I worry about the children of religious parents.

[Enai de a lukal]

Right. Because god is the only excuse ever to be used as justification for an evil.

Yeah, I never said that, and that isn't relevant.

 

[MD]

Ah see, this is also not true. Religion is only one aspect of culture and community. You would need to provide a study to support that they lack identity.

I don't really need to provide a study, lol. It's kinda obvious look at the west right now, as religion dies so does the culture.

 

[YmirGF]

Personally speaking, I don't see it as being my business how parents raise their children. Unless the child is being physically or sexually abused, the parents are welcome to put whatever they wish into those eager young minds.

 

[MD]

The religious background in my family is mainly rooted in Irish sectarianism. My parents didn't raise me in it, and I think I'm better off without that sort of tradition, community and culture.

I've never had any problem with having a weak sense of identity that I've noticed, but I'd much rather have the identity I do have than one rooted in hatred and fear of people who go to a different church than I do... even if it was stronger than the one I have now.

So all religious people have hatred and fear of other religions? I wonder how the rest of the world even lives with each other. They should be killing each other according to your warped logic. Not very liberal of you now, to make vast sweeping generalizations.

 

[oldbadger]

I can't frubal you again. SO I must applaud.:clap:clap

I did it for both of us! Very strong post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Hello....

I think that you have an unbalanced POV on all this.
I live in England, and our NSPCC, National Society for the Protection of Children from Cruelty has one or two issues with obsessed atheists and their very strange ideas.

Atheist and Agnostic parents can have some very very worrying fixations about how their children should grow and develop.

This isn't really the relevant question. It isn't whether, as a demographic, religious or irreligious parents are better parents on average. The question is merely whether religious education of young children (which is tantamount to indoctrination/brainwashing/etc) presents any harms, whether it is worthy of concern, and/or whether it is a good thing. This is not a comparison of who makes better parents, but whether this particular behavior is, in itself, harmful or worrisome or not.

And these same parents might easily point fingers at firmly religious parents and accuse them of all kinds of wrongdoing. The fact is that the NSPCC records do not point to unusually higher instances of abuse from religious parents.

Once again, "abuse" is a red herring. There are levels of harm worthy of concern that fall well short of abuse, in the criminal sense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What evidence do you have to support your claim that these children are "possibly" being adversely impacted in their lives?

You're saying this isn't child abuse, but, yet, you're saying that it's still in the same ball park.

Please support your claim with something other than opinion and objection to religion and the young. This is what I've seen in this thread...unfavorable opinion towards religion and introducing religion to youth, without tangible evidence linking harm to such unbringing/influence.

Well, I've already cited one specific study that showed that certain types of religious upbringing have a clear negative impact on gays and lesbians. We also have PILES of firsthand anecdotal reports of the negative emotional affects of people's early religious education. And I suspect a bit of digging around could produce even more scientific evidence on the matter, as it is a subject that has had the attention of at least some researchers.

But without doing any extra homework, common sense goes a long ways; many traditions and doctrines within Christianity are strongly associated with guilt and fear- the doctrines of original sin and hell in particular. I can say firsthand that these ideas bothered me greatly when I was a teenager being raised Christian. It is hardly a stretch to imagine how being told that they are guilty of something that someone (who never existed) did wrong, and that, unless they play their cards right, they're in for everlasting torment after they die, would adversely affect someone. Failing to recognize this just strikes me people being deliberately obtuse; this part is pretty obvious.

Its also obvious that parents teaching anything to young children is taken far more authoritatively than information coming from a less trusted figure, or if the child was further along with their cognitive development (as in, a young adult). So merely by teaching your children the articles of your religion, you are creating a heavy- and likely unfair- presumption of their truth, which, when created at such a young age, oftentimes becomes ingrained- so much so that its very unrealistic to suppose that many people are going to honestly question it. Its become as much a part of them as being right-handed, or speaking English. But then, teaching religion as fact, particularly to those who don't know any better (children), is just sort of dishonest. The articles of your faith are not comparable to the multiplication tables or the periodic table of the elements. Moreover, religion generally forms a crucial part of one's identity- so inculcating a particular religious view is sort of like stealing a part of your child's independence, the same way that inculcating a particular political view or musical taste would be. It's just selfish.

