Children and Religion

[Crimson King]

The problem all religions forget is that not everyone wants or needs them. If you are Christian, fine, but if you are a zealous Christian, you have some strange desire to preach to me and convert me and show me the wrong of my ways, and then I lose all interest and respect in what you have to say.

With children, I find it **** near evil to teach them your children your religion because they are at an impressionable age where they accept everything you say as if it comes from a god's mouth. You are exploiting that so you can feel you are doing your job as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever.

Did you yourself go to church as a kid? I'm not sure what kind of practices you believe that they use there, but I assure you it's nothing approaching 'brainwashing'.

Wrong. Hum the melody to "Jesus loves me" to a kid of about 6 or 7, who went to Sunday school. He will break into song because he has been conditioned to sing religious songs, songs that may not mean much at first, but deep down they are just as insidious. This is pretty much what people like Jim Jones did. "Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so." What that sentence they sing repeatedly does is imprint that Jesus loves them and the bible is right. The first part is a loving, safe quality, but the second is telling you to trust the bible completely, and that is wrong.

 

[pockyD]

Well, if you wanted to get into technicalities, we don't really have freedom of speech then, because there are certain things that we are not allowed to say, or would be punished for doing so. Spouting off the names of CIA operatives is such a thing that comes to mind. But, I'd rather not get into debates over such semantics, as they don't really prove anything, and I don't want to take the discussion off-topic.

is that actually illegal? (I'm asking, i really have no idea). If some 'source' gave me a list of spies, and I printed it in a newspaper or something, would I be held accountable?

The issue is, I guess, what happens when people's rights come into conflict with one another. Like, personally, for me, freedom of religion means to me that I can choose not to have to follow a religion, and then not have to worry about my life being adversely affected by other people's religious beliefs. But that puts in contention with how other people may interpret their freedom of religion.

Once again, I inquire what rights would be infringed upon when a parent teaches their children about a religion?

Obviously, other people will "affect" you. For example, I'm sure people stopping you on the sidewalks asking if you know Jesus Christ or hindu mcvishnu may or may not be annoying, but do you think it's reasonable to outlaw that?

With children, I find it **** near evil to teach them your children your religion because they are at an impressionable age where they accept everything you say as if it comes from a god's mouth. You are exploiting that so you can feel you are doing your job as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever.

Then really, can a parent teach their children ANYTHING about morality (or what they hold as morals) that's not directly written into American law?

 

[Crimson King]

Can they? Yes.

Should they? That's a whole other debate.

 

[pockyD]

Wrong. Hum the melody to "Jesus loves me" to a kid of about 6 or 7, who went to Sunday school. He will break into song because he has been conditioned to sing religious songs, songs that may not mean much at first, but deep down they are just as insidious. This is pretty much what people like Jim Jones did. "Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so." What that sentence they sing repeatedly does is imprint that Jesus loves them and the bible is right. The first part is a loving, safe quality, but the second is telling you to trust the bible completely, and that is wrong.

Possibly, but it's not that different from your generic idiot middle schooler reciting rap lyrics without even thinking about what they mean.

Whether you ultimately choose to investigate the meaning of your words is, once again, up to the individual when they have that capacity. It's not reasonable to keep people in a box until they're 18, just so they aren't "unfairly" influenced (and obviously, if you did that, they wouldn't be ready to process information at age 18 either, since that kind of thing largely comes from experience)

Can they? Yes.

Should they? That's a whole other debate.

Er, ok, I'm a little bit lost. What is "THIS" debate then? Is it "should parents teach their kids religion?", or is it "should parents be allowed to teach their kids religion?"?

 

[Reaver197]

I'm pretty sure that if you did do such a thing, the CIA would fast track you for a court appointment for treason and whatever else you could be charged with for endangering national security and the like. I'm not law man myself, but I'm fairly sure they wouldn't just sit there and do nothing about it.

Also, it depends on what you mean by parents "teaching" their children "about a religion". Do you mean teaching them about the historical significance of religions, and to be aware of what certain people believe in, or do you mean to be brought up to believe in the religious beliefs your parent have?

