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

1…6791112

Comments

  • #242
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Parents should be free to teach their children whatever values they deem fit as long as they aren't contrary to the law, or likely to contribute to unwarranted prejudice, and hatred of people in society at large.

    I don't think Christianity does this
    So, do you believe that teaching kids that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" (as the Vatican describes it) does not contribute to unwarranted prejudice, and does not contribute to people hating each other?


  • #243
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pinksoir wrote: »
    children don't have the critical faculties to assess the truth of what they are told by their parents.

    Nail. Head. On

    I would qualify it a bit

    Young children don't have the critical reasoning faculties to independently assess the truth of what they are told by their parents and for evolutionary reasons are very likely to accept as true what they are told by their parents, because it was told to them by their parents, without questioning it



    That is the whole point right there. Anything else is just secondary issues about what is acceptable to teach them given the above.


  • #244
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think the term has been warped by key figures in the new atheist movement such as Richard Dawkins. The "negative connotation" is designed, by its proponents to be such. To put a negative blight, on the rather normative beliefs that people have in society.

    Wrong forum for conspiracy theories. :) The term has had a negative connotation for many years before the "new atheists" came along. My thirty forty year old Oxford English Dictionary attests to this, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, can't be bothered to find camera batteries :P

    The word was used extensively about communist activities from 1950. Whilst this example is not religious it still backups the word having as you put it: "...a negative blight, on the rather normative beliefs that people have in society."

    EDIT: Oh yes, I'm VERY pedantic.


  • #245
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    robindch wrote: »
    So, do you believe that teaching kids that homosexuality is an "intrinsic moral evil" (as the Vatican describes it) does not contribute to unwarranted prejudice, and does not contribute to people hating each other?

    Evidently not. I won't be rehashing the argument about the Christian position on homosexuality here. If you want to do that feel free to start a new thread on the other forum.

    iUseVi: My point is that the term is inappropriately attached to teaching about Christian faith.


  • #246
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Evidently not. I won't be rehashing the argument about the Christian position on homosexuality here. If you want to do that feel free to start a new thread on the other forum.

    iUseVi: My point is that the term is inappropriately attached to teaching about Christian faith.
    It's not teaching 'about' Christian faith, though, is it? It's teaching them that Christianity is true. Which is, as you would say, two entirely different kettles of fish.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I haven't at all. I provided 2 definitions a few pages ago.

    I think the term has been warped by key figures in the new atheist movement such as Richard Dawkins. The "negative connotation" is designed, by its proponents to be such. To put a negative blight, on the rather normative beliefs that people have in society.

    It along with the phrase "child abuse", only amounts to fear mongering, and demonisation.

    Jackass, you cherry picked definitions that specifically gave weight to your post, that's exactly what I was pointing out. You even have to do some research to find them, these are the first four that a quick Google finds:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

    http://www.answers.com/topic/indoctrination-2

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indoctrination

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrination

    :confused:

    The term hasn't been warped, the pedagogy of indoctrination has been used to inject some fairly unsavoury belief systems and practices - that doesn't detract from the propagators of other belief systems and/or practices using indoctrination. If you consider indoctrination to be a negative blight, perhaps you should look deeper at the practice rather than objecting to the term?


  • #248
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Jackass, you cherry picked definitions that specifically gave weight to your post, that's exactly what I was pointing out. You even have to do some research to find them, these are the first four that a quick Google finds:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

    http://www.answers.com/topic/indoctrination-2

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indoctrination

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrination

    :confused:

    The term hasn't been warped, the pedagogy of indoctrination has been used to inject some fairly unsavoury belief systems and practices - that doesn't detract from the propagators of other belief systems and/or practices using indoctrination. If you consider indoctrination to be a negative blight, perhaps you should look deeper at the practice rather than objecting to the term?


    TBH, the word 'indoctrination' in the context of this forum is a Pejorative term, you and any regular poster here knows it.


  • #249
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's very much been warped. The title of the thread is also hyperbole. To suggest that people are "forcing" people to believe. In reality, that isn't the case at all. People have the legal right to believe whatever they wish.

    I don't honestly see the point of this discussion, apart from to attempt to guilt-trip parents into stopping telling their children about their faith. That's probably not going to happen, it's normative, and it certainly isn't forcing from what I've seen.

    The only reason I can think of as to why atheists would really oppose people learning about Christianity at home, is that they don't like Christianity and would prefer that it ended.

    In that case, it's just about being honest enough to say it, as I'd honestly prefer if people regained a relationship with God.


  • #250
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's very much been warped. The title of the thread is also hyperbole. To suggest that people are "forcing" people to believe. In reality, that isn't the case at all. People have the legal right to believe whatever they wish.