And, at the end of the day, the fact remains that nothing is gained by it. The child would get as much or more out of religious education if it occured at an age where they were intellectually capable of navigating the information. And since there appear to be at least some potential for harms, the fact that there are no benefits would seem to make waiting the obvious choice.

 

[McBell]

As parents, we are not the ones responsible for the adult decisions of our children.

I wonder how much different things would be if parents could be held responsible for the bad decisions their adult children make if it can be shown that the parents upbringing had a direct connection....

 

[oldbadger]

This isn't really the relevant question. It isn't whether, as a demographic, religious or irreligious parents are better parents on average. The question is merely whether religious education of young children (which is tantamount to indoctrination/brainwashing/etc) presents any harms, whether it is worthy of concern, and/or whether it is a good thing. This is not a comparison of who makes better parents, but whether this particular behavior is, in itself, harmful or worrisome or not.

OK.....
Let's walk straight to just that point. Let's take the North American Nations and tribes. These all had firm beliefs, trusted their Gods, knew both good and bad spirits, and taught their fables and taboos to their children.
Now....... tell me what was 'worrying' or 'negative' about this religious parenthood? Just that...... I hope you can stick to the point.

Once again, "abuse" is a red herring. There are levels of harm worthy of concern that fall well short of abuse, in the criminal sense.

To dismiss 'child abuse' as a red-herring on a thread that deals with worry about child upbringing is 'contrary to what I expected or accept', which by the way is the second description of the word 'perverse'.

I still hold to my observations of many decades, and state that children from some very religious backgrounds act and behave in a most impressive way. And I believe that this has been mainly due to good upbringing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So all religious people have hatred and fear of other religions? I wonder how the rest of the world even lives with each other. They should be killing each other according to your warped logic. Not very liberal of you now, to make vast sweeping generalizations.

Wow - your version of what I said doesn't bear much resemblance to what I actually said. Try actually reading instead of going off half-cocked.

I was speaking to my particular case: my family's religious traditions is rather unsavoury. While this is far from unique, I wasn't making any generalizations.

The point that I was making is that in my particular case, if I was to take your advice, the result would be much worse than no religion in my upbringing at all.

You argued for people to embrace their religious tradition and history. Well, my particular religious tradition and history is negative. If I adopted some positive version of religion, I would not be embracing my religious tradition and history; I'd be embracing somebody else's.

 

[dawny0826]

Well, I've already cited one specific study that showed that certain types of religious upbringing have a clear negative impact on gays and lesbians. We also have PILES of firsthand anecdotal reports of the negative emotional affects of people's early religious education. And I suspect a bit of digging around could produce even more scientific evidence on the matter, as it is a subject that has had the attention of at least some researchers.

Your one study does not prove that religious upbringing translates to child abuse, which is the issue that I've had from the onset...the mindset that introducing children to and involving children in religious study and activity is ABUSIVE.

I acknowledge that introducing religion at a young age can yield negative impact. My argument is that religious influence at a young age isn't certain to yield the long-term negative consequences that the OP suggests.

But without doing any extra homework, common sense goes a long ways; many traditions and doctrines within Christianity are strongly associated with guilt and fear- the doctrines of original sin and hell in particular.

Even those who subscribe to the concepts of original sin and hell, don't have to be turds when talking about it with their kids.

Though yes, there are Christians who do instill guilt and fear in their household, there are also Christians who approach their faith as intelligent, loving, level-headed people and project these attributes when talking about faith concepts with their families.

do not I can say firsthand that these ideas bothered me greatly when I was a teenager being raised Christian. It is hardly a stretch to imagine how being told that they are guilty of something that someone (who never existed) did wrong, and that, unless they play their cards right, they're in for everlasting torment after they die, would adversely affect someone. Failing to recognize this just strikes me people being deliberately obtuse; this part is pretty obvious.

