Should we teach kids that our beliefs are true?

[nPeace]

Rejection of logic and critical thinking, extremism, homophobia, violence, ostricising of family etc etc. I'm not inferring that religion always brings these things, just that it can whereas humanists and secularists would find it much harder to find a reason to do these things using their philosophy.

Thanks for sharing that. I did read the statement in its entirety, and I have a real issue with this. The dogma which is taught to JW children can cause them real, life threatening harm in the long term. They grow up rejecting life saving treatment. The rejection of blood transfusion should be legal for adults who can choose for themselves but not their kids.

As for the little tidbit near the end "many surgeons see it as a challenge," I'm sorry, but what absolute horse sh*t. We should be making their jobs as easy as possible - losing a life on your table is not by any means an easy thing to do. Its not as though they'll go "ahh well, it was a good test. I'll do better next time." These people go home to see their families, knowing fine well that someone has lost part of theirs during the surgery that was meant to bring them home.

Risking your life, your kids lives and the mental wellbeing of others based on an (extremely) tenuous interpretation of an unreliable source is just incomprehensible to me. JWs who come to my house to offer my family the same treatment will get sent packing with a verbal bashing from now on - I won't tolerate such ridiculousness anywhere near my house.

If there was ever a case for antitheism, I think the Jehovah's witnesses would be central to it.

This wasn't intended as a personal attack - I don't think you're necessarily a bad person. You've just been convinced of some terrible things.

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. You are just making yours. No harm done. It's just another voice.
It seems to me though, that what you just did, is speak from an uninformed position - which is understandable, in light of the fact that most people are only aware of what's fed to them from mainstream.

Are you aware that hundreds of thousands of people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses , refuse blood transfusions?
Are you aware that hundreds of professional surgeons do not recommend blood transfusions, and do not administer blood transfusions?
Do you realize what you have just implied about thousands of non-witnesses, due to, what seems to me, an uninformed opinion?
What is your opinion... Would you consider that critical thinking?

Jehovah's Witnesses are well informed critical thinker, and it may surprise you to know how many young teenage Witnesses have been able to reason with professors, showing a level of maturity, praised by some unbiased tutors.

I'll like to ask though... If you had to be a father again, and raise children, would you teach your children what to do if someone touches them inappropriately, or in a way that makes them uncomfortable? Would you teach the what's right or wrong?

I don't expect all parents to teach the same thing, because, as I said before, you can only give out what you have, so for example, I would not expect a parent who views abusive or obscene speech, as neither here nor thee, or nothing wrong, to teach their children not to use such language, or set an example, but I would expect that a parent who views such language as wrong, to want to instruct their child in that was.
The will give what they have.

All in all, I still find those taught godly standards to be the most virtuous, well mannered, peaceful and loving people.
In fact, one can be sure they will never find Jehovah's Witnesses in an unruly mob, or disturbance, a political rally, or conflict, or in ethnic conflicts or war.
So I think that's good.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Everyone is entitled to their personal opinion. You are just making yours. No harm done. It's just another voice.
It seems to me though, that what you just did, is speak from an uninformed position - which is understandable, in light of the fact that most people are only aware of what's fed to them from mainstream.

Are you aware that hundreds of thousands of people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses , refuse blood transfusions?
Are you aware that hundreds of professional surgeons do not recommend blood transfusions, and do not administer blood transfusions?
Do you realize what you have just implied about thousands of non-witnesses, due to, what seems to me, an uninformed opinion?
What is your opinion... Would you consider that critical thinking?

Jehovah's Witnesses are well informed critical thinker, and it may surprise you to know how many young teenage Witnesses have been able to reason with professors, showing a level of maturity, praised by some unbiased tutors.

I'll like to ask though... If you had to be a father again, and raise children, would you teach your children what to do if someone touches them inappropriately, or in a way that makes them uncomfortable? Would you teach the what's right or wrong?

I don't expect all parents to teach the same thing, because, as I said before, you can only give out what you have, so for example, I would not expect a parent who views abusive or obscene speech, as neither here nor thee, or nothing wrong, to teach their children not to use such language, or set an example, but I would expect that a parent who views such language as wrong, to want to instruct their child in that was.
The will give what they have.

All in all, I still find those taught godly standards to be the most virtuous, well mannered, peaceful and loving people.
In fact, one can be sure they will never find Jehovah's Witnesses in an unruly mob, or disturbance, a political rally, or conflict, or in ethnic conflicts or war.
So I think that's good.

