Should children be taught to believe in God?

I'm curious to hear people’s opinions. My own opinion is that we should not be teaching our children beliefs about God before they can reason and decide for themselves. I am an atheist, just to make clear what my beliefs about deities are.

This also relates to how we may pretend about fairy tales such as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. I think believing in fairy tales probably has little or no lasting damage, since children usually catch on by the time they are 6, 7 or 8. Playing pretend is a good thing for children as long as they ultimately learn what reality is. We did pretend to our kids about Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and even the Leprechaun on St. Patrick's day. Traditions. :)

Religion, on the other hand, maintains that God is real and has the full power of a congregation, ministry and parents to add credulity to this belief. At home, the children may pray to God at dinner, and when they go to bed. Unlike Santa or the Tooth Fairy who visit one day a year, God is always there, so the children are led to believe, consequently it has a much more serious and long lasting effect. Is this appropriate or might it be considered proselytizing, or worse?

Here also are a few opinions from Sam Harris on this subject where he suggests that much of the divisions in our society are caused by this teaching of our children to fear or hate others of different faiths.



http://www.truthdig.com/dig/page4/200512_an_atheist_manifesto


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

But they should be taught that many people believe in God, many don't, and that the most important thing is to make up your own mind.

I don't actually believe that one can teach children to believe in God.

Christian parents should be free to raise their children in their faith, so too all of the other religions. Atheist parents should be free to raise their children without religion.

But all should encourage an open-mindedness and a broad knowledge of different religious beliefs (and lack thereof) so that the children may make their own decisions later.

:thumbsup:

In the end reality will catch up to an educated mind.

and it just never caught up with me! I guess my "reality" is just on a whole different plane than yours.

And that's ok.

T-Grannie

I think it's up to the parents, but your approach worked for me.

And that is one of the many reasns they have my lifelong thanks, respect and support. They did it right.

I was raised with an extended family that was Roman Catholic, but an immediate family that was more "70's new-age". As a kid, I read a lot of philosophy. Amazing what a little logic at a young age will do to cure you of organized religion...

The key is to let children know they have the power to decide for themselves-and that they have the responsibility to think for themselves as well. Children who are taught this way are less likely to succumb to a "leader" who tells them what to think-not only in the case of religion, but politics as well.

That holds true with any philosophy, doctrine or belief, religious and otherwise.

I couldn't quite tell if you were being sarcastic.

I can see why teaching morals and ethics at an early age is important, but not religion. Do you agree?

At that age kids don't have enough knowledge to diferentiate reality from a fairy tale, and it is very easy to disguise religion as reality to the naive

were raised by atheist parents. Wasn't hard to lure them in at all!

That's why you find most families are affiliated with the same religion. Children can quite easily change their beliefs when they grow up, and many already do.

I would only feel comfortable answering that question about my own children.
It's none of my damn business what someone else wants to teach their children even if I don't agree with what they are teaching their children.

People who judge you for teaching your own children about God are just as annoying as people who judge you if you are not. What people teach their kids is their business. Who are we to judge?

kids throats are also the ones who tell kids that santa will bring them a pony. If you look at it, god is just another santa clause, just ask him and he will give it to you.

God HAS been a real Santa in my life. Not a guy in a red suit, but a real companion and someone who has given me everything I have. That is an excellent analogy.

Plus, he knows if I've been good or bad!

with teaching children about the God concept, but I guess it depends upon how you define God.
If you are teaching children to hate the little brown Pakistani kid down the block because he doesn't believe in the same myth as the parents do, well I have a problem with it.
But if you are defining God as Love and a "heavenly parent-figure" I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it. Fairy tales are part of childhood and they do not have the level of abstraction to understand such existential or deep ideas. As they age you adjust, adapt and introduce a higher level of understanding and when they become old enough to make up their own mind, let them.

I think it is important for a child to know that there is more than one concept of God, and treat all these concepts with respect.

I also thank my mother for always challenging me about my faith, so that I didn't swallow wholesale what a particular minister said. She had me read "The Passover Plot" at age 13-it profoundly changed my perceptions about Christianity. I remember us discussing it afterwards, and how she showed me it was up to me to make up my own mind about God and His prophets.

Correct approach:
*child asks about God*
"Here's what mum and I believe, here's the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Religions and a copy of Bullfinch's Mythology. Any questions, ask your mother, she's omnipotent".

Sounds like a healthy matriarchal household.

You are a wise soul.

My children were raised to believe in God. I taught them my definition of that concept. It has nothing to do with fear, hell or damnation and everything to do with the way they treat themselves and other living beings.

My kids will be taught a lot about various religions, what they stand for, what they do, and their places in history, but I will not tell my kids that they have to believe in any religion. Knowledge is mandatory, but belief is optional.

