Children, Obey Your Parents
Pepe_Muffassa
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Parent's, don't belabour your children</div> This is a spin off topic from the one in the other thread,,,
The post that started it all :
QUOTE (DuoGodOfDeath @ Jun 7 2005, 07:20 PM)
Wow that child abuse by religion is so true after skipping to a part that stuck out.
QUOTE
That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children. They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics, abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
God that quote is so true. Force to go to religion class every wednesday from 3rd grade to 9th. Well not the entire year but a hefty part. Forced to go to church. Forced to become a Holy Roman Catholic. Being forced to do these things was such misery but once I got older and the brain went "WTH? Why should I believe this." I turned Atheist and that was a while ago. Now my brain is going Agnostic because playing the middle road has to be pretty safe.
Thank you for making the case for me...
Your parents (while you don't believe it) are commanded by scripture to raise their kids in a "Godly" manner. By "forcing" you to go to Catholic school, and mass, and other Catholic events they were following what they believe to be true... and that is that they are to raise their children in a Godly way.
That is the right of every parent out there - and that includes sending their kid to a faith based school of their choice.
What that article did was try to give a reason to outlaw/disband/change faith based schools into "broad based faith" schools run (or at least heavily influenced) by a government non-faith organization. To win brownie points - they labeled indoctrination of children as "child abuse by religion".
Now Duo - while I respect your decison to leave the faith of your youth (it is your right to choose) I also even more so respect your parents decison to send you to Catholic school, and to raise you as a Catholic. You are under their care (at least to age 12 - probably longer) and while they are supporting you durring those years, they have the right to "force" you to go to Catholic events.
In other words - this whole article is stupid. The guy obviously doesn't like religion (apparenly of any variety) and tries to make the claim that these parents shouldn't be allowed to train their kids in a religious way. So who is the nanny that is supposed to step in... government. And you want to talk about indoctrination??? [/qoute]
Ok - some further thoughts... First of all - I can't speak to belief systems that are harmful - a belief system that requires you to throw your 4 year old off a cliff has serious issues, and that system should be addressed.
the KKK was brought up - I tend to see them as a political movement with a religious backing. While I abhor thier actions and their position on just about everything, to deny them the right to exist is not something I would do.
As for parents and children - if you are still living at home then obey your parents. They are supplying the roof - they are feeding - obey them... even if it means sitting through a church service or two. If you don't like that faith - that's your business... going to church isn't killing you... When you pay the bills - then you can sleep in.
The post that started it all :
QUOTE (DuoGodOfDeath @ Jun 7 2005, 07:20 PM)
Wow that child abuse by religion is so true after skipping to a part that stuck out.
QUOTE
That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children. They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics, abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
God that quote is so true. Force to go to religion class every wednesday from 3rd grade to 9th. Well not the entire year but a hefty part. Forced to go to church. Forced to become a Holy Roman Catholic. Being forced to do these things was such misery but once I got older and the brain went "WTH? Why should I believe this." I turned Atheist and that was a while ago. Now my brain is going Agnostic because playing the middle road has to be pretty safe.
Thank you for making the case for me...
Your parents (while you don't believe it) are commanded by scripture to raise their kids in a "Godly" manner. By "forcing" you to go to Catholic school, and mass, and other Catholic events they were following what they believe to be true... and that is that they are to raise their children in a Godly way.
That is the right of every parent out there - and that includes sending their kid to a faith based school of their choice.
What that article did was try to give a reason to outlaw/disband/change faith based schools into "broad based faith" schools run (or at least heavily influenced) by a government non-faith organization. To win brownie points - they labeled indoctrination of children as "child abuse by religion".
Now Duo - while I respect your decison to leave the faith of your youth (it is your right to choose) I also even more so respect your parents decison to send you to Catholic school, and to raise you as a Catholic. You are under their care (at least to age 12 - probably longer) and while they are supporting you durring those years, they have the right to "force" you to go to Catholic events.
In other words - this whole article is stupid. The guy obviously doesn't like religion (apparenly of any variety) and tries to make the claim that these parents shouldn't be allowed to train their kids in a religious way. So who is the nanny that is supposed to step in... government. And you want to talk about indoctrination??? [/qoute]
Ok - some further thoughts... First of all - I can't speak to belief systems that are harmful - a belief system that requires you to throw your 4 year old off a cliff has serious issues, and that system should be addressed.
the KKK was brought up - I tend to see them as a political movement with a religious backing. While I abhor thier actions and their position on just about everything, to deny them the right to exist is not something I would do.
