Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[Debater Slayer]

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

Because children are not mature enough to choose any particular religion over others. It is like labeling a child a Democrat or Republican; it doesn't make sense at all.

 

[JoStories]

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.

Nicely said. I grew up in a very similar way, which I have said before. Now, I am of an eastern faith, my mom is a devout Christian, my sister is pagan and the other is atheist. It makes for an interesting mix, particularly at family gatherings.

 

[sojourner]

Because children are not mature enough to choose any particular religion over others. It is like labeling a child a Democrat or Republican; it doesn't make sense at all.

I don't think it's at all like labeling a child a member of a political party. A political party is comprised of people who embrace a particular political ideology. Since children can't vote, it would be ridiculous to include them in something whose sole function is to garner votes. But religion isn't an ideology so much as it is a way of life. And, as I said earlier, it's wise to fully include children in the way of life that the rest of the family lives. Christianity (which is what most of us are talking about here) is more about building community and fostering relationships based in love than it is about particular beliefs. Jesus didn't turn children away; neither should we. It is fitting and proper for children to be included fully in our religious communities and families, and enveloped fully in the loving relationships that those communities foster. When the child is older, the child can choose what vehicle for that spiritual expression of love is best for her or him.

What's ridiculous is assuming that, just because a child is incapable of knowing all about good nutrition and is incapable of making informed choices, she or he shouldn't be fed. They should merely be shown pictures of food and should be lectured about food, until they are old enough to feed themselves. That's the dynamic folks are suggesting here by withholding religion and religious affiliation from children.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think it's at all like labeling a child a member of a political party. A political party is comprised of people who embrace a particular political ideology. Since children can't vote, it would be ridiculous to include them in something whose sole function is to garner votes. But religion isn't an ideology so much as it is a way of life. And, as I said earlier, it's wise to fully include children in the way of life that the rest of the family lives. Christianity (which is what most of us are talking about here) is more about building community and fostering relationships based in love than it is about particular beliefs. Jesus didn't turn children away; neither should we. It is fitting and proper for children to be included fully in our religious communities and families, and enveloped fully in the loving relationships that those communities foster. When the child is older, the child can choose what vehicle for that spiritual expression of love is best for her or him.

What's ridiculous is assuming that, just because a child is incapable of knowing all about good nutrition and is incapable of making informed choices, she or he shouldn't be fed. They should merely be shown pictures of food and should be lectured about food, until they are old enough to feed themselves. That's the dynamic folks are suggesting here by withholding religion and religious affiliation from children.

Christianity is usually not really about fostering loving relationships. Most major Christian institutions around the world, especially the Catholic Church, promote homophobia, sexism, and religious intolerance. Furthermore, religion is not like food at all; withhold food from a child and the child will die. Withhold religion from a child and nothing will happen at all. Teaching children basic principles such as "don't lie," "don't steal," "don't cheat," etc., should be sufficient for them to grow up and think in a healthy way. Then they can think about religion and choose one that fits them.

 

[metis]

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.

So, if I label you as being "irrational and misguided", which also is not "sugarcoating" you, or just spout off and say that it is as "simple as that", that's all fine and dandy?

I would suggest that since religion in general, or any religion in particular, cannot be verified or denied in reality, maybe it's best not to be so harsh in our judgments. As Confucius supposedly taught (paraphrased): the more you know, the more you know you really don't know. As one who is pretty much agnostic, I'm not gonna take a position either way.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So, if I label you as being "irrational and misguided", which also is not "sugarcoating" you, or just spout off and say that it is as "simple as that", that's all fine and dandy?

I would suggest that since religion in general, or any religion in particular, cannot be verified or denied in reality, maybe it's best not to be so harsh in our judgments. As Confucius supposedly taught (paraphrased): the more you know, the more you know you really don't know. As one who is pretty much agnostic, I'm not gonna take a position either way.

