Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[leibowde84]

But what's hypocritical are claims by some who say that one cannot truly understand their religion unless they're on the inside, and yet they seemingly forget their own words when they negatively judge another religion. It is arrogance and judgementalism on steroids, and when someone does it to them, their hypocrisy comes out in spades.

As one whom has studied Hinduism, it does make sense, and I can say that even if I'm not Hindu. Yes, it is a confusing religion if one looks at it from an Abrahaimc tradition, but the problem isn't the religion but is the fact that it's based on some different premises. Once one understands those premises, and also understands the tremendous variability of belief intrinsic within the faith itself, it's much easier to understand where it's coming from. Frankly, there are elements of it that I find more logical than the approach of the Abrahamics in general.

Hindus overall are not stupid people, and yet that is simply the implication of some here who simply are so myopic that they can't see beyond the end of their own nose. Was Gandhi ignorant? Anyone who has spent any time reading him well knows that he wasn't. Neither was Joseph Campbell, who might have been the world's foremost authority on religions overall and converted to Hinduism out of Christianity.

I agree buddy, but my point is that it is absolutely essential for members of a faith group to have "thick skin." No one has the right to get too upset about criticisms of their religion. If they can't stick up with reasoned and polite response, they should not consider themselves as true members of that faith. This is a clear indication that they practice blind faith ... some that I do wholeheartedly find dangerous.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree buddy, but my point is that it is absolutely essential for members of a faith group to have "thick skin." No one has the right to get too upset about criticisms of their religion. If they can't stick up with reasoned and polite response, they should not consider themselves as true members of that faith. This is a clear indication that they practice blind faith ... some that I do wholeheartedly find dangerous.

BTW, by "too upset" I mean acting irrationally or violently because of what they consider to be "insults to their faith." If God truly exists, does anyone really think that God is petty enough to care about what human beings say about him?!

 

[metis]

I agree buddy, but my point is that it is absolutely essential for members of a faith group to have "thick skin." No one has the right to get too upset about criticisms of their religion. If they can't stick up with reasoned and polite response, they should not consider themselves as true members of that faith. This is a clear indication that they practice blind faith ... some that I do wholeheartedly find dangerous.

I agree, and as a Jew I have skin thick enough to make a rhino jealous, but what I don't like to see is an entire religion being belittled by someone who has made it clear that (s)he doesn't tolerate it with his/her own religion.

Take care, and thanks for your input on this.

 

[LuisDantas]

Old thread, I know, but I just learned that Richard Dawkins has some very proper words to say about this matter.

There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents. … Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.

(...)

Would you ever speak of a 4-year-old's political beliefs? Hannah is a socialist 4-year-old, Mark a conservative. Who would ever dream of saying such a thing?” Dawkins asked. “Religion is the one exception we all make to the rule: don't label children with the opinions of their parents.

He is not only spot on, it is very much a worry that so few people voice such obviously legitimate concerns.

Sources : Richard Dawkins: Protect Children From Religious Indoctrination and Richard Dawkins: Children need to be ‘protected’ from religion

 

[metis]

Generally speaking, in anthropology we recognize that there have been and are in all societies what we call "the five basic institutions", and they are family, economic, political, educational, and religious. Some may not like the latter, but the fact of the matter is that religion is intrinsic today and in every society that we have ever studied.

As parents, we will have an influence on our children in all five of these areas, even if that influence were to be one of neglect. This is the way it is. To pull one of these five out and say this is a no-no really doesn't make much sense, as to not have an influence is to have an influence-- there's no way of getting around it. Even if one tries to avoid the subject, the child will still be influenced by others that may indeed have an impact that the parents have tried to avoid.

So, to me, bringing up a child within a religion is not intrinsically wrong, but how they're brought up in such could indeed be a problem. With my kids, we exposed them to various religious approaches, and one of our "kids" and their families are in Judaism, another in Christianity, and another is secular. However, we attend each others functions and never argue over religion. Our six grandchildren, now 8-17 years of age, also attend each other's functions, and they don't argue religion.

