age-limit to joining religons???

No one can force you to believe in something.

I dont to be honest see the point in your argument, all parents(typically) set out to do what they think is right and on many topics they can not wait for you to have reached say your 16th birthday. Sometimes you have to do what you hope will be right.
By your logic your parents should not have sent you to school since maybe thats not the school you would have picked once you reached an age you could critic the individual ones.
Anyway as far as joinning a a christian religion it is my understanding that it is not until your confirmation that you offically join and it is a thing you can walk away from at your whim.

Stephen

I think the likes of confirmation should be left until the person in question is 18. 12 is too young to make that kind of commitment.

bobbi, I would hazzard a guess that you are the exception to the rule. Making your confirmation/communion is big business these days - almost like a debs for kids. Most kids enjoy the experience I would have thought.

Like Rev H says, its all about your parents thinking they are doing the right thing. You have devout parents who don't question that the church is where you belong, and you have lip-service Christians who don't want their kids to be left out.

And most parents will know after that not introducing a child up into their religion early, that the chances of them embracing that religion in later life are slim.

NeilJ

I was told before by a fairly reliable source that it is illegal to give religious tuition to anyone under the age of 16 if I remember correctly without parental consent. Not quite what you were asking but still an interesting age I think. As for the whole sacraments thing, well I'm a practising Neo-Pagan and if I do have kids I don't think I would get them baptised (if my spouse was Christain). Rather I'd explain both sets of beliefs and let them decide what they wanted to believe when they were older. If they wanted to practise Christainity I'd respect their beliefs, if they wanted to practise Paganism I'd respect their beliefs and if they decided they didn't believe in any form of God I'd respect their beliefs provided they respected mine.

Neil

Interesting fact about the age limit. I take it then when you send a child to a school with a given ethos you are granting permission for it to be taught.

I'm curious NeilJ in a situation where you partner was a christian and wanted the child baptised.
Would you push what is your belief that the child should wait or allow theirs?

NeilJ

It is something that I have thought about a bit. I would have to sit down and talk to my partner and find out exactly why they would want the child baptised. I would also explain my view points. The main objection I would have myself is th e fact that in the baptisim ritual there is an explicit statement of initation into the Christain Church. In a Neo-Pagan "baptism" there is not explicit initiation, merely a blessing of the child by the Gods. From my point of view by having the child baptised you are indoctoring them into a religious belief system without their consent. But I would still raise them to understand and know about the Christain beliefs of my partner regardless of whether they were baptised or not. At least if they were not baptised and they decided not to practise a Christain faith they wouldn't be "down in the books" as a Christain.

Neil

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Interesting fact about the age limit. I take it then when you send a child to a school with a given ethos you are granting permission for it to be taught.

Absolutely. It's so tough to get into certain schools you can be sure parents will sign away their childs spiritual future before they're out of nappies.

Unless you have some beef with the teachings of the (e.g.) Catholic Church then I don't think it's so bad an environment to have your kids schooled in. [Speaking as a former pupil of one...]

NeilJ, you might want to make your points clear with any prospective partner before it's too late.

And remember there's no shame in compromise!

NeilJ

The Atheist wrote:

NeilJ, you might want to make your points clear with any prospective partner before it's too late.
And remember there's no shame in compromise!

I have discussed it a little with my current girlfriend and we've kinda resigned it into the will deal with it if and when we have to box. In the end it would probably be some form of compromise anyway.

Neil

Neil I tell you this with bitter experience, theres no compromising with women, there's only a hasty retreat under fire.

I would like to baptise and confirm any future children of mine at the moment. If they find faith they can continue, if they don't they can do what they wish. Personally I don't have faith but I think there's quite a lot of sense in message of Jesus and that it might be good for the child. I don't think it can do much harm tbh.

