Religious indoctrination of children

Of all the types of indoctrination children are subjected to, this is the worst, because of the nature of the claims made (moral and ethical), the mode of making them (absolutist authoritarian) and the resulting individual psychological damage (all kind of trauma; habituation to lying and hypocrisy) and social division (people who believe as we do and those who do not).

We wouldn't dream of relegating people who refused to believe in the force of gravity to eternal punishment--but we have no problem teaching children that the god-less end up in hell? You can fail a kid for not knowing his mitosis from his meiosis but at the same time you want him to "just believe" that the Mother of God gave birth to a "son"? Technology invites exploration, but miracles don't?

Graded readers and textbooks ensure that children aren't stretched beyond their intellectual capacity, but we leave their psyches at the mercy of whatever their parents believe, down to interior decoration with gory scenes of martyrdom, upheld as threat, example or even a fate to aspire to? Really?

So the weakest of humanity, those least capable of defense, are systematically assailed by the most horrific mental abuse precisely at the most sensitive time of their development.

Barbarism begins at home.

I will be the first to admit that when religious education goes bad, it can go very, very bad. This is true concerning education for both adults and children, but especially for children, for many of the reasons Lola pointed out in #1.

The Methodist Sunday school education I received as a child wasn't totally worthless, I suppose; I learned a lot of Bible stories, which a person in the U.S. in the early twenty-first century--or the late twentieth century, which it was at the time--really ought to know just to be culturally literate. But I was given very little instruction on how to approach the Bible as a text, what to interpret literally, how to incorporate independent historical and scientific scholarship, how to extract practical moral lessons. Maybe all that would be too much for a ten-year old. But I was left with a series of fables and "just so" stories, with no way to make sense of them.

Then when I went to my Catholic high school as a non-Christian, I learned--all without any overt attempt to reconvert me to Christianity--what the Bible was and wasn't, the history behind it, and what lessons Roman Catholics draw from it and why. Then I learned about the sacramental practice of the Roman Catholic community, their ethics and meta-ethics, and their social teaching. All this spread out over the four years of secondary education. And this, combined with further religious and philosophical studies in college, gave me the tools to come to my own conclusions about theological topics--that the Roman Catholics hadn't quite gotten things right, but that their close theological cousins the Anglicans had gotten pretty darn close. And I converted, nine years after I started that first theology class on the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

This does indeed raise the question: how do parents of faith, and the religious community as a whole, go about raising their children with the ability to reason theologically and the knowledge of the religious tradition without using heavy handed and authoritarian methods? How does one communicate essential information while still respecting a child's ability to come to her own theological conclusions? Is there a course of study like the one I was given in high school that is appropriate for younger learners? Child pedagogy is not my area of expertise, so I don't claim to know the answer.

Which homes can survive better without love? Is a miracle to be taken apart by apes because its idea has been corrupted by their dark minds?

we leave their psyches at the mercy of whatever their parents believe

I agree. First up, let's take children away from anti-religious bigots.

I had a Roman Catholic education from primary school right up to the end of grammar school, so my experience was similar to cjbanning's RC education (>3 cjbanning:). No indoctrination, plenty of opportunity and encouragement to explore the issues and make up my own mind.

Why, my friends, are we discussing this pleasantly and rationally?

If someone suggested that gay and lesbian parents shouldn't be allowed to influence their "children's psyches"—this job being, no doubt, left to the "right" institutions—or characterized the belief systems of one ethnicity or another as "horrific mental abuse," we'd feel revulsion, not welcome an opening for chit-chat with bigots. Anti-religious bigots who propose that parental religion is child abuse do not deserve our polite rebuttals. They are ugly fascists who—along with religious people who seek similar ends and make similar claims—deserve our disgust and outrage.

>7 timspalding: Why, my friends, are we discussing this pleasantly and rationally?

Because generally the religious posters on LT do respond "pleasantly and rationally" even when disgusted and outraged. It might have something to do with trying to love one's neighbour, or with respect for another person's point of view, even when we disagree strongly with them. The same is not generally true of atheist posters (although there are some notable exceptions).

#1: Graded readers and textbooks ensure that children aren't stretched beyond their intellectual capacity, but we leave their psyches at the mercy of whatever their parents believe, down to interior decoration with gory scenes of martyrdom, upheld as threat, example or even a fate to aspire to? Really?

Alarmist and intolerant tripe. Children are not fragile little dainty creatures prone to be traumatized by some carving of a man nailed to a piece of wood. They bounce. Threats of fire and damnation are certainly piss-poor way to raise a child as would be any other threat of violence. But that's a waning perspective and even with those in question it's rarely a big aspect of their upbringing. To borrow a phrase from Douglas Adams, religion is mostly harmless. To teach a child that the earth is flat is no heinous crime. If you want to say otherwise, get in line behind the right-wing fucktards who think Islam is a religion of hate.

I understanding modeling decent, rational behavior, but there are limits to the sorts of conversations moral people should participate in, at least without strenuously objecting to the set-up.

When Deniro trotted out his "homosexuals don't feel the same kind of love for each other that heterosexuals do" and the list of reasons why people are homosexuals, he was met with, basically, universal revulsion. I agree with that revulsion, and wonder why we aren't applying it here. After all, Deniro proposed no measures, such as suggested by equating religious influence on our children with child abuse and suggesting we not "leave (children's) psyches at the mercy of whatever their parents believe."

By persisting in a revolting conversation, and, worse, treating like a reasonable one, we effectively normalize and condone it. Hate niggers? Let us reason through that fascinating topic and touch upon my gentle objections!

For my part, no. The OP is a disgusting blast of bigotry. I would walk out of any room where someone proposed it, and fight by any means necessary to prevent the public policies it includes. I would expect no less of anyone.

>10 timspalding: Tim, I suppose I have an inbuilt urge to be reasonable and courteous, even in the face of bigoted views such as those expressed in the OP. I continue to hope that people who disagree with me might honestly want to understand my position as I want to understand theirs, and that we all might learn something from each other without changing our basic positions. I suppose I'm an irredeemable optimist and idealist. I also feel the urge to correct facts (see below my response to >1 LolaWalser:). It does eventually reach a point in each conversation where I realise there is nothing more to say to an individual (I found that often when faced with the intransigent racist views of many white South Africans), but in a public thread on LT I still think it is worth responding, even if only to put on record my objection to the obviously ridiculous bigoted view.

>1 LolaWalser: we have no problem teaching children that the god-less end up in hell

Lola, you continue to bring out this old chestnut even though you are well aware that almost nobody who posts on this LT group believes it nor espouses it nor, presumably, teaches it to their children. Since I know that you read a lot of LT religion threads (at least I know that you post on them; some of your posts suggest that you don't actually read them very carefully) you're aware that religious people have very diverse ideas of hell (and heaven). You're aware that most of the religious posters here explicitly reject the idea that we can know/predict who goes to hell (if it exists); most suggest that hell is probably pretty empty. You're also aware that most believe that "salvation" (which over-simplistically put could be construed as "not going to hell", although I think most would prefer to see it rather more holistically than that) is open to all, not only Christians. You have seen Tim, Nathaniel and myself frequently quote the official teaching of the largest Christian denomination in the world which makes that point very explicitly. And yet still you persist in attacking religion for something which is not intrinsic to religion, which is not held to be true by the largest Christian denomination as well as many other faith communities and individuals, and which is not espoused by most of the Christian posters on this LT group. It may be held by some religious people, and it may have been your own personal experience of your own religious upbringing, but you are generalising when all the evidence is against such a generalisation.

LolaWalser is right that children are inculcated by their parents or guardians with the religion or philosophy of the responsible adults - more so with some families than others, in terms of liberal vs. illiberal attitudes.

And what is effectively to done about the worse case scenarios? Well, nothing - for the various reasons stated in the above posts. Societies around the world hardly do a good job protecting children from physical abuse, much less psychological abuse.

So here's my view of this problem:

We live in the instant information age. It's only going to get more so as time passes. Most of this is due to the PC, of course, and geosynchronous orbiting telecommunication satellites, etc.

In today's world the only way to inculcate your children with your world view so that you can have fair assurance they will stay forever in the fold is to build a compound in rural North Dakota, Idaho, or the jungles of Brazil, etc. Such doesn't seem to be that popular among the 7.2 billion people on earth.

Humans allegedly are the most intelligent animals on earth. This includes children. Most children, especially in technologically advanced countries, will be exposed to all the world has to offer. Most children as they grow up will get plenty of chances to figure out that the group that raised them may not be "god's chosen". (e.g., even many rural villages in India and China now have televisions and personal computers that are shared.)

So my attitude is not to worry. I am not an elitist. If I can figure it out then the average child can figure it out, belatedly as an adult more than likely, as I did. Or they won't. Which will be OK too, as long as they follow the (secular) law.

The religious and the secular/civic ideas of what constitutes a moral and ethical way to live (at least in the West) are so entangled I wouldn't want to even dream of teasing them apart. I can't really see how "love thy neighbor" is any more problematic than "do unto others..." when it comes to establishing the foundation of a moral sensibility in a child.

But that said, there is some indoctrination that happens in religious educational institutions. How could there not be? In my heavily Roman Catholic weighted education I was taught, for example, that Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins. What this meant, exactly, was discussed, in depth. But the "fact" that he was the son of God was not open for debate. The "fact" that we were all born into sin was not ever in doubt. In that sense, there was a fair amount of indoctrination. Although there was also a fair amount of excellent education as well.

The answer, as a parent, to this is simply not to send your child to a religious school if you have qualms about what he/she will be taught. Although I do think even religious schools should be required to meet certain academic standards. They should not teach kids things that are factually, provably wrong. But that's the whole evolution issue and any reputable school--religious or otherwise--doesn't fall into that category.

I teach, you indoctrinate, he brainwashes.

And I'm back to my favorite quote about education:

“One of the reasons I think that our youth is so badly educated—and it is inconceivably badly educated—is because education demands a certain daring, a certain independence of mind. You have to teach young people to think, and in order to do that you have to teach them to think about everything. There mustn't be something they cannot think about. If there is one thing they cannot think about, then very shortly they cannot think about anything.” --James Baldwin

I'd like kindly and reasonably to respond to the OP, but I'm afraid I can't, because it's version of how children are raised in religious households is one that I've never seen or experienced before.

In both my own upbringing and the religious communities I have lived with since, children are only taught from an "absolutist authoritarian" perspective insofar as all child-rearing is "absolutist authoritarian". That is to say, ALL parenting is done on the basis of absolute authority at first; and over time, as the child grows older and more capable of thinking and acting on their own, that authority is lessened and more autonomy is given to the child. We don't sit a 2-year old in the kitchen and expect them to decide for themselves whether or not to touch the hot stove. Rather, we absolutely and authoritatively forbid them from doing so. That's how we raise children, period.

Likewise, that is how children are raised in the religious communities I have experienced. Going to church on Sunday is compulsory just like brushing your teeth and going to school are compulsory. But, as children grow older, they are given opportunities, at first limited, and then slowly increased, to learn about their faith on their own terms -- to question those things they do not understand, to think through those things that they do.

When they are old enough--usually starting around late middle school and into high school--they are given the choice as to whether to continue or not. It's up to them: they have to OWN their faith. It won't simply be given to them anymore.

In the faith traditions I know, the practice is the exact opposite of Lola's authoritarian indoctrination: to continue to be an active member of the faith community, you have to make the decision for yourself.

Furthermore, the moral and ethical teachings of my faith (and I will leave aside Lola's apparent objection to the very idea that there should be moral and ethical teachings -- are we simply all to act without any moral or ethical standards whatsoever?) teach, not social division but social unity. " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. " (Galatians 3:28)

Never has any faith community in which I have been a member declared that, if you are not a part of that community, you are condemned to hell. It simply has never happened -- and so I don't know how to respond to charges that it has. I wonder if Lola would like to explain why it is that flying purple people eaters just flew past her bedroom window?

Finally, I simply have no idea what she means by saying that miracles don't invite exploration -- for in my experience, the miraculous it that which provokes wonder (indeed, the two words are synonymous), and it is wonder the provokes curiosity and therefore the drive to explore. The wondrous is at the heart of the drive to explore, not antithetical to it.

And seemingly on cue, Pope Benedict's Angelus Address from today addresses this very issue:

Mary and Joseph’s concern for Jesus is the same as every parent who educates a child, introduces them to life and to understanding reality. Today, therefore, we should say a special prayer to the Lord for all the families of the world. Imitating the Holy Family of Nazareth, may parents seriously concern themselves about the growth and education of their children, so that they may mature as responsible and honest citizens, without ever forgetting that faith is a precious gift to be nourished in their children through personal example. At the same time we pray that every child is welcomed as a gift from God, is sustained by the love of the father and mother in order to advance as the Lord Jesus "in wisdom and age and favour before God and man " (Lk 2: 52). The love, loyalty and dedication of Mary and Joseph are an example for all Christian couples who are neither the friends nor masters of their children’s lives, but the guardians of this incomparable gift from God.

#5

I agree. First up, let's take children away from anti-religious bigots.

Knowing your views on dead (foreign) children as "collateral damage" in your country's wars, I believe you would take children away from those you hate, and that you would kill those you hate. Pretend you are being sarcastic all you want, I have seen you do the utmost damage you could virtually and believe you would do damage with every means at your disposal in real life.

Calling me a bigot and a fascist doesn't make me so, or you less of one.

#6

No indoctrination, plenty of opportunity and encouragement to explore the issues and make up my own mind.

No indoctrination? Never had catechism--"catechism", the teaching of Christian doctrine? Because that is, literally, indoctrination.

You were given the option to believe or not to believe what you were told, about god and Jesus and the sacraments, to parrot back lessons or not, to learn prayers or not, to make comments and criticisms of your own? Wow. I grew up within and from a Catholic background and I don't know a SINGLE case such as yours, John. In fact, casting a wider look, at literature (fiction, autobiographical), it seems to be truly extraordinary.

Lola, you continue to bring out this old chestnut even though you are well aware that almost nobody who posts on this LT group believes it nor espouses it nor, presumably, teaches it to their children.

First, I'm not concerned with LT; I'm thinking about what goes on in my family, and as with them so with lives of millions, or billions of people. And if you think the teachings on the fall, sin, hell etc. are "old chestnuts", you're woefully ignorant of, to begin with, your Church's catechism and the programmes extant in schools. The ones I'm most concerned with are in Europe, Italy and Croatia especially, but I doubt there are dramatic differences elsewhere (although your personal experience of Age of Aquarius tolerance and ecumenical sweetness and light in Sunday school is certainly something to wonder about). And that's not taking in account whatever the parents or anyone else might be doing, what they might hear from the pulpit or really anywhere else (in countries with 80-95% Catholics?!), or the situation in non-Christian religions.

#13

But the "fact" that he was the son of God was not open for debate. The "fact" that we were all born into sin was not ever in doubt. In that sense, there was a fair amount of indoctrination.

That's exactly what it is, and this hasn't changed from your time in school, or indeed from my father's time in school.

Children were never taught catechism "critically" (well, except John) and aren't so now. It goes against the very grain of the thing.

I teach, you indoctrinate, he brainwashes.

I get the point, but there are differences in how religious indoctrination works compared to, say, teaching geography. (Less so in regard to Dear Leader being the best of men, definitely.)

We knock the alphabet and the multiplication table into children's heads in ways that don't allow dissent... up to a point. If a kid REALLY refused to accept that 2x2=4 or that B is pronounced "bee" and not "why", I still can't imagine such a kid being considered a) sinful b) heretical c) ripe for eternal damnation... Not as a child and not as an adult. There'd be other problems to worry about--employability etc., but I doubt anyone would see a person who had said "NO" to the alphabet and the maths as morally deficient.

Furthermore, the alphabet and the maths are nothing but tools. Found beautiful or not, entertaining or not, they have that basic utilitarian side to them any child of average mental capacity can eventually grasp.

The principle extends to almost everything a child may be set to study--including such things as history of religion. They might be useful tools or provable knowledge about the world.

Obviously, teachings that there is a god, that humanity is fallen and Jesus its "saviour", that the saved will live in paradise and the unsaved suffer in hell, that there are angels and demons and all the rest of it do not compare to the alphabet, the maths, art history or science, not in the kind of information they present, and not in moral and ethical repercussions for those who accept them or refuse them.

I'd like you to back up, with references to anything I said, your claims that:

1. I don't care about dead children.
2. I would take the children of people I hate away.
3. I would kill people I hate.

For my part, I think that I hold views on civilian casualties somewhat to the left of most Americans and certainly many on this site you haven't accused of wanting to kill and steal babies. For example, I think the intentional bombing of civilians is immoral, and its using during World War Two by the Allies a mistake and a blot. (The wrongness of even Hiroshima is only believed by 22% of Americans, mostly young people.) I do, however, believe that it is sometimes appropriate to use modern military force although you can realistically predict some civilians will die. Like most people, I continue to maintain that—oh, I dunno—the US invasions of Somalia was not calculating attempt at genocide, or whatever.

Your hatred of me on the religious score is no mystery. Your posts breathe a vicious hatred of those who disagree with you about God. But I really wonder what wasp sandwich you're chewing on here.

>18 LolaWalser: the teaching of Christian doctrine? Because that is, literally, indoctrination

Yes, of course, and I think that point has been made elsewhere, possibly by me, that one definition of indoctrination is simply, er, the teaching of doctrine. That in itself is a perfectly harmless activity. But it seems that some posters on this thread are using another valid usage of the term "indoctrination" which is pejorative and closer to "brainwashing". I and others have said clearly that while we were taught doctrine, we were not brainwashed, forced, or whatever. I'm very sorry if you had a different experience in Croatia or Italy.

I'm thinking about what goes on in my family, and as with them so with lives of millions, or billions of people

Well, you're the expert about what goes in on your family, but I suspect you are not the expert on what goes on in the lives of millions, or billions, of Christians, particularly as you have separated yourself from Christianity and are no longer an insider.

Children were never taught catechism "critically" (well, except John)

And, er, except cjbanning. And many others. You were obviously one of the unlucky ones. Don't generalise.

And, er, except cjbanning. And many others. You were obviously one of the unlucky ones. Don't generalise.

Child-catechism isn't indoctrination for me either. At six, it's hard to get much in the way of critical depth, but the basic stance is "dad believes this but mom does not." Having grown up in a completely secular environment, and being correspondingly ignorant about religion, I see my son's religious education as a step up in his understanding of the world.

#16

Yes, by the time kids reach teen age, they become more difficult to control, and they will probably have had at least some opportunity to hear and entertain dissenting opinions.

However, your vision of ever-increasing tolerance to the possibility of a child/young adult leaving the Church is nevertheless something I've rarely, if ever seen in action. Living in Islamic countries, I've never seen any sign that any degree of dissent would be tolerated, certainly not from children.

Still, there's no doubt that some get away, and many grow up more or less according to what passes for average "normal".

With that, is it ever justifiable to teach children as true something we do not know to be true? How can that be justified?

>23 LolaWalser:: " Living in Islamic countries, I've never seen any sign that any degree of dissent would be tolerated, certainly not from children. "

So all religious practices are generalizable from the experiences of contemporary Islamic society?

>23 LolaWalser: is it ever justifiable to teach children as true something we do not know to be true? How can that be justified?

But this is not a peculiarly religious thing. Think of the kinds of fables children are taught to instill patriotism for their country. Indoctrination of a different sort.

In fact, the single best piece of indoctrination I ever encountered as a child was Schoolhouse Rock.

However, your vision of ever-increasing tolerance to the possibility of a child/young adult leaving the Church is nevertheless something I've rarely, if ever seen in action

I had understood you to live in Toronto? I'm amazed that your experience is so utterly unlike the rest of us, living in modern, western countries. Literally NO secular friend of mine who was raised Catholic remained so, and most dropped out immediately after confirmation. Simple baptism, confirmation and attendance statistics would show you that the vast majority of people formally brought into a church drop out between birth and teenagehood. Former Catholics are the second-largest "denomination" in the US, with youth in the lead. And the US is LOT more religious than Canada.

#21

And, er, except cjbanning. And many others. You were obviously one of the unlucky ones. Don't generalise.

No, I absolutely WILL generalise, because I am describing a general state of things, such as I've lived and am still living with, and reading about, and hearing about, from numerous sources. YOU are the one with the "extraordinary", non-generalisible experience--and I suspect you know it.

By the way, read cjbanning's post again--his pre-HIGH SCHOOL experience is nothing like yours.

one definition of indoctrination is simply, er, the teaching of doctrine. That in itself is a perfectly harmless activity.

How is it harmless to claim something is true that you do not know to be true, and demand that it be repeated back as an article of faith?

I suspect you are not the expert on what goes on in the lives of millions, or billions, of Christians, particularly as you have separated yourself from Christianity and are no longer an insider.

I can't help being an insider, I am affected by religion and the religious whatever I personally think or believe.

As for "expertise", I see no reason to take your experience as the yardstick over anyone else's, especially since I have excellent reason to believe yours is, ahem, uncommon.

So all religious practices are generalizable from the experiences of contemporary Islamic society?

No, why should you think so? I mentioned Islam because I happen to have lived in Islamic countries and to point out I don't think Christian indoctrination is the only kind there is.

You didn't answer my question:

With that, is it ever justifiable to teach children as true something we do not know to be true? How can that be justified?

>26 timspalding: Ditto, Tim.

>27 LolaWalser: I'm really quite amazed that a non-Christian with such a limited experience of Catholicism (Italy, Croatia, and an apparently very untypical experience of Toronto) should be so convinced that she is the expert, based on her childhood experience and contemporary secondhand material, and that all the actual Catholics and Christians know nothing.

#25

But this is not a peculiarly religious thing. Think of the kinds of fables children are taught to instill patriotism for their country. Indoctrination of a different sort.

Yes, I mentioned already in #1 there are other kinds of indoctrination (also brought up in lilithcat's post and my reply).

Chauvinistic patriotism and totalitarian ideologies impose a quasi-religious system of thought, that's true. And that's just as bad as religious indoctrination, IMO.

Still, I would insist some differences exist, at least theoretical--I don't know of any totalitarian ideology, however warped, that actually presupposes a hell and eternal suffering for dissenters (no doubt the gulags were more than enough...)

With that, is it ever justifiable to teach children as true something we do not know to be true? How can that be justified?

Children do need simple messages. I'm in favor of bringing in as much debate, complexity and indeterminacy as possible, as young as possible, but you can't do it from the start.

I do not know that other people are conscious. I do not know whether all animals feel real pain. Yet I teach my child that other people are just like him, and not to step on ants. He can reexamine these rather simple and overconfident messages later.

More concretely, "Brush your teeth or the sugar bugs will make holes in them" works a lot better than "You should probably brush your teeth sometimes now, but you're going to loose these teeth in a few years and I'm mostly trying to teach you a habit so the 'sugar bugs' don't eat your adult teeth."

#29

I'm really quite amazed that a non-Christian with such a limited experience of Catholicism (Italy, Croatia, and an apparently very untypical experience of Toronto) should be so convinced that she is the expert, based on her childhood experience and contemporary secondhand material, and that all the actual Catholics and Christians know nothing.

You are astoundingly arrogant. I have roots in two (three, counting my dad's ancestral Germany) uber-Catholic countries, extended family/friends composed almost entirely/in majority of Catholics (devout or merely cultural), and am involved pretty much daily in contacts and all kinds of dealings that bring up Catholicism on my radar, under some aspect or another. I don't care what you think about my opinions, but you have no right to call them "limited" because you don't like them, or "secondhand" (what the hell does that even mean?! I'm talking about MY LIFE.), or pretend they only belong to my "childhood".

I'm actually reliving much of this stuff because of my niece's and nephew's currently ongoing childhood and education, and that of dozens of kids less close in kinship but nevertheless dear to me.

So take whatever you think about my "expertise" (not a thing I'm claiming in any case) and make it blow.

As for Toronto, as it happens, I know only one couple with a small kid, and yes they are Catholic, and yes she goes to Sunday school and yes, as far as I know (I didn't quiz the child, but I babysat her a couple times and she told me stories), she was taught about god and Jesus his Son. As is expected.

>30 LolaWalser: I don't know of any totalitarian ideology, however warped, that actually presupposes a hell and eternal suffering for dissenters

And yet, the theoretical threat of punishment in the afterlife probably doesn't make as much of an impact as the very real threat of punishment in this one. Kids are all about the now.

>29 John5918: a non-Christian with such a limited experience of Catholicism

We make the best judgments we can based on our own experience. In other discussions you have pointed out that my personal experience with hostile Christianity of the Southern Baptist variety is not the norm world wide. That may be true, but "oh, it's not like that in other places" is a weak consolation to the person who has to deal with it here.

Ultimately though, I don't see that anyone has really answered Lola's basic question, when it has been stripped of its provocative tone: is it ever justifiable to teach children something as "true" when you don't know that it is indeed "true"?

If you are religious, then the answer is yes, because you believe in its truth. And this is where what you call faith looks like indoctrination to the nonbeliever.

ETA: x posted with Tim, who does try to answer Lola's question.

>28 LolaWalser:: "With that, is it ever justifiable to teach children as true something we do not know to be true? How can that be justified?"

There are two issues here: (1) children's pedagogy and (2) the nature of faith claims. To deal with them separately:

(1) Do you similarly object to pretty much every children's show ever put on television? Six-foot-tall, talking yellow birds are not real, nor are green monsters that live in trash cans or vampire-like counts with pink faces: will your next topic on LT be about the horrors of Sesame Street? How about children's literature? Will your next campaign be against the talking animals of Beatrix Potter?

(2) The truth claims of faith are of a different kind from arithmetic and biology. Religion speaks to the spiritual needs of a humanity in search of meaning and love in a world whose chaos and indifference seems overwhelming. One does not "know" Jesus Christ in the same way one "knows" that blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light.

You do not believe the truth claims of Christianity. I and many others on these threads do believe those claims. Unless you are prepared to enact a totalitarian program of indoctrination of your own that outlaws any person who thinks about spiritual matters, then you will have to accept that you can no more prove to us your claim that Christianity is untrue than we can, apparently, prove to you that it is true.

But in writing the above paragraph, I have finally figured out what your real project is. You want to replace what you see as religion's indoctrinating mental abuse of children with your own authoritarian and absolute indoctrination of children: at their weakest and most vulnerable, you will insist that all children leave behind the comforts of faith and imagination and face the world without the assurances of love and stability that religion can provide.

Talk about psychological abuse! Your child starts telling you about the adventures they had with their invisible friend Biffy exploring the cloud worlds of Neverland, and you will respond: "Stop that nonsense this instant! You are lying to yourself! Your delusions are dangerous and irresponsible! Biffy and Neverland are not real! Now go to bed without any dreams, without any imagination or fairy tells for bedtime stories!"