When someone, as an example, makes a claim that an omnipotent, omniscient god cares about what people do in their bedrooms and will torture them for eternity if they sleep with the wrong person, I can "verify in reality" that their claim is irrational, misguided, and downright ridiculous. Political correctness doesn't trump honesty. I try my best not to be irrational and misguided, but if you want to label me that, you are free to do so. It's not about being "fine and dandy"; it's about honesty as opposed to superficial political correctness.

 

[metis]

When someone, as an example, makes a claim that an omnipotent, omniscient god cares about what people do in their bedrooms and will torture them for eternity if they sleep with the wrong person, I can "verify in reality" that their claim is irrational, misguided, and downright ridiculous. Political correctness doesn't trump honesty. I try my best not to be irrational and misguided, but if you want to label me that, you are free to do so. It's not about being "fine and dandy"; it's about honesty as opposed to superficial political correctness.

First of all, I don't believe in such a god, nor do I believe in any god, but I'm not going to the extreme of your posts here, which are highly judgmental and based on nothing but your own prejudices. You think you know but the reality is that you cannot know, so you are just as rabid as the most devout fundamentalist.

 

[metis]

Anyhow, on dat note, I'm gonna be outta Dodge for several days as I move up to my place in da Great White North (da U.P.), so please guard da fort from da rabid fundamentalist atheists while I'm gone, OK?

 

[sojourner]

Christianity is usually not really about fostering loving relationships.

Yes. It is. To wit:

lawyer: Which commandment is the greatest?
Jesus: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." This is the first and greatest commandment, and a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The whole compendium of the Law and prophets depend upon these two.

Most major Christian institutions around the world, especially the Catholic Church, promote homophobia, sexism, and religious intolerance.

You realize that the religious institutions are not the religion, itself, right? And you further realize that, as human constructions, religions and the institutions that foster them are subject to all the foibles and imperfections of humanity, because it is fallible human beings that ply them.

Furthermore, religion is not like food at all; withhold food from a child and the child will die. Withhold religion from a child and nothing will happen at all.

Religion is spiritual nutrition. They don't get it, they die spiritually.

Teaching children basic principles such as "don't lie," "don't steal," "don't cheat," etc., should be sufficient for them to grow up and think in a healthy way.

Rules. Teach rules. Really? Srrsly? Don't teach about relationships, or about living in harmony without rules that "must" be followed. Don't teach them how to value themselves or others. Don't teach them how to develop their inner selves. Don't teach them to give expression to their spiritual being. Just teach them not to run with the scissors.

Then they can think about religion and choose one that fits them.

When they're old enough to "think about religion," they've passed the point where being spiritually developed is intuitive for them.

 

[sojourner]

When someone, as an example, makes a claim that an omnipotent, omniscient god cares about what people do in their bedrooms and will torture them for eternity if they sleep with the wrong person, I can "verify in reality" that their claim is irrational, misguided, and downright ridiculous. Political correctness doesn't trump honesty. I try my best not to be irrational and misguided, but if you want to label me that, you are free to do so. It's not about being "fine and dandy"; it's about honesty as opposed to superficial political correctness.

"Someone" "making a claim" about a God that puts his nose into our bedrooms does not constitute religion. It does constitute unfounded piety.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes. It is. To wit:

lawyer: Which commandment is the greatest?
Jesus: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength." This is the first and greatest commandment, and a second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The whole compendium of the Law and prophets depend upon these two.

You realize that the religious institutions are not the religion, itself, right? And you further realize that, as human constructions, religions and the institutions that foster them are subject to all the foibles and imperfections of humanity, because it is fallible human beings that ply them.

I find it strange that Bibles come with a copy of the Old Testament, yet a lot of Christians keep saying that the texts of the Old Testament don't represent their religion. Do you believe that the god of the Old Testament is the same one of the New Testament or not? And if not, then why do copies of the New Testament come with a copy of the Old Testament?

Religion is spiritual nutrition. They don't get it, they die spiritually.

I'm not sure what spirituality means to you, but I can tell you that I don't feel any worse for not having a religion. Quite the contrary, actually.