It's unfair of you to project your own negative experiences upon others as if these experiences apply as fact for everyone.

Its also obvious that parents teaching anything to young children is taken far more authoritatively than information coming from a less trusted figure, or if the child was further along with their cognitive development (as in, a young adult).

So, what do we do? Do we ignore our children and refrain from teaching them ANYTHING for fear that they might actually learn something from us?

Children in non religious households learn from their parents at an early age too. Positive and negative life lessons start young and do not always come in the form of religious influence.

It's really not your place to tell me how to raise my children, is it?

So merely by teaching your children the articles of your religion, you are creating a heavy- and likely unfair- presumption of their truth, which, when created at such a young age, oftentimes becomes ingrained- so much so that its very unrealistic to suppose that many people are going to honestly question it. Its become as much a part of them as being right-handed, or speaking English. But then, teaching religion as fact, particularly to those who don't know any better (children), is just sort of dishonest. The articles of your faith are not comparable to the multiplication tables or the periodic table of the elements. Moreover, religion generally forms a crucial part of one's identity- so inculcating a particular religious view is sort of like stealing a part of your child's independence, the same way that inculcating a particular political view or musical taste would be. It's just selfish.

For this to be true, a child would have to be void of free will all together. Most children buck against that which displeases them.

I've never met a child, who at a very young age didn't question authority. Asking a kid WWJD usually doesn't keep them from contemplating over what Jesus wouldn't do, believe me.

Further, I am an adult and my "truth" is still developing. The learning/exploration process never stops, does it?

And, at the end of the day, the fact remains that nothing is gained by it.

Oh, that's your opinion.

My kids have benefited greatly from learning valuable lessons such as being kind, respectful and accepting of those who are different than they are - loving others as Christ loves them - giving to charity - forgiving others and being obedient even though it's hard and sometimes it sucks to do the right thing.

The child would get as much or more out of religious education if it occured at an age where they were intellectually capable of navigating the information. And since there appear to be at least some potential for harms, the fact that there are no benefits would seem to make waiting the obvious choice.

Sure. Sure. The obvious choice was for me to refrain from teaching my kids the positive lessons that I have, which have helped to shape them into the awesome people that they continue to BECOME. Their journey is their own. I'm planting seeds. They can weed and tend to this garden in the way that they see fit as they grow and develop. I'm here to support and love them along their journey.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

OK.....
Let's walk straight to just that point. Let's take the North American Nations and tribes. These all had firm beliefs, trusted their Gods, knew both good and bad spirits, and taught their fables and taboos to their children.
Now....... tell me what was 'worrying' or 'negative' about this religious parenthood? Just that...... I hope you can stick to the point.

What I've said already would appear to cover this-

Its also obvious that parents teaching anything to young children is taken far more authoritatively than information coming from a less trusted figure, or if the child was further along with their cognitive development (as in, a young adult). So merely by teaching your children the articles of your religion, you are creating a heavy- and likely unfair- presumption of their truth, which, when created at such a young age, oftentimes becomes ingrained- so much so that its very unrealistic to suppose that many people are going to honestly question it. Its become as much a part of them as being right-handed, or speaking English. But then, teaching religion as fact, particularly to those who don't know any better (children), is just sort of dishonest. The articles of your faith are not comparable to the multiplication tables or the periodic table of the elements. Moreover, religion generally forms a crucial part of one's identity- so inculcating a particular religious view is sort of like stealing a part of your child's independence, the same way that inculcating a particular political view or musical taste would be. It's just selfish.

And, at the end of the day, the fact remains that nothing is gained by it. The child would get as much or more out of religious education if it occured at an age where they were intellectually capable of navigating the information. And since there appear to be at least some potential for harms, the fact that there are no benefits would seem to make waiting the obvious choice.