>32 LolaWalser:: "As for Toronto, as it happens, I know only one couple with a small kid, and yes they are Catholic, and yes she goes to Sunday school and yes, as far as I know (I didn't quiz the child, but I babysat her a couple times and she told me stories), she was taught about god and Jesus his Son. As is expected."

And what evidence, other than your own assumptions, do you have that this child is being psychologically abused? And why haven't you reported it to the authorities?

#31

But the gravity of the implications of what is taught aren't the same. With teeth brushing as with the alphabet, whether you tell the kid "because I say so!" or whether you give a long answer, there's a simple reason for insisting on the action that the kid can't fail to grasp sooner or later. There is actually an "absolute" reason why it is good to brush your teeth and to learn the alphabet, and it's good for all people.

>32 LolaWalser: Look, you can call me all the names you like (and I won't even flag you for it), but your experience of, what, three Catholic countries, one Catholic family with a child in Toronto, and your own extended families and friends is your personal experience and is perfectly valid as such. But i say again, don't generalise. There are people with a much broader experience of Catholicism than you, including professional experience and contacts which go far beyond personal contacts. And there are people with much less anger and bigotry towards it than you, who see it through a different lens, a more sympathetic and understanding lens. I don't think it's arrogant to point out that flaw in your argument. If it is just your personal opinion, as you say, fine, but opinions aired in the public domain will be challenged if they are based on very limited evidence, as atheists keep reminding us.

#33

And yet, the theoretical threat of punishment in the afterlife probably doesn't make as much of an impact as the very real threat of punishment in this one. Kids are all about the now.

I know of two cases when it did. It doesn't matter to how many it doesn't happen, or what form and degree the trauma takes. I find it horrific that it can happen at all.

Or, a different thing: my father and his older brother were regularly beaten by the priest who taught them (ironically, my dad was slated for priesthood himself), and had their fill of lectures on hell-fire etc. Lippy boys, I take it. Were they horribly damaged? It's relative isn't it, but, compared to, say, victims of sexual abuse, probably not. And yet, it did affect them. It's interesting to me that my dad used to tell his priest anecdotes for comedy, but then years later when he was going through a bad crisis brought them up with tremendous bitterness and almost began to cry, recollecting one specific instance and beating. (I've never seen my dad cry, not even then.) It would seem that the crisis, the worst of his adult life, somehow aligned with that old memory when he was found severely wanting and lacking and whatnot (I can't remember his exact words), and punished, unfairly etc.

Anyway, the point is--why would he or anyone have to go through that or have such memories? I was talking with another old friend and his father used to be tied up in bed, every night. Restrained with leather straps. The parents weren't gothic monsters, good pious German burghers like so many. The idea, as far as I got it, was to prevent the kid from sinning, and partly as discipline. At any rate, it wasn't done because they actively hated the child.

And yes, I know it's impossible to prevent ALL bad things from happening to one's child--but I'm thinking of what is unnecessary, preventable.

#34

Are you equating catechism with fiction? God, Jesus, Mary et al. on equal footing with Sesame Street, Beatrix Potter, fairy tales? Now THAT is interesting.

I'm all for it.

But that's not what you really mean, isn't it. At some point you'll admit to the kid you lied about Santa Claus, but no such admission is imaginable about Jesus.

>39 LolaWalser:: But what you don't seem to see is that the love of God isn't a lie.

#40

Saying that you "know" when you merely believe is a lie.

Doesn't it make you uncomfortable to see children spout things they don't understand? How can it not make one feel a hypocrite to see them asserting things one is personally unsure of?

How do you tell them Jesus loves them when they see other kids dying?

>41 LolaWalser:: "Doesn't it make you uncomfortable to see children spout things they don't understand?"

In my experience with children, they understand better than most adults what it means to say that God is love. "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, 'Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'" (Matthew 18:2-4)

How do you tell them that the kids who are dying aren't loved?

> 40

You experience the love of an invisible immaterial agency? Un huh.

Ya see, that is what just sounds totally crazy to atheists. We just stand in effing awe of something like that.

And no we are not ever going to go away. And no we are not ever going to shut up.

Because YOU and people like you are the problem.

Someone needs to speak up. Atheists will always be there for you.

Believe THAT, nat.

No, wait - KNOW that.

#42

How do you tell them that the kids who are dying aren't loved?

If anyone loves them, it's their parents, people on earth, not a make-believe god.

It's incredible how early you'd have all the meaning of language warped! "Kids die"="being loved"!

To me this is utmost perversion of truth, and betrayal of life.

> 44

It is an utmost perversion of truth, and betrayal of life - or, as Sam Harris puts it, it is a malignant lie.

In three and a half minutes he pretty much explains the logic so that the meanest intelligence can easily follow.

So here is our I.Q. test of the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPuS9-IhpPs

How did we do, boys and girls?

>38 LolaWalser: It doesn't matter to how many it doesn't happen, or what form and degree the trauma takes. I find it horrific that it can happen at all.

Of course. But abuse (physical or psychological) is not the special province of religious education. The most abusive teacher I ever had taught AP classes in my very very progressive and liberal high school.

What is at issue, though, is whether it is okay to teach kids things we don't know are true. Nathan says yes, because they are things he believes to be true. I say no, because they aren't things I know to be true.

And more to the point, is there a place for children to question these supposed truths? That god is love, Jesus is the son of god, we all exist in a state of sin? Will a religious education allow children to even ask about these things, much less come to a different conclusion, without some sort of repercussion (if only bad grades)?

In my experience, the Catholic schools I attended did not allow these kinds of questions. I suppose it is possible that some schools might.

Of course, we all indoctrinate our kids to some degree--we want them to have the benefit of our experience after all. My sister, bless her heart, has been so adamantly gay-supportive in the way she has raised my nephews that when they came home one day wanting to join the Boy Scouts, she just about had a fit. It took a few of us to convince her that they wouldn't "catch homophobia" from being in a scout troop and that if the organization was ever going to change, it would be because of kids like my nephews being a part of it.

Really, we all want our kids to take certain things "on faith" -- but some of those things can be explained if we are asked. To others, like the idea that Jesus is the son of God, we can only return the answer, "because I said so."

When that is the only possible answer to a question, then you are in the realm of indoctrination.

13: In my heavily Roman Catholic weighted education I was taught, for example, that Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins. What this meant, exactly, was discussed, in depth. But the "fact" that he was the son of God was not open for debate.

You see, I was taught that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was--and is--the Son of God who died for our sins. Which is, of course, objectively and unequivocally true. I suppose you could say it was "not open for debate" in the sense that my theology instructors were not interested in debating it. But I was not required, or even expected, to believe it.

We were also taught that the Roman Catholic Church teaches masturbation was a sin. Again, that's an objective fact. But I'm not sure that even the Roman Catholic students actually accepted the doctrine.

From the way Catholic schools are described in some of the above posts, you'd think they never contained students who were Protestant, Jewish, atheist, pagan, etc. Whereas I'm pretty sure my school wasn't exceptional in having all of the above in the student body.

>38 LolaWalser: Lola, I've said again and again that I respect and regret your personal experience, and that of your immediate family and friends. I just wish you would not assume that it is the norm.

know of two cases when it {the theoretical threat of punishment in the afterlife} did

And again, I regret that. But for many of us, it didn't. I can still remember the first two questions and answers of the penny catechism.

1. Who made you? God made me.

2. Why did God make you? God made me to know him, love him and serve him in this world, and to be happy with him for ever in the next.

"To be happy with him for ever in the next". Caring, sensitive and sensible teachers and parents emphasised love, not damnation. I was never made to feel the fear of hell. More so, growing up in a family where my mother was a Catholic and my father non-religious, I was never given the impression that my father would be treated any differently to the rest of us just because he was not a Christian. And, as Tim, Nathaniel and I have repeatedly asserted, quoting Church documents, that is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

my father and his older brother were regularly beaten by the priest

And the Church is now facing the consequences of the appalling actions of a small percentage of its priests, and trying to address institutional issues which allowed it to happen. But it has to be recognised that corporal punishment was considered normal in most schools and homes at that time, and indeed even when I went to school, was not illegal, and was socially acceptable in most countries. We now know how damaging it was.

>46 southernbooklady: is there a place for children to question these supposed truths? That god is love, Jesus is the son of god, we all exist in a state of sin? Will a religious education allow children to even ask about these things, much less come to a different conclusion, without some sort of repercussion (if only bad grades)?

In my experience, the Catholic schools I attended did not allow these kinds of questions. I suppose it is possible that some schools might.

In my experience the Catholic schools I attended did allow these kind of questions. I can remember asking some of them, even in primary school, and getting thoughtful and encouraging responses from my teachers.

>47 cjbanning: I'm not sure that even the Roman Catholic students actually accepted the doctrine

As with many doctrines which were taught, even to children.

From the way Catholic schools are described in some of the above posts, you'd think they never contained students who were Protestant, Jewish, atheist, pagan, etc. Whereas I'm pretty sure my school wasn't exceptional in having all of the above in the student body.

There are plenty of Catholic (and other Christian) schools in England where a large proportion of the students are Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, and of course atheist, because that is the demographic of the areas where they are located, or because parents (even atheist parents) believe that they are better than the state schools because they model certain values, impose a degree of discipline, are better academically, or whatever. In Sudan there are Catholic schools full of Muslims, because the Church sees education as a service rather than a way of indoctrinating people.

#48

You have no business "regretting" my personal experience, unless you regret it for the vast majority of people who have knowledge of the same (and worse). It is entirely unexceptional.

#46

I'm in agreement with all that.

When that is the only possible answer to a question, then you are in the realm of indoctrination.

Is there any doubt that children are indoctrinated into religion? Children who receive formal religious education (in kindergartens and public schools, such as my niece and nephew attend) receive it in an uncritical manner. Catechism presents articles of faith. It is not taught as mythology, one fairy tale similar to any other, it is taught as fact, the kids are expected to parrot back those teachings, and they are graded on it.

God exists. Jesus died to save us. Jesus loves us. We love Jesus. God watches over us and listens to our prayers. Be good and you'll be rewarded in heaven. Bad people killed our Lord. Bad people go to hell.

These are the messages my niece received already in kindergarten, along with a handful of bad religious poetry and sing-along songs. If her parents didn't bother to place it in context and provide the idea that "it ain't necessarily so", I don't see why she wouldn't have taken them on like the rest of the kiddies, and for years at least.

#47

You see, I was taught that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus was--and is--the Son of God who died for our sins. Which is, of course, objectively and unequivocally true. I suppose you could say it was "not open for debate" in the sense that my theology instructors were not interested in debating it. But I was not required, or even expected, to believe it.

I assume you didn't have "theology instructors" at age six? Do you really think children--ages 3-13, say, kindergarten through elementary--understand spontaneously that they are being taught something specifically RCC, to be distinguished intellectually from other Christian sects, not to mention religions etc.?

I think not.

I don't care what theological codswallop one chooses to indulge in with maturity.

I'm interested in what happens to naive minds conditioned by religious indoctrination from the earliest stages.

>Lola:

You told us in post 32 of a Catholic family you know in Toronto whose young child is goes to Sunday school and is being taught about God and Jesus.

What evidence, other than your own assumptions, do you have that this child is being psychologically abused? And why haven't you reported it to the authorities?

#50

As far as I know, she's not being psychologically abused. If I thought she were, you bet I'd try to do something about it. The parents, by the way, aren't devout.

>51 LolaWalser:: So then you distinguish the raising of children with religious practices (like going to church and Sunday school and being taught about God and Jesus) from the "psychological abuse" you describe in the OP?

If so, where do you draw the line? What distinguishes religious education from psychologically abusive "indoctrination"?

>49 LolaWalser: You have no business "regretting" my personal experience, unless you regret it for the vast majority of people who have knowledge of the same (and worse). It is entirely unexceptional.

My apologies. I usually regret when bad things happen to people, but clearly you do not appreciate anybody's sympathy. Of course I regret bad things that happen to anyone, but I do question your "vast majority" and "entirely unexceptional".

Is there any doubt that children are indoctrinated into religion?

Yes, of course there is, at least if you're using the pejorative sense of "indoctrinate" rather than the sense of simply teaching doctrine. You reference some bad examples where it does happen, which I don't deny; bad things can happen anywhere in any context. I simply deny your generalisation of it.

#52

First of all, as I said enough times above, and as is easily demonstrable, religious education, formal for sure, and probably most of "informal" (familial) is certainly indoctrination--you are taught a litany of, call them teachings, articles of faith, precepts--and expected to take them on board and regurgitate at will. You are expected to believe them. That's how little religionists were and are made. That's how one knows one is and becomes a Catholic (for instance).

Now, the girl in question is receiving a balanced education, strictly monitored by the parents (both scientists and European, and if they weren't immigrants who wanted a quick intro to the community, they probably wouldn't have bothered with the church at all.) I know them, and so I don't believe they'd do anything to endanger her, all the more because she is a hyper-sensitive child. She, no less than my niece and nephew, is learning about religion in the context of myth and tradition.

Most children whose parents want to raise them in a faith aren't going to be catechised like that. Certainly not in school, and not in deeply devout households. I should like it if--at least--some sort of comparative religious studies were mandatory for every catechism class. That's a pipe dream... it's probably easier to fight to kick catechism out of public schools entirely.

Indoctrination is always abusive in some degree, but as I said above, drilling in alphabet is rather different from drilling in the notions of god, angels, devil, afterlife, sinfulness and the rest. And again as I said above, the fact that some get away or grow up as what passes for "normal"--not particularly mad or murderous--doesn't make the practice just or healthy.

54: it's probably easier to fight to kick catechism out of public schools entirely.

Well, that should already be the case, at least in the U.S. But that doesn't answer the question of how to improve catechetical instruction carried out by religious institutions and within families. I agree that a comparative religion component would be a positive element, although possibly impractical given how little time most catechists get to teach the basics of their own faith.

#53

Yes, of course there is, at least if you're using the pejorative sense of "indoctrinate" rather than the sense of simply teaching doctrine.

Teaching doctrine=indoctrination.

How and why?

Well, first, because that's how we define "indoctrination".

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).1 It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

This is how children are taught the articles of faith. They are NOT invited to consider "alternatives" or offer their cute little opinions, they are NOT taught that all faiths and non-faiths are "equal", they are NOT expected to take it or leave it, only take it, they ARE requested to repeat and answer in certain prescribed ways, and if they don't do it, they get bad grades or fail.

I'm not going to waste any more time wrangling with you over something this ridiculous, John.

#55

There are excellent reasons to learn ABOUT religion, to be sure.

Incidentally--this is Wikipedia, so don't know how true--but according to this only four European countries do NOT provide religious education (catechism) in public schools: France, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Albania.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insegnamento_della_religione_cattolica_in_Italia

>56 LolaWalser:: "It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

Yet, as many of us on this thread have said, the religious communities we have known and experienced do expect their members to critically examine the doctrine they have learned. In the Catholic and Anglican traditions, that is precisely what is involved in (the sacrament of) confirmation. You are expected to understand why you are professing the faith as you are -- and you are expected to live out that profession. If you don't understand your faith, you cannot live it.

I will never forget a particular Sunday school class when I was in fifth grade. For Christmas, my parents had gotten me the National Geographic Picture Atlas of Our Universe, which I spent days poring through, learning especially about the various theories of the origins of the universe and our solar system (this was before accelerating expansion had been discovered, so there were a variety of big bang / expansion / contraction scenarios).

A few weeks later, I asked my Sunday school teacher about how the account of creation in Genesis fit with the information I had learned about the universe and solar system from the National Geographic book. Rather than shushing me up or denigrating science, he patiently asked me to recall the sequence of universal events as I had learned from the book, as he diagrammed the process on the chalkboard. Then, we read through the first chapter of Genesis, which he also listed out on the board, next to the scientific narrative.

The conclusion that he led us to was that there was substantive agreement between the two processes, with the understandable caveat that when the Bible was written, they didn't understand just how long the whole thing had taken. Science was respected and valued as a process that leads to truth in conjunction with, rather than in opposition to, faith.*

Our Sunday school classes were educational, not "indoctrinating" (in the pejorative sense), for our teachers encouraged us, not just to memorize, but to understand; not just to "know", but to "think", too.

-------------------------------
*Edited to clarify: As will be seen from StormRaven's posts below, this statement was not sufficiently clear to avoid misinterpretation. When SR in post 78 chose to read this as endorsing a literalist, creationist reading of Genesis, in direct contradiction to everything else I have ever written on LT about the relationship between science and faith, I tried to clarify with post 82.

StormRaven has determined to declare that, because I offered a clarification in order to refute his purposeful mischaracterization of my views, I have lied. I will leave it to the reader to make their own judgement.

>56 LolaWalser: This is how children are taught the articles of faith. They are NOT invited to consider "alternatives" or offer their cute little opinions, they are NOT taught that all faiths and non-faiths are "equal", they are NOT expected to take it or leave it, only take it, they ARE requested to repeat and answer in certain prescribed ways, and if they don't do it, they get bad grades or fail.

What, every religiously-educated child in the world? Is this how every teacher and parent in the world teaches their children? Either you have incredibly good data on several billion people, or else you are generalising again. The fact is that you are citing your experience and that of some people you know and read about; Nathaniel (>58 nathanielcampbell:) and I are citing our experience and that of some people we know and read about. Your experience is valid; our experience is valid. Please don't generalise and then insist that your generalisation is correct in all cases.

I quit attending southern baptist services, except for weddings and funerals, in the early eighties. I haven't had need or desire to keep up with the s.b. regarding their possible social or doctrinal evolution since then.

Except - in the news recently I see they are letting up pretty much on the racial thing. And I have had hints that the "man is the god-appointed head of the family" idea has been taking serious hits in recent years.

No doubt the day is coming when the s.b. will get ok with gay marriage - perhaps in another generation or two.

I've seen polls wherein something like 90 per cent of self-described catholics in the U.S. say they make their own moral decisions independent of Rome, e.g., on contraception, abortion, stem cell research, etc. Guess what - they are quite liberal on these issues compared to Rome.

So - things seem to be getting better. Sort of. But one can actually envision a day when sanity will rule the earth. Perhaps in a few hundred years.

The indoctrination of children by religious parents is something that will just have to work itself out in the fullness of time, just like practically every other evil in the world.

Of course, regarding real, actual and provable cases of physical abuse, or extreme forms of psychological abuse - when those are detected, something certainly should be done, and we should have laws and the relevant means to stop or prevent such.

But many cases will go undetected. That's life. But we must continue to grab for the brass ring. And it's the grabbing, not the getting, that is important.

>61 southernbooklady: I asked my Sunday school teacher about how the account of creation in Genesis fit with the information I had learned about the universe and solar system from the National Geographic book. Rather than shushing me up or denigrating science, he patiently asked me to recall the sequence of universal events as I had learned from the book, as he diagrammed the process on the chalkboard. Then, we read through the first chapter of Genesis, which he also listed out on the board, next to the scientific narrative.

The conclusion that he led us to was that there was substantive agreement between the two processes, with the understandable caveat that when the Bible was written, they didn't understand just how long the whole thing had taken.

I understand how this might have had an impact on you, Nathan, but from this side of the fence it also looks like exactly the kind of thing I meant when I talked about indoctrination. After all, the lesson here is to take what science says is true and make it fit to what the Bible says is true. Or, vice versa. But the one option not on the table is: well yes, science tells us this is how the universe is created, and Genesis really is no longer valid.

>61 southernbooklady: But I recall being taught from a very early age that the bible contains parables, and that Genesis is not literally true. There is a lesson there, but it is a religious one, not a scientific one.

>62 John5918:. I have no doubt. But no one would ever suggest to you that the lesson wasn't there, or that Genesis was no longer relevant. The Bible is, when all is said and done, unquestionable "true" on some level--all of it.

And as I said, we all want indoctrinate our kids to our way of thinking. It's not specific to religious instruction. But sooner or later a child will ask "but why?" and when that happens, you have to have a better reason than "because I said so." Or, if you like, "Because the Bible says so," "Because Jesus says so." If you don't then it's indoctrination.

>63 southernbooklady:: What reason do you give for loving your neighbor?

>64 nathanielcampbell: Well, I don't particularly insist that everyone love their neighbor, but I do suggest one be kind and compassionate. Because it makes everyone feel better when you are.

>65 southernbooklady:: Cannot Christians offer similar justifications for their beliefs, that is, that human beings are better when they live in the love of God?

> 66

Many, many alcoholics are perfectly happy.

Why should we deny them their liquor?

>66 nathanielcampbell: Sure. But if someone asks "how are they better?" you have to have an answer that will convince them.

>64 nathanielcampbell:, 65, 68 I remember about 20 years ago I was back in the UK for a year, working in a Catholic retreat/spirituality centre, and I drew the short straw and got landed with giving first holy communion instruction to a 7-year old boy from one of the old aristocratic English Catholic families. At one point we were doing loving your neighbour and being kind and compassionate, and eventually the little lad gave his conclusion on the matter: "Well, I can see your point, but one has to make a profit, doesn't one". Clearly the political and economic indoctrination he had received from his family trumped anything the Church could throw at him. But he didn't fail the course, nor get a lower grade, nor get told he would go to hell nor any of the other dire consequences which so many on this thread seem to thing happen to children in the evil clutches of the Church; he went on to make his first holy communion as normal. I had imparted to him what the Church deemed necessary; it's between him and his God what he does with it. I doubt very much that he was traumatised by our little classes, which I recall were held in a rose garden next to an ornamental pond and whose duration was determined by how long I could keep his attention before the pond became a more attractive option than learning about religion, and as far as I know he and his family are still happily making a profit.

Wait, are we going to argue against profit now? :)

>70 timspalding: Ah well, that would be a different conversation! As a socialist of course I have concerns about unbridled capitalism, as, incidentally, does the pope (Pope's new year address deplores rampant capitalism (BBC)), and indeed Catholic Social Teaching. It's not against profit per se, but making a profit at the expense of loving one's neighbour would be frowned upon, I believe.

But I think my point was that in the course of religious instruction I was unable to brainwash a 7-year old religiously, economically or politically, which either says something about my indoctrinational skills (I don't think I'd have been very good as a member of the Spanish Inquisition!) or else suggests that the Church has a rather more open attitude towards religious education than some of its detractors believe.

Every parent "indoctrinates" their children in some way. Even those who think they don't.

>65 southernbooklady:

If making everyone feel better is a prime objective, why have Internet debate forums?

I don't actually see the term "debate" as integral to what happens in LT Talk or "Let's Talk Religion," although some clearly do.

If all I cared about was a "prime objective" I'd sign up to be a Borg.

>75 southernbooklady:

Okay, why is making everyone feel better a cause your children should accept as worth pursuing?

I wonder if an underlying problem here is that most traditional philosophies and religions understand the urge to "love your neighbor as yourself" (or whatever form you want to cast this idea in, even the negative version, "Do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you") as a self-evident principle of ethical reality.

Then, we read through the first chapter of Genesis, which he also listed out on the board, next to the scientific narrative.

Uh-huh. So, how did plants grow when they were created before the sun?

Are self-evident principles doctrines?

StormRaven's post didn't make me feel better.

> 78

Also -the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day. That's a mind-boggler when you think about it - in terms of literalism.

Also, the stars were created also - as an afterthought, it seems. Just to have some pretty lights in the sky to amuse Adam and Eve? Stupid - if taken literally.

If the entire bible is to be interpreted as poetic expression, as mythos, as metaphor, then there is no argument to be had. The sophisticated religionists have no serious argument with atheists, and visa versa, if that is the case.

It is only the literalist interpretation of the bible that is stupid - you know, the crap that some 30 per cent of christians - at least - believe in as an act of faith. Is it unfair to call that out as ignorance?

I say hell no. If not then what - astrology is beyond criticism, just because someone believes it and finds a lot of comfort and hope therein?

Ditto scientology? (Some people believe in that crap like it was a religion.)

>78 StormRaven:: "Uh-huh. So, how did plants grow when they were created before the sun?"

Are you really so dense that you can't understand what I and other posters (e.g. Tim, John, CJ, and Arctic) have repeatedly and consistently said, namely, that we do not believe that Genesis is a science textbook or a scientific narrative? Is it any wonder that some atheist posters in these threads are met with less-than-gracious tolerance, when they insist time and again on distorting the views of believers to fit their narrow, parochial, and stereotypical mockery of religion?

My Sunday school teacher's point--and one that has, in a variety of ways, animated my own vocation as a theologian--was that there is no necessary or compelling conflict between faith and science. As each desires and seeks the truth, so they can be understood to complement each other in that endeavor.

In the interests, then, of clarity (if also of repetition): I do not believe that the first chapters of Genesis are a fully accurate narrative of the physical development of the world. They are, however, an admirable attempt at articulating the holistic development of the world and human creatures within it from the perspective of an ancient people. Furthermore, the truth-value of Genesis lies in its articulation of the human experience of our relationship to each other, to the world, and to God -- a relationship that is not simply physical, but involves non-physical arenas of action and experience such as morality and spirituality.

> 82
"... I do not believe that the first chapters of Genesis are a fully accurate narrative of the physical development of the world. They are, however, an admirable attempt at articulating the holistic development of the world and human creatures within it from the perspective of an ancient people. Furthermore, the truth-value of Genesis lies in its articulation of the human experience of our relationship to each other, to the world, and to God -- a relationship that is not simply physical, but involves non-physical arenas of action and experience such as morality and spirituality."

Exactly. I get the same result from reading Grimm's Fairy Tales, Uncle Remus, and Aesop's Fables.

And as regards the first chapters of Genesis - in one of his books Joseph Campbell pointed out some archeological evidence that the first couple/tree/snake mythos dates back some 9,000 years. Apparently that mythos speaks to people as it has been repeated for millennia by various cultures.

>79 cpg:: "Are self-evident principles doctrines?"

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. In the sense that "doctrines" are teachings about human nature passed down from generation to generation, then yes, self-evident principles can be called doctrines/teachings.

If you are using "doctrine" to mean the proprietary claims a particular religion makes on truths not otherwise available to human knowledge--what is properly called "dogma" rather than "doctrine"--then I don't think that self-evident principles fall into that category.

It seems self-evident to me, as a student of human history, civilization, religion, and ideas, that we have a fundamental awareness of an ethical/moral duty to help others to become better human beings, and that our own amelioration is contained within that relationship to others. Likewise, I believe that we have a fundamental awareness of our own selfish limitations and alienation that frequently thwarts that amelioration at every turn.