    I don't honestly see the point of this discussion, apart from to attempt to guilt-trip parents into stopping telling their children about their faith. That's probably not going to happen, it's normative, and it certainly isn't forcing from what I've seen.

    The only reason I can think of as to why atheists would really oppose people learning about Christianity at home, is that they don't like Christianity and would prefer that it ended.

    In that case, it's just about being honest enough to say it, as I'd honestly prefer if people regained a relationship with God.

    Yeah, I can't help but think, 'It saddens me' or 'its child abuse' etc are actually not genuine feelings. I suppose the folk who say it should know if they're being honest or not.


  • #251
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    iUseVi: My point is that the term is inappropriately attached to teaching about Christian faith.

    Well your point was about new atheists attaching meaning to the word which they did not. I think they take more than their fair of abuse and just wanted to clear that up.

    But anyway, I'm dragging this seriously off topic, sorry. Carry on.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's very much been warped. The title of the thread is also hyperbole. To suggest that people are "forcing" people to believe. In reality, that isn't the case at all. People have the legal right to believe whatever they wish.

    I don't honestly see the point of this discussion, apart from to attempt to guilt-trip parents into stopping telling their children about their faith. That's probably not going to happen, it's normative, and it certainly isn't forcing from what I've seen.

    The only reason I can think of as to why atheists would really oppose people learning about Christianity at home, is that they don't like Christianity and would prefer that it ended.

    In that case, it's just about being honest enough to say it, as I'd honestly prefer if people regained a relationship with God.
    Again, it's not about someone teaching their kids 'about' Christianity, but teaching that Christianity is the truth, the only truth, while maintaining that they hope that their kids will reach the conclusion of Christianity's veracity of their own free will and through rational assessment.

    Kids don't critically assess ANYTHING. They just except what their parents tell them. It's true because mum and dad say so. Not only that, but what we learn as children stays with us forever. It's why the vast (vast) majority of people stay with the same religion as their parents. It's why you have whole families of Arsenal supporters. It's why racist parents raise racist kids.

    Obviously you can't raise kids in the western world without teaching them 'about' Christianity. But it is completely separate from teaching them that it is true from a young age, and then expecting them to be able to appraise it later in life. For the most part, the watered down Christianity most kids are taught is innocuous, but when you get to indoctrination of kids it is a different matter entirely. And I think that is the point of the thread. It is about moulding kids into what you want them to be, rather than letting them choose at the stage of adulthood. And that is what could be seen as selfish. You are creating heavy biases in a future adult.


  • #253
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The only reason I can think of as to why atheists would really oppose people learning about Christianity at home, is that they don't like Christianity and would prefer that it ended.

    In that case, it's just about being honest enough to say it, as I'd honestly prefer if people regained a relationship with God.

    Well I think I and others have made some very good points why such teaching tends to limit your child to one world-view, and I haven't seen anyone hiding the fact that they don't like this. But if you want to ignore them all please go ahead.


  • #254
    sublunar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭sublunar


    do the mods end threads when they think they've played out or do they just keep going...?

    there seems to be a consensus among the atheists that religious indoctrination of children is unfair at best, child abuse at worst, but that there's no real way that it can ever be prevented so it's best just to tackle the involvement of religion in schools and state affairs and so on.

    meanwhile, the religious believers maintain that parents should be free to do what they want, and that they're not doing any harm.


  • #255
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Yeah, I can't help but think, 'It saddens me' or 'its child abuse' etc are actually not genuine feelings. I suppose the folk who say it should know if they're being honest or not.

    I've already said that the whole thing is a spectrum and every case is different. But I am completely honest in saying it does sadden me to think of other children growing up the way I did. And you'll just have to take my word for that.

    Continuing with the honesty theme, my first reaction to Christianity being taught to children is most probably a knee-jerk reaction due to the stuff I went through. So when I argue against Christianity being taught, I have very vivid mental images of what should be avoided. Maybe I just find it hard to imagine more mild and benign situations and that flavours my thinking.

    But disingenuous is one thing I'm not being.


  • #256
    sublunar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭sublunar


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Yeah, I can't help but think, 'It saddens me' or 'its child abuse' etc are actually not genuine feelings. I suppose the folk who say it should know if they're being honest or not.

    this poster is being honest, i assure you. if i hadn't witnessed first-hand the emotional turmoil that a religious upbringing causes people, i wouldn't give two hoots about parents brainwashing their kids.


  • #257
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Yeah, I can't help but think, 'It saddens me' or 'its child abuse' etc are actually not genuine feelings. I suppose the folk who say it should know if they're being honest or not.

    It is only child abuse if it abuses the child (ie puts them in a heightened sense of fear or dread). It is perfectly possible to teach your children about Christianity without doing that, just leave out the bits about hell and stuff or find a "nice" way of teaching it (haven't seen one yet but it might be possible). And it is perfectly possible to do that with things other than Christianity.