I don't know enough about the religions in question to go beyond this, and I imagine the part about the specific doctrines which tend to induce fear or guilt is not applicable here, but everything else still stands. And, of course, nothing I have said excludes the possibility (heck, near certitude) that there is a spectrum here, and that some forms of religious education, or education in particular religions, differs in its potential emotional/mental consequences.

To dismiss 'child abuse' as a red-herring on a thread that deals with worry about child upbringing is 'contrary to what I expected or accept', which by the way is the second description of the word 'perverse'.

That's fine. This clearly doesn't make any more sense, however, since it is obvious that there are levels of harm worthy of concern that fall short of abuse. Abuse is not a relevant criteria here, and the usage of the word "abuse" in the OP is unfortunate for that very reason.

I still hold to my observations of many decades, and state that children from some very religious backgrounds act and behave in a most impressive way.

That doesn't contradict anything I've said.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your one study does not prove that religious upbringing translates to child abuse

I never said it did, and I thought that we just dispensed with this confusion? I'm not arguing that the harm presented by religious indoctrination constitutes abuse. Only that it is potentially harmful, and that its potential for harm outweighs ANY positive consequences it may have (and that it has ANY is a rather large question mark at the moment).

I acknowledge that introducing religion at a young age can yield negative impact. My argument is that religious influence at a young age isn't certain to yield the long-term negative consequences that the OP suggests.

Ok, I can easily concede that, and nevertheless maintain everything I've already said.

Even those who subscribe to the concepts of original sin and hell, don't have to be turds when talking about it with their kids.

I don't even know what "being a turd" means in this context; I would say that teaching children about Hell or Original Sin at all is basically pointless, and quite possibly (if not likely) will have a negative emotional impact. Kids don't need to be told about how they bear guilt for someone else's action, particularly a fictional action by a fictional person.

Though yes, there are Christians who do instill guilt and fear in their household, there are also Christians who approach their faith as intelligent, loving, level-headed people and project these attributes when talking about faith concepts with their families.

Ok, and?

It's unfair of you to project your own negative experiences upon others as if these experiences apply as fact for everyone.

You have to stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say, or even imply, that they "apply as fact for everyone". However, pretending there is anything unusual about my reaction is just disingenuous; while hardly universal, I'd imagine my reaction was pretty typical.

So, what do we do? Do we ignore our children and refrain from teaching them ANYTHING for fear that they might actually learn something from us?

How about not teaching them about controversial, personal subjects until they are at an age when they can intellectually navigate the information and make a reasonable determination for themselves? What is gained by teaching a 5 year old religious doctrines?

There simply isn't anything at stake here.

Children in non religious households learn from their parents at an early age too. Positive and negative life lessons start young and do not always come in the form of religious influence.

Ok, and?

It's really not your place to tell me how to raise my children, is it?

I'm going to ignore this. Nobody is telling you what to do. This is a discussion forum. If you don't want to discuss this topic, then go elsewhere. Seriously.

For this to be true, a child would have to be void of free will all together.

Riiiiiiight. 5 year olds are in the habit of analyzing and critically evaluating the information their parents tell them. That's why most of them don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

If you are forced to deny the patently obvious, that's a bad sign for your position.

Oh, that's your opinion.

Sure. However, it is correct. Otherwise, you or someone else could enumerate some benefits. Silence speaks volumes here.

My kids have benefited greatly from learning valuable lessons such as being kind, respectful and accepting of those who are different than they are - loving others as Christ loves them - giving to charity - forgiving others and being obedient even though it's hard and sometimes it sucks to do the right thing.

Lessons that have no logical relation to any religious doctrine, could just as easily be imparted without reference to religious dogma, and thus are not really relevant evidence in this discussion.

 

[Quintessence]

Applaud this as well :clap :clap

Sport is in reality a substitute for religion and war in many countries. :bow:

For the record, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek there. I don't really feel that way about most sports. Usually. :run:

Ah see, this is also not true. Religion is only one aspect of culture and community. You would need to provide a study to support that they lack identity.

