Is it morally irresponsible to teach childeren about religion?

Originally posted by Tayesin
reply to post by adjensen

 

Considering that Passover and Alban Eiler were festivals or observances based at the same time and during the same full moon around the Equinox I would hesistate a little to say which is the Original.

But, it would seem to me that Passover is of a much later dating to the Natural Cycles early humans worked within.. and from where this Celtic Bird Festival originated in a much earlier pre-Celtic form.

Yes, is seems unlikely that Jews in Israel around 1200BC would need to travel to Britain to figure out what days to have their festivals on :-)

So, I was speaking specifically about modern Easter and how the symbolism is usurped by Religion to become what we see today. I don't see any symbolisms for Birds/Eggs in the Hebrew Passover Ritual.. hence I cannot see it as the originating source for Easter.

If you're merely discussing the symbology, that's not really an area that I'm big on, so all I can do is pass you the same link, which is what the Lutherans happen to believe. www.lhmint.org... Again, they claim that the association with bunnies started in Germany.

People's grousing about Christianity having bunnies or Santa or celebrations of non-dated events on or around existing holidays kind of annoys me. On the one hand, you have lots of complaints about it being "the religion of no fun" and "too dark", then you have people whinging because it has flippant elements like bunnies. Seems like there's no pleasing some people.

Originally posted by Jezus
You could teach faith as if it were faith.

Is it moral to teach a child that your faith is truth when it has no choice but to believe you?

Wouldn't it be more honest to first teach the distinction between faith and truth?

The question remains.

Is it moral to make your faith the truth for your child?

Why can't you let the child decide his or her own truth?

Very well said. Unsurprisingly we have people dancing around those questions and ignoring why it can be dangerous to mould a child to believe ideas that are based more on "faith" than on facts and reality.

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

I guess the point I was trying to make with the whole X-mas and easter thing was this. its been changed by the church so much to suit there own needs so much that what ever original meaning has been preverted to what the church wanted. there is a long history of the church changing history itself to make itself look better. so you want to teach one of the biggest lies in history to your kids. fine to each there own. your wrong but you won't know that untill its too late.

Originally posted by adjensen
Yes, is seems unlikely that Jews in Israel around 1200BC would need to travel to Britain to figure out what days to have their festivals on :-)

Yes, very unlikely at that time despite evidence for many cultures seafaring in very ancient times. But I agree all seasons and their relevant quarters were seen as important in each culture.

If you're merely discussing the symbology, that's not really an area that I'm big on, so all I can do is pass you the same link, which is what the Lutherans happen to believe. www.lhmint.org... Again, they claim that the association with bunnies started in Germany.

I have wondered where the Bunny bit came from as it makes absolutely no sense. So I will take you offering thanks.

People's grousing about Christianity having bunnies or Santa or celebrations of non-dated events on or around existing holidays kind of annoys me. On the one hand, you have lots of complaints about it being "the religion of no fun" and "too dark", then you have people whinging because it has flippant elements like bunnies. Seems like there's no pleasing some people.

Exactly, can't please all the people some of the time... so maybe shouldn't try, lol.

I understand some discussion about dating and usurping of ancient rites, and how the perspectives have altered over the past 2 to 3,000 years. But in the end I see no point in arguing over these things.. we either accept what facts come to light or we don't, which is the choice we all make each day anyway.

Be well and thanks

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by Astyanax
People don't own 'their' children.

And who does if at all?

Some might argue that the state owns all its citizens--after all, it taxes them, controls their behaviour with its laws and economic imperatives, and sends them out to fight and die for it in time of war.

However, I prefer to regard these rights over the citizen as provisos in the contract between him and the state. I would reply that human beings cannot--legally, at any rate--be owned.

In fact, as we know, slavery exists, as do various forms of indenture. Do you feel children should be treated as slaves or indentured labourers? Presumably not, though many parents act as if they do.

It's an interesting question.

Astyanax:
It is not up to parents what their children should be taught. It is up to the state.

The Djin:
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.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. I was expecting someone to say this, because it sounds awfully communistic and dictatorial--not fascist--to say that the state is the final arbiter of what children are taught. However, it is an assumption common to all forms of government, whether of the left, centre or right, that the state has an interest in the education of its citizens.