As for parents and children - if you are still living at home then obey your parents. They are supplying the roof - they are feeding - obey them... even if it means sitting through a church service or two. If you don't like that faith - that's your business... going to church isn't killing you... When you pay the bills - then you can sleep in.
Comments
In all honesty that is probably one of the most silly replies I have seen.
Children aquire a self-awareness at a different time then 18, usually before but not always. So instead of allowing that child to learn what it can, lets force them to do their parents bidding till such a time. That is stepping over the line right there.
What happens if a child is quite aware of what is going on when they are younger?(Say 14, or 12, what about 8?) Would that not constitute as stifiling their learning ability by forcing them to do something they know isn't true/right.
I am quite happy that I did not obey my parents beliefs/wants and still stand by it to this day. Of course, self-awareness played into that quite a bit.
I don't however think children have any obligation to believe what their parents tell them to believe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your parents (while you don't believe it) are commanded by scripture to raise their kids in a "Godly" manner. By "forcing" you to go to Catholic school, and mass, and other Catholic events they were following what they believe to be true... and that is that they are to raise their children in a Godly way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please quote the passage of the Bible that says, "Thou shalt send thy children to private schools to learn the ways of Christianity. You are not allowed to teach them religion yourself; that's what the nuns are for." You act as though there's no other way to teach Christianity to a child than through school.
Actually, putting them through Bible school would be incredibly worse than just teaching them religion in the home, because private schools 1) isolate the developing child from the vast majority of his peers in the community, including most anyone from any other background, and 2) are impersonal when it comes to answering questions of faith. The teacher wouldn't have time to sit little Billy down and explain to him why the Bible says xyz, the teacher would just say, "Don't ask questions" and continue on with his/her work (until the child was ~13 years old, I'd say).
So, even if the child would accept Christianity regardless of how he was brought up, putting one's child through a dedicated Bible school would be far worse than just letting him go to public school (ignoring the education standards, which *gasp* aren't as bad in public schools as people believe). Of course, this isn't even taking into consideration the fact that the child might want to explore other religions, and believe it or not it one's religion shouldn't be acquired because your parents chose it for you. If that kid wants to be a Christian, he'll be a Christian whether or not he learns about other religions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your parents (while you don't believe it) are commanded by scripture to raise their kids in a "Godly" manner. By "forcing" you to go to Catholic school, and mass, and other Catholic events they were following what they believe to be true... and that is that they are to raise their children in a Godly way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please quote the passage of the Bible that says, "Thou shalt send thy children to private schools to learn the ways of Christianity. You are not allowed to teach them religion yourself; that's what the nuns are for." You act as though there's no other way to teach Christianity to a child than through school.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is not a passage in the bible where it tells you to teach your children what faith to be. Hehe.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Actually, putting them through Bible school would be incredibly worse than just teaching them religion in the home, because private schools 1) isolate the developing child from the vast majority of his peers in the community, including most anyone from any other background, and 2) are impersonal when it comes to answering questions of faith. The teacher wouldn't have time to sit little Billy down and explain to him why the Bible says xyz, the teacher would just say, "Don't ask questions" and continue on with his/her work (until the child was ~13 years old, I'd say).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is quite true, although my teachers ignored me even after I was 13, then I switched to public school, which made me realize how far behind I was in worldly knowledge. That was quite sad, because I already knew more then any of my "peers" at said time.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So, even if the child would accept Christianity regardless of how he was brought up, putting one's child through a dedicated Bible school would be far worse than just letting him go to public school (ignoring the education standards, which *gasp* aren't as bad in public schools as people believe). Of course, this isn't even taking into consideration the fact that the child might want to explore other religions, and believe it or not it one's religion shouldn't be acquired because your parents chose it for you. If that kid wants to be a Christian, he'll be a Christian whether or not he learns about other religions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT. :-)
Personally, I'm an agnostic. I'll try not to influence my child on what to believe, but it's probably inevitable. If I do, I still think an agnostic position is a more fair starting point than a theistic or atheistic one.
But to what extent? Should a child blindly obey every command issued to them by their parents? Should they believe what their parents believe simply because their parents <i>tell</i> them that they must? Should a child march on unquestioningly, never stopping to think for themselves? Please be a bit more specific when making your point.
<i>Next they'll be dancing...</i>
We want to open their minds, not cut their skull open and drop a frag grenade inside.
Jee-sus.
