Ping Atheists/Agnostics: How do you handle religion/church with your kids?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by IrishHand

I think this tends to be way overblown. I certainly agree that many people build a stronger sense of community and charity through churches, but there are many other avenues to achieve those same things without a specific faith-based worldview permeating the proceedings.

Our local community has fairly regular picnics and seasonal gatherings. My wife seems to have made most of her "recent" good friends (meaning not those from school age) through kid's events (swimming, gymnastics, t-ball, etc).

To me, many things can serve as the backdrop, if you will, of community-building and/or -enhancing. Churches, sports, secular gatherings, etc.

As for charity/helpfulness...though those certainly are encouraged by many faith-based organizations, there are again a large number of secular organizations that encourage and enable the same things. The vast majority of the people I know who donate money or volunteer their time do so through or to a non-religious organization (though to be fair, the majority of the people I tend to affiliate with are in the "never" to "rarely" on the church attendance scale).

I agree, there are lots of avenues to "get your community on", I was just trying to highlight that churches are often quite good at this. I'm not a church-goer by any means, and if someone wants to start a thread called "lets list all the crappy things about churches" I'll be in it like a dirty shirt, but credit where credit is due.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I agree, there are lots of avenues to "get your community on", I was just trying to highlight that churches are often quite good at this. I'm not a church-goer by any means, and if someone wants to start a thread called "lets list all the crappy things about churches" I'll be in it like a dirty shirt, but credit where credit is due.

The problem with meeting friends at church is that the people you meet there are usually religious.

*shudder*

[molson]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The problem with meeting friends at church is that the people you meet there are usually religious.

*shudder*

I know you're making a joke, but surprisingly, this isn't really true, at least with protestant Christian churches I've been too.

It kind of makes me a little sad that church has become this scary boogeyman to people that they're afraid to expose their kids to, that it's this cult that will brainwash a child into a lifetime theology that they can't possibily escape. Alternative community "groups" are great but it doesn't seem like they've filled the gap of the (non-religious) role churches have played in this country.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by molson

I know you're making a joke, but surprisingly, this isn't really true, at least with protestant Christian churches I've been too.

It kind of makes me a little sad that church has become this scary boogeyman to people that they're afraid to expose their kids to, that it's this cult that will brainwash a child into a lifetime theology that they can't possibily escape. Alternative community "groups" are great but it doesn't seem like they've filled the gap of the (non-religious) role churches have played in this country.

I actually think this is one of the larger problems in society at large in a lot of countries, within England we got away with a lacklustre Church attendance because the traditional socialisation in England is pub based rather than Church based (this is the case in a lot of European societies imho - incidentally imho Germany has the BEST pubs by far these days).

Recent changes in England banning smoking and suchlike from pubs is threatening to fracture society and further reduce social integration as people living in the same region spend less and less time together.

This is a real problem as its been shown in society time and time again that when people don't feel a part of the community they are less inclined to obey its rules and live up to its expectations (it also explains why kids today don't worry about doing things in front of 'grown ups' - simply put they know the chance of mom/dad hearing about it is slim because no one communicates like they used to).

So in summary - every country needs more pubs, simple as that

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

I know you're making a joke, but surprisingly, this isn't really true, at least with protestant Christian churches I've been too.

If that is the case (the people who go to church are not religious) then it certainly explains our difference of opinion. It has been said, though I suspect it wasn't intended to be taken seriously, that to be a member of the Church of England (Anglican) you don't even have to believe in God. Perhaps that reinforces your point.

It kind of makes me a little sad that church has become this scary boogeyman to people that they're afraid to expose their kids to

There's no "scary boogeyman" about it - it is quite rational for parents not to take their children to institutions that promote religious views that they don't hold. Nothing wrong in going to the Bingo or quiz nights but the Sunday service, regardless of whether the audience is religious or not, tends to be religious. I suspect that's true even in America

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Recent changes in England banning smoking and suchlike from pubs

Suchlike? Not drinking surely?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

So in summary - every country needs more pubs, simple as that

SI

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

So in summary - every country needs more pubs, simple as that

I'll drink to that!!