Remember that children are individuals in their own right. They are not yet old enough to be allowed the liberty to determine for themselves what is right for them, so somebody has to do it for them. It is quite natural to believe this is a job for their parents, but if you think the question through you'll find that the rational justification for that view is very slim--it boils down to 'I don't want my children to be taught things I disagree with or disbelieve, or which are not in their best interest or mine'. In many cases, this is a valid objection. If I had a child myself, I wouldn't want her being taught in school that evolution was a lie, or that it was her duty to inform the authorities if she saw me doing something illegal (as East German children were apparently taught to do under the Communists).

Now look at the question from the other side--from the point of view of society at large. If the decision what to teach children were left entirely to parents, some very undesirable things are likely to happen. While many people would take the line of least resistance and send their children off to be educated by the state according to its standard curriculum, many others would insist on their own curricula--which might include teaching that evolution was a falsehood put about by evil atheists, that all infidels should be slaughtered in the name of Allah, that it was okay to lie, cheat, or steal from rich people, and any number of other false or anti-social lessons. A parent-devised curriculum may also include lessons in distilling meth or making fertilizer bombs. And of course, some people wouldn't bother to educate their children at all.

No society on Earth could possibly tolerate this. One that did would fall apart in a couple of generations. In fact, many of the world's failed or failing states are those where universal, standardized education has withered, or never taken root. A society must see that its youth receive an education sufficient and suitable for their future role as adult citizens of that society--and yes, that does include teaching them the prevailing values, attitudes and norms of society, even--indeed, especially--if the child's parents disagree with and reject them.

It is the job of the state (which is nothing but society's executive instrument) to ensure that its citizens are educated accordingly. Thus, it is up to the state to decide what children should be taught.

This is not to say that parents have no rights over the education of their children. Such rights are almost universally recognized. In liberal democracies, the decision on how a child is to be educated is usually something of a compromise between the wishes of parents and the demands of the state. However, even in America--a country based on the principle of popular sovreignty, a country that allows (originally for practical reasons) parents to undertake the education of their own children at home--the demands of the state still trump the wishes of parents. That is why home-schooled children must be educated in the state-mandated curriculum and obtain their qualifications at public examinations.

Thank you for disputing my earlier post. You have given me the opportunity to explain myself more clearly and also, I hope, to correct a widely held misconception concerning the rights of parents over their children's education. I hope reading this post has made you think about the issue more deeply, and perhaps even changed your ideas.

reply to post by adjensen

A star for your eloquently argued post. I mean it, and have awarded it.

Not one of your opponents has made it as clear as you have just why they are right and you are wrong.

My faith is a critical component of who I am, and it's something that I do not hide. Saying that I either need to hide my faith from my kids or diminish it in any way is the equivalent of telling them that who I am and how I became this way is none of their business, is something to be ashamed of, or is something I believe they're not capable of. All of which are wrong, wrong, wrong and any parent will tell you that.

There it is in a nutshell.

I respect your frankness and your conviction. However, these are precisely the qualities that make people like you a menace to humanity.

You have just become my first 'respected foe' in five years on ATS.

reply to post by adjensen


I never said passover was on the equinox. I said, the equinox is what is observed....so THEN....people could watch for the moon phase they awaited, such as new moon. Other cultures waited for the full moon after the equinox.

The OT 'special days' revolves around the sighting of the new moon as well. Each month is supposed to start ONLY WITH OBSERVATION of new moon.

The equinox was just a marker in those days....it set the season in its order....then the moon as well as the sun were used for marking months and holidays.

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by humbleseeker

 

The fact remains that there is a distinct difference between teaching faith as faith and faith as truth.

One can be intellectually damaging.

One can be spiritually enlightening.

Im in agreement with you Jezus.

Its one thing to teach a child what you place faith in...and as well explain to them what faith is.

Its another to teach a child about what you place faith in....and call it the truth. When the child ask later as they grow up....mom, how do you know its the truth?....what can a parent say?

My mother would answer my question with 'I just know it is honey'.

No facts, no proof, and defiantly no room given for me to question and doubt. It as not really healthy for me.

