Why do parents believe they have the right to force religion on their children?

[Bakiryu]

I have nothing against being religious or anything of the sort. However I do believe it should a be a conscious decision. What do you think?




Ps. I know this thread will likely be canceled before anyone posts, but if by some miracle it's not, please be polite and don't start insulting each other, ok?

[Within Me]

Why there are no posts here ?
though it is a very interesting issue. It amazingly caught my attention.
Not all parents think this way,"but my parents do"
i know a person who was given the freedom to choose the religion he wants.
These are parents. Parents force children to do "everyrthing" and i mean: EVERYTHING.
maybe because they think they know everything since they are grown ups and have children to raise.They think they do not make wrong choices.
But of course they do make a lot of bad choices but they would never admit that.
What i do think is that they have no right to force children to do "anything"
they only have to advise.
Forcing children would do nothing but creating inner conflicts,and parents should realize that.
We are capable of making wrong choices and failing,but that would make us better persons.

Ever tried ? ever failed ?
No matter .. try again, fail again , fail better.

Samuel Beckett

[Judas130]

in the Christian church, it is an agreement made with the Priest to raise the child through indoctrinated Sacraments. I think the tradition is essential to keep the faith strong, yet once we are old enough we can see the way we want to, some keep their faith, some don't. Is it right though? I'd say there's no harm in teaching moral to a child, that's something that is expected of parents, yet to teach them of a God is not bad either. To tell them to worship, to make them kneel before an entity they no little of at their age, is something different I feel.

It is true, when one is older and chooses a religion on their own, and they have made that decision and have not been forced to do so to join a faith, surely they know what they are doing, its what they want. However, an unknowing child doesn't understand baptism, or the need for church. Is it right to force it all on them? Or is it right to keep with a tradition, a fulfillment of sacrament?

Edit: Something else i found very annoying as a young child was being told my parent's axioms or asserted truths as if fact. This frustrated me. I always have time for teachings from any faith, but i believe on my own...i don't feel we need gulp down the belief of others only to become robots. We should discover for ourselves.

[The Atheist]

I'd love to see it become a conscious decision.

Unfortunately, the answer to your question of why parents teach the kids has a twofold answer:

They believe it's their duty.

Get 'em while they're young!


Something else i found very annoying as a young child was being told my parent's axioms or asserted truths as if fact. This frustrated me. I always have time for teachings from any faith, but i believe on my own...i don't feel we need gulp down the belief of others only to become robots. We should discover for ourselves.

In a way, this might be a good thing. When kids start to realise that their parents have been dishonest, they start seeking answers. As long as they do that, I don't care where they end up.

[TheFifthElement]

It's an interesting question Baki, but the answer is quite simple. As a parent you have a responsibility for your child's wellbeing. If you believe in a religion then you believe that you are caring for your child's eternal soul by bringing them up with that religion.

It's like saying: why do parents believe they have the right to force medical care on their children.

Really there's no difference. It's pretty tough being a parent; it's a big responsibility. If you, as a parent, believe in God and a specific religion, you would be a poor parent if you didn't bring your child up in that religion.

Now I am a non-believer, and I want my children to have to opportunity to decide for themselves what they believe. So I try not to influence them either way, and I send them to a school where their religious education will encompass all religions. I try to be balanced when my son asks about religion and God, but in truth the likelihood is that he will be influenced by my views whether I intend it or not, so the likelihood is that he will not take religion into his later life. Does this mean I have denied him the right to faith which, as I have observed, can be a great source of strength both generally and in times of adversity? I don't know. It's not an easy thing to answer.

[wilbur lim]

I conceive that parents want to have a raft of maxims which must be instilled in their children's mind.The parents have faith that religion is for genuine,and it is the vital portion of their life.They must literally respect their religion,and even send their children to religious schools and church many times.

Personally,I do not have faith in it and so profoundly.Ultimately,religions is decent for everyone,but parents have no means to compel religion into their children.

[kasie]

If you are a true believer in your religion, you will want to share that joy with others, especially your children. But as FifthElement says - it's tough being a parent: you want to do the best for your children, so if you are a believer, do you enrol the child in your faith as soon as possible or do you give them the choice later on in life? I think much depends on the society in which you live. If you live in a society where everyone belongs to a particular religion, it would take a brave soul to stand up and say 'I want my child to have the freedom to make up his own mind when he is of an age to know what he is deciding.' And it may be depriving the child of something if the whole society is structured around the religion, for example if the education system is organised by the Church and a child can only attend school if he is a member of that Church or if all social events centre on the Church.

The Baptist communities recognise this dilemma: they practise Adult baptism and only persons of mature years are allowed to be baptised after a personal and public declaration of faith. There may be some debate about what constitutes 'mature' however - some communities admit believers in their early teens, others defer admission until candidates are legally of age - 18 in UK.

[wilbur lim]

I had read a disastrous news some time ago regarding about a hapless children being starved in light of not saying 'amen'.Thus,if parents do that to their beloved children,it would be a nightmare.Religion should not be too critical.

[Poetess]

I have nothing against being religious or anything of the sort. However I do believe it should a be a conscious decision. What do you think?


I personally barely see new-aged parents and well-educated people forcing their children to follow a certain religion. I see it common in the old generations. Yes, some of us are of the same generation as their parents` and they still feel forced to follow their(parents`) religion, and this is because of how bound the parents are to it.


Religion should be dealt with as an advice, and then it`s up for the person whether to follow or not depending on how convinced they are. A person forced to follow a certain religion, is not a follower - at least IMO.



Ps. I know this thread will likely be canceled before anyone posts, but if by some miracle it's not, please be polite and don't start insulting each other, ok

No, I believe it will be moved to the section related to religions

[sprinks]

Both my parents dropped out of their church at a young age. My mum is now a spiritualist, and my dad doesn't belong to any religion. They both believed that it's up to us if we want to belong to a religion, so although we got taught about various beliefs and all we were never forced to belong to a religion or anything. Partially they went this way because they themselves were forced to belong to a religion and they hated it.

[muhsin]

If you are a true believer in your religion, you will want to share that joy with others, especially your children.

That tells everything, I think, for thats what I was exactly trying writing. And I don't think the word 'force' fits, in this discourse. Rather use another suitable one, but I wholeheartedly don't percieve it as so. Sorry I cannot bring a right one.

[Sweets America]

Baki, this is something I have had problems with for a long long time and I am glad that you bring up the subject. :)
My personal opinion is that it is not right to force any religion onto a kid because religion and spirituality should be conscious decisions, as some people here said. My parents baptised me when I was a kid, and when I got older I told my mother how I thought it was such a shame to do this to a kid. My mother understood and agreed with me; at the time she had just not thought of this, she had baptised me because it was kind of a tradition.

I wish I had not been baptised in the catholic church, because I don't feel close to this religion at all, and its God does not represent to me what it represents to the believers.

Someone told me that I was a catholic because I had been baptised. I think this is not accurate, not to me, because I think that for someone who is not fully conscious of what a baptism represents, for someone who doesn't have a well-thought relationship with God, baptism is nothing spiritual at all, it is only water on your head. Nothing more. I refuse to be called a catholic because someone tried to force it on me. Religions mean nothing if they are forced on people. Religions, to me, really are about personal involvement and a decision regarding one's spirituality which makes one happy. To me, baptising a child without his consent is only a sad attempt of indoctrination, whether the parents are conscious of it or not.

Fifth, that is interersting that we have an entirely different view of what it is to be a good parent regarding this question. You say:


As a parent you have a responsibility for your child's wellbeing. If you believe in a religion then you believe that you are caring for your child's eternal soul by bringing them up with that religion.

I personally think that caring about our children's well-being is being able to differenciate our own spirituality from theirs. That is only my own way of being but if I had a child, I would want him/her to be free to decide about which kind of spirituality suits them. It gives me the shivers just to think of putting a poor kid inside of a religion without his consent.

My child and I, we are not the same person, and being a good parent (to me) is being able to accept the possible differences between my child and me. Just to let several doors open in front of my child and let him/her explore them and go towards the room he/she chooses. There is a big difference between explaining our chosen religion to our kids (which is acceptable) and forcing the kid into the religion by an act like baptism which has a very strong meaning for believers.


If you, as a parent, believe in God and a specific religion, you would be a poor parent if you didn't bring your child up in that religion.

I think the exact contrary of this. I put openness first. My child does not have to be a copy of myself and I have to differenciate what I think is good for myself from what I think would be good for my child.

[NikolaiI]

The answer for me is very simple. I would wish my children to have all my loves, all the same tastes in art and music, my passions such as chess and literature. Of course this is not necessarily the case, but I would love for my children to ask me for titles of books in literature, and as for religion, the same thing goes. I will attempt to teach them about all the divine teachers I know of, such as Lord Jesus Christ and Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, as well as others. I would wish for them to know of Sri Aurobindo and The Mother, as well as Emerson, and the list is actually fairly long. I will tell them I have faith in God but I will introduce them to all religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity; any that I know of, and of course when they are ready and wish. This is immediately and fully connected to also teaching them about music, and many other things.

I can only answer for myself.

Perhaps I forgot to say, I will teach them everything I can with full love, and I will of course teach them Mathematics and Science, and all other Western philosophy-- they may learn anything they wish. But I will also attempt to help guide them towards what I feel deeply to be spiritually true: that we are spiritual beings, ideally spiritually and developed for spiritual potentiality. Inside us is a divine light, an inner light, law or truth. I will, if they desire to know, tell them that I think that what is truly spiritual is also true in regard to physical scientific fact. That the light and the law are in accordance with logic and love. I will do everything in my power to embody the teaching of The Mother, that we should guard over the birth of our faith as the birth of something infinitely precious. I believe fully that the innocent faith of children is their divine gift to us.

I guess in summation, as a loving father, I would desire my children to know about religion, which I believe--untainted-- is the path to God, that there is value in all religions; to help them value the association and community of faithful devotees of the Lord. A logical person will understand that the faith of a child is priceless.

[vheissu]

I wish I had not been baptised in the catholic church, because I don't feel close to this religion at all, and its God does not represent to me what it represents to the believers.

Someone told me that I was a catholic because I had been baptised. I think this is not accurate, not to me, because I think that for someone who is not fully conscious of what a baptism represents, for someone who doesn't have a well-thought relationship with God, baptism is nothing spiritual at all, it is only water on your head. Nothing more. I refuse to be called a catholic because someone tried to force it on me. Religions mean nothing if they are forced on people. Religions, to me, really are about personal involvement and a decision regarding one's spirituality which makes one happy. To me, baptising a child without his consent is only a sad attempt of indoctrination, whether the parents are conscious of it or not.

Similarly, I was baptized as an orthodox christian at a very young age but my parents never tried to actually push me towards believing. Mainly because they are non believers as well. My grandparents did try and I think they were sure that, although I didn't attend Church at all (except Christmas and Easter), I did believe.
I did learn about Christianity at school, since it was one of the optional courses and thankfully our teacher, although catholic, was very open minded and usually led discussions around a topic of interest rather than actually give a lesson (or preach).

But I think it is quite difficult, when being a parent, not to bring up your child as a believer of your own religion. Personally, I think children shouldn't be pushed too much to actually follow everything surrounding their family's religion. There's no real harm in teaching them a few things, but I find it a bit wrong when, for example, children are strictly involved in every single fasting throughout the year and are chastised for eating something they shouldn't.

Here in Greece I always found that older people are slightly shocked when they discover that actually, I don't believe. It's as if it's a given thing, to be Orthodox, something you don't really think about...

[TheFifthElement]

Sweets, believe it or not we actually agree on this! But I think you misinterpret my words a little, you say:

Fifth, that is interersting that we have an entirely different view of what it is to be a good parent regarding this question...
...I personally think that caring about our children's well-being is being able to differenciate our own spirituality from theirs. That is only my own way of being but if I had a child, I would want him/her to be free to decide about which kind of spirituality suits them. It gives me the shivers just to think of putting a poor kid inside of a religion without his consent.

My child and I, we are not the same person, and being a good parent (to me) is being able to accept the possible differences between my child and me.

which was exactly my point. You, approaching the matter as a responsible parent, would bring up your child in accordance with what you believe is right. To you it is important to put openness first as you say here:


I think the exact contrary of this. I put openness first. My child does not have to be a copy of myself and I have to differenciate what I think is good for myself from what I think would be good for my child.

this is exactly how I approach my children, it is important to me that they understand what their choices are, and that they are the ones who should choose. However, if I had a strong religious faith, and I truly believed that my child's soul would be eternally damned if they did not embrace religion, then I would act towards my children in accordance with my beliefs and this, equally, would be responsible parenting. Imagine if someone told you, as a parent, that you must bring your child up as a catholic. You would find this abhorrent, would you not? But for someone who has a strong catholic faith asking them not to bring their child up catholic would be equally abhorrent. They would feel that they were failing their child, and thus it would be irresponsible. I guess what you need to do here is try and put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a strong religious faith and then answer the question again.

And I think it is missing the point asking the question 'why do parents think they have a right...'. Parents have a responsibility toward their children and hand in hand with all responsibilities come rights. Parents make choices for their children every day - you cannot debate the rights and wrongs of sleep with a 2 year old - the difficulty arises where parents, after years of making decisions on their children's behalf, cannot step back from that and allow the child to start making decisions for themselves. But this is about role: I perceive my role as a parent to be a guide - it is my job to equip them with the skills they need to get through life, and the biggest part of that skill is learning to take decisions for oneself, and taking responsibility for those decisions including any consequences. The better I teach my children, the better they will be able to make 'good' decisions (if there is such a thing) and achieve their goals, whatever their goals might be. However, that is my perception and my belief. Ask 100 parents and you would get 100 different answers to the question 'what do you think your role is as a parent'.

The situation you described with baptism, I think this is common and I do not understand it either. I know many people who have christened their children but other than christenings and marriage they never set foot in a church. When asked why they do this reasons are given such as 'tradition' or worse, not wanting the child to feel 'left out' or 'different'. This makes no sense to me. If I christened my children it would be only because I felt it was right for them to have a relationship with God and the church, no other reason (also the reason why I would not get married in a church - why start marriage with a lie?).

[Virgil]

I have nothing against being religious or anything of the sort. However I do believe it should a be a conscious decision. What do you think?




Ps. I know this thread will likely be canceled before anyone posts, but if by some miracle it's not, please be polite and don't start insulting each other, ok?

What a silly question. Because you're their child and they have the right to bring you up anyway they wish. Children have very limited rights. You don't have the right to not go to school. You don't have the right to decide you're not going to sleep at home tonight or get a job without your parent's permission or decide you want different parents or go off and live on your own. Until you reach a certain age, and that age varies from place to place but it's roughly late teens, you are not a completely free individual. Too bad. Get over it.

[TheFifthElement]

Oh Virgil! :brickwall


What a silly question.

Can I have bells and whistles and call it the 'silly alert'? If I was Baki I'd be very upset and offended by your reply, but then I'm sure Baki can speak for herself on that point.

I don't think it's a 'silly' question at all, but a genuine one. Don't you remember what it was like being a teenager? Trying to figure out how the world works, why it works that way? Question if it should work that way? And some of your assumptions are incorrect anyway, for example:

Because you're their child and they have the right to bring you up anyway they wish.
Not true. I cannot treat my son like a slave. I cannot send him out to work. I cannot have sex with my son. I cannot beat my son. I have a responsibility to bring up my children in accordance with the laws of the land, which brings us on to this point:


Children have very limited rights.
Not so, children have broadly the same rights as adults, in fact in some areas they have greater rights. They don't have to earn a living. Under a certain age they are not subject to the full force of the law - for example, breach of contract, crimimal acts. They don't have to pay taxes. Adult life is limited too, it's just that after a point you learn to live with it. Does that mean that you should? Not always. If that was so then wouldn't we all still live under the rule of a monarch? Wouldn't slavery still exist? Progress comes through change. Everyone has the right to challenge the status quo, even children. We all have the responsibility to live with the consequences.


You don't have the right to not go to school.
I guess this depends on where you live. In UK if a child doesn't go to school it is the parent who gets into trouble for it, not the child. You can't actually force a child to go to school if they don't want to. It is a parental responsibility to ensure the education of their child. Children can be home schooled.


You don't have the right to decide you're not going to sleep at home tonight
Of course they do. That's why there are 14 year olds on the streets. Really there's not a great deal you can do to stop a child from leaving the home if they want to. You could try locking them in, but if the authorities found out then this could be considered child abuse. Fail to keep the child in the home and it's the parents that come under scrutiny. Parental responsibility again, not a diminuation of the child's rights.


or get a job without your parent's permission
Depends on the age of the child. When I was 14 I got a paper round without my parents permission, and neither was it required. Again, may vary depending on where you live.


or decide you want different parents or go off and live on your own.
Children can decide they want different parents. There's two ways of doing this. Accuse your parents of child abuse and get placed in a home or under custody of a different family member. Or you can 'divorce' your parents (also known as child emancipation.). One of the key points mentioned here is that a child is a person, not a sub-person. See here: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/childrens_rights



Until you reach a certain age, and that age varies from place to place but it's roughly late teens, you are not a completely free individual.

What is that age? Are you completely free Virgil? I'm certainly not.

I dunno Virgil, it seems you have an over-inflated idea of the rights of parents, and the extent of control they can assert. Truly parents are, in the eyes of the law, fairly powerless. And you learn there are two ways to deal with children - you can try and force them to do what you want but so doing you run the risk of being badged an abusive parent, or you can persuade and encourage them and run the risk that it will all come to nothing. And you don't get that crystal ball either telling you which is the right way to go. What I have learned both from my own children and from observation of others is that if you dismiss their queries, as you dismissed Baki, then they will learn the lesson well, if you don't like what someone is saying just dismiss them and do what you want to anyway, or just be compliant. But if you are willing to explore and explain and guide then they are more likely to learn to listen, explore and guide too, and I have found that they are also more likely to respect your opinion if you don't express it in absolutes. And disagree too, and think for themselves. Not bad things, really.

