Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child

Erren Music

Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child.


How selfish is it of a parent to force their religion onto their child. Why would a parent assume that it is a good idea to mark the child out, when the child does not understand what is being forced onto it.

If we cannot remove religion from schools the children should be educated in all religions and cults and let them pick their own at 16 or 18 or none at all.

I think this horrify's the religious more than atheism, because children would be taught that all religions were equally valid.

"Every child has the right not to have their mind soiled by other people's bad ideas and or false notions. It is far more important that a child be taught how to think instead of what to think."

PDN

Erren Music wrote: »

I think this horrify's the religious more than atheism, because children would be taught that all religions were equally valid.

I would say it horrifies them more because it would be an unwarranted Soviet-style intrusion by the State into families, and a denial of a basic human right as recognised by the United Nations.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ColmDawson

I think it's wrong for parents to indoctrinate their children, but I think many parents have their children baptised out of (in their eyes) innocent adherence to an Irish tradition.

Mine told me that they had me baptised mainly so that I wouldn't feel like an outsider in school. I can see that their intentions were good, but I really don't think I'd do the same.

Hopefully the number of non-religious schools will grow so that more and more parents will be happy not to half-heartedly enter their children into religion.

iUseVi

I don't like it, but its unavoidable considering the way society and families are set up. Parents are always going to teach children what they consider the truth. Whether that be the truth or not. (In this case not.)

I don't see a quick and easy solution. I think schools should teach that different people believe different things, but this is never going to override the stronger influence of the parents.

Interesting question though.

iUseVi

ColmDawson wrote: »

Hopefully the number of non-religious schools will grow so that more and more parents will be happy not to half-heartedly enter their children into religion.

This. The only difference I can really make is to help make the entire culture more secular, but thats not a quick process.

Erren Music

PDN wrote: »

I would say it horrifies them more because it would be an unwarranted Soviet-style intrusion by the State into families, and a denial of a basic human right as recognised by the United Nations.

Not sure I get what you are saying here PDN. Religion would still be taught.

What about the rights of the child?

ColmDawson

iUseVi wrote: »

I think schools should teach that different people believe different things, but this is never going to override the stronger influence of the parents.

I'd wager that in most (or at least in a lot of) cases, the school is a more religious environment than the home.

Erren Music

iUseVi wrote: »

I don't see a quick and easy solution. I think schools should teach that different people believe different things, but this is never going to override the stronger influence of the parents.

I think it will.

What would happen if a child returns home from school quoting other religious doctrines and asking unanswerable questions of their parents.

CoalBucket

Most Irish children are baptised Catholic by default. It is my opinion that people should pick a religion or not once they feel the time is right themselves. But like every opinion you can take it or leave it

iUseVi

ColmDawson wrote: »

I'd wager that in most (or at least in a lot of) cases, the school is a more religious environment than the home.

Good point. All the more reason school reform is key.

philologos

You make a patent assumption in the OP:

That the parent is even forcing religion to their child, and that children automatically folllow the religion of their parents for the rest of their lives.

As a child, on average in this country in school, you only get introduced to a very small amount of what Christianity entails. For me in primary school it was about the parables of Jesus. You knew a few key stories, but certainly not a deep basis for Christianity. Most of what I know about Christianity now, has come from my reading of the Bible, the internet (including boards.ie), Christian books, and Christian friends I have met. I made a decision to follow Jesus when I was 17.

Rather what one is doing is introducing Christianity, and allowing the child to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to continue it.

Although, I think this isn't about forcing, it's about offering. Hypothetically, if I had children, I would of course want them to know about Jesus, because of what it has come to mean for me, and the greater implications of salvation. I would want my children to know God, and to love Him, and to grow each day in Him as I have.

That's selfish? Give me a break. That's the most compassionate thing I can do for anyone.

iUseVi

Jakkass wrote: »

You make a patent assumption in the OP:

That the parent is even forcing religion to their child, and that children automatically folllow the religion of their parents for the rest of their lives.

