What should parents teach their children?

[Deleted member]

Hi

I’ve been thinking lately about how the views and lives which children hold and lead are very much influenced by the views and opinions of their parents. These include views on religion and politics, which branch out into a huge amount of the views that they hold in general.

The Views and Opinions of Children

It’s no secret that most children follow the same religion (or lack thereof) as their parents, and indeed stay with the same religion/non-religion when they grow older. I personally think that this is disgrace to our society in general, as this indicates we in fact base so much of our belief on what our parents teach us. This is however, definitely preventable if proper rules are laid out regarding how much a parent is allowed to impose their beliefs on their child.

The spreading of the views from parents to children can be fairly devastating. Some political and religious views children often inherit from parents are:

- Religion
- "Tolerance" (for lack of a better word) of other religions
- Political views (left or right)
- Thoughts regarding homosexuals
- Acceptance of school teachings (things such as evolution)
- Abortion
- Illegal immigration (which can affect whether or not the child is a racist)
- Environmental Consciousness (Global Warming etc)

However, it would be silly to think that a child can be brought up without holding the opinions of their parents to a certain regard. The fact is, a child who will think about what their parents tell them, and question it’s logical validity will be a nightmare. That child will likely get into more trouble than it’s worth to have a “thinking child”. Young children already constantly defy the rules laid out by their parents, and follow them begrudgingly. If a child has been brought up believing he or she can question the views of their parents, they will of course question whether they need to do their homework, do their chores, or even obey their parents at all.

A proper balance needs to be struck between a child who does/thinks whatever their parents tell them (or “sheep”), and a delinquent who will just do whatever they want.

The Lives of the Children

Since I already typed a lot on the part before, I won’t put too much here, although I think it’s just as, or even more important.

Many children’s lives are physically affected by the religion (not so much politics) of their parents, and in some cases these impacts can go to great extremes.

Some examples of moderate and extreme influences are:
- Wearing a turban
- Not receiving medical treatment when it’s needed (a huge problem, and come to think of it, I wish I had typed more about this)
- Wearing a burka or hijab
- Not going to public or private schools (being home schooled)

My Overall View

I personally think that as soon as children are exposed to the religion or political views of their parents, the parents should make a clear distinction between the views which the parents hold which the children are free to question (politics and religion), and the firm rules which parents have (doing chores and going to school). This way children will hopefully form less biased ideas regarding politics and religion, be free to make decisions such as whether or not they will get medical treatment, and at the same time not defy the rules which their parents set out. If the parents absolutely insist that the child follows their political or religious views, then Child Protective Services should be able to step in and make sure that the parents aren't forcing the children to follow those views.

My Main Question (The TLDR)
I don’t think there will be any disagreement on making sure kids follow rules like homework and chores, I just wanted to make clear that I’m not representing (nor is anybody else I hope) the extreme view that kids should think and do whatever they feel is best. The main question I want to pose is how much should parents impose their religious and political views on children? Also, at what point should the government be allowed to step in if a child is being taught utter nonsense (eg: Westboro Baptist Church, can't get medical treatment)?

Hopefully this isn’t a specific political or religious question, as it isn’t meant to be

 

[Dre89]

That was a pretty good post (I'm going to mention you in the Jedi Council) but I think you've made the mistake of separating religion and mroality.

What your post is pretty much saying "parents should teach them to be good people (morals), and then moderate their teaching of religion". That's ok from an atheistic perspective, because an atheist will consider there to be a distinction between morals and religion. The issue is that theists will find no separation between religion and morals, they will literally believe that bringing the child up with the religion is the best way to raise them.

This topic essentially becomes a moral debate. As soon as you say "parents should teach them morals, but religion only to a certain extent" you're imposing your personal moral beliefs onto others, which ironically, are probably a result of the way you were brought up by your parents.

 

[Deleted member]

Thanks a lot, I've seen a lot of your posts, that means a lot coming from you :D

That's a good point, I hadn't really considered that religion and morality go hand in hand for a lot of people. However I don't really think that parents need to go too far in teaching their kids morality. With the way that our society works nowadays (at least for children), they quickly learn in school that if they do bad things, bad things will happen to them (timeout, detention, the other kids will hate them). Aside from that I don't really know what morals they would need to learn, other than things like staying away from drugs and sex, which aren't really arguments from a religious basis.