I'd hazard to say that very few humans lack any sense of culture or community given we're social animals. You would have to have an extremely isolated upbringing to entirely lack these things. Perhaps raised by wolves.

One of the reasons I sometimes contend that atheism can be a religion is because in at least some cases, a person's identity as an atheist is wrapped up with additional ideas and concepts as well as a sense of culture and community. It makes their atheism function very similarly to other religions, and can be a good, positive grounding for their sense of self just as any religious identity can be.

Well, I've already cited one specific study that showed that certain types of religious upbringing have a clear negative impact on gays and lesbians. We also have PILES of firsthand anecdotal reports of the negative emotional affects of people's early religious education. And I suspect a bit of digging around could produce even more scientific evidence on the matter, as it is a subject that has had the attention of at least some researchers.

But without doing any extra homework, common sense goes a long ways; many traditions and doctrines within Christianity are strongly associated with guilt and fear- the doctrines of original sin and hell in particular. I can say firsthand that these ideas bothered me greatly when I was a teenager being raised Christian. It is hardly a stretch to imagine how being told that they are guilty of something that someone (who never existed) did wrong, and that, unless they play their cards right, they're in for everlasting torment after they die, would adversely affect someone. Failing to recognize this just strikes me people being deliberately obtuse; this part is pretty obvious.

I agree. I think what I have a problem with is people continuously using "religion" when the assertions are really only supported with respect to specific religions or even specific teachings within those specific religions. Put the causation where it belongs, not where it doesn't. Furthermore, I think it is very important to not overlook the other side of the picture. Any ideology or teaching is going to have effects that can be assessed as "bad" as well as effects that can be assessed as "good." A balanced picture is in order, and that picture can be difficult to piece together. Don't just look at what you think is "bad," in other words.

I'll admit that given where I grew up and given my upbringing, I was simply not exposed to the sorts of "evils" certain Christian churches might bring to the table. When I left Catholicism at a young age, nobody once said to me I was going to go to hell, that I was making a bad decision, or that I was some terrible, evil person. These ideas of hellfire and damnation were never emphasized to me in Sunday school; the kind-hearted and benevolent nature of Jesus Christ was emphasized to me. But Christian mythology never really resonated with me, and on top of that I found church boring. My interest had already been captured by science, science fiction, and fantasy... and it remains so to this day. I understand and do not doubt that some use the religion of Christianity in ways I would disapprove of, but I also know there are many more who use it in beautiful, positive ways.

So merely by teaching your children the articles of your religion, you are creating a heavy- and likely unfair- presumption of their truth, which, when created at such a young age, oftentimes becomes ingrained- so much so that its very unrealistic to suppose that many people are going to honestly question it. Its become as much a part of them as being right-handed, or speaking English. But then, teaching religion as fact, particularly to those who don't know any better (children), is just sort of dishonest. The articles of your faith are not comparable to the multiplication tables or the periodic table of the elements. Moreover, religion generally forms a crucial part of one's identity- so inculcating a particular religious view is sort of like stealing a part of your child's independence, the same way that inculcating a particular political view or musical taste would be. It's just selfish.

I don't at all agree with your perception that raising a child in your cultural traditions is dishonest or selfish, but can I ask what you would suggest as an alternative? Would you suggest a broad-based approach that teaches children about all of the world's religions, theologies, cultures, histories, and philosophies instead?

And, at the end of the day, the fact remains that nothing is gained by it. The child would get as much or more out of religious education if it occured at an age where they were intellectually capable of navigating the information. And since there appear to be at least some potential for harms, the fact that there are no benefits would seem to make waiting the obvious choice.

I forget if you mentioned this earlier, but did you have any RE growing up? Religious education, like any education, is tailored to be appropriate for the age level of the recipients (or at least it should be if the program is any good). Early introduction to concepts is important, as it builds a foundation for future learning. Because of that, I don't think waiting is the obvious choice at all. This would be analogous to suggesting that since a child can't comprehend calculus now, we shouldn't start teaching them math in elementary school. Maybe you had some really bad RE teachers, but we mostly learned stories from the Bible and focused on how we should model Jesus' charitable and benevolent behavior; they didn't throw sophisticated theology and philosophy in the faces of children not capable of comprehending that sort of thing.