And I guess, as a parent, it really depends what you want for your children. I actively want my children to think for themselves, so this is how I deal with my children. Other people have different goals, different expectations. Provided parents strive to achieve their goal, their expectations, in line with the limitations set down by law (i.e without abuse), then there's no real rights or wrongs about it. It would be impossible for the law to legislate around what you can and can't make people think or believe.

[qspeechc]

If you follow a religion, you must certainly think it is the truth, and there are no other truths. It follows that you must obviously want to pass this "truth" on to your children. Not to be nasty, but because you believe it is in their best interest.

Virgil: because they can does not explain why they actually do so.

[Oniw17]

I think that parents do have the right to force their religion on their children, up to a certain age. After the child is old enough, they will think for themselves and believe what they want to. It's an inevitability. Until they re-discover the world outside of the perimeters of their parents' guidance, they will have whatever value their parents' beliefs have given them(and all religion has some value). Of course I'm talking children <10, but it's kind of hard for a parent to force any belief after that. Isn't asking this question similar to asking why parents pass their culture down to offspring?

[atiguhya padma]

If you follow a religion, you must certainly think it is the truth, and there are no other truths. It follows that you must obviously want to pass this "truth" on to your children. Not to be nasty, but because you believe it is in their best interest.

Virgil: because they can does not explain why they actually do so.

If you follow a religion of Manichean choices that determine your future welfare, and you believe that human choices are unpredictable, then it stands to reason you wouldn't produce kids in the first place, unless you are OK with creating a life that may be condemned to eternal suffering. There is no assurance that your religious indoctrination of your children will in any way protect them from the eternal suffering that you believe they may suffer from. In fact, I daresay in many cases the strong promotion of religion within families has been a major factor towards indivuals becoming atheists or agnostics.

So I fail to understand anyone who makes a claim that shoving religion down kids throats is some form of parental love. Indoctrinating kids with religion is akin to mental abuse.

[Sweets America]

Oh Fifth! :banana: First of all, may I say that my mind is still in love with yours? :blush:

Erm, ok. I loved your replies to this, whether I agree with them or not. Actually, I was thinking today that yes, we actually agree, it is just that we see things differently, or from a different angle. Actually you made a very good point in saying that we would both act towards our kids according to our own beliefs and ways of seeing things. So in a way, in raising my kids the way I described, I would do kind of the same thing as the person who raises their kids inside of religion since this person and I would have a common point: we would raise our kids the way which would seem fair to us. So it seems like I would both agree and disagree with the way the religious persons raise their kids. That's interesting. I wonder if one could raise their kid without forcing any of their own beliefs onto them? It seems impossible now.

The only thing I can say is that I see a difference between explaining different religions to our kids and involving them into our personal religion. I see more openness in the firts case? But as you said, in a way in my first reply I am in the second case here since what I said was based on my own personal way of seeing things. See what I mean? So I have a problem with my own behavior now.


But for someone who has a strong catholic faith asking them not to bring their child up catholic would be equally abhorrent

I absolutely agree with this. I remember how I used to spend so much time explaining things like this to my family during dinners. Different viewpoints. I understand. The thing is that I have sensed a change in me as years passed. I feel that I was maybe more tolerant before, I undertstood things like the one I quoted above. Now I still understand it, but there is something more in me which gets angry because this thing in me wants to put my notion of "freedom" first. You see, instead of just saying "they do this because this seems fair to them, as fair as what I do seems to me", I say "they do this because it seems fair to them, but that is not right for the other person to whom they do it and I wish they would stop doing it". You see? It bugs me, this change in me.

Now about baptism, my brother just baptised his son. My brother never goes to church, so really, that puzzled me. I discussed it with him and asked "why?" and he could not really explain. Maybe he somehow believes in the back of his mind. I don't know. But I decided not to ruin his happiness with my "it is not fair to do this to your kid!". I still don't know what to do between letting people free of their own choices and defending the one I think is the victim of these choices. That's impossible to know what to do, because whatever I do, I will step onto someone's freedom of choice. Letting my brother do what he wants makes me feel guilty because I don't help the kid, and defending the kid makes me feel guilty regarding my disrespect for my brother's choices. I have thought of this a lot and never found any solution. :bawling: :p

[Virgil]

I have nothing against being religious or anything of the sort. However I do believe it should a be a conscious decision. What do you think?




Ps. I know this thread will likely be canceled before anyone posts, but if by some miracle it's not, please be polite and don't start insulting each other, ok?


What a silly question. Because you're their child and they have the right to bring you up anyway they wish. Children have very limited rights. You don't have the right to not go to school. You don't have the right to decide you're not going to sleep at home tonight or get a job without your parent's permission or decide you want different parents or go off and live on your own. Until you reach a certain age, and that age varies from place to place but it's roughly late teens, you are not a completely free individual. Too bad. Get over it.

First, I do want to apologize to Baki. I'm sorry Baki. From your point of view it is not a silly question. Perhaps you may not understand now, but I do hope at some day you will realize parents determine the culture of a child and religion is integrated with culture. The moment I walked in the door this evening my wife chastized me for the tone I took with you. Yes it was a little harsh. ;) There is nothing wrong with a parent telling you no, you can't have it your way, (in fact I believe it's good for you for a parent to tell you no) but I am not your parent and perhaps I should have just explained. :)

[Virgil]

Second, and I hope the mods will leave my apology to Baki as it's own post and not combine it with this, I stick by the points I made in my post. I'll use Fifth's post to respond and expand.


Oh Virgil! :brickwall

:p


Can I have bells and whistles and call it the 'silly alert'? If I was Baki I'd be very upset and offended by your reply, but then I'm sure Baki can speak for herself on that point.

I don't think it's a 'silly' question at all, but a genuine one. Don't you remember what it was like being a teenager? Trying to figure out how the world works, why it works that way? Question if it should work that way?

You are right. It was not silly for Baki to ask the question. She is what 15? I do think that any adult that agrees that a parent doesn't have the right to pass on their religion on their children is silly. A child is an extension of family and religion is a family affair. And parents make the rules, at least in just about every culture (except these modern communes ;)) I know.


Not true. I cannot treat my son like a slave. I cannot send him out to work. I cannot have sex with my son. I cannot beat my son.
No you cannot treat your son as a slave or abuse him. I fully agree. But that's a strawman argument. The argument is whether a parent has a right to pass on their religion and whether a child has a right to refuse. A parent has the power to punish (not corporeal but banishing them to their room and the like) but a child has no power to punish a parent. Have you ever punished your children? Have your children ever punished you? :D


Not so, children have broadly the same rights as adults, in fact in some areas they have greater rights. They don't have to earn a living. Under a certain age they are not subject to the full force of the law - for example, breach of contract, crimimal acts. They don't have to pay taxes. Adult life is limited too, it's just that after a point you learn to live with it. Does that mean that you should? Not always. If that was so then wouldn't we all still live under the rule of a monarch? Wouldn't slavery still exist? Progress comes through change. Everyone has the right to challenge the status quo, even children. We all have the responsibility to live with the consequences.
There are special labor regulations for children because adults have dictated through laws that children should not work. Children had no say in the matter. Adults dictated and imposed every law for children.


I guess this depends on where you live. In UK if a child doesn't go to school it is the parent who gets into trouble for it, not the child. You can't actually force a child to go to school if they don't want to. It is a parental responsibility to ensure the education of their child. Children can be home schooled.
Oh that's twisting my words around. A child before the age of 16 here cannot decide he will not go to school, whether the parents agree or not. I guess a child can rebell and if he pushes it far enough he can be a delinquent. If a child is out of control, then he can be retained in a juvenile deliquency detention.


Of course they do. That's why there are 14 year olds on the streets. Really there's not a great deal you can do to stop a child from leaving the home if they want to. You could try locking them in, but if the authorities found out then this could be considered child abuse. Fail to keep the child in the home and it's the parents that come under scrutiny. Parental responsibility again, not a diminuation of the child's rights.
Because they are breaking the law. They are not allowed to be on the streets. You're confusing what's done illegally with what's allowed.


Depends on the age of the child. When I was 14 I got a paper round without my parents permission, and neither was it required. Again, may vary depending on where you live.
So did I. ;) You may have gotten it without your parent's permission, but if they had objected I bet you woud have been forced to give it up. You're confusing what's done with agreement with who actually holds legal power.


Children can decide they want different parents. There's two ways of doing this. Accuse your parents of child abuse and get placed in a home or under custody of a different family member.
Of course that's breaking the law by lying to police. There is (at least here, I don't know about Britain) no legal way for children to change parents.


Or you can 'divorce' your parents (also known as child emancipation.). One of the key points mentioned here is that a child is a person, not a sub-person. See here: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/childrens_rights
I see nothing in any of those statutes that says a child is free to do what he pleases with critical decisions. A ten year old does not have the right to decide he no longer wishes to go to school. Nor do I see anything there that a child can change his parent against the parent's wishes. There are ages established stipulating (actually imposing) at what children are allowed to drink and smoke.



What is that age? Are you completely free Virgil? I'm certainly not.
I said it depends on locale and the issue at hand. Children can decide around sixteen to drop out of school; they are not allowed to purchase or drink alcohol until 18; they are not allowed to purchase or smoke cigarettes until 21 (I think). They are not allowed to vote until 18. They are not allowed to drive until 16-ish and without an adult present until 17-ish. There are places where there are curfews for children. These are laws imposed on children whether they like it or not.


I dunno Virgil, it seems you have an over-inflated idea of the rights of parents, and the extent of control they can assert. Truly parents are, in the eyes of the law, fairly powerless. And you learn there are two ways to deal with children - you can try and force them to do what you want but so doing you run the risk of being badged an abusive parent, or you can persuade and encourage them and run the risk that it will all come to nothing. And you don't get that crystal ball either telling you which is the right way to go. What I have learned both from my own children and from observation of others is that if you dismiss their queries, as you dismissed Baki, then they will learn the lesson well, if you don't like what someone is saying just dismiss them and do what you want to anyway, or just be compliant. But if you are willing to explore and explain and guide then they are more likely to learn to listen, explore and guide too, and I have found that they are also more likely to respect your opinion if you don't express it in absolutes. And disagree too, and think for themselves. Not bad things, really.
Frankly I think you have a over inflated idea of what a child can choose against the wishes of a parent. Don't tell me you've never said NO to your children. What gave you the right to say no? A child cannot vote, and so he has no representation in a democracy. What ever laws are established to allow some freedoms to a child are determined by adults.


And I guess, as a parent, it really depends what you want for your children. I actively want my children to think for themselves, so this is how I deal with my children. Other people have different goals, different expectations. Provided parents strive to achieve their goal, their expectations, in line with the limitations set down by law (i.e without abuse), then there's no real rights or wrongs about it. It would be impossible for the law to legislate around what you can and can't make people think or believe.
I guess it depends how old your children are and what they are deciding. I maintain that a stern no establishes boundaries which will serve them well in life. I have fond memories of my stern old fashion Italian grandfather, who wasn't hesitant to swat me across the head (nonetheless I do not approve of physical punishment) when I did something wrong. He was the pillar of the family and when I look at his children and his grandchildren, they are all pretty sucessful. They don't make grandfathers like that any more. ;) I guess we've come to a society where the inmates are running the place. Where is adult leadership? It's crazy out there and getting crazier: children want to do adult things and adults want to remain children. I don't get it.

[Chava]

You're making it sound like a dictatorship on the parents premisis.

I think parenting is about your responsibility for what you have created. As a parent you impose rules and try to raise your child to live in the world today. That certainly means rules. You must give your children an understanding of how the world works, the different cultures they will encounter, and the religion belongs right there with culture.
I think children should learn about religion, but in an objective way. Teach them about what's out there and let them find what's right for them.

Bringing children up in a religion from start, "this is the truth" disqualifies all other life options, and i think it's rather contrary to the point of faith. I am an atheist, an i have no problems with other people having religions. As far as I can tell they are just as right as me. I have chosen to believe in atheism as much as they choose religion. I just wish people were given the chance to explore their personal faith themselves. When you consider it, the relations to a god, or several is a very intimate thing.

Indoctrination seems imoral to me, And religion seems all the more authentic and justifiable if people did really have to go out and seek it out for themselves because it felt right.

[Virgil]

You're making it sound like a dictatorship on the parents premisis.

Only because I’m arguing a particular narrow point and it doesn’t capture the entirety of parenting.


I think parenting is about your responsibility for what you have created. As a parent you impose rules and try to raise your child to live in the world today. That certainly means rules. You must give your children an understanding of how the world works, the different cultures they will encounter, and the religion belongs right there with culture.
I agree with everything you say there.


I think children should learn about religion, but in an objective way. Teach them about what's out there and let them find what's right for them.
Now that’s where disagree and I think it’s rooted directly in the fact that you don’t understand what religion is. Religion is more than just a theistic belief system, it’s a way of life, it’s an integral part of one’s culture. It’s like arguing that a Jewish family should leave it up to a child whether to follow Jewish dietary laws or a Muslim family whether to wear head scarves. It’s a non sequitur. That is why I say it is silly to think what you are thinking. How can a Cathloic family believe in their religion and not have their children go through babtism, first communion, and confirmation? It is silly to think that. Sorry.


Bringing children up in a religion from start, "this is the truth" disqualifies all other life options,
Hardly. Look at how many people change religion. We are talking about a family and when children grow up they are free to make whatever decisions they want.


and i think it's rather contrary to the point of faith.
I have no idea what that means.


I am an atheist, an i have no problems with other people having religions.
No I don’t believe that. You may think that, but I don't believe it. If you are against a parent teaching their children their faith, and that includes living in one’s culture, then you are against them observing their religion. At least that’s what the implications of your thought process. You think you're open minded, but frankly it's very closed in my opinion.


As far as I can tell they are just as right as me. I have chosen to believe in atheism as much as they choose religion. I just wish people were given the chance to explore their personal faith themselves. When you consider it, the relations to a god, or several is a very intimate thing.
People are given the chance to explore religions. That’s adulthood. No one is stopping an adult from choosing anything in a free country. It seems to me that if you don’t raise a child with a religious background, then you are condemning him to atheism.


Indoctrination seems imoral to me, And religion seems all the more authentic and justifiable if people did really have to go out and seek it out for themselves because it felt right.
Immoral?? I guess I’m an immoral dictator. :D No it seems to me that the lack of religion is immoral. Let’s get back to the real question: do parents have the right to raise their children in their religion? If it’s immoral to do so, I take it there is a law against it in your country? And if not, you will advocate such a law? And if others advocate the opposite, that a parent must raise a child with religion, you will accept it?

[TheFifthElement]

You know Sweets you are so unfailingly honest! That takes courage, I truly respect that :)

Anyway, I think you nailed it here:


I wonder if one could raise their kid without forcing any of their own beliefs onto them? It seems impossible now.

which is what I was thinking about too. I don't think it is possible to be in a relationship of responsibility over another person and not 'force' your own beliefs onto them. Because largely you do it unwittingly, and perhaps the word 'force' is inappropriate. Because what kasie said here really got me thinking:


If you are a true believer in your religion, you will want to share that joy with others, especially your children.

and this seems so true of so many things. That when we love something, when something brings us joy and happiness we want to share that with the people we care about. I see my son do this all the time (hence I now know a great deal about Pokemon!) and of course I do it too. I am a book lover. Is it then any surprise that my children love books too? Of course not, because at an early age I introduced them to books, I shared my love of books with them. I read to them, still read to them both every night. I take them to the book shop and I let them choose a book. I take them to the library. After story time at night they are permitted to read for a while until they are ready to sleep. So it is no wonder. In a sense I have indoctrinated them into the written word. Does that mean that they get no joy from it? It does not appear so. I then think, where does my love of books come from? An examining it I realise that my love of books comes from my father, because that was one of the things we could share together. Books and gardening. Does knowing that this love of books is rooted in a child's desire to gain affection from her father, my father, lessen my love of books? Not at all. And this will be true of religion. If you have a strong faith it will bring you joy, peace, happiness, security. It is natural to want to share those things with the people you love. Which also made me think about this:


Now about baptism, my brother just baptised his son. My brother never goes to church, so really, that puzzled me. I discussed it with him and asked "why?" and he could not really explain. Maybe he somehow believes in the back of his mind. I don't know. But I decided not to ruin his happiness with my "it is not fair to do this to your kid!". I still don't know what to do between letting people free of their own choices and defending the one I think is the victim of these choices. That's impossible to know what to do, because whatever I do, I will step onto someone's freedom of choice. Letting my brother do what he wants makes me feel guilty because I don't help the kid, and defending the kid makes me feel guilty regarding my disrespect for my brother's choices. I have thought of this a lot and never found any solution. :bawling: :p

and I think I might understand now. Having a child is a source of joy, and for many people when their child is born they want to share that joy with others, just as I shared my love of books with my children. As it stands baptism is a traditional vehicle for sharing that joy, in fact I can think of no other common vehicle for doing so. So people who are not religious baptise their children because they want others to share in their joy of the child. Perhaps in the future people who are not religious will simply have baby welcoming parties and that will become a traditional method of welcoming a child into the world and sharing that joy with others. For the moment, baptism is the way it is done and has been done for generations. I suppose thinking about it this way makes more sense to me now. Now me, I am selfish, I don't want to share my kids with anyone ;)

[Virgil]

Ah Fifth we are in agreement. Amazing!! :D:D Perhaps you said it in a nicer way ;) than I did, but we're saying the same thing and it is silly to think that a parent who believes in a religion not too pass that on to their child. It's a non sequitur. This makes perfect sense:

which is what I was thinking about too. I don't think it is possible to be in a relationship of responsibility over another person and not 'force' your own beliefs onto them. Because largely you do it unwittingly, and perhaps the word 'force' is inappropriate. Because what kasie said here really got me thinking:


Quote:
Originally Posted by kasie
If you are a true believer in your religion, you will want to share that joy with others, especially your children.
But let me add one more to that. It's not just a sharing of joy but a cultural integration as a family, for lack of a better phrase.