As for age to join a religion, personally I don't think that a person does until they are an adult. As a child they might find some support in it, but until they are of age they cannot really make a decision on it.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Neil I tell you this with bitter experience, theres no compromising with women, there's only a hasty retreat under fire.

I concur!

When/if me and Mrs (non) Atheist have kids they'll be raised as lip-service Catholics but darnit she can't watch them all the time!

> I don't think it can do much harm tbh.

I think you are being a bit naive here :rolleyes:

Religion has been the motive justification behind the deaths of millions, not to mention the scandal currently rocking some of the lower, and less grandly irreponsible, bits of the catholic church.

> I think there's quite a lot of sense in message of Jesus

There are plenty of systems of ethical behaviour around the places which are rationally grounded, and don't require you to believe that there is an eldery man in the sky with a luxuriant beard who loves you, or his sulphurous, pitch-forked nemesis some way beneath the ground, both competing for your "soul".

BTW, the "message of jesus" you're referring to is something close to a pious lie. Leaving quite aside the blood-soaked Old Testament and looking at the gospels, we do see Jesus referring quite specifically to his desire to cause violence. See, for example Matthew 10:34:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

...which is one of the few prophesies in the text of the bible to have come true, sadly.

Personally, I believe that kids should remain un-indoctrinated for as long as possible. If they want to become religious once they've come of age, then that's fine -- it's a free choice. But lying to kids about the nature of the world is dishonest and I don't care for it.

robindch wrote:

> I don't think it can do much harm tbh.

I think you are being a bit naive here :rolleyes:

Religion has been the motive justification behind the deaths of millions, not to mention the scandal currently rocking some of the lower, and less grandly irreponsible, bits of the catholic church.

Ah, Robin you old sceptic you.

Obviously the Church has a checkered history, but lets keep it relevant - i.e. to 21st Century Irish schools run by a religious order. And lets face it - most of the teachers are lay-people these days.

I presume schools are no longer a "hotbed for abuse", and the teachings don't include "Justifications For The Inquisition". Maybe I'm naive in that regard - but I doubt it.

Tar.Aldarion

I think a compromise with your partner would be necessary but if both want no baptism then that is all the beter. I am perfectly capable of giving my equivalent of the ten commandmants should I have to

Christianity was an ok guideline as a young child for me with the commandments but there is too much stuff that is not acceptable to me in every religion, especially tolerence of other religions. Buddhism does seem one of the better ones for that though.

robindch wrote:

> I don't think it can do much harm tbh.

I think you are being a bit naive here :rolleyes:

Religion has been the motive justification behind the deaths of millions, not to mention the scandal currently rocking some of the lower, and less grandly irreponsible, bits of the catholic church.

Ok. What exactly will that do to a child? Is "studying religion" in school going to turn them into a fundamentalist? No.

Your issues with the church, as an institution, sound similar to my own but you need to appreciate a broader picture. Yes there is a lot of problems in the church's history, but does that mean that raising a child as a Catholic is implicitly bad, wrong or immoral? The parent still retains a lot of control even if the child is taught religion in school. Moral guidance should come primarily from the parents imho.

robindch wrote:

> I think there's quite a lot of sense in message of Jesus

There are plenty of systems of ethical behaviour around the places which are rationally grounded, and don't require you to believe that there is an eldery man in the sky with a luxuriant beard who loves you, or his sulphurous, pitch-forked nemesis some way beneath the ground, both competing for your "soul".

BTW, the "message of jesus" you're referring to is something close to a pious lie. Leaving quite aside the blood-soaked Old Testament and looking at the gospels, we do see Jesus referring quite specifically to his desire to cause violence. See, for example Matthew 10:34:
...which is one of the few prophesies in the text of the bible to have come true, sadly.

A pious lie? I'd disagree. The sermon on the mount is the only thing approaching a moral system within the gospels (tbh). Even then it's not a bad system, I've seen much worse. It's how it's interpreted that is the main thing here and that again is where the parents should come in.