Rules. Teach rules. Really? Srrsly? Don't teach about relationships, or about living in harmony without rules that "must" be followed. Don't teach them how to value themselves or others. Don't teach them how to develop their inner selves. Don't teach them to give expression to their spiritual being. Just teach them not to run with the scissors.

Those things are not exclusive to religion. They can learn to value themselves, develop their inner selves, and express themselves through secular education too.

When they're old enough to "think about religion," they've passed the point where being spiritually developed is intuitive for them.

That means conversion is useless beyond childhood, which most people would tell you is simply untrue. What about all of those born-again Christians, for example? Or the millions of Muslim converts who say that their new religion has helped them develop spiritually?

 

[sojourner]

I find it strange that Bibles come with a copy of the Old Testament, yet a lot of Christians keep saying that the texts of the Old Testament don't represent their religion. Do you believe that the god of the Old Testament is the same one of the New Testament or not? And if not, then why do copies of the New Testament come with a copy of the Old Testament?

I find it strange that you would find it strange. All the bible is, is the written Tradition of the Jews/Christians. The texts do represent Xy, but it's an interpretive representation. Xy is a reinterpretation of how God builds relationship with God's people.

I'm not sure what spirituality means to you, but I can tell you that I don't feel any worse for not having a religion. Quite the contrary, actually.

I don't know you, so I won't presume to speak to your particular spiritual disposition, but here are some generalities that may be apropos:

People with high blood pressure are usually asymptomatic, too. Cancer will literally eat you away before you know you have it. The elderly gradually lose sight or hearing, and don't notice that their sight or hearing is bad.

Religion =/= spirituality. Religion is one vehicle for spirituality. Maybe religion doesn't work for you. That's OK.

Those things are not exclusive to religion. They can learn to value themselves, develop their inner selves, and express themselves through secular education too.

Can they? Spirituality is all about the inner life and the divine spark of the human spirit. Does secular education address that?

That means conversion is useless beyond childhood, which most people would tell you is simply untrue.

"Conversion" from... what, exactly? conversion is a cognitive dynamic. What is it, exactly that small children are converting from??? Bringing small children into the religious family has nothing to do with conversion. When they become cognitively able, their faith may be confirmed, but that's not conversion, either. I guess I don't see what you're getting at here.

What about all of those born-again Christians, for example?

How is this germane to the intuitive nature of spiritual development?

Or the millions of Muslim converts who say that their new religion has helped them develop spiritually?

maybe it has. One always grows spiritually. But it's easier to grow if one has a foundation to build upon.

 

[serp777]

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

For the same reason its irrational to include a 3 year old in a political group. Not only are younger children not developed enough to understand sophisticated theological concepts, but they aren't even aware of them. They aren't capable of even understanding the various references and language used in the bible ro Qur'an or whatever. The parents are imposing their beliefs, which they cannot possibly know are true (e.g. they dont have special knowledge), onto a person who is extremely susceptible to influence and propaganda. Its a form of intensive indoctrination--the child has no choice but to be exposed, day in and out, to whatever ridiculous beliefs the parents "KNOW" are true. Parents shouldn't be indoctrinating their children with any superfluous and unnecessary beliefs that have no evidence and stiffle curiosity and creative thinking--if a child knows God is the truth because his/her parents indoctrinated him/her, then it likely prevents the child from think about alternative explanations.

 

[serp777]

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.

What you're saying is totally whimsical and arbitrary though. You state that you feel parents should be able to raise their children with their own religious and political beliefs. But of course you and I wouldn't accept parents teaching their children some hypothetical religion where murder, rape, and purgery are acceptable in the eyes to the celestial taco. Nor would you and I accept parents indoctrinating their children with nazi political views and ideas of social darwinism, where the child believes that the weak should die and the strong should prosper into some nonsense about a master race.

So what families teach children is absolutely subject to the society we're in and what we feel is morally acceptable. We do indeed limit families in what they can and cannot do. The family should obviously not have ultimate authority over children. Therefore you don't have any definable/consistent criteria for what is acceptable to teach children and what is not acceptable. I, and many other people, put political and religious indoctrination in the unacceptable category.It stifles personal thoughts if your supreme dictator parents are doing all the thinking for you. it doesn't help anyone. All parents should do is encourage their children to explore a variety of things.