If we had to do it all over again, we wouldn't change a thing because they are all open-minded and considerate. As our grandchildren get older, they will eventually decide for themselves in which direction they prefer to go. As of now, they do have the framework based on education and their experiences to make that choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To pull one of these five out and say this is a no-no really doesn't make much sense, as to not have an influence is to have an influence-- there's no way of getting around it. Even if one tries to avoid the subject, the child will still be influenced by others that may indeed have an impact that the parents have tried to avoid.

That's the thing, though: it isn't a matter of pulling one out; it's a matter of treating religion like most of the others.

In our society, we generally frown upon parents trying to dictate the politics of their children, or choosing their major in college. The only one of the other five "institutions" you listed where we don't generally grant people the right to choose their own path is family, and only out of necessity, IMO.

Yeah, there's the occasional parent who will dress their baby in an "I hate Obama" onesie or sign their five-year-old up as a member of the Young Marxist-Leninists, but they're the exception, and generally looked on unfavourably.

OTOH, how many kids do we see wearing religious clothing or articles? Parents who would never dream of decorating their kids with their political affiliation often have no problem decorating them with their religious affiliation.

... so the question isn't "why single out religion?"; it's "why not treat religion like other similar institutions?"

 

[metis]

That's the thing, though: it isn't a matter of pulling one out; it's a matter of treating religion like most of the others.

In our society, we generally frown upon parents trying to dictate the politics of their children, or choosing their major in college. The only one of the other five "institutions" you listed where we don't generally grant people the right to choose their own path is family, and only out of necessity, IMO.

Yeah, there's the occasional parent who will dress their baby in an "I hate Obama" onesie or sign their five-year-old up as a member of the Young Marxist-Leninists, but they're the exception, and generally looked on unfavourably.

OTOH, how many kids do we see wearing religious clothing or articles? Parents who would never dream of decorating their kids with their political affiliation often have no problem decorating them with their religious affiliation.

... so the question isn't "why single out religion?"; it's "why not treat religion like other similar institutions?"

I explained why already. One point to reiterate is to not bring up a child in a religious setting is a religious statement in and of itself, especially when there are others all around the child who do have religious believes and observances. Should they stop being involved in any religious activity just to not have any influence on religion?

No, for most parents, avoidance is simply not workable, but bringing up children so they recognize there are other options available is workable. To bring kids up not being exposed to religious beliefs may cause more of a problem that exposing them to such influences, such as my sister experienced.

Gotta cut this short.

 

[sojourner]

That's the thing, though: it isn't a matter of pulling one out; it's a matter of treating religion like most of the others.

In our society, we generally frown upon parents trying to dictate the politics of their children, or choosing their major in college. The only one of the other five "institutions" you listed where we don't generally grant people the right to choose their own path is family, and only out of necessity, IMO.

Yeah, there's the occasional parent who will dress their baby in an "I hate Obama" onesie or sign their five-year-old up as a member of the Young Marxist-Leninists, but they're the exception, and generally looked on unfavourably.

OTOH, how many kids do we see wearing religious clothing or articles? Parents who would never dream of decorating their kids with their political affiliation often have no problem decorating them with their religious affiliation.

... so the question isn't "why single out religion?"; it's "why not treat religion like other similar institutions?"

When children are little, they are included in all aspects of the family -- including religious affiliation. They are included at family meals, trips to the zoo, going to the grocery store, vacations, and religious observances. That's because children aren't completely self-differentiated. When they become self-differentiated enough to make decisions for themselves, they should be encouraged to make those decisions. Until they become so self-differentiated, it would be neglectful to not fully include them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When children are little, they are included in all aspects of the family -- including religious affiliation. They are included at family meals, trips to the zoo, going to the grocery store, vacations, and religious observances. That's because children aren't completely self-differentiated.

It's because young children require supervision. Parents usually exclude their children from significant aspects of their lives.

It's normal for parents not to bring their children to work every day. It would be bizarre for an engineer to say to his child "I'm going to raise you to be an engineer like me until you choose some other career".

