Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would much rather have a child grow up in a religiously moral environment than not, and if the child wishes to switch as they get older, as two of my three children did, that's perfectly fine with me. They were brought up Catholic, one now is still Catholic, another converted to Judaism, and the third is secular.

I question your implicit assumption here that "religious" means "religiously moral".

While religions may have codes of behaviour, I think that religion is, at best, largely irrelevant to a moral upbringing and, at worst, a hindrance.

 

[metis]

I question your implicit assumption here that "religious" means "religiously moral".

While religions may have codes of behaviour, I think that religion is, at best, largely irrelevant to a moral upbringing and, at worst, a hindrance.

Generally speaking, religious teachings also include moral codes of behavior, but I never claimed that it was the only source of human morality. Nor would I ever claim that all religious teachings are implicitly moral.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Generally speaking, religious teachings also include moral codes of behavior, but I never claimed that it was the only source of human morality. Nor would I ever claim that all religious teachings are implicitly moral.

I'm talking about the religious approach in general. If a child is taught "do X because God says so", "don't do X because God will punish you", or "do X and you'll be rewarded in Heaven", then they aren't actually being taught morality, because no real moral basis is provided. Even if the child behaves, it would only be based on incentives and disincentives, not on any real sense of right and wrong.

Edit: my point is that if some moral precept depends on theistic or supernatural beliefs, then it's not actually a moral precept.

... and if it doesn't depend on these things, then the mere fact that it was learned at Sunday School/shul/a meditation retreat/whatever doesn't make it inherently religious any more than my knot-tying ability is (my Scout troop met in a church rec hall for a while).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm talking about the religious approach in general. If a child is taught "do X because God says so", "don't do X because God will punish you", or "do X and you'll be rewarded in Heaven", then they aren't actually being taught morality, because no real moral basis is provided.

What, then, constitutes a "real moral basis"?

Edit: my point is that if some moral precept depends on theistic or supernatural beliefs, then it's not actually a moral precept.

This would seem to suggest that moral precepts are only "actually..moral precepts" if they have no basis.

Ah, the arrogance of the of the moral relativist who's ignorance of his own dogma is rivaled only by so complete an equivalence to the dogmata of religious moralities; just lacking equivalent self-awareness and complemented by an intellectual, moral, and general expression of superiority as well as dismissal of those who are at least capable of realizing their doctrine is as such.

 

[metis]

I'm talking about the religious approach in general. If a child is taught "do X because God says so", "don't do X because God will punish you", or "do X and you'll be rewarded in Heaven", then they aren't actually being taught morality, because no real moral basis is provided. Even if the child behaves, it would only be based on incentives and disincentives, not on any real sense of right and wrong.

Just because one may be taught to obey because God says so doesn't necessarily mean that what's taught isn't moral. Plus probably a great many things that are taught in religious education are explained beyond "just obey". The Talmud is a rather extensive case in point.

Edit: my point is that if some moral precept depends on theistic or supernatural beliefs, then it's not actually a moral precept.

... and if it doesn't depend on these things, then the mere fact that it was learned at Sunday School/shul/a meditation retreat/whatever doesn't make it inherently religious any more than my knot-tying ability is (my Scout troop met in a church rec hall for a while).

Where do you think morality for any given society comes from? Certainly not just religion, but religion is a factor. Amongst us anthropologists, we refer to religion as one of the "five basic institutions" all societies that we know of have and have had (the other four are family, political, economic, and educational).

Therefore, I'm certainly not claiming that all religious moral teachings are correct or even from a deity, but simply that it does typically teach that which we eventually call "morals". The Mayans believed that the deities were pleased by offering human sacrifices, which would then help Mayan society, so that was their morality. The Abrahamics teach that human sacrifices are not moral, which became western morality over the centuries. Both are sets of morals that typically can be explained and elaborated on in each's paradigm.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I never said that religion is completely separated from culture. What I said was that religion is unique in that it *tends* to demand a belief in the supernatural. Specifically I asked (in relation to the other domains you mention, e.g. culture):

And I have provided you with many other things that have people just blindly accepting whatever it is that culture tells them. Belief in the supernatural is very highly irrelevant to just about everything. But, I forgot, you might be one of those who are surprised to meet a well educated, very articulated, and highly intelligent religious person.

You still haven't given me an example...