    But this is just smoke screen for the actual point here, that children have a strong tendency to accept unquestioningly what they are told by the parents.

    This fact is simply being ignored by the religious posters here who want to believe that they can teach their children about Christianity yet their children will still maintain a critical assessment of Christianity and choose it on their own without the parents teaching influencing them subconsciously to think that Christianity is true.

    Having cake and eat it springs to mind. Sorry it simply doesn't work like that, people need to get over it.

    If I wanted to get all anti-theist I would say it is a pretty good example of theists refusing to accept reality because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notions of how things should be based on what their religious outlook. I don't really care anymore about the issue of whether you should or should not teach your children religion at a young age, a far more interesting and worrying sight here is people simply dismissing what they find displeasing to their religious outlook, despite all evidence to the contrary.


  • #258
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    sublunar wrote: »
    this poster is being honest, i assure you. if i hadn't witnessed first-hand the emotional turmoil that a religious upbringing causes people, i wouldn't give two hoots about parents brainwashing their kids.

    +1

    This is the only reason I give a damn (well the main reason). And people may trivialise these cases and say "oh, that's not the norm!", but its more common than you think and every single child that can be spared similar to what I went though - that is a Good Thing™ in my books.


  • #259
    sublunar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭sublunar


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is only child abuse if it abuses the child (ie puts them in a heightened sense of fear or dread). It is perfectly possible to teach your children about Christianity without doing that.

    the UN convention on the rights of the child states that children have the right to be free of emotional and psychological abuse. the christian bible is literally brimming over with teachings that would cause both of these.

    if one were to cherry-pick the pretty "jesus says be nice to people, okay?" parts and ignore the other few hundred pages, then there's little danger of that. but raising a child as a by-the-book catholic, not á la carte, and teaching them all the bigotry and sado-masochism that's part and parcel of it, would constitute abuse.


  • #260
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    I honestly think that the problem here stems from the fact that while someone like me would maintain that there is no one 'true' world view, that all ideologies have their pro's and con's, that each are equally valid at the end of the day (subjectively of course), someone like Jakkass (honestly?) believes that his particular world view is the 'true' one, and that teaching his kids that world view is the most compassionate thing he can do.

    I would maintain that there is no one objectively correct world view, but rather that some work for some people, others work for others. There is no common ground. I am not arguing in favour of one particular world view, Islam for example. In that case we could at least debate the relative merits of each. But arguing on the basis of no objectively correct world view against someone who assumes the truth of their own particular world view will never achieve anything, I fear.


  • #261
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    sublunar wrote: »
    the UN convention on the rights of the child states that children have the right to be free of emotional and psychological abuse. the christian bible is literally brimming over with teachings that would cause both of these.

    Which is why an awful lot of Christians don't teach their young children the entire Bible.

    Are you suggesting it is necessary to teach the entire Bible to teach your children about Christianity? My grandmother gave me a 6 page pop up book that had Jesus prancing around with sheep, it didn't even have the crucification just the resurrection and mentioned nothing about why Jesus was saving us, just that he was. I can't see this as causing emotional or mental abuse to a child.

    On the other hand the JW children I knew is school were practically emotional zombies because they had all this wonderful fire and brimstone thrown at them day in and day out. One child, a small meek some what pathetic child two years behind me, would just start sobbing from time to time in class because he was in such a constant state of terror at the idea of sin and God's wrath and punishment. That most certainly is abuse.

    The point is if we simply throw around the term abuse at any hint of religious teaching we are being as silly as the theists who flat out refuse to believe that anything in their wonderful religion could be harmful for children to be exposed to (as these JW parents did)

    Abuse is abuse. It is what it is. Is the child being abused? Yes? Then it is abuse.

    We lessen that by branding it around inappropriately or applying it to situations where it isn't abuse, just as theists lessen that by ignore it where it happens.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    pinksoir wrote: »
    I honestly think that the problem here stems from the fact that while someone like me would maintain that there is no one 'true' world view, that all ideologies have their pro's and con's, that each are equally valid at the end of the day, someone like Jakkass (honestly?) believes that his particular world view is the 'true' one, and that teaching his kids that world view is the most compassionate thing he can do.

    I would maintain that there is no one objectively correct world view, but rather that some work for some people, others work for others. There is no common ground. I am not arguing in favour of one particular world view, Islam for example. In that case we could at least debate the relative merits of each. But arguing on the basis of no objectively correct world view against someone who assumes the truth of their own particular world view will never achieve anything, I fear.

    Yup, pretty much going around in circles now. Enjoyable debate though.

