Choosing a child's religion vs. a child's career

[thau]

Wow. I'd forgotten that there are still theists who assume that atheists reject God only so they can go out and get laid and do drugs.

Wow. Spooky thinking.

And I had forgotten how simplistic or naïve the world can be.

Note: Lots of people who call themselves Christians are in just as great of peril as many non-believers for the same reasons (i.e. love of self).

 

[Quintessence]

You know, my initial response to this inquiry is that the question being asked needs to be examined carefully. There's an underlying assumption here that the parent can choose these things for the child. I don't think that is the case, at least not in today's society. Barring some pretty extreme isolationism coupled with draconian intolerance for deviation, it's simply not possible to railroad a child in a particular direction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I'm saying is that its not possible to not raise your children to some sort of belief, unbelief or disbelief. If you are Christian, you will naturally instill Christian values. If you are an atheist, it will be natural to you to encourage your children to question religion.

As difficult as it might be for you to imagine, it is possible to raise your children without imposing expectations on them for what they need to believe in order to be accepted by their family.

I mean, how do you think this would work: parents bring home Christmas tree and tell their kids they're not getting presents until they are old enough to decide that they want to be Christian? It's just not practical.

No, it would mean parents not saying (as I've heard of some parents doing) "when you stop believing in Santa, you just get underwear instead of toys."

Why is it wrong to sell drugs? Because you decided so? Because your society decided? Maybe selling Charas in India is right for your child? Maybe suicide is the right path for your child? It is you as a parent that is responsible to teach your child the things that you believe are important. That can mean teaching your child to be a productive member of society, to abstain from drug use, to strive for a career that will allow your child to live comfortable etc. etc. To parents of a religion, that also includes following their choice of religion.

If having the freedom to follow the dictates of your faith is so important to you, why would you deny this freedom to your children?

Your child can always choose to sit and play video games all day while smoking pot and living off your income. Or to change his/her religious preferences. But that is for the child to decide when he/she comes of age. Until then, it is our job as parents to instill what we decide are the most important values in our children.

... but not in a particular profession?

Being a civil engineer is very important and meaningful to me. Would it be irresponsible for me not to raise my (hypothetical) son or daughter to be a civil engineer just like Dad? As you point out, they can change their preferences when they come of age, so that makes it okay, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know, my initial response to this inquiry is that the question being asked needs to be examined carefully. There's an underlying assumption here that the parent can choose these things for the child. I don't think that is the case, at least not in today's society. Barring some pretty extreme isolationism coupled with draconian intolerance for deviation, it's simply not possible to railroad a child in a particular direction.

I think it would be near-impossible for a parent to completely ensure that their child will become a devout believer in a particular religion or will follow a particular profession, but a parent can create expectations and impose consequences.

A parent can, for instance, threaten to disown or shun their child if they become "apostate". That's the sort of thing I'm talking about - there's still a good chance that the child will choose their preferred religion over their parents' love (especially if they're the sort of parents that will put conditions on that love), but there's still a willful attempt on the part of the parents to influence the religion of the child.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't agree with either. I've always invited my kids to tag along when I was practicing, and my husband, and they've either tagged along or didn't.

I don't believe, however, in the idea that if one is practicing a religion that "of course" that will include the kids. I find that to be a cultural assumption.

It's entirely true that once the kids grow up, they will definitely do as they damn well please. IMO, it's pretty much setting the best example, being present for them, and opening doors for opportunity.

 

[Quintessence]

I think it would be near-impossible for a parent to completely ensure that their child will become a devout believer in a particular religion or will follow a particular profession, but a parent can create expectations and impose consequences.

A parent can, for instance, threaten to disown or shun their child if they become "apostate". That's the sort of thing I'm talking about - there's still a good chance that the child will choose their preferred religion over their parents' love (especially if they're the sort of parents that will put conditions on that love), but there's still a willful attempt on the part of the parents to influence the religion of the child.

I feel the way we look at this is very influenced by our postmodern 21st century ways of thinking. This idea that a child can be or do anything they want can only exist in a democratic society with universal public education and equal opportunity. There is true freedom of choice, and in this kind of society, we chastise those who don't allow their children to capitalize on the freedom of choice that our society allows. We'd consider it irresponsible to make a child hone in on one path when there are, hypothetically, so many options open on the table. But consider circumstances.

Consider a culture that isn't democratic, lacks universal public education, or equal opportunity. This is how most of the human world has worked for most of its history. Education was often limited to what your immediate family provided for you, meaning you were apprenticed to the family trade. Other options sometimes existed, but they were not assured especially for marginalized groups that are flat out denied the opportunity. The default assumption is that you carry on the family trade. There is little to no choosing involved, and the irresponsible parent would be the one that fails to apprentice a child in their traditions.