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'll drink to that!!

Speaking of which:



Ah, the nostalgia

[Julio Riddols]

Haven't read the thread, just offering an answer to the question - I plan on telling my kids why I am not religious, once they're old enough to understand the thought behind it. Up to that point, I won't reject if my grandparents want to take them to church, or if they have some friends that want to take them along, etc. It will be up to the kid to make the decision at that age. I don't think a young mind can scope the reality of religion, so I don't want it to be a serious issue until later in life. If they want to do it, cool.

At that point, I will explain what I think about religion as defined by man and faith as defined by ones choice to believe in a higher power. I'll let my kid know I will support their decision to either be religious or not be, but that I personally am set in my ways as I have already experienced what it feels like to be "in love with God" and I don't think of the experience as a wholly negative one, but I learned the difference between religion and faith during that part of my life and that is why I am the way I am.

I'll also encourage my kid to learn all they can about every religion if they take an interest in it. I believe that is really the most important part of it all, because there have been many gods throughout history and man has worshiped them with the same fervent attitude through all their different forms. Surely there is a valuable lesson to be learned there.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Speaking of which:



Ah, the nostalgia

Nice! I'm thirsty now...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

There's no "scary boogeyman" about it - it is quite rational for parents not to take their children to institutions that promote religious views that they don't hold. Nothing wrong in going to the Bingo or quiz nights but the Sunday service, regardless of whether the audience is religious or not, tends to be religious. I suspect that's true even in America

Ya, that's totally rational. I think it's just the fear that a child's mind and soul will be turned over permantly to a religion if they're exposed to church that's a little bit of parnoia, but it's really a meaningless practical distinction.

[Tekneek]

If you do not think children are indoctrinated into religion by having them attend early in their lives, I suspect you are wrong. James Dobson has written at length about how you must get children into Christianity early in their lives before they have a chance to make up their own minds.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If you do not think children are indoctrinated into religion by having them attend early in their lives, I suspect you are wrong. James Dobson has written at length about how you must get children into Christianity early in their lives before they have a chance to make up their own minds.

So how do explain all the people that went to church as kids and aren't religious as adults? Or all the "born again" Christans who "find God" as adults? There are a HUGE number of these people.

There's a number of different ways to think about church. I don't see church as something you "make up your mind about" in any deeper sense that you make up your mind about anything. I wouldn't be worried, if I took my kid to a baseball game, that he might become some super-baseball freak. I guess I just don't see religion as "heavy" as others.

It's a family activity, that I would take part in if I had a family, but not if I didn't have kids.

I think there's a lot to appreciate about Christianity, and church, without having to "own it all" spirituality or in a faith sense. That was the norm to me growing up, the super-religious were unusual, even in the church context. Organized religion isn't a matter of black and white, where you either have to jump all in or be afraid of its influence on your kids.

[gstelmack]

Or all the people who "find" religion while at college or later in life?

[Tekneek]

A better question would be, why would someone like James Dobson write about how important it is to get your kids into the church early in their lives? I recall it being in the book Dr. James Dobson on Parenting.

I'm not going to argue about all the problems with religion in this thread. Those are the kinds of things that people have to open their own mind up to. These answers are found all around in today's world, as well as throughout history. There's no point in trying to convince anybody. People have to want to find their own answers.

The point with children is not to give them one version of religion as "the truth." Give them all religion and see what they make of it.

[gstelmack]

Getting kids into church early in their lives helps ground them on a lot of things. There are a lot of good life lessons in the Bible, for example, that are completely separate from the religious aspects of it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The point with children is not to give them one version of religion as "the truth." Give them all religion and see what they make of it.

