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

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well yeah it is a shocker word. It's obviously not like physical or sexual abuse but parents are still teaching their child that something is true when they cannot possibly know that it is.

If a parent believes something to be true, then thats all it takes. If the parent also believes that teaching the child such things is for the childs benefit then thats it. An action of love by the parent, by teaching something they believe to be very impotant to their child whom they love.

I'd rather parents let their children make up their own minds

You are entitled to your gripe. Once you don't go looking for legislation, I don't mind the odd scoffer. There are many things I wish some parents did or didn't do too.

You don't see any problem with someone dooming their child to eternal damnation through their own ignorance? Really?

I don't see it as 'dooming their child to eternal damnation'. I would see it as a parent believing something, and feeling that they are doing whats best for their child. Christians tend to evangelise, and share the good news of Christ though. A true relationship with God is not coerced, so parents are free to choose to accept or reject the message themselves and in turn, those they are guardians of.

sublunar

Wicknight wrote: »

Because you want them to realize this themselves, not accept it simply because you told them it. Or at least you claim you do.

If I'm under a suggestive drug and you tell me Christianity is great and I accept that because of the drug I'm not realizing that myself.

Likewise if you tell your children about how great Christianity is and they accept that because their parents told them this, not because they had a good old think themselves and came to the same conclusion as you, they are not realizing it themselves either.

Which, like I said, fair enough. But don't pretend you care about them coming to agreement with you through rational consideration.

agreed. if religious folk truly wanted their offspring to find the "truth", as they see it, by themselves, they'd wait until they hit 18 to hand them a bible. but even religious people know, deep down, that if children weren't indoctrinated, religion would die out.

it's no coincidence that the uptake, as adults, of religious belief by people who were raised with no religion is less than 0.5%. almost no one who is introduced to religion for the first time as an adult actually believes in it.

as to whether it's child abuse, it depends how far the indoctrination goes. á la carte catholicism, which is becoming the norm in ireland, seems to be harmless for the large part.

but strict catholicism, by-the-book, is pretty harmful. i know i'll be contested here, but speaking from the standard catholic bible alone, the parts that are explicitly written (though let's just wait for the "interpretation!!!" argument), a catholic child is presented with a world where they have to stone their brother to death if he goes through a buddhist phase, gay people are "morally evil" (that's at least 10% of the population right there, by conservative estimates), women are subordinate and it's ok to rape them (they must also be avoided completely for about five days a month), and you go to hell if you forget yourself and do homework on a sunday. that's only a small sample. but the overarching message is not to question it. all the answers are there, and god will smite you if you try and do some investigating for yourself. child abuse? i think so.

JimiTime

sublunar wrote: »

agreed. if religious folk truly wanted their offspring to find the "truth", as they see it, by themselves, they'd wait until they hit 18 to hand them a bible. but even religious people know, deep down, that if children weren't indoctrinated, religion would die out. .

TBH, its this ignorance of a believers motives that tend to lead to the whole 'child abuse', 'why don't you just keep your religious views to yourself' type positions. Maybe all these arguements are simply treating symptoms and not the root. I.E. You have no idea what having a relationship with God is.

philologos

Even the word "indoctrination" is mere sensationalism.

It's evident that nobody actually believes it is child abuse, because if they did, they would deem it worthy of reporting to higher authorities.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Even the word "indoctrination" is mere sensationalism.

Could you clarify that please?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

If a parent believes something to be true, then thats all it takes. If the parent also believes that teaching the child such things is for the childs benefit then thats it. An action of love by the parent, by teaching something they believe to be very impotant to their child whom they love.

In most cases those who indoctrinate people into cults truly believe what they're saying. Do you think this is acceptable?

JimiTime wrote: »

You are entitled to your gripe. Once you don't go looking for legislation, I don't mind the odd scoffer. There are many things I wish some parents did or didn't do too.

well of course we're not going to go looking for legislation. We all disagree with things that we don't lobby to have banned. In fact people who try to get things banned because they personally don't like them bug the crap out of me.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't see it as 'dooming their child to eternal damnation'. I would see it as a parent believing something, and feeling that they are doing whats best for their child. Christians tend to evangelise, and share the good news of Christ though. A true relationship with God is not coerced, so parents are free to choose to accept or reject the message themselves and in turn, those they are guardians of.

