age-limit to joining religons???

Rev Hellfire · 25-11-2005 05:08PM

That was my point! It was you who suggested that religion could grow alongside science. My point was that religion "growing" (i.e. updating) is curious in the light of the assumption that the original "rules" were provided by an omnipotent entity older than the universe itself.

I think the difference is that you see religion at odds with science, that is not the case in my view (well for certain zelous people it is).
There is nothing yet I have seen in sciencific knowledge advancement which is incompatible with religion (even taking a christian only point of view); both seek an understanding of our existance and our purpose within it.

Scientific understanding assists in refining religous understanding. The message may not have changed but our understanding of it can. Science also has revisted things in its time and refined its understanding. why should it be so surprising that religion thought might do the same.

Again I stress religion is not science, but that does not preclude it from availing of new found knowledge to which it can apply to its own domain.

ronbyrne2005 · 25-11-2005 06:04PM

the vast majority of religous people were brought up within the religon they practise and were in fact indoctrinated.it would be interesting to see how many people became religous if they werent taught any religon or allowed to take part in any religous practises such as mass confirmation etc,i doubt even half of those that would have become religous if taught from birth would become religous under such cirumstances. religons baptise etc to "get em young" and start the indoctrination,people are at their most vunerable and immpressionable during their child/youth and learn their beliefs from their parents/family etc. i personally think it isnt fair to force a religon on a child incapable of making a rational informed descision.religons perpetuate themselves by getting the young through their parents and its an intergenerationalthing.

Rev Hellfire · 25-11-2005 06:38PM

I suspect your point that if people are not taught a religion that the majority would not follow it is true. But the same is also true of any subject people arent subjected to with regards its follow up later on. If geography wasn't taught then I'm sure there'd be less geograph teachers.

But the problem I have with your argument is that at present the majority of society seem to want (or dont care about) this indoctrination and I see no reason why the wishes of the few should be overrule the majority when it comes to public education. Your problem isnt religion but the parents who send their children to 'religious' school, I would argue that these schools just reflect society as it is now.

nesf · 25-11-2005 09:00PM

The Atheist wrote:

That's still natural evolution for me. Didn't "Evolution" work like that too? Wasn't there something along the line of Cambrian explosion of life?

Let's agree to disagree on the suitability of the analogy. I was going to raise objections to it, but it's pointless really. We aren't actually disagreeing about the subject matter or anything.

Dades · 25-11-2005 11:10PM

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I think the difference is that you see religion at odds with science, that is not the case in my view

Maybe you're right that I do.

It's really a whole other discussion - worthy of it's own thread I'd say.
In the meantime let us all think about what we've learned here!

cool @ nesf

samb · 26-11-2005 07:32AM

I agree with robindch on every point above. I was brought up an athiest, infact athiesm goes back over a hundred years in my family, and I don't think it affected my ability to enjoy my childhood nor affect my morals. If you are straight with kids they will repond, I don't think many of you are giving children enough credit with regard understand good and bad etc. I think if you tell kids things that are comforting like the after-life then they may find it depressing when they find out it is nonsense. People brought up athiest don't generally find this as hard to get their heads around.

THe Athiest said
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.

But even if the indoctrination is not bad you are all missing an imprtant point, it seems like you are all athiests that were brought up catholic. Non-catholics are made feel different as children and this is simply wrong. there are not enough schools of different religions and all.

Also religious schools divide people for life in the north.

Support Educate Together

Rev Hellfire · 26-11-2005 09:40AM

While I agree with pretty much everything samb says and its good to get an insight from someone who isn't burdened with a resentment which stems from their parents religious leaning and their subsequent 'indoctrination'.

I do have an issue with the following statement.

Non-catholics are made feel different as children and this is simply wrong. there are not enough schools of different religions and all.

I think we can agree that State schools are set-up to cater for society as a whole where possible and to reflect its principles and tenets. True they teach religion but they also teach children of civic responsibilities and help provide them the tools to operate within it.
At the moment society in Ireland can be deemed largely Christian in terms of its ethos, so I argue that it makes perfect sense that children in state schools are educated in all religions but in ones of a Christian slant in particular since that relfects our current society more. Those who wish to receive a different teaching goto more specialised schools for example irish speakers goto gaelscoils, people of a Protestant leaning have set up schools which cater for their belief system as to have non-Christian creeds. Why should the non-religious be any different?

