Is it morally irresponsible to teach childeren about religion?

I think that children have questions about the world around them. My children one day decided to have questions about faith. So we being the different parents that we are, took them to 5 different services (Lutheran, Baptist,Mormon, Catholic and Islamic) and my wife's former boss is a Buddhist. We allowed our children to sit thru each service and experience what went on, then if they wished, they could ask the clergy in detail about each religion.

My wife is a former Catholic and I've never felt the need to attend services (I was in touch with the land) but we always have had a connection with a spiritual power greater than ourselves. But we felt it was important that if our children were being called that they were exposed to everything possible so they could make their own choice.

I don't think it's irresponsible to teach them, I think it's irresponsible to force them to follow your beliefs. Give them choices, allow them to make the decision. My kids follow me and feel their greatest connections out in the world when they are by themselves, but it makes me proud that I allowed them to make that choice.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It is morally irresponsible to tell others what they can or cannot teach their children.

'Nuff said.

This comment you made astounds me.

Some parents are teaching children to kill people because they dont abide by their religious laws.

We can not assume that just someone is a parent of a child, that this makes them the 'dad and mom that knows best'.

I know a 8 year old girl down the street who tries to do 'spells'...and has been around my daughter wanting her to try it with her.

I cant say that this is wrong for that parent who thinks she is a witch to be sharing these things to her daughter who is so young.

I for me, growing up under my mothers religion, I lost my sense of self for a while in my 20's. It was very hard on me turning from that religion that was placed so deep into me. It took a couple years of hard aguish of what my path was to be in life and with God and faith. The guilt I would feel due to my former 'faith' was aweful...the idea of 'hell' and a god that acted just as much as any human nature Ive ever seen...was not healthy on me as well

But Im over all of the fear and guilt now.
LV

[edit on 11-8-2010 by brutalsun]

I hate religion, but introspective meditation and awareness of the impermanence of all life is necessary, in my opinion, for a thriving society. Spirituality is fine, but carries a similar threat as religion - the trap of blindly believing something that either has not been proven, or been proven false.

At a first glance, the only organized religion worth teaching is Buddhism, because it teaches people to look inside themselves to find both happiness and enlightenment. (I'll ignore Deism and Shintoism because they are not exactly organized) No outside forces required. You don't even have to believe in the existence of reality for such internal focus to be effective. Meditation is like sharpening your knives.

But there's a lot of crap that I disagree with in Buddhism - it speaks of separation from the world and one's ego, while I believe the ego should be harnessed and used to its full potential to allow one's personality to flourish. People with strong personality and character tend to be highly motivated and make significant impact on our society. All the greatest - and worst - leaders in history were men of tremendous ego.

Understanding the concept of impermanence is something every child should learn. From there, it should become self-evident that life is sacred, and too short to waste. With a foundation like that, a parent would have to really screw up to damage their child.

If society had such an innate love of life, religion would be obsolete already.

reply to post by Son of Will

But there's a lot of crap that I disagree with in Buddhism - it speaks of separation from the world and one's ego, while I believe the ego should be harnessed and used to its full potential to allow one's personality to flourish. People with strong personality and character tend to be highly motivated and make significant impact on our society. All the greatest - and worst - leaders in history were men of tremendous ego.

I agree with something you said here. I dont think that a person can or should totally separate with their ego (in fact I find it impossible). I think there is such a thing as a mature ego.

I think when a person can look at life and their experiences, cherish the bad things they have done along with the good because the bad and good is what has shaped us to be what we are now and further growth that we can achieve from both the bad and the good...can be traits of a healthy ego. If a person can learn from themselves due to past opportunities to learn from as well be empathetic enough to learn by placing themselves in others shoes, can be traits of a healthy ego. We all have a side to us that 'thinks it 'knows' things'. I would think humbleness would be another trait of a human with a healthy ego.

Ego is the 'I' that separates the all...and no matter what, that is what each of us individual is experiencing. Even if you see everyone as ONE...there is still in this life the 'you' that is the 'I' only to you. You can not totally shed the 'I' in you...but you can work on the I in you, you can strive to learn about yourself, as a 'self'....you can have a healthy mature ego. Did that make any sense

All ideologies can be used to kill. You speak of how many people have been killed in the name of religion. But religion was not a great killer in the 20th century. The great killing doctrines were racial purity, communism, and democracy. This of course ignores that old killer, justice, which has been active ever since Mog the caveman ended up with an axe in his head after he murdered Thog for stealing his tooth necklace.

yes, if you also neglect teaching them how to read and write first this is a crime.