I'd prefer that my kids not believe in God, but the rest of the family will certainly disagree with me so I'll compromise by leaving it an option.

it is an option whether you want it to be or not. That's what happens with kids. They grow up and believe whatever the hell they want to. My next door neighbors are atheists and their daughter just got baptized at the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City.

It doesn't always take. I felt like I was in church most of the time when i was a kid but later lost those beliefs (a lot later but very thoroughly).

... the best of your ability... Then when they grow older, you should allow and support them in whatever they choose to become... Isn't that the way it's always been done?

I was a Christian when my kids were young, so they were exposed to church a lot more than I was as a child. They realize not everyone believes the same thing, and they've grown up to be tolerant and respectful of other people's beliefs. At least as far as I know . . . none of them have told me I'm going to hell because I've renounced Christ. :shrug:

standpoint. As an agnostic, it's as far as I could go in good conscience. Every time I hear somebody on the religious right utter a chunk of their pathology, I wonder if even that might have been going too far.

Unlike most religious people I know, I crave and await enlightenment. I just don't think there's anyone who can give it to me. As a consequence of my "beliefs", my children are skeptical agnostics like me. I think that's a good thing.

I think the key is not to indocrtinate children but to let them decide for themselves. Answer their questions and let those answers percolate for a while. To force a child either to attend church or avoid church with dictates saying the action is the only acceptible one is not helpful, imho. The opposite action becomes "forbidden fruit", whether it is going to church or staying at home.

I am a mother of 5 and an atheist. We have a lot of lively disscussions..about gods, and different religions. I will say I have more than one of my neighbors go behind my back and preach jesus to them. It makes for some interesting conversations around my house. I have on the other hand never tried to convert a god believing child.

that certain faiths proslytize but others don't. (It is against the rules of my Order to try and "convert" anyone, for example) I think you have taken the correct approach with your children. I recall when my fundy relatives tried to "preach" to me (we didn't go to the "right" church in order to be saved, you see, according to them), my mother would argue right back, saying that if God is a kind loving Father, He would never disavow ANY of his children, any more than her father would disavow his children. I found those arguments illuminating and thank my mother once again for allowing me to obtain all the information and to then decide for myself.

I was raised in an extremely religious household, but I was never taught hate. We were taught that unbelievers would burn in hell for eternity because our faith dictated that only the baptized who accepted the Word Of God would get into heaven. We didn't believe that other religions were evil, or that non-believers were the enemy, but that they were headed down a path that would result in their perpetual torment. As a Catholic we were told that we weren't supposed to actively prosthelytize (Vatican II decree), but it didn't stop us from feeling pity for those who hadn't heard the word and who wouldn't be joiing us in heaven.

Of course, when I later started hooking up with people of my own gender, my opinion of those beliefs began to change a bit :)

my fundy relatives who tried to show us "the light" were sincere-they really wanted to be assured that we would meet in heaven. I was touched by their concern, but that didn't change my beliefs.

I was raised Catholic as well, but that was so not a part of my upbringing. Or wasn't stressed at home, I should say. I can't remember all that the nuns tried to sell us in 3rd grade, lol!

I'm an Episcopalian now, but I don't believe in hell. I don't believe a loving God wishes to be separated from anyone seeking God. I think the whole some do, some don't (WRT an afterlife) is a human construct -- more of our need to have "us" and "them".

Even our funerals focus on giving thanks for the life of the deceased. We tend to take a practical view of these things--we don't know what happens after death, so it's pointless to spend much time on it. Jesus mostly taught ethics, so that's our biggest concern.

I don't believe in teaching them to believe in god. I would instead educate them about the worlds various belief systems and philosophies and let them decide what they wanted to do when the time was right for them.

Your post, I think, represents a common mistake in atheists understandings of the way religion works in the minds of believers. To genuinely religious people, religion isn't simply a passing belief or a flight of fancy. Genuine believers don't choose their religions like they choose their jeans (whatever fits the best, and you can change them tomorrow).

To a religious person, their belief colors their very view of the world. I grew up in a household where a belief in the Christian God was not only not questioned, it was incomprehensible to us that anybody would even bother to do so. God was as real and as intrinsic to our existence as gravity, rain, and the sun. He was simply a part of our world.

In a religious persons mind, not teaching a child about God is akin to not teaching them about gravity, or telling them "We think the sky might be blue, but we'll let you decide for yourself when you're older." To them, God is a fundamental reality, and the thought of not teaching about him wouldn't even be seriously entertained.

Of course, there's also the other half of the coin...punishment. Nearly every religion in the world has some kind of caveat stipulating some type of otherworldly punishment if you live a bad life. Whether you're talking about the Hindu belief that bad people are reincarnated into a lower caste, or the Christian belief that bad people go to hell, religions generally threaten "bad" people with punishment if they don't live proper lives.