*sigh* I tried, but you aren't doing whatever to take in the examples I gave you, or even the sources so you can try to better understand yourself. Your lack of understanding in the forces that drive and shape culture is why you can't see (or accept) what I'm trying to tell you. Everything from family, marriage, school, courts, church, TV, magazines, all of these function in the same ways (via ideology), and they all put people into a position of blindly accepting things and doing things just because that's they way it's done and always has been done. It doesn't matter if it's the infallibility of the Pope or belief in a just legal system. To say there are any significant differences that are beyond the superficial is like trying to say there are significant differences between contemporary country, rock, and pop music.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm talking about the religious approach in general. If a child is taught "do X because God says so", "don't do X because God will punish you", or "do X and you'll be rewarded in Heaven", then they aren't actually being taught morality, because no real moral basis is provided. Even if the child behaves, it would only be based on incentives and disincentives, not on any real sense of right and wrong.

It's no different than teaching children not to do something because the police will punish them, or their parents will punish them. It's no different than just letting society indoctrinate your child with a sense of morality without every teaching your child how to question and evaluate these widely accepted views.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's no different than teaching children not to do something because the police will punish them, or their parents will punish them. It's no different than just letting society indoctrinate your child with a sense of morality without every teaching your child how to question and evaluate these widely accepted views.

I agree: that isn't moral instruction either. To actually teach morality, we need to teach some sort of basis for why something is right or wrong, such as empathy.

 

[Nakosis]

Well you have a right to your own moral views and other people have a right to either agree or disagree with them.

Me, I didn't raise my kids in any religious tradition. I felt they should decide, when they were old enough for themselves. However I don't have a problem with parents who think otherwise.

 

[icehorse]

And I have provided you with many other things that have people just blindly accepting whatever it is that culture tells them. Belief in the supernatural is very highly irrelevant to just about everything. But, I forgot, you might be one of those who are surprised to meet a well educated, very articulated, and highly intelligent religious person.

*sigh* I tried, but you aren't doing whatever to take in the examples I gave you, or even the sources so you can try to better understand yourself. Your lack of understanding in the forces that drive and shape culture is why you can't see (or accept) what I'm trying to tell you. Everything from family, marriage, school, courts, church, TV, magazines, all of these function in the same ways (via ideology), and they all put people into a position of blindly accepting things and doing things just because that's they way it's done and always has been done. It doesn't matter if it's the infallibility of the Pope or belief in a just legal system. To say there are any significant differences that are beyond the superficial is like trying to say there are significant differences between contemporary country, rock, and pop music.

Wow, wow, wow. Shadow Wolf, please, I understand cultural influences. And, I agree that initially a lot of kids are taught stuff in a dogmatic way. And I agree that a lot of people keep following orders blindly. Doh!

But there is a CRUCIAL between beliefs that have logical underpinnings and those that have supernatural underpinnings.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But there is a CRUCIAL between beliefs that have logical underpinnings and those that have supernatural underpinnings.

The supernatural is irrelevant. It is a belief, but so is sitting or squatting on a toilet. The belief in the supernatural is simply another facet of the much larger picture of culture and ideology. And because each religion tends to have their own approach to the divine, even saying religion inherently passes down beliefs of the supernatural is incorrect. Lavey Satanism and some denominations of Buddhism are excellent examples of religions that do not teach the supernatural. You aren't seeing deep enough to see how the belief in the supernatural doesn't matter. This difference you are clinging to is just as significant as contemporary country or pop. On the the surface it sounds different, but when you really listen to it and analyze it these differences are trivial as you find the two are more alike than different.
And honestly, why does it even matter? There have been plenty of smart who people who have made extremely significant contributions to science who also believed in some sort of the supernatural. Oh well. If they pass it to their kids, oh well. We all pass down things that someone else will find offensive.

 

[ChristineES]

People learn from others. The first people they learn from is their parents (unless they have no parents), then they learn from their peers, school teachers, and anyone else they are around. No matter what the parents believe, the children are going to learn it. If a parent smokes, it is likely that the child will learn to smoke later on in life. If a parent drinks heavily, there is a chance the child will learn to drink heavily. That's just the way it works. There is always the old "Do as I say, not as I do" cliche, but that doesn't usually work. Culture and religion are a part of what children learn from their parents. Questioning it comes later, when their peers show them something different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

People learn from others. The first people they learn from is their parents (unless they have no parents), then they learn from their peers, school teachers, and anyone else they are around. No matter what the parents believe, the children are going to learn it. If a parent smokes, it is likely that the child will learn to smoke later on in life. If a parent drinks heavily, there is a chance the child will learn to drink heavily. That's just the way it works. There is always the old "Do as I say, not as I do" cliche, but that doesn't usually work. Culture and religion are a part of what children learn from their parents. Questioning it comes later, when their peers show them something different.