As a child, on average in this country in school, you only get introduced to a very small amount of what Christianity entails. For me in primary school it was about the parables of Jesus. You knew a few key stories, but certainly not a deep basis for Christianity.

Rather what one is doing is introducing Christianity, and allowing the child to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to continue it.

Although, I think this isn't about forcing, it's about offering. Hypothetically, if I had children, I would of course want them to know about Jesus, because of what it has come to mean for me, and the greater implications of salvation. I would want my children to know God, and to love Him, and to grow each day in Him as I have.

That's selfish? Give me a break. That's the most compassionate thing I can do for anyone.

Sounds like you had a very nice childhood. But for lots of us growing up we had religion shoved down our throats (metaphorically speaking). And there are children out there today who are not being "offered" Christianity but are being forced to practice it. Strong words I know, but I have first hand experience to back it up.

Erren Music

Rights granted to children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child must be implemented with regard to three key principles:

Best interests - In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.


Non-discrimination - Each child's rights are ensured without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.


Participation - Children who are capable of forming his or her own views have the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child

strobe

Meh...if a Christian raises their child to be Christian, in their mind they are helping to ensure that child is rewarded with eternal paradise....I'd hardly describe that as selfish.

kippy

iUseVi wrote: »

Sounds like you had a very nice childhood. But for lots of us growing up we had religion shoved down our throats (metaphorically speaking). And there are children out there today who are not being "offered" Christianity but are being forced to practice it. Strong words I know, but I have first hand experience to back it up.

Not to go off topic, but you do get a lot of stuff "shoved down your throats" that you may not have liked/agreed with at the time and which you may still have the same feelings towards.
Its a pretty interesting question...but in general I believe that my parents did what they thought was best for me and my future and in the manner in which they themselves had been brought up. While many may disagree with that concept, I dont believe my parents were selfish in any way. Right now I chose to take into account those facets of what I've learned in my past and disregard those I feel aren't relevant. That doesnt make me a good catholic but it makes me a good person in general I believe. I'll be bringing up my kids in the catholic faith, simply because I dont see anything wrong with it per se, however if after a number of years they decide for themselves its not for them, fair enough.

philologos

Erren Music wrote: »

Rights granted to children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child must be implemented with regard to three key principles:

Best interests - In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.


Non-discrimination - Each child's rights are ensured without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.


Participation - Children who are capable of forming his or her own views have the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child

Sharing Christian faith with a child doesn't violate any of these three. It is quite possible to do this allowing for participation, non-discrimination, and best interests.

It's only in an incredibly narrow atheist view where you could deem any of these to be violated in the case of sharing Christian faith.

iUseVi

kippy wrote: »

Not to go off topic, but you do get a lot of stuff "shoved down your throats" that you may not have liked/agreed with at the time and which you may still have the same feelings towards.
Its a pretty interesting question...but in general I believe that my parents did what they thought was best for me and my future and in the manner in which they themselves had been brought up. While many may disagree with that concept, I dont believe my parents were selfish in any way. Right now I chose to take into account those facets of what I've learned in my past and disregard those I feel aren't relevant. That doesnt make me a good catholic but it makes me a good person in general I believe. I'll be bringing up my kids in the catholic faith, simply because I dont see anything wrong with it per se, however if after a number of years they decide for themselves its not for them, fair enough.

Oh, I agree that the parents are not acting out of selfishness. Not at all. I mean my parents wanted me to be a evangelical Christian so that I would be "saved". And the bit I bolded, "but in general I believe that my parents did what they thought was best for me and my future and in the manner in which they themselves had been brought up". They certainly did that.

But my gripe is not so much with my parents, but with my schooling. Teachers forcing children who are not their children to have specific views....just doesn't cut it in my book. And you might say its my parents fault for sending me to the school. But if schooling is reformed that problem won't exist anymore...

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Hypothetically, if I had children, I would of course want them to know about Jesus, because of what it has come to mean for me, and the greater implications of salvation. I would want my children to know God, and to love Him, and to grow each day in Him as I have. That's selfish?