 

[metis]

What you're saying is totally whimsical and arbitrary though. You state that you feel parents should be able to raise their children with their own religious and political beliefs. But of course you and I wouldn't accept parents teaching their children some hypothetical religion where murder, rape, and purgery are acceptable in the eyes to the celestial taco. Nor would you and I accept parents indoctrinating their children with nazi political views and ideas of social darwinism, where the child believes that the weak should die and the strong should prosper into some nonsense about a master race.

So what families teach children is absolutely subject to the society we're in and what we feel is morally acceptable. We do indeed limit families in what they can and cannot do. The family should obviously not have ultimate authority over children. Therefore you don't have any definable/consistent criteria for what is acceptable to teach children and what is not acceptable. I, and many other people, put political and religious indoctrination in the unacceptable category.It stifles personal thoughts if your supreme dictator parents are doing all the thinking for you. it doesn't help anyone. All parents should do is encourage their children to explore a variety of things.

You actually have misinterpreted what I was saying as I in no way justify all and any religious teachings, so I was not being "whimsical and arbitrary". Nor did I state, imply, or believe that parents supposedly have sole authority over their kids. What you have done is to read things into what I posted that I did not state nor believe.

Instead, what I have opposed is the extreme position going in the other direction, namely that somehow raising a child in any religious tradition is somehow unfair to that child. On top of that I have repeatedly stated that I prefer exposure to different religious and non-religious philosophies.

 

[serp777]

You actually have misinterpreted what I was saying as I in no way justify all and any religious teachings, so I was not being "whimsical and arbitrary". Nor did I state, imply, or believe that parents supposedly have sole authority over their kids. What you have done is to read things into what I posted that I did not state nor believe.

Instead, what I have opposed is the extreme position going in the other direction, namely that somehow raising a child in any religious tradition is somehow unfair to that child. On top of that I have repeatedly stated that I prefer exposure to different religious and non-religious philosophies.

No, I didn't misinterpret what you said at all. First of all I never said that you said you justified all or any religious teachings. And my statement about being whimsical and arbitrary was discussing an entirely different point. In fact I explicitly pointed out cases of religious or political beliefs you wouldn't justify, so of course i never implied or suggested what you say i did. I also never said that you supported the proposition that parents should have sole authority over their children, which is also confirmed by my sentence pointing out belief systems you would not accept parents teaching their kids. You're misunderstanding the point of the sentence, which is that because families shouldn't have ultimate authority over their children, why should they have the authority to indoctrinate their children into a religion without evidence?

I simply pointed out how whimsical and arbitrary your position is in this respect-

"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"

.

And yet you'd be perfectly willing to pull one of those 5 influences out when the family is teaching their child that murder and rape is acceptable in the eyes of the celestial taco. So either you accept that parents should be able to teach whatever religion they want to their children, or you accept that parents should not indoctrinate their children period, or you draw some random, whimsical, arbitrary borderline between teaching religions that you find acceptable and religions you don't based on whatever morality you happen to think is correct. This is what "whimsical and arbitrary" was referring to. I'm in the camp that parents should not indoctrinate their children--what you consider to be an extreme position. I simply find it the most compatible position with the following: balanced "exposure to different religious and non-religious philosophies".

On top of that I have repeatedly stated that I prefer exposure to different religious and non-religious philosophies.

I never denied that you did. Still, if a family chooses a particular religion they are inherently not getting anything resembling fair exposure to various religions, since they will be spending most of their time exploring whatever religion floats their boat. So this is still mildly inconsistent; if you wanted the best possible exposure to different religions and non religious philosophies you would not force the child to spend 99% of their time exploring one particular religion that they happened to be born into. That's why forcing religion on a child is bad, even if it is a more moral religion.