Sure, I think that would be beneficial for a kid, to learn about all religions, maybe even take in a few various services across the spectrum. Not because religion is the "truth", but because it's a part of society, and it's good to have respect for others in your society.

As someone else said, when you completely ignore religion though, you ARE make a pretty significant statement about it. There's nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to indoctrinate your kid, but its certainly not a neutral stance that leaves someone to make up their own mind.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Getting kids into church early in their lives helps ground them on a lot of things. There are a lot of good life lessons in the Bible, for example, that are completely separate from the religious aspects of it.

While not appropriate for this thread, I would love for you to share some of these with me.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

While not appropriate for this thread, I would love for you to share some of these with me.

Well, we can start with the Ten Commandmants for one. For the most part there's a prety good set of "be nice to others" stories in there.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, we can start with the Ten Commandmants for one. For the most part there's a prety good set of "be nice to others" stories in there.

I believe there are at least 4 of them that have nothing to do with being nice to anybody, except perhaps "God."

[molson]

That Jesus guy is a pretty decent role model, if you're into love, peace, forgiveness, treating people equally, etc.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

That Jesus guy is a pretty decent role model, if you're into love, peace, forgiveness, treating people equally, etc.

EDITED to remove my comments since this isn't what this thread was meant to be about. Start a new one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead... Seems like we ought to be against usury too, if we want to take that seriously. Not much call for that, though, in our modern world. Even in a nation that proclaims itself to be at least 4/5 Christian.

I didn't claim that Jesus didn't do some "tricks" too, not sure what your point is, we're just answering your question.

Religion can be so many different things. It can be a Pixar movie, the secrets of life and the universe, a place to talk about sports, an excuse to drink beer with girls in the woods, an academic study, WHATEVER. The fact that something that be so rich, so complicated, mean so much to different people means it matters, somehow, to society as a whole. A kid with no knowledge or exposure of that, with no opportunity to experience those complications, that critical thought, IMO, is being deprived a little.

My first experiences with critical thought were questioning things in the bible. It was enlightening. It blew my young mind. I wondered what else out there should be questioned. I don't know that you can teach a kid to question, they just have to find those questions on their own.

[Tekneek]

The point still, is that it is about exposing them to all religious stories. They will see the pattern pretty quickly when the same sort of stories repeat themselves over and over, and be able to derive the useful lessons while dispensing with the dogma.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I believe there are at least 4 of them that have nothing to do with being nice to anybody, except perhaps "God."

And six of them that don't. Yes, there is lots of the Bible that is highly religious, but lots that is just generally a good idea. The rest provides a framework for getting those lessons across.

Anyway, just answering the question of "why would you want young children involved in a church?". Agreed that this sidetrack is not quite appropriate, so I'll stop posting as well. FWIW, I was raised a Catholic, am currently a non-fervent believer in God (I'm not quite sure I know what form he takes, or exactly how happy with that belief I am), am not a big fan of organized religion (I believe most are far more interested in political issues than true religious issues), but my kids attend a Christian Church to help them with some of this grounding, hence my reply here. We picked a Church whose doctrine includes open discussion of the Bible and religious issues and admits openly that there is no one right way aside from their hard-and-fast Christian belief in Jesus Christ. I was very pleased to find a Church that wanted to DISCUSS things rather than TELL things.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Getting kids into church early in their lives helps ground them on a lot of things. There are a lot of good life lessons in the Bible, for example, that are completely separate from the religious aspects of it.

There is no example you could give me that they couldn't get in some other aspect of life, except only for the belief in God. The grounding is done by the parents and the example they set, not the church.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by molson

So how do explain all the people that went to church as kids and aren't religious as adults? Or all the "born again" Christans who "find God" as adults? There are a HUGE number of these people.