I admit that it’s not an ideal situation but we don’t have to set out to please everyone just the majority.

Also religious schools divide people for life in the north.

As for the north I disagree that religion is the cause of the problem. People who believe that I feel have failed to understand the realities up their. It plays a role, but is not the main one and I would say is an issue for only one side (and a minority on that side at that).

ArthurDent · 26-11-2005 11:16AM

Rev Hellfire wrote:

While I agree with pretty much everything samb says and its good to get an insight from someone who isn't burdened with a resentment which stems from their parents religious leaning and their subsequent 'indoctrination'.

I think we can agree that State schools are set-up to cater for society as a whole where possible and to reflect its principles and tenets. True they teach religion but they also teach children of civic responsibilities and help provide them the tools to operate within it.

I don't think you will find that most people object to information/teaching about different religions in class, the problem arises when one of those faith systems is taught as the "true doctrine", Catholic schools are obliged to teach Catholic principles as truth - they may pass on information about other faiths (and many are very proactive in accomodating those other faiths represented in the school community), but legally they are obliged to teach the doctrine ONLY of the Catholic church. There is huge commonality amongst most major faith systems in civic responsibilities and moral obligations, but is it fair that one faith is held up as the true one - what message is that sending to those that do not belong to that faith?
IMO facts about different faith systems good, discussion on different faith systems good - doctrinal classes (ie this is the TRUTH) - bad in a class setting (should be done after school, led by parish/parents)

robindch · 26-11-2005 12:13PM

> its good to get an insight from someone who isn't burdened
> with a resentment which stems from their parents religious
> leaning and their subsequent 'indoctrination'.

I'm sure that any future forum charter will suggest that posters don't slag each other off

However, I must thank you for adding to my point about indoctrination:

> As for the north I disagree that religion is the cause of the problem.

...which suggests that your current understanding of the politics of the North of Ireland may need some more thought:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,546781,00.html

Religiously-specific education, as happens in the North, is all about creating ingroups and outgroups, for the immediate benefit of the religious meme:

http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Outgroup
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/in-group_bias.htm
http://www.christianitymeme.org/

Academic understanding of this is fairly modern, and it's worth searching out a copy of Gordon Allport's 1954 book The Nature of Prejudice which discusses the sources of irrational prejudice, and its inevitable results in society.

Rev Hellfire · 26-11-2005 02:06PM

> its good to get an insight from someone who isn't burdened
> with a resentment which stems from their parents religious
> leaning and their subsequent 'indoctrination'.

I'm sure that any future forum charter will suggest that posters don't slag each other off

The quote you refer to had nothing to do with you but rather samb who is coming to this topic from a different upbringing, which has no baggage of religious ‘indoctrination’. This I think is different to the background most people have here.
If you felt it was aimed at you, I assure you it wasn’t.

As for the north and the degree religion plays in its divisions. I think we’ll agree to disagree (thanks for the links I will indeed look at them when I have time) my observations point me to a different cause, rooted more in identity where religion is but one element of that identity. Its an interesting discussion and I’m more than willing to debate it on a more relevant forum should u wish to make the opening post.

Moving onto AthurDents point, I do understand where you’re coming from but really don’t see the problem. As a society we are notionally a catholic one, maybe this will change in the future. Therefore as a culture we push a catholic agenda in our schools.
I’m not saying I approve or disapprove mind you. I’m just saying I understand why it is that way.

samb · 27-11-2005 04:54AM

my observations point me to a different cause, rooted more in identity where religion is but one element of that identity. Its an interesting discussion and I’m more than willing to debate it on a more relevant forum should u wish to make the opening post.