Personally, I can't fault or make harsh judgements on parents taking either approach, because I think both are adapted for my current era. On the one hand, we do have the cultural characteristics that hypothetically allow for greater freedom of choice, and choosing a parenting style that accents this can be a good idea. On the other hand, we really don't have as much freedom of choice as we'd like to think, and choosing a parenting style that accents that can also be a good idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I feel the way we look at this is very influenced by our postmodern 21st century ways of thinking. This idea that a child can be or do anything they want can only exist in a democratic society with universal public education and equal opportunity. There is true freedom of choice, and in this kind of society, we chastise those who don't allow their children to capitalize on the freedom of choice that our society allows. We'd consider it irresponsible to make a child hone in on one path when there are, hypothetically, so many options open on the table. But consider circumstances.

Consider a culture that isn't democratic, lacks universal public education, or equal opportunity. This is how most of the human world has worked for most of its history. Education was often limited to what your immediate family provided for you, meaning you were apprenticed to the family trade. Other options sometimes existed, but they were not assured especially for marginalized groups that are flat out denied the opportunity. The default assumption is that you carry on the family trade. There is little to no choosing involved, and the irresponsible parent would be the one that fails to apprentice a child in their traditions.

Personally, I can't fault or make harsh judgements on parents taking either approach, because I think both are adapted for my current era. On the one hand, we do have the cultural characteristics that hypothetically allow for greater freedom of choice, and choosing a parenting style that accents this can be a good idea. On the other hand, we really don't have as much freedom of choice as we'd like to think, and choosing a parenting style that accents that can also be a good idea.

Yes, I realize that most people lacked the freedom of self-determination for most of human history. But the case I'm specifically concerned about is when a person has broken free of that history and has embraced choice and self-determination for their children in most respects (e.g. when choosing a career) but refuses to allow it for religion.

I think that it's consistent when a parent allows a child to choose their own career and religion. I think it can also be consistent (albeit unfortunate) when a parent tries to pick both a career and religion for their child. The case that puzzles me is when they allow self-determination for one but not the other; I think this is inherently conflicted.

 

[Tumah]

As difficult as it might be for you to imagine, it is possible to raise your children without imposing expectations on them for what they need to believe in order to be accepted by their family.

It is difficult indeed for me to imagine. I wonder if there is someone on the forum who might have been raised this way and be able to provide some insight into how their parents managed to raise them without indoctrinating them to their beliefs.

No, it would mean parents not saying (as I've heard of some parents doing) "when you stop believing in Santa, you just get underwear instead of toys."

I definitely don't think that this type of method would work.

If having the freedom to follow the dictates of your faith is so important to you, why would you deny this freedom to your children?

... but not in a particular profession?

Being a civil engineer is very important and meaningful to me. Would it be irresponsible for me not to raise my (hypothetical) son or daughter to be a civil engineer just like Dad? As you point out, they can change their preferences when they come of age, so that makes it okay, right?

I kind of feel we are going around in circles. The reason why I feel it is ok to indoctrinate my children in my religion is because I believe that my religion is the best for my child and it is my responsibility to do the best that I can for my child. There are many career paths that I believe may be good for my child, therefore I do not specifically try to teach my child one path. I believe that being a good parent is not about giving my child the same opportunities that I had, but rather building on the opportunities I had.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And I had forgotten how simplistic or naïve the world can be.

Note: Lots of people who call themselves Christians are in just as great of peril as many non-believers for the same reasons (i.e. love of self).

I've known hundreds of atheists, up close and personal. Never once did I get the sense that they rejected God so they could be free to sin. It's a nonsense idea. They rejected God because their were people of high intellectual integrity and could not embrace a Being for which they saw no evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is difficult indeed for me to imagine. I wonder if there is someone on the forum who might have been raised this way and be able to provide some insight into how their parents managed to raise them without indoctrinating them to their beliefs.

I notice that you keep making subtle but important changes to what I say. I said "imposing expectations on them for what they need to believe in order to be accepted by their family"; this is not the same as "indoctrinating them to their beliefs."

I was raised that way. Several people in this thread have mentioned that they're religious themselves but don't demand that their children follow their religion too.

I definitely don't think that this type of method would work.

Neither do I. I also don't think that "if you're living under my roof, you'll go to church/temple/the mosque" works either, though it can cause a fair bit of heartbreak.

I kind of feel we are going around in circles. The reason why I feel it is ok to indoctrinate my children in my religion is because I believe that my religion is the best for my child and it is my responsibility to do the best that I can for my child.

... and because you don't place any value on a free process of exploration, reflection, and discernment that can lead to religious faith. Your alternative suggests that the end result is all that matters.