And tbh, most systems of ethical behaviour (and I'm thinking of systems here) and far too complicated for a child to comprehend. Simple stuff like "This is bad" and "This is wrong" are a much better way to raise a young child. When they get old enough to question these that the fun starts and you get to delve into ethics with them.

robindch wrote:

Personally, I believe that kids should remain un-indoctrinated for as long as possible. If they want to become religious once they've come of age, then that's fine -- it's a free choice. But lying to kids about the nature of the world is dishonest and I don't care for it.

A perfectly valid viewpoint. Personally, I don't think religion is lying about the nature of the world unless you choose to interpret it literally in all respects. Very few religious people I know do this. Also, raising a child as a Catholic (in this case) and having them attend religion class is not indoctrinating them unless you restrict all other influences or teach that they are wrong and bad. I would approach it as this is "one way to look at things" but not the only way.

I think though that we'll have to agree to disagree about this.

> Is "studying religion" in school going to turn them into a fundamentalist?

No, of course not! And I'm happy, even enthusiastic, about teaching people *about* religion as long as the information is factual -- ie, here's what's believed by catholics, the various species of protestants, muslims, zoroastrians, buddhists and so on, and following on from this, study the various actions of the various religious leaders down through the years and compare and contrast them with what the same leaders were *saying*. And then to develop from this, an understanding of how and why relgion propagates as an (ineradicable?) social phenomenon. Apart from anything else, it's a fascinating topic, which unites so many different areas of human endevour and misadventure.

> does that mean that raising a child as a Catholic is implicitly bad, wrong or immoral?

As above, I have a problem with impressionable brains being drip fed somebody else's irrational beliefs -- I believe this is immoral and unethical.

OK, there are a few bits in the bible where one is enjoined not to kill people or lie, and they're quite useful rules of behaviour. But frankly, kids will have learned these rules of behaviour by the time they're ten years old. It's always surprised me that christians (and other religionists), present these self-evident rules as if (a) they had descended, literally, from heaven and (b) they could not be discovered by simple trial and error. It surprises me even more that these good folks have such a poor opinion of themselves and other people, that they hold these rules up as though they could only have arrived by divine inspiration.

> Personally, I don't think religion is lying about the nature of the world

In that case, I think we'll have to disagree. I see nothing honest about telling kids that there's an invisible man in the sky who exists in three separate bits, that you'll live on after you die, that there's a horned devil permanently trying to lead you astray.

This is simply not the way the world is, any more than the world is flat and the moon and sun are pulled across the sky by horses.

seamus

robindch wrote:

In that case, I think we'll have to disagree. I see nothing honest about telling kids that there's an invisible man in the sky who exists in three separate bits, that you'll live on after you die, that there's a horned devil permanently trying to lead you astray.

With kids though, this imagery isn't necessarily a bad thing. Kids will believe anything, I don't think it's right to be 100% upfront about everything. Believing that things can be all-powerful and magical is part of the great thing about being a kid. But where does it end? At some point, as the child develops you would hope that they only use the God and Devil characters as metaphors, not as literal, actual existing things.

Personally, I would hope my kids' (when I have them) view of God and Devil will morph into a karmic view of the world - good deeds lead to good things, and bad deeds lead to bad things. Such notions are a little too complex for a child to understand IMO, hence you need tangible representations of these ideals - heaven and hell.

robindch wrote:

> Personally, I don't think religion is lying about the nature of the world

In that case, I think we'll have to disagree. I see nothing honest about telling kids that there's an invisible man in the sky who exists in three separate bits, that you'll live on after you die, that there's a horned devil permanently trying to lead you astray.

This is simply not the way the world is, any more than the world is flat and the moon and sun are pulled across the sky by horses.

Bluntly. You don't seem to have even bothered to take the time to understand what I posted. Note I said:

Personally, I don't think religion is lying about the nature of the world unless you choose to interpret it literally in all respects.