Each person has their own story. I convinced my kids that Santa Claus is real. They will believe it until they figure out the truth for themselves. That doesn't exactly make it ok. I have set the default belief and every year we reinforce that by singing songs and giving presents. You can call it harmless but that is a form of dogma. That is the indoctrination. God is on a much larger scale and it takes alot more to "shake" the belief. I was religious as a child and the habits of believing made it impossible to have an open mind. I always had a bias of believing because my parents did, and their parents did and so on and so on. Noone gave me the slightest idea that something might be different or there might be another explanation. How is that fair? Do you take your child to atheist/secular get-togethers? These events exist but I doubt you would find many "open-minded" Christians there.

[watravaler]

Originally Posted by Kodos

My son is 4 years old now, and at some point I'll have to figure out whether I need to sack up and go to church for his (and my baby daughter's) "benefit". While I personally am not religious, I want my kids to be able to make that decision for themselves. In other words, I don't want to force my lack of religious beliefs down the kid's throats.

What do you guys do? So far, we simply haven't gone to church. Taking the kids there would, in a very real way, feel like lying to them, since I would potentially be projecting religious beliefs to my kids that aren't actually there. Like I said, I ultimately want the kids to come to their own conclusions sometime down the road, rather than creating little clones who parrot my own beliefs. Can folks who are a little farther down this road chime in with how they handled the situation?

There is nothing wrong with some of the basic rules most religions teach, but attending church isn't necessary, as I can tell them the same things their pastor/priest would... without some of the hocus pocus I don't want them exposed to.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, that's totally rational. I think it's just the fear that a child's mind and soul will be turned over permantly to a religion if they're exposed to church that's a little bit of parnoia, but it's really a meaningless practical distinction.

Not necessarily "permanently" but it can cause them significant mental trauma to break away and, for some, it's too much trauma and for others simply too much effort.

You say elsewhere there are many people who change their position later in life but there are many, many more who stick with the religion they receive as a child. A part of the reason Christianity predominates in America and Islam in Saudi Arabia is the messages we convey to children when they're open to persuasion.

We're too close to the religious messages, too familiar with them to see their true significance. Let me put forward a different scenario which makes it clearer:

There's a community hall down the road. It has a big placard outside that reads "Jesus Sucks!" or "God is Dead!". They hold meetings every Sunday morning in which songs are sung celebrating the "fact" that there is no God. A sermon is preached praising the freedom of a life without God. The congregation cry "God doesn't exist" instead of "Amen" or "God is great".

They run the best kids soccer team in the country, feed vagrants at their soup kitchen, run the best fish bakes and the people who go are very friendly and likable.

But is there a single Christian reading this that would take his child to these Sunday morning meetings? Are you being paranoid if think your son's malleable, welcoming mind might be significantly affected by these atheist messages and would far rather he didn't experience them?

There is a difference of course. It is that we've become so blase about religious messages bombarding our senses 24/7 we think we're immune. But any PR man will tell you that subliminal messages are the best and messages that bypass the conscious and work on the subconscious are the most effective. By taking his child to a church service the agnostic/atheist is allowing these messages to be reinforced by an organisation dedicated to and well practised at promoting these messages, that creates an atmosphere emphasising the glory of God and is populated almost exclusively by people who hold the same religious views.

If a father wants his son to make his own, deliberate decision on what belief system he will eventually subscribe to he will do his best to protect the child from propaganda of any sort and certainly not deliberately subject him to messages of one kind, particularly a kind he himself finds unacceptable.

[Vegas Vic]

If the kids keep pressing the issue, you need to be firm and say something like "For the love of God, we're not going to church!", or "Jesus Christ! Give it a rest already!"

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

If the kids keep pressing the issue, you need to be firm and say something like "For the love of God, we're not going to church!", or "Jesus Christ! Give it a rest already!"

I prefer "Jesus Fucking Christ," but when I say that in public I get dirty looks.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

If a father wants his son to make his own, deliberate decision on what belief system he will eventually subscribe to he will do his best to protect the child from propaganda of any sort and certainly not deliberately subject him to messages of one kind, particularly a kind he himself finds unacceptable.