There are many career paths that I believe may be good for my child, therefore I do not specifically try to teach my child one path. I believe that being a good parent is not about giving my child the same opportunities that I had, but rather building on the opportunities I had.

The reason I keep on bringing up careers is because pushing a career on a child can be justified in exactly the same way that you're justifying pushing a religion.

You said before that you don't know any way besides your own religion to raise a child with the values you consider important. Well, I wasn't able to find any way besides engineering to find a productive, fulfilling career that makes me happy. How are our situations different?

I look around and see people of all sorts of faiths (and no faith at all) and of all sorts of professions who who seem to be fulfilled, happy, productive, and moral. If I can acknowledge that a person can have a fulfilled, meaningful career as a lawyer even though I don't personally understand how, why can't you acknowledge that a person can be a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist and still be a good person?

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, I forgot about folks holding a gun or a checkbook to someone's head and insisting that they decide to go to church rather than stay home. I was thinking more about forcing someone to embrace a particular religious belief. I was raised in fundamentalist Christianity, but there was nothing they could have done to make me continue believing it into my adulthood (or even into my teenagerhood.)

Actually I meant my career. You would not believe how far they went.

 

[thau]

I've known hundreds of atheists, up close and personal. Never once did I get the sense that they rejected God so they could be free to sin. It's a nonsense idea. They rejected God because their were people of high intellectual integrity and could not embrace a Being for which they saw no evidence.

We disagree (quite a bit). But this isn't about atheism, really, my fault for stating it so I guess. It is about lazy Christians, lazy new age types, lazy agnostics, lazy muslims, lazy jews, lazy pagans and lazy total unbelievers. I maintain a majority (yes, that would be more than 50%) of those who have a sense of intellect but do next to nothing to serve God and next to nothing to serve their fellow man are going to be judged far more harshly than they can begin to realize. Does that include me? I am afraid it might... because "to whom more has been given, more will be required."

So no need to defend that band of altruistic atheists you think I am targeting. Reiterating my point in another way: 1) God exists. 2) God has communicated His purpose to us and our purpose as well. 3) Man is a selfish, egotistical creature that seeks to please himself and those dear to him. What did Jesus say about that? (paraphrase) “Big deal. Even the worst of sinners do as much.” 4) No. It is how we treat those that are the lowest of creatures that matters to God. It is how we speak of them. It is how much we truly forgive those who do us an injustice. And it is how much we seek God and pray. And it is what do we do with our free time that REALLY matters. Do we seek pleasure or do we seek to serve others who are in great need? If we fail on that last point, we are in trouble.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So no need to defend that band of altruistic atheists you think I am targeting. Reiterating my point in another way: 1) God exists. 2) God has communicated His purpose to us and our purpose as well. 3) Man is a selfish, egotistical creature that seeks to please himself and those dear to him.

OK. For my part, I think that's just a big chunk of Christian theology. Bad, bad, selfish mankind. Most of the people I know are pretty good people. They like to help others. Not all of them, of course, but enough so that I would not generalize about mankind being selfish and egotistical.

Anyway, it seems we're getting pretty far away from Penguin's OP.

 

[Russell (Satanist)]

I absolutely disagree with picking a career or religion for anyone. I'm going to start with career. A person has personal interests, and they might not want to do what you want them to do or have as a career. You should ask the child/person have they thought about it. If you can be ok with their career, show them some things they should see or join that could make them better prepared for that career. Like religion, ask them if they've thought about it. If not, you can leave it alone, suggest some things, or tell them they should research and decide a side. If they do, find out about their believes. Research them, maybe they're right. But don't ban them from worshiping who or whom ever they chose to believe in or if they're atheist, don't force them into anything. And before you argue with someone about it, or enter a debate, make sure they are comfortable with it first.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think most young children want to be like their parents, and tend to emulate their parents behaviors and beliefs as a way of connecting with, and pleasing their parents. For most people, religion is primarily a social/family/community activity and practice, and most people begin the process of this type of socialization long before they can even fathom the details and ramifications of religion.

 

[thau]

I absolutely disagree with picking a career or religion for anyone. I'm going to start with career. A person has personal interests, and they might not want to do what you want them to do or have as a career. You should ask the child/person have they thought about it. If you can be ok with their career, show them some things they should see or join that could make them better prepared for that career. Like religion, ask them if they've thought about it. If not, you can leave it alone, suggest some things, or tell them they should research and decide a side. If they do, find out about their believes. Research them, maybe they're right. But don't ban them from worshiping who or whom ever they chose to believe in or if they're atheist, don't force them into anything. And before you argue with someone about it, or enter a debate, make sure they are comfortable with it first.

Fine. But how does one "get comfortable" with a Satanist?

Do you worship the devil? Or are you just playing with us?