    Its a bit like discussing the best way to spend NASA's budget with someone who doesn't think man has been to the moon. (And I can say man without being sexist since unfortunately no women have been to the moon. :P)


  • #263
    sublunar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭sublunar


    emotional and psychological abuse is very real. gay teenagers killing themselves because they think god hates them is abuse. no one has hit them or even touched them, but making them believe that is abuse.

    simply telling kids the nice stories, like you describe, isn't. which i said in my previous post.

    but just telling kids the nice stories isn't "proper" catholicism. i'm going by what the vatican, the head of the catholic faith, would deem "proper" - anything else is people's own versions which are very diluted and aren't catholicism in the strict sense.

    no one has said that á la carte religion is damaging, but a lot of children in ireland aren't brought up in the á la carte way, they get the whole fire and brimstone stuff and it can damage their lives in very real ways.


  • #264
    sublunar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭sublunar


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Its a bit like discussing the best way to spend NASA's budget with someone who doesn't think man has been to the moon.

    hahahahaha! brilliant. i'm going to use that.


  • #265
    pinksoir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,737 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Yup, pretty much going around in circles now. Enjoyable debate though.

    Its a bit like discussing the best way to spend NASA's budget with someone who doesn't think man has been to the moon. (And I can say man without being sexist since unfortunately no women have been to the moon. :P)
    It is enjoyable. Like that good sort of pain...


  • #266
    grainne01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭grainne01


    You definitely have a great point. I myself am a child, 15 years old to be exact. My parents are Catholic and raised me that way. In school, our religion classes are just about the Catholic religion. My personal religious beliefs are, well, non existent to be honest. I don't believe in my religion at all, much to my parent's disaproval.. But its what I think. I would love to know about other religions, its definitely something that interests me. I have had the thought before that I just wish in religion class, they would teach us about DIFFERENT religions so that we can actually choose what we want to believe in. I mean, why should I believe the one Catholic religion just because my parents tell me to? When I clearly know NOTHING about any other religion? Its stupid. I would love to know about other religions because who knows, their might just be one that I would have alot of faith in, but because my parents and school have only ever said anything about the Catholic religion, I can't. Its stupid to me. It would make SO much more sense if they taught us about most religions and then we could actually decided for OURSELVES which one means the most to us and which one makes the most sense to us. My mind is not the same as my parent's minds. While they may believe in the Catholic religion.. my mind just doesn't, and I don't want to go and say I have no faith in religions when I know nothing about any other one. It saddens me because I know I'll probably never actually get the chance to be taught about them now. I could do research..but its not the same as having somebody there to explain it to you. It frustrates me that schools don't teach it like this, if they did, not only would it be better for everybody to be aware of other people's beliefs, but it would make so much more sense.


  • #267
    sublunar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34 ✭sublunar


    how marvellous, a child! tell us grainne, do you see your parents' choosing to send you to a catholic school as selfish? your answer may clear up this thread.

    fascinating to hear that point of view. if you're bothered, it would be worth your while checking out educate together schools and writing to the minister for education explaining why you feel the catholic education you're receiving doesn't meet your educational needs.


  • #268
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    sublunar wrote: »
    how marvellous, a child! tell us grainne, do you see your parents' choosing to send you to a catholic school as selfish? your answer may clear up this thread.

    fascinating to hear that point of view. if you're bothered, it would be worth your while checking out educate together schools and writing to the minister for education explaining why you feel the catholic education you're receiving doesn't meet your educational needs.


    It also seems to lend weight to Jackass' earlier point about a parent teaching their child their religion does not inhibit them from making a choice when they get older.


  • #269
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    sublunar wrote: »
    this poster is being honest, i assure you. if i hadn't witnessed first-hand the emotional turmoil that a religious upbringing causes people, i wouldn't give two hoots about parents brainwashing their kids.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    I've already said that the whole thing is a spectrum and every case is different. But I am completely honest in saying it does sadden me to think of other children growing up the way I did. And you'll just have to take my word for that.

    Continuing with the honesty theme, my first reaction to Christianity being taught to children is most probably a knee-jerk reaction due to the stuff I went through. So when I argue against Christianity being taught, I have very vivid mental images of what should be avoided. Maybe I just find it hard to imagine more mild and benign situations and that flavours my thinking.

    But disingenuous is one thing I'm not being.

    Cheers guys, that explains alot.


  • #270
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    JimiTime wrote: »
    It also seems to lend weight to Jackass' earlier point about a parent teaching their child their religion does not inhibit them from making a choice when they get older.

    That assumes that the child is smart enough to think for themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    cypharius wrote: »
    That assumes that the child is smart enough to think for themselves.

    Yeah that makes a difference. I think some are more resistant to brainwashing than others, and intelligence is a factor.


Advertisement