I agree that it is rooted in identity where religion is but one element of that identity however it is not the religion that I think is the problem. It is the dividing up of the children in the north on religious grounds not actually the religious beliefs. I don't think it is what the kids are taught in school is the main problem(it might be if the teacher(s) happens to be a sectarian arse) but simply the fact that ones peers are all from your particular side of the divide. I remember seeing a documentory about a catholic woman who after working in a job for several months descovered she was working with a protestant loyalist, she was amazed that this woman was nice because she had had no contact with the other side. If the kids were not divided up on religious grounds then the sectarians would have to think of some other way of dividing them up. It would not be easy, what would you have? Rangers and Celtic schools...Sinnfein, DUP.......No, without religion the children would all be just children.

I think this disussion is very relevant to this forum heading.

I admit that it’s not an ideal situation but we don’t have to set out to please everyone just the majority
I disagree very strongly with this statement but I will not go into it now. All i'll say is we should ''set out'' to please everybody.

clearz · 27-11-2005 05:16AM

bobbi wrote:

Just wondering if anyone agrees with my point of view or what their point of view on children joining religons.Do you not think a child has no rights in his/her religon?I do not agree with parents making their children follow their beliefs. As a child i was made catholic. I was not fond of making my holy communion. I really had no interest in the christian religon. I did not want to make my confirmation but was forced to by my parents and my school. I am now happy being an atheist. I just believe if people under the age of eighteen cannot vote, drink, smoke, make legal decisions for themselves they should not be forced to be a certain religon. I think its unfair to choose a persons religous beliefs for them. I know this will never change but just wondering what people thought about it. I know when i have children i will let them decide for themselves what religon they would like to be when they are old enough and i will support them. Any comments??

When I made my Holy Communion the only thing I believed in was superman and a bag of cola bottles. When I made my Confirmation the only thing I believed in was making more money than the rest of my class. I do not hold it against any parent to bring their children up in their religion because in their hearts they believe that it is right and its a parents duty to bring their children up in the right way. Now to me atheism is just as obtuse as believing in religion because it follows the same misguided belief that you know whats gonna happen you when you die without a shread of evidence.

Rev Hellfire · 27-11-2005 11:25AM

samb wrote:

Rangers and Celtic schools...Sinnfein, DUP.......No, without religion the children would all be just children.

I think on the face of it could easily appear to be a purely religious divide. That the DUP are overtly protestant party no one will argue. But I don’t believe they became the largest unionist party due to their religious leaning, but rather their uncompromising unionist stance. Most unionist (loyalists included) are no more religious than the southern populous, which is not hugely so. The same is true on the nationalist side, and even more so when you take that Sinn Fine are a socialist party. Religion does play a part but I contend that it is not the major part.

samb wrote:

I disagree very strongly with this statement but I will not go into it now. All I’ll say is we should ''set out'' to please everybody.

I suspect we are quote closely in agreement on this. I totally agree with your statement that society should set out to please everyone. But where polar opposite view are held, then the wishes of the majority are upheld. Such is the way of a democracy. At present the majority wish religion taught in schools, and a minority don’t. Now before people think I’m proposing that the wishes of say non-Christian parents are to be overwritten and their children thought the Christian faith, I’d like to point out I’m not. Such children should be excused from such religious education, and in my own school days that was the case. Once religion class came those children of other faiths either attended a class geared to their faith or went to the library. Maybe times have changed since my schooling, but I would assume things have if anything improved.
Btw I attended a state school, not one run by a religious order. To my mind if you join school known for playing rugby you can’t cry foul if you’re asked to play rugby as well.

bobbi · 27-11-2005 02:17PM

If you where questioning your religion at that age then I have to say you must have had a ****e childhood.

Please clearz don't refer to my childhood in reference to my opinions about religon its not relevant.I would never go around slagging someones religon so i don't see how its different in my case.You feel you can say"Now to me atheism is just as retarded as believing in religion because it follows the same misguided belief that you know whats gonna happen you when you die without a shread of evidence."Thats unfair

Asiaprod · 27-11-2005 02:46PM

clearz wrote:

have to say you must have had a ****e childhood.

