in our interactions with our kids. Always give them good, sound reasons for our demands on their time and efforts. And if we ever find ourselves expecting something of them "just because" and they take issue with it - giving them the chance to question, and ourselves a chance to reflect and perhaps come to better conclusions TOGETHER.

Based on your simplistic statement (which I can only imagine lies at the heart of a very simple-minded view of the situation) I can imagine what I have said is what sounds terrible to you. All I can say to that is good luck to you then. Kids are humans first and foremost, just like us. Sure they have less experience, and need some molding and shaping... but such should never be lorded over them by a tyrant. Ever. And all you have to do is ask yourself how much YOU like being in those types of situations to understand why. It's really a no-brainer... and yet we all get it wrong at times, and some of us nearly all the time.

First off, the OP clearly paints the context of this discussion being about religion and children, to which I still strongly believe that any child, who is still a child and lives at home, should do as instructed by their parents.

As to everything else you mentioned, unless you believe that child abuse laws are being broken, how a parent raises their children is none of our business.

Also, I don't understand why my claim that children should do as instructed leads people to think that there can be no discussion or learning had between the parents and the children or that there should be tyranny in the home.

The first thing that children are is not human - but rather literal spiritual children of God. The Ruler of the Universe.

Any parent who abuses their offspring will ultimately be answerable to Him for their behavior toward His heirs and heiresses.

 

[Prestor John]

You're missing the point. If the parents wanted their children to be suicide bombers, have sex with them or traffic drugs for them, I'd hope you'd recognise that as wrong. So again, it isn't just about the children doing whatever their parents want but also the parents doing the right thing for their children. With great power comes great responsibility.

Why do you assume I advocate such illegal and immoral actions?

Can we please keep this discussion in the realms of sanity and reason?

 

[HonestJoe]

Why do you assume I advocate such illegal and immoral actions?

I assumed you wouldn't which is why I used them as extreme examples to demonstrate my point, and the point of the thread, which is the responsibilities of parents rather than of their children.

 

[nPeace]

You said that physicians can force medical procedures and medication on patients, when in fact, this is against the law.

I said no such thing.
Can you show me the words where I said that please?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Both my husband and I were non believers by the time we married in 1969 when I was 19 and he was 22. Our first daughter arrived 10 months later, our birth family was completed by the time I was 26. (We later went on to adopt two boys with special educational needs, the younger one has Down's Syndrome.)

Although our children were of course aware of our attitude towards religion, we never tried to force them to take on our point of view. Both of us had the experience of having our fundamentalist parents faith forced down our throats as kids, which was not a pleasant experience! We explained to the children it was important that they made up their own minds about matters of faith. The three girls, as I have mentioned before, are Christians, they are moderate in their beliefs, not Biblical literalists, we are proud of them.

I find the similitude of this as one who is raised in a religious household and believes religion ought to have a foundation in the rearing of children. The only thing that is problematic with your suggestion is that children at least those that aren't even high school age do not have the philosophical background to decipher right and wrong (in relation to their mental comfort) to discern whether they can make a logical decision to either believe or not believe in religion. At least with a religious background there is a sense of "community" which is also presence in the absence where parents are not directly involved in the rearing of children.

 

[Hawkins]

True. i knee every night in front of my bed , before going to sleep, and recite the pythagorean theorem and the evolutionary path of some holy species.

Ciao

- viole

The same. I knee every night to find evidence to support any of my meals eaten, in order to believe that I truly ate anything.

Secularism is the believe of evidence, no evidence of meals means nothing eaten ever. That's your religion.