Because if you do worship the devil then we agree there is a spirit world occupied by good spirits and evil spirits. And such curiosity is highly discouraged.

Would I want my son playing with Aleister Crowley's son? Would you?

 

[Tumah]

I notice that you keep making subtle but important changes to what I say. I said "imposing expectations on them for what they need to believe in order to be accepted by their family"; this is not the same as "indoctrinating them to their beliefs."

I am not doing it on purpose.

I was raised that way. Several people in this thread have mentioned that they're religious themselves but don't demand that their children follow their religion too.

So what happens when you come home telling your mom that Krishna is the one for you and her faith is that Jesus is the door or whatever? Her belief states that you just damned yourself to Eternal Hell. Is she happy?

... and because you don't place any value on a free process of exploration, reflection, and discernment that can lead to religious faith. Your alternative suggests that the end result is all that matters.

Correct. I do not care if I have to tie my child's arms down to prevent him from shooting himself in the temple. As long as he is alive.

The reason I keep on bringing up careers is because pushing a career on a child can be justified in exactly the same way that you're justifying pushing a religion.

You said before that you don't know any way besides your own religion to raise a child with the values you consider important. Well, I wasn't able to find any way besides engineering to find a productive, fulfilling career that makes me happy. How are our situations different?

Because the first describes what I believe will make my child happy and the second describes what made yourself happy. If I saw that my child enjoyed studying biology I would encourage him to enter the medical field. If I saw he enjoyed a good debate, I'd encourage him to trial law. Because that is what I believe will make him happy. I could be wrong and my child with the skeleton and posters of the body systems may end up finding law extremely satisfying. But I need to go with what I know.

I look around and see people of all sorts of faiths (and no faith at all) and of all sorts of professions who who seem to be fulfilled, happy, productive, and moral. If I can acknowledge that a person can have a fulfilled, meaningful career as a lawyer even though I don't personally understand how, why can't you acknowledge that a person can be a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist and still be a good person?

There is no doubt in my mind that Christians, Buddhists and atheists can be good people. One's religion is not an indication of one's piety. Similarly, happiness, fulfillment, productivity and morality are not characteristics only to be found within a particular faith. But as a person of faith, besides for all those, I also want my child's soul to be "healthy". And for that, I believe s/he needs my faith.

 

[Quintessence]

I think that it's consistent when a parent allows a child to choose their own career and religion. I think it can also be consistent (albeit unfortunate) when a parent tries to pick both a career and religion for their child. The case that puzzles me is when they allow self-determination for one but not the other; I think this is inherently conflicted.

I don't think it is, because it has to do with values. If there's only one lifestyle choice that you value and that you feel is correct or the best for your child, that is what you're going to teach them. I'd hazard to guess that there are very few if any parents who would say only one career choice is valuable or worth pursuing. I'd also hazard to say there are very few parents who don't have a list of career choices they would dissuade their child from pursuing as well as a list of career choices they would encourage. If you think your child will benefit from a specific religious path, raising them in it is not much different than forcing them to have a certain type of diet because you feel it is the most healthy for them. Is the diet you've picked out necessarily the best? Is the religion you've picked out necessarily the best? Of course not, but as a parent you'll tend to do what you think is best for your child and stick to it. If that means picking their religion, you do it. If that means picking what's on their dinner plate, you do it. I don't see much of a conflict here.

 

[Koldo]

Because the first describes what I believe will make my child happy and the second describes what made yourself happy.

But what if he believed that his child could only be happy by becoming an engineer?

If I saw that my child enjoyed studying biology I would encourage him to enter the medical field. If I saw he enjoyed a good debate, I'd encourage him to trial law. Because that is what I believe will make him happy. I could be wrong and my child with the skeleton and posters of the body systems may end up finding law extremely satisfying. But I need to go with what I know.

What if you saw that your child enjoyed practicing christianism?

 

[Koldo]

I don't think it is, because it has to do with values. If there's only one lifestyle choice that you value and that you feel is correct or the best for your child, that is what you're going to teach them. I'd hazard to guess that there are very few if any parents who would say only one career choice is valuable or worth pursuing. I'd also hazard to say there are very few parents who don't have a list of career choices they would dissuade their child from pursuing as well as a list of career choices they would encourage. If you think your child will benefit from a specific religious path, raising them in it is not much different than forcing them to have a certain type of diet because you feel it is the most healthy for them. Is the diet you've picked out necessarily the best? Is the religion you've picked out necessarily the best? Of course not, but as a parent you'll tend to do what you think is best for your child and stick to it. If that means picking their religion, you do it. If that means picking what's on their dinner plate, you do it. I don't see much of a conflict here.

In other words, the situation is completely equal if the parents in question believe there is only one career worth pursuing.