Now to me atheism is just as retarded as believing in religion

clearz, not ragging on you, but both of those comments should be considered to be Tut Tuts, IMHO both are a little to opinionated. Even if we don't yet have a charter in place, every one here is expected to act with repect to both beliefs and other posters.:)

Charis · 27-11-2005 03:15PM

bobbi wrote:

Just wondering if anyone agrees with my point of view or what their point of view on children joining religons.Do you not think a child has no rights in his/her religon?I do not agree with parents making their children follow their beliefs. As a child i was made catholic. I was not fond of making my holy communion. I really had no interest in the christian religon. I did not want to make my confirmation but was forced to by my parents and my school. I am now happy being an atheist. I just believe if people under the age of eighteen cannot vote, drink, smoke, make legal decisions for themselves they should not be forced to be a certain religon. I think its unfair to choose a persons religous beliefs for them. I know this will never change but just wondering what people thought about it. I know when i have children i will let them decide for themselves what religon they would like to be when they are old enough and i will support them. Any comments??

I hope I am doing this right. I personally was raised with parents who believed in Jesus Christ and followed Him. They however made it quite clear that we must each make our own choice whether to accept or reject Christ and His teachings. If we chose to follow Christ we practice a believer's baptism to publically make that clear. I believe that it is important to give children guidance in all areas of their lives but they ultimately make the decisions as to what they follow or believe. While I am not of a Catholic or Protestant faith I have no problem with my children attending schools of either belief system. I was encouraged to ask questions and I am teaching my children the same. If they learn things that are different from what I teach them at home my hope is that they will have a relationship where they can talk to me and we can discuss the views and ultimately find Truth.
Charis

robindch · 27-11-2005 03:31PM

> I believe that it is important to give children guidance in all
> areas of their lives but they ultimately make the decisions
> as to what they follow or believe.

Well said.

But a few questions -- when teaching your kids about religion, do you provide equal time for the non-religious side? And do you make it clear to them that nothing at all will happen to them if they decide not to be religious?

I'm asking because some religious people, consciously or unconsciously, don't make it as easy as they perhaps should for young people to make an uninhibited decision.

clearz · 27-11-2005 04:57PM

Asiaprod wrote:

clearz, not ragging on you, but both of those comments should be considered to be Tut Tuts, IMHO both are a little to opinionated. Even if we don't yet have a charter in place, every one here is expected to act with repect to both beliefs and other posters.:)

Your right. It was very late when I wrote that. Edited anyway.

clearz · 27-11-2005 05:13PM

bobbi wrote:

If you where questioning your religion at that age then I have to say you must have had a ****e childhood.

Please clearz don't refer to my childhood in reference to my opinions about religon its not relevant.I would never go around slagging someones religon so i don't see how its different in my case.You feel you can say"Now to me atheism is just as retarded as believing in religion because it follows the same misguided belief that you know whats gonna happen you when you die without a shread of evidence."Thats unfair

Ok bobbi I removed the childhood remark because it was unneeded and irrelevant. The second comment is not unfair because I was simply showing my position on atheism/religion after stating that I have no problem with parents bringing their children up in their religion because they believe that is the right thing to do. Believeing in religion can be just as good for a child as believing in santa. And they can make their own decisions when they are older anyway.

As an atheist you believe that the concept of religion is wrong.
Someone that is religious will tell you that atheism is wrong.
As an agnostic myself I think both are wrong because we simply dont know. I believe that life in itself is so amazing that we cannot rule out something after death. But I also believe that all current mainstream religions are so illogical that anyone with an iq over 70 that sits back and takes an openminded look at them will realise they are wrong.

Asiaprod · 28-11-2005 03:58AM

clearz wrote:

Your right. It was very late when I wrote that. Edited anyway.

Much appriciated, thanks:)

Dades · 28-11-2005 12:02PM

clearz wrote:

As an atheist you believe that the concept of religion is wrong.
Someone that is religious will tell you that atheism is wrong.
As an agnostic myself I think both are wrong because we simply dont know.

clearz - as mentioned in several of the other threads in this forum - atheism is not a knowledge of anything. It is a belief. Anyone who declares a "knowledge" of any particular stance in this arena is deluded. In short: you have your belief, and there is no need to refer to other's beliefs as obtuse.