But someone who is raised from birth to believe in a different religion just as strongly as you do in christianity is not in a position to have a truly free choice. To most of them converting to christianity would be as unthinkable as you converting to Islam because they were taught that their particular religion is true before when their brains were still malleable and accepting of whatever their parents told them. You don't feel any compulsion to help these children before the wrong religion and therefore eternal damnation is hard wired into their brain?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In most cases those who indoctrinate people into cults truly believe what they're saying. Do you think this is acceptable?

Too many variables tbh. Simply because its a cult does not make it unacceptable that a child is raised by its parents in it. It really depends what the cult entails. Again though, if you are not looking to do anything about it, then terms like 'acceptable' are pretty meaningless are they not? Its simply going, 'tut, tut, that is unacceptable, pass me ciggies'.

well of course we're not going to go looking for legislation. We all disagree with things that we don't lobby to have banned.

But why, if you view it as abuse of a child?

But someone who is raised from birth to believe in a different religion just as strongly as you do in christianity is not in a position to have a truly free choice.

I agree that they are not getting the best start. Their journey to Christ may be a much harder one.

To most of them converting to christianity would be as unthinkable as you converting to Islam because they were taught that their particular religion is true before when their brains were still malleable and accepting of whatever their parents told them. You don't feel any compulsion to help these children before the wrong religion and therefore eternal damnation is hard wired into their brain?

If we take your above assumptions etc, what do you suggest I do? Use Coercion? Try get a legislation whereby its considered abusive and lock up the parents? remove the child?

From where I'm standing, Christians must be beacons of Christs light and transmit the good news in voice and in action. That to me is the only way.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Could you clarify that please?

It's excessive, and it actually doesn't describe the reality of how people generally share their faith with their children.

Indoctrination would seem to me to be drilling something into someones head repeatedly for several hours a day by memorisation without question. I'm sure sometimes it can get into that kind of territory, but the term is inaccurate when describing the average education that people get about Christianity.

A few definitions:
"teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically "
"Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

Indoctrination would seem to me to be drilling something into someones head repeatedly for several hours a day by memorisation without question. I'm sure sometimes it can get into that kind of territory, but the term is inaccurate when describing the average education that people get about Christianity."

I don't know about your denomination, but the average Catholic upbringing probably consists of going to mass and chanting with a crowd of people the words "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth..." and so on, amongst many other such passages. My mother's parents made the family say the rosary ever day. There seems to be enough of that kind of thing (even once a week or once each day) to justify use of the word 'indoctrination'.

iUseVi

ColmDawson wrote: »

I don't know about your denomination, but the average Catholic upbringing probably consists of going to mass and chanting with a crowd of people the words "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth..." and so on, amongst many other such passages. My mother's parents made the family say the rosary ever day. There seems to be enough of that kind of thing (even once a week or once each day) to justify use of the word 'indoctrination'.

Indeed, even if its only done once a week, that kind of constant repetition is enough to influence alright.

Nick_oliveri

ColmDawson wrote: »

I don't know about your denomination, but the average Catholic upbringing probably consists of going to mass and chanting with a crowd of people the words "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth..." and so on, amongst many other such passages. My mother's parents made the family say the rosary ever day. There seems to be enough of that kind of thing (even once a week or once each day) to justify use of the word 'indoctrination'.

Should also mention christening and confirmations....

philologos

For several hours repeatedly? Drilling it into the skull?

If you're calling saying the Apostles Creed (N.B You don't have to either), indoctrination, you really need to see what indoctrination really is, looking to totalitarian regimes for example.

As for my denomination, I would usually just refer to myself as a Christian, but I'm currently a member of the Anglican Communion (CofI). I do from time to time go to churches of differing denomination.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

For several hours repeatedly? Drilling it into the skull?

