Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[metis]

How would a child grow up in this society without knowing what football (or religion) is, even if they weren't immersed in it at home?

No matter how thorough you are exposing kids to stuff they might be passionate about, you won't be able to show them everything. For instance, I'd be useless to teach kids about Asian languages. Would not teaching kids about Asian languages mean that they might miss out on something that inspires them? Sure... but as long as they find something to engage with, mission accomplished.


So then you'd be opposed to an upbringing where kids are pressured to play football alone, and where taking up soccer would create family tension?

Since when do we supposedly have to show kids "everything" in order to teach them? What you're positing is a virtual impossibility.

Parents make moral decisions and teach morals to kids all the time-- or at least they should. Religion can be just one of those times, and I fail to see how there's some sort of intrinsic harm to kids if they are brought up in a religious setting. Like in pretty much most other areas, kids will grow up and eventually choose for themselves. As I previously mentioned, all three of our "kids" differ in what they eventually settled on.

There are some areas whereas to not do something is actually to do something. If parents don't bring Junior(ette) up with any religious background, the message to him/her is that religion really isn't important. Therefore, to not have any exposure to religion is as "fundamentalist" as being brought up in a fundamentalist religious denomination where kids are kept from being exposed to other religions/denominations. It's just "brainwashing" them so as to achieve a different end.

OTOH, what I believe is a better and fairer way is for parents either to bring up their children in a religion, or not to bring them up in a religion, but either way teach them about various religions along with atheistic and agnostic approaches so that the kids can have more information to eventually make up their own minds.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

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.

I think the importance of this changes form society to society. Maybe there are places where religion might be beneficial to tie a familly together, but it is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. I actually know by experience, as I was brought up in a multi-relgion household. Went to Hebrew School on the weekend and Catholic Grade School during the week. I chose in 8th grade to get baptized and confirmed, but my sister chose the other path towards judaism. We all celebrate both religions holidays together, we pray together during passover, we celebrate Christmas and go to church together. But, I can safely and honestly say that religious beliefs would never get in the way of any of our relationships. Our family is worth way more to each of us than religious adherence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since when do we supposedly have to show kids "everything" in order to teach them? What you're positing is a virtual impossibility.

If you really thinknthat I argued for this, you should re-read my post more carefully.

Parents make moral decisions and teach morals to kids all the time-- or at least they should. Religion can be just one of those times, and I fail to see how there's some sort of intrinsic harm to kids if they are brought up in a religious setting.

When did I say "intrinsic" harm? So far, I've been going for "frequent". I'm less concerned with whether religion must cause harm than with whether it does cause harm. And frequently, it does. Do you disagree?

Like in pretty much most other areas, kids will grow up and eventually choose for themselves.

And making a free, informed choice later is easier if expectations and pressures haven't been set up to try and guide the children onto a particular path.

As I previously mentioned, all three of our "kids" differ in what they eventually settled on.

There are some areas whereas to not do something is actually to do something. If parents don't bring Junior(ette) up with any religious background, the message to him/her is that religion really isn't important. Therefore, to not have any exposure to religion is as "fundamentalist" as being brought up in a fundamentalist religious denomination where kids are kept from being exposed to other religions/denominations. It's just "brainwashing" them so as to achieve a different end.

Give me a break. In what bizarro-world is not teaching about something "brainwashing"?

OTOH, what I believe is a better and fairer way is for parents either to bring up their children in a religion, or not to bring them up in a religion, but either way teach them about various religions along with atheistic and agnostic approaches so that the kids can have more information to eventually make up their own minds.

Emphasis mine.

So... after all this time, it seems you're actually fine with not raising a child in a religion?

I feel like we've been talking across each other here. I've never said anything against teaching children about religion. My whole objection has been to religious indoctrination: telling a kid from birth/age 7/age 13/whatever "you're a little Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever now just like Mommy and Daddy, and we're going to raise you to be a little Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever as an adult." (Sometimes with "... but we'll let you change your mind later if you really want to" tacked onto the end.)