[TheFifthElement]

No you cannot treat your son as a slave or abuse him. I fully agree. But that's a strawman argument. The argument is whether a parent has a right to pass on their religion and whether a child has a right to refuse. A parent has the power to punish (not corporeal but banishing them to their room and the like) but a child has no power to punish a parent. Have you ever punished your children? Have your children ever punished you? :D
Well, I'll admit Virgil that I posted extreme arguments in response to your extreme position! But there was a point to it all, which I will get too, which actually I think you've made somewhere in amongst your responses.

And we agree on the point of whether the parent has the 'right' to pass on their religion to their children. I don't think you can really think of it in terms of 'right', it is more a natural instinct. We instinctively pass on our beliefs to our children whether we intend to or not.

But as to the point of punishment, you know I've been thinking about that because I can't think of any recent occasion where I have felt it warranted to punish either of my children. They are both quite well behaved, I guess I am lucky there ;) but still, I suppose it depends on how you define 'punish' really. What I try to do with my children is help them to understand that actions have consequences and so they are given choices 'if you do X then X will result' or 'if you do Y then Y will result'. And they are given chance to rethink their choices if they don't get the desired result. So, for example, at dinner time there is a rule that if they can't eat all of their dinner then they cannot have a treat afterwards on the basis that if they are full and cannot eat anymore then there is no room for chocolate either! Is this 'punishment'? I do not think so. It is a choice. They eat until they are full and then they can leave the table. If they finish all of their meal then they may have a 'treat', if they don't finish all of their meal they must be full. Of course in the interests of being fair I should not, and try not to, give them an unrealistically large meal, or foods that I know they do not like.
But this I don't see as punishment, this is a life lesson put into the context of a child's life: 'pay your bills first, and if you've money left over then you can buy the X-box'.
So I would only actively 'punish' if they acted in a way deliberately to hurt someone, i.e the sorts of things for which they would be punished in their adult life, theft, assault, etc. But in fact I have not had occasion to do this for a long time. I am lucky.

Do my children punish me? They're really good at making me feel guilty, especially if I'm in the wrong. Does that count?


There are special labor regulations for children because adults have dictated through laws that children should not work. Children had no say in the matter. Adults dictated and imposed every law for children.

Oh this is true Virgil, but equally I have had no more say in this than my children. Other adults imposed this law on both me and my children. We are in no different a position in this respect.


I guess a child can rebell and if he pushes it far enough he can be a delinquent. If a child is out of control, then he can be retained in a juvenile deliquency detention.
This is true, and this was my point, my extreme point if you will. In reality parental 'control' over a child is an illusion. A child can rebel and take that rebellion to an extreme if they so choose. The skill in parenting is not getting to that point, but force is only one of the tools available, and it's a flimsy tool at best. I have found that my strongest tools in order to retain 'control' over my children are respect, kindness and love. My children behave well, I believe, because in the main they do not want to cause me to be hurt or disappointed in them. They don't want to cause hurt or disappointment, I believe, because I treat them with love, kindness and respect. They give me that in return. Small sacrifices we make for the people we care for, I guess.

Interesting though, perhaps this is a cultural difference. Children would not be imprisoned in UK unless they have broken a law. Not going to school is not against the law, though the parents can be punished if they fail satisfy the authorities that they are addressing their child's truancy.


You're confusing what's done with agreement with who actually holds legal power.
I'm not sure I am. What I'm saying is that actually you can't stop people from doing anything. If they want to break the law they will break the law. As a parent you have limited power to stop them. The key is working with your children so that they don't want to. No one thing alone is going to work. Personally I think that setting yourself up as the 'enemy' is not the best way to go, but sometimes this is necessary. But it is better to get your kids to agree to the rules because if they've agreed to them they will follow them. That means you have to be prepared to explain, and be prepared to be challenged. All the best leaders do this.


Frankly I think you have a over inflated idea of what a child can choose against the wishes of a parent. Don't tell me you've never said NO to your children. What gave you the right to say no?

Oh of course I have said no to my children, but it is always no with a reason. If I have no reason then its a poor answer, and then it is simply me being unreasonable and I consider that to be a big failure on my part. I trust my children not to allow me to be unreasonable, just as my children trust me to set reasonable boundaries that can be explained. And they accept when the explanation is that it is things outside my control. I despise that answer 'you just can't...'. I never understood it myself as a child, so why should I expect my children to understand it either.


I maintain that a stern no establishes boundaries which will serve them well in life.

I agree to a point Virgil, though perhaps not about the 'no' part. No with explanation, I certainly agree to. Children do benefit from boundaries, but the boundaries do have to grow as the children grow. It is difficult as a parent to judge when that can happen.


It's crazy out there and getting crazier: children want to do adult things and adults want to remain children. I don't get it.

Has it ever been any different? I think it has always been this way, it's just that through the benefit of enhanced media and communications it's more apparent, that's all.

[Emil Miller]

Second, and I hope the mods will leave my apology to Baki as it's own post and not combine it with this, I stick by the points I made in my post. I'll use Fifth's post to respond and expand.


:p


You are right. It was not silly for Baki to ask the question. She is what 15? I do think that any adult that agrees that a parent doesn't have the right to pass on their religion on their children is silly. A child is an extension of family and religion is a family affair. And parents make the rules, at least in just about every culture (except these modern communes ;)) I know.


No you cannot treat your son as a slave or abuse him. I fully agree. But that's a strawman argument. The argument is whether a parent has a right to pass on their religion and whether a child has a right to refuse. A parent has the power to punish (not corporeal but banishing them to their room and the like) but a child has no power to punish a parent. Have you ever punished your children? Have your children ever punished you? :D


There are special labor regulations for children because adults have dictated through laws that children should not work. Children had no say in the matter. Adults dictated and imposed every law for children.


Oh that's twisting my words around. A child before the age of 16 here cannot decide he will not go to school, whether the parents agree or not. I guess a child can rebell and if he pushes it far enough he can be a delinquent. If a child is out of control, then he can be retained in a juvenile deliquency detention.


Because they are breaking the law. They are not allowed to be on the streets. You're confusing what's done illegally with what's allowed.


So did I. ;) You may have gotten it without your parent's permission, but if they had objected I bet you woud have been forced to give it up. You're confusing what's done with agreement with who actually holds legal power.


Of course that's breaking the law by lying to police. There is (at least here, I don't know about Britain) no legal way for children to change parents.


I see nothing in any of those statutes that says a child is free to do what he pleases with critical decisions. A ten year old does not have the right to decide he no longer wishes to go to school. Nor do I see anything there that a child can change his parent against the parent's wishes. There are ages established stipulating (actually imposing) at what children are allowed to drink and smoke.



I said it depends on locale and the issue at hand. Children can decide around sixteen to drop out of school; they are not allowed to purchase or drink alcohol until 18; they are not allowed to purchase or smoke cigarettes until 21 (I think). They are not allowed to vote until 18. They are not allowed to drive until 16-ish and without an adult present until 17-ish. There are places where there are curfews for children. These are laws imposed on children whether they like it or not.


Frankly I think you have a over inflated idea of what a child can choose against the wishes of a parent. Don't tell me you've never said NO to your children. What gave you the right to say no? A child cannot vote, and so he has no representation in a democracy. What ever laws are established to allow some freedoms to a child are determined by adults.


I guess it depends how old your children are and what they are deciding. I maintain that a stern no establishes boundaries which will serve them well in life. I have fond memories of my stern old fashion Italian grandfather, who wasn't hesitant to swat me across the head (nonetheless I do not approve of physical punishment) when I did something wrong. He was the pillar of the family and when I look at his children and his grandchildren, they are all pretty sucessful. They don't make grandfathers like that any more. ;) I guess we've come to a society where the inmates are running the place. Where is adult leadership? It's crazy out there and getting crazier: children want to do adult things and adults want to remain children. I don't get it.

I would have to disagree with you about forcing children to adopt a certain religion, but what about parents who are not religious. My parents weren't and it never came up at home. Officially I'm Church of England but that's as far as it goes. There are many people here who have a similar attitude to religion and the Anglican Church is in decline. This is not to say that they are atheist or even agnostic, they are just not particularly interested in the subject.
However, I don't buy into that 'children's rights' nonsense which is another way of saying 'let them do what they like.' and leads directly to the situation you describe as 'a society where the inmates are running the place.'
It's just another of those lunatic liberal ideas beloved by wishful thinkers but it has been going the rounds for quite some time.
About thirty years ago, I was living in Germany and I had a friend who had a boy of about six years of age and she was adamant that it was wrong to physically chastise children.
One day, we were going out somewhere and the boy didn't want to go and kept undoing the buttons on his coat. After doing them up for the third time, she suddenly lashed out shouting 'Macht nicht so ein Theatre!' ( 'Stop acting up.' ). I reminded her that one shouldn't hit children.
You should have heard what she called me.

.

[TheFifthElement]

You know Brian, maybe we're just tainted by the Church of England because this:

My parents weren't and it never came up at home. Officially I'm Church of England but that's as far as it goes. There are many people here who have a similar attitude to religion and the Anglican Church is in decline. This is not to say that they are atheist or even agnostic, they are just not particularly interested in the subject.
pretty much sums up my experience too. And I wonder, if I had been brought up Catholic, for example, would I feel very differently about religion? I don't know. I could say here what I think of the CoE but the post would probably be deleted...

[Sweets America]

Virgil? :)
I noticed that the word "silly" appears several times in your replies, when you qualify people who think differently from you, and it reminded me of someone who, a while ago, wrote a blog entry about how he didn't take kindly to be insulted and how we should be able to debate without getting condescending or such with each other. I'm not sure who wrote this, but I think you know him personally. :p His advice is worth following, I think. ;)
Serioulsy, I have been in the same boat as you about these kinds of reactions, and I know that they are not the best ones, as they do not really lead towards an opened debate. Now, everything else you said was indeed interesting, as a counter-opinion.


Religion is more than just a theistic belief system, it’s a way of life, it’s an integral part of one’s culture. It’s like arguing that a Jewish family should leave it up to a child whether to follow Jewish dietary laws or a Muslim family whether to wear head scarves.

I agree that religion is part of the person's life, but I still don't see how it would be logical for a Jewish family to raise their kids inside this religion. I think part of my trouble to understand things like this comes from the fact that I tend to deny how the world actually is in order to see it how I would like it to be according to my own personal views. I don't see things as being settled or stable, I don't know how to explain this.
Moreover, what you say about Judaism reminds me of the questions I keep asking Jer, I don't understand how people can be born inside of Judaism, as of it were not only a religion. I could never understand this, it feels the same way in my brains as the questions I had about math when I was young. :p


No I don’t believe that. You may think that, but I don't believe it. If you are against a parent teaching their children their faith, and that includes living in one’s culture, then you are against them observing their religion. At least that’s what the implications of your thought process. You think you're open minded, but frankly it's very closed in my opinion.

Sorry for replying to this, I know that was not directed to me :blush: but I think that's interesting to see things from your point of view. I see that the difference between you and me is that I see religion as something intimate whereas you see it as something which is included into a culture. Then, for you, if a parent does not teach their kids their religion, they close the door of their own culture in front of the kids. That's understandable. My viewpoint is just seen from another angle and it is not more valid than yours, it's just a different way of seeing things.


It seems to me that if you don’t raise a child with a religious background, then you are condemning him to atheism.

I don't think so, because as you said, the child who grows up can always get interested in any religion.


No it seems to me that the lack of religion is immoral.

I am not sure if you were kidding or not? :) I think that one can have morality without religion, and I also think that what religion teaches is not always moral. But then, what is the definition of moral? It seems complicated.

Fifth,


So, for example, at dinner time there is a rule that if they can't eat all of their dinner then they cannot have a treat afterwards on the basis that if they are full and cannot eat anymore then there is no room for chocolate either!

But... I swear that it often happens to me that I cannot finish my plate and still have room for the dessert! :D Sometimes you cannot eat something anymore but when your have another dish in your plate, your apetite comes back. :D
Just teasing, I see what you mean about the life lesson. :p

Your paragraph concerning your love of books was interesting. However there is still something that bugs me in the fact that parents can somehow influence the choices of their kids, I'm not sure why. I think my uneasy feeling might come from personal issues about how I try to preserve the core my self from being smothered by something else, and from my fear of this. Take the love of books, for instance, I am thinking how I got to love books in order to escape from people, family and such. That sounds different from your own experience and maybe that also explains this tendency I have to protect the self from external influence. Of course I know that is nearly impossible, but I am like this, always torn between impossible things or decisions. ;)

[PrinceMyshkin]

What a silly question. Because you're their child and they have the right to bring you up anyway they wish. Children have very limited rights. You don't have the right to not go to school. You don't have the right to decide you're not going to sleep at home tonight or get a job without your parent's permission or decide you want different parents or go off and live on your own. Until you reach a certain age, and that age varies from place to place but it's roughly late teens, you are not a completely free individual. Too bad. Get over it.

Does it follow from the above that as a child one does not have the right to think for oneself or rather to learn how to think in one's own way? Because how one thinks will inevitably determine to some extent or other what one thinks (or indeed whether one does think at all or merely parrots what is yammered at one by the loudest or most numerous of the voices around one)?

I would like to suggest that “truth” is inseparable from the way it was arrived at. Even the most materialistic, scientific truths are the products of the methodology by which they were sought, which indeed is part & parcel of Quantum Physics. So if one’s truth or theology was handed down to one by one’s parents who received it from theirs in an infinite regression, or one that begins in divine revelation, then it is part of that ‘truth’ to mould one’s children to believe in it.

In a Winnipeg newspaper there was a story about a couple who practised a form of Satanism in accordance with which they deposited their 5 or 6 year old age child for a period of time in an open grave. If that was done to them, then obviously it was part of the ‘truth’ they sought to convey to their child for her own good to do it to her, but if they arrived at that ‘truth’ by seeking and studying, then I suggest that their truth ought to have permitted the child to arrive at it - or not - in her own way in her own time.

[Emil Miller]

You know Brian, maybe we're just tainted by the Church of England because this:

pretty much sums up my experience too. And I wonder, if I had been brought up Catholic, for example, would I feel very differently about religion? I don't know. I could say here what I think of the CoE but the post would probably be deleted...

Why have you not included the rest of my post in your reply? It gives the impression that I have nothing further to say about chastising children.
I am against the idea of 'children's rights', which as far as I'm concerned, is one of the reasons for the mayhem that is leading to the breakdown of civilized society.
As Virgil said in his post, it's getting to be like an asylum where the inmates have taken over.
George Orwell, who used to be one of my favourite writers, could be silly on occasion. In one of his essays he wrote that his father was a taciturn man who was always saying 'Don't!'
As did many other fathers in those days, which is one reason why the disorder that currently plagues the western world didn't exist then.
Another example of Orwell's silliness was his statement to Malcom Muggeridge that all small shopkeepers are fascist.
As I have said, I am not in the least religious but another reason for our moral decay may well be connected to the decline of the Anglican Church; which runs contrary to your comments on it.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Why have you not included the rest of my post in your reply? It gives the impression that I have nothing further to say about chastising children.
I am against the idea of 'children's rights', which as far as I'm concerned, is one of the reasons for the mayhem that is leading to the breakdown of civilized society.
As Virgil said in his post, it's getting to be like an asylum where the inmates have taken over.
George Orwell, who used to be one of my favourite writers, could be silly on occasion. In one of his essays he wrote that his father was a taciturn man who was always saying 'Don't!'
As did many other fathers in those days, which is one reason why the disorder that currently plagues the western world didn't exist then.
Another example of Orwell's silliness was his statement to Malcom Muggeridge that all small shopkeepers are fascist.
As I have said, I am not in the least religious but another reason for our moral decay may well be connected to the decline of the Anglican Church; which runs contrary to your comments on it.

You're clearly on to a good thing in deploring children's rights, but why stop there? Why not condemn the very idea of human rights and advocate that we go back to a time when there were but two authorities, the Holy Roman Church and the Divine Right of Kings...

There was order then, and the Index, which told us what we might and might not read and a priesthood to help us think what we ought to think...

Then came that damned Magna Charta and since then it's all been down-hill!

[ShoutGrace]

It seems to me that parents not only have the right, but are also charged with the duty, of raising their children in such a way that will bring about the greatest amount of happiness and success in their lives (that is, the children’s). This includes teaching them the truths (as far as they can see) of the world. I think parents ought also to raise their children with a view towards the health of the community and society as a whole.

All kinds of things get “forced,” in the sense used most prevalently in this thread, on children. It is impossible to explain the rational justification for certain actions and beliefs to young children because they simply aren’t rational beings. I do not think it is wrong for a parent to “force” their belief that stealing is wrong on a child, or their belief that elders should be respected, or their belief that analytical philosophy is the noblest kind of human inquiry, or their belief that discrimination based on race is evil.

Without indoctrination (in its most positive sense), parents wouldn’t be parents and children would not have any guidance.

As regards religion in particular, it is another truth (in the believing parent’s mind) that ought to be communicated to their children. “Forcing” your child to eat vegetables at dinner every evening is similar in method to “forcing” your child to go to Sunday school (or to participate in a Bar Mitzvah, or whatever). You encourage (and sometimes require) your children to participate in those actions that you feel will be best in the long run for them. Sometimes these actions aren’t pleasant or enjoyable, but that seems to be the nature of tough love.