The interplay between those two forces of human nature--whether we call them good and evil, light and dark, yin and yang, love and hate, grace and sin--can be found in almost every human attempt to understand itself. As JGL says in post 83 (unencumbered for once with crass vulgarity), "Apparently that mythos speaks to people as it has been repeated for millennia by various cultures."

For me as a Christian and a theologian, God's revelation of himself through the person of Christ both confirms that fundamental observation of human nature and provides the path by which the dichotomy is overcome and sublimated into a unity of goodness, light, love, and grace.

ETA reference to JGL's post 83.

I don't know the veracity of this story, but it illustrates a point. (My apologies in advance to the literalists who insist that the only way to read a text is as plain, absolute truth.)

Samuel Taylor Coleridge was sitting on his porch listening to a visitor make his point against religious instruction for children. "Children should be able to express themselves naturally," he inisted, "with no interference from outside forces."

Silently Coleridge went over to a patch of weeds and began staring at it. "What are you doing?" asked his visitor?

"I am admiring my garden," he replied. "It is expressing itself naturally, without any interference from me."

For the record, the OP is one of the most bigoted post I have read on LT.

>85 Arctic-Stranger:: "Children should be able to express themselves naturally," he insisted, "with no interference from outside forces."

I wonder how well children will express themselves without being influenced by the outside force of learned language.

Yes, as noted above several times, beginning with #1, we indoctrinate children in a number of ways for a number of reasons. None are equal in significance and consequences to religious indoctrination.

#85

For the record, the OP is one of the most bigoted post I have read on LT.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass.

For the record, the OP is one of the most bigoted post I have read on LT.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass.

I guess you really showed me up! How can I compete with that impecable logic?

#82

the truth-value of Genesis lies in its articulation of the human experience of our relationship to each other, to the world, and to God -- a relationship that is not simply physical, but involves non-physical arenas of action and experience such as morality and spirituality.

Setting aside for the moment the question of how well children grasp the need for a "metaphorical" reading of religious texts and when they become capable of doing it, how do you assign truth-value to such things in Genesis as the articulation of female inferiority? Did Eve betray God (and Adam, and herself, and entire humankind), or didn't she? Is she justly punished or not?

Personally, I see no truth-value in that particular story at all. I see no truth-value in the jumbled, nonsensical sequence of creation (or the fact that there are two different sequences of creation present in the text), nor in the idea that humans are "fallen" and "damned" unless "saved".

I can appreciate the poetry of it, the imagination--you could say I recognise a certain poetical value in it. But I perceive no truth in it, anymore than admiring a painting in which the sun is represented as a lion on fire is capable of making me think the sun IS a lion on fire.

I don't believe humans ever dwelt in Eden, I don't believe Eve talked to the serpent, I don't believe Eve and Adam "sinned", and I absolutely refuse to take on Eve's guilt and punishment, metaphorically, literally, in jest or not.

Going back to children: how do you serve THEM the story of the fall? And why would we? It is a mortifying and morbid tale invented to put down half of humanity--well, first one half, then the other as well, linked in their misery.

It is bad enough as pure invention; presented to children as true, something to believe in, it's downright criminal.

Are you really so dense that you can't understand what I and other posters (e.g. Tim, John, CJ, and Arctic) have repeatedly and consistently said, namely, that we do not believe that Genesis is a science textbook or a scientific narrative?

So, you're back to lying again? Or exactly what did you mean when you said:

The conclusion that he led us to was that there was substantive agreement between the two processes, with the understandable caveat that when the Bible was written, they didn't understand just how long the whole thing had taken.

When now, apparently, you are arguing that there is not substantive agreement between the two processes? Are you really so stupid as to think that Genesis, when laid side-by-side with the accepted scientific explanations, is anything but complete silliness? There is substantially more differences between the two accounts that amount to a lot more than "just how long the whole thing had taken".

Such as plants predating the Sun. The writers of Genesis didn't just not know how long the process had taken, they didn't have the first clue how any of the events had transpired. You may as well say that Odin crafted the world out of Ymir's skull, Marduk piled dirt on a reed mat in an endless ocean, or Ptah masturbated the world into existence.

>90 StormRaven:: I feel sorry for your children if you expected them in fifth grade to be able to understand things at the same level as a professional with a graduate degree.

So I will reiterate (since you apparently didn't get this the first time I said it): "My Sunday school teacher's point--and one that has, in a variety of ways, animated my own vocation as a theologian--was that there is no necessary or compelling conflict between faith and science. As each desires and seeks the truth, so they can be understood to complement each other in that endeavor."

And your charge of lying is simply ludicrous -- you know as well as I do that I have consistently argued on LT for a non-literal reading of Genesis. Indeed, I have on a number of occasions thanked you for your lucid explanations of science in the face of creationists.

One would think that you could return the courtesy by not dishonestly charging me with literalist beliefs that I do not hold.

For the record, the OP is one of the most bigoted post I have read on LT.

So, are there any boundaries upon a parent's authority over their children? Or is it just a free-for-all on the kids?

>89 LolaWalser:: "I absolutely refuse to take on Eve's guilt and punishment, metaphorically, literally, in jest or not."

I have addressed this before, in this post in the "Is religion good for women?" thread. It references the opening vision of the second part of Hildegard of Bingen's first work, Scivias, in which she reimagined (and radically inverted) the Fall by seeing Adam offered the flower of obedience, which he then failed to pick. Furthermore, even in the more conventional version of the Fall that Hildegard described in Part I, Vision 2 of that work, the blame was placed squarely on the Devil, whom she saw blowing his acrid, venomous, smoky breath upon the bright white cloud that came from the side of Adam (representing Eve) -- the cloud in which she saw the brightly twinkling stars that represented the future of all humanity.

In other words, your assumptions about the misogyny of the Christian story of creation, fall, and redemption betray a significant lack of understanding of the complexity of the Christian tradition. While I cannot deny that there has long been a strong and pervasive streak of such misogyny within that tradition, it also contains many countercurrents that perceive a complementarity and equality between men and women, made together in the image and likeness of God and redeemed together in Christ, in whom "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor imale and female--for all are one in Christ."

>91 nathanielcampbell: As each desires and seeks the truth, so they can be understood to complement each other in that endeavor

But this is the ultimate question, is it not? It's not just a case of Genesis being literally true, but of whether it is even philosophically true. Your Sunday school teacher's goal was to make sure that the children in his class all thought it was, indeed, "true" on some fundamental level.

But was it? And isn't it possible--even probable--that for all the little girls in the class a creation story that blames the fall of man on Eve would not only be not true, but would actually be irrelevant to their existence as females?

(I remember a hilarious comment the radical feminist philosopher Mary Daly once said on the subject of Genesis: "Adam gave birth to Eve. If you can swallow that, you can swallow anything.")

ETA you posted while I was writing, but:

your assumptions about the misogyny of the Christian story of creation, fall, and redemption betray a significant lack of understanding of the complexity of the Christian tradition

How's explaining that complexity going over in your third grade Sunday school class?

>94 southernbooklady:: "How's explaining that complexity going over in your third grade Sunday school class?"

It's not actually very difficult today to model for even very young children a social context in which men and women are treated with equality and respect rather than forced into an unequal power relationship of superiority and inferiority. Indeed, it has little to do with Adam and Eve, and much more to do with the attitudes and beliefs of the adults in whose world the children live.

Our Christmas gift from my sister-in-law was the complete series of The Cosby Show on DVD, on which we've been feasting the last week. Throughout the series, several characters (especially Sondra's beau, Elvin) are given old-fashioned, stereotypical "misogynistic" views, which are humorously played against the strong female characters of the series, especially Clare. This method of addressing historical inequalities with contemporary attitudes of equality even extends to the youngest children -- at one point, there's a delightful scene in which the boy Kenny is given the misogynistic stereotype for the young Rudy to play (and triumph) against, with results that are both hilarious and empowering at the same time.

As a man, a teacher, and a husband, I am thoroughly committed to working for justice and equality for men and women alike -- and if I ever tried to play the false male superiority card, I'd be sleeping on the couch for a very long time!

#93

In other words, your assumptions about the misogyny of the Christian story of creation, fall, and redemption betray a significant lack of understanding of the complexity of the Christian tradition.

Perhaps--no doubt, even, when compared to your own professional expertise. But my "lack of understanding of the complexity" is pretty much common, not just among the godless, but among the believers as well. (And not just Christians--the Muslims and the Jews hardly hold women in higher regard). I think you ought to acknowledge, and not just in regard to this particular topic, that the complexity of interpretation you apply to it is super-rare.

By the way, just to make clear--it is not only the misogyny I'm objecting to, it's the very concept of sin, sinfulness, the idea that humankind "fell" and so on.

If I may ask, Nathaniel, how do you think you'll explain this to your children? I mean, I know YOU believe we are all sinners, to be redeemed by Christ and so on. But how do you--why do you--tell such things to a perfectly naive child, someone barely awakening into life? (Please forgive me for any unwarranted assumptions--I'm merely supposing that as a believer you will be raising your children to be believers.)

>96 LolaWalser:: "it's the very concept of sin, sinfulness, the idea that humankind "fell" and so on."

As I attempted to articulate in post 84, I think that the coexistance of human tendencies both towards love and compassion and towards selfish alienation and hatred are self-evident in the human condition. It seems utterly delusional to me to deny that humans have a strong propensity to hurt each other rather than to help each other, to hate each other rather than to love, to oppress each other rather than to serve. That is what Christianity describes as "sin".

(As others have frequently mentioned, it is best to read the "Fall" in Genesis, not as a single historical event in human history, but as a recognition of this tendency towards alienation from self, from other, and from the divine. In that sense, the Fall can be found described in most attempts to assay the human condition.)

How do I explain that to the children? I probably use many of the same techniques you use to explain to children the existence of evil in the world. My guess is that you don't talk about genocide with a five-year old. Rather, when you talk about how humans (should) treat each other, you probably do as I do with a five-year old: you emphasize kindness and compassion, fairness and sharing. When I talk about God with a five-year-old, I talk about God's love for us and our love for each other. When I talk about creation with a five-year-old, I talk about how God created the world and human beings out of that love and "saw that they were good." (I also never tell a child of any age that God's act of creation conflicts in any way with scientific explanations of the genesis of the world.)

Only as children get older and become both more aware of the complexities of the world--i.e. that it's not always kind and compassionate and fair--and more capable of understanding those complexities would I explore with them how and why humans choose to act selfishly and badly rather than lovingly and for the good.

As much as the presence of "sin" (i.e. the human propensity to hurt, to hate, to oppress, to alienate) seems self-evident to me, the presence of Love in human nature seems even more so. If you look back through many of my posts on LT, you will find that, far more than discussing sin, they discuss Love -- for Love is, I believe, at the very core of what it means to be God and what it means to be human.

I feel sorry for your children if you expected them in fifth grade to be able to understand things at the same level as a professional with a graduate degree.

I feel sorry for your prospective children that you feel the need to cripple them by telling them falsehoods and labeling it truth.

So I will reiterate (since you apparently didn't get this the first time I said it): "My Sunday school teacher's point--and one that has, in a variety of ways, animated my own vocation as a theologian--was that there is no necessary or compelling conflict between faith and science. As each desires and seeks the truth, so they can be understood to complement each other in that endeavor."

Except that wasn't what you originally said. Which is why you are a liar. Either what you originally said was what your Sunday school teacher was trying to tell you, or what you are now saying. Was your Sunday school teacher trying to show you that "there was substantive agreement between the two processes", as you originally said, or that there is no conflict between the two, which is an equally ludicrous statement? As I said, you may as well talk about the accuracy of Ptah's masturbation creation story.

One would think that you could return the courtesy by not dishonestly charging me with literalist beliefs that I do not hold.

Stop lying in your posts and maybe you won't be labeled as a liar.

But genocide isn't part and parcel of anything a kid is going to come across in kindergarten. The Bible stories are. Yeah--not Lot and Onan and Tamar first thing in the morning, but the notion that Jesus died for us and so on.

The Bible can be bowdlerised, as are, after all, many myths meant for tots, but I don't see how you can retell Genesis to them in any way that still bears resemblance to it, if you wish to avoid the impression that Eve is to blame, or that everyone, including the child you are explaining things to, is being punished for it.

>96 LolaWalser:: "I think you ought to acknowledge, and not just in regard to this particular topic, that the complexity of interpretation you apply to {misogyny} is super-rare."

Historically, you are right. But in contemporary theology, I think that misogyny is on its way to being the rare breed, replaced by generally accepted schemas of equality and complementarity.

For the committed Christian, however, that shift must seek to find its roots within the tradition--for complete innovation and utter discontinuity with the tradition of faith is usually understood to be a sign of betraying the foundations of faith rather than supporting them.

As a historical theologian, that's a project I undertake. My vocation is to find ways to articulate modern conceptions of life within the timeless perspective of the "deposit of faith". This is one reason, I believe, that Pope Benedict recently named Hildegard of Bingen a Doctor of the Church -- he perceives that her visionary theology offers for today important insights into the nature of our loving relationship to God and to each other.

>98 StormRaven:: "Except that wasn't what you originally said. Which is why you are a liar. Either what you originally said was what your Sunday school teacher was trying to tell you, or what you are now saying."

This has happened before. I will say something, which is misinterpreted; then, when I clarify my original statement, you declare it a lie.

As I've explained before, that's not what most people mean by the word, "lie." To most people (including me), a lie must be an intentional falsehood. That is not what has occurred here. What happened here was that my original statement was not sufficiently clear in its intended meaning to prevent misinterpretation, thus requiring further clarification.

It has been consistently clear in all of my posts on LibraryThing that (1) I accept the findings of the natural sciences; (2) I do not hold up Genesis as a science textbook in contradiction to statement (1); and (3) I do not believe that science and faith must conflict.

That you are determined to flagrantly and obstinately lie about my positions in these matters has now also become clear.

In ‘The Age of Reason’ Thomas Paine pointed out that what makes christianity unique among religions is that it's the only religion based on a pun (on the words life and/or death).

Paine was obviously right.

Since a pun is acknowledged as the lowest form of humor, that would make christianity the lowest form of religion.

No LOL though. christianity is not funny. It is a sick pun. A very sick pun.

". . .the only religion based on a pun"

So I've heard, but I'm surprised you attribute it to Paine. I heard it was Albert Camus who said that, and he said it not of all Christianity but of the Roman Catholic Church.
The pun works only in French (Tu es PIERRE, et sur cette pierre . . .) and in Greek, of which Camus had some knowledge (and maybe so did Paine): (su ei PETROS* . . .)
I don't get what "the words life and/or death" had to do with it.)

*"Petros" (French: "Pierre"): Kephas's, (better known as "St. Peter's Greek name.

I can't believe we didn't see this before...

Apparently, in starting this thread, Lola was simply parroting back the talking points issued just before Christmas by her idol, Richard Dawkins:

"Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse": Latest incendiary claim made by atheist professor Richard Dawkins (Dec. 21, Daily Mail {UK})

>104 nathanielcampbell: Apparently, in starting this thread, Lola was simply parroting back the talking points issued just before Christmas by her idol, Richard Dawkins

Not according to her post at #38. But "parroting" and "idol" are provocative words--ones religious people object to when applied to them. So perhaps you mean that the concept of religious indoctrination as abuse should not be discussed?

>105 southernbooklady:: They were intentionally provocative. Lola has accused religious believers of mindlessly following the indoctrination forced upon them by their leaders, rather than critically and self-consciously examining the foundations of the ideas they believe in.

Yet here, we see her uncritically repeating the incendiary and baseless claims that Dawkins made less than two weeks ago, including the claim in the OP that we teach "children that the god-less end up in hell" (Dawkins' version, from the article linked in 104: "It seems to me that telling children that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to Hell and roast forever – that your skin grows again when it peels off with burning – it seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse, that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress because they really believe.")

You'll notice, of course, that not a single religious poster on this thread has ever taught a child or experienced the teaching of a child that "your skin grows again when it peels off with burning." Yet, based merely on the testimony of one person, Dawkins declares this to be the default Christian teaching imparted to children.

I simply cannot see how one can continue to claim that Dawkins is making honest and reasonable arguments about religion when he repeats such irrational and patently refutable claims.

#104

I don't read UK newspapers, Dawkins isn't my idol, and I certainly didn't form my position on religious indoctrination of children through and thanks to him.

I can date fairly precisely (to the year and month) when my position began forming. It was in April 1978, a few days after I had turned eight, when my gruesome {devout Catholic} teacher (and future molester) told me "not to play a little philosopher"--my persistent questions on where exactly did god "live" in the solar system and how he monitored humans etc. weren't to his taste.

Of course, I realise I still fail in so many ways the example of rock-solid skepticism and "think-for-yourself"ism you present, Nathaniel.

>107 LolaWalser: Lola, once again let me say that your experience was appalling, although this time I won't offer my regrets as apparently you don't appreciate that. It's no wonder that you have formed such an adverse opinion of the Church, and rightly so from your own perspective. But again I repeat that one cannot generalise, when others are offering completely different and positive experiences. Our Church is a mixed bag with good and bad, and the superlatives of both, like any other human institution.

#106

Catholic (and as far as I know, Protestant as well) catechism includes teachings on the fall, sin, eternal reward and punishment etc. Whether it is accompanied by vivid details of roasting in a fire or not is rather beyond the point. To suffer forever can't possibly be pleasant however you slice it.

And the underlying question remains. Why teach something we do not and cannot know is true?

>109 LolaWalser: Why teach children about culture, or about the national myth, or folk songs? It's part of one's heritage, just as the culture and guiding myth of a faith community is part of the heritage of members of that faith community. Is it legitimate to impart communal values to one's children? If so, it is also legitimate to impart the values of the faith community.

#108

This is the problem, John, you call my experience appalling--and I tend to agree!--but the point is that it is nothing unusual.

As for that teacher--that's not something I ever discussed with strangers on the Internet and don't plan to do so now. But rest assured that his was merely the first extremely strong example of religious hypocrisy I came across (and was old enough and involved enough to remember), not some extraordinary watershed.

I had a number of other, private teachers at the time. All Armenian Christians, extremely religious people. One of them made me a present of a Bible, shocked that we didn't have one. (He asked my parents' permission, which they naturally gave without a raised eyebrow. It was my first completely "grown up" book completely mine, not appropriated from my parents' library.)

Well, their example did nothing to make me take to religion. The stories never made sense.

>109 LolaWalser:: Why did Socrates teach his students/followers about the forms of the Good, the Beautiful, the Just, and the Pious, when he himself admitted that he could not know them for certain?

Why did the Buddha teach those around him about enlightenment and compassion, when his ideas were clearly not based in any type of experimentally-reproducible version of physical reality?

Why do humans philosophize about abstract things like truth and beauty and goodness when they have no basis in scientific fact?

By limiting the realm of knowledge to the purely material and by limiting valid realms of knowledge to those studied by the natural sciences, you effectively refute all human attempts throughout history to understand themselves.

But let's go one step further. Why do physicists teach their students about the multiverse theory, whose very definition precludes us from verifying it through experimental means? We do not and cannot know that the multiverse theory is true -- so why do physicists teach about it?

#110

Why teach children about culture, or about the national myth, or folk songs? It's part of one's heritage, just as the culture and guiding myth of a faith community is part of the heritage of members of that faith community. Is it legitimate to impart communal values to one's children? If so, it is also legitimate to impart the values of the faith community.

Disingenuous. It's clear from many posts above that I, as presumably many others, have nothing against teaching religious stories as myths and traditional lore.

But this is not how they are taught in catechism classes. The overall purpose is to inculcate a specific faith and raise children in a religion. "Corrections" are left to parents (and hardly ever looked upon kindly).

This is why the debates are ever-lasting, in all countries that offer catechism in school. Quite apart from the clashes with science, it is forever pointed out as a tool of division, a human and civil rights breach, in an increasingly multicultural world.

In Croatia, a gaggle of bishops screeched down yoga as part of gym in school. The physical exercises, no "philosophy" served. Still. Danger.

I see nothing controversial in the statement that many children are subjected to religious indoctrination by their parents. It is only provocative if one believes children arrive at organized religious views spontaneously.

#112

Socrates, Buddha and multiverse physicists don't "preach" to four year olds.

It is intellectually obscene to pretend that catechism belongs in the same bag with Socratic method or science.

>113 LolaWalser: I don't deny that any of the things you say do happen. But I don't believe they are as all-pervading as you suggest. Many of us here have not experienced them at all, neither personally nor to any great extent in our professional engagement within the Church. They are abuses, not the norm.

The overall purpose is to inculcate a specific faith and raise children in a religion. "Corrections" are left to parents (and hardly ever looked upon kindly)

I would disagree.

the clashes with science

There is no clash with science, at least not within the Catholic Church.

a tool of division

Of course it can be. But it can also be, and often is, a tool of reconciliation: cf ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, the Church's role in peace processes all over the world. It's no accident that the South African government chose an archbishop to lead its Truth and Reconciliation Commission, nor that the South Sudan government chose an archbishop to chair its Committee for Peace, Reconciliation and Tolerance in a region of South Sudan torn by inter-communal conflict. Pope Benedict XVI has recently reaffirmed and encouraged the role of the African Church in justice and peace in Africae Munus.

a human and civil rights breach, in an increasingly multicultural world

Freedom of religion is a human right, not a human rights breach, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How can one encourage multiculturalism while frowning on multi-religionism?

>113 LolaWalser:: I think part of the problem here may stem from a difference in how public education is delivered in different countries.

For the American posters on this thread, the idea of a "country that offers catechism in school" is unknown and anathema. American public schools do not have catechism classes -- the closest they come will be reading religious texts in literature classes (where they are treated from the mytho-poeic standpoint) or in elective classes on religion that study multiple faiths but do not advocate any of them over the others.

Religious private schools, of course, are free to teach catechism as they please -- that right is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

And that brings us to another area that often distinguishes the U.S. from other countries: in the United States, the right to the free practice of religion is often protected far more robustly, and far more equitably, than in many other countries. American law and American tradition do not look kindly on attempts to tell religious people what they can and cannot teach their children -- or, for that matter, to tell any people what they can and cannot teach their children.

I'm known on LT as a vociferous opponent of any attempt to teach Creationism in the public schools; yet, I would just as vociferously oppose any attempt by the government to forbid parents or churches from teaching creationism in private settings. I may think that creationism constitutes both bad theology and bad science, and is furthermore an affront to all critical thinking, but I do not think that it should be within the power of the government to tell people what they can and cannot believe.

And I would think that you would agree with me, since your entire point hinges on the ideal that human beings should be allowed to think for themselves rather than being forced by authority to think according to an arbitrary standard.

110: Why teach children about culture, or about the national myth, or folk songs?

Most of the time, we don't pretend that things like the national myth are true. Or are enforced by an invisible, immaterial being. That's one major difference.

#117

So in the US religious indoctrination is displaced to Sunday school, religious schools, the church, the parents.

It is still the same method and the same purpose.

#114

I see nothing controversial in the statement that many children are subjected to religious indoctrination by their parents. It is only provocative if one believes children arrive at organized religious views spontaneously.

Yes. Perhaps naively, I wasn't expecting anyone to pretend that children "arrive at organized religious views spontaneously".

But lo and behold...

>118 StormRaven: But we still impart the myth, culture and values to our children, often through stories. It's part of a shared heritage, just as religion is for members of a faith community.

yet, I would just as vociferously oppose any attempt by the government to forbid parents or churches from teaching creationism in private settings.

I would. Because creationism is false and teaching it in school actually hurts children.

Freedom of religion is a civil right in the United States but it is not a get out of jail free card.

ETA: maybe when you say "private settings" you mean the home. There isn't much the government can do about that--although homeschooling has to jump through its fair share of hoops. But I don't consider private schools to be the same as someone's living room.

120: Yes, but you pretend the religious stories you tell are true. Or at least that they illuminate vague unspecified truths. A contention not backed by anything other than hot air.

We call people stupid when they believe that American exceptionalism is real. Your religious dogma gets the same treatment.

>122 StormRaven: Ah, back to insults rather than trying to understand. Normal service has been resumed!

Edited to add: Or at least that they illuminate vague unspecified truths

Or that they illuminate some fairly specific values such as loving thy neighbour, kindness, compassion, justice, peace-building, forgiveness, reconciliation, etc.

>121 southernbooklady:: I will reiterate: I OPPOSE the teaching of creationism in public schools and in any science classroom. I agree with you: creationism is both bad theology and bad science, and teaching it to children in school is detrimental to their education.

(Given the number of times I have said this on LT, and given that I have never wavered from this conviction, you'd think that it would be clear where I stand. Alas, StormRaven is probably going to accuse me of lying again, so what's a guy to do?)

But I also oppose any attempt by the government to tell parents what they can and cannot teach their children in their homes and churches. It's what we call freedom of religion.

And in their church-run schools?

>124 nathanielcampbell:: It is not the government's place to interfere with church-run schools in matters touching on their beliefs. (The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this point last year in their ruling on the ministerial exception.)

That said, I will never support or patronize a church-run school that teaches creationism as a valid belief; and both I (a theologian) and my wife (an evolutionary biologist) are involved in our teaching and in our church to promote the validity of sound science education and the theological inferiority of creationism.

>126 nathanielcampbell: And this is where we ultimately part company. It's one thing to decide to believe in creationism as a person of age, an adult. But freedom of religion is not a blank check/free pass to hurt children.

Not, mind you, that I think religious schools do teach creationism, but you were the one that brought it up as an example.

>127 southernbooklady:: "Not, mind you, that I think religious schools do teach creationism, but you were the one that brought it up as an example."

Of course -- I brought it up as an example of something that would distinguish the powers of the government in terms of public vs. private education. The majority of private religious schools in the United States are run by the Catholic Church, which does NOT hold creationism to be a valid scientific theory.

I must admit that I find it worrying that you think the government should have the power to tell religious organizations what they can and cannot believe and teach. That seems to me to fundamentally betray the principle of religious freedom and government non-interference with religion enshrined in our constitution.

>129 southernbooklady: I must admit that I find it worrying that you think the government should have the power to tell religious organizations what they can and cannot believe and teach.

Well in this we are equal, then because I find it not just worrying, but even alarming that you think it is okay to teach kinds things that not only aren't true, but are actually harmful, in the name of religious freedom.

>129 southernbooklady:: "you think it is okay to teach kinds things that not only aren't true, but are actually harmful, in the name of religious freedom."

Please read again what I said in post 124: "I agree with you: creationism is both bad theology and bad science, and teaching it to children in school is detrimental to their education."

I do NOT think it is okay to teach children creationism as if it were science (or as if it were good theology). That is why my wife and I work together to educate both our students and our fellow Christians on these points.