Yes, it is. In just the same way that it's selfish for somebody to use their position of natural authority to induce their kids to be Labour, or BNP, or Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein supporters.

This is why religion is referred to as a "selfish meme" -- it's there simply to make copies of itself, and the way in which this happens, either by pleasant or unpleasant means, is simply irrelevant.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You make a patent assumption in the OP:

That the parent is even forcing religion to their child, and that children automatically folllow the religion of their parents for the rest of their lives.

As a child, on average in this country in school, you only get introduced to a very small amount of what Christianity entails. For me in primary school it was about the parables of Jesus. You knew a few key stories, but certainly not a deep basis for Christianity. Most of what I know about Christianity now, has come from my reading of the Bible, the internet (including boards.ie), Christian books, and Christian friends I have met. I made a decision to follow Jesus when I was 17.

Rather what one is doing is introducing Christianity, and allowing the child to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to continue it.

Although, I think this isn't about forcing, it's about offering. Hypothetically, if I had children, I would of course want them to know about Jesus, because of what it has come to mean for me, and the greater implications of salvation. I would want my children to know God, and to love Him, and to grow each day in Him as I have.

That's selfish? Give me a break. That's the most compassionate thing I can do for anyone.

That is some what of a pointless point as you take the initial set up of question of the OP, dismiss it and then saying "give me a break" that it is selfish

Are you saying it isn't selfish to do this, or are you saying it doesn't happen to the question is pointless?

Cause at the moment it just looks like a some what knee jerk response, its doesn't happen! its not selfish!

kippy

iUseVi wrote: »

But my gripe is not so much with my parents, but with my schooling. Teachers forcing children who are not their children to have specific views....just doesn't cut it in my book. And you might say its my parents fault for sending me to the school. But if schooling is reformed that problem won't exist anymore...

Thats a fair enough assertion, however you've got to remember the environment these teachers are/were teaching. Catholic schools with a catholic ethos. How else would you expect them to behave in such an environment (especially in the past)?

dvpower

If a Christian believes, say, that salvation is only possible via a relationship with Jesus Christ, then it would be selfish for them not to try and help build that relationship.

But, if a parent doesn't really believe this and still 'forces' a religion on their child because it is the path of least resistance, then, yes, it is selfish. I'd imagine that a large number of parents fall into this category.

iUseVi

kippy wrote: »

Thats a fair enough assertion, however you've got to remember the environment these teachers are/were teaching. Catholic schools with a catholic ethos. How else would you expect them to behave in such an environment (especially in the past)?

Well it wasn't catholic but a strict protestant school. So my case is a rare one in Ireland, but same principles apply.

Galvasean

It's every bit as irresponsible/unfair as raising your kids as Liverpool fans (well okay, maybe not THAT bad!).

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Yes, it is. In just the same way that it's selfish for somebody to use their position of natural authority to induce their kids to be Labour, or BNP, or Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein supporters.

This is why religion is referred to as a "selfish meme" -- it's there simply to make copies of itself, and the way in which this happens, either by pleasant or unpleasant means, is simply irrelevant.

There is a stark difference between Christianity and becoming a member of the Shinners.

Christianity provides people with a moral and ethical framework, which is the responsibility of an adult to share with their children to facilitate them in making moral decisions in this world.

Christianity provides essential guidance for a child when growing up in the knowledge of God, prayer, Scripture and other things.

Christianity on the perspective of the parents, provides a means to eternal life for their children.

All of this seems to me to be done in the best interests of the child. They can decide to reject it at a later stage, but this sharing is done entirely in earnest. Not in terms of manipulating anyone to do anything.

Referring to this as selfishness is nothing short of a joke. Yes, Wicknight, I'm saying that it isn't selfish in the slightest. It's the most compassionate thing you can do for any person living.

kippy

robindch wrote: »

Yes, it is. In just the same way that it's selfish for somebody to use their position of natural authority to induce their kids to be Labour, or BNP, or Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein supporters.

This is why religion is referred to as a "selfish meme" -- it's there simply to make copies of itself, and the way in which this happens, either by pleasant or unpleasant means, is simply irrelevant.