When they become self-differentiated enough to make decisions for themselves, they should be encouraged to make those decisions. Until they become so self-differentiated, it would be neglectful to not fully include them.

You realize that you just accused all parents who didn't raise their children in a religion (e.g. mine) of neglect, right?

 

[LuisDantas]

I can personally testify that there is no point in attempting to "spare" children from one's religious beliefs.

It is simply far more harm than it is worth. It leads to a false sense of respect and avoids the possibility of open discussion on the matter.

Anedoctal evidence, I suppose, but a sincere one.

 

[metis]

It's because young children require supervision. Parents usually exclude their children from significant aspects of their lives.

It's normal for parents not to bring their children to work every day. It would be bizarre for an engineer to say to his child "I'm going to raise you to be an engineer like me until you choose some other career".

But how does one do this is Mom and Dad both go to services on the weekend? And why shouldn't they bring Junior? And how can kids make choices when they're older if they have no idea where to start from, and this is what my nephew ran across because my sister not only didn't raise him in her Lutheran faith but also never taught him about their religion and denomination let alone any others. When he got interested, he called me, and I directed him to a book that I used in helping to prepare me to teach a comparative religions course.

It seems to me that you're proposing an "ignorance is bliss" approach, whereas I feel the opposite is generally preferable, especially in a multi-religious society such as we have here in the States.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I explained why already. One point to reiterate is to not bring up a child in a religious setting is a religious statement in and of itself, especially when there are others all around the child who do have religious believes and observances. Should they stop being involved in any religious activity just to not have any influence on religion?

No, for most parents, avoidance is simply not workable, but bringing up children so they recognize there are other options available is workable. To bring kids up not being exposed to religious beliefs may cause more of a problem that exposing them to such influences, such as my sister experienced.

Gotta cut this short.

Maybe an analogy will help you understand my position:

Imagine a parent whose attitude was "this is a football family. When my kids are old enough, they can decide for themselves, but I'm going to raise them to cheer for the Packers and play football just like me." This is, IMO, the analogy to what you're proposing.

I think you're assuming my position is something like "this is a no-football hoyse. If you do want to watch football, do it quietly after the kids go to bed."

What I'm suggesting is more like "son, what inspires YOU is most important. You don't have to like football as much as I do... or at all. Let's help you explore all sorts of things, and when we find your passion, we'll support it, whether that's art, nature, football, some other sport, or something else."

 

[sojourner]

It's because young children require supervision. Parents usually exclude their children from significant aspects of their lives.

It's normal for parents not to bring their children to work every day. It would be bizarre for an engineer to say to his child "I'm going to raise you to be an engineer like me until you choose some other career".

It's not only because children require supervision. It's also because it's important for a child to have a clear identity within a family and to be included in the family.

Work is generally not a family activity -- rather, it's an individual activity. Unless there's a mom & pop family business, in which case, children are often involved in it as soon as they're able. In fact, I often went to the office and to work-related activities with my father, because I was able to do so. Had I not been able to do so, I'm sure my dad would have helped me explore his work from the outside and included me in that way.

You realize that you just accused all parents who didn't raise their children in a religion (e.g. mine) of neglect, right?

No I didn't. You misread something. If your family is non-religious, then by all means engage them in being not-religious, until they can make a decision for themselves. If you family is religious, then engage them in the family religion, until they can make a decision for themselves.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe an analogy will help you understand my position:

Imagine a parent whose attitude was "this is a football family. When my kids are old enough, they can decide for themselves, but I'm going to raise them to cheer for the Packers and play football just like me." This is, IMO, the analogy to what you're proposing.

I think you're assuming my position is something like "this is a no-football hoyse. If you do want to watch football, do it quietly after the kids go to bed."

What I'm suggesting is more like "son, what inspires YOU is most important. You don't have to like football as much as I do... or at all. Let's help you explore all sorts of things, and when we find your passion, we'll support it, whether that's art, nature, football, some other sport, or something else."