But a foundational element in the form of government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is that the government does not infringe on the rights of its citizens to believe in God, to think for themselves, and to believe as they will.

I don't think that parents should feed their children lots of sugary snacks and sodas -- indeed, study after study (as well as common sense!) shows it to be "actually harmful". But I also don't think it should be within the government's power to tell parents what they can and cannot feed their children.

I don't think that parents should let their children play endless hours of violent video games and watch endless hours of mindless television. Indeed, studies (and common sense) show such behaviors to be harmful. But I also don't think it should be within the government's power to tell parents they can't let their children play video games.

When the government decrees what parents can and cannot do for and teach their children, the government simply assumes the place of the autocratic indoctrinator that you find so offensive in the Church.

If you think that parents should not force their religious views on their children, then it is simply hypocritical of you to think that the government should force its views on them.

It is a logical fallacy when someone takes their own limited experience and extrapolates to a universe. If A is found in subset X then the total set XYZ must be equal to A. In therapy we call it a thinking error, and try to train our kids not to commit them, but it takes the ability to imagine a world that exists beyond one's personal experience and for some that is an impossible task. For most people that is not dysfunctional, and they can do quite well without every really imagining a world from someone else's perspective. (Or if they do, it is in Potemkin village images.) In Germany I saw this among many Germans who had a very limited imagination when it came to what life in the US was really like, and they were not interested in having their views corrected. (More than once I was given ketchup because "All Americans put ketchup on everything.")

That someone had a harrowing experience with a faith does not mean that faith is a harrowing experience. Are there horror stories? Of course. (But no humanist or atheist family ever perpetuated horror on their kids, right? And even if they did, that would not matter because we are not talking about that. We must limit our discussion to religious discourse, and then limit it to a very narraow bannd of religious discourse.)

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, and it was various Sunday School teachers who taught me to question things. They were willing to entertain questions I had that no public school teacher should entertain in a public school class. Some of the best discussions I ever had as a kid were in Sunday school classes.

And, for the record, the worst teachers I ever had were math and science teachers. I learned from them that science and math was INCREDIBLY boring. They had little imagination, and could not teach a dog to bark. In Geometry, for example, I was a consistent D student. When we got to theorems the light clicked on, and I did not make less than a 100 on any assignment. After that section my grades dropped back down to a D.

Did that teacher ever mention that I had this blip? If she saw it, did she understand that I was possibly reachable, and that if I could make 100s in this section, maybe I could be enticed to start putting that effort elsewhere? Nope. Not a word. Not to me, not to my parents, not to my other teachers. Nothing. And so I continued my lackluster academic relationship with math. (My social studies teacher, on the other hand, noticed that I was ignoring her by readiing class. She found out what I was reading, gave me interesting suggestions for future reading, and then had me doing reports for the class on what I was reading. Clever lady!)

Now, does my experience pertain to anything in general? No. This is a case where it sucks to me. Are all ninth grade math teachers the dull, boring unimaginative people? Of course not.

I realize this does not address the notion behind the different contents of the fields of religion and science, but from reading the above, some people cannot imagine a world outside of their own experience, and better minds than mine have tried to open the minds of those who will not see because they cannot afford to agree.

>130 nathanielcampbell: "I agree with you: creationism is both bad theology and bad science, and teaching it to children in school is detrimental to their education."

No, but you are okay with someone else doing so on religious grounds. Because of their guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

If you think that parents should not force their religious views on their children, then it is simply hypocritical of you to think that the government should force its views on them.

Of course, the answer to this is that the theory of evolution is not a "view." It is a scientific theory supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. If the public school then turned around and insisted that species migration all occurred by land bridges instead of due continental to plate tectonics, I'd be equally incensed.

I recognize that I'm accepting of more government involvement in our lives than you are--at least in some things. There are a whole host of situations where I question religion's apparent primacy over the welfare of the child. Vaccinations. Medical care. etc.

And no, I don't want any children in this country to grow up without the benefit of an education that adheres to at least minimal standards, just because we're worried about their parents' religious rights.

123; When you make unsubstantiated assertions, you get called on it.

When people talk about the supremacy of the white race, or how their nation has been specially and particularly blessed by intangible entities, we scoff at their ideas and ridicule them.

You are just annoyed that the same treatment is now being given to your silly notions.

I must admit that I find it worrying that you think the government should have the power to tell religious organizations what they can and cannot believe and teach.

So, your attitude is that the extent of the powers that a religious organization has includes teaching children falsehoods as if they were true.

>134 StormRaven:: The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect the speech and beliefs of people you disagree with.

But it does not protect fraud.

>132 southernbooklady:: "If the public school then turned around and insisted that species migration all occurred by land bridges instead of due continental to plate tectonics, I'd be equally incensed."

As would I. And whenever a public school decides to teach nonsense in the classroom, I protest and support government intervention to correct it. But that's because public schools are run by the government -- so of course the government should have the power to determine what is taught in them!

You can't seem to keep the distinction between public and private, religious education straight. The government provides the one as a public service; the government is bound by the limitations of the Constitution to stay out of the other. And by the way, the Supreme Court unanimously agrees with that schema.

So, your attitude is that the extent of the powers that a religious organization has includes teaching children falsehoods as if they were true.

I would really like to see the law that requires that only the truth be taught. They tried that in Russia and China. Russia even called their newspaper Pravda--Truth.

>132 southernbooklady:: "No, but you are okay with someone else doing so on religious grounds. Because of their guaranteed right to freedom of religion."

Why do I have to repeat myself so many times? I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.

I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.
I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.
I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.

There, got it now?

As I've said numerous times now, there are a lot of things that I'm not okay with in society. But I do not believe that it is always the place of the government to intervene to fix those things. There aren't very many personal freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution -- for a document that governs so complex a country, it is remarkably succinct.

But one of those personal (and corporate, i.e. of "establishments") freedoms that it explicitly guarantees will not be abridged by the government is that of religion.

If you're willing to repeal the First Amendment, then maybe you can get the government to step in and force religious people to stop believing in creationism and teaching it as part of their beliefs. But until that repeal, it is not only not within the enumerated powers of the government, but it actually betrays an enumerated right, so to do.

For someone who thinks that it is not right for religious people to impose their views of marriage on the government, you sure seem quick to have the government impose your views on religious people.

>137 nathanielcampbell: You can't seem to keep the distinction between public and private, religious education straight.

Oh, I understand the distinction. I just don't agree that the freedom of religion is sacrosanct when it causes actual harm. Just as you aren't supposed to yell fire in a theater because it endangers people, I don't think religious freedom is a free pass to hurt kids. And yes, teaching creationism as if it were literally true, hurts kids.

So how about this? if the religious "school"'s curriculum is so out there it doesn't conform to minimum public school standards, then the parents should send their kids to...well, I guess it would be the opposite of "Sunday School" to make up the lack.

> 139 Why do I have to repeat myself so many times? I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.

I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.
I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.
I am NOT okay with someone teaching their children that creationism is true.

So you've said. But the conversation has centered around this statement:

I would just as vociferously oppose any attempt by the government to forbid parents or churches from teaching creationism in private settings.


And yes, I get it. You don't think it is the government's place to step in. But I do. Especially if the "private setting" is a religious school and the children are supposed to be getting the equivalent kind of education they'd get in a public setting. You know, something that would allow them to pass their GED, maybe even get into college.

I also, for what it is worth, think such "private settings" should conform to minimum health and safety standards, have working fire alarms, pass regular building code inspections.

So we are forcing parents to endoctrinate their kids by the state. Yes, that will be a popular move. And while we are at it, can we also make sure our kids learn that John Coltrane's music is infinitely better than anything on the radio today, that public school was founded by the good church people, that the Roman Catholic Church had little to do with early Christian theology, that if Galileo had not been such an asshole the pope (who believed the earth revolved around the sun) would probably not have made an issue of his "heresy" and that conservatives aren't really conservative.

Oh, I have a little list...

>141 southernbooklady:: "I also, for what it is worth, think such "private settings" should conform to minimum health and safety standards, have working fire alarms, pass regular building code inspections."

Ah, but those things don't have to do with protected speech and protected beliefs, so the government is free to set such standards as it pleases.

We're not giving religious institutions a carte blanche to destroy the world. But the protections enshrined in the First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court through the years, indicate that government CANNOT restrict a religious institution in its beliefs.

Again, I would encourage you to take a look at last year's Supreme Court ruling on the ministerial exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_v._EEOC ), to see how this works. Basically, the court ruled (unanimously) that federal employment law does not apply to religious schools when it comes to employees who act as ministers of the religion in question.

In other words, when it comes to teaching and administering the beliefs of a religious organization, the First Amendment protects them from government regulations that would otherwise apply.

>143 nathanielcampbell: Ah, but those things don't have to do with protected speech and protected beliefs

Up to a point, certainly. There's the whole issue of medical intervention and refusing medical treatment but as you say, this is "enshrined" in the First Amendment. So we are back, once again, to whether it is possible that religious indoctrination is actually abuse. There are cases where it may be. But the ability to abuse is, sadly, "sacrosanct" in the First Amendment.

>144 southernbooklady:: "So we are back, once again, to whether it is possible that religious indoctrination is actually abuse. There are cases where it may be. But the ability to abuse is, sadly, "sacrosanct" in the First Amendment. "

Many people think that homosexual relationships are inherently abusive because they are a perversion of the natural order of human sexuality. Some of those people have tried to use the powers of government to restrict the recognition of homosexual relationships, by passing, for example, laws that define marriage as between only a man and a woman.*

You have repeatedly and firmly opposed any such efforts at restriction. You have repeatedly and firmly said that you think it is a terrible and inhumane abuse of government power to make such laws.

Yet now that you have identified a human behavior that you think is abusive, you are quite ready for the powers of government to thunder down upon the heads of those whom you find repulsive, to force them to change their behavior and stop infecting society with their dangerous ideas.

So we are back, once again, to whether the government should force its citizens to abandon their most important self-identities because you find them offensive.

---------------------
*Disclaimer: As I have made clear before, I do not support laws that make homosexuality illegal.

>131 Arctic-Stranger: Thanks, Arctic-Stranger. I hope your explanation is clearer to some people than mine apparently was.

As far as my theme is concerned, there is no question of "abandoning" religious identity (Catholic, Muslim, Jewish...). For one thing, in most of the world religious identity is wedded to ethnicity or even replaces ethnicity. There's little religious window-shopping and changing "fashions" in Poland or Indonesia.

A family such as mine is still "Catholic" in the context of geography, history and our micro-environment, our personal views be damned. (Literally.)

The problem is always only this: is it fair to raise children as believers in any tradition when they cannot maturely think about religion, about what they are requested to believe?

Why shouldn't the imposition of faith in god and all the rest be postponed until later maturity? There are sects which don't baptise children at birth, but at some later date, precisely because they stress the need for understanding of the rite (I'm not sure what the threshold age is or whether it's the same everywhere--the principle is interesting.)

Doesn't it make sense, especially to those who pretend they have chosen faith freely, that children should be prevented from assuming blind faith?

>147 LolaWalser: is it fair to raise children as believers in any tradition when they cannot maturely think about religion, about what they are requested to believe?

Is it fair to raise children as members of a nation, a tribe, a culture, a social class, speakers of a certain dialect or accent, whatever, when they cannot maturely think about these things and what they are requested to believe? Of course it is.

Is it fair to raise children isolated from the values and traditions of their family and community, whether national, ethnic, cultural, social, linguistic and yes, religious? I think not.

With the proviso that they should be encouraged to be open-minded and explorative as they mature and the options become available to them to make their own choices.

>145 nathanielcampbell: Yet now that you have identified a human behavior that you think is abusive, you are quite ready for the powers of government to thunder down upon the heads of those whom you find repulsive

Homosexual relationships, however, happen between consenting adults. And those adults are free to try to influence the political system according to the processes available to them.

Children in a religious classroom being force-fed creationist ideas have no such recourse. I can't condone hurting kids in the name of freedom of religion.

Creationism is one of those hot button issues with me, obviously. You'll note I've not raised similar objections to other "miraculous" things that are generally taught in religious institutions. The Resurrection for example. Noah's Ark. Jonah and the Whale.

What makes the creationist ideology such a bete noir for me is that it demands a rejection of scientific evidence. Of reality, if you will. So it's fraud, protected under the mantle of religion. It doesn't get a pass.

Although I'll concede that adults are absolutely free to teach creationism to each other and believe in it if they want. Because, you know, they are over the age of consent.

Is it fair to raise children isolated from the values and traditions of their family and community, whether national, ethnic, cultural, social, linguistic and yes, religious? I think not.


But that cuts at the heart of the modern myth...that we can be a people who have no sustaining story, no mythos, no ethos. We can discern a way of living from science, with no support from tradition. We are people whose story is that we have no story. (Kind of like the rabbits in Watership Down who have no story. Of course, they are food for the farmer.)

>150 Arctic-Stranger:: "We are people whose story is that we have no story."

What an achingly eloquent expression!

But that cuts at the heart of the modern myth...that we can be a people who have no sustaining story, no mythos, no ethos.

This is factually incorrect.

#148

Is it fair to raise children as members of a nation, a tribe, a culture, a social class, speakers of a certain dialect or accent, whatever, when they cannot maturely think about these things and what they are requested to believe? Of course it is.

No, none of this compares to acquiring religion. Accidental facts of birth such as nationality, ethnicity, social class, language impose no special articles of faith; they certainly don't do so automatically. Chauvinistic and political indoctrination came up before, and their similarities to religious indoctrination. But a non-chauvinist Frenchman is still as much a Frenchman as the chauvin. Some upper class children may be brought up to believe they are inherently better than everyone else, but there is no constraint about the accidental fact of class which imposes such a belief. Language--what on earth is the relevance?

Only religious teaching imposes faith in 100% of the cases.

>153 LolaWalser:: "Only religious teaching imposes faith in 100% of the cases."

But are 100% of religious teaching imposing faith on children abusive? Or is it rather that some children have been abused by teachings that are done, not in a spirit of love, but in a spirit of selfish power? And that other children have been comforted and guided by teachings that have led them to be caring, loving, and compassionate citizens of the world?

When a person, raised within a religious tradition that taught them that their full humanity is realized in serving others rather than being served, in loving their neighbors and their enemies as themselves, in ministering to God by caring for the hungry and thirsty and widowed and orphaned and imprisoned and poor, and ultimately in giving up themselves to save others -- when that person chooses then, as a young adult, to dedicate their lives to serving the poor and marginalized, has their religious upbringing abused them and harmed the world?

It is a question of principle. I don't believe all the boys currently chanting Quranic verse in madrasas are going to turn out to be willing murderers--I do consider them all abused.

I don't think every kid being made to sniffle over Our Lord's wounds will necessarily harbour major trauma to the end of their lives. Plenty of us cried over sad stories in our childhoods. But we weren't forced to believe Bambi was real, or that we--our weakness, our bad natures--were somehow implicit in his death.

It is a question of principle. I don't believe all the boys currently chanting Quranic verse in madrasas are going to turn out to be willing murderers--I do consider them all abused.

You consider that abuse??? You must have a very sheltered life. That is an insult to the kids are are continually abused, physically and sexually and emotionally, and you should know better.

> 103

I am not sure what you are talking about.

This is to what I was referrring -

From Chapter 8 of "The Age of Reason":

"...This sentence of death, which, they tell us, was thus passed upon Adam, must either have meant dying naturally, that is, ceasing to live, or have meant what these mythologists call damnation; and consequently, the act of dying on the part of Jesus Christ, must, according to their system, apply as a prevention to one or other of these two things happening to Adam and to us.

That it does not prevent our dying is evident, because we all die ... and with respect to the second explanation, (including with it the natural death of Jesus Christ as a substitute for the eternal death or damnation of all mankind,) it is impertinently representing the Creator as coming off, or revoking the sentence, by a pun or a quibble upon the word death. That manufacturer of, quibbles, St. Paul, if he wrote the books that bear his name, has helped this quibble on by making another quibble upon the word Adam. He makes there to be two Adams; the one who sins in fact, and suffers by proxy; the other who sins by proxy, and suffers in fact. A religion thus interlarded with quibble, subterfuge, and pun, has a tendency to instruct its professors in the practice of these arts. They acquire the habit without being aware of the cause...."

It might help you and billions of others if you read the entire book:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html...

>150 Arctic-Stranger: Well put, Arctic-Stranger. Extreme individualism is a peculiarly western phenomenon, I think, and is not the norm in most other parts of the world, and probably still not amongst more traditional communities in the west.

>153 LolaWalser: none of this compares to acquiring religion

You keep making this assertion, which is your opinion to which you are perfectly entitled, but there's no real evidence for it as a general principle, although nobody denies that there are abusive examples just as there are abusive examples of almost anything.

I think it also depends on how one views the divine. It seems that some atheists portray it as just one intellectual assertion amongst many, one which we all accept cannot be proved or disproved intellectually, and thus question why we should teach something to children which we do not know to be true, ie which we cannot prove by scientific experiment. However if it is the most important relationship in your life, one which you accept to be true from personal experience, the fundamental way in which you interpret reality, then how can you not include your child in that relationship and reality? Again, with the proviso that you encourage your child to make his or her own choices when the time is right.

I know that I love my wife. If we had children I would certainly want to teach them that, even though I can't prove it scientifically.

#104: The media blowing Dawkin's hellfire anecdote out of proportion is not in any way similar to LolaWalser's beliefs about "abuse." Dawkins is specifically talking about the emotional distress that can be caused by violent threats of eternal damnation. But LolaWalser would presumeably believe that chanting verses of "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer" would be abuse if only Rudolph happened to be in the Koran. One of these two people is not full of shit.

#118: Most of the time, we don't pretend that things like the national myth are true.

... says Mr. Social Contract.

#136: I doubt that fraud can really cover bullshit in any significant way, especially if the purveyor is themself a believer.

As I said already up in #1 there are "all kinds of abuse". We talk of abusing language, privileges, rights etc. as well as of sexual abuse, legal abuse... No, it doesn't "offend" in any way the single category of sexually abused children to point out other kinds of abuse, nor are the latter somehow "lessened" or rendered indifferent because they don't involve sexual abuse.

It's contemptible that I even have to say this. Then again, considering who's been talking...

#158

You haven't proffered so far a single syllable disproving what I posted about the manner and purpose of religious indoctrination.

I have wasted time answering your points seriously; in return I get more cartloads of pure repetitious twaddle, handwaving and mere assertion that I didn't do this, didn't do that, while you never address anything say, not even direct replies to you.

Would you or wouldn't you raise your children from the earliest age to believe in god, Jesus, Jesus' sacrifice etc.? That's all it's about.

What do people think about the ethics of hoodwinking children regarding Santa Claus? That strikes me as a germane issue.

>160 LolaWalser: Would you or wouldn't you raise your children from the earliest age to believe in god

Of course I would, if I had any. Have you not understood any of my posts in which I have explained all the reasons for it? Did you not read the one where I even explained how I had taught religion to one young lad? Of course I have also taught religion professionally to others. My apologies for my lack of clarity. But I and others have explained how we do so, how we do so to a level they can hopefully appreciate, how our aim is not "to claim them for the faith", and how we instil in them an exploring and inquisitive mind and encourage them to make their own choices as they mature.

I'm also tempted to feel that I have wasted time answering your points seriously; in return I get more cartloads of pure repetitious twaddle, handwaving and mere assertion... while you never address anything say, not even direct replies to you. In particular you continue to assert that your appalling experiences are the norm in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

161> Not germane at all, unless failure to believe in Santa is eternal hellfire.

>161 paradoxosalpha: What do people think about the ethics of hoodwinking children regarding Santa Claus? That strikes me as a germane issue.

It's interesting to talk to the children's writer/illustrator William Joyce on this subject. His most recent series of books are the "Guardians of Childhood" series--all centered around mythical characters that, as he puts it, adults have decided somewhat spontaneously to let kids think are real. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Sandman, Jack Frost...

They aren't "taught" to kids, they just seem to have this kind of magical existence that kids and their parents are complicit in maintaining for as long as children are, well, children.

>160 LolaWalser:: "You haven't proffered so far a single syllable disproving what I posted about the manner and purpose of religious indoctrination."

You must have simply not read the following posts in this thread:

3, by cjbanning:

Then when I went to my Catholic high school as a non-Christian, I learned--all without any overt attempt to reconvert me to Christianity--what the Bible was and wasn't, the history behind it, and what lessons Roman Catholics draw from it and why. Then I learned about the sacramental practice of the Roman Catholic community, their ethics and meta-ethics, and their social teaching. All this spread out over the four years of secondary education. And this, combined with further religious and philosophical studies in college, gave me the tools to come to my own conclusions about theological topics--that the Roman Catholics hadn't quite gotten things right, but that their close theological cousins the Anglicans had gotten pretty darn close. And I converted, nine years after I started that first theology class on the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

6, by johnthefireman:

I had a Roman Catholic education from primary school right up to the end of grammar school, so my experience was similar to cjbanning's RC education (>3 cjbanning:). No indoctrination, plenty of opportunity and encouragement to explore the issues and make up my own mind.

11, by johnthefireman:

You're aware that most of the religious posters here explicitly reject the idea that we can know/predict who goes to hell (if it exists); most suggest that hell is probably pretty empty. You're also aware that most believe that "salvation" (which over-simplistically put could be construed as "not going to hell", although I think most would prefer to see it rather more holistically than that) is open to all, not only Christians. You have seen Tim, Nathaniel and myself frequently quote the official teaching of the largest Christian denomination in the world which makes that point very explicitly. And yet still you persist in attacking religion for something which is not intrinsic to religion, which is not held to be true by the largest Christian denomination as well as many other faith communities and individuals, and which is not espoused by most of the Christian posters on this LT group. It may be held by some religious people, and it may have been your own personal experience of your own religious upbringing, but you are generalising when all the evidence is against such a generalisation.

16, by me

Likewise, that is how children are raised in the religious communities I have experienced. Going to church on Sunday is compulsory just like brushing your teeth and going to school are compulsory. But, as children grow older, they are given opportunities, at first limited, and then slowly increased, to learn about their faith on their own terms -- to question those things they do not understand, to think through those things that they do.

When they are old enough--usually starting around late middle school and into high school--they are given the choice as to whether to continue or not. It's up to them: they have to OWN their faith. It won't simply be given to them anymore. In the faith traditions I know, the practice is the exact opposite of Lola's authoritarian indoctrination: to continue to be an active member of the faith community, you have to make the decision for yourself.

26, by timspalding:

I had understood you to live in Toronto? I'm amazed that your experience is so utterly unlike the rest of us, living in modern, western countries. Literally NO secular friend of mine who was raised Catholic remained so, and most dropped out immediately after confirmation. Simple baptism, confirmation and attendance statistics would show you that the vast majority of people formally brought into a church drop out between birth and teenagehood. Former Catholics are the second-largest "denomination" in the US, with youth in the lead. And the US is LOT more religious than Canada.

I could continue, but it would make an already lengthy post interminable. The point is this: numerous posters have given concrete testimonies to contradict your generalized assumptions about the terrors and abusive horrors of religious upbringing.

None of us deny that you yourself have experienced such horrors (and johnthefireman has, several times, expressed his compassion and condolence for that). But to conclude that yours is the only valid experience of a religious upbringing and that the experiences of many others offered here are to be denied is simply delusional.

"We have wasted time answering your points seriously; in return we get more cartloads of pure repetitious twaddle, handwaving and mere assertion that we didn't do this, didn't do that, while you rarely address anything we say, not even direct replies to you."

> 163

Dawkins objects to the hellfire. But Lola foregrounded the issue of presenting fable and fancy as fact.

#161

What do people think about the ethics of hoodwinking children regarding Santa Claus? That strikes me as a germane issue.

Yes, there are some similarities, but the differences are too great. Belief in Santa Claus is expected to fall off, and fairly quickly, I think. I definitely knew he wasn't real by the time I was seven. I can't even remember when I thought fairies, witches etc. were real (if ever?) The "belief" is seasonal and opportunistic. We weren't taught to pray Santa Claus. Rewards were material, punishment threatened but always deferred and always, at least with us, negative (no presents).

And obviously, Santa Claus wasn't the "creator", or the overseer, and had nothing comparable to the crucifixion story.

#165

No, you simply refuse to engage the questions posed. I don't care that you think your religious education wasn't abusive. From my point of view, you weren't given a chance to think differently.

The questions, repeated:

The problem is always only this: is it fair to raise children as believers in any tradition when they cannot maturely think about religion, about what they are requested to believe?

Why shouldn't the imposition of faith in god and all the rest be postponed until later maturity? There are sects which don't baptise children at birth, but at some later date, precisely because they stress the need for understanding of the rite (I'm not sure what the threshold age is or whether it's the same everywhere--the principle is interesting.)

Doesn't it make sense, especially to those who pretend they have chosen faith freely, that children should be prevented from assuming blind faith?

>168 LolaWalser:: " From my point of view, you weren't given a chance to think differently."

What an incredibly arrogant thing to say! "You poor little thing. You don't know it, but you were abused as a child. You don't know it, but you don't have the capability to think for yourself. Only I know better; only I can think for myself, and for you, too! Listen to me -- only my point of view is valid or correct!"

I have tried reasonably to answer you objections -- but those reasonable attempts end here. Not only do you deny the validity of my own experience, but you deny my ability to think for myself. I am not a human being in your point of view; I am an animal, chained and imprisoned by my abusive and vindictive family.

You do not respect other people. Indeed, you are the abuser here. You abuse us by denying us the dignity of thinking and making decisions for ourselves.

Hyperventilating little tantrums... and still no answers to my questions.

>170 LolaWalser:: "Hyperventilating little tantrums"

Says the women whose response (post 32) when it is pointed out that her experiences are not universal to all religious people is, "what the hell does that even mean?! I'm talking about MY LIFE."

"and still no answers to my questions."

You have betrayed the very foundation of civilized and rational dialogue that must underlie any attempt to answer your questions, for you have declared that any person who was raised to believe in a religion was abused and is incapable of thinking for themselves.

It used to be that humans were stripped of their human dignity on the basis of race or gender. Now, you make the distinction based on faith.

>168 LolaWalser: From my point of view, you weren't given a chance to think differently

Good grief, how patronising and arrogant can you get?

#171

You have betrayed the very foundation of civilized and rational dialogue that must underlie any attempt to answer your questions, for you have declared that any person who was raised to believe in a religion was abused and is incapable of thinking for themselves.

Says the liar, who persists in misrepresenting my words and attitude!

what the hell does that even mean?! I'm talking about MY LIFE." This was a partial reaction to John's ludicrous dismissing of specific examples I brought up as "childhood experiences" and "secondhand material". No generalisations were involved.