What doesn't make sense about this position is that not deliberately subjecting the child to messages of one kind is still deliberately subjecting the child to a message. If you protect the child from propaganda, to use your term, you are subjecting the child to a message that this propaganda is either unimportant or so dangerously effective. It's still deliberately subjecting the child to one message whether it's the propaganda of a religious message or the apparent open-mindedness of a non-religious message.

One cannot take the mythical high-road of open-mindedness when this position is just as rigid as that of a religious position.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

What doesn't make sense about this position is that not deliberately subjecting the child to messages of one kind is still deliberately subjecting the child to a message.

I don't disagree with you about the message at all. But I don't claim that I'm not giving a message. Indeed, I don't hide it. To my daughter (and my suggestion to kodos to his son) it is:

a) some people believe in God, some don't
b) I prefer that you make up your own mind when you are capable with a minimum of influence from those with committed views who would influence you while you have no ability to determine the value of those influences

Bearing that second in mind I suggest that it is imminently sensible to keep her away from church where she would clearly be significantly influenced in the direction of religion.

If you protect the child from propaganda, to use your term, you are subjecting the child to a message that this propaganda is either unimportant or so dangerously effective.

Unimportant? No! Dangerously effective? Yes. And I would add "unsubstantiated". Because of all three I see it as my responsibility to protect her from "propaganda" while she has no ability to recognise it for what it is.

It's still deliberately subjecting the child to one message whether it's the propaganda of a religious message or the apparent open-mindedness of a non-religious message.

Your post is thought provoking - even caused me to remove my first reactions - but where I disagree with you most is in not granting any difference of value to the messages. The "make your own mind up" is not "apparent" open-mindedness when compared with "this is the way it is". I believe the message to be less controlling, less dictatorial and, yes, more open-minded. I value that more.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I don't disagree with you about the message at all. But I don't claim that I'm not giving a message. Indeed, I don't hide it. To my daughter (and my suggestion to kodos to his son) it is:

a) some people believe in God, some don't
b) I prefer that you make up your own mind when you are capable with a minimum of influence from those with committed views who would influence you while you have no ability to determine the value of those influences

I'm still not seeing viability of the argument here. You are one who has a committed view to agnosticism/atheism and you are, intentionally or otherwise, influencing your daughter while she has no ability to determine the value of your influence. There seems to be a contradiction between word and action with this position.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Your post is thought provoking - even caused me to remove my first reactions - but where I disagree with you most is in not granting any difference of value to the messages. The "make your own mind up" is not "apparent" open-mindedness when compared with "this is the way it is". I believe the message to be less controlling, less dictatorial and, yes, more open-minded. I value that more.

Just to clarify, I don't see the value of the messages as on the same plane. I just see their means of communication as equal. We all constantly communicate messages to our kids so this constant communication is where the equality lies. The respective messages have different values though.

So messages that are less controlling, less dictatorial and more open-minded have more value. And that's the way it is.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by bignej

I was religious as a child and the habits of believing made it impossible to have an open mind. I always had a bias of believing because my parents did, and their parents did and so on and so on. Noone gave me the slightest idea that something might be different or there might be another explanation.

I think this is where I hope that my daughter's experience will be different from your childhood. I'll be the parent that does open the door to something besides what she is learning at church. Which in turn may open the door to the critical thought concept that molson raised a few posts earlier.

I do not see the idea of introducing church to a child as a huge negative. I certainly felt differently 10-15 years ago when I thought about it in the hypothetical, but I guess my anti-religious zeal has dulled over time. I'm now more willing to see some of the good in the message, even if I reject the larger premise.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I think this is where I hope that my daughter's experience will be different from your childhood. I'll be the parent that does open the door to something besides what she is learning at church. Which in turn may open the door to the critical thought concept that molson raised a few posts earlier.