All parents, whether Hindu, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever, love their children deeply, and very few parents would permit their children to engage in activities that are destructive or harmful to their health. Since religious parents see non-belief as harmful to their children future, most will do whatever they need to teach them their religion and "protect" them from harm.

**addendum**

I just wanted to add that parents who DON'T instill a faith in their children generally aren't religious or active believers in the first place. Before I see dozens of posts that begin "I'm an episcopalian and I didn't....", you should ask yourselves how often you go to church, how often you kneel down and pray at home, and how you would react to someone standing in front of you telling you that your faith and belief systems were 100% false. Many people who don't instill faith in their children aren't particularly religious themselves. Holiday Catholics, JINO's, and Baptists who haven't been to a church in years hardly qualify as "religious".

than a non-religious one. I do think that within the realm of belief, however, there is room for different God concepts. I grew up in a Methodist household, but a very liberal one, where my grandfather told me at an early age that all paths lead to God. My family taught me to think for myself as to what the teachings meant. A friend of mine was raised in a fundamentalist church, and we had many lively discussions about what was "right" and "wrong". I still laugh when I remember convincing her that it must be ok to drink since Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine! But the point is that we had two different God concepts, but were both believers.

The definition of "believing" is having faith in the truthfulness of a particular fact. I don't question the law of gravity, so I believe in it. You CAN be religious WITHOUT being a believer, which is what most holiday Christians and agnostics really are. They practice a particular faith, but they don't really believe in it.

You said you were raised in a liberal Methodist household? How often did you go to church? Did you pray before dinner every night? Before bed? How often did you pray just because you were having difficulties and wanted God's help? How about confession? Most "liberal" Christians don't follow these practices because they don't believe in them any more...they are, by definition, "unbelievers".

And before you jump my ass, for the past decade I've only entered churches during weddings and funerals. I'm not a fundie by any stretch of the imagination. I WAS a strong believer at one time, however, and I've always been interested by how badly some people misunderstand them and their beliefs & intentions.

We went to church every Sunday, and for more than one service. I took Sudnay School very seriously and made my teachers rather uncomfortable with my questions about Christian activism and social justice. I sang in the church choir, and my mother was on the Official Board. I prayed every night, and before meals (except at school).

But more than that, I had mystical experiences which to me showed that God is That which is way beyond our concepts of God.

My mother became a Uniterian later in life; like me, she had trouble with the Trinity. She was a bit shocked when I became a Sufi initiate in my late thirties, but later came to better understand my God concept.

That sounds rather open-minded. Many of the "mainline" denominations encourage individual thoughtfulness and interpretation. Doubt is embraced, not discouraged. And tolerance, in general, is the rule.

The "many paths" her grandfather suggested seems about right to me.

ethics, morals, without transferring religious beliefs? I understand that belief in God may seem real or be an integral part of one's life, but should we be teaching children who are not yet mature enough to reason and decide for themselves whether God exists?

I'm reading a book by Bertrand Russell where he suggests that children should not be learning some of the concepts of sin established by religion (Christianity in this case), such as sins involved in sex or sexual curiosity, that this is the cause of much sexual misunderstanding and violence against women in our society. Unfortunately, the church perpetuates these antiquated concepts of sin.

Sam Harris is suggesting (I think) that we move beyond bringing our children up to have identities such as Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish before they can reason for themselves, that this establishes divisions in our society. If all religions were liberal, I suppose it wouldn't be mush of an issue, but that is the problem, they're not. Most religions evolved from fear, consequently there is much intolerance and bigotry contained within religious texts.

and a belief in tolerance and respect. I don't see any conflict there -- to me they go hand in hand.

I don't agree about leaving God out of it. You could say the reverse and suggest that the idea that God does not exist is best left out until children are old enough to deal with it.

The bottom line is that parents will most likely pass along the values they care about most. For a religious person that almost inevitably means passing along religious beliefs.

Do you wait to model anything until they are old enough to decide?

someone said children should not be
indoctrinated with dumbed down
religiousity early in life, as it
kind of prevents them from discovering
real spirituality later on.

We teach kids about God the same
way we teach them about Santa, then
we're surprised when they take a cynical
attitude towards spirituality.

teaches about Santa, then one is going about it the wrong way.

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.

Religions are myths, not in the sense that they are false, but in the sense that the message they deliver and the reality they reveal transcend questions of the existence of God. For instance, Christianity teaches all sorts of good stuff--forgiving your enemy, loving your neighbor, respecting people who are of different religions and cultures than yours, etc (not the religion's fault that so few people who claim to follow it actually do). It's a great message, and a great system of belief, and it's true even if there is no god and if Jesus was just a person (or didn't even exist, as some people belief).