FYI: I didn't find out that my father was an atheist until after he died, when I was 28. I also had no idea about their political views, with the exception of one year around when I was 18 when my mother volunteered on the campaign team for a local candidate. They took great care not to steer the political or religious beliefs of my sister or me. Things don't have to be the way you're suggesting they do.

 

[ChristineES]

FYI: I didn't find out that my father was an atheist until after he died, when I was 28. I also had no idea about their political views, with the exception of one year around when I was 18 when my mother volunteered on the campaign team for a local candidate. They took great care not to steer the political or religious beliefs of my sister or me. Things don't have to be the way you're suggesting they do.

My mother certainly didn't tell me everything about herself, but she let me know she was an atheist and that she was a Democrat. My father, he was raised Catholic, but I have no idea what his spiritual beliefs are or his political affiliation but he's a poor example because I didn't live with him after the age of 5. My stepfather let me know he was a Zen Buddhist as a child (his parents were from Japan). I don't think we need to hide our political affiliation or our religion from our children: I am neither an atheist nor a Zen Buddhist and I have no political party, although I lean somewhat to the left. People don't necessarily follow the same politics or religion that their parents did.

 

[icehorse]

The supernatural is irrelevant. It is a belief, but so is sitting or squatting on a toilet. The belief in the supernatural is simply another facet of the much larger picture of culture and ideology. And because each religion tends to have their own approach to the divine, even saying religion inherently passes down beliefs of the supernatural is incorrect. Lavey Satanism and some denominations of Buddhism are excellent examples of religions that do not teach the supernatural. You aren't seeing deep enough to see how the belief in the supernatural doesn't matter. This difference you are clinging to is just as significant as contemporary country or pop. On the the surface it sounds different, but when you really listen to it and analyze it these differences are trivial as you find the two are more alike than different.
And honestly, why does it even matter? There have been plenty of smart who people who have made extremely significant contributions to science who also believed in some sort of the supernatural. Oh well. If they pass it to their kids, oh well. We all pass down things that someone else will find offensive.

I agree that not all religions teach the supernatural. Many popular ones do.

Adamantly defending that you know what you don't really know is not irrelevant. There are more than 20 states in the US where it's legal for teachers to hit students - hard - with sticks. Let that soak in...

This is because the bible says it's a good idea, and the bible is the word of god. For people who believe this, there is no logical argument you can mount. There is no amount of statistical data concerning the adverse effects of corporal punishment that you can provide. The belief in the bible is unassailable and unfalsifiable. This is not irrelevant.

And again, I'm not saying that this is the only thing causing problems in the world, nor am I saying that this is the only factor in how beliefs are created. But it is *a* significant factor in many cases.

 

[thau]

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.

Except the long term ramifications of being a Christian vs a pagan are more impacting than if one passes as a democrat or a republican.

God ordained a child's parents to be the primary caregivers for both raising them and for teaching them. Far, far more than what outside critics or educators insist upon imposing. A child left to his own ways can and often does yield disastrous results. No discipline, no learned morals.

I am guessing your religious upbringing has had minimal end results as to how you now think. IOW, it is not the only factor, many lapsed church goers.

 

[serp777]

Except the long term ramifications of being a Christian vs a pagan are more impacting than if one passes as a democrat or a republican.

God ordained a child's parents to be the primary caregivers for both raising them and for teaching them. Far, far more than what outside critics or educators insist upon imposing. A child left to his own ways can and often does yield disastrous results. No discipline, no learned morals.

I am guessing your religious upbringing has had minimal end results as to how you now think. IOW, it is not the only factor, many lapsed church goers.

Many people have made this strawman. I never suggest a child should be left to their own ways--my argument has been that children should receive a balanced education of a variety of philosophies, religions, and atheism; then they should be allowed to form their own religious identity without a huge bias. This isn't a child being left to their own ways by any stretch.

And I don't assume God cares about, or ordains anything for that matter, what parents teach their children.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let's just say that tattooing/branding children for any reason is the kind of wrong that doesn't even need to debated, yeah?
So again, You're just trying to stir the pot. Make an argument for or against the topic of this thread which is religious indoctrination or make your own if you wish to talk about tattoo's.

According to who? You? What makes you the moral authority on this? That's their cultural and religious tradition, did they ask you if it was 'ok'?

 

[serp777]

Oh? Really! Then how come I was never singled out for conversion as a child?