What are parents meant to do?
Surely some of their habits/likes/attitudes will naturally "rub" off on their kids anyway, whether it be intentional or not?
EG. The parents go to mass on a sunday at ten AM - they have two young kids. They HAVE to take the kids to mass (just for "handiness sake"), without any inducement the kids see the parents doing something and MAY believe that is "normal". - Sorry a very poor example but I hope you can see what I am trying to say.

EDIT - I write the above post with the realization that I know of nothing else, in that I was brought up in this manner as were the majority/all the people that I know. Most people turned out okay, so I wonder how we can "improve" on this way of bringing up kids etc. Please dont take it as an ignorant post.

Slugs

I wouldn't call it selfish, more grossly irresponsible. Just as it is irresponsible for a parent to allow their child to be baptised, have their first confession, have their first communion and be confirmed before they're old enough, mature enough (relatively speaking), and intelligent enough (again relatively speaking) to make their own decisions.

Not only are you forcing a child into a religion (Which you are, they didn't asked to be indoctrinated), you're also making the decision on behalf of them and believe that what you're doing is in their best interests. Bull**** as far as I'm concerned.

Erren Music

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity provides people with a moral and ethical framework, which is the responsibility of an adult to share with their children to facilitate them in making moral decisions in this world.

Christianity provides essential guidance for a child when growing up in the knowledge of God, prayer, Scripture and other things.

Christianity on the perspective of the parents, provides a means to eternal life for their children.

All of this seems to me to be done in the best interests of the child. They can decide to reject it at a later stage, but this sharing is done entirely in earnest. Not in terms of manipulating anyone to do anything.

Referring to this as selfishness is nothing short of a joke. Yes, Wicknight, I'm saying that it isn't selfish in the slightest. It's the most compassionate thing you can do for any person living.

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.

robindch

Erren -

Erren Music wrote: »

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.

Please try to include more content in your posts. Shouting at people will achieve nothing.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It's the most compassionate thing you can do for any person living.

As is teaching your child to be fearful of Jews if the Jews are really trying to take over the world.

Your entire premise is based on the idea that Christian is the only true form of morality and ethics.

You may believe that but you should also recognize that this is simply your opinion.

Teaching your children that when you know that is only your opinion seems detrimental to how your children will grow up and view other cultures, and how they will grow up to assess religion independently using their own critical thinking.

Far better to teach them that it is simply your opinion, one of literally thousands of opinions on religion and the supernatural, and that it is important that they determine for themselves using their best critical judgement what they believe themselves.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

They can decide to reject it at a later stage, but this sharing is done entirely in earnest. Not in terms of manipulating anyone to do anything.

Seriously, Jakkass, do you really think that telling a kid that they will burn in hell when they die if they don't believe some fact does not constitute "manipulation"?

Have you forgotten what it is like to be an innocent child?

Zombrex

kippy wrote: »

What are parents meant to do?
Surely some of their habits/likes/attitudes will naturally "rub" off on their kids anyway, whether it be intentional or not?
EG. The parents go to mass on a sunday at ten AM - they have two young kids. They HAVE to take the kids to mass (just for "handiness sake"), without any inducement the kids see the parents doing something and MAY believe that is "normal". - Sorry a very poor example but I hope you can see what I am trying to say.

EDIT - I write the above post with the realization that I know of nothing else, in that I was brought up in this manner as were the majority/all the people that I know. Most people turned out okay, so I wonder how we can "improve" on this way of bringing up kids etc. Please dont take it as an ignorant post.

Why do they HAVE to take them to mass?

Erren Music

robindch wrote: »

Erren -Please try to include more content in your posts. Shouting at people will achieve nothing.

Ok, but Some People's insane delusional beliefs should be addressed as such.

kippy

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do they HAVE to take them to mass?

You picked me up wrong.
Think about it in a purely practical sense. One kid is 2 the other is 4. Are you going to leave both kids at home on their own while both parents go to mass? Are you going to take away from one parent their right to practice their faith by asking one to stay at home? Are you going to hire a babysitter for an hour at ten in the morning?