I was never required to attend any religious function, or to participate in any religious ceremonies (I come from unbelieving parents and have unbelieving immediate family). I do know that most everyone I’ve talked to who attended Catholic schools in their youth didn’t enjoy it (to say the least).

It also seems to me that when a child becomes an adult (whenever that may be), that person should hopefully be rational and reasonable enough to evaluate the evidence regarding their parent’s (and any other) faith, determine its truth or falsity, and decide whether they want that faith to play any role at all in their life. That is their right as an adult (and even, it could be said, by some lights, their epistemological obligation).



I am a book lover. Is it then any surprise that my children love books too? Of course not, because at an early age I introduced them to books, I shared my love of books with them. I read to them, still read to them both every night. I take them to the book shop and I let them choose a book. I take them to the library. After story time at night they are permitted to read for a while until they are ready to sleep. So it is no wonder. In a sense I have indoctrinated them into the written word. Does that mean that they get no joy from it? It does not appear so. I then think, where does my love of books come from? An examining it I realise that my love of books comes from my father . . . Does knowing that this love of books is rooted in a child's desire to gain affection from her father, my father, lessen my love of books? Not at all. And this will be true of religion. If you have a strong faith it will bring you joy, peace, happiness, security. It is natural to want to share those things with the people you love.



I think that the example of instilling a love of and a respect for books in children is a great one. I would most certainly attempt to do that for my children, regardless of what their initial sentiments toward reading were :D.

Apart from any of this, Fifth, it is encouraging to read about this relationship with books and reading you've established with your children. I find it noble and virtuous.




It seems to me that if you don’t raise a child with a religious background, then you are condemning him to atheism. I don't think so, because as you said, the child who grows up can always get interested in any religion.


While it is possible for a child brought up apart from a religious background to become interested in (and even devote their lives to) any religion, I think that the odds of this happening are growing longer, at least in the United States. Our popular culture, our entertainment, our news outlets, and our institutions of learning, are, for the most part, pagan. I’m not proposing any opinion or argument on whether this is a salutary phenomena or not, but I do think that the average person, having gone through public education and attended University, will more likely than not see little reason to seriously explore religious options. There isn’t any need in our society any more, and even less attraction.




Some may find this article (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_otbie-british_children.html) interesting. It has to do, I think, with some of the things Brian Bean has mentioned here.

[The Atheist]

Then came that damned Magna Charta and since then it's all been down-hill!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Great post!

[Virgil]

Holy smoke, do I make things interesting around here or what. :lol: I'll try to answer everyone, but forgive me if I miss something. Let's start with one of my favorite people around here, Fifth. ;)


Well, I'll admit Virgil that I posted extreme arguments in response to your extreme position! But there was a point to it all, which I will get too, which actually I think you've made somewhere in amongst your responses.

:D That's the spirit Fifth. We're becoming soul mates. :p


And we agree on the point of whether the parent has the 'right' to pass on their religion to their children. I don't think you can really think of it in terms of 'right', it is more a natural instinct. We instinctively pass on our beliefs to our children whether we intend to or not.
Natural is a good word here. That's why I classified the opposite notion as silly.


But as to the point of punishment, you know I've been thinking about that because I can't think of any recent occasion where I have felt it warranted to punish either of my children. They are both quite well behaved, I guess I am lucky there ;) but still, I suppose it depends on how you define 'punish' really. What I try to do with my children is help them to understand that actions have consequences and so they are given choices 'if you do X then X will result' or 'if you do Y then Y will result'. And they are given chance to rethink their choices if they don't get the desired result. So, for example, at dinner time there is a rule that if they can't eat all of their dinner then they cannot have a treat afterwards on the basis that if they are full and cannot eat anymore then there is no room for chocolate either! Is this 'punishment'? I do not think so. It is a choice. They eat until they are full and then they can leave the table. If they finish all of their meal then they may have a 'treat', if they don't finish all of their meal they must be full. Of course in the interests of being fair I should not, and try not to, give them an unrealistically large meal, or foods that I know they do not like.
But this I don't see as punishment, this is a life lesson put into the context of a child's life: 'pay your bills first, and if you've money left over then you can buy the X-box'.
I wasn't talking about parenting skills in my post, but the narrow point of a parent's right. I agree, a parent requires the carrot approach 99% of the time. One has to be friends with one's children while maintaining a leadershp role. I'm not disputing anything you say and I bet you are a super mom. :)


So I would only actively 'punish' if they acted in a way deliberately to hurt someone, i.e the sorts of things for which they would be punished in their adult life, theft, assault, etc. But in fact I have not had occasion to do this for a long time. I am lucky.
Given that I've never been a parent I don't want to sound authoritative. I agree one's punishments (if truely required and I wouldn't think they would be required often) needs to be measured.


Do my children punish me? They're really good at making me feel guilty, especially if I'm in the wrong. Does that count?
:lol:


This is true, and this was my point, my extreme point if you will. In reality parental 'control' over a child is an illusion. A child can rebel and take that rebellion to an extreme if they so choose. The skill in parenting is not getting to that point, but force is only one of the tools available, and it's a flimsy tool at best. I have found that my strongest tools in order to retain 'control' over my children are respect, kindness and love.
Agreed. You must make children feel special. I don't know if you've noticed my dealings with young people here, but I try to make young people feel special. And they are special. Everyone is special.


My children behave well, I believe, because in the main they do not want to cause me to be hurt or disappointed in them. They don't want to cause hurt or disappointment, I believe, because I treat them with love, kindness and respect. They give me that in return. Small sacrifices we make for the people we care for, I guess.
Sounds like a good family. :)


Interesting though, perhaps this is a cultural difference. Children would not be imprisoned in UK unless they have broken a law. Not going to school is not against the law, though the parents can be punished if they fail satisfy the authorities that they are addressing their child's truancy.
Oh I think it's the same here. I was considering the worst cases. I don't know what the actual recourse is for children not going to school.


I agree to a point Virgil, though perhaps not about the 'no' part. No with explanation, I certainly agree to. Children do benefit from boundaries, but the boundaries do have to grow as the children grow. It is difficult as a parent to judge when that can happen.
Oh good. I guess the difference is that I'm a wild, emotional Italian and you're a calm, reasonable Englishwoman. :D


Has it ever been any different? I think it has always been this way, it's just that through the benefit of enhanced media and communications it's more apparent, that's all.
Well, that's a different issue and you know I disagree on that.


I would have to disagree with you about forcing children to adopt a certain religion,
Well forcing is too strong a word. One isn't forcing religion onto children but it's a family activity. Are English families forcing the appreciation of football (soccer to we Americans) onto their boys? It's an activity you do together, watch together, and integrate into your culture and family life.


but what about parents who are not religious.
Well, they have the same right to raise their children in whatever way they choose. My narrow point applies to religious, non religious, and outright atheist. A parent has a right to raise their children how they see fit. To me that is a fundemental right in a free society.


My parents weren't and it never came up at home. Officially I'm Church of England but that's as far as it goes. There are many people here who have a similar attitude to religion and the Anglican Church is in decline. This is not to say that they are atheist or even agnostic, they are just not particularly interested in the subject.
That is interesting. I have been amazed at how non religious the English have become. I have wondered about it. I can't say that I have met anyone from Britain (of ourse only over the internet) that claims any religious spirit. Does that represent most Brits? Tony Blair stands as an anomaly.


However, I don't buy into that 'children's rights' nonsense which is another way of saying 'let them do what they like.' and leads directly to the situation you describe as 'a society where the inmates are running the place.'
It's just another of those lunatic liberal ideas beloved by wishful thinkers but it has been going the rounds for quite some time.
About thirty years ago, I was living in Germany and I had a friend who had a boy of about six years of age and she was adamant that it was wrong to physically chastise children.
One day, we were going out somewhere and the boy didn't want to go and kept undoing the buttons on his coat. After doing them up for the third time, she suddenly lashed out shouting 'Macht nicht so ein Theatre!' ( 'Stop acting up.' ). I reminded her that one shouldn't hit children.
You should have heard what she called me.
:lol: Yes, I didn't want to frame this in political terms, but it is definitely nonsense.


Virgil? :)
I noticed that the word "silly" appears several times in your replies, when you qualify people who think differently from you, and it reminded me of someone who, a while ago, wrote a blog entry about how he didn't take kindly to be insulted and how we should be able to debate without getting condescending or such with each other. I'm not sure who wrote this, but I think you know him personally. :p His advice is worth following, I think. ;)

Hehe, but I called the idea silly, not any person. No one here on lit net is silly. Here are the full definitions of silly:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sil·ly Audio Help /ˈsɪli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sil-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -li·er, -li·est, noun, plural -lies.
–adjective 1. weak-minded or lacking good sense; stupid or foolish: a silly writer.
2. absurd; ridiculous; irrational: a silly idea.
3. stunned; dazed: He knocked me silly.
4. Cricket. (of a fielder or the fielder's playing position) extremely close to the batsman's wicket: silly mid off.
5. Archaic. rustic; plain; homely.
6. Archaic. weak; helpless.
7. Obsolete. lowly in rank or state; humble.
–noun 8. Informal. a silly or foolish person: Don't be such a silly.

I am not calling anyone silly as in definitions number one and eight, "weak minded." Not at all. Definitions three through seven don't even remotely apply. I am using it as in definition number two, as in "absurd."


Serioulsy, I have been in the same boat as you about these kinds of reactions, and I know that they are not the best ones, as they do not really lead towards an opened debate. Now, everything else you said was indeed interesting, as a counter-opinion.
Well, I try to make things exciting, you have to give me that. ;)


I agree that religion is part of the person's life, but I still don't see how it would be logical for a Jewish family to raise their kids inside this religion.
Well, let's see how this would work. A set of Jewish parents have to follow the Jewish dietary laws while the children can't be "indoctrinated" and so they can eat pork at the table while the parents can't? You see how that is silly, or should I say absurd?


Sorry for replying to this, I know that was not directed to me :blush: but I think that's interesting to see things from your point of view. I see that the difference between you and me is that I see religion as something intimate whereas you see it as something which is included into a culture.
First don't feel sorry. We are free to comment on people's posts. Second I see it as both. It has a spiritual dmension and it also has a cultural dimension. Depending on the age, children probably can't appreciate the spiritual dimension. That's something they will grow into. But the cultural dimenesion is a family and community arrangement (I can't think of a better word but there must be).

Without getting too much into my personal theology, I believe that there is a distinct spiritual God and that all our religions are paths to arriving at God. Religions in their proper function provide a system to achieving spiritual grace. Of course individual religions are cultural constructs, but without those constructs there is no path.


Then, for you, if a parent does not teach their kids their religion, they close the door of their own culture in front of the kids. That's understandable. My viewpoint is just seen from another angle and it is not more valid than yours, it's just a different way of seeing things.
For the most part all i've been arguing is a parent's right to raise their children as they see best. I wouldn't impose my beliefs on how you should raise your children. To say that children shouldn't be raise in a particular religion because it's "indoctrination" is to not give a child any religion. What's indoctrination? Is schooling indoctrination? Well, technically I guess it would be. But I think indoctrination is the wrong word. It's an absorbtion of one's culture.


I don't think so, because as you said, the child who grows up can always get interested in any religion.
I think an adult can choose and reject. Yes, I think we do. Most will stay within their cultural bounds, but so what? That means that changing is not worth it.



I am not sure if you were kidding or not? :) I think that one can have morality without religion, and I also think that what religion teaches is not always moral. But then, what is the definition of moral? It seems complicated.
Sure I basically agree with that. What I meant was that to deny a child a path to God was immoral. I'm not saying that an atheist is immoral by definition.


Does it follow from the above that as a child one does not have the right to think for oneself or rather to learn how to think in one's own way? Because how one thinks will inevitably determine to some extent or other what one thinks (or indeed whether one does think at all or merely parrots what is yammered at one by the loudest or most numerous of the voices around one)?

When we say child we probably need to be specific as to age. Can children over ten think for themselves. Probably but in a fuzzy way. I'm not sure when ideas and beliefs get crystalized in an indiviual way but probably in their mid teens. You want to know the truth. As a late teen I was an atheist, or more accurately fluctuated between agnoticism and atheism. I bounced around between agnosticism and a vague spirituality unitl my late twenties to thirty-ish. It was at that time I reassessed and while I may not exactly believe in everything of my Roman Catholicism but enough to say I am a follower. So yes, I do believe one thinks through one's religion as an adult.


I would like to suggest that “truth” is inseparable from the way it was arrived at. Even the most materialistic, scientific truths are the products of the methodology by which they were sought, which indeed is part & parcel of Quantum Physics. So if one’s truth or theology was handed down to one by one’s parents who received it from theirs in an infinite regression, or one that begins in divine revelation, then it is part of that ‘truth’ to mould one’s children to believe in it.
First I don't find anything wrong with maintaining one's culture. Actually I find it important. Culture is a continuous stream (yes evolving and who knows where it will evolve to in the future) and to severe it is to break with one's identity and past. I don't think that's a healthy or good thing.


In a Winnipeg newspaper there was a story about a couple who practised a form of Satanism in accordance with which they deposited their 5 or 6 year old age child for a period of time in an open grave. If that was done to them, then obviously it was part of the ‘truth’ they sought to convey to their child for her own good to do it to her, but if they arrived at that ‘truth’ by seeking and studying, then I suggest that their truth ought to have permitted the child to arrive at it - or not - in her own way in her own time.
Well, that isn't a religion formed from a cultural continuum. A comunity has a way of normalizing cultural practices. It's those kinds of things that I fear come from a severing from our cultural past.


Why have you not included the rest of my post in your reply? It gives the impression that I have nothing further to say about chastising children.
I am against the idea of 'children's rights', which as far as I'm concerned, is one of the reasons for the mayhem that is leading to the breakdown of civilized society.

Brian she was only addressing a segment of your post. Your post is still there in the thread. Fifth may not be disputing what she did not include. Or only wished to pick up on a single point.


It seems to me that parents not only have the right, but are also charged with the duty, of raising their children in such a way that will bring about the greatest amount of happiness and success in their lives (that is, the children’s). This includes teaching them the truths (as far as they can see) of the world. I think parents ought also to raise their children with a view towards the health of the community and society as a whole.

All kinds of things get “forced,” in the sense used most prevalently in this thread, on children. It is impossible to explain the rational justification for certain actions and beliefs to young children because they simply aren’t rational beings. I do not think it is wrong for a parent to “force” their belief that stealing is wrong on a child, or their belief that elders should be respected, or their belief that analytical philosophy is the noblest kind of human inquiry, or their belief that discrimination based on race is evil.

Without indoctrination (in its most positive sense), parents wouldn’t be parents and children would not have any guidance.

I agree with everything you say ShoutG. However I feel force and indoctrination are incorrect words. I would use the word acclimate. The people who use the word indoctrinate cannot argue then that schooling is also brainwashing. Come on. I think we can get beyond the Pink Flyod song:


Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 (Waters) 3:56

We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

"Wrong, Do it again!"
"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you
have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"
"You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"
I mean I think we can be a little more intellectual than rock musicians. :lol:


I was never required to attend any religious function, or to participate in any religious ceremonies (I come from unbelieving parents and have unbelieving immediate family). I do know that most everyone I’ve talked to who attended Catholic schools in their youth didn’t enjoy it (to say the least).
I did not know that about you. That is interesting.

[Chava]

Well, let's see how this would work. A set of Jewish parents have to follow the Jewish dietary laws while the children can't be "indoctrinated" and so they can eat pork at the table while the parents can't? You see how that is silly, or should I say absurd?


Just out of interest;

A vegan family teaches their children it's wrong to eat meat. This is something that is just as real to them as religion. Yet, the child decides that they want to eat pork. Do the parents stop them? Are they allowed to force their child into being vegan?
If a jewish kid decides he doesn't believe in the no-pork thing, can his parents force him not to eat it? Even if he prepares these meals himself.
How is that a silly notion? I think it's quite sensible.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I wonder if this discussion might have gone in a different, less heated direction if we had questioned from the beginning the very concept of “rights” as they apply between human beings? Or between any living creatures? What right do we have, for instance, to place a leash around the neck of domesticated animals and parade them through the streets?

That ‘right’ derives from might. We exercise the right to do it because we have that power and then we argue in reverse from can do to may do to ought to do! Years ago people believed they had the right to own other people. And indeed some of those slave-owners might have argued that it was for the good of those slaves. White Christian missionaries brought their 'truth' to the “dark continent” and taught or beat the ‘truth’ into the unenlightened natives. Maybe the core truth that they were conveying was you will believe what you are told to believe. Or else!

When my daughter, Zoe, was maybe 5 she asked me if I believed in God. I answered that I did not and without a moment’s hesitation she replied: “Well, I do - and I think he takes that stars out for a walk at night.” Some 65 years later I was seated at a table with her and her 6-year old daughter, Sapphire, who asked me the same question! I answered with the foregoing anecdote whereupon Sapphire turned to her mother and said: “So you’ve changed your mind!”

I cherish the freedom of each of those girls to ask those questions and to have formed their own opinions!

[Virgil]

Just out of interest;

A vegan family teaches their children it's wrong to eat meat. This is something that is just as real to them as religion. Yet, the child decides that they want to eat pork. Do the parents stop them? Are they allowed to force their child into being vegan?
If a jewish kid decides he doesn't believe in the no-pork thing, can his parents force him not to eat it? Even if he prepares these meals himself.
How is that a silly notion? I think it's quite sensible.