I'd say the same for those other people who reject transfusions. I'm willing to accept that the vast majority of the medical community, who are far more qualified than myself recommend transfusions and would be somewhat perplexed as to why someone would refuse one unless it was on religious grounds. My own mother would have died if not for a blood transfusion - as would have my fiancee and potentially my son. I recognise that I'm emotionally invested in the subject but these are also real life examples I have of where a transfusion is important and saves lives. If my fiancee was a jehovas witness, they both very well could have died.

And for what... some picky god who arguably doesn't exist?

I'm not sure where the "bad touch" comes into it. One of the reasons my son won't be alone with priests or army cadet instructors (we have a problem with that here, despite them saying its fixed) is for his own safety. That's a different argument. If theres a physical or psychological danger, its our responsibility safeguard our kids. It's not the same as impressing our philosiphical beliefs upon them... unless doing so puts them in danger (which yours seems to. Again, not an attack of you personally).

I agree, there are more harmful sects of religion, e.g. islamic extremism which actovely seeks to harm those who don't believe what they do. I cannot deny that, nor would I wish to. All I would say is that kids brought up with secular humanism would have these same qualities in most cases, it is not a benefit thay comes solely with religion.

 

[nPeace]

I'd say the same for those other people who reject transfusions. I'm willing to accept that the vast majority of the medical community, who are far more qualified than myself recommend transfusions and would be somewhat perplexed as to why someone would refuse one unless it was on religious grounds. My own mother would have died if not for a blood transfusion - as would have my fiancee and potentially my son. I recognise that I'm emotionally invested in the subject but these are also real life examples I have of where a transfusion is important and saves lives. If my fiancee was a jehovas witness, they both very well could have died.

And for what... some picky god who arguably doesn't exist?

I'm not sure where the "bad touch" comes into it. One of the reasons my son won't be alone with priests or army cadet instructors (we have a problem with that here, despite them saying its fixed) is for his own safety. That's a different argument. If theres a physical or psychological danger, its our responsibility safeguard our kids. It's not the same as impressing our philosiphical beliefs upon them... unless doing so puts them in danger (which yours seems to. Again, not an attack of you personally).

I agree, there are more harmful sects of religion, e.g. islamic extremism which actovely seeks to harm those who don't believe what they do. I cannot deny that, nor would I wish to. All I would say is that kids brought up with secular humanism would have these same qualities in most cases, it is not a benefit thay comes solely with religion.

Again, you are speaking from an uninformed position, and therefore an opinion that seems biased, because I don't understand why before, you were willing to be informed before speaking on a matter, but now seem closed to any information against your opinion.
Is that not an indication of bias against a religious group, because you don't agree with what they believe?
Is that critical thinking?

No, the individuals do not refuse blood transfusions for religious purposed, and no, the surgeons do not perform bloodless surgery for religious reasons.

I asked the question about teaching your child, to simply make the point... The reason you see the need to teach your child those things, is because you see it as important and necessary - a safeguard and protection to you child.
In the same way, parents who teach their children that and other things which you don't see as important, do so because they see it as important - a safeguard and protection to their children.

Each parent makes a decision based on what is in them.
In the same way you may have a problem with how others raise their children, others will have a problem with how you raise your children.
We can't give what we don't have.

I won't give my child a tog gun.
Other parents have, and will.
What's right for me, is not right for you. That's the way of the world.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Again, you are speaking from an uninformed position, and therefore an opinion that seems biased, because I don't understand why before, you were willing to be informed before speaking on a matter, but now seem closed to any information against your opinion.
Is that not an indication of bias against a religious group, because you don't agree with what they believe?
Is that critical thinking?

No, the individuals do not refuse blood transfusions for religious purposed, and no, the surgeons do not perform bloodless surgery for religious reasons.

I asked the question about teaching your child, to simply make the point... The reason you see the need to teach your child those things, is because you see it as important and necessary - a safeguard and protection to you child.
In the same way, parents who teach their children that and other things which you don't see as important, do so because they see it as important - a safeguard and protection to their children.

Each parent makes a decision based on what is in them.
In the same way you may have a problem with how others raise their children, others will have a problem with how you raise your children.
We can't give what we don't have.

I won't give my child a tog gun.
Other parents have, and will.
What's right for me, is not right for you. That's the way of the world.

I'm willing to learn about any culture and religion. I am not uninformed about the point I'm making about JWs - and about any parent who refuses blood transfusions for their kids.