As you said, I'm saying that "parents should teach them morals, but religion only to a certain extent". I'm not necessarily saying that they should be taught it only to a certain extent, but it shouldn't go to he point where the parents force the children to wear a turban or hijab, or associate mainly with people of the same religion/race. You're right, my view on this does have an influence from how I was brought up (into a religious family, not too strong though).

My main issue is with parents enforcing their political views on children (not as much religion), and religious rules in terms of real life effects (getting medical treatment, wearing hijab).

A part of my inspiration from this came from stories like these

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-...ter+killed+clash+over+hijab/159480/story.html

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20948/ava-worthington

The first was very close to home, and although I didn't know that person, I know several people who I suspect live lives similar to this.

The second was incredibly disturbing, and they weren't even charged for it (if I'm reading the article correctly). What I wonder about is what happens if this happens with an older child (around the age of 10 or so) who WANTS to get the treatment, but the parents don't allow it?

Those are both extreme cases of course, but they're just examples of what can happen when the government isn't allowed to step in.

EDIT: I found some more info, and it's quite disturbing.

The "mature minor" doctrine provides for minors to give consent to medical procedures if they can show that they are mature enough to make a decision on their own. It is a relatively new legal concept, and as of 2002 only a few states such as Arkansas and Nevada have enacted the doctrine into STATUTE. In several other states, including Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Illinois, Maine and Massachusetts, state high courts have adopted the doctrine as law.

In the states where it exists, the mature minor doctrine takes into account the age and situation of the minor to determine maturity, in addition to factors and conduct that can prove maturity. The Arkansas statute states, "any unemancipated minor of sufficient intelligence to understand and appreciate the consequences of the proposed surgical or medical treatment or procedures, for himself [may offer consent]." The standard is typical of the requirements of the mature minor doctrine.

The mature minor doctrine has been consistently applied in cases where the minor is sixteen years or older, understands the medical procedure in question, and the procedure is not serious. Application of the doctrine in other circumstances is more questionable. Outside reproductive rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on its applicability to medical procedures.

 

[GwJ]

What parents teach their children is a topic I don't necessarily enjoy talking about simply because it's so sensitive and there's not really a right or wrong answer.

PERSONALLY, I do believe parents should introduce religion and tolerance and culture et cetera. I do not believe however that parents should force that upon their children, which I am a victim of.

 

[fragbait]

GwJumpman is right in there being no right or wrong answer to exactly what, however, I think there's some easy and logical guidelines that one can use.

A) Morality
A childhood can easily be shaped by proper or improper teaching of morality. One only needs to look at the juvenile crime rate to see that the teaching of morality isn't as widespread as it should. Simple teaching and understanding of simple morals would prevent these things.
I say simple morals such as not stealing, not hurting others, respect of adults, etc. I think the 10 Commandments work well as a guideline here, baring the "no other God" part unless you follow Christianity.

B) Religion
Let me explain this for a second. I'm not saying at all, FORCE it on a child, however, a child has the right to know about what's out there in the realm of the Spiritual, and from this, be able to make their own decision. After all, there's no value in someone who follows a religion out of it being forced, because most religion only cares about a "true believer." However, if a child feels in themselves that they should follow, a parent should not restrict that, to a reasonable extent. That kid wants to drink the tainted Kool-aid? Someone should step in there.

C) How to think for themselves
This is the big one. A lot of kids don't really know how to think for themselves, and will easily give in to Peer Pressure. This can easily cause kids to smoke, do drugs, etc, not because they want to but because their friends want them to. A child should not only be taught to resist Peer Pressure, but should know how to make good decisions for themselves, and know how to speak their mind clearly and non-aggressively.

Just my thoughts there

 

[1048576]

GwJumpman is right in there being no right or wrong answer to exactly what, however, I think there's some easy and logical guidelines that one can use.


C) How to think for themselves
This is the big one. A lot of kids don't really know how to think for themselves, and will easily give in to Peer Pressure. This can easily cause kids to smoke, do drugs, etc, not because they want to but because their friends want them to. A child should not only be taught to resist Peer Pressure, but should know how to make good decisions for themselves, and know how to speak their mind clearly and non-aggressively.