And more importantly, if the parents believe it, then their entire value system is wrapped up in it. Of course they should teach their children their value system. The kids later can decide whether they believe or not, and even if they don't, they will still understand their parents' values better, and maybe have a more solid core of values of their own. And if they never challenge their beliefs, never doubt for a minute, then they will still have a good blueprint for their own value system. And who knows, the parents may be right! Just because I don't believe in any gods doesn't mean I'm right.

I don't think a person really chooses their beliefs. I think they discover what they truly believe over time. Religion, as all philosophy and science does, deals with the meaning of life and the other big questions everyone has to deal with. I think the more you can guide your child towards those questions and answers, the more you have helped that child on his or her own journey in life.

As for Santa Claus and fairy tales, that's really a different topic. These are stories the parents know are false, but are teaching them because they personify values they want their kids to learn ("Behave or Santa won't bring you any toys"). Religions and gods are beliefs the parents themselves hold, and are much more complicated than simply believing or not believing (what does it even mean to say that something which created existence itself exists?). Many, maybe most, of the most brilliant minds in history have believed in god in some form or other, most have not believed in Santa Claus since Nicholas actually died. I never taught my kids that Santa Claus was real, and rarely mentioned him, but I never told them he wasn't real, either, until they were old enough to ask (and by then, they pretty much know anyway).

My opinion. Probably wrong, as always.

Thank you for it.

I read your title and thought you were going to blast me in the body of the text! :rofl:

Thank you.

If you don't like religion, don't teach it to your kids. If you really don't like religion and have little or no respect for the truth, tell them that it's the root of all evil, like Harris does.

Because putting the question into "what to teach your kids" is really just a proxy for the argument about religion. They being your kids, they are going to be stuck with whatever good or dumbass ideas you have, so maybe you should have that first. Good luck.

Don't do it. Teach them to fuck though.

it is not a sin. When they ask that is. That it's a natural thing to do when adults love each other.

That's a big part of the issue, that morality is dictated by a deity and interpreted by the priestcraft. It would be much healthier to derive morality and ethics by secular means than through the Bible or Koran or Torah, not that there aren't some great moral teachings to be learned in the Bible, like the Beatitudes, just that there are so many bad teachings mixed in. Unfortunately, the brand of Christianity practiced in this country is Pauline Christianity, so we have a wrathful God and an intolerant religion.

Children should be allowed to grow up as children without the biases and bigotry learned through religious doctrines that divide us. When they are old enough, 16 or 17, they can take a course in comparative religion, philosophy, etc, and make their own decisions about what to believe.

It is sort of a problem for a seriously religious household that talks about God frequently. For example a family that says a prayer at the dinner table. A child in this environment is perpetually exposed to God. I don't have all the answers, just raising the questions. Maybe someone else can comment on that.

My parents were both catholic, and they screwed up a few times while raising me. But one thing they definitely did do right was that they didn't push religion on me to the extent most families seem to. I had to go to church on Sundays, and they made me go to Sunday School enough to get the sacraments, but they basically raised me in a secular way. And when I was 14 or 15 and told my mom I didn't want to go to church anymore, she let me make my own choice.

I like to think that even if I had been heavily indoctrinated into a religion as a kid, that I would have figured things out on my own, but I can't be sure of that. I think those of us who are independent-minded owe alot of that to our parents, and conversely, those who aren't and are locked into a particular religious belief system for life can blame their parents for it.

to your kids you have a real problem. That is one activity that should come naturally.

.

Now if I were a fundie, I could really run away with that statement!

It takes a lot of teaching to make them into believers.

So you're just begging the question that the OP asks, what should you teach their kids. If you think clean pants are a good idea, train them. If you think religious belief is a good idea, teach them about that, too. If you don't, don't.

an atheist, oddly enough. We don't do any religious teaching in the house, really, but he has picked up the concept of God someplace. I have no idea where.

by Paul Tillich ("a mediate theologian") yesterday where he was discussing a "Personal God" - that is the belief in God as if s/he is a being that actually acts in your life.

He thought that it did not make sense for people to believe that - although it seems like he may have suggested that a lot of people take a lot of comfort in the idea. But at any rate - he didn't think it made any sense.

So it seems to me - you have this thing - where theologians themselves - don't necessarily believe these things - considering themselves to be rational people and all and then you have the "lay people" who like to believe these things - because it makes them happy. It IS pretty odd - and really pretty disingenuous to have the ministry lying to people - as if they were children - as if it were Christmas. Or just not bothering to say that it's really just a symbol - but they are supposed to figure that out for themselves - nobody is going to TELL them.


Recently I saw an article by someone who was saying that atheists have issues with their fathers - and THAT is why they are atheists. The problem with that is why do God believers see "God" as a man at all. Seems to me - it would solve a lot of problems to not see "God" as a person. Like if "God" meant humanity/nature - and there was nothing to believe in but the hope that we would stop killing each other and destroying the world (which doesn't seem very likely - but we might as well hope anyway :shrug: ).