I do believe that was your interpretation of the word and not the definition you posted.

Jakkass wrote: »

A few definitions:
"teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically "

And I think we have pretty much covered that.

philologos

I don't think anyone has dealt with the "uncritical" part at all in the thread. Encouraging thoughtful faith is a rather different thing to encouraging unquestioning and uncritical faith.

As I said before, I'm glad to see this form of faith being promoted more in Christianity, to genuinely engage with peoples minds instead of giving them simple and unsatisfying answers.

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think anyone has dealt with the "uncritical" part at all in the thread. Encouraging thoughtful faith is a rather different thing to encouraging unquestioning and uncritical faith.

Yes and I'm sure that children who are critical about religious doctrines they were forced into get all the time in the world to air their grievances and questions. Specifically the rites of passage, where one is "admitted to membership of the Church" through baptism. Not indoctrination at all, sure if the child is not old enough to speak, never mind criticise, its all fun and games.

Rites of passage are "thoughtful faith" now?

Edit, do you see where baptism skips the whole uncritical thing? I do..

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Edit, do you see where baptism skips the whole uncritical thing? I do..

Cutting to the core. Yes, I agree with you here. I'm personally skeptical of infant baptism, so I'm willing to give you the ground here*. It's puzzled me as to how one can genuinely commit themselves to Christianity without knowledge of doing so.

However, this isn't the main point is it? - For example, if one was teaching their child about Christianity, and went to one of the churches which don't practice infant baptism, would you consider it acceptable? I'm still willing to bargain no.

* Note, this doesn't represent a mainstream Anglican viewpoint.

Nick_oliveri

The principles are the same for nearly every religion. You don't tend to question it at that age. What age? Your whole childhood! Going to mass with the ma and da, repeating those mantras. If you are a religious parent then you see it as your duty to refer to (mostly) every aspect of your practised doctrines as factual and necessary. Referring to god as factual. "Well if daddy says God is real then he must be".

It may be with love or a sense of "protection" and urgency for the parent, but it is still a form of indoctrination, except its done from birth and unnecessary to drill into anyone's head because its ALWAYS been there.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, its this ignorance of a believers motives that tend to lead to the whole 'child abuse', 'why don't you just keep your religious views to yourself' type positions. Maybe all these arguements are simply treating symptoms and not the root. I.E. You have no idea what having a relationship with God is.

The problem with that logic though Jimi is the 4.4 billion other people who don't have a relationship with God and still act the exact same way.

Not all religions are true (or even can be true) but the vast majority of religions put emphasis on teaching children.

While you may believe that Christians specifically do it out of a desire to share the wonderful feeling of having a relationship with God with their children the reality suggests something quite different.

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

The principles are the same for nearly every religion. You don't tend to question it at that age. What age? Your whole childhood! Going to mass with the ma and da, repeating those mantras. If you are a religious parent then you see it as your duty to refer to (mostly) every aspect of your practised doctrines as factual and necessary.

Leaving aside that you are only focusing on one very limited type of Christian practice.

I don't know a single person who has been convinced into believing by merely saying the responses to the prayers at church. Accepting Christianity is something much more complex than this, and certainly it was much more complex than this for me, and you'll find if you chat to many it was more complex for them.

You have nothing to fear by a child going to church and hearing the responses

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Referring to god as factual. "Well if daddy says God is real then he must be".

I know no Christian adult that has been convinced by merely the beliefs of their parents. It's presenting a fallacious version of the reality.

By the by, what do you suggest for the parents to do if they are going to church on Sunday morning? Get a babysitter, or bring them with them? I certainly wouldn't think many consider the former.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

It may be with love or a sense of "protection" and urgency for the parent, but it is still a form of indoctrination, except its done from birth and unnecessary to drill into anyone's head because its ALWAYS been there.

I disagree with the term indoctrination, especially since in the vast majority of situations I've seen, most parents are open to questions from their children.