I thought that was the point of bible schools <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Totally agree on your view of descartes too. My favourite is where he can only prove that he exists/thinks and nothing else and so quickly says "but of course, god exists and he wouldn't lie to me so everything else exists too!". What a nonce he is.
Pepe: There is nothing wrong with bringing up a child to believe in a religion but it should be a case of giving them every opportunity to see for themselves that 'God' is there for them. Putting them in a one faith school where parables are taught beside physics is more like indoctrination.
A parent is supposed to teach their child what they feel is the right way to view the world. A school is a place where children should learn that there is more than one view and, more importantly, should be a place where they can meet other people with different views and still talk to them without declaring jihads or crusades.
QFT!
Teach the kids the religions but also tell them that people doing JIHADS and saying they do anything in gods name are insulting all the religion ever stood for, then we will have far less insane people
The problem is, that one of these worldviews has to be right, matter-of-factly, at the end of the day.
Refusing to even touch them or expose kids to them only breeds problems when they do end up coming in contact with them. Religion should be taught only to the extent that kids can understand the background behind them, and the basic ideas that those people hold. Let them take their critical thinking and analysis skills to work on the material, certainly, let them question and rip it apart and find out for themselves, but don't ignore it all together.
An atheist that's never been exposed to any other ideology is as close-minded as some members of this forum think all Christians are. And, personally, a Christian who has no catagory for other religions and other people's beliefs is going to be a horrible witness for Christ. See Paul debating with the Greeks in Acts for an example of someone who knows what he is talking about.
QFT!
Teach the kids the religions but also tell them that people doing JIHADS and saying they do anything in gods name are insulting all the religion ever stood for, then we will have far less insane people <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*bangs head on table*
How about we just assume that, taught correctly, no religion would even make a child think about jihads and the like, eh? Rather than teaching children to actively avoid something...which, knowing children, would probably just pique their curiousity on the subject.
[edit]And what's wrong with doing community service in God's name?
The problem is, that one of these worldviews has to be right, matter-of-factly, at the end of the day.
Refusing to even touch them or expose kids to them only breeds problems when they do end up coming in contact with them. Religion should be taught only to the extent that kids can understand the background behind them, and the basic ideas that those people hold. Let them take their critical thinking and analysis skills to work on the material, certainly, let them question and rip it apart and find out for themselves, but don't ignore it all together.
An atheist that's never been exposed to any other ideology is as close-minded as some members of this forum think all Christians are. And, personally, a Christian who has no catagory for other religions and other people's beliefs is going to be a horrible witness for Christ. See Paul debating with the Greeks in Acts for an example of someone who knows what he is talking about. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well of course. Among the true statements that I think students should be taught are those that say, "Many people in history and many still today believe X." It seems to me that it would be most effectively taught in a history of culture course or something along those lines. There are plenty of ways to expose students to the material without ever getting into the issue of what they <i>should</i> believe. I think its a lot more effective to approach it from the standpoint of, "some people have thought X" rather than "Belief system Y states principle X."
Isn't this more realistic? I mean, thats what its like in the real world.
Sky: I don't know if your sore head is directly down to me or if it was something that Metalcat said but I am fully aware that the religions aren't about jihads and so forth. However whenever people are brought up in ignorance of another part of society there comes a fairly natural (and very human) fear/disdain of it and it's too easy to twist those feelings into a crusade. That's why children should be brought up in as mixed an environment as possible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As nice as that would be, school could never be just that and, if it were, it would fail. Too many children aren't academic enough, too many people just don't care about facts that don't directly (and when I say directly I mean obviously) affect their lives.
One of the main areas that school teaches you is how to relate to others and live in a society. It's where you first learn to talk to members of the opposite sex (or find out that you prefer the same sex <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), where you first learn to make friends and cope in a structured environment where not all the rules you have to live by are provided by the relevant authority (be it parent, teacher or religious figure).
Schools are as much about society as they are about the arts and sciences and it is important that it continue to be.
Isn't this more realistic? I mean, thats what its like in the real world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing I don't like about that approach is that you are indicating to the students that they have to make a decision about it. This is particularly a bad idea when the child is at a point of development at which their parents do not think they have the right to make their own decision about it.
When a teacher makes a statement such as, "Here are two systems and you can choose which to believe," The statement is in conflict with a parent saying, "This is what we believe, and this is what you will believe also." Whereas the statement, "This is what people have believed historically," is not in conflict with the parent's command.