On edit:

People will generally pass along their beliefs/non-beliefs - but I think that some consideration should be taken as to whether what you are doing is providing a Santa Claus type of interpretation that the child is going to have to relearn later - or if you want to start them out with something that they can believe in - that will carry them through life. (And I personally think it's a bad idea to imply that "God" is male or like a person at all).

The knowable God that can dictate morality to believers and through which the priestcraft can wield power over people. As you say, it would probably solve a lot of problems if people didn't see God as a person, especially not an old man with a beard.

Seems to me - it would solve a lot of problems to not see "God" as a person. Like if "God" meant humanity/nature

I agree, this would be the best I could hope for in religion. If we no longer have a personal or knowable God, we can no longer directly interpret what god wants as written in religious doctrines. This may prevent some of the more religious motivations for war. We need to ultmately abandon these creeds established thousands of years ago in favor of more human and natural approaches to spirituality.

And I agree with most. Some comments:

I believe in a personal God, but He (I use the pronoun He from tradition/habit) is inside me, part of my consciousness. He is not outside me in heaven. He works through me. I am His hands if I choose to be.

About the maleness of God, I was raised that way (God is a he) and when I reached maturity I figured out on my own that my personal god is genderless. It didn't hurt me to consider Him a patriarchal figure. But then I personally got along very well with my father, so that was a positive model.

...not any of the "true faiths."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" should be sufficient, I think.

On edit: I just realized this is my 1,000th post. :woohoo:

Obviously this wouldn't happen in an atheist home. But for those who believe in God, that belief informs every aspect of life. And sharing that with one's children is only right.

My way is different from yours: my children will be raised according to my own beliefs, which include, BTW a great emphasis on tolerance for other beliefs. Once they reach the age of adulthood, or at least reason, they will go their own way. And whatever path they choose (please don't let it be fundamentalist religion of any sort, lol!) will be fine with me. I'll know I've done what I can do to give them a good grounding.

I was raised in the Methodist church and held literal beliefs for some time before coming to my own beliefs later. I'll be perfectly happy if my son follows the same path of questioning and thought.

They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in you dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward not tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

---Kahlil Gibran

Heh. Just kidding.
:)

Why would I not bring my children up in a belief system that has been so important to me? Why would I teach them only what the rational part of me thinks, without exposing them to the myths, traditions, and spirituality that has been such a weighty part of my life? Why would I not give them a starter packed for their own spiritual journey? That would, to me, make me a failure as a parent. Children, despite my deepest fears, do not become their parents. They will take what I teach them, and the honest answers I give them to their questions, and work that over in their own brains and arrive at their own conclusions.

Look at it this way, my mother was raised by an agnostic and a Catholic, and became a Lutheran. My father was raised by a Presbetyrian pastor father and Lutheran mother, and became an evangelical fundementalist. I was raised a Lutheran, and now worship at an Episcopalian church, because the liturgy helps me focus and the sermons are usually good.

To ask whether a parent should raise his or her child in a way that reflects his or her belief or lack of belief is off-base. Why would a parent raise his child to the best of his ability, teaching them every other facet of his or her personality (political beliefs, sports affiliations, tastes in food and music, basic beliefs about right and wrong) but except religion?

I think so, since religion is based on something for which there is no evidence. Sports and politics are based on reality for the most part, while religion is based on faith that there is something there that we call God and trust that the priestcraft has interpreted God's messages in the correct way.

This is not to suggest that parents should not teach values to their kids, rather we need to evaluate the source for these values. Wouldn't it be a better world if we could transfer our morals and ethics to our children, not because God says that it is the right thing to do, or that we should do something because we want to go to Heaven or not to Hell? There are many good morals and ethics derived from religious doctrines, but mixed in with the good lessons are many poor lessons. Some of the poorer lessons say that premarital sex is a sin, contraception is a sin, homosexuals should be banished from society, heretics will burn in Hell, or apostates should be stoned to death. Most organized religions tend to devalue the role of women, which leads to all kinds of sexual violence in our society.

It is certainly possible for parents to weed out all of the bad lessons, but ultimately, it would be better if we could teach lessons to children from a reality based context. When children have grown to the point that they can reason and decide for themselves, that is a good time for them to study comparative religion and philosophy. The decision should come from the children, or adolescents as the case may be when they are old enough to reason and decide for themselves.

And yes, sports is an especially shallow comparision to religion, but it's a part of who I am, as well. My personality is a basket of all sorts of things, my religion, my morals, my politics, my taste in music, all of it. And all of that would be put into how I raise my children. Priestcraft, I'd argue, is a surprisingly ineffective tool for social control in this day and age - look at all the Catholics who use contraception with no twinge of conscience.