I also am completely aware of the fact that I will always be influenced and affected by other people, irregardless of their beliefs. I made the distinction, though, of being negatively affected by their beliefs. Obviously, being asked about Jesus on the street is not something I would consider as negatively affecting me. Flying planes into buildings and killing doctors, however, are such negative things.

 

[pockyD]

Also, it depends on what you mean by parents "teaching" their children "about a religion". Do you mean teaching them about the historical significance of religions, and to be aware of what certain people believe in, or do you mean to be brought up to believe in the religious beliefs your parent have?

What's the difference, really? How would a parent act in a way to differentiate one from another?

It's obviously already much stronger than "what certain people believe in", as it would be "what I believe in", and children already look up to their parents (at least they do at the ages we're probably discussing). Once again, the parent isn't making the child take any binding action (cut off your arm for Jesus?), so I don't see the big deal. This forum alone is littered with people who grew up in a church, then grew out of it when they developed the mental ability to judge for themselves and question the system.

I also am completely aware of the fact that I will always be influenced and affected by other people, irregardless of their beliefs. I made the distinction, though, of being negatively affected by their beliefs. Obviously, being asked about Jesus on the street is not something I would consider as negatively affecting me. Flying planes into buildings and killing doctors, however, are such negative things.

It's fairly normal to find being bothered on the street as being negatively affected (as Crimson King finds -_-). Obviously, not to the extent of getting murdered by a zealot, but how will you draw the distinction? In reality, the distinction already exists; religious acts are legally accountable when they infringe on other legally defined rights. Whether someone was religiously motivated or not does not (or at least should not in a perfect world, but juries and stuff are obviously quite impressionable) affect what kind of sentence a murderer receives.

And plus, if you want to tie it back to the main subject, you are now holding parents accountable for their children crashing planes 30 years down the line... but on the other hand, you aren't enabling them to teach their children the "proper" morals (i.e. don't crash planes into buildings)

 

[Reaver197]

Um, I'm afraid I'm going to have ask you to clarify what you're saying/asking. I have a feeling that what you think I asked you/said and what I thought I was asking you/said is not quite the same.

As for myself, I've never been particularly "bothered" by anyone on the street, religious or not, so I can't say that it's ever been particularly negative.

As for enabling parents to teach their children "properly", the issue is that a lot of them would reject the teaching of the morals that would prevent the sort of belief system that leads to suicidal religious fanaticism. Other than that, I don't quite know what you're getting at. Are you saying that they can't be held accountable since they don't know any other way of how to raise their children?

 

[pockyD]

As for enabling parents to teach their children "properly", the issue is that a lot of them would reject the teaching of the morals that would prevent the sort of belief system that leads to suicidal religious fanaticism. Other than that, I don't quite know what you're getting at. Are you saying that they can't be held accountable since they don't know any other way of how to raise their children?

Right... so either a parent should be able to teach their kids their morals system (may or may not be based in religion), or they can't.

If they can, then while most parents will teach their children "standard" morals (don't lie, cheat, steal, etc), others will teach more ambiguous concepts (God is always right, do as he is leading you etc) that may lead to trouble down the line

If they can't, then either there is a pre-defined system of morals that you require all parents to teach, or parents don't teach morals at all, and the children do whatever they want. The first is an assault on freedom IMO (debatable? if you wish), but I have sincere doubts that the second one would lead to a more functional, morally upright society than just allowing parents to teach their kids as they see fit

 

[Zero Beat]

Possibly, but it's not that different from your generic idiot middle schooler reciting rap lyrics without even thinking about what they mean.

What Crimson's trying to say is that conditioning is the problem. Ever read Brave New World? That's what he's referring to.

Has nothing to do with rap lyrics and their dullness. I can see what you tried to do with your example, but it's different when the lyrics MEAN something(which he explained in two parts) than just "singing 'em cuz."