I'm not talking specifically of the "larger national culture." Culture pertains to any set of sociological norms, like family life, marriage, etc. If a family is religious, they can't just divorce that part of their family culture from their child-rearing. It would be dishonest, because (even if it were possible; it's not, faith is spread throughout one's life experience, and often impacts us in ways we don't notice) the parents wouldn't be presenting their true selves to their children. That's ultimately damaging.

Just specific ideas that you happen to disagree with.

You said "agnostic households." So the household has a culture of "we don't know/don't care." That's the framework within which the child grows up and compares to her/his selfhood. And guess what! The child will very likely grow up to embrace that same agnosticism! But, of course, that would "limit" the child's potential to just assume agnosticism, as you say. (I suppose, though, that that limitation doesn't "count" because, at least the child isn't embracing some duffs religion.) Do you see? One can't just not have a cultural influence within a family. If a family believes, the child will likely believe. If a family doubts, the child will likely doubt.

For starters, the Hippocratic oath -- first do no harm. Then there's the whole not experimenting with human life thing,the whole human euthanasia thing, abortion issues, etc. On the science side, how about nuclear non-proliferation? Or toxic waste?

If a family is religious, they can't just divorce that part of their family culture from their child-rearing. It would be dishonest, because (even if it were possible; it's not, faith is spread throughout one's life experience, and often impacts us in ways we don't notice) the parents wouldn't be presenting their true selves to their children. That's ultimately damaging.

I fail to see how it is damaging. If anything it is liberating--by attempting to look at new religions, philosophies, and atheism, the parents along with the children they are teaching ( in the least biased way as possible) will gain new perspectives and insights, and even develop a new faith or philosophy that they would otherwise not have found--maybe it could even improve their culture. I don't think culture needs to be an unchanging bulwark anyways. Regardless, Someone's true self that consists of purely static and unchanging beliefs/ morals is probably not a good thing for a child. It basically says that tradition is more important than learning, improvement, and adaptability to novel thinking. Even if it weredamaging, I would still think it would be less damaging than forcing static and unalterable religious beliefs on a child, during a time where they're more likely to be ingrained and possibly prevent a child from exploring unrealized potentials. I do of course realize that some of this is speculation and that a true scientific inquiry on harm vs benefit would be very challenging.

You said "agnostic households." So the household has a culture of "we don't know/don't care." That's the framework within which the child grows up and compares to her/his selfhood. And guess what! The child will very likely grow up to embrace that same agnosticism!

Yes I agree that it would lead, more likely, to agnostic beliefs. However, I was not advocating for bringing up children in an agnostic household either. I believe the child should still be exposed to a variety or philosophies, religion, and atheism in order to explore what they align with. I brought up agnostic households to show that a religious culture is not essential or even beneficial for a child's development. You might argue that agnosticism is still a kind of culture which you can't separate from, but I picked it because it has the fewest religious cultural aspects. Agnostic culture isn't really a thing anyways. Saying I don't know is basically the lack of a culture. The lack of a religious culture shouldn't really be called a religious culture in and of itself.

For starters, the Hippocratic oath -- first do no harm. Then there's the whole not experimenting with human life thing,the whole human euthanasia thing, abortion issues, etc. On the science side, how about nuclear non-proliferation? Or toxic waste?

These are completely secular ideas and don't have to be philosophical, and they certainly aren't connected to theology whatsoever. Perhaps I shouldn't say philosophy though since utilitarianism is one of the bases for secular society, so I take back philosophy. However, philosophy hasn't contributed nearly as much compared to science and engineering in terms of quality of life and saving lives. Furthermore, something like toxic waste is simply science. Science shows us that toxic waste damages the environment which we depend on for productivity and life. That is proven through studies and requires no philosophy. ALso nuclear non proliferation is mostly a political consideration, not a philosophical one--mutually assured destruction requires no philosophy and certainly no theology.

The hippocratic oath is certainly flawed as well, and often referred to as the hypocritical oath. Chemotherapy for example is doing harm to try and hurt cancer more. And theology is essentially irrelevant for abortion in the first world--the freedom women have over their bodies takes precedence over self righteous religious beliefs. And euthanasia issues literally defy the hypocritical oath--by letting a terminal suffering patient live, you are doing significant harm to them by making them deal with pointless and futile pain, and you're assaulting their right to freedom while ruining the families finances. But theology is becoming all but irrelevant for this.

 

[Thana]

According to who? You? What makes you the moral authority on this? That's their cultural and religious tradition, did they ask you if it was 'ok'?

Well, According to the law, first and foremost.
Child Brides could also be considered cultural and religious but that doesn't mean we allow or condone the practice, Now does it?