When I made my Holy Communion the only thing I believed in was superman and a bag of cola bottles. When I made my Confirmation the only thing I believed in was making more money than the rest of my class.

This I agree with.

Giving your kids this type of schooling is not going to turn them in Soldiers of God. Religion class was never taken seriously in my school, and more often than not hecklers would be shouting questions like how Noah fitted all the animals on the arc. And as a parent you have ulitimate control over the child. Nothing will change that.

robindch · 28-11-2005 05:58PM

> I have no problem with parents bringing their children up in their
> religion because they believe that is the right thing to do.

This isn't a very convincing argument. What about the vast majority (around 85%) of people in the USA who are creationists in some way or other? Do you also believe that biology teachers should be required to teach creationism, just because the parents think it's right?

> Believeing in religion can be just as good for a child as believing
> in santa. And they can make their own decisions when they are
> older anyway.

You're missing the point about indoctrination. By the time that the kids have grown up, they'll be unable to make an unbiassed decision about it, having listened for years to what religious people say about religion.

If there were a balance in place, so that kids spent half the time listening to religious teachers, and the other half listening to critics of religion, then that's probably fine. But as it stands, the scales are tilted completely in favour of religion and they'll continue to be like this as long as people let them.

pH · 28-11-2005 06:31PM

But as it stands, the scales are tilted completely in favour of religion and they'll continue to be like this as long as people let them.

I'm not sure about this, many things parents want/wish for their children don't happen for a number of reasons.

If it was that simple no child would ever smoke/drink/dress like the're 18/grow long hair/have piercings/do drugs/have a boyfriend etc etc.

Children seem to take their social cues as much (or more) from their friends and general society as they do from their parents.

Children sometimes seem to exhibit a particulary mean streak in trying to rebel and do exactly opposite that which their parents desire.

I kid you not - my sister rebeled against my (atheistic) parents by attending mass on a regular basis in her teens.

nesf · 28-11-2005 08:46PM

robindch wrote:

This isn't a very convincing argument. What about the vast majority (around 85%) of people in the USA who are creationists in some way or other?

Could you link to some stats or reports on this? What I read in Scientific American and the Economist recently commented that the above wasn't the case and that it was a minority (if a very vocal and powerful one) that seemed to believe in creationism. The majority didn't seem to really care that much (which is almost worse when one thinks about it!).

robindch wrote:

You're missing the point about indoctrination. By the time that the kids have grown up, they'll be unable to make an unbiassed decision about it, having listened for years to what religious people say about religion.

I disagree. Tbh religion will only play a large part of a child's life if the parents choose this. One class a week in religion is not going to indoctrinate children. Plus, this is a Catholic country. The bias is there whether or not religion is taught in school. The bias is in our laws and constitution ffs! Religion class is a very minor issue when compared to this imho.

Charis · 28-11-2005 09:25PM

robindch wrote:

>

But a few questions -- when teaching your kids about religion, do you provide equal time for the non-religious side? And do you make it clear to them that nothing at all will happen to them if they decide not to be religious?
QUOTE]

For me my belief affects everything I do and how I act and react to life, situations, and people. This is who I am and the person I will continue to model for my children. I do not have to teach other beliefs because society, friends, media all present differing and often contradicting views. I do believe that it is important to discuss and explain different religions, viewpoints, and belief systems. Our world is a diverse place and to not be aware is ignorance. My children have to wrestle with my lifestyle and beliefs and everything else they experience and encounter. Ultimately they decide what they will follow as they grow older. Only they can make that choice.

As for being religious I would have to know how you define it before I could answer properly.

robindch · 29-11-2005 12:32AM

> > What about the vast majority (around 85%) of people in the
> > USA who are creationists in some way or other?
>
> Could you link to some stats or reports on this?

No problem -- Gallup have been carrying out polls on this topic since the early 80's and the figure have remained roughly the same since then. If you go to the Gallup website, you'll find the reports, but you'll have to pay to see them. This page:

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

...gives a reasonable summary of the results since they started sampling -- in round figures, these are that 10% of people believe that a god had no part in human evolution, 5% had no opinion, and the remainder, 85%, believed that god controlled the development, either partially or completely. Hearteningly, around one third believe that there's some validity to evolutionary theory, but dishearteningly, almost half are flat-out, unreconstructed creationists. Which, I might add, doesn't say much good about the state of american science education!