I'm getting to the end of my patience in your regard. If you cannot or will not discuss the proposed theme without personal insults and lies, take a hike.

#172

Ah, the other one is here!

Good grief, how patronising and arrogant can you get?

I don't know, John, how does it compare to dismissing everything one says about Catholicism because one is not a Catholic to your taste?

Most people who believe were brought up to believe.

How do you know what you'd think if you weren't force-fed religion since diaper days?

>173 LolaWalser: John's ludicrous dismissing of specific examples I brought up as "childhood experiences" and "secondhand material". No generalisations were involved.

Well, firstly I won't call you a liar for misunderstanding my post.

You referred specifically to your childhood experiences and I explicitly acknowledged that they are valid and appalling. I offered you my regrets but you spurned that little olive branch.

My reference to "secondhand experience" referred to your reference to your father's and uncle's experiences, and other people that you know and have read about. That's secondhand in my book, as it is not your own personal experience.

Your generalisations involve your insistence that this is representative of religion as a whole, that religion necessarily involves "claiming people for the faith", that because you are aware of some abuses (as we all are) the system is intrinsically abusive, that we teach religion in a particular way, that it has the same effect on all children... the list of generalisations is long.

First google result for "Catholic catechism for children":

Printable Catholic Children Catechism Ideas

First accompanying image, top position under the title:

I don't care that you think your religious education wasn't abusive. From my point of view, you weren't given a chance to think differently.

Ah, so if religious education is not "abusive" then it is indoctrination. And by indoctrination what you mean "I disagree with these thoughts, therefore they should be censored."

What a small, limited world view.

Most people who believe were brought up to believe.

And given the fact that the nature of belief has changed, it seems clear that what is taught get appropriated in new ways. But in your blind insistance that that all religion is abusive, you are missing both the forest and the trees.

The questions, repeated:

The problem is always only this: is it fair to raise children as believers in any tradition when they cannot maturely think about religion, about what they are requested to believe?

Why shouldn't the imposition of faith in god and all the rest be postponed until later maturity? There are sects which don't baptise children at birth, but at some later date, precisely because they stress the need for understanding of the rite (I'm not sure what the threshold age is or whether it's the same everywhere--the principle is interesting.)

Doesn't it make sense, especially to those who pretend they have chosen faith freely, that children should be prevented from assuming blind faith?

I think that children should be allowed to be taught blind faith by their parents, but they should also be able to find their own religion when they grow older. How a parent raises their child fundamentally affects their views later on in life, but a child raised in a ___ family could grow up to be ____.

Lola, stop abusing me!

>179 LolaWalser: is it fair to raise children as believers in any tradition when they cannot maturely think about religion, about what they are requested to believe?

On the other hand, is it possible not to? Whatever beliefs and values we impart to our children are basically indoctrination, precisely because children can't thing maturely about these subjects, and their world view is such a limited one. Since the opinions of my parents were very important to me, when they said, in response to my first question about the existence of god "you can decide if you want to believe in god when you grow up" -- is that not a kind unstated message that the question is unimportant to them? And thus not important to me?

>179 LolaWalser: the imposition of faith in god

Why do you assume it is an imposition any more than any other thing which children absorb from their parents - nationality, tribe, culture, social class, political assumptions, etc? If a child is part of a loving family then the things which are part of that loving family are not an imposition, they are just part of life. As I've said before, belief in God is not an intellectual assertion, it's just part of life for those who interpret reality in that way. It isn't for those that don't. I think it's equally valid for you to bring your children up in an atheist environment, but following your logic that would probably count as abuse in your eyes.

#176

Eh, you know what, I find myself repeating things I told you--yes, you specifically--several times before, in the defunct forum and even, if memory serves, elsewhere. You simply won't take on board that, much as you dislike my opinions and attitudes about the Church, I came to them not via some capricious and insane extra-terrestrial anti-Catholic warfare programme, not because I saw a movie or read a book, not even simply because a Catholic once abused me... but because of an entire WORLD of people and events and history. First you called me ignorant (I haven't met enough "good" Catholics); when I pointed out my roots (of 500+ years, on at least one side of the family) relatives, connections, are nearly 100% Catholic, and I mean old-time, hard-core Catholic, you dismissed it as remote (because I currently live in Canada), and "secondhand"...

I wasn't eager to bring in personal experience in the first place, the first time, years ago now, I only did it because of your apparent assumptions that I landed on Earth from outer space. So, to hell with personal experience, as it is obviously going to be used only as a red herring.

Can we discuss the theme in general theoretical terms?

How, why is it desirable to inculcate belief in, say, a five year old? I understand that for some people it works like protective "magic", but let's consider the more intellectual types. If you (any you) are a believer, who nevertheless recognises that no firm knowledge of god's existence is possible, why would you go against that and allow a child to believe?

#181

That's not the safe word.

>173 LolaWalser:: "I'm getting to the end of my patience in your regard. If you cannot or will not discuss the proposed theme without personal insults and lies, take a hike."

This from the woman who has declared that, because I was "abused" and "indoctrinated" as a child, I am incapable of thinking for myself.

I suppose we're redefining "insult" now, too...

#182

On the other hand, is it possible not to? Whatever beliefs and values we impart to our children are basically indoctrination, precisely because children can't thing maturely about these subjects, and their world view is such a limited one. Since the opinions of my parents were very important to me, when they said, in response to my first question about the existence of god "you can decide if you want to believe in god when you grow up" -- is that not a kind unstated message that the question is unimportant to them? And thus not important to me?

It goes back to the Santa example. Parents, believers, non-believers, lie about Santa, but (unless they are nutters) they don't care TERRIBLY if the kid grows wise to them. In fact, they expect that to happen and would probably freak out if the Santa belief continued on past some age. There's a value (don't ask me what exactly though) in believing in Santa for a while, but then it loses value.

What's ironic is that with Jesus I think it's exactly the opposite. There's a value in making friends with Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount--at some point in one's life, probably after adolescence. But at five, seven, ten, shoving down his "sacrifice" and our sin etc.? At best, meaningless.

#183

Why do you assume it is an imposition any more than any other thing which children absorb from their parents - nationality, tribe, culture, social class, political assumptions, etc?
If a child is part of a loving family then the things which are part of that loving family are not an imposition, they are just part of life. As I've said before, belief in God is not an intellectual assertion, it's just part of life for those who interpret reality in that way. It isn't for those that don't. I think it's equally valid for you to bring your children up in an atheist environment, but following your logic that would probably count as abuse in your eyes.

If a belief in god is an important part of your interpretation of life AND you set store by the fact that you came by it of your own free will, what value do you see in that faith being professed by someone who cannot know what they are saying, or what "interpreting life" means?

I completely understand why you would want your progeny to believe as you do. But what does believing "as you do" mean if you, say, came to your faith from a different one, or no faith at all, or after a period of doubt, exercising, as you think, your free will?

>188 LolaWalser: I completely understand why you would want your progeny to believe as you do

No, I don't want them to believe as I do. I want them to believe as they wish to believe once they are mature enough to do so. But I would impart to my children, if I were to have any, the values which have served me well enough throughout my life while they are too young to make their own choices, and I would bring them up in the community of which I am a part. How can one not bring up one's children as part of the community that one belongs to, whether that community is national, tribal, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, religious or whatever?

I spent a greater part of yesterday afternoon "indoctrinating" kid to the fact that if you use the word "sir" when dealing with a policeman, he may not take you down. Now, that is partly fiction, because for these kids, some cops will always take them down. But it is a convenient fiction.

I suppose I am abusing this kid.

(See all the ways we can use that word!)

I completely understand why you would want your progeny to believe as you do. But what does believing "as you do" mean if you, say, came to your faith from a different one, or no faith at all, or after a period of doubt, exercising, as you think, your free will?

All of my kids were abused by Lola's standards. One is a Buddhist (kind of), my 13 year old is an atheist (and still be abused by attending a communicants class because that is where the hot girls go after school) and the oldest has not seen the inside of a church in years.

But they all have made those decisions on their own. I showed them a landscape. It was their choice whether they wanted to live there or not.

#189

How can one not bring up one's children as part of the community that one belongs to, whether that community is national, tribal, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, religious or whatever?

We can be "part of a community" without being clones, and without insisting that only people who match us in every aspect and article of faith are part of a community.

My niece who doesn't go to catechism classes is nevertheless a "part of the community", as is the Jewish girl who joined her during their empty mid-day hour in the second year (because only mid-day is appropriate for "facultative" catechism, wouldn't you know it.) One of my great-grandfathers was a fisherman; none of us are. Somehow, we didn't stick to his "class", or "culture" or whatever.

And why should being a part of a community involve demanding belief in god's existence, Jesus' sacrifice, or that everyone's a sinner, from children?

190: exactly!!!

191: It shouldn't, but a parent should be free to teach them what they wish, as long as it is with in reason.

Who decides what's within reason?

>191 LolaWalser:: "We can be "part of a community" without being clones, and without insisting that only people who match us in every aspect and article of faith are part of a community."

I've never been part of a religious community that insists that "only people who match us in every respect and article of faith are part of the community." In every religious community I have lived in, from the time I can remember to today, there has always been a tolerance for difference -- sometimes less tolerance, sometimes more. But NEVER has there been an expectation that every member of the community would be the same.

Romans 12:2-10:

Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor.

The church I was raised in was just a few blocks from the University of Denver, in one of the more gentrified neighborhoods. When its priest decided in the 1970's to allow Alcoholics Anonymous to meet in the church building, he faced significant opposition from the neigborhood. "We don't want people like that in our community!"

But Fr. Mote stood fast. One of the kindest gentlemen I knew in that church came to it through one of those AA meetings. He had lived a hellish life--abused as the child of alcoholic parents, himself an alcoholic from an early age. But AA changed his life. After getting sober, he got his law degree and spent nearly two decades as a public defender helping at-risk youth.

Ours was as diverse a community as you could imagine -- it was a small church, and yet had members that ranged from millionaires to drug addicts, successful business owners to victims of poverty and abuse.

What made us a single community was that those differences did not matter in the light of God's love.

Who decides what's within reason?

Apparently you do.

#195

What made us a single community was that those differences did not matter in the light of God's love.

So, it would seem obvious that those who do not share your belief in god, or your version of the belief etc. are not a part of that community. That community is defined by a certain essential belief, regardless of other factors that differentiate the individuals.

The problem (and perhaps there's a difference here between Europe and North America, at least I feel I've encountered more isolation, or more profound, complete isolation, in North America than anywhere in Europe) is that we all simultaneously belong to different communities, like different but overlapping sets. The pressing question for multicultural environments, at least those vaunting respect for human and civil rights and trying to apply 21st century standards of ethics, is which "belonging" to stress in order to achieve the most harmonious living, with least suffering, least injustice.

It makes sense to downplay religion, which is another reason why allowing religious instruction in public schools is bad.

>197 LolaWalser:: "So, it would seem obvious that those who do not share your belief in god, or your version of the belief etc. are not a part of that community."

Only in a certain sense. From a far more consequential perspective, however, the love of God invites and commands me to love likewise all human persons, regardless of race or gender or even creed. You are no less a human being because you don't believe in God; and I owe you the same love and respect as I owe every member of the human community.

"The pressing question for multicultural environments ... It makes sense to downplay religion"

So the way to make a multicultural environment work is to make its members downplay essential components of their various cultures? "You can be a part of our community, but only if you give up the things that make you different from us"?

Isn't such homogenization precisely what you are criticizing religious communities for doing?

I was raised Catholic, but didn't see much sense in it as a young adult. I "fell away" and did not practice any religion. I was content with my world view. When my children began growing and asking questions about God, I realized that they might need some background that I couldn't offer them. So I enrolled them in Catholic school. The usual expectation is that one should put a certain amount of money in the plate on Sundays to underwrite the cost of school. My priest only asked me to attend church. Through my adult ears, I heard the scriptures in a new way, and came to my adult faith. My children were not baptized until they asked to be. That doesn't mean they are practitioners now. They have both stepped away from church and belief. That's fine. I know they both value truth highly, and I'm confident they will make their ways back.

I've been involved in Sunday school teaching because I love to explain the beliefs in ways accessible to young people. Once, we put a box at the door of the classroom, with a sign "Deposit brains here." When class began, we checked the box, which was empty, and gave the kids A+ on their first test. I've never indoctrinated. I've described and shared, and expected the children to challenge and wrestle with the ideas.

#198

Quite the contrary, it is attempted homogenisation into religion (Catholicism), by social ostracism and a myriad other forms of pressure and bullying, overt and covert. There are a couple of Muslim boys in my niece's class who nevertheless take catechism (as did the Jewish girl the first year) because their parents are afraid the boys would be inviting discrimination (even more than they do already).

If there's one thing that's certain about Europe, it's that no one, EVER, forgets or is allowed to forget their religious background. Don't worry--the neighbours are always there to remind you.

Yeah, I'm not worried a bit that downplaying religion, as in kicking religious instruction out of public schools, is in any way going to "homogenise" populations.

>200 LolaWalser:: So your solution is to attempt homogenization away from religion, by your own form of social ostracism (e.g. declaring religious upbringing "abuse") and a myriad other forms of pressure and bullying.

#201

So your solution is to attempt homogenization away from religion, by your own form of social ostracism (e.g. declaring religious upbringing "abuse") and a myriad other forms of pressure and bullying.

That's it. You are not getting a single word in response from me ever again, on anything.

> 202

You had previously identified nat as a liar.

Why did you even bother with him at all after realizing that's what he was?

Personally I don't think he is a liar. I think it is worst than that.

If there's one thing that's certain about Europe, it's that no one, EVER, forgets or is allowed to forget their religious background. Don't worry--the neighbours are always there to remind you.

Considering that Europe is the least religious continent in the world, with religious observance generally in the teens or lower, maybe the problem—at least now—is that background not the religions that once enlivened them.

For example, your country, Croatia, had a weekly church attendance rate of 22% five years ago. Its neighbor, Bosnia, has church/mosque attendance of 15.9% and Serbia and Montenegro have rates of 7%. Now, certainly religious identity was at the root of the recent conflicts there, but it was scarcely a question of religion per se when 78-93% of the people in question don't attend services regularly at all.

Meanwhile, in America, where attendance is much higher than Europe, very few pay any attention to whether you're Protestant, Catholic or, say, Orthodox. I'm quite sure my neighbors have no idea of my religion, as I have no idea of theirs! And I'm pretty sure none of us would kill each other over it either. Indeed, while I certainly acknowledge the evil role that religion has had in many conflicts, especially in Europe, Europe's recent bloodbaths—Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic—have taken place during de-Christianization and de-Islamization, when all that was left were these brutal tribal feelings, or as part of it a program of official atheism.

If a belief in god is an important part of your interpretation of life AND you set store by the fact that you came by it of your own free will, what value do you see in that faith being professed by someone who cannot know what they are saying..

I think children can know what they're saying, but slowly and in stages. So I'm comfortable with children believing or not believing in a God at a fairly young age—I don't presume non-belief is the right "default"—but children with highly specific opinions about religious issues, either pro or con, creep me out. (As I've only really experienced the inner life of a child up to age almost-seven, I'm not sure what the stages are.)

I feel utterly the same way about politics, incidentally, and notice that all my friends—including the ones who can't stand to hear a child mention the word "God"—do not. I find it grotesque when young children are taught to express opinions about who people should vote for, get carted off to rallies where they wear pro-Obama or pro-Romney tshirts, etc. But that's the world I swim in, where children all know Romney is an evil man—and their parents beam with delight.

>204 timspalding: very few pay any attention to whether you're Protestant, Catholic or, say, Orthodox. I'm quite sure my neighbors have no idea of my religion, as I have no idea of theirs!

Come on down South, Tim!

>204 timspalding:

No, I was speaking of America, Nicki. ;)

#204

Yes, church attendance is low throughout Europe and atheism is more widespread, but it doesn't necessarily mean anything regarding how people see themselves (and others) and what they believe.

Tradition is extremely strong, at least in Continental Europe.

Meanwhile, in America, while attendance is much higher than Europe, very few pay any attention to whether you're Protestant, Catholic or, say, Orthodox. I'm quite sure my neighbors have no idea of my religion, as I have no idea of theirs! And I'm pretty sure none of us would kill each other over it either.

Yeah. It's easy to be civil in the absence of tradition, and especially, history. I don't mean this as a cheap jibe, seriously.

Croats, to speak of the devils nearest my, um, heart, began receiving the faith in the 7th century, and they defended it, along with the language, against everyone from Turks to Habsburgs to this day. Antemurale Christianitatis, is Croatia! (A Croat pilgrim made it into Dante's Paradiso, as a paragon of piety. That's some reputation.) Thirteen centuries of surviving constant aggression and obliterating tsunami-waves of greater nations of Europe. It ain't easy.

I have no sympathy for nationalism, or nationalism-buttressed religion, but I don't lack every understanding of it.

I'm comfortable with children believing or not believing in a God at a fairly young age

Well, I couldn't begin to make up my mind about how much they REALLY understand. Either way it's going to be balderdash until some more reasonable age.

And no, filling their heads with "political" notions is no better. Kids aren't parrots.

#205

Oh yeah. In New Orleans Catholic vs. Protestant means something.

http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-3902-The-call-to-seriousness.htm

Please note that the review of the book was apparently done in 2007.

Well, I couldn't begin to make up my mind about how much they REALLY understand. Either way it's going to be balderdash until some more reasonable age.

The mere existence of a good God, and the concept of praying to him to help other people, seems a fairly simple idea to me. I feel the same about atheism. A child that rambled on about Jesus being the only real God, or about how Darwin proved there was no God, creep me out. But the basic belief? No.

I'd also put in a good word for certain things that go on in church, irrespective of their religious value. Children are born egotists. Spending a certain amount of structured time thinking about others' problems, and praying about them, strikes me as an unmixed good. I would feel the same about atheists setting aside time in this way—a weekly "standing in others' shoes." But that's hardly common. Institutions have some value there.

Kids aren't parrots.

I think we agree on this. It does remain, however, that a lot of education involves telling kids things before they understand them. My child, for example, knows the order of the planets and a few facts about each. Of course, he's six—he doesn't REALLY understand the planets, even to the degree that, say, I, a non-scientist, does. But it's a step along a long ramp toward knowledge.

Oh yeah. In New Orleans Catholic vs. Protestant means something.

I suspect white, black and hispanic are more important, though.

>191 LolaWalser: We can be "part of a community" without being clones

Of course we can, and we are. It is your opinion which implies that we are turning our children into clones. That's not the reality.

why should being a part of a community involve demanding belief... from children?

It doesn't demand anything from them. But it does teach them the story of the community.

>197 LolaWalser: that we all simultaneously belong to different communities, like different but overlapping sets... It makes sense to downplay religion

No disagreement with the first part of that, which I think links in to Arctic-Stranger's earlier point that people in the west are often those with no story. But I don't see how that leads to your conclusion in the second part.

>200 LolaWalser: If there's one thing that's certain about Europe, it's that no one, EVER, forgets or is allowed to forget their religious background. Don't worry--the neighbours are always there to remind you.

In England? France? The Netherlands? Scandinavia? Really?

>199 2wonderY: Thanks, 2wonderY. Beautiful post. Once again a concrete example, which does not of course invalidate the experience of those who have found religion abusive, but which demonstrates that the reality is much more mixed and positive than they believe.

When my children began growing and asking questions about God

I think this is a good point. Children are curious about things. They ask. It's hardly abusive to try to answer their questions as best one can within one's own knowledge and experience, and to seek "professional" teaching to supplement that.

If my child were to ask me, "What's all this about being British?", am I to reply, "Oh, you don't need to worry about that until you're 18 and then you can choose whether to renounce your British citizenship and be anything you want"? Apart from anything else, it will be difficult for her to make a choice unless she has been exposed and informed about what she already is, but anyway in reality renouncing your citizenship is generally seen as a very unusual option.

Or if my child were to say, "Are we working class?" and I were to pretend that the child is classless until they reach an age where they can choose to be something else, it's clearly false. The message surely should be, "Yes, you/we are working class and that has certain implications for the way we lead our lives, but there will come a time when you should have the opportunity to move out of that".

Or if the child of one of my South Sudanese colleagues were to ask him, "Am I a Dinka? What's that all about?" it would be ludicrous to refuse to answer. The message would be, "Yes, we are Dinka, and these are our traditions, values and way of life" but at the same time to begin to instil a spirit of openness, rather than superiority or conflict, towards neighbouring tribes.

But some posters here seem to think that if the child asks, "What's all this about God, and about being Catholic?", it is abusive to give the same type of message and understanding that one would about other parts of their identity and life experience.

Children do not grow up in a vacuum. They grow up in communities with identities, and it's not abusive to impart the communal stories to them. While they can make choices about their identity later in life, it is not helpful to cut them off from their communal identity at a very young age.

Edited to add: Through my adult ears, I heard the scriptures in a new way, and came to my adult faith.

I think many people who are against religion have never come to an adult faith. They left their childish faith, for very good reasons, and thus never had the opportunity to experience a more mature faith. That's why the faith that is often (rightly) criticised by some atheist posters is not the experience of faith which many of the religious posters have, which is also why so often we talk past each other with no understanding of each other's perspectives.

That doesn't mean they are practitioners now (and Arctic-Stranger's comments on his own children in >190 Arctic-Stranger:)

In my own nuclear family, with a devout Catholic mother and a non-Catholic non-religious father, all of us children went through an identical Catholic primary school education, and Catholic grammar schools, and now my sisters are non-religious and my brother and I are still practising Catholics. We were all given choices, and we took them. Religious education does not lead to religious clones.

Well put all, John.

I still want to know why reciting Koranic verses is "abusive." What next? Piano lessons?

>211 John5918: I think many people who are against religion have never come to an adult faith. They left their childish faith, for very good reasons, and thus never had the opportunity to experience a more mature faith.

So is a "mature" faith like learning to appreciate modern art or something? You stand in awe before the spattered canvas while the rest of us stand behind you thinking "my kid could do that"?

>214 southernbooklady: I don't think that's a very good analogy. Some people remain with a childish faith, some people move on from it and achieve a more mature faith, some people reject faith because they reject the childish faith but don't discover a more mature concept, some people reject all faith because they still don't experience reality in that way even after understanding the more developed faith. It's more like personal psychological and emotional development, I suppose.

>215 John5918: I find that a good analogy- I do not think the word reject is quite right though-I am an atheist who is trying to understand what you called the "more developed faith".

> 213

Most concise analogy of the thread so far, regardless of its effect on the larger argument.

> 214

This is the sort of objection that the "pre/trans fallacy" of Ken Wilber was invented to both thwart and validate. Lots of people do look at religion just like that, in my experience.

>216 aleng: Thanks, aleng. You rightly highlight another category - those who are still searching and exploring.

#210

In England? France? The Netherlands? Scandinavia? Really?

Yes, of course. You think it doesn't matter whether a Welshman is taken for an Englishman, or vice versa? What's up with the Scots and the eternal rumblings of independence? Should I even mention the Irish? Is their concern with identity a silly minor obsession? France? Are you kidding? Any idea what it means to be Breton or Auvergnat or Alsatian? Well, obviously not--the point is, people DO know, and care. And nobody else is ethnically "invisible" either--certainly not the Maghrebis, or the Jews and Gypsies. The Netherlands? Why, is it too tiny for you to imagine it has any regional differences? Tell a Frisian he's nothing but a Dutchman as far as you're concerned, and see what happens. Scandinavia--what, you can't tell one blond person from another? Well, they can. And just because they all sound the same to you doesn't mean a Swede or a Norwegian will happily accept being called a Dane or a Finn.

No, ethnicity is not necessarily a matter of life or death, at least one hopes so, nowadays. But it's ridiculous to think it doesn't matter, absolutely. To mongrels like myself, maybe, but clearly we have a vested interest in cosmopolitan, overarching identities. But we are a cultural minority, even if genetic majority.

#215

It's more like personal psychological and emotional development, I suppose.

Is this a return to the argument that the religious are more "evolved", "spiritually"?

#209, 210

Again, my concern is with the type of teachings and the manner in which they are imparted such as is present in official catechism classes.

#217

Most concise analogy of the thread so far, regardless of its effect on the larger argument.

Is there a hell for those who failed their pianistic ambitions and the money poured into the cause? If so, that's yet another hell I'm headed to. Or should I be on the lookout for the Assassins-of-Parnassus, the scourge of infidels who dared play opera transcriptions like they were worthy? Do tell.

>219 LolaWalser: Your post >200 LolaWalser: to which I responded spoke specifically of "religious background", not ethnicity. Of course people know each other's ethnicity and I have never claimed otherwise, but that wasn't the point.

Is this a return to the argument that the religious are more "evolved", "spiritually"?

No, it's not. Have I ever made that argument in the first place to "return" to? If you read what I say in >215 John5918: carefully I think it's clear that's not what I meant, but my apologies if it wasn't clear.

my concern is with the type of teachings and the manner in which they are imparted

But you don't seem to know the "type" and "manner" in general (as opposed to specific cases) and you seem intent on ignoring any attempts to inform you that it is more mixed and positive than you realise.

>219 LolaWalser:

But the differences you mention aren't all, or even mostly, religious differences. Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and Finns may not want to be confused, but they're all from highly secularized countries where, if someone has any religious affiliation, it is almost exactly the same brand of Lutheranism!

> 219 Is there a hell for those who failed their pianistic ambitions and the money poured into the cause?

Well, figuratively perhaps. Maybe ballet would be even more concise? (It includes an element of physical abuse, if you want to go there.)

But to speak to the point of the analogy: Learing to recite passages of the Quran per se is like learning to recite Shakespeare soliloquies or to perform complex piano etudes. The text (score) is a problem or challenge. The significance of the text (score) is imparted subsequently (or in parallel) as a function of an artistic or social agenda.

To pick on memorization of a text (be it the Necronomicon itself!) as inherently damaging to the student seems dangerously backwards to me.

> 215 “…Some people remain with a childish faith, some people move on from it and achieve a more mature faith, some people reject faith because they reject the childish faith but don't discover a more mature concept, some people reject all faith because they still don't experience reality in that way even after understanding the more developed faith. It's more like personal psychological and emotional development, I suppose.”

So who among us, after all is said and done, in your humble opinion, has the most “mature” and “developed” understanding or “faith“?

Materialist monists?

That would be my best guess (based on 64 years of life experience).

But I could, in theory, be convinced otherwise.

So - what have you got?