 

[sojourner]

Actually, I'm acting as if religious upbringing covers a spectrum, and that the negative end of that spectrum is more significant than suggested by your descriptions of a religious upbringing.

Yes, it can be negative. But not more negative than positive.

"The vast majority of drunk drivers don't hit anyone. Should we ban drunk driving over the actions of a few?"

All drunk drivers, though, break the law. Bad analogy, because it doesn't correctly illustrate the point. There is no law against rearing one's child within one's religion.

Lots of things CAN happen. Children CAN be brought up in wonderful or horrible environments - religious or irreligious. On this issue, I'm more interested in the overall trend: on average, do you think that a religious upbringing helps or hurts a child's ability to choose a path for themselves later in life? Do you think it helps or hurts the child's intellectual and emotional well-being? I say it hurts more often than it helps.

Judging just from this forum, I'd say that it really doesn't make much of a difference. The majority of atheists here came from religious upbringing. On the same end of the spectrum we have both "brainwashing" and "antipathy." Both are harmful. And, since religion isn't really something one can hold out in front of oneself and glean anything but the most topical survey, but rather needs to be lived into (religion is more subjective than objective), to treat religion as merely some intellectual endeavor that one can "choose," as if one is at Wal-Mart picking out socks, is to really shortchange the child of any significant religious experience. Which, in effect, takes away that child's later real choice in the matter. One can't choose what one does not know about.

OTOH, when we look at the sort of harm that can be done by religious upbringing, we often see serious psychological harm:

Religious Trauma Syndrome

Even relatively mainstream religions can have nasty, long-lasting consequences. I've never heard of anyone dealing with decades of nightmares and phobias from being raised without religion. I hear about it frequently from people who were raised religiously... and not in wacky fringe groups or cults, but normal, mainstream denominations.

This isn't religion. It's mental illness. You can't treat "Carrie's mom" as if that's the norm for implementing religious values and fostering spirituality.

I have a friend who wound up being, not only an atheist, but an activist-atheist. He's a well-rounded individual, intelligent, successful, happy, and well-adjusted. He has a potential for real depth of living that some sort of spiritual experience would engender in him, but that potential will never be realized, due to his lack of experience. IOW, his potential for life has been curtailed. Isn't that harmful? In fact, isn't it just as harmful as causing trauma? A slow leak is just as harmful as an explosion.

 

[sojourner]

My whole objection has been to religious indoctrination: telling a kid from birth/age 7/age 13/whatever "you're a little Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever now just like Mommy and Daddy, and we're going to raise you to be a little Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever as an adult."

Rearing a child within a religion and a religious identity is not indoctrination. Indoctrination implies punishment, intimidation, and lack of choice. Not all religious upbringing does those things.

 

[sojourner]

I think the importance of this changes form society to society. Maybe there are places where religion might be beneficial to tie a familly together, but it is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. I actually know by experience, as I was brought up in a multi-relgion household. Went to Hebrew School on the weekend and Catholic Grade School during the week. I chose in 8th grade to get baptized and confirmed, but my sister chose the other path towards judaism. We all celebrate both religions holidays together, we pray together during passover, we celebrate Christmas and go to church together. But, I can safely and honestly say that religious beliefs would never get in the way of any of our relationships. Our family is worth way more to each of us than religious adherence.

You sort of missed my point. The duality your family experienced is your family's religious culture. It seemed to work. Other families have a singular religion. Other families have none.

 

[leibowde84]

You sort of missed my point. The duality your family experienced is your family's religious culture. It seemed to work. Other families have a singular religion. Other families have none.

We were definitely a secular household. Doctrine, dogma, beliefs were never important ... although now my mom is an agnostic due to the intense conversations we've had over the recent years. We kind of used the religions for holidays and excuses for everyone to be together.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rearing a child within a religion and a religious identity is not indoctrination. Indoctrination implies punishment, intimidation, and lack of choice. Not all religious upbringing does those things.

No, not all religious upbringing. For instance, I think the UU approach is quite positive. That's the only one, though.