There are obviously different degrees to which children are subjected to religious concepts and ideals. Some people are simply raised with basic religious teachings; others grow up in highly religious homes and others grow up in secular homes where only basic ideas about the specific religion are observed.

Keeping this in mind, I feel those who are NOT forced into a Belief System will be better off in the long run than those who are. So many of our characteristics and attributes as an adult are shaped by our upbringing and life experiences as a child and I do not believe it is fair to instil such metaphysical limitations (religious beliefs) on somebody that is developing their identity and personality.

Is it morally irresponsible to teach children about religion? Possibly. But it is better to teach them about the positive aspects of religion (eg: giving to charity) than not teach them about values. A balance is always good, but it is difficult to to find that balance with modern religion because most things are classified as "with God" or "without God".

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It is morally irresponsible to tell others what they can or cannot teach their children.

Fiddlesticks.

Since when did expressing an opinion become morally irresponsible?

And people don't own 'their' children. It is not up to them what their children should be taught. It is up to the state.

Is that muzzle-flash from a loose cannon?. Please think a little before you post.

reply to post by adjensen

No, it is not. Look at the atrocities of the 20th Century, the hundreds of millions of deaths in the Soviet Union, China's Cultural Revolution, Cambodia's Killing Fields, none of which were killed "in the name of religion." Either religion played no role, or the lack of religion played a role, your choice.

That is a ridiculous (but predictable) type of of apologist statement the implication being that a lack of religion means a lack of morals leading to atrocities.

Christians need to get a grip, atrocities of this sort have never been committed "in the name of atheism" they just happen to be committed by people who don't share the religious delusion.


Teaching children about other cultures and superstitions is educational and illuminating. But teaching children that there is an invisible man in the sky, monitoring their every thought and action, who they absolutely must love and fear at the same time without the slightest shred of evidence !!!!

This positively wicked and tantamount to grooming and abusing a vulnerable human being.

If humanities is to have a future then it certainly cannot include the the self imposed delusions of religion.


Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever ???

reply to post by Astyanax

And people don't own 'their' children.

And who does if at all ?

It is not up to them what their children should be taught. It is up to the state.

If the state is a fascist state of course, as a species we have come this far by offspring primarily learning from its' parents. If you are willing to hand over your children to the state to raise then you are clearly declaring you are unfit to raise a child.

reply to post by brutalsun

My children one day decided to have questions about faith. So we being the different parents that we are, took them to 5 different services (Lutheran, Baptist,Mormon, Catholic and Islamic) and my wife's former boss is a Buddhist. We allowed our children to sit thru each service and experience what went on, then if they wished, they could ask the clergy in detail about each religion.

That's interesting , why my own kids asked I just informed them that some people choose to believe that there is an invisible man in the sky who they claim to have a relationship with. That was good enough for my kids although they are quite free to sit down with clergy types to obtain evidence. Of course that will never happen because faith doesn't require evidence apparently

My children regularly answer the door to christian types and very politely try to find out what they have to offer.

Better health ? Er, no

More wealth ? er no

A safer environment ? Er no

Better Marriages ? Er em no

Peace of mind ? Er um no

So, it would seem that Christianity at least, really doesn't have anything to offer the non indoctrinated, nothing at all it really has no purpose other than controlling superstitious childlike minds for the benefit of a few.

I feel its irresponsible not to warn children about religions. I tell my children not to get too caught up in religion, live your lives think for yourselves, there are thousands of religions and each believe they are right and the rest are without god and going to hell. Go to church, enjoy it, make friends in your community, help people.

I believe in God but have little faith in Religions.