You're assuming that religion is the same sort of activity/hobby as football. But it isn't. Football is something you "do" on the weekends and Monday nights during the season. And it's a little bumper sticker or flag you put on the car, and a sweatshirt or hat. If Dad's a coach or player, it's a job. Religion isn't any of those things. It's a way of being. If you reared your child in a manner other than your way-of-being, wouldn't that be dishonest? And wouldn't that be teaching the child the wrong thing?

 

[Unification]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

Thankfully, some kind of force usually ends up trying to nudge at our mind to steer us away from the mental conditioning. Then we choose and decide to either ignore the better judgement or altar the mind. Thankfully, there is a gradual shift and change in conscious, collectively.

 

[Unification]

Children are rather smart. They ask a lot of questions that parents don't have answers to, and/or the parent attempts to justify something hypocritical. The responsibility ultimately lies on adults initially, who still lack awareness themselves for the most part.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But how does one do this is Mom and Dad both go to services on the weekend?

It seems to me that many working couples have figured out childcare solutions for times when both parents are busy.

And why shouldn't they bring Junior?

Respect for their child.

And how can kids make choices when they're older if they have no idea where to start from,

How can they pick a cricket position if they've never played cricket as all?

Despite the importancethat religion plays in your own life, it *is* optional.

and this is what my nephew ran across because my sister not only didn't raise him in her Lutheran faith but also never taught him about their religion and denomination let alone any others. When he got interested, he called me, and I directed him to a book that I used in helping to prepare me to teach a comparative religions course.

And my college girlfriend's sister, who went to a Catholic school, described her world religions course as her "class in how everything but the Catholic Church is wrong." Religious upbringing can often be an impediment to wider religious exploration.

It seems to me that you're proposing an "ignorance is bliss" approach, whereas I feel the opposite is generally preferable, especially in a multi-religious society such as we have here in the States.

I'm suggesting a kid-centered approach instead of one that revolves around the beliefs and interests of the parent.

I'm also saying that bringing up a kid to be focused on a single religion often hampers interaction in that multi-religious society. It seems like you're assuming a UU-ish religious upbringing, but religious upbringings run over a wide spectrum, and it isn't reasonable to expect, say, a kid to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of Catholicism from an Orange Lodge upbringing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're assuming that religion is the same sort of activity/hobby as football. But it isn't. Football is something you "do" on the weekends and Monday nights during the season. And it's a little bumper sticker or flag you put on the car, and a sweatshirt or hat. If Dad's a coach or player, it's a job. Religion isn't any of those things. It's a way of being. If you reared your child in a manner other than your way-of-being, wouldn't that be dishonest? And wouldn't that be teaching the child the wrong thing?

I think that there's a range of attitude towards both religion and football that aren't captured in your argument, but regardless...

Even if your religion is your way of being, it's YOUR way of being, and IMO it's rather heinous for someone to try to impose a "way of being" on someone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not only because children require supervision. It's also because it's important for a child to have a clear identity within a family and to be included in the family.

Religious identity does not need to be part and parcel of family identity.

No I didn't. You misread something. If your family is non-religious, then by all means engage them in being not-religious, until they can make a decision for themselves. If you family is religious, then engage them in the family religion, until they can make a decision for themselves.

My Mom was religious but respected my sister and I enough not to impose her religious beliefs on us.

I think I read you just fine.

 

[metis]

Maybe an analogy will help you understand my position:

Imagine a parent whose attitude was "this is a football family. When my kids are old enough, they can decide for themselves, but I'm going to raise them to cheer for the Packers and play football just like me." This is, IMO, the analogy to what you're proposing.

I think you're assuming my position is something like "this is a no-football hoyse. If you do want to watch football, do it quietly after the kids go to bed."

What I'm suggesting is more like "son, what inspires YOU is most important. You don't have to like football as much as I do... or at all. Let's help you explore all sorts of things, and when we find your passion, we'll support it, whether that's art, nature, football, some other sport, or something else."

But if a child is brought up so as (s)he doesn't even know what football is, how can (s)he make an educated choice? For me, it's better to bring them up understanding the basics of football, baseball, soccer, etc., and then they can make an educated selection if they so choose to do so later. I'm for education but not for brainwashing, and we didn't bring our kids up doing the latter.