I cannot find any evidence of nonreligious surgeons who do this, so I cannot reasonably conclude that it happens. I'm not saying it doesn't, but as far as I can find, the medical science whoelheartedly backs transfusions.

My conclusion about this hasn't been reached through bias. Critical thinking has been applied as follows; should I reject blood transfusions? What reasons are there? Just god? Okay then, no I shouldn't. Also, people who do demonstrate the very real threat that some religions pose to kids who cannot make their own informed decisions about this. Its exactly the same as parents who won't take their kids to a doctor because prayer should cure them.

Of course they may believe this is the best way ti safeguard them. They'd be deomstrably wrong. The evidence for blood transfusions being good for your health is overwhelming, but the argument against (specifically the religious one as I haven't seen any other) is woefully unsupported even in the bible. You have to consider the claim and the evidence to support it - is one interpretation of a single verse in the bible really enough to risk your life and the lives of your kids? If you were to have a transfusion would you go to hell? If not - is it not worth breaking this rule to save suffering and death?

 

[Cooky]

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers - I don't intend to share my theoligical position with them in case it colours their own thinking. I raise them with secular values (everyone deserves respect, sexual orientation doesn't matter, slavery is wrong etc) but as far as any god belief goes I won't go into it with them.

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

I call this approach to childrearing: Tarzanianism.

 

[Cooky]

I'm willing to learn about any culture and religion. I am not uninformed about the point I'm making about JWs - and about any parent who refuses blood transfusions for their kids.

I cannot find any evidence of nonreligious surgeons who do this, so I cannot reasonably conclude that it happens. I'm not saying it doesn't, but as far as I can find, the medical science whoelheartedly backs transfusions.

My conclusion about this hasn't been reached through bias. Critical thinking has been applied as follows; should I reject blood transfusions? What reasons are there? Just god? Okay then, no I shouldn't. Also, people who do demonstrate the very real threat that some religions pose to kids who cannot make their own informed decisions about this. Its exactly the same as parents who won't take their kids to a doctor because prayer should cure them.

Of course they may believe this is the best way ti safeguard them. They'd be deomstrably wrong. The evidence for blood transfusions being good for your health is overwhelming, but the argument against (specifically the religious one as I haven't seen any other) is woefully unsupported even in the bible. You have to consider the claim and the evidence to support it - is one interpretation of a single verse in the bible really enough to risk your life and the lives of your kids? If you were to have a transfusion would you go to hell? If not - is it not worth breaking this rule to save suffering and death?

I think it would be beneficial for both JW's and Muslims to practice Tarzanianism, and I recommend it for them both.

 

[sealchan]

I call this approach to childrearing: Tarzanianism.

I think that as parents raise their children what usually happens is that the parental calm and cool philosophy gets put on trial and has a hard time.

You come to a point where you must admit, to yourself and your children, that you dont know everything. To do that with grace is the best you can hope for.

For me what is much better than belief or philosophy is psychology. Know yourself, heal yourself. Then you can heal others if at all.

Adolescence is, perhaps, the most difficult time to revisit as a parent because it raises questions in ourselves we answered only well enough for ourselves in our own adolescence.

 

[nPeace]

I'm willing to learn about any culture and religion. I am not uninformed about the point I'm making about JWs - and about any parent who refuses blood transfusions for their kids.

I cannot find any evidence of nonreligious surgeons who do this, so I cannot reasonably conclude that it happens. I'm not saying it doesn't, but as far as I can find, the medical science whoelheartedly backs transfusions.

My conclusion about this hasn't been reached through bias. Critical thinking has been applied as follows; should I reject blood transfusions? What reasons are there? Just god? Okay then, no I shouldn't. Also, people who do demonstrate the very real threat that some religions pose to kids who cannot make their own informed decisions about this. Its exactly the same as parents who won't take their kids to a doctor because prayer should cure them.

Of course they may believe this is the best way ti safeguard them. They'd be deomstrably wrong. The evidence for blood transfusions being good for your health is overwhelming, but the argument against (specifically the religious one as I haven't seen any other) is woefully unsupported even in the bible. You have to consider the claim and the evidence to support it - is one interpretation of a single verse in the bible really enough to risk your life and the lives of your kids? If you were to have a transfusion would you go to hell? If not - is it not worth breaking this rule to save suffering and death?

I suggest that you are speaking from an opinionated bias, not necessarily as an attack on Jehovah's Witnesses, but because of your position as an Atheist. Religion isn't by any means a favorite dish of yours.
I want to give you a chance to prove your open-mindedness, and prove that you are indeed using critical thinking..