I would hope that whatever church your daughter goes to would open the door to questions. It's unfortunate that too many, from what I've heard, reject questions and blame them on a lack of faith or some other nonsense.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I would hope that whatever church your daughter goes to would open the door to questions. It's unfortunate that too many, from what I've heard, reject questions and blame them on a lack of faith or some other nonsense.

The problem for me was always the lack of answers. Once you get to the point where the answers are variations on "God works in mysterious ways", you know you've hit a dead end.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm still not seeing viability of the argument here. You are one who has a committed view to agnosticism/atheism and you are, intentionally or otherwise, influencing your daughter while she has no ability to determine the value of your influence. There seems to be a contradiction between word and action with this position.

Our society is such that religious messages from both sides will impinge on her life and most of those will be pro-religion. That can't be avoided in our "Christian" society. However I can minimise the number by not inviting them in unnecessarily by having her attend church. And that's what I'm arguing - don't expose the child to unnecessary messages by attending a place dedicated to communicating these messages.

I would hope that whatever church your daughter goes to would open the door to questions. It's unfortunate that too many, from what I've heard, reject questions and blame them on a lack of faith or some other nonsense.

I'm puzzled by your idea of church, ajaxab. They do not "open the door to questions". They promote faith and dogma which are the very antithesis of "open to questions".

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

most of those will be pro-religion.

I don't see this, generally a child's experience in school, especially high school and then into college certainly tends to not be pro-religion.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm still not seeing viability of the argument here. You are one who has a committed view to agnosticism/atheism and you are, intentionally or otherwise, influencing your daughter while she has no ability to determine the value of your influence. There seems to be a contradiction between word and action with this position.



Just to clarify, I don't see the value of the messages as on the same plane. I just see their means of communication as equal. We all constantly communicate messages to our kids so this constant communication is where the equality lies. The respective messages have different values though.

So messages that are less controlling, less dictatorial and more open-minded have more value. And that's the way it is.

Going to a church service is a lesson on how to properly be religious. Sure they have functions that are nice but those are supplied by baseball, clubs, and other similar activities devoid of religion. Anyone who views them as unequal has an obvious bias.

You can still teach you child what christians (or whatever religion) believe without allowing them to attend church and being subjected to their dogmatic point of view. Its the point of view that is important here. You suggest that we saying religion is unimportant if we don't teach it to them. You just don't like that we don't teach it your way and call it silly illogical paranoia. We are teaching it to them, just not brainwashing them from birth.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Our society is such that religious messages from both sides will impinge on her life and most of those will be pro-religion. That can't be avoided in our "Christian" society. However I can minimise the number by not inviting them in unnecessarily by having her attend church. And that's what I'm arguing - don't expose the child to unnecessary messages by attending a place dedicated to communicating these messages.

Perhaps things are different in Australia, but I tend to think the US is a Christian/pro-religion nation in name only. I flip on my television and more than 90% of the content never references God or any religious idea. I go through the educational system and have to take a religious studies course in order to be exposed to any religious idea. I drive down the street and see building after building devoted to all things other than religion. In this sense, I'm puzzled that having a kid spend less than 2% of their week in a religious service somehow dominates the 98% of their week when they are not subject to religious messages. It could be our different national contexts, but I think we disagree about the nature of society.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I'm puzzled by your idea of church, ajaxab. They do not "open the door to questions". They promote faith and dogma which are the very antithesis of "open to questions".

I think one can still be open to questions and promote faith and dogma. I have heard of churches where any questioning of the faith is avoided and/or outright rejected. No questions are ever allowed. The person asking the question is left feeling rejected as well. On the contrary, I have also heard of churches that invite any and all questions. The church's answers will be based on their faith and, in many cases non-negotiable (it's a system of belief after all), but they do not reject the question or the questioner.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by bignej

You can still teach you child what christians (or whatever religion) believe without allowing them to attend church

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by bignej

and being subjected to their dogmatic point of view.

Please define dogmatic.

