I worry about the children of religious parents.

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh my. I see plenty of reducibility. I don't have the intimate familiarity with other religions as much to give good examples, but I could pull dozens upon dozens of examples of reducibility from my own religious umbrella. Just as one example, the practice of meditation is a foundation skill utilized in many other practices. Even more foundational than that would be exercises in awareness; simple paying attention to things going on around you. These things are easy to teach a child and are already taught to children in a non-religious context as observational skills.

I would suggest that this isn't really religious education at all, but meditation is somewhat of a peculiar case, for a number of reasons (most obviously, it is not necessarily religious in nature at all). Take a more typical religious ritual, and can you say the same thing?

As a teacher, it's part of your job to reduce complexity into something digestible for your students. I don't buy religious teachings (or any teachings, really) being irreducible.

It isn't that they are irreducible per se, its that their most fundamental elements include some fairly nuanced and abstract concepts, such as those I mentioned (divinity, the holy, death, the good, etc. etc.). In this sense, its alot like philosophy- sure, we can break it down into more basic elements, but there is still a certain intellectual or cognitive threshold for even being able to understand these basic elements. There would not be much one could do to teach a 6 year old the basics of philosophy. Religion is similar in this regard.

 

[dawny0826]

Right, which is why I think we have to be somewhat careful here, and respect the fact that teaching children about certain (controversial, partisan, personal) subjects may not always be ideal.

I suppose this is contingent upon the situation, the context of the conversation/material and the personality and critical thinking skills of the child. Though, overall, I am of the opinion that parents should be able to talk to their children openly about religion as long as they do not force and coerce beliefs and allow for ample room for questioning, exploration and rejection.

And I would hope its clear which one of these methods I'm taking aim at.

Yes.

I do not see any unique benefit to it whatsoever, so yes, basically I do.

Fair enough.

So if there is potentially a causal relation here, why would we willingly expose such concepts to children of a certain age, even if the danger it is merely a risk and not a certainty?

The positives of my religion outweigh the negatives. I believe it worth sharing my religion with my kids.

You basically said "you've demonstrated nothing, except for what you've demonstrated". You may want more, and I've admitted that I'm not really in the mood for tedious statistic-mining and am avoiding that on purpose, but I have provided more than nothing.

Okay.

Then this is far from the more objectionable cases I'd imagine most of us have in mind. But I'm still curious, what use does a child of a certain age have for knowing their parents religious beliefs? What is lost by waiting until they are, say, a pre-teen?

Because, as a parent, you want your child to know you. My faith is an important part of who I am. It's not something that I want to hide from kids, shamefully. To the contrary, I hope that my children will feel comfortable sharing with me as they age, whatever they choose for themselves.

Oh come now... You post on this forum, surely you're aware that many people dispute the truth and value of virtually the entirety of the Christian faith? (and others as well)

Yes, but, I don't feel comfortable making assumptions about them.

Would you agree that it probably does so on average?

I honestly don't know how to answer this.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I suppose this is contingent upon the situation, the context of the conversation/material and the personality and critical thinking skills of the child. Though, overall, I am of the opinion that parents should be able to talk to their children openly about religion as long as they do not force and coerce beliefs and allow for ample room for questioning, exploration and rejection.

And I would submit that waiting until a particular age (which, as you seem to allow, may well vary from case to case depending on development/maturation) is part of :"allowing ample room for questioning, exploration and rejection", given that the mere ability to question/explore/reject religion requires a certain threshold of intellectual development.

Because, as a parent, you want your child to know you.

But once again, what would be lost by waiting a little while for your child to get to know this particular part of you- the part of you that accepts certain religious truth-claims and rejects others?

Yes, but, I don't feel comfortable making assumptions about them.

But it wouldn't really be an assumption, would it? If you see people openly expressing as much, then you are hardly assuming it... I mean, pardon the language, but everyone who doesn't live under a rock is pretty well aware that not everyone accepts the truth of any particular religion, and thus that the topic of religion is far more contentious and less certain than, say, arithmetic or chemistry?

I honestly don't know how to answer this.

Would you say that, everything else being equal, being taught that X is true, from a young age, by a child's most trusted associates (parents, relatives, church leaders, etc.) would tend to

A. make the child more likely to question/reject X at some point
B. make the child less likely to question/reject X at some point
C. have no effect.

It seems to me that B is the obvious answer, although this is clearly not universally true- just on average.

 

[dawny0826]

And I would submit that waiting until a particular age (which, as you seem to allow, may well vary from case to case depending on development/maturation) is part of :"allowing ample room for questioning, exploration and rejection", given that the mere ability to question/explore/reject religion requires a certain threshold of intellectual development.

I didn't wait until any "particular" age with my kids and we're fine. My mother was much more stringent in instilling religious beliefs and I'm fine. I did question/explore/reject and was introduced to religion in very early childhood. As I know you acknowledge, this isn't one size fits all.

Though I respect what you're saying here, I believe that individuals should be able to take this and apply it to their own lives and parent/child relationships as they feel is important, as per their own convictions.

But once again, what would be lost by waiting a little while for your child to get to know this particular part of you- the part of you that accepts certain religious truth-claims and rejects others?

I didn't wait. What has been lost by not waiting? Essentially, your expectation would be for me to live a lie. I can't do that. Even if I never spoke directly to my child about my faith, they would still observe much through my action.

But it wouldn't really be an assumption, would it? If you see people openly expressing as much, then you are hardly assuming it... I mean, pardon the language, but everyone who doesn't live under a rock is pretty well aware that not everyone accepts the truth of any particular religion, and thus that the topic of religion is far more contentious and less certain than, say, arithmetic or chemistry?

I'm still not comfortable making blanket label assumptions about people I don't know.