You handily dropped the last part, and the important qualifier so you could give some tinned "out of the box" response. Please try to argue rather than misquote and misinterpret. A story is a story. It does not have to be real, or even realistic, to have meaning. Like I said, you don't have to interpret what's said literally.

In what way is telling a child a story wrong or immoral? It's "lies to children" to quote Terry Pratchett. It is exactly the same as the beliefs some people hold on how the world works. If a 6 year old asks how a television works do you give them a technical description of how data is recorded by a camera and then traced out on the TV by electrons? You don't, you tell them a story about it.

It's no different than the pop physics fueled interpretations you see cropping up now and then. Where a person has basically been told a story about some physical theory. The person doesn't understand the theory and definitely has never been exposed to the technical context of the theory. The person then talks about this theory thinking that they understand it. The person is basically wrong because no one ever explained to them the "real" answer.

It's the same as the above, the only thing that changes is that people nowadays seem to have faith in science rather than the church for "how the world works". That doesn't mean that they understand what's going on. You trust to science for your answers. Do you understand the answers it gives or where they come from? Or are you just taking it on faith?

Ask a person nowadays "How was the universe created?" and they respond with "The Big Bang of course". Tell them that it's a theory and that it's no where close to being proven and they get very confused. Adults suffer from as much ignorance as ever these days. They just have a new source that they are conditioned to trust implicitly. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for science, but the parallels with religion when it comes to the lay person are scary to me. People accept science's answer to everything, even though science is highly limited in what it can study. People seem to have a belief, and note it's a belief, that nothing exists outside of sciences view. Where did that come from? Science studys the observable. It can, and doesn't, make any claims about what cannot be observed. Constantly we are finding things that we didn't know existed before now. Science is constantly expanding, people forget this.

The only problems I can see is that a child being raised with only religious guidance on a lot of matters. Religion is not the place to look for answers on many topics. But I find this "assurity" of point of view that people seem to hold about their own non-religious beliefs about reality to be extremely annoying. We don't have a concrete answer for how the world was created, we just have a few decent theories. But we've nothing concrete that one should believe in. Isn't it inherently irrational to believe in a theory, which atm cannot be proven, as truth? To agree with the theory, or think that it's a good theory sure I can't see an issue with that. But for people to hold that it's true even though they don't understand what it means? I'm sorry that's either faith or irrationality. Depending on what side of the coin you choose to pick.

> > "Personally, I don't think religion is lying about the nature of
> > the world unless you choose to interpret it literally in all respects."
>
> You handily dropped the last part, and the important qualifier
> so you could give some tinned "out of the box" response.

I was neither misquoting nor misinterpreting you as I don't believe that the conditional in your sentence really adds much to what you're saying.

Religion, at least in my use of the term, covers what I mentioned in my earlier postings -- that there's a three-bit god, a devil, life after death, unbelievers will go to hell, that life is meaningless without religion to give it a meaning, that baptism does something good, etc, etc. These specific views are commonly held in this country, I believe, because people are told, when children, that they are true. They then go on to make decisions as adults, based upon these faulty views, which affect the way in which other people live (ie, up to very recently, kids outside of marriage, divorce, etc).

Are you saying that these views of the world are true? Or some are true? Or none of them? Or should we just take religion's "sociable" parts about ethical behaviour and leave the rest? Or do you believe that it's ok to tell somebody something untrue in the service of a "higher" truth? (ie, the bogeyman will come and take you tonight if you don't eat your cabbage!)

- robin.

ps - my response was not "tinned" either, but thanks for the compliment anyway

I think the teaching of religion if it was thought in a fundamental manner to the detriment of science i.e. ‘creationist science’ is something we can all agree is fundamentally wrong.