It isn't always overt punishment and intimidation, but there is pressure to deny choice in most mainstream religious traditions. Take the practice of making a declaration of faith around 13, as happens in Catholic (Confirmation), many Protestant ("believer's baptism") and Jewish (Bar Mitzvah) traditions. Even setting aside family pressures to stay in the "family" religion (which can often be significant), there's inherent pressure in a life-long oath or commitment - the same sort of pressure that salespeople use to win sales.

In any case, I see a strong inconsistency in the position you describe: starting at birth, it's vitally important to raise your children in YOUR particular religion, but when they're old enough, you'll not only give them full freedom to follow any other path they choose, but this upbringing will equip them to divert from the tradition they were raised in (and that was so important to instill in them as children) even better than they would have otherwise? While I suppose it's theoretically possible, it strikes me as highly unlikely in practice. The two halves of this arrangement are at odds with each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This isn't religion. It's mental illness.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

You can't treat "Carrie's mom" as if that's the norm for implementing religious values and fostering spirituality.

That extreme end isn't the norm. It's pretty infrequent that a religious upbringing will be so debilitating that the person feels the need to seek professional help to overcome it. It's much more common for there to be less (but still non-negligible) harm.

I have a friend who wound up being, not only an atheist, but an activist-atheist. He's a well-rounded individual, intelligent, successful, happy, and well-adjusted. He has a potential for real depth of living that some sort of spiritual experience would engender in him, but that potential will never be realized, due to his lack of experience. IOW, his potential for life has been curtailed. Isn't that harmful? In fact, isn't it just as harmful as causing trauma? A slow leak is just as harmful as an explosion.

Why would you say that someone who is "well-rounded, intelligent, successful, happy, and well-adjusted" is being harmed? Merely not enjoying the things that you enjoy is not harm.

The sort of harm I've talked about is things like nightmares, phobias, feelings of dread... things that often aren't debilitating by any means but still negative, and recognized as negative by the person experiencing them. I don't see anyone here mentioning any consequencke that from a non-religious upbringing, but it's common from religious upbringings.

... and it speaks to the supposed benefits of religious upbringings that you and metis touched on. Do you think that experiencing visceral discomfort and stress in the "Pagan and occult" section of the bookstore or a phobia of stepping into another religion's house of worship is a help or a hindrance when trying to explore and understand other belief systems?

 

[metis]

If you really thinknthat I argued for this, you should re-read my post more carefully.

You wrote: "No matter how thorough you are exposing kids to stuff they might be passionate about, you won't be able to show them everything."

When did I say "intrinsic" harm? So far, I've been going for "frequent". I'm less concerned with whether religion must cause harm than with whether it does cause harm. And frequently, it does. Do you disagree?

I've made it rather clear and on more than one post here that religion could be used for good or bad.

And making a free, informed choice later is easier if expectations and pressures haven't been set up to try and guide the children onto a particular path.

Only if there are expectations there to begin with. Undoubtedly, with many families there are, but this could also apply to secular families who may feel that Junior has slipped off the deep end by affiliating with a religion, and I know of cases whereas this has happened. One of my former students came from a secular family but became a devout Muslim and, needless to say, this didn't go over well at all with her parents and one of her siblings.

Give me a break. In what bizarro-world is not teaching about something "brainwashing"?

I put it into quotation marks for a reason. Pushing a secular agenda on children can be just as much "brainwashing" as pushing a religious agenda.

So... after all this time, it seems you're actually fine with not raising a child in a religion?

I feel like we've been talking across each other here. I've never said anything against teaching children about religion. My whole objection has been to religious indoctrination: telling a kid from birth/age 7/age 13/whatever "you're a little Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever now just like Mommy and Daddy, and we're going to raise you to be a little Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever as an adult." (Sometimes with "... but we'll let you change your mind later if you really want to" tacked onto the end.)

I never once suggested that a child needs to be brought up in any religion, plus I've made it abundantly clear on several posts here on this thread that I am not in favor of indoctrination. What I am not willing to do is to tell others how they must raise their children in this context as I would resent it if others did it to me-- and some did. This is a personal choice families need to make, and whom am I to tell them what to do and how they must do this?

