Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

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

24567…12

Comments

  • #32
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #33
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭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.


  • #34
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,391 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #35
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭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.


  • #36
    Slugs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #38
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,391 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #40
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,391 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Slugs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭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?


  • #43
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭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?


  • #44
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭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.


  • #45
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭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.


  • #46
    Slugs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭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


  • #50
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,391 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    Joey the lips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Erren Music wrote: »
    Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child.

    Your use of the words 'selfish' and 'forced' are misplaced. A parent generally teaches and instructs in all things, and that may include matters of sprituality. Judging by your general anti-religion stance, you probably did it for effect, but its certainly a poor reflection on your observation of how a parent acts with their child.

    Also, 'If' your poor propagandist term 'forced' was accurate, then the word 'selfish' would be a bad word to use also. All in all, its such a poorly thought out sentance. Its really not a question, but a venting of a view you hold, framed as if you are asking a question.

    It is far more important that a child be taught how to think instead of what to think."

    Couldn't agree more, but used in the context which you are using it shows a stupendous lack of understanding in what is required in raising and teaching a child.


  • #53
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    So, if this is "wrong", how many of you support enforcing that parents shouldn't be allowed to share their faith with their children in law?


  • #54
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,616 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    The thread title is somewhat provocative. Forcing religion implies a parent telling a child what to believe and giving them no choice or allow them to question the matter. That indeed is selfish, and maybe small minded and insecure to boot.

    However, teaching your kids what you believe whilst allowing them the choice is different. Personally I don't think it's any more selfish than me telling my kids what I (don't) believe, and why.
    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.
    Agree to completely disagree.

    If it's so 'essential', how come non-religious kids turn out okay? :)


  • #55
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It isn't about "turning out okay". It's about people providing the best moral, and social education they can provide for their child. As Christians, naturally we believe the Gospel is superior to any secular framework for behaviour.


  • #56
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,616 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    That was just a figure of speech! Like I said, agree to completely disagree that being raised a Christian is essential for a proper moral and social education. :)

    It's all in the genes anyway!


  • #57
    Erren Music
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭Erren Music


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It isn't about "turning out okay". It's about people providing the best moral, and social education they can provide for their child. As Christians, naturally we believe the Gospel is superior to any secular framework for behaviour.

    Jackass
    You do not even know who wrote those bloody gospels.

    please go back to your own forum and stop trying to inflict that rubbish in A+A.

    Any catholic who continues to practise and support the RCC deserves a good kick in the bol0 x. Look at what you are supporting.



    MODS
    Can we have a new rule in our charter.


  • #58
    Dubhghaillix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 95 ✭✭Dubhghaillix


    Jakkass wrote: »
    d. As Christians, naturally we believe the Gospel is superior to any secular framework for behaviour.

    Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

    This is the bit where he critizes the Jews for not killing their children like Skygod told them to. You know, since Jesus really had this whole "morality" thing down.


  • #59
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Dades wrote: »
    The thread title is somewhat provocative. Forcing religion implies a parent telling a child what to believe and giving them no choice or allow them to question the matter. That indeed is selfish

    No its not. Even if its 'forced', whatever that means, its still not necessarily selfish. In fact, I'd say the natural instict of a parent is 'selflessness' with regards to their children. You'll find that the decisions and qualities they bestow in general, they feel is whats best 'for the child'.
    You should look at Jesus' teachings about the heart and motivations:)
    If it's so 'essential', how come non-religious kids turn out okay? :)

    And many kids from religious upbringing can be wounded by such an upbringing. It comes down to the wisdom of the parents.

    I second Jackass' question at this point. Those who think teaching their children with relation to their religion is wrong, what do you propose be done? is it a case that you just want to whinge about it, or are you looking to legislate against it? If so, what do you propose?


  • #60
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How about reading the chapter in context Dubhghaillix?

    Here's a linky. If you read the passage, it is very much about hypocrisy amongst the Pharisees.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Erren Music wrote: »
    Jackass
    You do not even know who wrote those bloody gospels.

    Do we not?
    Erren Music wrote: »
    please go back to your own forum and stop trying to inflict that rubbish in A+A.

    I've been posting on this forum for a good deal longer than you have. If you post something that is worthy of discussion. I'll post. That's the way it works.
    Erren Music wrote: »
    Any catholic who continues to practise and support the RCC deserves a good kick in the bol0 x. Look at what you are supporting.

    I'm not a Roman Catholic. Rights and freedoms of beliefs are something which all people should be concerned about. I'm supporting the freedom of parents to share their faith with their children.
    Erren Music wrote: »
    MODS
    Can we have a new rule in our charter.

    Because you're too closed-minded to even consider the Christian position? Most of the atheists here, are actually reasonable enough to facilitate respectful discussion.


Advertisement