In fact, most Christians are open to question, from anyone, including friends, and family members, no matter what age. For me, you seem to be promoting an idea that Christians don't allow for question when sharing their faith with others, which in my experience is totally false, in turn rendering the definition of indoctrination inapplicable in these circumstances.

sublunar

personally i'm extremely grateful that i wasn't indoctrinated in that way, considering that it's still so common in ireland. i have many friends who were brought up without religion, and having seen the trouble it causes other people, they're pretty thankful as well.

on the other hand, i've seen friends who've grown out of religious belief, having been brought up in religious homes, who have real trouble forgetting about all the scare stories and judgements they were brought up to believe. one girl i know ended a relationship with a guy she really loved because he had different religious beliefs; she's since realised she is an atheist and really regrets it. it's incredibly sad.

i'd like to see religious indoctrination acknowledged as the psychological and emotional abuse that it is, but i know it never will be as how could it ever be enforced? too orwellian to imagine...

although, they could address the actual rituals, like making official membership of a religion similar to membership of organisations, which would require a minimum age of 18. this would prevent people bringing kids to mass and all the rest of it, which would be a start. along with getting religion removed from schools, it would be real progress.

philologos

Secularism becomes state atheism quite quickly? - If you want Church - State separation, why do you want the State meddling in church affairs to promote an atheist agenda?

Nick_oliveri

Jakkass wrote: »

Leaving aside that you are only focusing on one very limited type of Christian practice.

I don't know a single person who has been convinced into believing by merely saying the responses to the prayers at church. Accepting Christianity is something much more complex than this, and certainly it was much more complex than this for me, and you'll find if you chat to many it was more complex for them.

I know no Christian adult that has been convinced by merely the beliefs of their parents. It's presenting a fallacious version of the reality.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my position. By referring to your deity as factual to the child and tugging them along to mass you are practising a form of early religious indoctrination. I am not specifying whether it succeeded or not, that's not the point. The end result of such practises is not about whether the person was indoctrinated or not.

By the by, what do you suggest for the parents to do if they are going to church on Sunday morning? Get a babysitter, or bring them with them? I certainly wouldn't think many consider the former.

Of course parents are going to bring their kids to church, its what they want for their children. Its what they want them to follow.

I disagree with the term indoctrination, especially since in the vast majority of situations I've seen, most parents are open to questions from their children.

Questions after what? "Daddy, why did *** call me an Anglican?" How many people have you met who converted from their original forced relgion into another?

In fact, most Christians are open to question, from anyone, including friends, and family members, no matter what age. For me, you seem to be promoting an idea that Christians don't allow for question when sharing their faith with others, which in my experience is totally false, in turn rendering the definition of indoctrination inapplicable in these circumstances.

What? How are you avoiding the non critical (your definition critical!) aspect of being carted to church, saying prayers, lighting candles etc?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I know no Christian adult that has been convinced by merely the beliefs of their parents.

Is that supposed to be significant?

How many Christian adults do you know well enough that they would actual share this information with you if they had? 5? 10? Out of 2.2 billion?

If I said that every Christian I know has been convinced simply by their parents beliefs. Would you consider that in any way relevant?

philologos

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Perhaps you are misunderstanding my position. By referring to your deity as factual to the child and tugging them along to mass you are practising a form of early religious indoctrination. I am not specifying whether it succeeded or not, that's not the point. The end result of such practises is not about whether the person was indoctrinated or not.

I think you are regarding a very different form of "indoctrination" from what the definition seems to be saying. Focusing on the unquestioning, uncritical aspect. Most churches I've been to have embraced questions, and I think there is a changing trend in Christian literature to emphasise that all reasonable people have questions about faith, and we need to think and reason about the possibilities.

Unfortunately, not all Christians fit the categorical box you want them to be in. I will concede to you that some are, but most aren't.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Of course parents are going to bring their kids to church, its what they want for their children. Its what they want them to follow.

I'm yet to see what is wrong with this. Apparently, this is the pinnacle of immorality to you guys.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Questions after what? "Daddy, why did *** call me an Anglican?" How many people have you met who converted from their original forced relgion into another?