#220

In Europe, if you know someone's ethnicity, you'll know their religion (and in many places, vice versa). And, I said "neighbours". By which I don't mean only the guy next door, of course. Don't forget that Europeans still tend to live in one place for a long time. My parents now live in a house built by my mom's family more than 350 years ago. And not only did someone from her family live continuously in it over four centuries, half a dozen other neighbouring families, two of which share our inner courtyard, have existed in the same spot for at least the same time. Four centuries of leaning on the same church, rising at the same time, eating the same meals, staring into each other's rooms from balconies, overhearing every raised word, watching each other like a sitcom.

But you don't seem to know the "type" and "manner" in general (as opposed to specific cases) and you seem intent on ignoring any attempts to inform you that it is more mixed and positive than you realise.

No, you simply keep repeating that I "don't know", when I have given dozen of examples of the teachings children hear, and are supposed to assimilate. This is beyond ridiculous, John. You are denying the content of catechism, the purpose of the teaching, next you'll deny the very existence of schools and the lessons!

Enough with the bullshit and telling me I'm ignorant. I got your message--YOU came by your faith in a perfectly spontaneous manner, making up your independent little mind independently at age six or whatever. YOU would raise your children to believe, but you'd make sure they believed in the same independent manner.

Whatever. I'm concerned with how the kids in my niece's class are taught, or how my cousins in Milan are taught, or, indeed, how most kids taking catechism anywhere seem to be taught.

It's not science, it's not art, it's not poetry, or history or crafts or gym or story-time. It's religious teaching imparting articles of faith of a specific faith. These kids already had their first confirmation and communion together (minus my niece, who bitterly regretted not getting a pretty lacy dress for the occasion like the other girls). Get it? That's how Roman Catholics are made.

Oh, maybe not the only way--look at Tim, a willing convert (look at you? Aren't you a convert too, or do I misremember?)--but are you seriously going to deny the role of childhood indoctrination (that word, again, sorry it bothers you, just take it to mean what it means) wherever religion is a long, inherited tradition?

Really, it's like debating flat-earthers. You stick to your "vision", I have real problems to consider.

#222

To pick on memorization of a text (be it the Necronomicon itself!) as inherently damaging to the student seems dangerously backwards to me.

I'm surprised you'd think it's merely "memorisation" that bothers me. I didn't even mention it.

Do I really need to point out why reducing "education" to the study of a holy book is abusive? Or do you too imagine six year olds make up their own minds about the rightness of the approach, the truth of god's existence and so on? Islam is transmitted through indoctrination same as Catholicism; the same objections I raised in one case are valid for the other.

> 224 Do I really need to point out why reducing "education" to the study of a holy book is abusive?

But such a reduction isn't what you described. This subthread stems from your #155: It is a question of principle. I don't believe all the boys currently chanting Quranic verse in madrasas are going to turn out to be willing murderers--I do consider them all abused.

When you derided "chanting," I inferred that you were describing the practice of memorized recital which is a pervasive element of Islamic practice.

Perhaps you were using the word "madrasa" to mean something more specific and menacing than its actual denotation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasa#Misuse_of_the_word

The fact that, say, a ten-year-old Muslim boy recites a sura or two is no evidence in itself that his education is circumscribed by that.

Lola,

Let's stipulate that indoctrination is teaching a child someone something before they are able to understand it in an adult way. Fair enough?

So, telling your child that Jesus is lord and savior is indoctrination. Am I right?
And telling your child that there is a God is indoctrination. Am I right?
What about telling your child that isn't a God? Is that indoctrination?

I'm curious about your answers here. It will help us get somewhere, perhaps.

madrasas

Using "madrasas" to mean something about terrorism is a typical right-wing ploy. It's sad it's spread to the left.

>224 LolaWalser:: "No, you simply keep repeating that I "don't know", when I have given dozen of examples of the teachings children hear, and are supposed to assimilate."

Odd -- to any other reader of this thread, it would become clear that we have given dozens of examples of the ways children are raised within and taught a particular religion that are neither "abusive" nor demanding of blind and unthinking obedience, but which encourage open curiosity, critical appraisal, and a loving awareness of the needs of other people.

Yet, you simply keep repeating that none of these examples matter. You keep insisting that all religious instruction and upbringing is heinous and abusive.

We have acknowledged that sometimes--as in many of the circumstances you have experienced--such instruction and upbringing is done with the heavy and obtrusive hand of authority, demanding obedience rather than encouraging a living and growing faith. For such instances, some of us have offered sympathy and criticism. We openly acknowledge that such an approach to faith is not often effective or constructive, and that it undermines the real goals of growth in knowledge and truth and love that should animate the religious soul.

Yet, you have not once acknowledged the myriad of examples offered of that better teaching. Indeed, when faced with those examples, you have responded not only by denying their reality but also by denying the independent thinking skills of those who offer them.

You ask us to take your experiences seriously -- but you must offer in return to take ours seriously, too. Without that mutual exchange of respect, no real communication, no real listening or learning or compassion, can take place.

224: It should not be reduced to only a holy book- and unless you are talking about the extremists, it probably won't be in this day and age

#225

You're nitpicking. I wasn't "describing" anything, I alluded to the fundamental practice of Islamic education, the study of the Qur'an.

#226

Using "madrasas" to mean something about terrorism is a typical right-wing ploy. It's sad it's spread to the left.

Oh how neat--a rightwinger accusing a leftist of even righter wingery. You just introduced the concept "terrorism" yourself. I was referring to the Qur'anic injunction to kill infidels. It would be sad if you thought that's necessarily terrorism, you know. Saladin, Crusades, etc.

A "madrasa" is a school, in English usually referring to a school for Muslim children. Muslim children are educated in madrasas based on the primacy of Qur'an, the necessary and sufficient source of all knowledge. That some have expanded curricula is neither here nor there.

So, telling your child that Jesus is lord and savior is indoctrination. Am I right?
And telling your child that there is a God is indoctrination. Am I right?
What about telling your child that isn't a God? Is that indoctrination?

I'm curious about your answers here. It will help us get somewhere, perhaps.

Telling your child something--and not just once, but repeatedly, with the intention that they should remember, repeat and believe it--is indoctrination, yes, of course.

#228

You write to the mullahs and tell them, sweetheart.

Telling your child something--and not just once, but repeatedly, with the intention that they should remember, repeat and believe it--is indoctrination, yes, of course.

I'm unclear on the distinction between theistic and atheistic education here, then. Is it indoctrination to tell your child there's a God because you say it more often?

>231 timspalding: I'm unclear on the distinction between theistic and atheistic education here, then. Is it indoctrination to tell your child there's a God because you say it more often?

I suppose it would depend on whether the atheist was as diligent about telling a child there was no god as a believer was about insisting that there was, rather than simply not bothering to address the subject. Indoctrination is an active process, so you can't indoctrinate by omission. At least, I don't think you can.

>232 southernbooklady:

I suppose so. What do we call it when you, say, never tell your children that black people are inferior, but you show them you believe it by example and by what you say to others?

ah, I believe those are called culturally conditioned internalized prejudices.

I'd like a shorter term, but yes. :)

My point, I think, is that one can teach in an unreasoning way without even thinking. I am no fan of hard-edged religious instruction. But I don't give people a pass for passing on anti-religious thinking, even if it's never a topic for direct instruction.

#231

I'm unclear on the distinction between theistic and atheistic education here, then. Is it indoctrination to tell your child there's a God because you say it more often?

Well, you're making assumptions about "atheistic" education that I don't share. Insisting that your three year old and upwards repeats after you "there is no god" and "takes it on board", with you periodically checking that they are retaining it and "believing" it (however one does that)--again, yes, clearly it's indoctrination, and in my paradigm, clearly it's abusive.

But that, by the way, is not necessarily how atheists are made. I wasn't, my brother wasn't, my niece and nephew aren't subjected to anything like that.

>236 LolaWalser:

Is it indoctrination if I repeatedly try to teach my child about human equality and charity, and periodically check up on him to see if he's absorbing that message?

>224 LolaWalser: Lola, are you really trying to tell me that in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, England, everybody knows the religion of their neighbour and that it is an issue? I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. It may be true in Croatia or Italy, I don't know. It's probably true in some rural areas. But once again you are making a sweeping generalisation with little evidence other than a few personal anecdotes.

I got your message--YOU came by your faith in a perfectly spontaneous manner, making up your independent little mind independently at age six or whatever.

Seems you didn't get my message.

Really, it's like debating flat-earthers. You stick to your "vision", I have real problems to consider.

And of course I could say exactly the same about you. It's just not very helpful.

>225 paradoxosalpha:, 226 madrasa

I was once the headmaster of a madrasa. It was a Catholic one. Because madrasa is simply an Arabic word for "school", and in Arabic-speaking countries a school is a madrasa whether it is secular, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

I was once the headmaster of a madrasa.

There goes your presidential ambitions.

>236 LolaWalser: Is it indoctrination if I repeatedly try to teach my child about human equality and charity, and periodically check up on him to see if he's absorbing that message?

technically, yes. But it's a message that has general societal approval so no one is going to call you on it. Two hundred years ago you might have been teaching your children about the importance of living according to their social station in life. Also, a generally-approved societal opinion that would have raised no eyebrows.

>240 southernbooklady: it's a message that has general societal approval

So does religion in most of today's world.

There was no mention or discussion of god in my childhood home. Hence, I successfully completed my analysis in only 15 years.

My first real encounter with god came via a college roommate, who wrote "BVMM" (Blessed Virgin Mother Mary) at the top of every page of his notebooks and attended Mass before his organic chem exams to pray for an A.

>241 John5918: So does religion in most of today's world.

And yet, things change. Society no longer generally thinks treating people differently according to a class system or caste system is a good thing. So a "general approval by society" is no guarantee that something is "good." It is only good for that time and place.

#237

I doubt you deliver it in the form of articles of faith--at least, those messages needn't be delivered so. One can give a good explanation of why equality and charity (I don't like the term much, may I substitute kindness?) are good--universally good. In fact, I wouldn't teach a kid those messages without explanation.

Whereas belief that Jesus died on the cross for humanity's sins isn't a universally good belief.

#238

I suspect you don't even read my posts. That's fine--just stop referencing them then.

>243 southernbooklady: So a "general approval by society" is no guarantee that something is "good."

Of course I agree. But we'll probably need to wait a few centuries to see what the verdict is!

technically, yes. But it's a message that has general societal approval so no one is going to call you on it. Two hundred years ago you might have been teaching your children about the importance of living according to their social station in life. Also, a generally-approved societal opinion that would have raised no eyebrows.

See, I regard the worth of other people as being something nobody should "consider for themselves," and as basic as anything else I teach my child. I think of instruction here as being about trying to show my child why it's true, not opening the question for debate.

Is it indoctrination that I repeatedly tell my son not to run into the street, and periodically check to make sure he's absorbed that? Should I wait until he's older to decide whether life is in fact a good thing to have, and trucks do in fact have mass?

>244 LolaWalser: I suspect you don't even read my posts.

Again, I could say the same about you. But how would that help the conversation?

#247

Maybe our conversation doesn't need to be helped. Maybe it should be put out of its misery. ;)

#246

But we already touched on that--yes, children are ALSO indoctrinated into ways of behaviour, caution, hygiene etc. But hey, if a believer sees no difference between teeth-brushing and believing in a loving god, who am I to try to enlighten them.

I don't put treating others equally on the same ontological level as tooth brushing.

>246 timspalding: Is it indoctrination that I repeatedly tell my son not to run into the street, and periodically check to make sure he's absorbed that?

Here's wiki on the term:

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.

So telling a child not to run in the street probably doesn't count, because the child can ask "why not" and you will have a reasonable answer "Because I love you and I don't want you to get hit by a car." But if your only answer is "because I said so" then you are practicing indoctrination.

#249

Yeah, neither do I, that's the whole point. Religion, I am trying to convey, must be taken seriously.

>248 LolaWalser:: "But we already touched on that--yes, children are ALSO indoctrinated into ways of behaviour, caution, hygiene etc."

If it is appropriate to "indoctrinate" children about mundane matters of safety and hygiene, how much more appropriate it must be to "indoctrinate" them about human dignity and loving your neighbor!

I once had a "teacher" maybe 4th grade, that kept a bundle of wooden rulers taped together on her desk. Each morning we had to recite the times tables correctly or get whacked on the knuckles. She's probably the reason I never took calculus.

>252 nathanielcampbell:

Except, of course, that such concepts are merely spooks or matters of personal opinion, not realities.

>253 quicksiva: That makes my 4th grade math teacher seem nice.

>253 quicksiva:

my great great grandfather used to be a trouble maker, and back when he was a kid (and alive) he had to kneel on dried corn cobs.

>253 quicksiva: I grew up in Australia in the 50s and 60s when caning on the hands (primary school) and the buttocks (high school) was still commonplace.

The deputy principal in my high school who did most of the caning had a rack of them ranging from from thin to thick and you had to choose which one you were going to be assaulted with.

They all hurt as much as each other.

*Both schools were run by a Protestant church (Presbyterian) if that matters.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with teaching kids religious beliefs, as long as it is within reason. You should not have people who ruthlessly beat their children if they do not follow the parent's religion, but you do not want to send the FBI to arrest a parent who tells their 6 year old son that Jesus loves him. What someone is taught before they can understand religious principles and the like do not necessarily cause the person to believe in that religion. Someone brought up as a Catholic might become a Protestant, or a Muslim, or and Atheist!

Religious "indoctrination" (if you want to call it that) is only a bad thing if you believe that religion in and of itself is bad; the average person who some would say is being "indoctrinated" is most likely not being taught that all the infidels must be slaughtered in the name of whatever God(s) they believe in. The first things I remember being taught in Sunday School were along the lines of the Golden Rule and putting others before yourself. Whatever faith you belong (or don't belong) to, it's hard to argue that these principles are anything bad. And plenty of people convert from the faith they were brought up in to many other ones.

As a side note, I speak from the perspective of someone whose faith is not due to "indoctrination"; I was brought up as a young child in a Baptist church, spent a couple years as an atheist, spent some time on a truth-seeking mission, and came to the conclusion that the faith I had been raised in was correct.

> 259

Isn't it weird now different people come to completely different conclusions about things?

Like you I too was "brought up as a young child in a Baptist church" and, again like you, went on in short order to become an atheist.

But I'm still an atheist after 36 years (1977 - 2013).

I'm trying to imagine how it would be to become a Baptist again.

.
.
.
.
.
.

Nope. Can't do it.

The closest I can get is perhaps to be a quite liberal Buddhist.

Does that count or do I still have to worry about that hell thing?

260: I don't have the authority to decide whether you go to heaven or hell; that's left up to God, and, in fact, Jesus tells his followers not to assume where someone's eternal soul will end up.(Matthew 7:1)

But yes, it is interesting how different people can go through similar circumstances and arrive at completely different conclusions.

Religious "indoctrination" (if you want to call it that) is only a bad thing if you believe that religion in and of itself is bad;

Even if one is opposed to religion, one does not have to believe that everyone should share that belief. It is people who insist that everyone believe as they do who are the proposing that teaching kids about religion is abuse.

262: Yes, you're correct about that. I should have been more clear im 259.

Coming to religion through indoctrination is bad. As should be amply clear from things I posted above--repeatedly*--I'd like children to be spared having faith hammered into their heads.

Raising children without religion and allowing them to develop their own opinions on it as they mature would be ideal. I can't imagine that any honest believer wouldn't find such treatment more just and such faith more meaningful.

*For the--third, I think--time:

The questions, repeated:

The problem is always only this: is it fair to raise children as believers in any tradition when they cannot maturely think about religion, about what they are requested to believe?

Why shouldn't the imposition of faith in god and all the rest be postponed until later maturity? There are sects which don't baptise children at birth, but at some later date, precisely because they stress the need for understanding of the rite (I'm not sure what the threshold age is or whether it's the same everywhere--the principle is interesting.)

Doesn't it make sense, especially to those who pretend they have chosen faith freely, that children should be prevented from assuming blind faith?

I think it's easier to leave faith than to gain it

I think it's easier to leave faith than to gain it

If this were always and everywhere true, there'd be no Christians in the world. But I agree that contemporary western culture being what it is now, that's true.

Coming to religion through indoctrination is bad. As should be amply clear from things I posted above--repeatedly*--I'd like children to be spared having faith hammered into their heads.

"Indoctrinated" "Hammered into their heads"

My parents taught me, through religion, that I should have some concern for others, that a selfish life is a wasted life, that I have skills and abilities and should use them, that I could argue points of faith, and that I should be engaged, in some way, in politics (liberal politcs). They taught me to treat all people equally, and that race should never be a factor in how I judged people and when they integrated the classrooms in my school, my mother made sure I was in an integrated class. Later when they integrated the schools, they made sure I had a open mind about it, and my mother volunteered to teach at a traditional African American school.

Not that any of this means anything other than I was indoctrinated, and had an abusive religion hammered into my head.

Doesn't it make sense, especially to those who pretend they have chosen faith freely, that children should be prevented from assuming blind faith?

We lived in an integrated neighborhood when my kids were young, and we had the community swing set in our yard. One day my daughter came in and said she did not like those brown people. Should I have let her make up her mind about race? Should I have respected her autonomy and assume she could come to her own decisions about how to deal with racial issues? Because, as I noted above, racial equality was a critical factor in religious upbringing, and it was in church and through my parent's teaching that I best saw racial equality practiced.

It is one thing to say that the world should be such that parents cannot teach their children religion in a way that does them psychological harm, or in ways that will lead them to grow up and mistreat others. It is quite another to say that all religious teaching is abusive, and should be...what? Banned? Made illegal? We will have the thought police at our doors if we pray with our kids? Or is it enough to just be an angry person pointing their finger at the universe and tsk tsking a hearty "shame on you" at reality?

>266 timspalding: I don't like how they have practically killed morality in some places

#267

I'd prefer to leave repetition at a minimum. We already discussed the teaching of universally applicable ethical ideas or such "trivia" as hygiene, multiplication tables etc.

I have no solution (nor plan) for universal application of my proposed ideal, I'm simply stating it as something I'd like every adult responsible for a child's upbringing to consider.

>269 LolaWalser: Then why is this chat being used?

>269 LolaWalser:

And, apparently, politics. But isn't "something to consider" rather less than what you said before:

Graded readers and textbooks ensure that children aren't stretched beyond their intellectual capacity, but we leave their psyches at the mercy of whatever their parents believe, down to interior decoration with gory scenes of martyrdom, upheld as threat, example or even a fate to aspire to? Really?

"We leave" implies you actually think "we" ought to do something about it. I'm relieved you don't.

#271

What, did you picture me rushing into your living room with a SWAT team to remove your life-size replica of Veronica's veil? Tsk.

I did make one suggestion above that implied the "doing" of something (a positive action): have all the children who are taking catechism ALSO attend history of religion or comparative religion classes.

Well that does have interesting implications for the first amendment. Is it just kids taking catechism class or parents who study with their kids? And which catechism? Heidelberg? Westminster? Greater or shorter if Westminster? Any catechism? Is this just aimed at Catholics? If they are teaching kids NOT using a catechism (which is how I learned religion) does that count?

Your solutions are as unrealistic as your observations on the effects of religion education.

You also described it as "abuse." ("So the weakest of humanity, those least capable of defense, are systematically assailed by the most horrific mental abuse precisely at the most sensitive time of their development. ")

If someone were in fact being systematically assailed, I'd demand the police get involved…

first amendment

Croatia and Germany have no such thing.

#262: Even if one is opposed to religion, one does not have to believe that everyone should share that belief.

I am continually bewildered by the number of people who don't think "people should believe the truth" is a value people should hold.

I'm bewildered why a materialist would have any opinions about what others should believe. Universally applicable normative ethics—what atoms is that composed of and where is it positioned right now? Pluto? And if it's not, why believe in it? Or is it just safety in numbers?

The word "should" is not really a materialist construct.

If it is, it's sad, since everything that happens is entirely predetermined or random. Believing what rolling bowling ball or die should do with itself is just plain odd.

>274 timspalding: I find China an interesting example- what do you think will happen this time?
http://www.voanews.com/content/china-free-speech-protests-spread-online/1579629....

>276 timspalding: I'm bewildered why a materialist would have any opinions about what others should believe. Universally applicable normative ethics

People who live under relative systems of personally or culturally founded ethics tend to be alarmed by other people who insist their own code of ethics is "universally applicable" and "normal."

> 276, 277, 278

You boys have talked yourselves into a tizzy, haven't you?

Materialism is a working or pragmatic theory that seems true beyond a reasonable doubt. I.e., what we humans know with some small certainly is materialistic in it's ground of being - lol - and there seems NO evidence for the non-material free from all material. And that which we don't know or can't know - well, how much time should we spend worrying about such? lol

Perhaps pantheism is the answer to your concerns. It can't be ruled out utterly. If true then we can be materialists in attitude and things will be just fine in the end, since there is only one reality.

I think you guys think too much, take yourselves too seriously and confuse yourselves. It is all much simpler than you brainiacs make it out to be.

People who live under relative systems of personally or culturally founded ethics tend to be alarmed by other people who insist their own code of ethics is "universally applicable" and "normal."

I'm not insisting that here. But there is no other way to read:

I am continually bewildered by the number of people who don't think "people should believe the truth" is a value people should hold.

than as a normative statement—that all people "should" believe the truth.

I'm perfectly happy with materialists distancing themselves from ethics applicable to others. But I'm confused when those who reject such the notion continue to use it, like a doctor who continues to think colds are caused by the cold. It's irrational. If you don't believe in normative ethics, live that out and stop saying "people should." It has no meaning in that system, except perhaps as "I prefer."

Irrational or not, I think it speaks to a great psychological inadequacy of the belief at hand. It is one thing to intellectually swallow the idea that it's not always and everywhere wrong to, say, torture a toddler to death with a fork. It's another thing entirely to make yourself live that belief. Perhaps it's still entirely true, and it's merely our primitive ape-brain finding it hard to live in what is, in fact, a universe which cares as little about the toddler as it does the fork.

>264 LolaWalser: The problem is always only this: is it fair to raise children as believers in any tradition when they cannot maturely think about religion, about what they are requested to believe? Why shouldn't the imposition of faith in god and all the rest be postponed until later maturity?

Why shouldn't parents bring children up as part of the tradition and worldview which they share, whether that be religious or atheist (or, as I frequently point out, national, linguistic, ethnic, tribal, cultural, whatever) providing they also instil a sense of openness, tolerance, questioning and exploration? Religious posters have indicated again and again that this has been their experience, so they see no problem with this. Your experience has been different and therefore you want a blanket ban.

Doesn't it make sense, especially to those who pretend they have chosen faith freely, that children should be prevented from assuming blind faith?

Your repeated implication that the religious posters on this thread are blind to the reality because they have themselves been indoctrinated just doesn't hold water. How come you have managed to liberate yourself from the indoctrination and they haven't?

272 have all the children who are taking catechism ALSO attend history of religion or comparative religion classes.

Well, do you think that is not happening, at least at a simple level that children can understand, not a university level? Many of the Catholic schools with which I have been involved (and some Anglican and other Christian schools which I'm aware of) are multi-cultural and have children of many faiths and none, and all of this is factored in to religious education. Similarly much catechism outside school for children in multi-cultural and multi-religious areas also has to take into account the daily experience of the children and will include some teaching on the other religious.

>282 timspalding: that all people "should" believe the truth.

I'm a little confused. Is discovering truth not a valid goal in itself? Does the phrase read better as "I wish that everyone believed the truth."?

It is one thing to intellectually swallow the idea that it's not always and everywhere wrong to, say, torture a toddler to death with a fork. It's another thing entirely to make yourself live that belief.

Ah yes. Because in a morally relative system anything is possible! Babies could be put on spikes! Surely you can see that sticking babies with forks is a universally BAD THING!

Well let's look at some of the other things that have been held as normative moral directives: How about "Women must stay chaste until they are married, then they should have as many babies as possible." ?

Or, what about, "Children must honor and obey their parents."?

The reality is, the supposedly absolute set of ethics you hope is out there is never truly absolute. But when it gets translated into a moral code that is backed by the authority of God, well, there's no gainsaying that, is there? Anyone who doesn't fall into the system is by default excluded. Their right to ethical treatment is not only in danger, it might actually be considered ethical to persecute them.

So yes, give me the person who does his best to be good even when he is unsure, over the one who knows he is good because he's doing what god wants. At least the first guy has to think it through.

>284 southernbooklady: So yes, give me the person who does his best to be good even when he is unsure, over the one who knows he is good because he's doing what god wants. At least the first guy has to think it through.

They both have to think it through. How do I know what God wants, except by thinking it through? Most religious people are also pretty unsure, as can be seen by the ethical debates which take place within faith communities. Which doesn't preclude the possibility of a "universal" morality, but we are all of us, religious and atheist, far from working out exactly what it is.

I'm a little confused. Is discovering truth not a valid goal in itself? Does the phrase read better as "I wish that everyone believed the truth."?

Valid? Logically valid? It does read better as "I wish." It removes the normative word "should." Although "I wish" might better be "I would prefer" as "I wish" often disguises a normative force.

Ah yes. Because in a morally relative system anything is possible! Babies could be put on spikes! Surely you can see that sticking babies with forks is a universally BAD THING!

Possible? Who knows. In a morally relative system everything is relative. Whether or not babies are put on spikes is an empirical question. But clearly the notion upsets you. Why? And why, since it's just something going on in your head and has no reference to the dignity of anyone, should anyone care one whit? Babies have no innate moral right. Their suffering is a datum of the world, nothing more. Your disgust or glee at it is also a datum, and as irrelevant to anyone else as a rock on Pluto. Of course, you might try to force your irrational tastes on me. But that hardly makes them worthy of respect.

Incidentally, yes, sticking babies with forks is universally a bad thing. I know, crazy me. I think babies have some sort of moral claims on us. They have some sorts of rights, which we are morally obligated to respect whether or not we agree.

Honestly, I'm utterly baffled that you can continue to make ANY arguments about the political issues we discuss here. Take, for example, the right of gay people to marry. How can you possibly advocate for this when you don't really believe in human dignity to begin with. (Clue, if you don't think it's always wrong to torture babies, you don't have a general conception of human dignity.) And if your relativism is cultural not personal—you've expressed both—well, it's for absolute certain gays cannot have a moral right to marry in the South, since your neighbors disagree with and quite outnumber you.

But when it gets translated into a moral code that is backed by the authority of God, well, there's no gainsaying that, is there?

On the contrary, I think religion has this as a persistent problem. Religious sanction is a powerful force, and can be used for evil. It often is. But non-materialist world views (including but not limited to theism) allow for a morality that isn't just opinion.

it might actually be considered ethical to persecute them.