Just my thoughts there

Basically this is the only criteria for me. As long as you have this, everything else can be fixed if your parents were completely nutters.

I also think parents should focus their teachings in a more breadth-first manner. Give the kid a wide perspective on why various people think the way they do. Provide honest arguments in favor of and against various morals and derivations of truth, and allow the kid to come to its own conclusions.

 

[Thino]

GwJumpman is right in there being no right or wrong answer to exactly what, however, I think there's some easy and logical guidelines that one can use.

A) Morality
A childhood can easily be shaped by proper or improper teaching of morality. One only needs to look at the juvenile crime rate to see that the teaching of morality isn't as widespread as it should. Simple teaching and understanding of simple morals would prevent these things.
I say simple morals such as not stealing, not hurting others, respect of adults, etc. I think the 10 Commandments work well as a guideline here, baring the "no other God" part unless you follow Christianity.

B) Religion
Let me explain this for a second. I'm not saying at all, FORCE it on a child, however, a child has the right to know about what's out there in the realm of the Spiritual, and from this, be able to make their own decision. After all, there's no value in someone who follows a religion out of it being forced, because most religion only cares about a "true believer." However, if a child feels in themselves that they should follow, a parent should not restrict that, to a reasonable extent. That kid wants to drink the tainted Kool-aid? Someone should step in there.

C) How to think for themselves
This is the big one. A lot of kids don't really know how to think for themselves, and will easily give in to Peer Pressure. This can easily cause kids to smoke, do drugs, etc, not because they want to but because their friends want them to. A child should not only be taught to resist Peer Pressure, but should know how to make good decisions for themselves, and know how to speak their mind clearly and non-aggressively.

Just my thoughts there

I completely agree with C

however , even as atheist as Dre pointed out , I believe A and B are the same but not because religion is necessarily the best way to raise a child , but because its an alternative way to teach morals ( which , as atheist , is the only good purpose I see for religion )

Basically , teaching morals through religion allows the parent to give an idea to children of the direct consequences that there can be not to respect morals therefore makes it much easier to accept for the child and easier to teach for the parent , for example :

Parent : dont kill people
child : why?
parent : because its bad to kill people

will have less impact on the child than :

parent : dont kill people
child : why?
parent : because you will go to hell !! its burning ! its hurts forever ! there are flames everywhere ! and youll stay there forever when you die !!

Morality taught in a way that includes rewards-punishment is much easier to assimilate for a child than explanations and honest arguments that s/he can find pretty vague and abstract for his/her young age.

 

[fragbait]

I completely agree with C

however , even as atheist as Dre pointed out , I believe A and B are the same but not because religion is necessarily the best way to raise a child , but because its an alternative way to teach morals ( which , as atheist , is the only good purpose I see for religion )

Basically , teaching morals through religion allows the parent to give an idea to children of the direct consequences that there can be not to respect morals therefore makes it much easier to accept for the child and easier to teach for the parent , for example :

Parent : dont kill people
child : why?
parent : because its bad to kill people

will have less impact on the child than :

parent : dont kill people
child : why?
parent : because you will go to hell !! its burning ! its hurts forever ! there are flames everywhere ! and youll stay there forever when you die !!

Morality taught in a way that includes rewards-punishment is much easier to assimilate for a child than explanations and honest arguments that s/he can find pretty vague and abstract for his/her young age.

You misunderstand. I did not say that religion is the best way to teach a child morality, not at all. But it does have one advantage to it, and it's that it appeals to a child's thinking of "If I do something good, something good should happen to me." I only say reference the 10 Commandments because, even for a non-believer, they are a solid set of basic morals that everyone should follow, of course baring the part about having no other god.
My thoughts on religion is that a child should be made aware that it exists, so they may make their own decision on them.

 

[Thino]

You misunderstand. I did not say that religion is the best way to teach a child morality, not at all.

Neither did I imply or say that you did.

The point I'm trying to make is that simply because the purpose is the same , I consider merely religion as a "way" to teach morals , rather than having teaching morals separated from teaching religion.