BTW, when asked what my religious beliefs are, I typically answer that I don't have any, and this is true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You wrote: "No matter how thorough you are exposing kids to stuff they might be passionate about, you won't be able to show them everything."

Again: you missed my point.

You expressed worry about the prospect that a parent wouldn't teach his or her child about religion; my point was that there is no shortage of things that parents don't teach their kids... and that's okay. It's okay even if they don't teach them something that ends up being (or could have ended up being) the child's greatest passion.

My parents didn't expose me to dance as a child. I never expressed an interest and my parents never pushed it on me. If I had been exposed to dance, could I have found an all-consuming passion that I would have found infinitely more rewarding than the life I did live? Maybe - I have no idea.

The "harm" you described is just normal human upbringing: out of the infinite possibilities open to us, our parents will only be able to expose us to some of them. Sometimes, we'll find later in life that the best path for us isn't one of the ones our parents showed us. Is this a fault against our parents? No.

The fact that your cousin wasn't exposed to religion is no more of a tragedy than the fact that I wasn't exposed to dance. The negative consequence of a non-religious upbringing you described is the normal, unavoidable consequence of ANY upbringing.

That's what I was getting at.

I've made it rather clear and on more than one post here that religion could be used for good or bad.

So you do agree that religious upbringings are frequently harmful?

Only if there are expectations there to begin with. Undoubtedly, with many families there are, but this could also apply to secular families who may feel that Junior has slipped off the deep end by affiliating with a religion, and I know of cases whereas this has happened. One of my former students came from a secular family but became a devout Muslim and, needless to say, this didn't go over well at all with her parents and one of her siblings.

... and I'm sure you know plenty of people in Christian families where converting to Islam would get a similar reaction.

I put it into quotation marks for a reason. Pushing a secular agenda on children can be just as much "brainwashing" as pushing a religious agenda.

Since when is ignoring a subject - i.e. having no agenda at all - "pushing an agenda"?

I never once suggested that a child needs to be brought up in any religion, plus I've made it abundantly clear on several posts here on this thread that I am not in favor of indoctrination.

Glad to hear that. I must have gotten a false impression by you disagreeing with me when I argued that a child doesn't need to be brought up in a religion.

What I am not willing to do is to tell others how they must raise their children in this context as I would resent it if others did it to me-- and some did. This is a personal choice families need to make, and whom am I to tell them what to do and how they must do this?

If the parents' choices rise to the level of harm, what's wrong with saying "I don't think you should do that"?

 

[metis]

If the parents' choices rise to the level of harm, what's wrong with saying "I don't think you should do that"?

If it's real harm, then it's best they should be warned if it's entirely possible to do so. Religion by itself is not harm, nor is raising a child in a secular household. The analogy I used before still applies imo-- religion is like a car-- it can be used for good or for harm.

BYW, I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant family that bad-mouthed other religions and even other Christian denominations, and look where I ended up. Fortunately, as my parents got older, they mellowed on the issue of religion and became much more tolerant.

Take care.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that labeling a child a member of any given belief system is irrational at best, but in most cases, I think calling it "immoral" is a bit hyperbolic. Parents who genuinely believe in a religion believe that they're doing what's in their child's best interests by labeling him or her a member of their religion. As long as the child isn't emotionally or physically harmed because of it, I wouldn't call it immoral; just irrational and misguided.

 

[sojourner]

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Of course they are!

Merely not enjoying the things that you enjoy is not harm.

I didn't say "enjoy the things that I enjoy." I said "depth of life." There's a difference. Not realizing one's potential is harm.

 

[metis]

I think that labeling a child a member of any given belief system is irrational at best, but in most cases, I think calling it "immoral" is a bit hyperbolic. Parents who genuinely believe in a religion believe that they're doing what's in their child's best interests by labeling him or her a member of their religion. As long as the child isn't emotionally or physically harmed because of it, I wouldn't call it immoral; just irrational and misguided.

But some may view what you've just written as being "irrational and misguided". However, I don't think anything good is served by using these labels.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But some may view what you've just written as being "irrational and misguided". However, I don't think anything good is served by using these labels.