If a Jewish child had been integrated into Judiism from infancy he would not decide otherwise. Notice I said integrated, not indoctrinated. If for some reason he does, then how in heaven's name is he going to pay for his own food? Who is going to buy it for him? Who is going to prepare it for him? Where is he going to live? Who pays the bills? If a vegan parent insists that their children be vegan how is anyone going to stop them? If parents don't have rights in deciding how to raise their own children then we don't have freedom. And children are not free beings until their adults. If you don't like it, try to change it. I can see it now, Presidential candidate runs on campaign to free children from their parents. I wonder how many votes he would get. :D

[PrinceMyshkin]

I hope you don't feel I'm distorting this by taking it out of context, which is not my intention, but I find this


If parents don't have rights in deciding how to raise their own children then we don't have freedom.

terrifying as the naked, unadorned quintessence of the authoritarian view of life and society, i.e. that our freedom depends on our ability or right to curtail the freedom of others!

[Virgil]

I hope you don't feel I'm distorting this by taking it out of context, which is not my intention, but I find this



terrifying as the naked, unadorned quintessence of the authoritarian view of life and society, i.e. that our freedom depends on our ability or right to curtail the freedom of others!

Oh please. So you want children to be raised wild? Becuase however much you think you're letting children be "free" you are socializing them. Look up the word socialization. Here from Wikipedia:

Also
The term socialization is used by sociologists, social psychologists and educationalists to refer to the process of learning one’s culture and how to live within it. For the individual it provides the skills and habits necessary for acting and participating within their society. For the society, inducting all individual members into its moral norms, attitudes, values, motives, social roles, language and symbols is the ‘means by which social and cultural continuity are attained’ (Clausen 1968: 5).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socializing
I also have no idea how you leap from me stating that parents have rights on how to raise their children to stating that I have an authoritarian view of life and society. A child is not capable of making decisons for himself. You may think otherwise but I know otherwise. That's why there are laws as to what children can and cannot do.

[manolia]

I believe most of the debate here is a misunderstanding...i am not sure whether Chava means what i am going to say, i can't speak for her :)
I grew up in an atheistic family (both my parents and brother). However my parents never forced me to be an atheist. I chose it for myself later on in my life. What i mean is while growing up and with most of my friends being god believers etc etc they never prevented me from going to church, receive holly communion and participate in church activities. My mother even encouraged me..for example when i wanted to read the bible she went and bought me one, when i was going through a theistic phase (excuse my expression, i can't find a better one) mainly influenced by a close friend and her family who are all devout christians they never prevented me to go to church with them etc etc. Of course my dad used to talk to me and explain to me his views but he did that gently ;)
So perhaps the whole misunderstanding comes from the word "force" in the OP. It is normal to try and pass your beliefs to your kids. And i agree with Virgil..beliefs are to a certain point integrated with culture. But what would you do if your kid refuses to go to church? Lock her/him up to their room? Use physical or verbal violence?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Oh please. So you want children to be raised wild?

I would hope that most of us can see the difference between allowing - or better still encouraging - children to think for themselves about the nature of reality, on the one hand, and permitting them to grow up "wild"?

Do you really see no difference between forbidding children to play with fire, cross the streets against the light, indulge in drugs, on the one hand and on the other forbidding them to think freely about the cosmology or the various creation myths?


I also have no idea how you leap from me stating that parents have rights on how to raise their children to stating that I have an authoritarian view of life and society.

Assuredly parents have responsibilities, but their 'rights' ultimately depend on their possession of power and their willingness to use it, in which case the basic lesson they convey to their children is might is right, which will prepare them either to bring down the equivalent of a World Trade Center or invade a sovereign nation.


A child is not capable of making decisons for himself. You may think otherwise but I know otherwise. That's why there are laws as to what children can and cannot do.

Exactly the attitude of authoritarian churches and other institutions vis a vis the "children" of whatever age under their care.

Again, strictures as to what a child may bodily ingest are inherently different from those on what he/she may or must think.

[Scheherazade]

.
Please discuss the issues, not each other.
.

[papayahed]

It's not a black and white issue, people are all different. Some kids (like adults) need to be put in a box and told what to do while others won't allow themselves to be put in the box. It's like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're going to get.

[Emil Miller]

You're clearly on to a good thing in deploring children's rights, but why stop there? Why not condemn the very idea of human rights and advocate that we go back to a time when there were but two authorities, the Holy Roman Church and the Divine Right of Kings...

There was order then, and the Index, which told us what we might and might not read and a priesthood to help us think what we ought to think...

Then came that damned Magna Charta and since then it's all been down-hill!

Your post would be more accurate if the last sentence read:

'Then came self-righteousness and since then it's all been down-hill!'

[TheFifthElement]

Your paragraph concerning your love of books was interesting. However there is still something that bugs me in the fact that parents can somehow influence the choices of their kids, I'm not sure why. I think my uneasy feeling might come from personal issues about how I try to preserve the core my self from being smothered by something else, and from my fear of this. Take the love of books, for instance, I am thinking how I got to love books in order to escape from people, family and such. That sounds different from your own experience and maybe that also explains this tendency I have to protect the self from external influence. Of course I know that is nearly impossible, but I am like this, always torn between impossible things or decisions. ;)

I understand Sweets. I think it depends on how you think about individuality. People influence us, maybe they mean to maybe they don't but they influence us all the same. Man is a social creature, none of us live in a bubble. But I think it is how we respond to those influences that makes us an individual. Take my books example. Both my children love books, but my son (who is the one that can read!) prefers factual books where I prefer fiction. We both love books, but we love them in slightly different ways. So I may have influenced him by making books important, but he has interpreted this is his own way. And maybe when he's older he'll decide that he doesn't want to read books anymore, that's his choice. But whether it was my intention or not, for the time being my son is a book reader and the probability is that this is because I have made books an important part of his life. Now maybe my father was the one who influenced me to love books, but he could only do so because a number of other individual factors were in place. It so happened that I had a great desire for my father's affection; this is likely because between my father and mother (my mother does not read) I was, in character, more similar to my father, and he worked away a lot so I didn't see him very often. So I reacted to my father's influence in a particular way. Now in my household I had one older brother and two sisters. Of these my brother enjoyed books, neither of my sisters did. But we were all subject to the same influence. But because we are individuals we reacted to that influence in very different ways.


Why have you not included the rest of my post in your reply? It gives the impression that I have nothing further to say about chastising children.
Brian I was just responding to that particular point. We probably disagree quite greatly on the point of chastisement of children. I personally do not use any form of physical chastisement, I believe it is a weak form of control, a form you use when you have nothing else left. It is something I have never had to resort to with my children, neither does this mean that they are morally deficient or out of control.


I am against the idea of 'children's rights', which as far as I'm concerned, is one of the reasons for the mayhem that is leading to the breakdown of civilized society.
As Virgil said in his post, it's getting to be like an asylum where the inmates have taken over.
Again, we disagree on this. I'd be interested to see the evidence which demonstrates a tangible 'breakdown of civilized society', and the 'moral decay' which you refer to here:

but another reason for our moral decay may well be connected to the decline of the Anglican Church;
I am not religious or immoral. Morality and religion are not, necessarily, interlinked. Religion encompasses a morality which existed prior to the Anglican church, prior to any religion which is currently in existence.


:D That's the spirit Fifth. We're becoming soul mates. :p
Yikes!



That is interesting. I have been amazed at how non religious the English have become. I have wondered about it. I can't say that I have met anyone from Britain (of ourse only over the internet) that claims any religious spirit. Does that represent most Brits? Tony Blair stands as an anomaly.
I believe the Royal family is religious being the head of the Church of England. I think it is quite difficult to respect the Church of England both because of the cause of its creation, and its seeming lack of ability to stick to its own rules. It is hard not to see CoE as being a tool for powerful humans as opposed to the voice of God on Earth, and neither does it act as the latter either...unless God's got a faulty phone line which is why they need to keep changing the rules. As the dominant religion in UK it's no wonder people turn their backs on it, but at the same time whilst many people might not be religious most are still believers. Just not in the church.


I hope you don't feel I'm distorting this by taking it out of context, which is not my intention, but I find this


If parents don't have rights in deciding how to raise their own children then we don't have freedom

terrifying as the naked, unadorned quintessence of the authoritarian view of life and society, i.e. that our freedom depends on our ability or right to curtail the freedom of others!

I think that is taking the quote out of context, and it depends how you interpret the statement. If parents don't have rights in deciding how to raise their own children who does? Are children raised by the state then? This is how I interpreted Virgil's comment.


Do you really see no difference between forbidding children to play with fire, cross the streets against the light, indulge in drugs, on the one hand and on the other forbidding them to think freely about the cosmology or the various creation myths?

But this is not comparing like with like. Are you saying children are free to play with fire, free to cross the streets against the light, free to indulge in drugs? Do you place your child in front of fire and say 'there you go, do as you wish' which is what you are arguing for in the latter part of the argument. By saying 'forbidding children to think freely about the cosmology or the various creation myths', surely then you must argue that children are allowed to think freely about fire, and traffic lights, and drugs, without any moral guidance or intervention from their parent. As parents we guide our children in the direction which we think is right. We teach them not to steal. We teach them not to injure others. If religious parents can't teach their religion to their children, can any parent teach their child a moral code at all? Can we teach them language, as this is something over which they have no control, no choice? Perhaps my children would have preferred to speak German, or Spanish?

[PrinceMyshkin]

I think that is taking the quote out of context, and it depends how you interpret the statement. If parents don't have rights in deciding how to raise their own children who does? Are children raised by the state then? This is how I interpreted Virgil's comment.

Just because one has the right to do something doesn't mean that we ought to do it. One has the perfect right to over-eat or to eat crap - but should one? One had the right once (and still does, I guess) to teach one's children that the world was flat or the universe was geocentric...


But this is not comparing like with like. Are you saying children are free to play with fire, free to cross the streets against the light, free to indulge in drugs? Do you place your child in front of fire and say 'there you go, do as you wish' which is what you are arguing for in the latter part of the argument. By saying 'forbidding children to think freely about the cosmology or the various creation myths', surely then you must argue that children are allowed to think freely about fire, and traffic lights, and drugs, without any moral guidance or intervention from their parent. As parents we guide our children in the direction which we think is right. We teach them not to steal. We teach them not to injure others. If religious parents can't teach their religion to their children, can any parent teach their child a moral code at all? Can we teach them language, as this is something over which they have no control, no choice? Perhaps my children would have preferred to speak German, or Spanish?

You misread me. I meant that while one had the responsibility to teach children NOT to play with fire, cross the streets against the light, or indulge in drugs, it is only on the say-so of some spurious authority that one might feel the responsibility to teach them this or that epistemology. There are really no two ways of thinking about the dangers of fire, drugs &., whereas there is surely more than one way to think about talking snakes, spontaneously combusting bushes, one gender created out of the rib of another gender &c.

[TheFifthElement]

You misread me. I meant that while one had the responsibility to teach children NOT to play with fire, cross the streets against the light, or indulge in drugs, it is only on the say-so of some spurious authority that one might feel the responsibility to teach them this or that epistemology. There are really no two ways of thinking about the dangers of fire, drugs &., whereas there is surely more than one way to think about talking snakes, spontaneously combusting bushes, one gender created out of the rib of another gender &c.
I guess that depends what you believe ;) One could argue that there is more than one way of thinking about fire or drugs. One is working on the assumption that death is a bad thing, but we don't know that for sure.

But you missed the point of morality. Religion is just a moral code with a name badge. And just because you bring your children up in a religious household, and you teach your child that religion, it does not mean that they cannot think about it freely or that they will embrace it in their later life. I guess it depends on whether they view the religion as something positive or not. Like morality. I may teach my son that it is 'wrong' to steal, but he may still become a thief when he's older. And it may be in circumstances in which I agree he either has no choice but to steal, or that stealing is morally correct. Or he may steal maliciously in spite of my teachings. That is his choice when he is ready to make that choice. As long as I am in a position of responsibility for him I will attempt to influence him not to make theft a part of his life. But not just because of responsibility, mainly because I love him and I believe that if you have to resort to stealing that something has gone badly wrong in your life. And I don't want to see him imprisoned, etc, etc.

Take your traffic example: you teach your kids to cross the road when the light is red, but you don't leave them to do it alone until you're sure that they are ready, by your judgement. And you might invent stories as to why not to cross the road when the light's on green, 'the green monster will eat you up' etc etc. I do that stuff with my kids all the time because it is easier for people, whether children or otherwise, to absorb and remember a story than bald facts (which is why super-memory people use mnemonics, and that's why we have fairy tales). When they are older they may or may not believe in the green monster but I bet they'll remember it. They probably cross the road when the light is on green too. Does this mean they've ignored your teaching, or have they got the message?

[Sweets America]

Wow, what a great discussion! So many things were said since the last time I checked.

Fifth, I see what you mean about the different ways to respond to influence, that's something I had not thought of. However, I thought of this idea of influence, and how I somehow want to escape from it, and I realized once again that whatever I do, I will be influenced. I mean, what I said about my interest in books that started to escape from my family, well, that was in a way influenced by my family. Not necessarily the fact that it happened with books, but at least the fact that there was something in me which wanted to escape at the time and still wants to escape (I never hid the fact that I was going to the US in order to escape...). And now I'm going to write a thesis about how Jack Kerouac was always escaping too. ;)


If religious parents can't teach their religion to their children, can any parent teach their child a moral code at all? Can we teach them language, as this is something over which they have no control, no choice? Perhaps my children would have preferred to speak German, or Spanish?

That is very true and that is what makes this debate so complicated. I have no answer, just ideas about what feels right and fair to me, but I know that it is only my view even if some voice in me tells me "but, your view really is the best one and that's all". :D
Actually this debate reminds me of the one we had about dogs, you remember? Why do we think we have the right to own animals? The solution for me finally seemed to be that we should not have dogs at all, as you said. Now with kids, I wonder. As I said, that is impossible not to influence our own kids.

Now about what Prince said, I found that it made so much sense, but that is because I recognize my own views in what he said. I think that by this:


Do you really see no difference between forbidding children to play with fire, cross the streets against the light, indulge in drugs, on the one hand and on the other forbidding them to think freely about the cosmology or the various creation myths?

Prince meant that preventing a kid from being hurt by fire is different from putting him inside of religion, because in the first case, you forbid him to do something which could be harmful to him whereas in the second case, there would be no harm for the kid if he were not raised into religion? I am not sure that's what Prince meant but that's how I understood it. In the first case, we do it for the kid, whereas in the second one, we do it for ourselves maybe.
Now of course this argument does not really work because religious parents will actually think that the child will be somehow harmed if he is not raised inside of religion, that he might lack morality or such, so that can explain why they put him inside of religion. Moreover, giving freedom to someone would also mean that we would let him/her harm themselves even if we disagreed with it.

I think Prince's idea of power is very interesting and I find it accurate here.

Virgil,


You may think otherwise but I know otherwise.

What I don't understand is why you think you know better than the others? I know that you think you do about this issue, but I am not sure why or how you arrived to this conclusion. I know for instance that my views are only my views and that I don't really know anything even if I am tempted to agree with myself. :D

What Prince said about impeding the freedom of others is at the core of the question for me. This is what I was talking about when I raised the example of my brother and his son, and how I didn't know how to react in front of the situation. Here Virgil, we don't start from the same basis, because for you, children do not have the rights I would like them to have. Freedom is important for me even concerning kids. Now of course I see what you mean when you say that parents should be free to raise their kids the way they want, that's freedom too. So that's very hard to come to a solution when we want to consider the freedom of both the parents and the kids. Of course, I should also consider the point you made about the fact that it is the parents who are paying for the bills and such. I am not sure how to respond to this, I am not sure that it gives them the right to do what they like to their children, but in the meantime, children who depend from their parents are not free, so I see what you mean.

And yes, I see what you mean about people's rights. It is just that I worry about the consequences of what people do to their kids. Now of course if I do something to impede parents from raising their kid this or that way, I will step onto their rights and that's not a solution either. There is something in me which thinks that I can stop the parents if I think the kid is abused in any way, but then, the definition of abuse will only be mine, so that does not work either. :crash:


Well, let's see how this would work. A set of Jewish parents have to follow the Jewish dietary laws while the children can't be "indoctrinated" and so they can eat pork at the table while the parents can't? You see how that is silly, or should I say absurd?

I see the problem with this, I mean, the dilemna for the parents. But in my mind, in this family, the kids should be allowed to eat pork because it is not the kids' fault if the parents are Jewish. Now if the parents do allow their kids to eat pork, maybe they do something wrong according to their religion. But again, I think that religion is something intimate and that people (kids or not)should be asked for their choice first. If I were the parents here, I would prefer feeling guilty because I let my kids do something against my religion rather than feeling guilty because I forced things onto them. That is the way I would think.


Without getting too much into my personal theology, I believe that there is a distinct spiritual God and that all our religions are paths to arriving at God. Religions in their proper function provide a system to achieving spiritual grace. Of course individual religions are cultural constructs, but without those constructs there is no path.

I think that the path can be found by oneself, through one's own spirituality, through one's own idea of what a God is and of how to be close to him/her/it.


Sure I basically agree with that. What I meant was that to deny a child a path to God was immoral. I'm not saying that an atheist is immoral by definition.

I did not say that I denied anything to the kids. I, on the contrary, defended the idea of allowing kids to start with a blank page and see by thelmselves how they want to fill it. We agree on the fact that anyone is free to decide what religion they want to follow or if they want to follow one. The difference between us is that your kid would start with the religion of his parents and then decide if he wants to follow it or not, whereas my kid would start with a blank page and would then explore all religions (all of them given the same importance, none already introduced to him in a particular way) and then decide what he wants to do with the knowledge. We want the same thing in the end but start from different bases.

Ok, that's all for now. :p I found it all very interesting, thank you all fro your replies!