 

[RDK]

And Pocky, there's a world of difference between keeping your kid in a box and simply teaching them about religions.

You can certainly present them with differing viewpoints, but to shove the Bible down the kid's throat and say "Follow this, or you'll burn in hell for eternity!"? Come on now.

 

[pockyD]

Ok, I really need some clarification here

are we discussing "What a 'good' religious parent would/should do" or "What a parent should be allowed to do"?

I'm not interested in debating whether you can be a 'good' religious parent btw

 

[Zero Beat]

We have to understand the following:
- It is tradition to teach religion to your kid if you practice it yourself. That's how such a large percentage of the world is religious.

But, just because it is a tradition, it doens't mean that it's "supposed to be that way." If anything, I agree with RDK's view of atheism in birth.

 

[pockyD]

We have to understand the following:
- It is tradition to teach religion to your kid if you practice it yourself. That's how such a large percentage of the world is religious.

I think that's misleading... the real tradition is to "teach what you believe to your kid"... and if you want to strike that, then either there needs to be an alternative concerning what you 'can' teach your kid, or you can't teach your kid anything. Religion just happens to be the hot button issue at hand, but I believe that it's merely a sub-category of generic "beliefs" and "morals" held by the parent

 

[RDK]

I think that's misleading... the real tradition is to "teach what you believe to your kid"... and if you want to strike that, then either there needs to be an alternative concerning what you 'can' teach your kid, or you can't teach your kid anything. Religion just happens to be the hot button issue at hand, but I believe that it's merely a sub-category of generic "beliefs" and "morals" held by the parent

Like I said; there's a difference between teaching them about things and teaching them to believe in things.

The only real way to ensure religious people don't imprint their beliefs on their children is to change the views of the parents themselves, which is nigh impossible.

The only other alternative is to just let what happens happen. I suppose the smarter kids will embrace rationality when they grow old enough anyway, and there's really no end-all way to ensure religion doesn't get passed on with genes (ha, I made a funny).

Although religion is less of a bad gene and more of a virus. :embarrass

 

[Zero Beat]

I think that's misleading... the real tradition is to "teach what you believe to your kid"...

Which for the most part is religion, notice I'm not saying things at 100%.

"For the most part," instead of "all. "Such a large population," instead of the population.

 

[~Peachy~]

I'm not quite sure what's up with the level of indignation in your posts, Peachy, I don't think I posted with any hostility, nevertheless,

Oh, I'm very sorry, of my tone got a bit hostile. You know, being new to the debate hall I needed a good format to use. Who better than one of the best (or at least well-knwon) flamers/debaters on Smashboards? ( I wonder if anyone can guess who I'm talking about) Anyway, don't take it personally if my argument gets too heated. ^__^

For the end of the topic, I'll keep the argument classy.

Zero Beat and Hyuga, our argument is meaningless because theories are made out of evidence and based out of our modern understandings of "logical". Logic is not a clear cut, sure-fire answer, and thus relative. There is no possible way of proving one's logic accurate. Logic can become distorted and/or biased. AS for religion, there may or may not be evidence to prove if it is true or not. The "doctrines" of religion were interpreted and thus had the big possibility that it can be changed. Therefore, religion has no "surefire" evidence either. Thus, both of our arguments should be negated. It was pretty futile anyway,don't you think?

Secondly, this topic should also be done and over with. It was pretty silly to begin with. It doesn't matter if a child's parent's forces them. There will be other influences on a child's final choice. Ultimately, what decides what a person believes in is environmental pressures, social interactions, and one's own cognitive view of the world. Basically, one's own life experiences. See, many of you were "forced" into a religion. Are all of you still part of that religion today? No. It depends on the child's experiences. Just because he/she was forced into it, that doesn't mean they will stick with it throughout their lives. Some of you guys are living proof of that. So in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not a parent "uses force".

Well, that's basically it for me. I'm done with this topic. Most of the arguments after my conclusion would mostly be reiterations. Honestly, most of the topics that even touch on religion get uglier than a food fight on Taco and Beans Day.