There's also nothing stopping children from studying comparative religion and philosophy, or from deciding what path they will follow for themselves when they get old enough. Children aren't permenantly stamped and doomed to follow their parents' religion.

As you mentioned,kids just don't have the tools and capacities to deal with such ideas. But, it is none of my business how someone raises their kid. If they are indoctrinating them in their religion , I think they are wrong to do so but it isn't my kid.

On the other hand, if the indoctrination includes a lot of threats of eternal damnation, hellfire and torture I think it has ,at that point, crossed the line in to the area of psychological child abuse and should not be allowed.

It's not really "taught."

In our family religion is about as fluid and as important as air too. I see this fluidity as a blessing -- there are very few religions I'm uncomfortable with, nor am I uncomfortable with atheism. All sorts of religions have graced my family tree, and if we were the sort of family that fought over religion there would be no family tree.

The only real religious war I remember as a kid was when my mom was a Jehovah's Witness. My dad figured it was just a passing fancy of my mom's (in a roll-his-eyes-when-my-mom-wasn't-looking sort of way) but my grandparents did everything they could to sabotage my mom's practice of the faith. They hosted birthday parties and Christmas celebrations for my siblings and me that were twice what they might have been otherwise.

This all happened during the Viet Nam war when my mom was pissed off at all the churches that supported the war. She wanted the priests and ministers she knew to be like the Berrigan brothers. If priests and ministers were not anti-war activists then they were dead to her. Of course the Jehovah's Witnesses ate this all up until she inevitably turned on them... (Hi mom!) :hi:

My wife's family is Catholic. Her family tree is firmly rooted in Catholic territories.

I look at our teen-aged kids and I don't think the religion in our household is oppressive, not at all as Catholicism seems to have been for so many of the people posting here. We go to Mass Sundays because that's what we do. I think maybe one reason that it's not oppressive is that both my family and my wife's family have a tradition of highly intellectual religious discussions. You can put anything on the table and not be shot down for it. If a kid starts reading books about Buddhism or goes to a friend's church some Sunday, nobody freaks out, nobody lays down the law. I have noticed that my kid's friends don't invite them to church anymore, and I think it's probably because my kids are so outspoken.

Sam Harris says, "Just ask the Irish?" This has a good deal to do with how my wife's and my Irish ancestors got to the Americas -- Canada, the United States, and Mexico. They were tired of those hatreds, and it seems they took some care not to pass them on.

your child may not be

but my child will

end of story

if the parents are religious, it informs every aspect of their lives. It determines their daily and weekly routine, whom they associate with, what they will and will not do, and how they view the world in general.

Not to teach their children about the source of their values seems, well, artificial.

I grew up as a preacher's kid, as many of you know, and I never felt repressed by the religion per se. (If I felt repressed, it was by my grandmother living with us and being a control freak.) In fact, it was the source of many of my most enriching experiences and has continued to do so to this day.

I have long maintained that religious belief is experiential rather than intellectual. The doctrines are merely a framework in which to understand the experience.

I read the entire thread and therefore some of these ideas might already have been stated.

Religion is part of culture. If you go to church, and celebrate religious holidays like Christmas in your home, they are going to get the God concept by osmosis, I believe. I was raised in a church and it was a very important part of my week, but we weren't overtly very religious at home. We said grace before dinners, and that's about it. My dad played hymns on the piano. Had I decided at any point after, say, grade school (when I could be left home alone during church) NOT to attend, nobody would have minded. Had I decided God did not exist, my famliy would have been mildly amused and probably not discussed it with me. It just wasn't done. Faith was personal.

It was not indoctrination, it was enculturation. My grandparents met in church. It was who we were. And believing in God was part of the package. We raised our children the same way. They went to church and Sunday school. But they have been allowed to develop their own beliefs. My son was just married on Saturday and there was reference to about five different types of spirituality in the service..the Great Spirit... First Corinthians...the Universe....Nature...and they walked out to March from the Throne Room from Star Wars.

We do infant baptism in our family, so that isn't a decision they have to make. My grandchildren have been baptised. We have never taught our children about Hell. I'm not even sure what our church believes about it. I suppose it is part of the package because in the Creed it says "He was descended into Hell and on the third day..." Do I believe there is a Hell? I have no idea. I really just don't know. It isn't something I worry about, really. I know I do the best I can and if I end up there, well...what can I say?

I believe in God. I believe strongly in God. It is a God past finite understanding, not a guy in a nightgown. My brain is very finite, so I don't attempt to define Him very often. It is futile. If I die and the whole thing was a ruse...well, I'll never know, will I? And that's ok with me. It's given me a lot of pleasure in my life and I would be wrong not to at least introduce my children to the same experience. Once they are grown, they will come to their own spiritual understandings.

