Should parents be allowed to raise their children religious or atheist?

[(Q)]

Kinda' difficult to undo thousands of years of human social interaction based on those myths and superstitions.

Difficult doesn't mean impossible.

So, ...what? Some indoctrination is good, while other indoctrination is bad? Is that what ye're saying? Sounds sorta' judgemental and subjective, don't it?

Is that what I said, really?

*rcp*

 

[albertchong1999]

those people embrace true religion and keep practice it frequently will have more resilient and better manner than those don't have religion at all. but those don't have religion must learn the manner from parents or have proper behaviour guidance. good manner and behaviour is learned, not born. and every ethnic has its own behaviour style and a set of manner to follow. if violated, it will considered no manner.

 

[Pete]

those people embrace true religion and keep practice it frequently will have more resilient and better manner than those don't have religion at all.

And vice versa.
There are good people who are religious, and there are good people who are not.
There are assholes who are religious, and assholes who are not.

...but those don't have religion must learn the manner from parents or have proper behaviour guidance. good manner and behaviour is learned, not born.

The same applies to those who do have religion. They still learn their behaviour from their parents.

...and every ethnic has its own behaviour style and a set of manner to follow. if violated, it will considered no manner.

Which is (in the general sense) independent of religion. Standards of behaviour do not need to depend on religious belief.

 

[Hapsburg]

The parents' rights end where their children's right to freedom of conscience begin.
A parent certainly has the right to guide the child how they want, to bring them up in a certain religious community, and to instruct the child however they wish. But to force and indoctrinate by coercion, physical or mental, an ideology on a child is wrong.

 

[mikenostic]

Then she helped you decide, did she not?

No that was more of a forceful persuasion. Helping us decide would have been giving us the option of going.
So now, all that work and effort she put forth more or less is worthless now.

I bet atheist parents go out of their way to explain mythology to their kids as well.

Probably, and I bet the athiest parents include Christianity, Judiasm and especially Islam into any mythology that they explain to their children, because after all, that's what all that crap is anyway.

 

[S.A.M.]

But to force and indoctrinate by coercion, physical or mental, an ideology on a child is wrong.

So if a child does not want to go to school, it is wrong for parents to force them? If a child wants to stay out late, do drugs or alcohol, have sex at the age of 11, etc. should parents coerce them into abstaining?

 

[mikenostic]

So if a child does not want to go to school, it is wrong for parents to force them?

It's not wrong for 'rents to force their children to go to school, but I think it IS wrong for them to force their children to go to a specific school, that suits the parents agenda more so than the needs of the child.

If a child wants to stay out late, do drugs or alcohol, have sex at the age of 11, etc. should parents coerce them into abstaining?

Yes the parents should. But at the same time the parents should know that if a child is THAT determined to have sex, they are going to anyway. So the parent should do their best to educate the child on the dangers of drugs, etc.

 

[Hapsburg]

So if a child does not want to go to school, it is wrong for parents to force them? If a child wants to stay out late, do drugs or alcohol, have sex at the age of 11, etc. should parents coerce them into abstaining?

Those do not affect freedom of thought. Those are matters of education and basic health.

It's like comparing apples and crowbars.

 

[(Q)]

bring them up in a certain religious community... indoctrinate by coercion... an ideology on a child is wrong.

Those are one and the same.

 

[Baron Max]

..., but I think it IS wrong for them to force their children to go to a specific school, that suits the parents agenda more so than the needs of the child.

Just who is it that determines the "needs" of the child?

Baron Max

 

[Pete]

The above has a kind of 'truth is contained in propositions in the brain that mirror reality'. But propostions do things. Thinking of them as containers that mirror reality, apart from the philosophical problems with this, certainly misses what truths do.

So you have these kids and the same truth (theoretical) in two kids may do different things.

You've got these creatures coming into the world, and the best thing is if they have beliefs that work well for them. Propositions in their minds that create a nice, dynamic interaction with life that works, for them, as individuals.

I mean, for example, you might think it determinism is true, mechanistic conceptions of the human brain are correct and one kid finds this fascinating becomes a neroscientist - never for a second brooding over the potential or necessary lack of free will - and tinkers with nervous systems and rat brains and just loves his life. Then you might have another kid who this belief makes feel bad.

To me a more constructivist, let's get the kid to bloom approach is more respectful.

This does not mean testing out a variety of beliefs one does and does not have on kids and seeing where they bloom, but getting out of the way of their forming beliefs, where possible. I mean you state yours, of course, on occasion.

I never thanked you for this post, Simon.
Thanks.

I too, lean toward the constructivist, fostering positive development approach. Up to a point... or perhaps in layers.
I think that part of positive development is to be able to examine earlier, less mature layers, and see them for the useful tools that they are.
So, getting the kid to bloom will mean different things at different level of maturity, right? (I've posted on that note in [post=2120108]sweet lies VS cold truths[/post])

So, yes. Comforting notions which might be demonstrably and factually false are useful and important at early stages of life... but it's also important that children can later discard those notions and examine different possibilities of what the actual truth might be.

And a parent pretty much has to be a fascist about certain things. But one can base this on authority and not truth. "I know you disagree with me, and perhaps you are right, but you must do what I say in this instance." Not that this has to be uttered. I think the attitude can come across.

You do not make it your job to get in their heads until they see the light on all issues.

If they like playing on train tracks, OK, get in there and insert some axioms. But most of life and the beliefs associated with actions and attitudes can be more flexible.

Excellent advice. We should write a book together.

 

[Hapsburg]

Those are one and the same.

Not even close. Bringing someone up around people doesn't mean you are forcing them to believe the same as those other people. You are exaggerating things out of some baseless fear of people having different opinions from your own. It's quite sad, really.

 

[(Q)]

Not even close. Bringing someone up around people doesn't mean you are forcing them to believe the same as those other people. You are exaggerating things out of some baseless fear of people having different opinions from your own. It's quite sad, really.

It's interesting how you manage to turn your ignorance into an insult. Nice work.