 

[Drolefille]

I don't really need to provide a study, lol. It's kinda obvious look at the west right now, as religion dies so does the culture.

Actually you do need to show some sort of lack of identity or your claim is junk.

And you may not LIKE western culture, but that doesn't make it culture. You may dislike Western history, but it's still history. You might not like the community, but it still is one.

You seem to have meant to say that they lack a culture, history and community that you approve of.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I agree. I think what I have a problem with is people continuously using "religion" when the assertions are really only supported with respect to specific religions or even specific teachings within those specific religions.

While I agree that there are certain religious traditions in particular that are the problem here (namely, certain varieties of Islam and Christianity), and that the most significant harms are associated with these, I nevertheless feel like my comments about intellectual independence and identity apply across the board. Even in religious that do NOT teach pernicious doctrines that frequently instill fear/guilt/hate/whatever, religion is not uncontroversial. Teaching your religion as fact is not the same as teaching the multiplication tables- sure, you believe your religion is true, but it may well not be, and failing to acknowledge this possibility is just deluded or naive. Moreover, religious commitments inform many aspects of a person's life and personal sense of identity- their social circles, their ethics and values, their entire metaphysical view of reality and the world, life, and humanity, and so on. It just seems best, even in relatively harmless religions, to just let the matter be until a more appropriate age (which likely will vary).

I don't at all agree with your perception that raising a child in your cultural traditions is dishonest or selfish

Careful now, I didn't say anything about "raising a child in your cultural traditions". To use the previous example, one needn't exclude the child from the celebration of Christmas- but would it really be a problem to allow them to participate without teaching them the religious truth-claims which ground the rituals? Do they really even need to know? Why can't the kid just open presents and eat Christmas cookies? Why do they need to be told stories about immaculate conceptions and God-men?

but can I ask what you would suggest as an alternative?

Just what you would normally do, sans any teaching of religious truth-claims.

Would you suggest a broad-based approach that teaches children about all of the world's religions, theologies, cultures, histories, and philosophies instead?

Once the child is at an appropriate age, I think that is important, yes. But when a child is truly just a child, why do they need to be told about matters far beyond their intellectual capacities in the first place?

I forget if you mentioned this earlier, but did you have any RE growing up?

Yes; baptized, raised, and confirmed Lutheran.

Maybe you had some really bad RE teachers, but we mostly learned stories from the Bible and focused on how we should model Jesus' charitable and benevolent behavior; they didn't throw sophisticated theology and philosophy in the faces of children not capable of comprehending that sort of thing.

I'm suggesting, among other things, that religion as a whole is a subject that cannot adequately be translated to children of a certain age. And even if it could, there would be no point in doing so. What is lost by leaving the matter be for a few years? Anything?

 

[oldbadger]

What I've said already would appear to cover this-

Thanks for your reply, but... 'No', it did not cover my question relating to North American Tribes' religions. The very strength and oneness of a tribe depended upon, not individuality, but 'unity', and the unifying bond which could strengthen the tribe and build togetherness and 'team' was the tribes' beliefs, holy rules, laws, ways, .... the whole life.

For example, I believe that many of these tribes, whilst acclaiming manhood and the warrior spirit, recognised homosexuality and gave it freedom and leeway. Maybe any Indian members can comment on this. And this one example tears down the 'generalisation' that children in religious homes is a 'generally' worrying condition.

I have memory, was dragged up in an agnostic household and I was utterly messed up with social dogmas, accent prejudice, job prejudice, gender prejudice, income prejudice, social deceit and hypocrisy, but none of it, absolutely none was anything to do with religious upbringing. But next door, a congregationalist minister (a trawler skipper) and his wife brought their daughters and sons up under the umbrella of big C Christianity and they were just such fine individuals for it. One of the boys left the church at 16, but continued within the family.