I don't sugarcoat my views. I think religion in general is irrational and misguided, especially the Abrahamic religions. If describing my views accurately means using those labels, I have no problem using them. Simple as that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course they are!

Religion and mental illness overlap. Mentally ill people may be religious, mental illness will sometimes be behind religious beliefs, and religion can sometimes cause mental illness (see "religious trauma syndrome" above).

I didn't say "enjoy the things that I enjoy." I said "depth of life." There's a difference. Not realizing one's potential is harm.

So this person has been "harmed" despite being, as you put it, "well-rounded, intelligent, successful, happy, and well-adjusted"? Sounds to me like he's doing just fine.

When you ask him if he feels like he's been harmed, what does he say?

Edit: do you allow for the possibility that he experiences a "depth of life" in ways that you don't? Have *you* been harmed by not realizing your potential?

 

[sojourner]

No, not all religious upbringing. For instance, I think the UU approach is quite positive. That's the only one, though.

It's not the only one.

It isn't always overt punishment and intimidation, but there is pressure to deny choice in most mainstream religious traditions. Take the practice of making a declaration of faith around 13, as happens in Catholic (Confirmation), many Protestant ("believer's baptism") and Jewish (Bar Mitzvah) traditions. Even setting aside family pressures to stay in the "family" religion (which can often be significant), there's inherent pressure in a life-long oath or commitment - the same sort of pressure that salespeople use to win sales.

Hmmm... I've been heavily involved in several Christian denominations; I'm familiar with various creeds and statements of faith. I've never known any of them to inherently press any kind of "lifelong commitment." The closest thing I can think of is the Anglican baptism, where the candidate is "sealed in baptism and marked as Christ's own for ever." But if one comes to a position of disbelief, that "marking" will come to mean nothing.

In any case, I see a strong inconsistency in the position you describe: starting at birth, it's vitally important to raise your children in YOUR particular religion, but when they're old enough, you'll not only give them full freedom to follow any other path they choose, but this upbringing will equip them to divert from the tradition they were raised in (and that was so important to instill in them as children) even better than they would have otherwise?

Seemed to work for me. It's not so much the religion as it is the fostering of the spiritual self within a particular traditional vehicle that makes sense. Sometimes that vehicle is outgrown -- sometimes not. But if the family is spiritually-centered, then the freedom to find an appropriate vehicle later in life should be in place, and the self-awareness is fostered that will make finding such a vehicle much easier for the seeker.

 

[sojourner]

mental illness will sometimes be behind religious beliefs,

I don't buy that.

religion can sometimes cause mental illness

I don't buy that, either. Perhaps the way a religion is twisted and applied can cause mental problems, but not the religion, itself.

So this person has been "harmed" despite being, as you put it, "well-rounded, intelligent, successful, happy, and well-adjusted"? Sounds to me like he's doing just fine.

Is any person whose growth and development have been stunted "just fine?" Or have they been diminished, and thus harmed?

When you ask him if he feels like he's been harmed, what does he say?

We've never had that particular conversation. But I've known him well for 40 years, and I see how he interacts with important life-events. In some ways, he's a deep person, but in other ways, he's quite shallow. It's too bad he can't have that depth in all aspects of his life. I believe he'd be far happier than he is now.

do you allow for the possibility that he experiences a "depth of life" in ways that you don't?

Of course -- and he does, in a couple of aspects of life.

Have *you* been harmed by not realizing your potential?

Haven't we all?
This is a matter of degree. It's the difference between being "adequate" and being "grand." It's like asking if Mozart would have been harmed if he had only been as good a composer as John Williams. John Williams is adequate -- he's known, he's successful, but he's not "grand" in the same way as Mozart.

 

[sojourner]

I think that labeling a child a member of any given belief system is irrational at best, but in most cases, I think calling it "immoral" is a bit hyperbolic. Parents who genuinely believe in a religion believe that they're doing what's in their child's best interests by labeling him or her a member of their religion. As long as the child isn't emotionally or physically harmed because of it, I wouldn't call it immoral; just irrational and misguided.

How is it "irrational" or "misguided" to include children in one's religion?