At the same time, anyone who has ever tried to keep a fish tank for any amount of time can realize that its quite a feat for the ocean to say perfect for all marine life, as it has for who knows how long. I personally don't believe that just worked itself out on its own. I believe it has a designer.

nothing in the past 150 years have been done in the name of good? how about the vatican turning a blind eye to hitler? or his crap he was preaching to his people of god is on our side? stalin? he had the state church china don't know there.. but its still the church. I worship god and all but I don't buy into the bull that comes out the church. history is written by the victor's and if the victor's one and they worshiped at there church than the history we know would look good on the church. so in fact the church would be more evil than we know.

This has been a hot topic for me lately, as i have come under fire for not enrolling my child in Christian Religious Education along with most of her peers. When she asks me what i believe, I tell her that I believe that anyone who is interested in religion must read and learn as much about all beliefs as they can and then make a decision based on what seems right to them. I then try to give her as balanced an account as I can of what various cultures/groups believe about whichever topic she has raised, She finds this very frustrating and always insists "I want to believe what you believe, Mummy". So I give her a nut-shell version of what I think, and make sure I remind her that this is only my own opinion. In many ways, I think i have taken the wrong approach, as most of the "enquiring" people that i know (including myself) had Catholicism forced down their throats and developed their thirst for knowlege out of frustration with what they found to be an illogical ideology. Perhaps I have deprived her of this? Maybe she would sleep better at night thinking that God is in heaven and Angels are watching over her? Parenting is tough. I don't judge anyone for what they teach their kids- you do the best you can with the resources you have. Nearly all parents love their kids above anything and do their absolute best to teach them accordingly.

I plan to let my children choose what religion they want to be. I have explored many religions and right now I'm resting on atheism and more pagan religions. I don't want my kids to be boxed into any one religion, especially Catholicism I find their teachings to be some of the worst, and no child should be forced to believe that.

figures they'd skunkwork an interesting thread. thats the freemasons for you. and watch my post get censored for being off-topic

so...yes I think PUSHING a religion on a child is the reason why we have so many do or die religous nuts. i'd stop short of saying it's abuse though...but it probably is

There was an outstanding quote another member made in relation to Religion that I read a number of months back. It was along the lines of "Religion is dangerous because it instils radical notions into young minds about things that cannot be confirmed via tangible means."

(It was worded better and I really do hope the person who made the quote can produce it once again because it applies very much to this topic. I cannot remember which thread it was in.)

[edit on 11/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by born-indigo


While I agree with the premise, I strongly disagree with the idea of that it is "morally irresponsible to teach children about religion". For non-believers like myself, I would still prefer my child to know what is out there, to understand the different belief systems, right or wrong, as well as their origins, and to form his or her own opinion based on both historical and modern knowledge and understanding of the different forces that drive individuals towards their particular religious beliefs.

Speaking as someone born Catholic and converted to Mormonism against my will, I resent the items that were presented as "fact" while I was growing up and was horrified to learn how much of it is based on ancient myths; I felt betrayed that I had never been presented with the other sides of the story. If I ever have kids you can bet that they'll learn as much about religious texts as Greek and Norse mythology, but all in the same neutral fashion.

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by adjensen

 

No, it is not. Look at the atrocities of the 20th Century, the hundreds of millions of deaths in the Soviet Union, China's Cultural Revolution, Cambodia's Killing Fields, none of which were killed "in the name of religion." Either religion played no role, or the lack of religion played a role, your choice.

That is a ridiculous (but predictable) type of of apologist statement the implication being that a lack of religion means a lack of morals leading to atrocities.

Christians need to get a grip, atrocities of this sort have never been committed "in the name of atheism" they just happen to be committed by people who don't share the religious delusion.

Look at what I wrote -- in no way did I say "in the name of atheism." Please do not make your rebuttal by misrepresenting what I said, which was that those atrocities were not "in the name of religion", ergo, either outside of religion (which is my personal opinion) or as a result of the lack of religion.

Eliminating religion would have had no effect on them, the hundreds of millions would still have died, so, at least in this era, the abolishment of religion would not have significantly reduced the evil done. I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate that the good that religion does, both in the world and in the personal lives of billions of believers of various faiths, is outweighed by the evil attributed to religion, and solely religion.

Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever ???

Who says that there are? But to say that people who are currently motivated to do good because they have faith would be just as motivated to do good if their faith was taken away from them by you is unprovable, but the indication, to me at least, is to the contrary.