Originally Posted by bignej

Its the point of view that is important here. You suggest that we saying religion is unimportant if we don't teach it to them.

Absolutely, that's what I'm saying. And that's what I'm saying you are saying. My parents never said anything about the sport of cricket while I was growing up. I subsequently thought it wasn't important. I have since learned otherwise, but for the longest time I didn't have a fleeting thought about cricket. The same would seem to apply to religious discussion as well. If you never discuss Shintoism, your child will grow up believing Shintoism is not important. That child would not be able to conceptualize how it could ever be important.

Originally Posted by bignej

You just don't like that we don't teach it your way and call it silly illogical paranoia.

I think you are confusing me with someone else in this thread as I never used the phrase "silly illogical paranoia." Is a commitment to open-mindedness illogical? Sure, but it's hardly paranoia.

Originally Posted by bignej

We are teaching it to them, just not brainwashing them from birth.

Brainwashing is not a helpful term to use. It implies a lack of choice. Clearly, there have been those raised in religious homes who have become agnostics/atheists and vice-versa. Brainwashing suggests that once a person is on the track, there's no getting off.

Even if we do go with this term in the way you are using it (a usage I don't find helpful), we're all being brainwashed into something. The religious are brainwashing their kids about religious ideas. You are brainwashing your kids about whatever you might be teaching them about world religions. The critical issue is what you will brainwash your kids into and not that one can somehow avoid brainwashing.

That's my big point for Kodos to take from this thread. If he decides he doesn't want to take his daughter to a religious service because he finds religion problematic or potentially damaging, so be it. That is logically consistent. But if he decides he doesn't want to take his daughter to a religious service out of a concern for keeping her open-minded, that does not make sense and that concern should be set aside.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

But if he decides he doesn't want to take his daughter to a religious service out of a concern for keeping her open-minded, that does not make sense and that concern should be set aside.

I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from. But you're missing a crucial point: the child is four years old

You and I may go to church to widen our horizons. We understand the difference between faith and fact. We understand debate. Contradicting argument doesn't confuse us.

But the 4 year old does not understand any of these. Whatever he hears, he hears as fact. Father Christmas, God, the Tooth Fairy, angels - tell him they're real and they'll all be fact to him. So, when you give him faith he will see fact. That's why you're indoctrinating (inculcating doctrine into) him because he will take what is faith to be fact. You're putting faith/doctrine into him when he's incapable of understanding what faith is.

And that's the whole point of so many of these arguments: leave the child alone until he is capable of distinguishing faith from fact, of weighing up contrary arguments and of making his own mind up about what is acceptable to him and what is not. Do not expose him to things he cannot understand - or at least, no more than cannot be avoided - until he can understand.

Please define dogmatic.

essentially dogmatic is the very opposite of open-minded

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But the 4 year old does not understand any of these. Whatever he hears, he hears as fact. Father Christmas, God, the Tooth Fairy, angels - tell him they're real and they'll all be fact to him. So, when you give him faith he will see fact. That's why you're indoctrinating (inculcating doctrine into) him because he will take what is faith to be fact. You're putting faith/doctrine into him when he's incapable of understanding what faith is.

And that's the whole point of so many of these arguments: leave the child alone until he is capable of distinguishing faith from fact, of weighing up contrary arguments and of making his own mind up about what is acceptable to him and what is not. Do not expose him to things he cannot understand - or at least, no more than cannot be avoided - until he can understand.

Do you have similar concerns about all of the other non-facts out there? Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Cartoons, TV, Children's Books, etc?

I'm sure you have some concerns about those things - but are you worried your son will grow up thinking Cartoons are Santa Clause are real if he's "indoctrinated" now, and that his little mind will just never be able to change his mind on those things?

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you have similar concerns about all of the other non-facts out there? Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, Cartoons, TV, Children's Books, etc?