> One class a week in religion is not going to indoctrinate children.

I'm concerned about more than just the one class -- it's the complete lack of any habit of critical analysis of the actions of the church (much needed), or any serious teaching of what it's been up to down through the years (a horror story in places!), or how it developed its creeds (largely nicked from the Ancient Greeks), or how it functions as an organism within society (interesting), or how it's almost invariably linked with the dominant political power structures in the places where it operates, and always in such a way as to ensure that it survives (cf, catholic church in Germany during WWII). These are not, to my knowledge, studied in history or elsewhere in the curriculum.

Apart from anything else, looking at how the church evolves and adapts over time to continue to exist and appeal to people is a thoroughly fascinating topic of study.

> The bias is in our laws and constitution ffs!

Joyce had it right when he said:

O Ireland my first and only love
Where Christ and Caesar are hand and glove!

robindch · 29-11-2005 12:45AM

> Our world is a diverse place and to not be aware is ignorance.

Yes, which is why it's so vital to be aware of all sides of the arguments, not just the what's presented by one side only.

> As for being religious I would have to know how you define
> it before I could answer properly.

For me, "religious" means what happens when lots of people get together to say that they all have the same belief in the same god, whom they believe wrote (or directed the writing of) some book which they say provides a basis for their beliefs.

Or to put it in a different way, religion is much more than just the set of beliefs itself -- it's all of the public aspects of thing that goes along with some private belief, whether it's the justification for terrorism that certain nutcases believe lives in the qu'ran, to the frightful stuff which happened in Holy Cross school in Belfast a couple of years back, to missionaries going to underdeveloped countries to "spread the good news", the creationists above in the usa, etc, etc.

americanCat · 29-11-2005 02:39AM

i think it's okay for the religious parent to introduce their child/children to their religion (such as catholicism) but i don't think the child should be dragged to church every sunday if they do not like that religion.. then again, parents may think they are keeping their children "pure" if they make them go to church at an early age. Personally, my parents didn't force religion on me. We didn't go to church and the only reason i ever went to a catholic school was because it was supposedly a good school (intellectually speaking). My mom believes in a singular supreme being, yet i still am unsure of what i believe and i am comfortable with that.

Dades · 29-11-2005 02:00PM

robindch wrote:

I'm concerned about more than just the one class -- it's the complete lack of any habit of critical analysis of the actions of the church (much needed), or any serious teaching of what it's been up to down through the years (a horror story in places!), or how it developed its creeds (largely nicked from the Ancient Greeks), or how it functions as an organism within society (interesting), or how it's almost invariably linked with the dominant political power structures in the places where it operates, and always in such a way as to ensure that it survives (cf, catholic church in Germany during WWII). These are not, to my knowledge, studied in history or elsewhere in the curriculum.

When I did history in school our teacher spared no blushes when describing events throughout history that were done in the name of Religion. I also recall learning about Evolution in history class. We also has a "civics" class where society issues were discussed. Religion was 45 minutes of stuff you didn't need to know for exams.

I don't know what they taught in your religion class, Robin, but it certainly didn't indoctrinate you the way you fear they might innocent minds.

americanCat wrote:

i think it's okay for the religious parent to introduce their child/children to their religion (such as catholicism) but i don't think the child should be dragged to church every sunday if they do not like that religion.

A parent's right to raise their children in their religion is a whole different hornets' nest. Might be best stick to the state/church area rather than a tricky tangent...

Zombrex · 29-11-2005 02:10PM

clearz wrote:

Now to me atheism is just as obtuse as believing in religion because it follows the same misguided belief that you know whats gonna happen you when you die without a shread of evidence.

Atheism doesn't put forward a belief of what happens when you die. In fact atheism doesn't put forward any beliefs at all, it isn't a belief system

age-limit to joining religons???

Comments