[Emil Miller]

It seems to me that parents not only have the right, but are also charged with the duty, of raising their children in such a way that will bring about the greatest amount of happiness and success in their lives (that is, the children’s). This includes teaching them the truths (as far as they can see) of the world. I think parents ought also to raise their children with a view towards the health of the community and society as a whole.

All kinds of things get “forced,” in the sense used most prevalently in this thread, on children. It is impossible to explain the rational justification for certain actions and beliefs to young children because they simply aren’t rational beings. I do not think it is wrong for a parent to “force” their belief that stealing is wrong on a child, or their belief that elders should be respected, or their belief that analytical philosophy is the noblest kind of human inquiry, or their belief that discrimination based on race is evil.

Without indoctrination (in its most positive sense), parents wouldn’t be parents and children would not have any guidance.

As regards religion in particular, it is another truth (in the believing parent’s mind) that ought to be communicated to their children. “Forcing” your child to eat vegetables at dinner every evening is similar in method to “forcing” your child to go to Sunday school (or to participate in a Bar Mitzvah, or whatever). You encourage (and sometimes require) your children to participate in those actions that you feel will be best in the long run for them. Sometimes these actions aren’t pleasant or enjoyable, but that seems to be the nature of tough love.

I was never required to attend any religious function, or to participate in any religious ceremonies (I come from unbelieving parents and have unbelieving immediate family). I do know that most everyone I’ve talked to who attended Catholic schools in their youth didn’t enjoy it (to say the least).

It also seems to me that when a child becomes an adult (whenever that may be), that person should hopefully be rational and reasonable enough to evaluate the evidence regarding their parent’s (and any other) faith, determine its truth or falsity, and decide whether they want that faith to play any role at all in their life. That is their right as an adult (and even, it could be said, by some lights, their epistemological obligation).






I think that the example of instilling a love of and a respect for books in children is a great one. I would most certainly attempt to do that for my children, regardless of what their initial sentiments toward reading were :D.

Apart from any of this, Fifth, it is encouraging to read about this relationship with books and reading you've established with your children. I find it noble and virtuous.





While it is possible for a child brought up apart from a religious background to become interested in (and even devote their lives to) any religion, I think that the odds of this happening are growing longer, at least in the United States. Our popular culture, our entertainment, our news outlets, and our institutions of learning, are, for the most part, pagan. I’m not proposing any opinion or argument on whether this is a salutary phenomena or not, but I do think that the average person, having gone through public education and attended University, will more likely than not see little reason to seriously explore religious options. There isn’t any need in our society any more, and even less attraction.




Some may find this article (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_3_otbie-british_children.html) interesting. It has to do, I think, with some of the things Brian Bean has mentioned here.

It has everything to do with what I have mentioned.
Dr Dalrymple is a very observant man but what he describes is evident to even the most casual observer of British society today and for the reasons he has stated.
The most telling section of his essay is....

'I suspect, however, that the main consideration inhibiting elite criticism of MacKeown is that passing judgment would call into question the shibboleths of liberal social policy for the last 50 or 60 years - beliefs that give their proponents a strong sense of moral superiority.'

To paraphrase the most famous American revolutionary slogan:

No rights without responsibilities!


I.
Again, we disagree on this. I'd be interested to see the evidence which demonstrates a tangible 'breakdown of civilized society', and the 'moral decay' which you refer to here:

Check the link on the ShoutGrace post, it's all there.

[TheFifthElement]

I.
Again, we disagree on this. I'd be interested to see the evidence which demonstrates a tangible 'breakdown of civilized society', and the 'moral decay' which you refer to here:

Check the link on the ShoutGrace post, it's all there.

One article based on one opinion is hardly evidence of a widespread moral decline or a breakdown of civilised society. There are problems in society, certainly. Are they worsening? That isn't so easy to establish. Were the Victorians more moral than modern day Brits?

Also, please explain how this relates to child chastisement, and moral breakdown resulting from children having basic human rights? Or the decline of the Anglican church for that matter. I'm not sure the link that you think is there, is there, but without understanding how you've drawn the conclusion it is difficult to comment.

[The Atheist]

One article based on one opinion is hardly evidence of a widespread moral decline or a breakdown of civilised society. There are problems in society, certainly. Are they worsening? That isn't so easy to establish. Were the Victorians more moral than modern day Brits?

Also, please explain how this relates to child chastisement, and moral breakdown resulting from children having basic human rights? Or the decline of the Anglican church for that matter. I'm not sure the link that you think is there, is there, but without understanding how you've drawn the conclusion it is difficult to comment.

Well put.

The article in question gives itself away with this direct quote: "I think..."

Moving then onto "notoriously unstable" as a description of non-married couples.

Just another opinion.

It might highlight what lousy parents are around nowadays, but whether they're any better or worse than those of the 1950s, say - when father was often never seen by the children, unless it was to administer a birching - is entirely moot.

[Bakiryu]

I did not say that I denied anything to the kids. I, on the contrary, defended the idea of allowing kids to start with a blank page and see by thelmselves how they want to fill it. We agree on the fact that anyone is free to decide what religion they want to follow or if they want to follow one. The difference between us is that your kid would start with the religion of his parents and then decide if he wants to follow it or not, whereas my kid would start with a blank page and would then explore all religions (all of them given the same importance, none already introduced to him in a particular way) and then decide what he wants to do with the knowledge. We want the same thing in the end but start from different bases.



Your point of view it's exactly what i had in mind in the beginning. :)

[Pensive]

The difference between us is that your kid would start with the religion of his parents and then decide if he wants to follow it or not, whereas my kid would start with a blank page and would then explore all religions (all of them given the same importance, none already introduced to him in a particular way) and then decide what he wants to do with the knowledge. We want the same thing in the end but start from different bases.

Maybe that's the right way but if we get 'right' and 'wrong' out of our minds (just for the sake of Bakiryu's original question which asks 'Why do parents believe they have the right to force religion on their children?'), I think it is about something else.

In many of the places religion itself stresses upon parents to have it as their responsibility to show their kids the right path and in some place even use force when necessary. I think most of the dominant religions in the world put emphasis on parents not letting their children go astray (and for many religious people what's more deterioration for a child they are responsible for in front of their God than this child not believing in the same God!) So in a way they feel their religion gives them the right to force their religion on their children. And I think that's why they feel the need to impose it on their children.

Plus if you happen to be religious and your personal belief considers all those unbelievers to be sinners, you are bound to stop people you care for from being sinners. Like you would try to stop a friend from drugs if she/he is strongly under it? Like you would try to stop your friend from doing anything you are severely against and think would get your friend into real trouble.

Not that it is wise. Not that I like it. But I think it should be understandable....now the question 'should parents have the right to force their religion on children?' would be an interesting one...which apparently many of us seem to be discussing here.

[Virgil]

I grew up in an atheistic family (both my parents and brother). However my parents never forced me to be an atheist. I chose it for myself later on in my life. What i mean is while growing up and with most of my friends being god believers etc etc they never prevented me from going to church, receive holly communion and participate in church activities. My mother even encouraged me..for example when i wanted to read the bible she went and bought me one, when i was going through a theistic phase (excuse my expression, i can't find a better one) mainly influenced by a close friend and her family who are all devout christians they never prevented me to go to church with them etc etc. Of course my dad used to talk to me and explain to me his views but he did that gently ;)

A very interesting story Manolia. It proves wrong all those who say that people become indoctrinated and can't think for themselves as adults. All they have to do is look at all the testimonials throughout this thread at how many various thought processes and experiences led people to decide for themselves.


So perhaps the whole misunderstanding comes from the word "force" in the OP. It is normal to try and pass your beliefs to your kids. And i agree with Virgil..beliefs are to a certain point integrated with culture.
Thank you. It is natural and a right. I don't believe I used the word force. I even said in a number of places that the words force and indoctrination are wrong. It is acclamation and socialization.


But what would you do if your kid refuses to go to church? Lock her/him up to their room? Use physical or verbal violence?
I have not been arguing what I would do. I have been arguing what a parent has a right to do. All these people who call me authoritarian or dictator can't get that through their skull. I don't know how else to say it. But a parent has a right, whether as natural law or codified law, to raise their children as they see fit, as long as abuse is not going on. If a child refuses or rebells then it is up to the family to resolve it as best it can. If it means that much to a parent then they can disown thier child, refuse to pay for college, not pass on inheritance, even not give them any sort of luxuries. It will make for a miserable family but this been known to happen. Heck, a parent could even put up a child for adoption or in a orphanage. Is there a law that the parents must raise them? Frankly if a child respects his parents, he ought to accomodate them until he is an adult.


I would hope that most of us can see the difference between allowing - or better still encouraging - children to think for themselves about the nature of reality, on the one hand, and permitting them to grow up "wild"?

How many times must I tell you I have been arguing what a parent has a right, not what shoud be done or what I would do. Can you understand that? Do I need an interpreter?


Do you really see no difference between forbidding children to play with fire, cross the streets against the light, indulge in drugs, on the one hand and on the other forbidding them to think freely about the cosmology or the various creation myths?
This continues to show you have a fundemental lack of understanding as to religion. To people who believe it is not a cosmology or a myth, it is reality. To them the lack of religion is as serious as crossing the dstreet or indulging in drugs. Other atheists seem to understand it but you, and frankly it's because you are not just an atheist but you harbor prejudices and hatred to people who believe. I've seen it in several places.


Assuredly parents have responsibilities, but their 'rights' ultimately depend on their possession of power and their willingness to use it,
What nonesense. Law is the allocation of power. Go break a law and see if you can defy the power to bring you to justice. There are laws delineating authority to parents, like it or not. As to the rest of your political diatribe in that paragraph it doesn't even deserve a response.


Exactly the attitude of authoritarian churches and other institutions vis a vis the "children" of whatever age under their care.

Again, strictures as to what a child may bodily ingest are inherently different from those on what he/she may or must think.
This nonsense would apply to all schooling. Are you against schooling?


Yikes!

:D Relax, I'm sure we'll disagree on something else in the future. ;)


I believe the Royal family is religious being the head of the Church of England. I think it is quite difficult to respect the Church of England both because of the cause of its creation, and its seeming lack of ability to stick to its own rules. It is hard not to see CoE as being a tool for powerful humans as opposed to the voice of God on Earth, and neither does it act as the latter either...unless God's got a faulty phone line which is why they need to keep changing the rules. As the dominant religion in UK it's no wonder people turn their backs on it, but at the same time whilst many people might not be religious most are still believers. Just not in the church.
Funny I've never heard the Royal family make a religious statement ever. But I don't exactly listen to what they say. I don't know what is wrong as you say with the CoE but all churches have their problems. Churches are run by humans and all humans have failings.


I think that is taking the quote out of context, and it depends how you interpret the statement. If parents don't have rights in deciding how to raise their own children who does? Are children raised by the state then? This is how I interpreted Virgil's comment.
That's correct, but I think Prince and the others would argue that the child itself should have the acumen to decide for themselves. As if a ten year old can do so. There's a reason why they dont teach calculus to first graders.



What I don't understand is why you think you know better than the others? I know that you think you do about this issue, but I am not sure why or how you arrived to this conclusion.
Here's the full quote:

A child is not capable of making decisons for himself. You may think otherwise but I know otherwise. That's why there are laws as to what children can and cannot do.
Do you really believe that a child has the acumen, the knowledge, the experience to make such decisions on their own? Do you think that they will understand theology and history and science and culture and all that goes into the complex understanding that constitutes a world view? If you believe that then why do children even need to go to school? I know better because it is as plain as day that a child does not have the capability to make such decisons.


What Prince said about impeding the freedom of others is at the core of the question for me.
And I have said a child is not free. A child cannot decide to drop out of school, cannot buy cigarettes, cannot buy liquor. Unless of course the laws are different by you.


This is what I was talking about when I raised the example of my brother and his son, and how I didn't know how to react in front of the situation. Here Virgil, we don't start from the same basis, because for you, children do not have the rights I would like them to have. Freedom is important for me even concerning kids. Now of course I see what you mean when you say that parents should be free to raise their kids the way they want, that's freedom too. So that's very hard to come to a solution when we want to consider the freedom of both the parents and the kids. Of course, I should also consider the point you made about the fact that it is the parents who are paying for the bills and such. I am not sure how to respond to this, I am not sure that it gives them the right to do what they like to their children, but in the meantime, children who depend from their parents are not free, so I see what you mean.
All children depend on their parents. They don't have jobs, they don't own houses. They don't buy groceries.


And yes, I see what you mean about people's rights. It is just that I worry about the consequences of what people do to their kids. Now of course if I do something to impede parents from raising their kid this or that way, I will step onto their rights and that's not a solution either. There is something in me which thinks that I can stop the parents if I think the kid is abused in any way, but then, the definition of abuse will only be mine, so that does not work either. :crash:
I am in no way advocating abuse. In fact I go so far against child abuse in that I am against abortion. Abortion is the real dicatatorship against children.



Well, let's see how this would work. A set of Jewish parents have to follow the Jewish dietary laws while the children can't be "indoctrinated" and so they can eat pork at the table while the parents can't? You see how that is silly, or should I say absurd?
I see the problem with this, I mean, the dilemna for the parents. But in my mind, in this family, the kids should be allowed to eat pork because it is not the kids' fault if the parents are Jewish. Now if the parents do allow their kids to eat pork, maybe they do something wrong according to their religion. But again, I think that religion is something intimate and that people (kids or not)should be asked for their choice first. If I were the parents here, I would prefer feeling guilty because I let my kids do something against my religion rather than feeling guilty because I forced things onto them. That is the way I would think.
And let your kids sin against God. That's what eating pork means to a Jewish person and to an Islamic person as well. It's not just a decision. There is meaning behind it. A Jewish parent could never let their children do that. And that's just one example of a series of things that constitute a way of life. Have you met or dealt with an orthodox Jewish person? Perhaps I'm spoiled but living in New York I meet and deal with every ethnicity. Here's a picture of the clothing of orthodox jews:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2006/09/07/orthodox_jews_203_203x152.jpg


I think that the path can be found by oneself, through one's own spirituality, through one's own idea of what a God is and of how to be close to him/her/it.
That is possible for some, I grant you. But I think it's not that many unfortunately. But why is it wrong for a parent to pass on thier culture? Even if we remove religion out of this debate, parents have a right to raise their children as Englishmen or Frenchmen or Italian or American. If my mother passed onto me the love of veal parmagian, isn't that the same thing as passing on one's religious rituals? To deny an Italian parent from passing on Italian culture to their children is to destroy Italian culture. If a parent does not pass on to their children their religious heritage than you have destroyed that heritage.


I did not say that I denied anything to the kids. I, on the contrary, defended the idea of allowing kids to start with a blank page and see by thelmselves how they want to fill it.
And how are they supposed to fill it? Who is going to teach them? Are they going to learn every single religion in the world and then they choose?


We agree on the fact that anyone is free to decide what religion they want to follow or if they want to follow one. The difference between us is that your kid would start with the religion of his parents and then decide if he wants to follow it or not, whereas my kid would start with a blank page and would then explore all religions (all of them given the same importance, none already introduced to him in a particular way) and then decide what he wants to do with the knowledge. We want the same thing in the end but start from different bases.
First I find it unworkable. Second if a parent feels their religion is the right one then obviously they will pass it onto their children. Any thinking person will develop their own ideas on this over time. You seem to be afraid that the children will be warped or something. They will grow up and think for themselves. Look at how many people here have found religion or lack of it in their own way, despite their upbringing. By the way does that mean you're not an atheist? You know Kerouac wasn't an atheits. ;)


Ok, that's all for now. :p I found it all very interesting, thank you all fro your replies!
See we didn't get mad at each other. :)

[motherhubbard]

We can’t even post on this forum without trying to influence others of our position, how could we raise children without trying to influence? Like Sweets points out religion is very intimate. Religion is part of our fundamental selves. Parenthood is so serious and the responsibility is so tremendous. A parent is responsible for raising their children to be self-sufficient, compassionate, well adjusted, responsible… the list of qualities is endless, absolutely endless. Add to that the immense responsibility to educate and equip them with the knowledge of God’s grace and it’s a mighty job. I think that parents have to just do the best they can do and we can’t ask more of them than that. It is true that sometimes a parent’s best is not good enough, but what else can be done? If you are a devout believer then you are obligated to instruct your children. Sweets is also a perfect example because she is not particularly religious but she is a devout believer in freedom and she would want to instill this in her children.

Parents have an obligation to pass along their beliefs and to do their best to shape and mold their children. We offer guidance and instruction in everything. Choice is very important, but it is allowed only when the child is mature enough to deal with that choice. A toddler can’t be expected to choose between junk food and nutritious meals, an elementary student can’t be left to choose their own bedtime, a high school student can’t be the one who chooses if they come home each night. Allowing these choices is akin to neglect.

When parents are teaching their children to brush their teeth, look before crossing, to manage their money, time, friends, bodies and so on they must also teach their children critical thought. I think that critical thought is really lacking in our youth and that is much to the demise of the nation. While critical thought is significant in many areas it applies to religion. If a religion is valid it will stand up to critical thought and though examination.

I think parents are obligated to pass on their beliefs, but they also need to teach critical thought.

[Emil Miller]

One article based on one opinion is hardly evidence of a widespread moral decline or a breakdown of civilised society. There are problems in society, certainly. Are they worsening? That isn't so easy to establish. Were the Victorians more moral than modern day Brits?

Also, please explain how this relates to child chastisement, and moral breakdown resulting from children having basic human rights? Or the decline of the Anglican church for that matter. I'm not sure the link that you think is there, is there, but without understanding how you've drawn the conclusion it is difficult to comment.