I dont regret learning so much about the Bible though...because that is exactly what taught me, my 'belief'/faith of today. Which is of no religion, and goes against most of the religion I was raised in. But I wouldnt wish the fear and guilt that a person has to go through to over come that religion when they do decide on their own to step away from it and seek a personal path outside the book and religion.

To offer children something as truth....when the only proof you have of it is WHAT ANOTHER MAN HAS SAID....is not healthy, in my personal opinion.

Originally posted by Reaper2137
I guess the point I was trying to make with the whole X-mas and easter thing was this. its been changed by the church so much to suit there own needs so much that what ever original meaning has been preverted to what the church wanted. there is a long history of the church changing history itself to make itself look better. so you want to teach one of the biggest lies in history to your kids. fine to each there own.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the Church is somehow nefariously interjecting the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus into those holidays to "suit their own needs." In 35 years of attending church, I can honestly say that I've yet to see Santa or the Easter Bunny there. In fact, there's usually a fair amount of "remember the reason for the season" trotted out to (rightly) decry the consumerism that is now associated with those days.

Easter is associated with Passover. Always has been. If you've a complaint with that, take it up with the Jews, who set the date of Passover.

As for Christmas, yes, definitely swiped that one from the Pagans. I presume that someone pointed out that we had no date of Christ's birth, which is an event documented in the Gospels and pretty important, so they arbitrarily used a date that was an existing festival.

your wrong but you won't know that untill its too late.

Hey, that's supposed to be our line, lol

If I'm wrong, and atheism is right, not only will I never know it (there's not much awareness in oblivion) but I wouldn't say that I've been particularly hampered by my life as I've lived it.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I respect your frankness and your conviction. However, these are precisely the qualities that make people like you a menace to humanity.

You have just become my first 'respected foe' in five years on ATS.

Wow. A menace to humanity. Won't Mom be proud? lol.

The irony is that I'm a menace not because I am honest in my belief, but simply because I hold a belief that you disagree with. To say otherwise is to say that children should be taught nothing about the validity of anything, which is obvious nonsense.

While I agree (mostly) with your point of view on education, the effect of diluting parental input is the homogenization of society. On it's surface, not necessarily a bad thing, but I personally see more value in benefit to people, rather than to society, and diversity is the path to that. Divisive? Yeah, probably so. But I'd rather see a bit of healthy (ie: non-violent) conflict than some milquetoast civilization that stands for nothing and finds its values and mores in whatever the flavour of the moment happens to be.

If your belief is that an autocratic and homogenous society is a fine path if it leads to the elimination of religion, I would suggest that your views are far more dangerous than mine. I, at the very least, respect your right (and others') to believe what you like and see no value in uprooting civilization to force everyone to see things my way.

Thanks for singling me out as your "respected foe", though I suspect one of those words is more important to you than the other, lol. I will not return the favour, though. I respect you, but you're not my foe.

you make the mistake in thinking that I don't belive in god. my point was is that the bible is a joke has been for quite some time. I love god. I don't follow the church because it is wrong. most people who go to church don't learn any thing. besides what the pastor has told. I may be wrong and you could be one of the few that have read the bible thru and thru. but as I said. I think you should fallow your heart not a book that is rewritten every time they can't deal with anew issue. I am not meaning to come off as me bashing your faith i'm not its your religion i fave an issue with. your wrong..

Originally posted by adjensen
The irony is that I'm a menace not because I am honest in my belief, but simply because I hold a belief that you disagree with.

It is neither your honesty nor my disagreement that make you a menace to society. It is your conviction--whether honestly articulated or not--and your determination to propagate your beliefs. Because they are dangerous beliefs.

Religion is of fairly obvious value in the competition between human social groups over resources. In other words, it's great for helping the Children of Israel prevail over the Canaanites so they can get their mitts on all that milk and honey. But the human race has grown too numerous and powerful to permit that kind of thing nowadays. We can't afford wars and conflicts any longer. There will always be beliefs and interests that knit communities together and divide them from others, but the fewer such beliefs we hold, the safer we shall be.

Religion is a gratuitous divider of humanity. You may protest the contrary all you like, but your testimony itself, as well as the discussion on this thread, bear witness to it.