ColmDawson

Erren Music wrote: »

Ok, but Some People's insane delusional beliefs should be addressed as such.

Yes, but eloquence and calm are useful tools.

Slugs

kippy wrote: »

You picked me up wrong.
Think about it in a purely practical sense. One kid is 2 the other is 4. Are you going to leave both kids at home on their own while both parents go to mass? Are you going to take away from one parent their right to practice their faith by asking one to stay at home? Are you going to hire a babysitter for an hour at ten in the morning?

Or are you going to bring them to a church and have them sit through an hour or two of a priest basically telling them they're doomed, and that some guy on a cross died for them, and as a result they should worship him, otherwise the priest's god will go Old Testament on their ass?

Hmm I think I'll leave them at home thanks.

robindch

Erren Music wrote: »

Ok, but Some People's insane delusional beliefs should be addressed as such.

You'll achieve much more by engaging people than by yelling at them.

Ask Fred Phelps.

kippy

Slugs wrote: »

Or are you going to bring them to a church and have them sit through an hour or two of a priest basically telling them they're doomed, and that some guy on a cross died for them, and as a result they should worship him, otherwise the priest's god will go Old Testament on their ass?

Hmm I think I'll leave them at home thanks.

Seriously, you'd leave them at home?
Theres lots of "good" things to take from the church teachings as well.

robindch

kippy wrote: »

Think about it in a purely practical sense. One kid is 2 the other is 4. Are you going to leave both kids at home on their own while both parents go to mass? Are you going to take away from one parent their right to practice their faith by asking one to stay at home?

Either the parents can go to different masses, or they can hire a baby sitter (twenty euro a week should be nothing compared to the "gift of eternal life").

Regardless, once people have kids, the kids come first and people's hobbies come second. If people don't subscribe to that, then they shouldn't have kids.

kippy wrote:

Theres lots of "good" things to take from the church teachings as well.

In the current climate in this country, that's really quite a silly thing to say.

iUseVi

robindch wrote: »

In the current climate in this country, that's really quite a silly thing to say.

Ach now that's a bit unfair. Obviously you and I think that all the time. But if a believer thinks theres good stuff in religion thats not going to change because of a few scandals.

kippy

robindch wrote: »

Either the parents can go to different masses, or they can hire a baby sitter (twenty euro a week should be nothing compared to the "gift of eternal life").

Regardless, once people have kids, the kids come first and people's hobbies come second. If people don't subscribe to that, then they shouldn't have kids.In the current climate in this country, that's really quite a silly thing to say.

........Hire a baby sitter for 10 on a sunday morning for an hour........peoples hobbies often become the hobbies of their kids imho and what a parent does has an intrinsic influence on the child.
Why is it a silly thing to say? Do you not think that the teachings of the scripture have some valuable lessons?
Yeah sure, we got a church hierargy who have hidden untold evils, but there are lots of very good priests out there who've helped build up communities in new areas of this country and who are a joy to be around.

Slugs

kippy wrote: »

Seriously, you'd leave them at home?
Theres lots of "good" things to take from the church teachings as well.

o.O Sarcasm o.O?

komodosp

No it's not selfish for a parent to "force" religion onto their child.

You are making two assumptions.
The first is that the religion in question is false, or at the very least debatable. But for a believer, it is not, it is fact. To tell them God might not exist, or even that the Catholic faith might not be the correct one is like to tell them that 2+2 might not = 4. So it is in no way selfish. To judge someone's motives you must think like them.

The second assumption is that the word, "force", is bad. It throws up images of kids being pushed roughly into mass, "You'll be a Catholic and you'll like it, now mister!", but what we're really talking about is anything from that to simply having a child christened (as one poster mentioned) so they could be included in social things, or taking them to mass because the parents are going and what's the point in leaving the kids at home.