When you are presenting it as a question that must be answered, you must present <i>all</i> of the viable options, or you are not giving the students enough information. I think the focus should be on allowing the student to understand the people around them rather than informing them enough about each to decide for themselves. If you are presenting it in a cultural/historical perspective, you no longer have the burden of presenting every possibility to be impartial and honest about it. Some things can simply be outside of the scope of the course.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As nice as that would be, school could never be just that and, if it were, it would fail. Too many children aren't academic enough, too many people just don't care about facts that don't directly (and when I say directly I mean obviously) affect their lives.
One of the main areas that school teaches you is how to relate to others and live in a society. It's where you first learn to talk to members of the opposite sex (or find out that you prefer the same sex tounge.gif), where you first learn to make friends and cope in a structured environment where not all the rules you have to live by are provided by the relevant authority (be it parent, teacher or religious figure).
Schools are as much about society as they are about the arts and sciences and it is important that it continue to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I certainly wasn't suggesting that socialization should be left out of school. My point was more than cultural and metaphysical debates should be presented as ways of understanding the people around you rather than as questions that you must make a decision about yourself.
Personally, I'm more of an atheist myself, ever since I reached the age of twelve. I try to live by the Buddhist principals, maybe some stuff from that Rael religion if I feel like speculating...
That's just a by-product, though. At least, you don't get examined on it...maybe if you did, we could cull some jerks before they make it into the real world.
I pretty much agree with moultano when he says:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I think school should be teaching true statements, and methodologies for obtaining and discerning true statements. Keep culture and worldviews strictly out as much as you possibly can.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When a teacher makes a statement such as, "Here are two systems and you can choose which to believe," The statement is in conflict with a parent saying, "This is what we believe, and this is what you will believe also." Whereas the statement, "This is what people have believed historically," is not in conflict with the parent's command.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, and I agree that it probably wouldn't be the best approach for younger children. I was more aiming for the teen years, or high school age.
When a teacher makes a statement such as, "Here are two systems and you can choose which to believe," The statement is in conflict with a parent saying, "This is what we believe, and this is what you will believe also." Whereas the statement, "This is what people have believed historically," is not in conflict with the parent's command.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, and I agree that it probably wouldn't be the best approach for younger children. I was more aiming for the teen years, or high school age. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That still leaves the inherent problem of limited scope vs. impartiality. If you approaching it from something other than a sociological/anthropological perspective, you really have to talk about every conceivable option. There are a <i>Lot</i> of religions. If students are being presented with these as options of what to believe, you have to include <i>everything</i>. If the material is intended to provide no more than an overview of the things people have believed, then you can be justified in sticking to the major religions/philosophies, in the same way that history classes stick to the major figures and events.
Heh, tests on not being an idiot would be nice though <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then I agree with you, I guess I just misinterpreted your post.
Snidely: My point is that learning to be part of a society isn't a by product even if it isn't written down in the curriculum itself. For a large proportion it is the only form of education they will take from school and it is arguably the most important too.
The purpose of school is to learn, not to enact social engineering. The fact that you can meet people there is just a by-product of the fact it's more cost-effective to teach stuff in a large group. If people don't take anything from it, that's their own problem. You can lead a horse to water...
And it seems to me that nowadays, with doing around 9 subjects at GCSE, there's not that much time for socialising. My little sister is in the year before GCSE, and they're getting loads of coursework already. Coursework plus homework plus exam revision plus tests equals no spare time. A-Level probably isn't much better, although my year was the last to use the old ~3 A-Level system; by now you probably have to do a zillion AS/A-levels all at once.
School is an unnatural environment, when you think about it. You're forced to associate with people your same age, when in a job, you're going to be working (and socialising) with people from all age groups and backgrounds. You can't challenge authority; in the working world, you can look for another job if your colleagues and bosses are a-holes. At school, you're stuck.
QFT!
Teach the kids the religions but also tell them that people doing JIHADS and saying they do anything in gods name are insulting all the religion ever stood for, then we will have far less insane people <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*bangs head on table*
How about we just assume that, taught correctly, no religion would even make a child think about jihads and the like, eh? Rather than teaching children to actively avoid something...which, knowing children, would probably just pique their curiousity on the subject.
[edit]And what's wrong with doing community service in God's name? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Islam does teach about jihad, and it also is in the bible, its a call to arms in islams name.
and you can teach them about it, as long as you say its stupid/idiotic/moronic
and to the edit: because next they will bomb china in gods name