Again, why do you care? And why should anyone have the least interest in your opinion on this matter? I have no opinion about your taste for turmeric; why should I have it about your taste for ethics? If there's no reality behind moral opinions—if persecuting people isn't wrong, except as a way of describing what some people (Nazis, say) think—moral opinions are without interest to anyone but the person feeling them. Their desire to force this desire on others and their continued use of "should" is irrational, and, as a philosophical matter, irrelevant too.

So yes, give me the person who does his best to be good even when he is unsure, over the one who knows he is good because he's doing what god wants. At least the first guy has to think it through.

It's irrational to ward off deep philosophical problems with some sort of practical objection to an attitude, especially one I don't have. It's also beside the point.

I certainly agree with you that considered moral positions are better than those that aren't considered. And a lack of certainty is often a marker of a mature grappling with conscience. That doesn't really make much of a difference however. Except that I actually think it would be a good thing if people thought things through and did good things, where as you can do no more than make it an item of personal preference.

> 1

Religious indoctrination of children is a crime against humanity.

>287 LesMiserables:

You're a materialist too, right? What the HECK is a crime against humanity? Religious indoctrination is not actually a crime, at least anywhere we live. As a practical matter, few humans actually agree with you on this. Are you referring to some sort of spooky moral standard separate from what people hold? How cute. Do you believe in unicorns too?

> 288

I assume you were referring to my post though you signposted back to your own.

Yes, religious indoctrination of children is a crime. perhaps not one that is written down in law, but I suggest it is morally outrageous to psychologically damage a child by feeding them stories of demons and punishment, angels, heavens, hells, sin, eternal life, blasphemy, the damned etc.

A disgusting abuse of power over innocent children.

>289 LesMiserables:

That's just your opinion. I think it's grand. Nobody's right about such things. There's no answer out there. It's not a scientific question.

> 290

Exactly. It is my opinion: I was unsure after your comments in #288 that opinion was tolerated without ridicule.

So yes, give me the person who does his best to be good even when he is unsure, over the one who knows he is good because he's doing what god wants. At least the first guy has to think it through.

So you would take Lester Maddox over Martin Luther King?

It's not a scientific question.

It's a question of owning the future.

Morality, like free will, is at best a convenient fiction for a materialist. (Not an atheist, unless you think every atheist is a materialist.)

We cannot live without acting as if both are true but neither is supported by the basic belief system.

>286 timspalding:

Honestly, I'm utterly baffled that you can continue to make ANY arguments about the political issues we discuss here. Take, for example, the right of gay people to marry. How can you possibly advocate for this when you don't really believe in human dignity to begin with. (Clue, if you don't think it's always wrong to torture babies, you don't have a general conception of human dignity.) And if your relativism is cultural not personal—you've expressed both—well, it's for absolute certain gays cannot have a moral right to marry in the South, since your neighbors disagree with and quite outnumber you.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but even your supposedly absolute moral foundation by which you justify all of your ethical assumptions is based on a limited and largely culturally-defined perspective. It assumes, for example, that human beings have some kind of moral right to primacy in the universe. (this is one of the reasons I enjoy reading science fiction and fantasy -- they get to step out of that assumption, and question what "good" and "evil" are in a reality where humanity is not the only sentient species out there.)

Of course when things in your culture don't sync up with the ethics of your absolute moral system, you feel justified in challenging the culture around you. Well guess what, when things in my culture don't sync up with my personal ethical priorities, I feel justified in challenging the culture around me. The big difference being, you get to say "god says so" whereas I have to actually convince people that what I think is a better way to live. I might not always be successful, but I am always allowed to try. I don't need some kind of universal stamped-by-god get out of jail free card for that.

You say torturing babies is universally, morally wrong. Presumably so is killing them. And thus we find ourselves at the heart of the debate on abortion: What do we do when...I'm going to use your phrase... the human dignity of the mother and the human dignity of her fetus are in conflict? Your bumper-sticker "don't murder babies!" position is easier to mindlessly swallow. Mine, which tends to prioritize the rights of the mother, is not. Mine has to acknowledge that in all probability there is no "right" answer and that by choosing to acknowledge the human dignity of the mother I may be sacrificing the human dignity of the (potential) child. But I am at least looking at it with both eyes open, not hiding behind slogans.

So yes, I have a concept of human dignity, thank you. We have words for it, I therefore have a concept of it. Perhaps the difference between us is that I don't think my theoretical ideas of what constitutes a moral foundation are of any use to anyone as long as they stay locked inside my head. They are only "real" in practice. You can meditate all you like about how God is love, but you'll only ever see my ethical principles in the actions I choose to to take in the world.

>292 Arctic-Stranger: So you would take Lester Maddox over Martin Luther King?

Specious. I take the guy whose moral guidelines are most in line with my own....until, of course, they aren't, after which we must work out whether the disagreements are more significant than the agreements. I don't know what MLK thought about homosexuality -- he is pretty silent on the subject -- but if he were to condemn it I would have to say, sorry Reverend. You do great work but you are faltering here.

>295 southernbooklady: you get to say "god says so" whereas I have to actually convince people that what I think is a better way to live

Everybody has to convince others if they wish to influence them. Saying "god says so" doesn't do that. A religious person is no different to you in that respect.

I don't think my theoretical ideas of what constitutes a moral foundation are of any use to anyone as long as they stay locked inside my head. They are only "real" in practice

Again, don't you think that's true for everybody? Whether my moral foundation comes from God or from anywhere else it's not much use locked in my head and I need to put it into practice. And incidentally, the teachings of Jesus emphasise this particular practical point again and again, in complete agreement with you.

torturing babies is universally, morally wrong

As we learn from Psalm 137!

>298 southernbooklady: don't you think that's true for everybody? Whether my moral foundation comes from God or from anywhere else it's not much use locked in my head and I need to put it into practice.

Oh I think so. What I find bizarre is the idea that because my ethics are based in relativism rather than absolutism, I'm don't get to practice them.

>298 southernbooklady: Oh, OK, that part of the conversation must have passed me by.

All morality is relative in fact.

- Though many religious A-holes BELIEVE morality comes from a (THEIR) perfect god and that all humans would be out to sea on their own. It's a on-going problem fer sure.

There's no good reason to expose children to religious doctrine, especially the extreme compulsion mobilized by the threat of hell or some other gruesome punishment, before they reach the age at which they can reasonably decided whether to accept or reject it. This is 2013 CE, not 1096 CE.

To split the world into religious and secular morality is understandable but short sighted I think. First, anything that involves just two categories is pretty suspect as being overly simplistic, and also, as we see on here, the attitudes and reactions of some atheists are very similar to the attitudes and reactions of many fundamentalist Christians. (You can the boy out of fundamentalism, but you cannot take fundamentalist out of the boy?)

So why not talk about two larger categories (with the above caveat about two groups firmly in place).

There are those who are more comfortable with a received morality. That may be a liberal, conservative, religious or secular morality. They not ever really question whether abortion should be legal or illegal, whether income should be distributed or just earned, whether to vote R or D, whether there is or is not a god, etc. Those people can be religious or secular, theist or atheist, liberal or conservative.

On the other hand we have people who do not follow the strictures of any received ethic, although they may adhere to a religious or secular world view. For instance, I think of Tim, who is, as far as I can tell, a pretty orthodox Roman Catholic, and yet helped campaign for marriage equality. Or Southernbooklady, who seems to be more liberal and secular (I may be wrong on that) but whose knee does not jerk very predictably.

One can hold to a religious system of belief without a blind obedience to whatever the shared consensus determines as the will of god. It is not so hard to believe in a god who is not fully revealed to humanity, and who gives humanity room to work things out on their own. (In other words, to repeat the point for the thousandth time, fundamentalism is not the only option for believers.)

Similarly, one can hold dogmatic, unexamined opinions, even though one does not believe in a god of any kind. I am thinking of the patient who was an atheist and a photographer. He did many weddings, and during one of our visits, he told me that it was wrong for churches to ordain women. He could not tell me where that came from, but he was firmly convinced it was wrong. I know many atheists who oppose same sex marriage and abortion. (And more than a few Christians who support marriage equality and legal abortion.)

>301 theoria:: "There's no good reason to expose children to religious doctrine, especially the extreme compulsion mobilized by the threat of hell or some other gruesome punishment, before they reach the age at which they can reasonably decided whether to accept or reject it. This is 2013 CE, not 1096 CE."

Apparently all attempts in this thread to demonstrate that a religious upbringing does not necessarily entail "the extreme compulsion mobilized by the threat of hell or some other gruesome punishment" have fallen on deaf ears. I was never "mobilized by the threat of hell or some other gruesome punishment"; I believe others in this thread have said likewise of their own upbringings.

So let's put some new questions to those who view religion as abusive:

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition if it doesn't include "extreme compulsion mobilized by the threat of hell or some other gruesome punishment"?

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition that teaches about love and compassion and service of others?

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition that champions the poor and oppressed and cares for the widows and orphans?

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition that preaches, "Love your neighbor!" and "Love your enemy!" and "God is Love!"?

303: From when I was young, I remember being taught about heaven and hell, but I never was told to choose between Jesus and the lake of fire.

A discussion at the NYT on this topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/08/with-children-when-does-religion...

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that people don't pay enough attention to the the developmental level of children when certain moral or religious concepts are presented to them. Looking at it from the perspective of, say, James W. Fowler in his Stages of Faith, it would seem to be a big mistake to introduce ideas like hell or damnation or sin or eternity, etc. to children in the so-called "intuitive-projective" stage or the "mythic-literal" stage, approximately preschool age through school-age, or pre-teen. They just can't understand abstractions and tend to accept whatever authority figures say in an extremely literal way. Then they get fixated into these fantasies and either accept them as "real", leading to a lifetime of anguish, or strive, with varying degrees of success, to reject them, but still remain entangled in the misery. Either way, it's a tragedy.

> 306

"...Either way, it's a tragedy."

A tragedy ten(s) million times over in the U.S. for several hundred years and billions of times in the world for millennia.

THAT is what the "liberal-god-is-only-love/most-religion-is-good" types here who don't get it, or who refuse to accept it. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

Our liberal religious friends here at LT think if they just wave their hands then all that bad stuff becomes just a teeny tiny minority of religionists in the world - not much of a problem at all. Atheists who point out such insanity are just generalizing and stereotyping from a small number to every religionist on earth, and are just making mountains out of molehills - and being rude besides (the greatest sin of all, apparently, even compared to hundreds of R.C. priests butt-fucking little boys.

But there I go again - generalizing and stereotyping.

And some atheists think that by verbally castigating people they can get them to see the error of their ways.

Like that has EVER worked.

The question is, what, if anything, can someone do to help a person who was the victim of premature exposure to these types of concepts? To a great extent, the damage has already been done. I wonder if trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy would be of any value?

It is questionable whether teaching alone could induce treatable trauma in a child. There would have to other mitigating factors, such as physical abuse, sustained psychological abuse, associated death ("your father is burning in hell right now"), neglect or other factors. I am sure some exist, but all the kids I see have issues that go far beyond someone telling them about hell.

Kids survive all sorts of trauma.

But you are right, CBT would be the best available resource, were that an issue for a kid. (Or an adult who never adequately dealt with childhood issues.)

Exactly-simply teaching doesn't cause problems, it's other things such as what you mentioned.

Health risks http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/202/1/68.abstract

> 312

I haven't laughed so much for a long time. Thanks for that! :-)

> 312

Where's the "religious but not spiritual" category? Couldn't they find any of my kind? Or are we perhaps so invulnerable to mental disorders that our presence in the sample was unnecessary?

>305 rrp:
"And it's one reason that children raised in Christian homes grounded in divine grace tend to not only be well adjusted but also to give themselves to the vulnerable their whole lives in extraordinary ways."

Boy, that sentence zoomed me right back to my mother's example. With a houseful of kids (11 of her own and all the neighbor kids who flocked as well) you'd think she would have no time or energy left to give of herself to others. You'd be wrong. She ministered to the needs of our elderly neighbors, sending food, inviting the lonely over, making sure we shoveled their snow first. One neighbor lady walked (veeery slowly) to the grocery store by herself. My mom taught us to not only help her carry her bags home, but to slow down and walk companionably with her at other times.

>300 JGL53:

Or else morality could come from the normative demands of reason and theism vs. atheism is actually irrelevant. Which is my own position.

> 316

Yes. Theism - and disbelief in theism - are irrelevant to morality. At my house also.

It would be nice to get a 99 per cent consensus among society on this but we seem a little ways from achieving that.

If one considers atheism as a religion, which apparently JGL does since he started a thread that said, "'No Religion' Is World's Third-Largest Religious Group," then would it not follow that teaching children atheism would also be considered a crime against humanity?

I find the term "crime against humanity" being bandied around a little too freely here. I work in one country where the president is under indictment for crimes against humanity and another where a presidential candidate and his vice-presidential running mate are under indictment. Crimes against humanity are still being committed on a daily basis in the region. None of them involve teaching religion.

> 319

In your opinion which is not shared by all, thanks goodness.

You fail to mention that crimes have different levels of violation.

>320 LesMiserables: crimes have different levels of violation

Which is why we tend to reserve the term "crime against humanity" for major things, indeed the most major in most people's view.

> 321

Says who?

Masses of children are brainwashed by religious indoctrination with literally the fear of hell drummed into them.

That is a crime against humanity.

>322 LesMiserables: Says who?

Most people?

I imagine if you were to wander up to Fatou Bensouda and suggest she indict Arctic-Stranger for the crime against humanity of trying to teach his children religious rubbish like loving their neighbour and helping people, her reply might be, "Well, we're rather busy at the moment with Omar Hassan al Bashir, Ahmed Haroun, Joseph Kony, William Ruto, Uhuru Kenyatta and a couple of dozen others accused of systematic mass murder and similar crimes against humanity..."

> 323

Again you are changing the emphasis. You initially say that the religious indoctrination of children is not a crime against humanity. Now you are saying one is more important than the other.

Slippery fish.

I will leave you to your dogma.

>324 LesMiserables: No, I am commenting on the fact that the term "crime against humanity" is being bandied around too freely. There are lots of crimes which are not "crimes against humanity". Now I don't happen to think that teaching your children about the faith community in which they find themselves is a crime of any sort whatsoever, nor even a negative or harmful thing, but even if you do, you don't do yourself any favours by likening it to a crime against humanity.

> 325

you don't do yourself any favours by likening it to a crime against humanity.

Well, you would say that as you are an internet missionary for Christianity and are therefore likely to defend the indefensible.

We will not agree ever on this point so ... let us drop it.

>326 LesMiserables: Well of course we disagree on anything to do with religion, and on whether religious education is good or bad, but I'm a little surprised that you disagree on what constitutes a "crime against humanity" in both common and technical parlance.

> 327

Let me spell it out for you.

P1: Religious brainwashing of children is child abuse.
P2: Child abuse is a crime against a human being.
P3: A crime against many human beings is a crime against humanity.
C: Religion brainwashing of children is a crime against humanity.

Now I know you don't agree on the praemissa and that is okay. I refer you back to my last line in >326 LesMiserables: above.

Thanks, bye.

>328 LesMiserables: And I repeat that there is a commonly and technically accepted understanding of the term "crime against humanity" which does not include lots of crimes. Under your definition every offence against a person is a crime against humanity and the term is thus rendered meaningless as a description of particularly heinous crimes. It undermines the gravity of the term. If you want to redefine everything to meet your unique definition, fine, but then you remove yourself from sensible conversation on the topic.

> 329

You see, we differ on what you understand to be a heinous crime.

Adjectives? Reprehensible, Wicked, Atrocious et cetera

Yes all of them, in my opinion, fit the bill for religious brainwashing.

And you don't.

And that is fine.

Really, goodbye.

>330 LesMiserables: Maybe the mistake I make is to assume that people know what "crime against humanity" means in both common and technical parlance? It's not a matter of opinion. There are internationally recognised crimes against humanity, and then there are crimes which are not recognised as crimes against humanity, and then there are things which are not even universally recognised as crimes (even though you may think they are pretty bad). That's the point.

>326 LesMiserables: Well, you would say that as you are an internet missionary for Christianity...

Wow, I didn't realize there was such a thing. It makes sense though. I guess I am naive. I never thought one would engage in that as a self-conscious activity.

Can people go to school for that? Are there classes at seminaries and Christian colleges if you want to be an internet missionary? Can you get donations from other Christians and pursue it as a career?

Does that mean the Christians on this site have an agenda and are not discussing religion as a side-effect of their other interests? Does it really mean they have no interest in what they are talking about other than to convert me?

>326 LesMiserables:, 332 I have no idea what it means. Is it the same as saying that Halicarnassus is an internet missionary for atheism because he indulges in online conversations about it?

317: Yes. Theism - and disbelief in theism - are irrelevant to morality. At my house also.

I agree with Tim though that while you don't need to have theism to have morality, you can't have both materialism and morality, for materialism can't really make sense of "the normative demands of reason."

332: Can you get donations from other Christians and pursue it as a career?

If so, someone please tell me about it. I'd like to be able to support myself by hanging out on LibraryThing.

>331 John5918: Maybe the mistake I make is to assume that people know what "crime against humanity" means in both common and technical parlance? It's not a matter of opinion.

It is, though. At least, it is a matter of interpretation:

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

(thank you, wiki.)

I understand what you are saying, John, and I imagine that if you are witness to the systematic torture and murder of entire groups of people you might scoff at the phrase being applied to anything you perceive as "less" vicious. But there is room for other interpretations: Forcing native peoples off their land and into slum housing so natural resources can be exploited could be considered a crime against humanity. Systematically imprisoning people who speak in opposition to official policy might be considered a crime against humanity. Making it a law to incarcerate homosexuals or admit them involuntarily to mental institutions can be crimes against humanity. In the above definition, "persecution" -- as long as it is widespread and systematic--is a valid reason to label certain things crimes against humanity.

So while I am sensitive to your position, I think you have to acknowledge that another person, who regards mandatory religious instruction of young children as actual and harmful brainwashing, might be using the phrase "crime against humanity" correctly from his perspective.

Over in another of the threads currently discussing atheism, the topic has got around to the kind of prejudices atheists contend with in a religiously-oriented society. I've been squirming a bit about it, because I live in the American South and I'm old enough to have seen the worst examples of racial prejudice in action. I find it hard to equate a word I associate with lynchings and segregation and fire hoses and attack dogs turned on people, with people ganging up on a person and actually beating them to death and not being convicted of murder, with the kind of social distaste that people express when they say they won't vote for a man who doesn't believe in god or go to church.

But the truth is, "prejudice" is an accurate term for both scenarios. Just not in my personal vocabulary.

>335 southernbooklady:: "So while I am sensitive to your position, I think you have to acknowledge that another person, who regards mandatory religious instruction of young children as actual and harmful brainwashing, might be using the phrase "crime against humanity" correctly from his perspective. "

Which brings us back to the crux of the argument: is teaching a child to love God and love their neighbor harmful?

>353 PedrBran: Thank you, southernbooklady, for your rational response. Actually as I was responding to some of Halicarnassus' posts today I was sitting in a meeting listening to an eye-witness reporting on an ongoing situation - the usual, more than fifty dead, some people tied up before being executed, bodies mutilated, women with their breasts cut off, bodies burned to try to hide the evidence of bullet wounds, bodies dumped in the bush and eaten by vultures, potential for escalation and a cycle of revenge attacks - and strategising about what we, the Church, can do to help the situation. As often happens, we have been asked by the government to come and assist in resolving the conflict. I think that is a contender for a crime against humanity, although it may fail on the "systematic" and "widespread" tests which you rightly mention.

That someone "might be using the phrase "crime against humanity" correctly from his perspective" is of course true. One can define anything according to one's own perspective. But my point was that the common and technical usage of the term "crime against humanity" is different from the usage being put forward by Halicarnassus. It is not a crime against humanity not because I disagree with him about whether it is good or bad, or even whether or not it should be a crime, but because it doesn't meet a lot of the criteria which are generally accepted (and which you have quoted) for a crime against humanity. Whatever one's personal opinion of religion, it is frankly ridiculous to suggest that a loving family in which a child is taught about the religion of that family is on a par with genocide, mass murder, or even systematic abuse of the form which you mention; forcing people off their land, for example, or unwarranted detention, although even these need to be demonstrated to be widespread and systematic.

#336

No, that's not the crux of the argument.

>338 LolaWalser:: "No, that's not the crux of the argument."

Then what is? "Love God and love your neighbor" is a foundational concept of the faith I will teach my children. You have said that such teaching is abusive indoctrination. I say that it is not.

It that's not the basic hinge of the argument, then what is?

I forgot I promised to ignore you...

It that's not the basic hinge of the argument, then what is?

See above. I posted it often enough.

>340 LolaWalser:: Yes, we all know by now that in your mind, religious indoctrination inherently includes frightening children with abusive notions of eternal hellfire if they don't genuflect correctly.

You seem to have failed in comprehending the fact that many, if not most, children are not raised with such "abusive ideas". You cannot seem to comprehend that many of us have been raised and will raise our own children in religious environments that focus on love, not hate; on grace and virtue, not sin and vice; on serving others, not on ostracizing them.

But I notice that you haven't yet answered the questions I posed in post 303:

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition if it doesn't include "extreme compulsion mobilized by the threat of hell or some other gruesome punishment"?

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition that teaches about love and compassion and service of others?

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition that champions the poor and oppressed and cares for the widows and orphans?

Is it okay to raise a child within a religious tradition that preaches, "Love your neighbor!" and "Love your enemy!" and "God is Love!"?

>333 John5918:

It aroused my interest because it helps explain various response patterns I've noticed on these groups. I had one of those aha moments when it all comes together in a feeling of certainty.

I was more asking out of genuine curiousity. I didn't associate it with you per se.

>332 PedrBran: Thanks, PedrBran. For the record, I am not indulging in it as a self-conscious activity. I post on LT because generally I enjoy the conversations and I have learned a lot. I think it's clear from my posts over the years that I have no interest in trying to convert anybody, but I'm happy to state where I disagree with people and I'm ready to challenge what I consider to be misperceptions or stereotypes about religion and religious people.

Love God and your neighbor is fine. The problems rests with the consequence of not doing so: the Lake of Fire.

>344 theoria:: "Love God and your neighbor is fine. The problems rests with the consequence of not doing so: the Lake of Fire."

And for the umpteenth time: the experience of many posters on this thread as children themselves and now as adult members of religious communities is that young children are not introduced to concepts of "the lake of fire" until they are an appropriate age to understand the dynamics of their faith. Furthermore, in the experience of many posters on this thread in Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant traditions, eternal damnation is rarely an important doctrine. Rather, far more important in the Christian education of both children and adults is love, compassion, virtue, and grace.

How many times will we have to repeat this before the conversation will progress? How many times will we have to explain that we are not threatening children with eternal hellfire before you stop accusing us of doing so?

I agree with Tim though that while you don't need to have theism to have morality, you can't have both materialism and morality, for materialism can't really make sense of "the normative demands of reason."

The fact that you don't understand how it can be done doesn't mean it cannot be done. The idea that materialism is somehow incompatible with morality is, to put it bluntly, infantile.

If you view the values as one thing, and the legitimation of those values as another, then that may clarify the source of the disagreement. Most would not have a problem with teaching children kindness and respect for others. Teaching your child to apologize when they wrong someone, is at its root, teaching your child to validate the significance of others.

The disagreement comes in over the rhetorical framework used to legitimize those values. It has been my exprience ( which is not universal of course ), an appeal to authority is generally made. Thou shalt do this because our tradition values it...

However, there has been a lot of work in this area. Most effective is getting children to empathize with others.

I don't believe god exists, so I would never teach my child ( and didn't ) that god is love or to love an indefinable being. However, I did teach them that dealing with others respectfully was important. I am not a communist, so I did not teach them to love their neighbors as themselves which I think is complete nonsense.

I am not a communist, so I did not teach them to love their neighbors as themselves which I think is complete nonsense.

I wasn't aware this was "communist" teaching. Certainly, Mr Marx (to take one example) did not preach love for his bourgeois neighbor, although he understood their frailty as the result of a common social affliction as opposed to some originary metaphysical sin.

>347 PedrBran:: "It has been my exprience ( which is not universal of course ), an appeal to authority is generally made."

That's because that's how you raise children, period. A four-year old only has a very limited capability to understand why they have to follow certain rules. In raising a four-year-old, there will be certain rules they have to follow on the authority of their parents. Period.

Indeed, it seems to me that it would be abusive not to appeal to authority. When your child is not yet old enough to understand the reasons for a particular rule, do you simply let them break it? Do you simply let your small child be exposed to all number of dangerous situations and risks because you aren't willing, on your authority as a parent, to tell them, "No!"?

>347 PedrBran:: "Most effective is getting children to empathize with others. "

And as a teacher, I've found that an effective way to get children to empathize with others is to help them to see that, no matter how different other children are from them, they all share the basic goodness of being made in the image and likeness of God. Furthermore, that common goodness means that they are supposed to help and care for each other, not harm and hate each other.

My own experience as a human being validates and confirms that empathic intuition every day. I understand and respect that your own experiences have led you in a different direction.

But there seems this troubling movement in this thread to impose the atheist's experiences upon the rest of us. I am not forcing you to raise your children to believe in a loving God; why should you force me to raise my children to deny a loving God?

>347 PedrBran:

Marx wasn't the first communist. The idea didn't spring from his head like Athena sprang from Zeus'.

Jesus' ethic and Paul's too, is very communistic and very impractical pie and the sky unworkable non-sense. I have yet to see a Christian follow it. And I say this not to say Christians are hyprocrits but because it is in-human, anti-family values and cannot be practiced.

"and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy father which is in secret"

And yet Christians support public school prayer.

"And if any man will sue thee, and take away thy cloak, let him have thy coat also. And whosoever shall compell thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away".

And yet Christians hire lawyers when con-artist take advantage of them.

> 349 A lot of atheists disagree with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_Children_Seriously

> 350 And as a teacher, I've found that an effective way to get children to empathize with others is to help them to see that, no matter how different other children are from them, they all share the basic goodness of being made in the image and likeness of God.

I see this AS the problem from my persective. It teaches that humans are IN nature and not OF nature. The FACT that all living organisms share huge amounts of dna is not without significance. Some are vegans because of it. That sentient beings should not be made to suffer gratuitous pain is surely an ethical principle that doesn't require a belief in the imago dei which serves instead to divide us from the non-human. The sequela to that is the definition of the vere homo and all the natural law non-sense that goes with defining what is truly human.

At what point is it appropriate to teach children that one of the joys in heaven ( according to Aquinas ) will be watching unbelievers suffer in hell for all eternity?