In any case I don't think it's selfish. I don't think any self-respecting parent is going to do anything other than what they think is best for their kids, and if they are believers they are going to be worried by this "let your child decide" nonsense, they are going to think it the equivalent of letting the child decide whether to get their drink from the fridge or the cleaning fluid cupboard. If they think Jesus died on the cross and on the third day rose again, of course they are going to teach just that.

Either the parents can go to different masses, or they can hire a baby sitter (twenty euro a week should be nothing compared to the "gift of eternal life").

But why? We're going to leave the kids at home in case Catholicism is wrong and we don't want them to have wasted their time coming to mass with us? You mention hobbies: Would you have the same problem with a parent bringing a child to a football match? "I want them to choose for themselves which county to support". Besides how does the €20 a week get them the gift of eternal life since it's by going to mass (and saving the €20) they get the eternal life?

ColmDawson

kippy wrote: »

Do you not think that the teachings of the scripture have some valuable lessons?

None of these valuable lessons, which you attribute to scripture, couldn't have been thought of by an atheist and taught to his/her children at home on a Sunday morning.

Erren Music

ColmDawson wrote: »

Yes, but eloquence and calm are useful tools.

robindch wrote: »

You'll achieve much more by engaging people than by yelling at them.

Ask Fred Phelps.

I have no wish to engage certain people. They are incapable of having a logical discussion, better to offend them quickly and repeatedly until they f off and talk rubbish with some other delusional lunatics.

kippy wrote: »

........
Do you not think that the teachings of the scripture have some valuable lessons?

No, none whatsoever.

komodosp wrote: »

No it's not selfish for a parent to "force" religion onto their child.

You are making two assumptions.
The first is that the religion in question is false, or at the very least debatable. But for a believer, it is not, it is fact.

Fact is 5 billion out of 7 billion people do not believe in the same things, does that not tell you something about the integrity of religion.

komodosp wrote: »

The second assumption is that the word, "force", is bad. It throws up images of kids being pushed roughly into mass

How does a child differentiate between religious indoctrination and a reality based on science and reason

komodosp wrote: »

they are going to think it the equivalent of letting the child decide whether to get their drink from the fridge or the cleaning fluid cupboard. If they think Jesus died on the cross and on the third day rose again, of course they are going to teach just that.

Not sure where you are going here.

Slugs

komodosp wrote: »

No it's not selfish for a parent to "force" religion onto their child.

You are making two assumptions.
The first is that the religion in question is false, or at the very least debatable. But for a believer, it is not, it is fact. To tell them God might not exist, or even that the Catholic faith might not be the correct one is like to tell them that 2+2 might not = 4. So it is in no way selfish. To judge someone's motives you must think like them.

It is selfish. Rather then allowing the child to make his own decisions on existence, morality and form their own belief system, you're under the belief that yours is the right one, and therefore telling you're child that these are the facts, despite numerous other religions having their own different beliefs. 2 + 2 = 4 is not debatable, because it is a representation of what is there, and it is a fact that 2 + 2 = 4, this cannot be disputed. The facts of the parent's religion can be, and hilariously, both of these things are taught alongside each other in schools.

The second assumption is that the word, "force", is bad. It throws up images of kids being pushed roughly into mass, "You'll be a Catholic and you'll like it, now mister!"

I'm sure many people will regale us of tails where the parish priest would come in on a monday morning interviewing the pupils of what happened on during the previous days mass, and for the few that didn't attend or couldn't remember, would recieve belts of the cane. As well as that, I know many parents who have, and do force their religion upon their kids.

what we're really talking about is anything from that to simply having a child christened (as one poster mentioned) so they could be included in social things, or taking them to mass because the parents are going and what's the point in leaving the kids at home.

Again, selfishness. The parents are making a choice on behalf of the child for the sake of convenience, rather then have to deal with the hassle of allowing their child to form their own belief system, or pay a childminder to take care of the kid, or educate their kid.

In any case I don't think it's selfish. I don't think any self-respecting parent is going to do anything other than what they think is best for their kids, and if they are believers they are going to be worried by this "let your child decide" nonsense, they are going to think it the equivalent of letting the child decide whether to get their drink from the fridge or the cleaning fluid cupboard.If they think Jesus died on the cross and on the third day rose again, of course they are going to teach just that.