Certain parts of the U.S. are certainly more religious than others, and so religion is almost an integral part of social life in these areas. By contrast, in North Western Europe, religion is much less important. Though people may still be born a Protestant or Catholic, and even identify themselves as belonging to a religion, church attendance is very low (~14%), and nonbelief in God is about 50%. Ultimately, I think the world is headed in a less religious direction, and Europe is a leading indicator for that trend. Granted, one wouldn't necessarily agree when observing religiosity in the U.S., or in South America and Africa. But, these are sort of developing regions, with much of the religious development propagated by evangelist religions and missionaries based in the U.S., e.g., Pentecostalism.

I do agree that a child growing up in a family that practices religion more seriously will absorb, as by osmosis, beliefs in God. And probably there is no easy way to defer a child's decision in that area until they are old enough to make it for themselves. Most devout Christians or Muslims do not really offer that decision, and actively promote a belief in God, take them to church, etc. I was coerced into going to church when I was young, though it was not my preference. But, we were a relatively nonreligious family overall, my mother was probably what we'd call an agnostic, or maybe even an atheist. My father was a believer, if mainly just because he felt it the right thing to do. The church social aspect was important for him. In our family as a whole, the cultural aspect of religion was very small, just amounting to two hours of torture every Sunday, until we were old enough to resist, a year or so after Confirmation in my case. Three out of four kids were atheists, so Dad didn't have much momentum in that area. A chance to see some of the prettiest girls in town at church was about the only benefit I could see. :)

I think the more important thing is not whether a child absorbs their parent's religious beliefs, whether they are actively taught or absorbed through the family and community culture, but rather that the morals and ethics taught alongside these beliefs are benign and tolerant ones. "God" knows the Bible and Koran are full of intolerant lessons, so it is up to individual families to sort the wheat from the chaff. Or if you prefer, sort the sweet cherries from the ones gone by. :)

In the end, religion still has to undergo more moderation before it can be compatible with a peaceful world vision. At least then, if there is a child who identifies himself as a Catholic or a Protestant or a Muslim, he isn't filled with hate and fear of those of different beliefs and cultures, but has instead learned tolerance.

I'm speaking more of the household culture, rather than the community.

I agree religion has a long way to go before it is compatible with a peaceful world vision. My pessimistic assessment, however, is that even without religion we'd find ways to be intolerant. I think it is genetic.

Lust for wealth and power, which I suppose we can simply call greed, are strong human behaviors. I think secular humanism is the direction the world must go in. That we need a world community, a world not divided by religion, race, and national ambitions. Spirituality is essential, but spirituality founded on rational foundations, not the religious foundations of ancient despotisms.

LOL I want to KNOW! I want to understand, for certain, what the mechanics are of the whole God thing. Having faith gets tiresome after a while.

Secular humanism has some fine ideals. But the music sucks! Well, actually there is no music. I mostly go to church for the music, so we'll have to come up with some good SH music. I guess we could start with Beethoven's 9th?

and there's not one flame or snark in it. See, WE CAN DO IT!

T-Grannie

That many people go to church for the music, the social get together, sing in the choir, so it has been an important cultural center for the community. But it still divides us by faith. There are secular means for providing community and cultural needs that don't divide us, and ways of exploring spirituality without the divisiveness of organized religion.

I say get rid of the organ music all together. This plays a significant role in inducing religious feelings along with the religious setting. Spirituality can be obtained in many ways. It's best that we understand the basis for our spirituality in a rational way instead of taking things on faith. :)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3087674.stm

Bach? Can't do it. Just can't do it. Organs rock!

What will we replace them with? Acoustic guitar? Like in A Mighty Wind?

ooooohhhh I'm in pain. Sacred music is, next to my family, the most important influence in my life.

I wouldn't take your organ away, or your Bach, even if I could. :)

But, all that church music is one reason why religion has so much staying power. One may not feel that spiritual outside of church, but a good dose of that church organ music and hymns brings it right out.

Yet church attendance in Northern Europe is at around 14%, so that doesn't seem to be much of a factor there anymore considering that it has many of the grandest cathedrals. In the U.S., church attendance is around 45%. I guess our free religion had a lot to do with that, sprouting religions of every type, tax free, inluding the rapidly growing Pentecostalism.

taxes in Europe?

In Austria, for example, if you belong to a church there is an additional item on your income tax. Basically the state collects money for your church. Many people are now quitting their churches to avoid paying this tax. In Norway the state religion is Lutheranism. The churches are owned by the state, and ministers recieve a state salary. There is currently some movement away from that. In Switzerland some cantons are officially Roman Catholic and state supported. So rather than churches paying taxes in much of Europe it's the other way around. Your taxes support the church.

You'd have to step over a lot of dead organists.

They make computer nerds look casual.

Besides, a performance by a really good organist is a sight to behold. Both hands and both feet going full speed, two keyboards for the hands and one for the feet. They're also the only classical musicians who are encouraged, nay, required to improvise.