 

[fragbait]

Ah. It was implied when you said "I completely agree with C" and then went on to discuss your opinions on religion. My bad though.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Personally, I think Religion shouldn't be taught, but be self taught. (unless your father is a Minister of a Church). It's the child's decision, why corrupt them with your own personal thought?

 

[Grandeza]

Personally, I think Religion shouldn't be taught, but be self taught. (unless your father is a Minister of a Church). It's the child's decision, why corrupt them with your own personal thought?

Well in the case of a parent who believes that their religion is how you avoid hell, I could understand a parent wanting their child to be raised with their religion. I do agree it'd be best to let your child choose their own path in terms of religion (or lack thereof), but I guess i can understand parents wanting to raise their children with their personal religious views.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Well in the case of a parent who believes that their religion is how you avoid hell, I could understand a parent wanting their child to be raised with their religion. I do agree it'd be best to let your child choose their own path in terms of religion (or lack thereof), but I guess i can understand parents wanting to raise their children with their personal religious views.

You are always going to want your children to be like you, follow your ways, continue your traditions, but it just isn't going to happen. I grew up with a family that always said, "Don't do that, you'll go to Hell!" Scared out of my mind for 14 years! Why did I never do anything fun as a child? Because it somehow was a sin and I would go to Hell.

Teach them your religion if you want, but atleast teach them other religions too.

Edit: Congrats puu on making the DH!!! No fancy pink name? :/

 

[.Marik]

This is a really vague and broad question.

Since morality is so subjective, I'm not sure what to add really that's of substance.

 

[Sucumbio]

Personally, I think Religion shouldn't be taught, but be self taught. (unless your father is a Minister of a Church). It's the child's decision, why corrupt them with your own personal thought?

While this may be true and a decent suggestion for parents, one must remember that many religions require that your family participate, including the indoctrination of your children. Baptism is probably the most obvious instance of this as the child has typically not even reached the age of reason when this occurs. "Corrupting" them then becomes more of a follow-up to a decision that was already made, which is to raise the child ___insert Christian religion here___.

 

[Deleted member]

Thanks original smasher! I decided to stay as a "Smash Journeyman" for a bit, until I move to the next thing (once I have that many posts). Imo Journeyman seems really good, like a tribute to the band Journey.

I guess it is pretty subjective when it comes to teaching religion to kids. If you think your kids are better off learning from your religion, you're probably going to teach it to them. I think the more interesting question is where the government should be allowed to interfere, such as in the 2 cases I posted above.

 

[fragbait]

I think the more interesting question is where the government should be allowed to interfere, such as in the 2 cases I posted above.

When the child is forced into a situation unwillingly that presents significant danger to the child.

 

[Deleted member]

When the child is forced into a situation unwillingly that presents significant danger to the child.

It's hard to define a significant danger though. Sometimes parents will opt out of having the kids have medical treatment for any diseases at all. What about for things like the flu or whatever, where the parents won't allow their kids who have the shots? Under current laws, even if the child wants to have the shot, until they get to a certain age their parents make the ultimate decision.

 

[fragbait]

It's hard to define a significant danger though. Sometimes parents will opt out of having the kids have medical treatment for any diseases at all. What about for things like the flu or whatever, where the parents won't allow their kids who have the shots? Under current laws, even if the child wants to have the shot, until they get to a certain age their parents make the ultimate decision.

Flu doesn't usually present significant danger, and most diseases can be prevented with proper personal hygiene and vigilance.

When I say significant, I mean danger to life or limb.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

You defidently should teach your children about Government! Teach kids how thankful we are to be in America, and not in, lets say, Haiti.

 

[Deleted member]

Flu doesn't usually present significant danger, and most diseases can be prevented with proper personal hygiene and vigilance.

When I say significant, I mean danger to life or limb.

http://organizedwisdom.com/How_Many_People_Die_From_the_Flu_Each_Year

According to that site, in the US alone, 30,000-40,000 people die every year from the flu. 92 of those people are children. That number is relatively small, but if the children choose to have that flu shot they should still have the right to get it.

The flu was just one example (admittedly not the best one), but according to the article I found before (I'll link it below). The most disturbing one from that article I thought was this paragraph:

"Thirteen-year-old Amanda Bates had diabetes, a disease that can be controlled with careful medical treatment. But her parents belonged to the General Assembly and Church of the First Born, a faith which believes that prayers alone are the best way to heal illness."