Many people here paint religionous believers as scientific throw backs. This I believe is not the case and to a degree shows a lack of knowledge of thinking within the major religions. It is worth noting that theology in most religions are evolving and embrace the growth scientific knowledge. They may not agree with particular application of science but they don’t discount its existence or validity.
If you can show me piece of proven science that the Vatican for example has discredited I will gladly accept your side, there is none that I’m aware of. Ideas such as the big bang are accepted, the bible is not taken literally.

Religion is faith and as such does deal with that which has not or can not been proven, but that does not say it can not grow along with science. Maybe one day science will have all the answers and there will be no room for religion, but that day if there is one is a long way off.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Religion is faith and as such does deal with that which has not or can not been proven

... Except when it does deal with stuff that can be proven - in which case we're told it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

On the day* that science has an answer for everything - we'll be told that none of it should be taken literally and would you please continue to pass around the basket.

* That day will never come.

The Atheist wrote:

... Except when it does deal with stuff that can be proven - in which case we're told it wasn't meant to be taken literally.

Are you saying that religious thought isn’t allowed to change?
I can see no reason why like science (and though the use of science) the principles of religion cannot be refined as our understanding increases of both science and how (should it exist) an external supernatural force ie god(s) may relate to it.

> If you can show me piece of proven science that the Vatican
> for example has discredited I will gladly accept your side

I'm not sure if this was in response to my message, but assuming it was...

...I'm not talking about scientific stuff at all, but the religious notions which I listed up above:

1. that life can only have a meaning if religion gives it one
2. that your own particular religion is only one which is true
3. that you live after you die
4. that you'll go to hell if you don't believe
5. that The Truth should not be questioned
6. that you are being watched all the time and will be judged
when dead
(etc, etc).

These are the things which I think kids must not be taught -- this isn't about learning, or expanding one's mind, but quite the opposite: inculcating guilt and fear and that's exactly what the vatican's been in the business of since day one, and what I strenuously object to.

> the bible is not taken literally.

Yes, by and large, the majority of it is. Or at least those parts which are relevant to keeping the religion alive and functioning in whatever group within society is using the bible to sustain itself.

The items you have listed robindch are articles of faith and I for one have no problem with them. As long as they aren't taught as proven fact I have no problem with them and dont see the relevance of it in this discussion.

On the topic what ethos is suitable in a school I do see your opint, but view it differently. Yes I agree that for someone looking for an education with no reglious content, well the options are *ahem* some what limited. But at this point it seems that is what the majority are happy with and/or want, and those who disagree are a minority. I see nothing wrong with the current setup of the main ethos been christian since that is what most people in ireland classify themselves. myself I would like to see a broader covering of religous but dont mind if one is concentraed on more.

I suspect its a view many here would disagree with but I think understand if not approve of.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Are you saying that religious thought isn’t allowed to change?

My point is that science evolves naturally - but religion is not built like that. It's a set of rules and facts, apparantly laid down the Creator of life the universe and everything. How can it maintain it's credibility if those rules are twisted and changed to suit modern day society? Doesn't that suggest fallibility?

Religious leaders would doubtless prefer not to have to continuously "re-interptret" scriptures - but they know that religion has to evolve for self preservation purposes.

robindch wrote:

> > "Personally, I don't think religion is lying about the nature of
> > the world unless you choose to interpret it literally in all respects."
>
> You handily dropped the last part, and the important qualifier
> so you could give some tinned "out of the box" response.

I was neither misquoting nor misinterpreting you as I don't believe that the conditional in your sentence really adds much to what you're saying.

Religion, at least in my use of the term, covers what I mentioned in my earlier postings -- that there's a three-bit god, a devil, life after death, unbelievers will go to hell, that life is meaningless without religion to give it a meaning, that baptism does something good, etc, etc. These specific views are commonly held in this country, I believe, because people are told, when children, that they are true. They then go on to make decisions as adults, based upon these faulty views, which affect the way in which other people live (ie, up to very recently, kids outside of marriage, divorce, etc).