From my observations, Dr Dalrymple's opininion is held by many people and it
is quite easy to verify that the situation he describes is worsening. One has only to compare the size of the prison population and the number of murders
that occur nowadays with those prior to the period he mentions in his article
i.e. 50 - 60 years.
I dont know if the Victorians were more moral than modern day Brits but I suspect that they were. They appear to have been more disciplined, and it is indiscipline that makes people think they can do as they like at the expense of others; hence the horrifying examples mentioned by Dalrymple in his article.
In an earlier post on this issue, I said that our moral decay MAY have something to do with the decline of the Anglican church---not that it did.
And if children are to have ' rights ', I would suggest that they are taught their responsibilties first; either within a religious framework or otherwise, because irresponsibility is another reason for the 'problems' that you have admitted to.

[The Atheist]

From my observations, Dr Dalrymple's opininion is held by many people and it
is quite easy to verify that the situation he describes is worsening. One has only to compare the size of the prison population and the number of murders
that occur nowadays with those prior to the period he mentions in his article
i.e. 50 - 60 years.

Have you compared on a per capita basis?

My understanding of crime figures is that crime statistics showed a huge increase between 1950 and 1980 and has fallen away since then. These figures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm), which look pretty official from the Beeb, show per capita crime having fallen substantially over the past 16 years. That wouldn't really fit your scenario.

[manolia]

A very interesting story Manolia. It proves wrong all those who say that people become indoctrinated and can't think for themselves as adults. All they have to do is look at all the testimonials throughout this thread at how many various thought processes and experiences led people to decide for themselves.

That's a side note:
Hehe you may find greek atheists as a very interesting speciment ;) Because greek families (like italian families ;)) are big so this means that we have many close relations that are god believers (my grand parents for example) so you may find my family participating in many christian orthodox activities..i mean weddings (even atheists here in greece have a christian marriage), funerals, baptisms, going to church during easter or Christmas..vheissu meantioned this earlier in this thread..christian orthodox tradition is so strongly integrated with the greek culture that if you deny that, you are going to miss a huge portion of our tradition.. And if you have a close look to every greek orthodox ceremony (funerals, weddings, baptisms, how we celebrate easter, christmas, what we eat during these periods, what we sing, all the festivities that take place) etc you'll find so many elements from the ancient greece which actually makes it even more interesting and worth preserving.



Thank you. It is natural and a right. I don't believe I used the word force. I even said in a number of places that the words force and indoctrination are wrong. It is acclamation and socialization.

No you didn't use the word..it was in the OP.



I have not been arguing what I would do. I have been arguing what a parent has a right to do. All these people who call me authoritarian or dictator can't get that through their skull. I don't know how else to say it. But a parent has a right, whether as natural law or codified law, to raise their children as they see fit, as long as abuse is not going on. If a child refuses or rebells then it is up to the family to resolve it as best it can. If it means that much to a parent then they can disown thier child, refuse to pay for college, not pass on inheritance, even not give them any sort of luxuries. It will make for a miserable family but this been known to happen. Heck, a parent could even put up a child for adoption or in a orphanage. Is there a law that the parents must raise them? Frankly if a child respects his parents, he ought to accomodate them until he is an adult.


I know you didn't and frankly i don't think you are the kind of person that would use force upon a child..i just wanted to see how you feel about it ;)

[TheFifthElement]

Have you compared on a per capita basis?

My understanding of crime figures is that crime statistics showed a huge increase between 1950 and 1980 and has fallen away since then. These figures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm), which look pretty official from the Beeb, show per capita crime having fallen substantially over the past 16 years. That wouldn't really fit your scenario.

Yes, that was one of the things I was thinking too. Since 1900 the UK population has grown significantly (from 35m to 59m) and in line with that you would expect a proportional increase in the prison population.

Plus there is media intrusion to every minutae of every day life, so the picture we're presented with via the news, newspapers, internet etc is generally a bleak one. Because if it's not bleak it's not news right? Like the Fiona MacKeown case. Probably in the 1950's most people wouldn't have heard about it.
This is also an interesting report from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4338998.stm note the section about the surge in prison populations occurring after cases which have had a high profile in the media. Trial by media is so common now, and another reason why I disagree with the earlier report - there is a point which refers to British 'non-judgementalism' which I have never experienced. All you have to do is read The Sun, or The Star to be reminded how judgemental British culture is. Take a look at this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/ 'shock figures' 'mean traffic wardens', etc, etc. And this is the picture our kids are presented with every day, the reason why parents are scared to let their kids out of the house. Nothing is positive. Even kids who do well, the ones getting A* in their exam results get put down. They can't be bright can they, it must be something wrong with the exams.


I dont know if the Victorians were more moral than modern day Brits but I suspect that they were. They appear to have been more disciplined, and it is indiscipline that makes people think they can do as they like at the expense of others
Like colonising other sovereign nations? The Victorians were really good at that; wouldn't that be a case of 'doing as they like at the expense of others'? I can understand it is easy to think that things were better/more moral in earlier times but we don't really have a true picture. The information age colours our judgement, even the BBC isn't non-judgemental anymore. Have you ever read Dickens? Dickens doesn't paint a very moral picture of the age. Imagine if Dickens was the only view we had of Victorian culture?



When parents are teaching their children to brush their teeth, look before crossing, to manage their money, time, friends, bodies and so on they must also teach their children critical thought. I think that critical thought is really lacking in our youth and that is much to the demise of the nation. While critical thought is significant in many areas it applies to religion. If a religion is valid it will stand up to critical thought and though examination.

I think parents are obligated to pass on their beliefs, but they also need to teach critical thought.
Motherhubbard, I agree. And I'd go a step further than obligated to say parents can't help but pass on their beliefs to their children. It is a natural thing to pass on what you believe, religious or otherwise. Children look to their parents for guidance, imagine if you had to say to every moral query 'I can't answer that'. And yes, critical thinking is a key skill but if you couldn't pass on your 'beliefs' you couldn't pass that on either. Very insightful post.

[Emil Miller]

Have you compared on a per capita basis?

My understanding of crime figures is that crime statistics showed a huge increase between 1950 and 1980 and has fallen away since then. These figures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm), which look pretty official from the Beeb, show per capita crime having fallen substantially over the past 16 years. That wouldn't really fit your scenario.

Your reading of the figures wouldn't fit many peoples experience of present day criminality either, but it is interesting to note that the huge increase in crime figures that you mention as having taken place between 1950 - 1980 falls neatly into the period of liberal social policy mentioned by Dalrymple in his article.


Yes, that was one of the things I was thinking too. Since 1900 the UK population has grown significantly (from 35m to 59m) and in line with that you would expect a proportional increase in the prison population.

Plus there is media intrusion to every minutae of every day life, so the picture we're presented with via the news, newspapers, internet etc is generally a bleak one. Because if it's not bleak it's not news right? Like the Fiona MacKeown case. Probably in the 1950's most people wouldn't have heard about it.
This is also an interesting report from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4338998.stm note the section about the surge in prison populations occurring after cases which have had a high profile in the media. Trial by media is so common now, and another reason why I disagree with the earlier report - there is a point which refers to British 'non-judgementalism' which I have never experienced. All you have to do is read The Sun, or The Star to be reminded how judgemental British culture is. Take a look at this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/ 'shock figures' 'mean traffic wardens', etc, etc. And this is the picture our kids are presented with every day, the reason why parents are scared to let their kids out of the house. Nothing is positive. Even kids who do well, the ones getting A* in their exam results get put down. They can't be bright can they, it must be something wrong with the exams.


Like colonising other sovereign nations? The Victorians were really good at that; wouldn't that be a case of 'doing as they like at the expense of others'? I can understand it is easy to think that things were better/more moral in earlier times but we don't really have a true picture. The information age colours our judgement, even the BBC isn't non-judgemental anymore. Have you ever read Dickens? Dickens doesn't paint a very moral picture of the age. Imagine if Dickens was the only view we had of Victorian culture?


Motherhubbard, I agree. And I'd go a step further than obligated to say parents can't help but pass on their beliefs to their children. It is a natural thing to pass on what you believe, religious or otherwise. Children look to their parents for guidance, imagine if you had to say to every moral query 'I can't answer that'. And yes, critical thinking is a key skill but if you couldn't pass on your 'beliefs' you couldn't pass that on either. Very insightful post.

The areas the Victorians colonised were not 'sovereign nations', in fact they were surveyed and the boundaries set by the colonial powers. As for doing it at others expense, it is worth bearing in mind that the legacy of colonisation i.e. infrastructure, land clearance etc. has enabled some of them to progress.
For the same reason, I happen to think that two of the best things that happened to this country were its colonisation by Rome and the Norman conquest. The legacy isn't the raison d'etre for empires but they have provided a platform on which the colonised have been able to build.
You may be right in stating that we do not have a true picture of morality in earlier times, as has been said 'the past is another country.'
Yes I have read Dickens, but then he was an avowed social reformer, which may have coloured his judgement. For some people, his really is the only view they have of Victorian culture.

[kasie]

It seems to me that all the people who object to parents bringing up their children are over looking something: in the Christian Church, in UK at any rate, there is a get-out clause (though it is written in very small print). Baptism brings a child into the Church but surely he/she does not become a full member until Confirmation? I know that is still quite young in the Roman Catholic Church but it usually takes place in the teens in CoE, doesn't it? So being baptised doesn't mean you are enrolled for life - you have to take an 'informed' decision progress in the faith. But I suppose if you have been subjected to the 'hell-fire and damnation' type of upbringing, it must take a considerable degree of courage to turn away from early influences, and I wonder if that was what brought about the air of resentment that was evident in the OP.

The Victorians were more moral? They didn't have births outside marriage? Don't ever try investigating your family tree, BB, you may have a swift shattering of illusions! It happened in the 'best regulated of families' - they just kept it behind closely drawn net curtains. Or they shut the girls away in the county lunatic asylums as being of unstable moral fabric. Or sent them to the 'charitable' magdalene homes - for life. That would be the time when it was necessary to legislate against the employment of women and children in mines, not to mention all the laws enforcing the provision of clean water, hospitals, schools, votes for all men (took a bit longer for women to get the vote in UK, at least)? The moral health of a nation isn't just measured in the number of births outside marriage - it's not even a handy rule of thumb. Morals are far more than sexual regulations.

Britain in the period 1950 - 1980 - that would be the time when we had 18 years of Conservative governments interspersed with 12 (non-consecutive) years of Labour governments? Then it was followed by 18 straight years of Conservative governments again - I wonder how all this 'liberalism' crept in?

[wilbur lim]

Noteworthy controversial issues hither.The doubt of Victorians are more moral is not authentic.Pensive's reply is inevitably outstanding,as the reply cited about nation.

[Emil Miller]

It seems to me that all the people who object to parents bringing up their children are over looking something: in the Christian Church, in UK at any rate, there is a get-out clause (though it is written in very small print). Baptism brings a child into the Church but surely he/she does not become a full member until Confirmation? I know that is still quite young in the Roman Catholic Church but it usually takes place in the teens in CoE, doesn't it? So being baptised doesn't mean you are enrolled for life - you have to take an 'informed' decision progress in the faith. But I suppose if you have been subjected to the 'hell-fire and damnation' type of upbringing, it must take a considerable degree of courage to turn away from early influences, and I wonder if that was what brought about the air of resentment that was evident in the OP.

The Victorians were more moral? They didn't have births outside marriage? Don't ever try investigating your family tree, BB, you may have a swift shattering of illusions! It happened in the 'best regulated of families' - they just kept it behind closely drawn net curtains. Or they shut the girls away in the county lunatic asylums as being of unstable moral fabric. Or sent them to the 'charitable' magdalene homes - for life. That would be the time when it was necessary to legislate against the employment of women and children in mines, not to mention all the laws enforcing the provision of clean water, hospitals, schools, votes for all men (took a bit longer for women to get the vote in UK, at least)? The moral health of a nation isn't just measured in the number of births outside marriage - it's not even a handy rule of thumb. Morals are far more than sexual regulations.

Britain in the period 1950 - 1980 - that would be the time when we had 18 years of Conservative governments interspersed with 12 (non-consecutive) years of Labour governments? Then it was followed by 18 straight years of Conservative governments again - I wonder how all this 'liberalism' crept in?

You really must read my novel Pro Bono Publico subtitled The Rise and Rise of a Very Liberal Democracy it's all there.

[Virgil]

Brian, I had started a thread on a similar subject a couple of years ago and several British people, some whom are no longer on lit net, had a discussion of the same sort you are proposing. Here is the thread: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16757. I think you and Fifth and the other Brits may find the opinions expressed there interesting, whichever side of the argument one is on. There was a term used there that I had never heard of, a "yob."

[blazeofglory]

I have nothing against being religious or anything of the sort. However I do believe it should a be a conscious decision. What do you think?

Ps. I know this thread will likely be canceled before anyone posts, but if by some miracle it's not, please be polite and don't start insulting each other, ok?

You are so humble and meek that nobody feels hurt. Then there is no question of censuring or canceling this. I really like this post for the following reasons:

First all I feel we are hooked to religions, and they were imposed on forcibly.
As a matter of fact even if we did not know we had to obey particular sets of beliefs, and I am by nature against such impositions.

We were before we could discriminate between what is good and what is bad we were told to follow sets of beliefs.

I am a Hindu by religion and of course we have a thousand and one gods, and at times one god is deemed superior to another and we are simply confused.

[PrinceMyshkin]

The term "rights" implies something that flows or ought to flow from the powerful (parents, the government) to the less powerful (children, citizens). In the other direction one might speak of "responsibilities."

[blazeofglory]

Indoctrination is what I abhor most in life. I have Abhorrence for such indoctrination leads to the birth of fanaticism. A fanatic or fundamentalist destroys everything.

Everything when it becomes extreme will give rise to kind of abomination. Today I am afraid despite the fact that we are entering into a new millennium we failed from shedding our old superstitions.

[Sweets America]

Baki, I am glad that you see what I mean. :)

Virgil :p


It proves wrong all those who say that people become indoctrinated and can't think for themselves as adults. All they have to do is look at all the testimonials throughout this thread at how many various thought processes and experiences led people to decide for themselves.

I agree with you, I think that even if one receives their parents' beliefs, they can still think for themselves afterwards, of course. But, I am still uncomfortable with the idea of just trying to pass some way of thinking onto our kids. I see why you say that it is not indoctrination, since the kid can later change his mind, he is not forced to keep believing in his parents' beliefs. So I agree on this point, but still, as I said, something bugs me.


I don't know how else to say it. But a parent has a right, whether as natural law or codified law, to raise their children as they see fit, as long as abuse is not going on.

But then it depends on your definition of abuse. Someone might say that a child who is raised inside of a certain religion, who is taught that this is the truth, is somehow abused, psychologically speaking. To me, the parents, even if they believe that their religion is the truth, should be able to distance themselves from it and to recognize that they cannot really know if that is the truth or not. I think that one can practise this kind of doublethink even if that doesn't seem to make sense according to logic.


Frankly if a child respects his parents, he ought to accomodate them until he is an adult.

What I put into question is why it would be the child who would have to respect his parents and why it would not work in reverse also.

As a side note, I think you've been a little harsh towards Prince in calling what he said nonsense. I don't always agree with you but I don't think that what you say is nonsense or silly, I understand how you can think this way. Now perhaps I am going against your freedom in telling you that you should not be judgemental, and that is another problem I clearly see. ;)


Do you really believe that a child has the acumen, the knowledge, the experience to make such decisions on their own? Do you think that they will understand theology and history and science and culture and all that goes into the complex understanding that constitutes a world view? If you believe that then why do children even need to go to school? I know better because it is as plain as day that a child does not have the capability to make such decisons.

I don't know, it has appeared to me that kids are a lot more intelligent than adults think. I remember when I was young, how adults talked in front of me, thinking that I was too young to understand...and how I actually understood... Today when I see adults talking in front of kids, or infantalizing them, I look at the kids and I see on their faces that they understand very well.

Now, another point I want to make is that, in case kids really could not think for themselves, well, to me it would not be a reason for adults to think for them. I mean that if a kid cannot understand the deep meanings of religion, why put him inside of it against his understanding instead of just waiting that he is old enough to understand and choose by himself? Do you see what I mean? You can see what I mean and still disagree with it though. :)


All children depend on their parents. They don't have jobs, they don't own houses. They don't buy groceries.

I agree. That is just not a reason to take advantage of the situation. :p


I am in no way advocating abuse. In fact I go so far against child abuse in that I am against abortion. Abortion is the real dicatatorship against children.

Oh, I never thought you advocated abuse, of course not. Now about abortion, that is a very different topic and a very complicated question, one of those which have no answer for me.


Even if we remove religion out of this debate, parents have a right to raise their children as Englishmen or Frenchmen or Italian or American. If my mother passed onto me the love of veal parmagian, isn't that the same thing as passing on one's religious rituals? To deny an Italian parent from passing on Italian culture to their children is to destroy Italian culture. If a parent does not pass on to their children their religious heritage than you have destroyed that heritage.

I understand. That was one of the weaknesses I found in my argumentation. :p Any way of raising kids always involves passing something on to them, whether I like it or not. You have a point here.


And how are they supposed to fill it? Who is going to teach them? Are they going to learn every single religion in the world and then they choose?

Yes? :blush: I mean, that is my idea. It would perhaps be impossible but to me it would be the fairest thing to do. That is the only response I can give.


First I find it unworkable.

Well, certainly it would be difficult to do in practise, but I am more comfortable with it this way.


You seem to be afraid that the children will be warped or something.

Yes. I also realize that I might be putting some of my own issues inside of this discussion. :blush:


By the way does that mean you're not an atheist? You know Kerouac wasn't an atheits.

Oh no of course not I am not an atheist. If I were, it would mean that I believe that there is no God. And I cannot believe this because who am I to know? I feel a lot more comfortable thinking that I just do not know, I chose to be in the middle between believers and non-believers.