I'm not understanding your point here. How is making the decision to limit your child's perception of reality, and force them into a belief system they, more then likely, would not have considered only for being forced into tantamount to allowing your child to poison and kill himself out of a pure lack of understanding.

But why? We're going to leave the kids at home in case Catholicism is wrong and we don't want them to have wasted their time coming to mass with us? You mention hobbies: Would you have the same problem with a parent bringing a child to a football match? "I want them to choose for themselves which county to support". Besides how does the €20 a week get them the gift of eternal life since it's by going to mass (and saving the €20) they get the eternal life?

Well that's getting into the whole problem of sports teams, which is a huge long debate, and isn't the place for A&A, if you want to discuss pm me. I think what he was trying to say is, 20 €shouldn't be a problem if you're going to mass to obtain the gift of eternal life.

robindch

iUseVi wrote: »

But if a believer thinks theres good stuff in religion thats not going to change because of a few scandals.

Well, that's really the whole point -- if the guards can't guard themselves, then these people really shouldn't be guards in the first place.

kippy wrote: »

Do you not think that the teachings of the scripture have some valuable lessons?

There are a few good bits in the bible, but these are far outnumbered by the bad and nonsensical bits. On average, the bible and the church offer little if anything that can't be offered much better elsewhere and without all the unnecessary religious claptrap.

kippy wrote: »

but there are lots of very good priests out there who've helped build up communities in new areas of this country and who are a joy to be around.

Priests building up communities (which usually benefits the propagation of the religion, btw), or who are just decent guys (and I know quite a few) are one thing. It's quite another to claim that one's organization is the prime moral force in the world, when the organization clearly suffers so badly from so many obvious faults.

PDN

Erren Music wrote: »

Not sure I get what you are saying here PDN. Religion would still be taught.

What about the rights of the child?

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981

Article 5:2. "Every child shall enjoy the right to have access to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (1952), entry into force in Ireland 2003 - First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960)
"It is essential to respect the liberty of parents…firstly to choose for their children institutions other than those maintained by the public authorities …and, secondly, to ensure…the religious and moral education of the children in conformity with their own convictions; and no person or group of persons should be compelled to receive religious instruction inconsistent with his or their conviction."

Interestingly, I culled all these quotes from Educate Together's website. They form part of the basis for ET's vision.

Erren Music

You could have read my earlier post

Rights granted to children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child must be implemented with regard to three key principles:


Non-discrimination - Each child's rights are ensured without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.


Participation - Children who are capable of forming his or her own views have the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child

kippy

"None of these valuable lessons, which you attribute to scripture, couldn't have been thought of by an atheist and taught to his/her children at home on a Sunday morning. "

I never said that these valuable lessons couldnt have been taught elsewhere or were exclusive to the bible, however it is interesting that you perceive that to be what I am saying. The parents aren't atheists however and the chose that their child learn these things as they did, that is by a mixture of religion, everyday experiences and through their own teachings of good and bad.



Fair enough guys,
We're in an Atheism and Agnosticism forum so its pretty difficult for me to "argue" and I respect the opinions of those here. I've come to questions my faith over time myself and have to admit that it is difficult to drag yourself away from "religion" and often wonder what if we hadnt been brought to mass or taught the catholic religion in school and to be honest its extremely difficult to imagine that *for me.

I personally believe parents "force" a lot of things on their children. They are parents and that's how parents bring up kids for better or worse. Force is a very strong word by the way and one which I find hard to fathom when it comes to parents.


My opinion, what parents do isn't selfish.

Joey the lips

Really its a stupid question in this subject. Its no more extreme than forcing atheism... Its like asking the gardeners formum if mass concrete is acceptable on a flower bed..

It would be selfish to not allow your children to draw there own conclusions as they get older as they start to draw there own conclusions, however as a parent I would think that its perfectly acceptable to bring your child up with your ideals provided they are not

1. Raciest
2. Unconstitional.

Religion is perfectly constitional...