Questions about what they have been told, about Jesus, the Bible and other things. Christians are very open to allowing their children the freedom to ask these questions. I have yet to see the unquestioning, uncritical side in this.

I've met quite a few who have moved from Catholicism into Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Pentecostalism and other denominations. I've also met people who have moved between Anglicanism and Pentecostalism.

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

What? How are you avoiding the non critical (your definition critical!) aspect of being carted to church, saying prayers, lighting candles etc?

I'm not avoiding anything. If anything you are putting forward 1 single idea of what church is actually like.

I'm basing my viewpoint particularly on the over three years since I consciously decided that Christianity was reasonable, and that I wanted to follow Jesus. From the people I've seen, and met, questions have always been tolerated and welcomed. I will concede, that my experience has been more with Reformed churches rather than Catholic ones, but I have met a good few Catholics who are willing to engage in the hard questions too.

sublunar

"state atheism" is a myth often cited by the religious to try and paint the control of cult-like religious practices as a bad thing. if you mean communist or fascist regimes, they aren't state atheism - they're the replacement of religions by the alternative religion of an extreme political viewpoint. essentially, banning every religion that doesn't match the religion of the state - very similar to fundamentalist religious states.

preventing religions from indoctrinating children isn't "meddling in church affairs", merely subjecting religious organisations to the same laws that other organisations are subject to. in a secular state, adults are free to believe whatever they want to. the same can't be said for children who've been force-fed religious doctrine from the get-go - they'll never be truly free to decide for themselves.

the "atheist agenda" isn't an agenda. a secular state ultimately means that everyone is free to believe what they want, that religious groups are answerable to the law, and that church and state are separate. if child protection laws were followed to their logical conclusion, they would extend to protecting children from religious indoctrination.

philologos

What you are talking about isn't "secularism". It's about putting your atheism into politics, by seeking to deny the rights of believers to bring their children up according to their values.

It is meddling in church affairs to dictate how the church should deal with membership, or who they should, or should not allow into their churches.

This isn't secularism, as the way that secularism has worked in most Western countries is to celebrate freedom of religion, but as something distinct from the State. You want the State interfering in church practice, and restricting membership to churches.

IMO, I'm fairly sure people would still teach their children about Christianity even if it were illegal.

sublunar

yes, i want religions to be regulated in that children's involvement should be controlled. just like every other organisation. i don't think i need to point out the problems that arise when religions have free reign over children's education.

getting back to the original question - i think that religious belief is inherently quite selfish - believing that there is a deity listening to you and looking after you; that there is an afterlife waiting for; that humans are more important than other animals; that the world was created especially for us, and so on (speaking broadly about the major religions). but generally, religious people don't see their beliefs as selfish - you have to be non-religious to see it in that way.

in the same way, while atheists see child-indoctrination as selfish, the irony is that religious people themselves are never going to realise this, as they are invariably absolutely convinced that they're right.

philologos

Of course atheists see it as selfish, as it suits their agenda to stop Christians expressing their beliefs publically, and in the family.

Let's go through your list of reasons why we're selfish for believing in God:

believing that there is a deity listening to you and looking after you;

I don't see how this is selfish. In the Christian interpretation God cares for all creation, not just for us.

that there is an afterlife waiting for;

How is that selfish?

that humans are more important than other animals;

Humans have superior faculties of cognition to other animals. Nowhere does it say that God doesn't care about the rest of His creation.

that the world was created especially for us

Do I believe this? - I personally believe the universe is a reflection of God's glory. It isn't for us, and it isn't ours. It's God's, and we have a responsibility towards it.

magicbastarder

sublunar wrote: »

if child protection laws were followed to their logical conclusion, they would extend to protecting children from religious indoctrination.

this gave me a chuckle. keep it up.

mehfesto

The ideals of religion are too complex for children. And yet they get branded as catholic, Muslim... Etc etc

it's like dawkins said: you would say "look at that Marxist child, beside the tory kid, just past the communist Little one". Attaching religion to a child is like attaching a football team to a goldfish. You can do it I you want, but it achieves nothing more than satisfying yourself.