My own experience tells me that the OP need not bother to worry unduly about religious families' children. Our NSPCC seems to agree with that. If you don't believe that there is a God, ok, but leave other folks beliefs and their kids to get on with it their own way, cos kids from all kinds of backgrounds are coming unstuck, and all need attention.......... without the prejudgement that it's all religion's fault, cos it ain't.

 

[Reverend Rick]

LOL, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and most stink!

That said, I really don't care what people think. A parent can decide to move to Africa, take their children with them, live without air conditioning, TV, cellphones, sleep on the ground in a grass hut if they want.

You don't even have to raise your children, you can send them to military school, religious school, whatever YOU DECIDE.

You can send your tomboy daughters to finishing school if you so choose.

Parents have every right to indoctrinate their children. Lets not beat around the bush here and play goody two shoes.

Bottom line, if you think you see child abuse, report it.

Myself, I don't give a tinkers damn how someone else thinks other people should raise their children.

IT'S NOT YOUR CHILDREN SO YOUR OPINION DON'T MATTER.

What really ticks me off is people who think parents have that much influence on their children.

THEY GROW UP AND DO WHAT THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE, not what their parents always want.

I would be more concerned about 5th generation welfare queens raising children if I was inclined to stick my nose where it don't belong.

Like I said, if you suspect abuse, report it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Thanks for your reply, but... 'No', it did not cover my question relating to North American Tribes' religions. The very strength and oneness of a tribe depended upon, not individuality, but 'unity', and the unifying bond which could strengthen the tribe and build togetherness and 'team' was the tribes' beliefs, holy rules, laws, ways, .... the whole life.

And this is a value that many people, including myself, do not share. Unity, if it comes at the expense of independence and individuality, is not a valuable end. And there is this- whatever consequences the inculcation of such teachings may have, the inculcation of quite possibly false beliefs is, in itself, objectionable. Regardless, I've already pointed out that there is a spectrum here, and that certain religions may fall at different points along that spectrum; and I think what posters are primarily thinking about is Christianity and Islam, which dominate religious demographics both in the US (where many posters hail from, myself included) and around the world, to which my comments are eminently applicable.

And this one example tears down the 'generalisation' that children in religious homes is a 'generally' worrying condition.

No. An exception does not invalidate a generalization. That's what a generalization is- what is generally true, not what is universally true.

My own experience tells me that the OP need not bother to worry unduly about religious families' children. Our NSPCC seems to agree with that. If you don't believe that there is a God, ok, but leave other folks beliefs and their kids to get on with it their own way, cos kids from all kinds of backgrounds are coming unstuck, and all need attention..........

Fortunately, this is not an either/or scenario. We don't have to choose a single thing to be worried about with respect to the well-being of children. Do I worry about the religious indoctrination of children? Absolutely; it is unjustifiable. Are there things I worry about more? Of course, many many things.

without the prejudgement that it's all religion's fault, cos it ain't.

Yeah, I understand this is mostly a rhetorical comment, but have to point out that this is a strawman.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

LOL, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and most stink!

Speaking of which...

That said, I really don't care what people think.

Its a good thing you took the time to tell us what you think about everyone's thoughts then, eh?

A parent can decide to move to Africa, take their children with them, live without air conditioning, TV, cellphones, sleep on the ground in a grass hut if they want.

You don't even have to raise your children, you can send them to military school, religious school, whatever YOU DECIDE.

You can send your tomboy daughters to finishing school if you so choose.

Parents have every right to indoctrinate their children. Lets not beat around the bush here and play goody two shoes.

What's the point of posting all of this? Did you not read any of the thread, including the OP, just posted an emotional outburst based on your reaction to the thread title? None of this is at all relevant; nobody is discussing what parents can do, but what they should do.

What really ticks me off is people who think parents have that much influence on their children.

What really ticks me off is people who think that snow is white, or that the sum of 2 and 2 is 4. Seriously, what are they thinking?