Are you saying that these views of the world are true? Or some are true? Or none of them? Or should we just take religion's "sociable" parts about ethical behaviour and leave the rest? Or do you believe that it's ok to tell somebody something untrue in the service of a "higher" truth? (ie, the bogeyman will come and take you tonight if you don't eat your cabbage!)

- robin.

ps - my response was not "tinned" either, but thanks for the compliment anyway

Sorry for the delay, busy and all that

I'd disagree strongly with your interpretation of what I said. Then I was raised (as a Catholic, although I no longer see myself as one tbh) to look at religion as a metaphor. In religion class in school it was the same. We were taught parables, not "facts". I was never indoctrinated in school to believe anything, faith was a personal issue not a public one. That was echoed at home, the church and faith were seperated. You could have faith and not participate in church and this wasn't seen as a problem in my family.

As I've said already, I can see where you are coming from but I disagree with your stance on these issues. I think you have gone too far in the direction of opposing the church and the idea of religion. Personally, while I have many many issues with organised religion, I still believe it is compatable with my life, or at least its existence doesn't prevent or hinder my life. I don't have faith but I am not bothered by others having it. Other people don't try to force me to have faith or try to shame me into having it.

I have no issue with baptising a child etc, so long as I as a parent raise my children correctly. That I give them choice. Let them sit in religion class as children and listen to stories that might make them happy or feel wonder (I'm thinking of "emotional cotton wool" here). But as soon as they are old enough to question I will let them question and try to answer those questions as best I can. I don't see an issue so long as I don't "hand over" the child's ethical teaching to religion class.

You are absolutely correct if scripture and the bible are meant to be taken literally and that is indeed the view of certain denominations in for example Christianity.

But my understanding is that it is the message/idea in the scripture that is important rather than the actual story itself. It is our inability to fully comprehend that meaning or insight contained which results in the re-interpretation.

Keep in mind its not science nor does it claim to be.

The Atheist wrote:

My point is that science evolves naturally - but religion is not built like that. It's a set of rules and facts, apparantly laid down the Creator of life the universe and everything. How can it maintain it's credibility if those rules are twisted and changed to suit modern day society? Doesn't that suggest fallibility?

But essentially science follows similar guidelines. It follows traditions and facts until it is forced to discard them by mountains of empirical evidence. Such changes are resisted by many in the history of science. Revolutions aren't always welcomed but are things of necessity. You could argue that religion is similar in that it is forced to change it's stance now and then because of empirical evidence.

I'd also disagree with the idea that science evolves naturally. That, to me, implies a slow steady change and advancement in science. Science, historically, has not behaved like that. It makes small amounts of progress (where it follows tradition and refines already present concepts) then huge sections of it change in a small amount of time (where the traditions are turned on their heads).

The Atheist wrote:

Religious leaders would doubtless prefer not to have to continuously "re-interptret" scriptures - but they know that religion has to evolve for self preservation purposes.

Scientists to an extent are similar. Revolutions, initially, tend to be greeted with skepticism and doubt. People don't like massive changes to their understanding of the world. No one likes to have been wrong after all

What I would say is that science tends to be a lot more mutable than religion when it comes to change. But I would not consider science and religion to be disparate and on different sides of the change coin. Organised religion evolves too, just look at the beliefs from 100-200 years ago, or better yet 500 years ago in the Catholic Church and see the difference. The big difference is that in theory all scientific theories should be disprovable. But the reality is that dislodging an established theory in science can prove as difficult as changing an article of faith.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

You are absolutely correct if scripture and the bible are meant to be taken literally and that is indeed the view of certain denominations in for example Christianity.

But my understanding is that it is the message/idea in the scripture that is important rather than the actual story itself. It is our inability to fully comprehend that meaning or insight contained which results in the re-interpretation.

I agree completely.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Keep in mind its not science nor does it claim to be.

This is a point that many miss. Also people have a tendency to think "all is science and science is all". That is simply not true.