Besides, most of those fundie churches don't use organs. They use amplified guitars, keyboards, and drums, so maybe we should say that rock music inspires religious feelings. :evilgrin:

If I were the ‘decider’ I would make it socially unacceptable…the delusion is much to destructive.

If indoctrinating children into religious delusion were unacceptable, in a generation, we would see a drastic reduction in physical abuse cases, drug and alcohol abuses and other forms of self destruction, suicide and murder and crime in general etc...

Nearly every bad thing in society can be traced to the weird belief that someone, will somehow, magically rescue them and that they’ll be forgiven and get a second chance in heaven. It’s an awful thing to do to a child and society..

Religion preaches both a code of morality and forgiveness. Among religious people, some people are restrained from doing harmful things by their religion and some people believe that they are forgiven so that they can do harmful things anyway. Among non religious people, some people are restrained from doing harmful things because they believe that there is no one to forgive them and some people believe that since there is no God that they are accountable to no one if they can get away with it.
Non religious parents can brainwash their children just as easily into the belief that they are bad as religious parents. One can argue that the religious child can believe that they will be forgiven. One could also argue that the non religious child is better off because they have no obligation to "honor thy mother and father" once they are free of them.
Religion isn't the only division that motivates hate either. Just as some people hate others who don't belong to their religion, there are many who hate people of any culturual or ethnic difference.

It's more important to open a child all the different religions of the world, and to let them choose a spiritual path that suits them the best, even that means having no religion at all.

I was not raised to be religious. In fact, the first time I stepped foot in a church was 2 months ago and I am 18. My personal problem with religion is that it can generate a lot of hate. I believe that because I was raised without that structure and someone telling me what was right and who was wrong and that I was better, I grew up to be an open mided, well rounded person. It was hard for me, though, because I grew up in a town with one black family, no gay or lesbian occupants to speak of, and exactly two main roads. Everyone knew everyone and I can't even count how many times I have tried to be converted which left a bitter taste in my mouth when it came to religious people. So my point is that although I do believe there is more pro than con when it comes to growing up in a household with no religion, you have to be careful not to let that twist your image on religion or people who do practice it. If what I am trying to escape it hatred for my fellow man and I'm trying to accept all beliefs, that should include religion should it not?

In my view, we should be tolerant of tolerant religions and intolerant of intolerant ones. For example, I would be intolerant of a religion that practices misogynist or homophobic teachings.

WHAT religion?

:rofl:

Probably Unitarianism, Quakerism, Deism, Pantheism, Buddhism, maybe a few more. Of course there are plenty who filter through the Bible or Koran and pick only the "cherries", but not everyone knows which cherries to pick.

I think the more tolerant religions tend to be those that don't have a knowable god or religious creeds. Interpreting God's will and writing it into creeds has bred intolerant religions, because the creeds reflect the biases or bigotry of the priestcraft at the time. A religion that is compatible with the full application of reason like Buddhism or Deism should lead to open minded spiritual exploration and tolerance.

But women don't rank equally in Buddhism or Quakerism either.

and one that my wife made as well, about Buddhism that is, and Hinduism. Most isms I suppose. I don't know if Deism or Pantheism really qualify as religions either. Probably not.

I think your point is well taken, that there may not be any religions that are completely tolerant. Bu there are certainly some that are more liberal than others.

There are just tolerant and intolerant people within those religions.

Even though * doesn't like it. Of course it remains to be seen if the pentacle will be allowed as a symbol on cemetery markers.

If the decision is left up to the child, then free will is in tact. And as far as tolerant and intolerant religions go, I'm not saying we should pick and choose who is worthy of our respect and who isn't because that, in turn, becomes a form of intolerance. I'm not saying we should condone those religions who are not accepting of Gay and Lesbian people or who don't have equality for women, but we can't hate an individual just for believing in that religion. When I say we need balance I mean that I would have to make sure I don't come to hate religious people because they were raised religious and I was not. Otherwise we haven't really preserved the open mindedness that we were hoping to give the child by letting it make it's own choice.

Mystics throughout the centuries have said, that in order to find God, you first need to ‘forget everything you know’ about God. You need to give up God in order to find Him. God, so they say, can only be known through experience, not by concepts – by thought.

If I had children I would try to teach them to be open-minded and loving.
Respectful towards other people, their believes and religion.
I would try to jumpstart their own journey in life, and it’s mysteries, by taking them out in natures as much as I can, take them to museums, encourage them to read, listen to music and so on.

I would definitely try to avoid poisoning their minds with my own believes although I realize it will be virtually impossible.
And perhaps one day my children would experience God themselves, maybe by reading the Bible, maybe in a cool summer breeze or in the eyes of their own children.
Who knows.