 

[metis]

No, I didn't misinterpret what you said at all. First of all I never said that you said you justified all or any religious teachings. And my statement about being whimsical and arbitrary was discussing an entirely different point. In fact I explicitly pointed out cases of religious or political beliefs you wouldn't justify, so of course i never implied or suggested what you say i did. I also never said that you supported the proposition that parents should have sole authority over their children, which is also confirmed by my sentence pointing out belief systems you would not accept parents teaching their kids. You're misunderstanding the point of the sentence, which is that because families shouldn't have ultimate authority over their children, why should they have the authority to indoctrinate their children into a religion without evidence?

I simply pointed out how whimsical and arbitrary your position is in this respect-

.

And yet you'd be perfectly willing to pull one of those 5 influences out when the family is teaching their child that murder and rape is acceptable in the eyes of the celestial taco. So either you accept that parents should be able to teach whatever religion they want to their children, or you accept that parents should not indoctrinate their children period, or you draw some random, whimsical, arbitrary borderline between teaching religions that you find acceptable and religions you don't based on whatever morality you happen to think is correct. This is what "whimsical and arbitrary" was referring to. I'm in the camp that parents should not indoctrinate their children--what you consider to be an extreme position. I simply find it the most compatible position with the following: balanced "exposure to different religious and non-religious philosophies".


I never denied that you did. Still, if a family chooses a particular religion they are inherently not getting anything resembling fair exposure to various religions, since they will be spending most of their time exploring whatever religion floats their boat. So this is still mildly inconsistent; if you wanted the best possible exposure to different religions and non religious philosophies you would not force the child to spend 99% of their time exploring one particular religion that they happened to be born into. That's why forcing religion on a child is bad, even if it is a more moral religion.

It appears that we're not communicating too well, so I'm just going to stop at this point as it still appears you're making assumptions of what I supposedly meant or implied that I didn't mean or imply.

 

[leibowde84]

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

There is a difference between "include" and "push". Teaching your kids about your faith is always a good idea, but it is crucial that they understand that it is based on faith and is not certain or fact. Allowing your children to have an open mind requires that you put your own faith in perspective for them. Don't just teach them about your faith, but encourage them to reach out and learn about alternative faiths. Teach them to question everything. Then, there is absolutely no harm.

Do you agree?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know you, so I won't presume to speak to your particular spiritual disposition, but here are some generalities that may be apropos:

People with high blood pressure are usually asymptomatic, too. Cancer will literally eat you away before you know you have it. The elderly gradually lose sight or hearing, and don't notice that their sight or hearing is bad.

Interesting way to free yourself from bading your opinion on evidence.

Do you know who else is asymptomatic? Healthy people.

"Conversion" from... what, exactly? conversion is a cognitive dynamic. What is it, exactly that small children are converting from???

A kind of rudimentary animism, usually.

Unless a child is an Episcopalian, Sunni, Theravada Buddhist, Reform Jew, etc., from birth, someome who ends up as an Episcopalian/Sunni/etc. has made a transition from being not Episcopalian/Sunni/etc. to Episcopalian/Sunni/etc. This transition is called conversion.

maybe it has. One always grows spiritually. But it's easier to grow if one has a foundation to build upon.

How does being raised in, say, the Southern Baptist Church (just to pull a popular option out of the air) provide a foundation or make it easier to grow spiritually?

Please make sure that whatever answer you give is in keeping with the perspective described in this article:

SBC leader: Baptists, don’t let your babies grow up to be Catholics

This is one real-world - and I'd argue common - example of being raised in a religion. Please tell us how the general principles you described are expressed in this specific case.

(Note: I didn't pick this article to be difficult - it was just the first thing that popped up in a Google search for "growing up Southern Baptist" that wasn't a book that we'd have to buy to read)

 

[Nakosis]

Because children are not mature enough to choose any particular religion over others. It is like labeling a child a Democrat or Republican; it doesn't make sense at all.

Or Jewish or Muslim or Atheist?

I suppose I agree but there are some cultural aspects here. Christians children are raised with different traditions/ideology than Muslim children. Being raised an Atheist... how you are raised affects you a lot regardless of what you later become.

I suppose I know Christian children are raised different than Muslim children. It might be important to be sensitive to that.