To a certain degree, yes. And I think many parents wonder if it's a good idea but tend to go along with it because of the enormous pleasure it gives the kids.

I'm sure you have some concerns about those things - but are you worried your son will grow up thinking Cartoons are Santa Clause are real if he's "indoctrinated" now, and that his little mind will just never be able to change his mind on those things?

No. First because these myths are so ridiculous that the child comes to realise they're not true well before the parents fess up. Second because half the world does not continue to tell them it's true as is the case with religious ideas. It would be impossible for them to continue to believe in Father Christmas but they can quite well continue to believe the religious ideas and will find many others who do so also and will support them in their beliefs.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I'm beginning to understand where you're coming from. But you're missing a crucial point: the child is four years old

And that's the whole point of so many of these arguments: leave the child alone until he is capable of distinguishing faith from fact, of weighing up contrary arguments and of making his own mind up about what is acceptable to him and what is not. Do not expose him to things he cannot understand - or at least, no more than cannot be avoided - until he can understand.

I see your point, but I don't think it's possible to "leave the child alone" as it were. The child is never truly alone, but is always being influenced by someone/something. Kodos needs to make his decision based on what types of influence he wants his child to experience and not on the basis of making sure the child can have an open-mind.

I agree with you that a child is incapable of considering the nuances of arguments about religious belief. Yet, the child is also incapable of weighing arguments about atheism/agnosticism as well (at least the four year olds I've met anyways). In living a life from this position, the parent is indoctrinating the child into things the child cannot understand, the very thing that seems objectionable.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

essentially dogmatic is the very opposite of open-minded

So the difference between being dogmatic about religion and dogmatic about being open-minded is...

If the objection is about the content of the dogma, that's a legitimate discussion, but it's tangential and one for another day. I think the content of religious dogma is where your primary objection lies and should lie rather than this line of argument about indoctrination vs. open-mindedness.

But if the objection is that dogma is objectionable merely because it is dogma, open-mindedness is itself a form of dogma and must be objected to as well to be consistent.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I agree with you that a child is incapable of considering the nuances of arguments about religious belief. Yet, the child is also incapable of weighing arguments about atheism/agnosticism as well (at least the four year olds I've met anyways). In living a life from this position, the parent is indoctrinating the child into things the child cannot understand, the very thing that seems objectionable.

You're missing the fact that you don't actually teach the agnostic/atheist point of view. Are you suggesting that by not living within and disussing religion to a 4 year old, you are teaching them to be an atheist/agnostic? Living that way allows them to become atheist/agnostic(or christian/Jew/whatever) if they choose later in life with significantly less bias that by doing the church thing. Just like Mac said, at that age they take whatever is said around them as fact and you need to tread lightly on matters of such importance as religion. Taking them to church around people singing and praying and being religious is not treading lightly.

Even giving you the point that not taking them to church is somehow indoctrinating them into atheism, it far from the opposite extreme of going to church. You are atleast striving for neutrality. If they ask you can say, "some people believe x and other do not". Pretty neutral. You could stress that it is so important to some people that they kill others. All without going to church.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. " -Richard Dawkins
Do you teach your children about all other gods? Do you take them to services of other religions? According to your arguments, by not doing so you are suggesting they are unimportant.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

To a certain degree, yes. And I think many parents wonder if it's a good idea but tend to go along with it because of the enormous pleasure it gives the kids.

And because most kids once the figure out the truth enjoy having figured out the truth and play along from that point. Assuming they figure out and don't have some jerk ruin it for them at too early an age...

[Tekneek]

If religion does not have an effect on the rest of anybody's life, how do you explain religious people pouring millions of dollars into preventing "gay marriage" with no secular/scientific reasoning behind their position on the issue? How do we have no alcohol sales on Sundays, if religion is not having an impact on the rest of our lives? Is it because these initiatives are not driven by, or supported by, those who merely attend on Sunday? If our society really were as secular as some say, how do any of these purely religious issues ever make it into law?