To say otherwise is to say that children should be taught nothing about the validity of anything, which is obvious nonsense.

No, that does not follow. It only appears so because your thinking is warped by faith.

The effect of diluting parental input is the homogenization of society.

You give far too much credit to the effect of nurture in general and parental influence on children in particular. Other factors are far more powerful.

If your belief is that an autocratic and homogenous society is a fine path...

I favour neither autocracy nor homogeniety imposed by fiat. I leave that sort of thing to the religious.

For example, I understand the Iranian government has just issued a proclamation regarding what male hairstyles are acceptably Islamic and which are not, and the baseej are now out on the streets giving people involuntary haircuts. Meanwhile, in America, religious people who don't want certain other people to be able to marry are trying to impose their will on those people by law. This is the kind of intolerance and homogenization at which religion excels.

Thanks for singling me out as your "respected foe", though I suspect one of those words is more important to you than the other, lol. I will not return the favour, though. I respect you, but you're not my foe.

Oh I am, I am, believe me.

But you're wrong about which word is more important to me. There are any number of unpleasant people on Above Top Secret: racists, anti-Semites, religious fanatics, cynical paranoiacs and gibbering idiots. None of them has ever tempted me to push that button. But you are something much more dangerous, and thus far more to be respected, than they.

[edit on 12/8/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by adjensen
The irony is that I'm a menace not because I am honest in my belief, but simply because I hold a belief that you disagree with.

It is neither your honesty nor my disagreement that make you a menace to society. It is your conviction--whether honestly articulated or not--and your determination to propagate your beliefs. Because they are dangerous beliefs.

I am neither a proselytizer nor an evangelist. I have very little interest in what beliefs you happen to hold, and am actually quite well interested in what your point of view on various things might be. But I am not particularly interested in "converting" you (or anyone, for that matter.) If I am wrong, who cares, and if I am right, it's between God and you, not me.

If you misrepresent my faith, I will correct you. If you pose a question that might benefit from my perspective, I will answer you. If you wish to discuss something that is within or beyond the realm of religion, I am happy to do so.

Those are the terms on which I operate, both here and in "real life." To both you and anyone else that I happen to meet, my faith is the way that I live my life, not the message that I bludgeon people over the head with. I don't play the evangelical game, and neither do I hand myself over to those who claim that intelligence, sensibility or love of humanity should require me to abandon the core of my belief.

If that makes me dangerous in your world, so be it. It is what it is.

But you're wrong about which word is more important to me. There are any number of unpleasant people on Above Top Secret: racists, anti-Semites, religious fanatics, cynical paranoiacs and gibbering idiots. None of them has ever tempted me to push that button. But you are something much more dangerous, and thus far more to be respected, than they.

Aside from others' proclivity for randomly throwing out Bible verses, thinking that in and of themselves they are some sort of defence, as well as most people's atrocious spelling and grammar, I don't see significant difference between myself and anyone else around here. I have a faith, and I defend it, just as you have a point of view and defend it. But if you want to single me out to keep an eye on, knock yourself out.

Originally posted by adjensen
I am neither a proselytizer nor an evangelist.

Well, you've been doing both pretty well on ATS so far. And bringing up your children in your beliefs is the same thing really, isn't it?

But if you want to single me out to keep an eye on, knock yourself out.

Oh, it isn't as serious as all that. I come to ATS for fun, because I like crank theories and arguing with people. I was paying you a compliment, that's all. Think no more of it.

Sir, with all-due-respect to the fact that the third post has more flags than your thread seems rather concerning...

I think its very important to teach kids about religion, especially the good and also the bad. It is quite naive to say there's only foul stench in religion and no positive parts at all. Yes humans don't need religion for spirituality or morals but they could be taught THROUGH religion. Organized religion may be a bit over-zealous as I've personally tried a few but to say there's nothing good from them is totally detrimental to the human race.

I have had Mormons preaching to me (clerics who were on their pilgrimage), participated in a Catholic church during my last year in primary(elementary in US terms) where I got the name Joseph from a Father there, went to Bhuddist meetings, Christian Church invitings by a family friend which is undeniable as they've been very nice to my whole family and shared friends, and being a part in the Chinese Shaolin Monastery ect. Never did I find any of these organizations intrusive. Yes, while what they may teach isn't the whole or even the correct truth, it maintains faith that humans needs desperately to survive. They offer community which the individual may build up on, friendships, morals and mostly importantly: a place to belong to.