But, why do you mention Jack here? :alien: If that is what you think, I will not reject someone because he believes in God. Jack believed in God, yes, he was a Christian and I saw in his books how he mentioned God, and I tried to reconcile myself with his way of seeing things, I tried to reconcile it with my own view of the Christian God, and it felt strange. I would really like to be able to talk to him (Jack, not God :p). There is something in which I find myself totally in accordance with him though and that is Buddhism. One of Jack's books about Buddhism wonderfully enlightened me, it was kind of like what I was hoping to hear someday. I thought that it was wonderful that someone could put words on my feelings. :)

Ok, I think that this was a very interesting debate but I am kind of repeating myself, I think, I feel that I have stated all my arguments, so I will thank you for your replies which made me think further, and I will see you again for the next debate. ;)


See we didn't get mad at each other.

:banana:

[kasie]

You really must read my novel Pro Bono Publico subtitled The Rise and Rise of a Very Liberal Democracy it's all there.

Really? Must I? And where will I find it?

[The Atheist]

All you have to do is read The Sun, or The Star to be reminded how judgemental British culture is.

Haha! The Sun!

The Sun's motto: If the facts don't fit what you want to say, make it up.

You'rer right, though - they do pander to the element which lives on their vile rubbish. I caught them in a classic case right here. (http://www.immortality.co.nz/news%20network/sun.html)


.... but it is interesting to note that the huge increase in crime figures that you mention as having taken place between 1950 - 1980 falls neatly into the period of liberal social policy mentioned by Dalrymple in his article.

Without the benefit af actual facts to back the case up, Dr D is just indulging in typical post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

The same time period is also unique in England for several other reasons, any of which may or may not be linked to the rise in crime:

The first period in England with no wars - current or expected - for about 1000 years.

Improvements in police recording.

Additional reporting of crime due.

New crimes added to the list - prior to the 1950s, several crimes of passion were not in fact crimes.

Ceasing compulsory military training.

lots more....

Aside from why "liberal democracy" should cause a climb in crime, the trouble is that society changed the most ever between 1946 and 1980 and trying to tie crime to any one factor is just daydreaming.

[Emil Miller]

Really? Must I? And where will I find it?

Yes you really must if you want an answer to the question you asked me about how Conservative governments in the UK were instrumental in perpetuating liberalism throughout the period you have mentioned.
I have seen it advertised on Amazon and similasr websites.

[Emil Miller]

Brian, I had started a thread on a similar subject a couple of years ago and several British people, some whom are no longer on lit net, had a discussion of the same sort you are proposing. Here is the thread: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16757. I think you and Fifth and the other Brits may find the opinions expressed there interesting, whichever side of the argument one is on. There was a term used there that I had never heard of, a "yob."

Thanks for the thread Virgil, it's ironic that it seems to underline the point that there has been a degradtion of things in general, for the quality of discussion is a good deal higher than the sanctimonious nit-picking that has characterised some of the current dispute. As for the word yob, I believe the etymology derives from a reversal of boy ( meaning a backward boy ).

One of the questions that was raised on the thread, concerned the frequency of sexual abuse in public. I don't know if it is more prevalent now than previously but I doubt there has been an increase. I only raise the subject here, because it highlights the hypocrisy of the law with regard to this particular offence.
Quite recently, a woman travelling to work by underground train in London, experienced the same abuse as mentioned on the thread. Some time later,
it happened again, but she kept her head and followed the man who entered the Royal Courts of Justice; England's highest judicial establishment.
After reporting the incident to the police, it transpired that the man was a High Court judge.
Due process was enacted, during which the man held up a pair of Calvin Klein pants ( underwear ) with one of those unecessarily annoying frontages that make it difficult to use and, as pictures in the press showed, had obviously been taken from the wrapper a short while before.
Needless to say, he was acquited on the ground that he couldn't have exposed himself while wearing such a garment. Two other women recognised
him from newspaper coverage of the trial and said they had also experienced the same abuse but, of course, the police were reluctant to charge him a second time.


Haha! The Sun!

The Sun's motto: If the facts don't fit what you want to say, make it up.

You'rer right, though - they do pander to the element which lives on their vile rubbish. I caught them in a classic case right here. (http://www.immortality.co.nz/news%20network/sun.html)



Without the benefit af actual facts to back the case up, Dr D is just indulging in typical post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

The same time period is also unique in England for several other reasons, any of which may or may not be linked to the rise in crime:

The first period in England with no wars - current or expected - for about 1000 years.

Improvements in police recording.

Additional reporting of crime due.

New crimes added to the list - prior to the 1950s, several crimes of passion were not in fact crimes.

Ceasing compulsory military training.

lots more....

Aside from why "liberal democracy" should cause a climb in crime, the trouble is that society changed the most ever between 1946 and 1980 and trying to tie crime to any one factor is just daydreaming.

Yes it really is annoying that the tabloid press will keep drawing peoples attention to the fact that everything in our ultra liberal rose garden isn't as pleasant as we keep telling them. Never mind, by the time they get to the sports pages they will have forgotten it.
It is amusing, however, that we can dismiss Dr Dalrymple because he doesn't
produce 'facts' and then go on to list some 'reasons' which ' may or may not' be linked to the rise in crime. Whilst omitting to mention the changes in penal reform that have had a direct bearing on the problem.

[Nightshade]

Ok first off interesting thread and I have to say Im very happy it hasnt descended into name calling and finger pointing... isnt it lovely when we have nice civilized discussions?

Now my stand on the issue is this, inevitably parents pass on their beliefs and attitudes consiously or uncoinsoley..it one of the main reasons I have such a negitive view of people of 2 different practicisng religions ( or one athesit and one practisng) marrying and having kids because I have yet to meet any child like that that wasnt seriously screwed up on way or another. Im not too keen on mixing mmasisvley differnt cultures either ( even though I am from one of those marriages) because somehow yu never quite belong anywhere.. but that another subject.
My point was this it is inevitable but its also part of a parents resposibility I guess to pass on some religious canniness, shall we call it, to their kids. I suppose in many ways Im lucky living where Ive lived and with mother with the religious backround she has we were always taught that God created all religions and how you choose to belive in him is your own private buisness, but at the same time I got a fairly solid grounding im my own religion. But Ive seen all these people since Ive been to uni, whose parents just sor of gave them the lable and then 'the freedom to choose' and they are so easily indoctrinated so completely swayed by anything they are told about what they supposedly already believe that it becomes seriously scary .. they become what I can only call scary people best avoided.

I recently was told the a story abot a boy of about 19 I think who was brought up by his 2 mothers from when he was very young as his dad apparntly took one look at the kid decided that his disability made him too much bother and scuppered off ( I am going to use the the direct words of the person telling me the story here and I might as well point out that a) this person has a very very dim view of anyone who belives in any kind of religion and b) he was tryin to show me how stupid and wrong organised religion is. so bare in mind not my view or words here dont get offended please)
Anyway long and short of it boy goes off uni fully and falls into the 'clutches of fanatical Christians' who 'brainwashed him' into going home and attacking his mom and her girlfriend because they were sinning and were going to burn in hell . blah blah blah.
Back to my point which is this maybe if he had had some kind of background understanding of religion ( dont even get me started on the nonsense they spout in RE in schools in England which is usually heavily influenced by the teachers personal beliefs - Ive heard of teachers who hold up the religions they are supposed to be teaching about without bias to ridicule) he might not have been so easily persuaded to attack his mother after all isnt honour thy father and thy mother part of the 10 commandments ?

But I do have a couple of other things to point out :

If a Jewish child had been integrated into Judiism from infancy he would not decide otherwise. Notice I said integrated, not indoctrinated. If for some reason he does, then how in heaven's name is he going to pay for his own food? Who is going to buy it for him? Who is going to prepare it for him? Where is he going to live? Who pays the bills? If a vegan parent insists that their children be vegan how is anyone going to stop them?



And let your kids sin against God. That's what eating pork means to a Jewish person and to an Islamic person as well. It's not just a decision. There is meaning behind it. A Jewish parent could never let their children do that. And that's just one example of a series of things that constitute a way of life. Have you met or dealt with an orthodox Jewish person?


Its actually alot lot more complicated then that because eventually everyone faces the fact that they cant actually control the core beliefs of another perosn no matter how much it may hurt to belive that someone you love is going to end up ( forgive the melodrama) burning in hell for all enternity. Even noah had to give up on one of his sons in the end. and that is life you give your children as much of the tools you think they will need to move foraward and live they hope to all goodness that you have done enough and I guess step back and let go.

And really integration into a religion or a culture does actually hold that much. it is so so easy to get hold of things like pork if you come from a religion that doesnt belive in eating it. There are always well meaning souls who belive that you have been 'stifled' and 'oppressed' and oh yes they everlastingly annoying favourite word ' brainwashed' into a 'ridiculous set of arbitrary beliefs' and will offer to buy you a BLT sandwich. Ive lost count of the times Ive been offered a beer or glass of wine. " we wont tell anyone" " or your secret is safe with us" or the one that really shocked me from a none practising muslim (muslim born atheist is maybe a better word) " God only sees what we let him see" and I might point out that this person grew up and lived in a place where she was fully integrated into a muslim culture and she made the choice not to be a muslim.

[The Atheist]

Yes it really is annoying that the tabloid press will keep drawing peoples attention to the fact that everything in our ultra liberal rose garden isn't as pleasant as we keep telling them. Never mind, by the time they get to the sports pages they will have forgotten it.

Actually, my point regarding tabloids was more that they cannot believed on any subject because they demonstrably make things up. Suggesting that they tell us anything about society just doesn't wash.

I find it hard to accept that UK has an "ultra-liberal" society when enacted laws have banned protests, installed surveillance cameras nationwide and where a monarchy still exists. Your labelling doesn't seem to fit the facts.


It is amusing, however, that we can dismiss Dr Dalrymple because he doesn't
produce 'facts' and then go on to list some 'reasons' which ' may or may not' be linked to the rise in crime.

Correct. Until Dr D produces some evidence to back up his assertion, it isn't worth reading, let alone accepting. I gave a few alternatives off the top of my head, any of which could be as true as Dr D's assumptions, and more likely are, since what I posted is verifiable.


Whilst omitting to mention the changes in penal reform that have had a direct bearing on the problem.

This is another unsubstantiated opinion until you show how penal reform has caused more crime. Has the recidivism rate increased markedly?

[Emil Miller]

Actually, my point regarding tabloids was more that they cannot believed on any subject because they demonstrably make things up. Suggesting that they tell us anything about society just doesn't wash.

I find it hard to accept that UK has an "ultra-liberal" society when enacted laws have banned protests, installed surveillance cameras nationwide and where a monarchy still exists. Your labelling doesn't seem to fit the facts.



Correct. Until Dr D produces some evidence to back up his assertion, it isn't worth reading, let alone accepting. I gave a few alternatives off the top of my head, any of which could be as true as Dr D's assumptions, and more likely are, since what I posted is verifiable.



This is another unsubstantiated opinion until you show how penal reform has caused more crime. Has the recidivism rate increased markedly?

Personally, I don't read the tabloids but, to my mind, there isn't a great deal of difference between their over-representation and the broadsheets' tendentious reportage when dealing with social/political matters.
However, to say that 'they cannot be believed on any subject' is merely your opinion and where is the evidence to back it up? An occasional lying piece of journalism doesn't invalidate their entire news output.
For example, if a newspaper reports, however luridly, on the current wave of youth killings that afflict the country, nobody can deny that those killings have taken place.
The reporting of such crimes does tell us something about society.

I am not aware of any laws that ban peaceful protests, and the nationwide installation of surveillance cameras is a direct consequence of the ultra - liberalism I have mentioned. If you allow criminality to flourish then we must all be watched in an attempt to prevent it.
All royalty is an anchronism in this day and age, but I stress that this is only a personal observation.
I daresay that Dr Dalrymple could produce sufficient statistical evidence to back his claims, but while figures may generally be a useful guide in ascertaining the truth, with regard to statistics, I would refer you to Benjamin Disraeli.
Penal reform is viewed by the general public as being 'soft on criminals' and they draw the obvious conclusion that leniency towards criminals causes more criminality. If that is not the case, then why not open all the prisons and let them go free to do as they please?
Nowadays, it is not uncommomn to read of criminals who have thirty or more convictions. I think that is a good indication that recidivism has increased markedly since the reforms of the penal code that have taken place since the second World War.

I now intend to draw a line under this discussion as there is nothing to be gained by pursuing it further and I have more interesting things to attend to on that part of the website that concerns itself with literature.

[The Atheist]

However, to say that 'they cannot be believed on any subject' is merely your opinion and where is the evidence to back it up? An occasional lying piece of journalism doesn't invalidate their entire news output.

Well, I'm afraid it does. Every newspaper or journo is entitled to the odd mistake, but the tabloids survive on priniting known lies. I can direct you to lots of other examples as well, so I'm quite happy to ignore anything said in them.


For example, if a newspaper reports, however luridly, on the current wave of youth killings that afflict the country, nobody can deny that those killings have taken place.

No, you're right. The fact is, however, that they are statistically insignificant and won't affect the falling rate of violent crime overall.


I am not aware of any laws that ban peaceful protests,...

London.


Penal reform is viewed by the general public as being 'soft on criminals' and they draw the obvious conclusion that leniency towards criminals causes more criminality.

Ah, so mass opinion makes it factual?

The conculsions are neither obvious nor correct.


If that is not the case, then why not open all the prisons and let them go free to do as they please?

Oddly enough, for less-serious crimes, that may be a good idea.


Nowadays, it is not uncommomn to read of criminals who have thirty or more convictions. I think that is a good indication that recidivism has increased markedly since the reforms of the penal code that have taken place since the second World War.

Yet you think that without any reference to any factual basis. What was the recidivism rate in the 1920s?

Did birching or the stocks stop recidivist offending?

(answer to that is "no", by the way)


I now intend to draw a line under this discussion as there is nothing to be gained by pursuing it further and I have more interesting things to attend to on that part of the website that concerns itself with literature.

Wise decision.

[blazeofglory]

Parents transgress the domain in doing so in imposing religions on them.

[mazHur]

Parents transgress the domain in doing so in imposing religions on them.

I may disagree with your view point. Parents are usually born with a religion and unless they change it they cannot force it on their kids especially in childhood when kids have no complete sense of the subject. However, people have been knownto shun their parent's religion when they come of age and choose for themselves:)

[blazeofglory]

Mazhur, you are partly right if not wholly. In point of fact all that happens with a child is he is busied with learning or mimicking all his parents do and he agrees to most what his parents do and in that course of interaction he keeps on internalizing all that his parents say. That is how parents condition his mind, and then he is held a captive of his parents' ideas.

[mazHur]

Mazhur, you are partly right if not wholly. In point of fact all that happens with a child is he is busied with learning or mimicking all his parents do and he agrees to most what his parents do and in that course of interaction he keeps on internalizing all that his parents say. That is how parents condition his mind, and then he is held a captive of his parents' ideas.

True but yet most of people won't like to change even after they grew up and avail the chance of independent thinking

[Virgil]

True but yet most of people won't like to change even after they grew up and avail the chance of independent thinking

I don't believe that is true. I believe that a thinking person will assess and learn and reevaluate. What you're confusing is that a person may assess that one religion may be as good as another and that one finds no reason to change.

[mazHur]

I don't believe that is true. I believe that a thinking person will assess and learn and reevaluate. What you're confusing is that a person may assess that one religion may be as good as another and that one finds no reason to change.

Oh,no. i was not referring to the issue of comparative religions. A great population of India, for example, got converted from Hinduism to Jainism and then Budhism. Again, many of them got converted to Islam, Christianity and Sikhism etc.
The dynasty of Ghengiz Khan spread to south east Asia and got converted to Islam and Christianity....Ashoka adopted Budhism after witnessing the miseries of bloody wars,,,thus there is some event which makes one change his belief and what that event or 'factor' is cannot be comprehended by children until they have grown up and are capable of choosing their own path

[blazeofglory]

Oh,no. i was not referring to the issue of comparative religions. A great population of India, for example, got converted from Hinduism to Jainism and then Budhism. Again, many of them got converted to Islam, Christianity and Sikhism etc.
The dynasty of Ghengiz Khan spread to south east Asia and got converted to Islam and Christianity....Ashoka adopted Budhism after witnessing the miseries of bloody wars,,,thus there is some event which makes one change his belief and what that event or 'factor' is cannot be comprehended by children until they have grown up and are capable of choosing their own path

Children have no religious path to follow except for the one directed by their parents.

[mazHur]

Children have no religious path to follow except for the one directed by their parents.


Let us draw an analogy between this and people studying at schools, colleges and universities. There are different subjects to study and specialize in. Until one reached a University he has no choice but to study several subjects in general,,,,,given no choice or having none! Only at advanced level of studies he chooses one specific discipline for himself/herself and achieves proficiency in it. So, a medical student pursuing medicine cannot switch over to maths or engineering or vice versa. Same seems to be the case with religion.
One cannot switch over from one to another after he has 'qualified' in one,except in exceptional cases!!

[blazeofglory]

Let us draw an analogy between this and people studying at schools, colleges and universities. There are different subjects to study and specialize in. Until one reached a University he has no choice but to study several subjects in general,,,,,given no choice or having none! Only at advanced level of studies he chooses one specific discipline for himself/herself and achieves proficiency in it. So, a medical student pursuing medicine cannot switch over to maths or engineering or vice versa. Same seems to be the case with religion.
One cannot switch over from one to another after he has 'qualified' in one,except in exceptional cases!!

You are right considerably

[wilbur lim]

This is getting more befuddling and thereby I have nothing more to cite.

[ntropyincarnate]

I think parents who force their kids to go to church or whatever (like mine did) are working against themselves. It's just gonna make the kid hate religion and their parents.