Would you say that, everything else being equal, being taught that X is true, from a young age, by a child's most trusted associates (parents, relatives, church leaders, etc.) would tend to

A. make the child more likely to question/reject X at some point
B. make the child less likely to question/reject X at some point
C. have no effect.

The aforementioned is fully contingent upon the child, his/her personality, capability for learning, attention span, the degree to which his/her parent's are instilling religion and other factors. Everything isn't equal.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wonder how some of the religious people in this thread would feel about their offspring being a Satanist, like I am. I'm having problems with my Christian mother over it and I'm very hurt.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The aforementioned is fully contingent upon the child, his/her personality, capability for learning, attention span, the degree to which his/her parent's are instilling religion and other factors. Everything isn't equal.

Oh come now, that was a dodge if there ever was one. Clearly everything isn't equal. But we can still ask hypothetical questions where we bracket, for the purposes of the question, other factors.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I wonder how some of the religious people in this thread would feel about their offspring being a Satanist, like I am. I'm having problems with my Christian mother over it and I'm very hurt.

I appreciate the humor of this, but there actually is a good point here; would advocates of religious education of young children still be in favor of this if the religion in question was, say, theistic Satanism? I'm not sure. Its easy to be in favor of indoctrinating children in your own religion, its a slightly taller order to be consistent when faced with views opposed to your own.

 

[Philomath]

I wonder how some of the religious people in this thread would feel about their offspring being a Satanist, like I am. I'm having problems with my Christian mother over it and I'm very hurt.

I don't plan on having offspring so problem solved

But I wouldn't care if I did.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I appreciate the humor of this.

I'm not being humorous or sarcastic in any way.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm not being humorous or sarcastic in any way.

Not humor, poor word choice- I didn't think you were joking or anything. It did strike me as of a somewhat lighter tone than most of the preceding (for instance, you never used the phrase "child abuse" ). Regardless, as I said, the point you make is, I think, a good and relevant one.

 

[dawny0826]

I wonder how some of the religious people in this thread would feel about their offspring being a Satanist, like I am. I'm having problems with my Christian mother over it and I'm very hurt.

I'm sorry. :hug:

I'd have a lot of questions for her because I don't know much about Satanism and realize that there are difference variances to LHP. I'd learn as much as I could from her. Understanding her and why her choices are important to her are important to me as a parent.

 

[dawny0826]

Oh come now, that was a dodge if there ever was one. Clearly everything isn't equal. But we can still ask hypothetical questions where we bracket, for the purposes of the question, other factors.

I provided my answer and you find it unfavorable. I don't know what else to say.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I provided my answer

Well, you did and you didn't.

I don't know what else to say.

How about "A", "B", or "C"?

 

[dawny0826]

Well, you did and you didn't.


How about "A", "B", or "C"?

I can't answer the question, given the provided context and I explaind why. I genuinely can't answer this question as it's been presented to me, as I'm not comfortable making such a generalization. Think of me what you will. Do with this what you will.

 

[JayJayDee]

What I find interesting right now is down at the bottom of this page suggesting similar threads to go through is "Should parents be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children on religious grounds?"

This might be one of those issues where parental rights don't own the trump card.

Just so we don't perpetuate another myth....Please be assured that JW's refusal to have blood transfusions is entirely Biblical.

It is also medically supported. Contrary to what many still believe, blood is not good medicine these days.

If I may link to a post from another thread discussing this issue...you will see that the 'Blood Business' is not motivated by it's 'life-saving' properties but more by another less noble agenda.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3592503-post102.html

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Just so we don't perpetuate another myth....Please be assured that JW's refusal to have blood transfusions is entirely Biblical.

It is also medically supported. Contrary to what many still believe, blood is not good medicine these days.

:thud:

 

[Philomath]

Just so we don't perpetuate another myth....Please be assured that JW's refusal to have blood transfusions is entirely Biblical.

It is also medically supported. Contrary to what many still believe, blood is not good medicine these days.

If I may link to a post from another thread discussing this issue...you will see that the 'Blood Business' is not motivated by it's 'life-saving' properties but more by another less noble agenda.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3592503-post102.html

:sarcastic

 

[dawny0826]

Just so we don't perpetuate another myth....Please be assured that JW's refusal to have blood transfusions is entirely Biblical.

It is also medically supported. Contrary to what many still believe, blood is not good medicine these days.

If I may link to a post from another thread discussing this issue...you will see that the 'Blood Business' is not motivated by it's 'life-saving' properties but more by another less noble agenda.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3592503-post102.html

Every 2-3 seconds in the United States someone needs life-saving blood products. A single blood donation has the potential to save up to three lives, as blood can be divided into its separate components and used to treat a variety of ailments.

The real tragedy is that we often have a shortage of blood supply in the United States to respond to emergency and illness.

It takes a willing donor, whether they are paid or not, to provide this valuable service.

You're entitled to your opinions and I certainly wouldn't question your parenting choices.

But, I know for fact that blood transfusions and treatments that include blood products are REQUIRED "medicine" for some.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Just so we don't perpetuate another myth....Please be assured that JW's refusal to have blood transfusions is entirely Biblical.

It is also medically supported. Contrary to what many still believe, blood is not good medicine these days.

If I may link to a post from another thread discussing this issue...you will see that the 'Blood Business' is not motivated by it's 'life-saving' properties but more by another less noble agenda.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3592503-post102.html

I'm aware of some bloodless surgery options that various doctors and staff are able to accommodate for families who wish to refuse blood transfusions and/or anesthesia for elective surgery.

However, I do think when there is significant blood loss in a catastrophic injury where a patient is brought in to emergency care, that to refuse transfusions in such a short window is putting a life at further risk.

Per your argument in the linked post you provided, I disagree with it.

 

[Virus]

what is wrong in believing in hell???