That girl was 13 years old. What if she decided that she wanted medical treatment, and her parents wouldn't allow her to get it? The fact that that disturbing scenario is legal in over 40 states is disgusting.

Here's the link: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shoul...+Medical+Treatment+for+Their+Kids?-a072805548

You defidently should teach your children about Government! Teach kids how thankful we are to be in America, and not in, lets say, Haiti.

That's definitely something that a lot of people need to understand better, the fact that we're very lucky to be born in rich and powerful countries. Some people take that a bit too far with extreme nationalism, but yeah that's definitely something which people aren't taught enough as children.

 

[fragbait]

http://organizedwisdom.com/How_Many_People_Die_From_the_Flu_Each_Year

According to that site, in the US alone, 30,000-40,000 people die every year from the flu. 92 of those people are children. That number is relatively small, but if the children choose to have that flu shot they should still have the right to get it.

The flu was just one example (admittedly not the best one), but according to the article I found before (I'll link it below). The most disturbing one from that article I thought was this paragraph:

"Thirteen-year-old Amanda Bates had diabetes, a disease that can be controlled with careful medical treatment. But her parents belonged to the General Assembly and Church of the First Born, a faith which believes that prayers alone are the best way to heal illness."

That girl was 13 years old. What if she decided that she wanted medical treatment, and her parents wouldn't allow her to get it? The fact that that disturbing scenario is legal in over 40 states is disgusting.

Here's the link: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Shoul...+Medical+Treatment+for+Their+Kids?-a072805548



That's definitely something that a lot of people need to understand better, the fact that we're very lucky to be born in rich and powerful countries. Some people take that a bit too far with extreme nationalism, but yeah that's definitely something which people aren't taught enough as children.

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
Population of the US ~=304 mil
We'll use 35000 as a middle ground number for flu death

35000 is 0.011475409836065573% of 305mil.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/csgpercent.html

if you'd like to check my math.
Just backing up my point that flu isn't that deadly at all.

But I agree, there needs to be some sort of legislation, at least regarding the more deadly things.

 

[Dre89]

Personally, I think Religion shouldn't be taught, but be self taught. (unless your father is a Minister of a Church). It's the child's decision, why corrupt them with your own personal thought?

But at the same time, a parent's views of morals could be considered corrupting the child with their own personal thoughts.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

But at the same time, a parent's views of morals could be considered corrupting the child with their own personal thoughts.

So, what are you saying? That children shouldn't be taught morals because it could be corrupted?

 

[Dre89]

No I'm not, I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your logic.

If teaching a personal view to a child is corrupting them (you said that teaching religion to your children does this) then teaching your personal view of mroality would also corrupt children.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

I see this as Morals and Religion being in the same subject, one that can completley change the child, where something different, lets say, Mannerism, wouldn't. Everyone should know good Manners, saying thankyou when someone holds the door for you for example. It's basic stuff where you just know whats right and whats wrong.

Where as Religion and Morals, they are a different story. Religion can't be proven, and it's just a matter of faith. You shouldn't FORCE your faith as your childs faith.

 

[Dre89]

Oh please, not another person who thinks all religions are just purely about faith....

Why does everyone think all religions are fidiest?

Besides, even teaching manners is derived from a personal assumption that manners are worthwhile, or achieve some sort of good.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Religion isn't all about faith? Crazy stuff, I didn't know there was scientific evidence of God, hmm...

•Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Latin fidem or fidēs, meaning trust, derived from the verb fīdere, to trust.

It will depend on the person, but if someone thanks you, doesn't that make you feel better? What isn't satisfying about a lovely child coming up to you and thanking you because, maybe, you picked up the toy they were playing with and they dropped it, or you were holding the door for them?

I'm a Misanthrope, but I still love a thanks, or respect someone who uses good manners. Gives me hope that not ALL of humanity is insane.

 

[Dre89]

Religion isn't all about faith? Crazy stuff, I didn't know there was scientific evidence of God, hmm...

What makes you assume people only conclude truths through faith and scientific experiment...