I'll just back track a bit.
You said...
[Jehovah's Witnesses] grow up rejecting life saving treatment.

Is that statement true? No it is not.
Are you willing to consider why it is not true, or do you insist that it is true, without even considering the possibility that you are speaking from an uninformed position?

You said...
We should be making their jobs as easy as possible - losing a life on your table is not by any means an easy thing to do. Its not as though they'll go "ahh well, it was a good test. I'll do better next time." These people go home to see their families, knowing fine well that someone has lost part of theirs during the surgery that was meant to bring them home.

Do people who receive blood transfusions die, or do they all come out of it alive?
If your answer is "Yes", or includes the phrase, "Some do", or indicates the previous, then, it would seem to indicate the following...
1) You are speaking from an uninformed position.
2) You are speaking from an opinionated bias.

The truth is, people die on the table, whether they take a blood transfusion, or not.
Are you willing to consider that to be true, or do you insist that it is not, without even considering the possibility that you are speaking from an uninformed position?

You said...
I'd say the same for those other people who reject transfusions. I'm willing to accept that the vast majority of the medical community, who are far more qualified than myself recommend transfusions and would be somewhat perplexed as to why someone would refuse one unless it was on religious grounds.

It may be true that the majority, of the medical community may recommend (I say may, because I don't know for a fact, and we know that sometimes people say things to please their peers, even if they hold a different opinion, or view) blood transfusions, but the issue here has nothing to do with numbers.
The vast majority of people support things that are not necessarily right (for example, Gay marriage). It's a personal choice.

I told you that thousands of people refuse blood transfusions, for reasons other than of a religious nature. It is a fact. Thousands of surgeons perform hundreds to thousands of surgeries without transfusing blood.
Are you willing to consider that fact, or do you insist that it is not, without even considering the possibility that you are speaking from an uninformed position?

On the last point you made...
You said...
All I would say is that kids brought up with secular humanism would have these same qualities in most cases, it is not a benefit thay comes solely with religion.

I disagree.
Do you know why, secular humanists raise their children with "these same values"? It is because they were raised with "these same values". ....and do you know who raised them with "these same values"? Parents with a religious background.
they did not forget what their religious parents instilled in them, whether by word, or example, or both.
However, I still find that those raised in godly households do much better.

This would be particularly true in the Western world, which was dominated by mostly "Christian" influence.
The Bible has had a major influence on people's view on morality, for nearly 2,000 years.
If you disagree, I am open to proof otherwise.

In conclusion...
Let me quote what is said in the magazine UNESCO Courier.
“Education for tolerance should aim at countering influences that lead to fear and exclusion of others, and should help young people develop capacities for independent judgment, critical thinking and ethical reasoning.”
You can also find it here - Promoting Tolerance.

 

[metis]

Even though we brought up our children Catholic, we wanted them to experience other denominations and religions. Today, since they all in their late 40's to early 50's, our one daughter and her family are Catholic, our oldest daughter and her kids are into Judaism (her husband is secular), and our son is secular (his wife in a non-participating Pentecostal).

We attend each others ceremonies and special occasions, and we never have argued religion.

 

[arthra]

By "more responsibility" do you mean they can choose to remain in the faith? If so, thats all well and good but it's somethig of an illusion of a choice. If you're raised told that something is true, the likelihood of you believing otherwise as an adult is low. Apart from the whole homophobia thing (which I accept is probably not as big an issue in baha'i groups as other religions), there are way more harmful religions to follow though so there's that at least

Thanks for your post Dan...

Children in Baha'i families have a choice when they reach the age of spiritual accountability... age fifteen. We call it the "age of maturity". They can choose what they want and are considered responsible. If they choose to be a Baha'i they apply … If they don't it's up to them.

Reaching the Age of Maturity -- Fifteen

Upon attaining the age of fifteen a child becomes spiritually mature and is responsible for stating on his own behalf whether or not he wishes to remain a member of the Bahá'í community. If he does not then reaffirm his faith, he must be treated, administratively, as a non-Bahá'í.

Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated December 12, 1975

Fifteen is the age at which a child attains spiritual maturity, and thus it is at the age of fifteen that a Bahá'í child assumes the responsibility for obeying such laws as those of fasting and prayer, and for affirming of his own volition his faith in Bahá'u'lláh.

Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated July 19, 1982, to a National Spiritual Assembly
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

 

[We Never Know]

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers - I don't intend to share my theoligical position with them in case it colours their own thinking. I raise them with secular values (everyone deserves respect, sexual orientation doesn't matter, slavery is wrong etc) but as far as any god belief goes I won't go into it with them.

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

We should teach our children that beliefs differ/ people believe in different things. That they should believe in what ever they choose as they grow.
If a person 'chooses" to believe or not to believe in something, it is doesn't matter what others think. Live life for what you want and choose and not by what you are told to do.

 

[Dan Mellis]

Thanks for your post Dan...

Children in Baha'i families have a choice when they reach the age of spiritual accountability... age fifteen. We call it the "age of maturity". They can choose what they want and are considered responsible. If they choose to be a Baha'i they apply … If they don't it's up to them.

Reaching the Age of Maturity -- Fifteen

Upon attaining the age of fifteen a child becomes spiritually mature and is responsible for stating on his own behalf whether or not he wishes to remain a member of the Bahá'í community. If he does not then reaffirm his faith, he must be treated, administratively, as a non-Bahá'í.

Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated December 12, 1975

Fifteen is the age at which a child attains spiritual maturity, and thus it is at the age of fifteen that a Bahá'í child assumes the responsibility for obeying such laws as those of fasting and prayer, and for affirming of his own volition his faith in Bahá'u'lláh.

Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated July 19, 1982, to a National Spiritual Assembly
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

That's cool! And if they don't choose the faith, are they cut off from family etc as is seen in some other religious sects? It doesn't seem as if it's that strict but i just want to make sure I don't jump to conclusions

The only thing I think is... maybe not wrong in a moral sense but perhaps is inaccurate, is the age being at 15. You're still figuring out your stuff then, and the desire to rebel may play a factor as well as raging hormones and chemical imbalances. The other part is that if you've been brought up in a faith and never been encouraged to question it, you probably never will. It's not necessarily fair to call it a choice, because if they don't get encouraged to ask the hard questions then they probably don't have the full picture.

Appreciate there were a lot of 'ifs' there - I based this mostly on what I know of other religions so if I'm making incorrect assumptions I apologise. Feel free to set me straight.

 

[Dan Mellis]

We should teach our children that beliefs differ/ people believe in different things. That they should believe in what ever they choose as they grow.
If a person 'chooses" to believe or not to believe in something, it is doesn't matter what others think. Live life for what you want and choose and not by what you are told to do.

I agree with this in principle, until those beliefs hurt others. Obviously then we'd have to intervene as parents.

 

[arthra]

That's cool! And if they don't choose the faith, are they cut off from family etc as is seen in some other religious sects? It doesn't seem as if it's that strict but i just want to make sure I don't jump to conclusions

Nope children are not "cut off" from family.

We do have a principle called the "Independent Investigation of Truth":

"Independent investigation of truth
No man should follow blindly his ancestors and forefathers. Nay, each must see with his own eyes, hear with his own ears, and investigate truth in order that he may find the Truth; whereas the religion of forefathers and ancestors is based upon blind imitation-man should investigate the truth."

(SOW - Star of the West, Star of the West - 6)

"Furthermore, know ye that God has created in man the power of reason, whereby man is enabled to investigate reality. God has not intended man to imitate blindly his fathers and ancestors. He has endowed him with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he finds real and true he must accept."

`Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 291

 

[Pipiripi]

Many Christians don't know their Bible good. This is what Christians must learn before and after practicing and live the words of God, their children shall remember all what they have seen and learn.
Read James 4:1-10. And the book of Proverbs, specially chapter 1.....

 

[Neutral Name]

So I aim to raise my children as free thinkers - I don't intend to share my theoligical position with them in case it colours their own thinking. I raise them with secular values (everyone deserves respect, sexual orientation doesn't matter, slavery is wrong etc) but as far as any god belief goes I won't go into it with them.

My question is for both atheists and theists. If your position is logical, and you raise them to be critical thinkers, they should reach the same conclusion as you. If your position is religious, god should surely show them the light... why do we feel it's so important for our kids to believe the same things as us? If we raise them with the values that we believe to be good, shouldn't that be enough?

God belief isnt a value, its a belief ... just before anyone starts with that stuff

That is a good question. I was raised by a scientist who was an atheist yet I found God. I didn't believe most of the time I was raising my children. So, my older daughter is a Buddhist, my son is an atheist and my younger daughter won't tell me what her religious or spiritual beliefs are. There are so many directions your children can go in but I do believe that when it is time, God will find them.