While not trying to debunk what you said about the extremities of organized religion such as Islamic suicide bombings, you HAVE to look at the other side of the story where people actually benefits from this action of unity. While realizing that there ARE threats to our society from mass religious cults you must take a neutral position and discuss ideas based on the overview.

Not everyone will commit a horror based on the commandments of their "God"... I'm sure the actual percentage is less than 1%, let alone my estimated figures of 0.01%. Religious wars are only started from instigators who like Bush tend to throw people into the bath of fire.

People do NOT "fabricate" a God simply because they want to belive. They give prayers and recieve. Have YOU ever prayed? If you are faithful enough the universe (aka my version of God) will answer all your questions.

Please, If you could explain how much evil these organizations have done... its still in the form of a dictatorship isn't it? Someone from atop controlling the masses below. Aside from a 'few' cases of suicide bombings where it was literally necessary for their voices to be heard. I've heard much proclaimations in the name of freedom, killed so many more.

reply to post by doomblade_2712

Actually, all those stars for that third post just go to show how many people don't use their brains.

My second post on this thread explains exactly why that post is thoughtless, foolish and wrong.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by adjensen
I am neither a proselytizer nor an evangelist.

Well, you've been doing both pretty well on ATS so far. And bringing up your children in your beliefs is the same thing really, isn't it?

As both are labels attached to those who attempt to convert people to their religion, if you believe that I have done that, that's your evaluation, nothing more. It is my stated purpose NOT to convert you. I don't care what you believe. You know what Christianity offers, you're not interested, and that's the end of that, from both your and my perspectives.

What I do care about is addressing the intolerance, prejudice and misrepresentations of Christianity that I see here. If you view that as proselytizing, okay for you, but that is incorrect, as defence is not promotion.

Many - probably most - in organized religion follow blindly. They just accept and follow - - without thought or judgement of their belief and sometimes take negative action in the name of god - - with little concern of how it affects others. It is only important to them that they follow.

If "to follow" is more important then independent thought - - I see a problem.

Also religion is Fear based. To be good because of consequence is not being good out of consciousness to be good - just for the sake of being good.

The religious condemn Atheists. But how many times in these threads have the religious asked Atheists: "What if you are wrong?" They ask this out of fear of retribution from god.

However - there can also be independent thought and activism within faiths. Some who love their faith choose to be activists within its confines. Here are a couple websites of those standing up against their faiths doctrine:

Mormon for Marriage - in support of Marriage for All. mormonsformarriage.com...

Catholics for Choice (CFC) was founded in 1973 to serve as a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health.
www.catholicsforchoice.org...

Originally posted by Annee
Also religion is Fear based. To be good because of consequence is not being good out of consciousness to be good - just for the sake of being good.

What is your motivation to be good, though? What is the difference between the "sake of being good" and "being good"? Isn't it really just what you consider to be as such?

The religious condemn Atheists. But how many times in these threads have the religious asked Atheists: "What if you are wrong?" They ask this out of fear of retribution from god.

Agreed. This is something about organised relgion that has really bothered me: why is the "notion of Fear" and the "consequences of Sin" used as justification for people to love and respect a Supreme Being? Why does a Supreme Being seem to possess petty human emotions (jealousy, anger)? Why did a Supreme Being give Free Will to those who were destined to misuse their ability to choose good over evil?

--------

Unfortunately for Atheists, the consequences of being wrong in the reality that religion is right are far worse than the consequences of those who wrongly believe in God in a reality where God does not exist. (As has been mentioned by others in this/other threads the idea of Pascal's Wager/Pascal's Gambit.)

[edit on 13/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Agreed. This is something about organised relgion that has really bothered me: why is the "notion of Fear" and the "consequences of Sin" used as justification for people to love and respect a Supreme Being? Why does a Supreme Being seem to possess petty human emotions (jealousy, anger)? Why did a Supreme Being give Free Will to those who were destined to misuse their ability to choose good over evil?

Didn't you just answer the first question?