I am not saying anyone should force anyone. It's a matter of degree.

>353 PedrBran: At what point is it appropriate to teach children that one of the joys in heaven ( according to Aquinas ) will be watching unbelievers suffer in hell for all eternity?

Or, since hell is a concept that seems to be passe among the Christians in this forum, you can also ask why it is appropriate to teach children that they are all sinners and that this existence is entirely a "fallen" one.

And as a teacher, I've found that an effective way to get children to empathize with others is to help them to see that, no matter how different other children are from them, they all share the basic goodness of being made in the image and likeness of God.

Or you could skip the bullshit part and just teach them that they all share a common humanity.

>353 PedrBran:: "It teaches that humans are IN nature and not OF nature."

I seem to have expressed myself poorly, for which I apologize. The Christianity that I both practice and study is one that affirms the goodness of all creation because it has its source and end in the goodness of the divine. A major focus of my academic work is the twelfth-century Hildegard of Bingen, in whose hands the inheritance of neo-platonic notions of the connectedness of all being (the human as microcosm of the macrocosm of all creation) sparkles with poetic imagination.

Does the ethical principle that "sentient beings should not be made to suffer gratuitous pain" require "a belief in the imago dei"? Not necessarily; though most non-Christian attempts at articulating such a principle (I'm thinking here especially of eastern philosophies like Buddhism) still involve the recognition of some kind of divine principle underlying that interconnectedness.

But for me, the existence of an all-loving Creator and Sustainer and Perfecter of Being confirms (in the sense of, "strengthens") the intuitions of the natural sciences as to the process and evolution of life. I absolutely agree that, "The FACT that all living organisms share huge amounts of dna is not without significance." And for me, that basic chemical blueprint for successful life confirms my experience of the interconnectedness of all being as rooted in and sustained by the One Who Is (Ex. 3:14).

At what point is it appropriate to teach children that one of the joys in heaven ( according to Aquinas ) will be watching unbelievers suffer in hell for all eternity?"

As much respect as I have for the Angelic Doctor, it takes either the blindness of partisan punditry or the ignorance of the uninformed to assume that every word of the Summa must be accepted and taught without question. For alternative views on heaven and hell--from within the medieval tradition, no less!--I would suggest studying Julian of Norwich, who basically concluded that, if Hell does exist, its population is likely infinitesimally small.

Theologians operate under a principle that John Henry Newman called "the development of doctrine", which perceives that the implementation of the human understanding of God's self-revelation changes through time, for the simple reason that human understanding is incomplete and infallible and yet also developing and evolving.

When the rational observations of the natural sciences came to know, for example, that the world was vastly older than ca. 6000 years, most theologians (though with the same feet-dragging and begrudging grumbling that accompanies most human attempts to change) began to search for new ways to understand and articulate the dogma of a Creator God that reflects advances in human knowledge about the world.

>354 southernbooklady:: "why it is appropriate to teach children that they are all sinners and that this existence is entirely a "fallen" one."

Human fallibility and imperfection seem self-evident to most rational observers. Likewise, the human tendency to hurt each other as much as we help each other; to set ourselves in power over others and to oppress them; to suppress our "common humanity" in favor of categorizing those whom we do not like as the "Other" and subhuman -- that tendency seems self-evident to most rational observers.

How to understand the notion of a "fallen" existence is a complex problem facing theologians today. Older paradigms, based on incomplete knowledge about the development of the world, could easily posit a perfect state of existence from which the obviously imperfect state of existence today can naturally be understood as a "fall".

But that is not the only way to understand the relationship between God and the world. There are alternative "soteriologies" (a fancy term for theories about the relationship between God, the world, and the Incarnate Christ). For example, there is the notion of the "absolute predestination of Christ", which perceives that Christ's Incarnation was predestined from before time, regardless of any human "fall". Under this notion, the primary importance of the Incarnation is not "atonement" for an original sin but rather the gracious perfection of an imperfect creation.

Early Christian writers like Irenaeus and many Eastern theologians have long championed this alternative view that emphasizes the evolution of creation towards divine perfection. Rather than "falleness", this view sees human imperfection as a stage through which we evolve, aided by the grace of God-Made-Man, towards heavenly perfection.

(An interesting perspective on this from Calvinist theologian John Schneider can be found in his article, Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An “Aesthetic Supralapsarianism”.)

>356 nathanielcampbell:

I respect your position.

My difficulty with adopting it, if I was a believer, is in knowing where to stop in the process of accomodation. As one demythologizes or strips away the husk to get at the spiritual insights, where does the process stop? What is the stopping criteria? From an historicist perspective, which viewpoint is no longer time-bound? Could the god concept not also be a product of an historical period which we've now outgrown just as we've outgrown the idea that the earth is quite young and we didn't evolve?

I have similar problems with Bultmann's use of Heidegger. Sure he has identified certain existential themes which he then explicates with Christian terminology. But, at some point, doesn't the tradition become just that, a tradition? One might just as fruitfully use Greek tragedy to help understand the meaning of human existence.

> 353 At what point is it appropriate to teach children that one of the joys in heaven ( according to Aquinas ) will be watching unbelievers suffer in hell for all eternity?

At the point where you want to inspire them with disgust regarding Christian tradition.

>357 nathanielcampbell: Human fallibility and imperfection seem self-evident to most rational observers.

The road to hell is paved with the things people took to be "self-evident." ;-)

Human fallibility and imperfection seem self-evident to most rational observers.

And? Exactly how does that lead to the conclusion that children are all sinners and that this existence is entirely a "fallen" one? You didn't actually answer southernbooklady's question, you just evaded it and answered an entirely different, and completely irrelevant question.

The doctrine of sin says, essentially, that we were created to be better than this. That we are not now all that we can be but by the grace of God something better is possible--for while we may be broken, God has entered into our brokenness and shared it with us and in so doing lifted us out of it.

How could this be anything but a message of hope?

Who would prefer to hear that our conflicted, war-torn world is in fact the best we could hope for? I could understand rejecting the doctrine of original sin as wishful thinking, but "disgusting"? I find the alternative possibility far more repulsive.

>360 southernbooklady:: Your wit is noted and appreciated! :-)

But I must admit that I simply don't understand why some people on this thread find the idea of "sin" so absurd. In other words, I'm hoping someone can explain this to me so I can understand.

You see, to me at least (and to most theologians), "sin" is simply the term we use to describe when good people do bad things. In western Christian theology, where the trade langauge is mostly Latin, the term is peccatum, which simply means "a fault, error, mistake, transgression, or sin" (to quote from the standard Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short). As cj writes in 362, "sin" is when we don't do as well at being a human as we should. It's when we fall short of being as good as we can be.

And this is why I don't understand SR's objections. Does he think that mistakes and errors and transgressions and bad behavior don't exist? Does he deny that humans sometimes willfully chose to do bad things to other humans?

Do people who object to the term "sin" simply object to the religious baggage that comes with it? Or is there a more fundamental objection to the idea that humans commit faults and errors and transgressions, and do bad things?

Is there something about the atheist's point of view that precludes them from discussing (1) why people do bad things and (2) how to improve human society so people do fewer bad things?

>361 StormRaven:: "And? Exactly how does that lead to the conclusion that children are all sinners and that this existence is entirely a "fallen" one? You didn't actually answer southernbooklady's question, you just evaded it and answered an entirely different, and completely irrelevant question."

We must be having two different conversations here, or perhaps I'm not being clear. When I wrote, "Human fallibility and imperfection seem self-evident to most rational observers," I thought that what I was saying was that it is appropriate to teach children that all human beings are imperfect and make mistakes and sometimes hurt people -- and that is appropriate because it's the truth. You don't have to be a scientist to get that -- you just have to look around and experience human life to know that everybody screws up sometimes.

If you want to deny that feature of reality, go ahead. But in so doing, you're consigning yourself to an even more delusional state than you claim religious people live in.

Second, I wrote a very elaborate explanation of what it means to say that this world is "fallen". (1) It's an observation that this world isn't perfect, in the sense that things go wrong. People die tragically, both from accidents and illness and from other human beings neglecting or killing them. Suffering exists. That's what we mean when we say that the world is "fallen". If you want to reject those objective observations about the human condition, go ahead -- but again, you'll be living in delusional land with the invisible unicorns.

(2) I further explained that many theologians are now pursuing different perspectives on "fallenness" that respond to our growth in knowledge about human origins and evolution. You may deny that Christians can evolve, but for a third time, your denial of evolution would consign you to Camp Delusion.

>362 cjbanning: Who would prefer to hear that our conflicted, war-torn world is in fact the best we could hope for?

This is not a logical alternative to the proposition that our existence is not a "fallen" one according to the atheist. Hope is a human emotion imposed on an indifferent reality. We can hope for many things--that wars cease to happen, that people treat each other with compassion, that cancer is eradicated. Personally, I've been hoping for faster-than-light space travel since I was old enough to read a Ray Bradbury story.

But the universe is apathetic to human goals and aspirations.It has no goals or aspirations. And it does not exist in a "fallen" state of imperfection. It just is what it is, and we are what we are within it.

>365 southernbooklady:: "It just is what it is, and we are what we are within it."

But can humans have goals and aspirations to be better than they are? To hurt each other less often? To improve medical care and quality of life?

Can humans both envision and then enact an improvement in how they live, both ethically and qualitatively?

>363 nathanielcampbell:But I must admit that I simply don't understand why some people on this thread find the idea of "sin" so absurd. In other words, I'm hoping someone can explain this to me so I can understand.

Let me try to explain from my standpoint. 'Sin' is a Judeo-Christian concept that essentially means that you have disobeyed god ( your creator - he ( yes he ) 'means' the world - ie defines it and its meaning ). This primal act of disobedience separates man from god. Redemption is the restoration of the separation which will not be fully healed until the eschaton. Protestants generally interpret this as being 'in' a state of sin. It is existential and not merely an act. I completely disagree with this whole line of thinking. I am 'OF' nature. Nothing I can do is 'unnatural' therefore'. As a human, I have more semiotic freedom that say a beaver. But I am every bit as much of nature as the beaver.

If I say to you that I think I am perfect just the way I am and am in no need of redemption or what not, you would agree with that? I don't feel ethically flawed in any way. I also resent the implication that I would be in need of redemption or healing. I have done nothing in my life to feel guilty over. Yes, I may have raised my voice to my wife or children for which I apologized. But I don't feel out of joint or not right with the universe and somehow need to be set right.

The doctrine of sin says, essentially, that we were created to be better than this.

How could this be anything but a message of hope?

It is a message that says, among other things, that in a mythical past the world was perfect, but now we are all somehow lesser beings. It is a message that says that you are a failure, and then sets up an impossible standard to measure "success" by. It is a message that says humans aren't responsible for their own fates, but rather it is something imposed upon us by a "creator". It is a message that tells children that they are evil just because they exist, but if they kowtow to a mystical tyrant they can be forgiven for their failed existence.

It is the exact opposite of a "message of hope", and only those whose minds have been warped by years of indoctrination don't realize it.

>367 PedrBran: ++

>367 PedrBran:: "If I say to you that I think I am perfect just the way I am and am in no need of redemption or what not, you would agree with that? I don't feel ethically flawed in any way."

Have you ever done something wrong? Have you ever hurt another person? If you have ever done so, then you have "committed a sin," because that's the definition of "committing a sin."

(Let me say that if you answer "no" to those questions, you are a far better person than me and than any person I have ever known in my entire life.)

Now, there is another level here, which you bring up: the "existential state of sin", the separation from divine goodness. An awareness of a personal alienation from others and from goodness is not unique to Christianity -- many religious traditions perceive that alienation and are devoted to overcoming it.

Have you ever felt distinctly alone, somehow cut off from others? That's what this "sin" is: it's the state of being alienated from goodness and kindness and love.

The Christian concept of "sin" is an attempt to describe the human condition in its failings and sufferings and miseries and oppressions.

Disputing the path that Christianity offers to remedy those failings and oppressions is one thing; but denying that those are even a part of the human experience is something else entirely.

One can rationally describe the human condition (its failings, sufferings, miseries, and oppressions) without recourse to metaphysics.

>368 StormRaven:: "It is a message that says, among other things, that in a mythical past the world was perfect, but now we are all somehow lesser beings."

I will simply refer you to my post 357, in which I explained that there are other theolgical perspectives that see humanity as evolving toward spiritual perfection rather than positing a mythical past where the world was already perfect.

(How many times will I have to repeat this while SR and others keep ignoring it?)

The NT Greek for "sin," as I understand it, is hamartia, and literally means something like "missing the mark." The root metaphor then implies a pre-ordained standard to which behavior must be conformed.

The belief in "original sin" restricts natural human aspiration and creativity by fettering them to a view of life as remedial striving. Rather than potential, it emphasizes inadequacy.

>370 nathanielcampbell:Have you ever done something wrong? Have you ever hurt another person? If you have ever done so, then you have "committed a sin," because that's the definition of "committing a sin."

First off, I am not sure what doing something wrong means. I don't think in those terms. Morality only exists in rhetoric. What you call sin, I would call a power struggle, mis-alignment of goals, misunderstanding or a failure of negotiation. One would have to be a moral realist ( Platonist ) to think that such a thing as 'sin' existed.

>371 theoria:: "One can rationally describe the human condition (its failings, sufferings, miseries, and oppressions) without recourse to metaphysics."

But is such a description necessarily complete? For billions of people both today and throughout history, the experience of the human condition made more sense within metaphysical and religious contexts than without them.

My experience of myself as a thinking, intelligent, and rational human being makes more sense within a matrix that is both physical and metaphysical than within one that is purely physical. I have experienced the spiritual and it makes better sense of my human condition than atheism does.

Now, it's entirely possible that you have experienced the opposite. You may be content to understand your human condition without recourse to metaphysics. But I am not content so to do. I find within myself a yearning, a striving to go farther, to experience deeper than simply what chemistry and biology provide.

As an example: it certainly appears from recent research that the human experience of love can be tracked through bio-chemical and neural processes. In other words, scientists can "describe the human condition" of love purely through physical means.

But when I read of such research, it does not satisfy. It leaves within me a desire for something more. My experiences of love, are certainly describable at one level as bio-chemical processes within the body and brain. Yet, they are also so much more: I have known them to be so.

The 20th-century philosopher-theologian Bernard Lonergan recognized that, fundamentally, proofs of God spring from the individual epistemological awareness. The key conclusion he came to in Insight: A Study of Human Understanding was that the proof of God lies in the knower's own self-awareness of themselves as rational knowers (Insight, chs. 11 and 19).

But the correlary of this insight is that its very substance inheres in that personal self-awareness, and thus its binding force applies only to the knower him-/herself. It must come from within -- it cannot be communicated from without: "No one can understand for another or judge for another. Such acts are one's own and only one's own. Explicit metaphysics is a personal attainment... {and} can exist only in a self-affirming subject, and the process can be produced only by the subject in which the result is to exist. It follows that the directives of the method must be issued by the self-affirming subject to himself." (Insight, pp. 396-8)

Thus, no amount of my yammering on will convince you of the metaphysics of the human condition. Only experience of it will do so. Likewise, no amount of your yammering on will convince me that the metaphysics of the human condition I have personally experienced are non-existent.

But we can be self-aware that each of us is in those respective positions and be aware of their validity as human experience. Another of those "self-evident" features of human history is that actively denying the human experience of another person is the quickest route to oppression and suffering.

> 372 I will simply refer you to my post 357, in which I explained that there are other theolgical perspectives that see humanity as evolving toward spiritual perfection rather than positing a mythical past where the world was already perfect.

There is no goal or destination. Evolution follows a stochastic path that is unpredictable. What you would call spiritual perfection, I might consider the most boring existence imaginable.

>374 PedrBran:: "What you call sin, I would call a power struggle, mis-alignment of goals, misunderstanding or a failure of negotiation."

But can we at least agree that such things are features of the human condition, regardless of what name we give them?

"One would have to be a moral realist ( Platonist ) to think that such a thing as 'sin' existed."

I'm more a Neo-Platonist myself, but I understand what you are trying to say. Though I should nuance that by pointing out that in the Platonic and Neo-Platonic tradition, evil is understood as a privation of being rather than something real per se. "Sin" as an existential state is a "lower" level of being, alienated from its source and thus deprived of the fullness of its potential.

>376 PedrBran:: "There is no goal or destination. Evolution follows a stochastic path that is unpredictable."

While that is true of physical evolution, it is not necessarily true of the "spiritual evolution" that some theologians posit under their theories of divinizing grace and the absolute predestination of Christ.

But my broader point was this: SR's assertions about Christian theology are simplistic and naive, especially in the realm of contemporary theology and its attempts to deal with new human knowledge.

>378 nathanielcampbell:

All evidence points to mankind being a temporary material efflorenscence that will soon pass away into the night without a trace. Our form of consciousness may well be a fluke which doesn't last and may prove ultimately to be mal-adaptive.

> 371

For sure. Psychology, sociology and evolutionary culture are in science the equivalent of "spiritual values" in religion. Thus morality can be had in a monistic reality where spiritual/material dualism is a false belief. Thus I grok it so.

> 379

For sure. But the very idea of such is what has historically depressed the majority of egos and thus engendered what we call religion - defined as utter belief in humans placed as immoral spirits in temporal material bodies and belief that the universe is teleological in its ground of being.

These beliefs are based ultimately in false logical inference, but they continue and are elaborated by human desire (to have what one wants and not to have what one does not want - ultimately) and we thus evolve the various sectarian religions. But such is as much a product of evolution as anything else.

As to "ultimately....mal-adaptive" - since all dualistic phenomena are temporal, no thing can in theory be adaptive, in the sense of being eternal. Or so goes the theory which I grok.

>380 JGL53:++

I am optimistic. It's only been a short time since the manifest image has been undermined. We are seeing the death throws now. The conservative forms of the Abrahamic faiths have competely rejected science ( although while still enjoying the fruits ). The more liberal forms have had to make accomodations to survive. Overall, adherence to the Abrahamic faiths is dying in the West. The absolute numbers may still be going up, but the percent of the population still adhering is going down according to the most recent polls. My hope is that we can sweep away the Abrahamic morality as well and be done with it all once and for all. Future generations can study us as we do now of the Druids and the followers of Mithras...one can hope.

In the meantime, science marches on oblivious to our protestations about how reality just has to be.

>381 PedrBran: Religion is forced to evolve or it will die out, just like a living being. If there are too many ultra conservatives, they will scare the younger generation away from religion.

There is some cause for optimism:

http://io9.com/5976112/how-19+year+old-activist-zack-kopplin-is-making-life-hell...

> 381, 382

In following this line of thought I will always use the R.C.C. as the best example of things slowly but surely getting better -

A recent U.S. poll asked self-identified members of the R.C.C. if - on matters of moral import - they followed their own consciences in the final analysis or the teachings from Rome. Something like 90 per cent said their own consciences were the final arbiter. This goes along with the idea that most catholic women of child-bearing age in the U.S. use artificial birth control, just like protestants.

Religion has become more of a label than a commitment for more and more - whether it be a general label like "christian" or a denominational one like lutheran or baptist.

The existence of mega-church televangelists and their huge flocks of yea-saying sheep give the impression there might be tens of millions of out-of-control religious nuts running loose all over the amber waves of grain between our purple mountains majesties. Maybe it is really not quite that bad.

I know a woman who is a regular attendee of a local baptist church. Of course her children all attended when they lived at home. She is an RN who voted for Obama, is in favor of legal abortion, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage and gays in the military. And she believes all good people go to heaven, even jews, muslims and atheists. Naturally she is very judicious in sharing her opinions. I wonder - how many more out there are like her? I suspect more than we could imagine.

I've seen polls wherein people in the U.S. were asked - not just superficial questions of religion, like what their label was, how many time a week they attended, now much money they gave, etc. - but were asked their opinion on what god was like, to what degree did god inject himself into human affairs, the nature of hell, if any, and who would or would not be expected to wind up there, etc..

Turns out that a majority of “religious” Americans are deistic in their contemplations about religion rather than being orthodox theists. - Even though most would, no doubt, be unfamiliar with the word “deism”.

IMO, once someone goes deist they are harmless as your average atheist/agnostic/secularist.

So - I think we should look on the bright side of life.

> 383

Louisiana has gumbo and many other unique and delicious eats. And the French Quarter in general. And pro football.

Otherwise it is Mississippi.

And that's a crying shame.

The bar at the Hotel Monteleone is a treasure in the Fr Quarter.

368: "It is a message that says, among other things, that in a mythical past the world was perfect, but now we are all somehow lesser beings."

But not all--perhaps not even most?--Christians believe that that mythical past was ever a historical reality. Instead, many understand it to express in figurative terms a basic truth about the human condition both now and in the times when those scriptures were written: as I wrote above, that we were created to be better than this, and that we are not now all that we could be with the the help of God.

The theology of the Roman Catholic catechism weirdly tries to have it both ways on this subject, but plenty of Christians around the world understand that our scientific understanding of the origins of the human species implies that Adam and Eve were not actual people, the Garden of Eden was not an actual place, etc.

"It is a message that says humans aren't responsible for their own fates, but rather it is something imposed upon us by a 'creator'. It is a message that tells children that they are evil just because they exist, but if they kowtow to a mystical tyrant they can be forgiven for their failed existence."

This is not my theology, nor is it the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. Even though our human nature may be wounded by the reality of sin, still we are created in the imago dei, the very image of God, and this means the fundamental existence of any human being is a goodness and not an evil. Not even original sin can extiniguish that fundamental goodness.

I'll quote the Council of Trent (parentheses are used in place of square brackets to mark my modifications):

If any one shall affirm, that (the) freewill (of human beings), moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such a one be accursed.

If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam (and of Eve), (the) freewill (of human beings) is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed.

If any one saith, that it is not in (the) power (of a human being) to make (their) ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of (Godself), in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less (God's) own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let (them) be anathema.

Instead, many understand it to express in figurative terms a basic truth about the human condition both now and in the times when those scriptures were written: as I wrote above, that we were created to be better than this, and that we are not now all that we could be with the the help of God.

And that message is functionally no different than the idea that humans were "better" in a mythic past. It tells people now (and in the cases under discussion now) that they are somehow inherently flawed, and somehow inherently evil, and that there is a standard of action expected of them that they can never hope to live up to. It is a destructive and cruel doctrine.

Even though our human nature may be wounded by the reality of sin, still we are created in the imago dei, the very image of God, and this means the fundamental existence of any human being is a goodness and not an evil. Not even original sin can extinguish that fundamental goodness.

But part and parcel of that creation is the element that caused humans to become "fallen", or that causes them to be not as good as they should be. You can pretend that the logical implication of this is not that humans were supposedly created flawed, but if it is supposed to have been human actions that caused these problems, then humans were created to fail. Your theology is a doctrine of blaming humans for their failure to live up to an inhuman standard.

>383 southernbooklady: I think this highlights the US-specific nature of this type of conversation. Of course it's cause for optimism that such a stupid law is being challenged and overturned. Most Christians in the world would find it difficult to understand how or why such a law could ever have come about in the first place. There is no conflict between science and religion for most religious people; cf numerous LT conversations. I think it says more about political dynamics in the USA than it does about religion per se.

> 389

To a great degree religion is politics and politics is religion in the U.S.

E.g., if it became known that a particular politician either holding office or standing for office in England, Australia, and perhaps New Zealand were an atheist or agnostic, that would not be any hindrance to his or her political career - if of course all other things being equal. For all I know it may be the same in other European countries besides England - France, perhaps, and Germany? Is it even a consideration in Canada? I don't know - I'm asking.

But it is different in almost every venue in the U.S. Especially concerning the office of POTUS. I think there may be one self-identified "non-believer" in congress. No doubt from California.

Also, e.g., last year during the Presidential election when the democrats left out reference to god in their national platform a big deal was made of this, by both the news media and by the republicans - like such was something rather than nothing. The democrats then had to put god in the platform to stop the controversy. A minority of democrats thought it was crap but the majority decided to nip it in the bud and FAST before the republicans started making "democrats hate god" ads out their asses.

Does such crap go on in other countries? I'm thinking not so much.

A world without racism, war, and economic injustice is an inhuman standard?

I think it's inhuman not to hold ourselves to such a standard.

>390 JGL53: In fact the current British deputy prime minister is an atheist, and we have had a number of atheist prime ministers and leaders of major political parties.

>390 JGL53: To a great degree religion is politics and politics is religion in the U.S.

It's one of our national myths that Pilgrims came to these shores to have freedom of religion. But that's not really what happened. They came to have the freedom to practice their religion. They wanted to create their own theocratic government -- their "city on a hill" -- not live in a place where anyone could come and practice any religion they wanted. We've been struggling with the distinction ever since.

I will say, despite John's protestations that Christianity as a whole is nothing like what it looks like here in the United States, I don't think you can write off the US manifestation as parochial and insignificant. If only because it is extremely well-funded.

I also think the discussions here tend to be overly-weighted towards Christianity, I suppose because that's the faith most participants practice. But it is worth considering the question of indoctrination again and substituting a different kind of religion or faith for Christianity in discussion. Does your view change if the religion being used as an example is Islam? Jainism? Hinduism? Zoroastrianism? Wicca?

>393 southernbooklady: The problem with the U.S. is that a lot of major political topics such as same-sex marriage are inherently linked to religion. It's hard to compromise on a topic when the reasons for you supporting your side are deeply rooted in your faith.

>393 southernbooklady: Does your view change if the religion being used as an example is Islam? Jainism? Hinduism? Zoroastrianism? Wicca?

In principle, no, it doesn't change. I have said over and again that I think it is perfectly natural for the very young child to be brought up in the same milieu as their family, whether that be ethnic, national, cultural, linguistic, socio-economic, religious or whatever. One of my old mates was brought up in a form of Zoroastrianism in the north of England. He'd moved on from it by the time he got to university, although the vegetarianism has remained with him. And of course many of my friends and colleagues are Muslims, all of whom were brought up as Muslims by their parents and society.

In principle, no, it doesn't change. I have said over and again that I think it is perfectly natural for the very young child to be brought up in the same milieu as their family, whether that be ethnic, national, cultural, linguistic, socio-economic, religious or whatever.

That's a pretty weak justification, because it could be used to justify any kind of upbringing, and any type of practice.

> 393. I also think the discussions here tend to be overly-weighted towards Christianity...

Even within a broadly Christian context, there are some pretty decent "indoctrination" programs that take a very different approach to the one described in the OP.

Check out, for example, the Unitarian curriculum -- http://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/children/index.shtml

which includes a module called "World of Wonder" -- "This program delves deep into our Unitarian Universalist seventh Principle. It instills respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part, and appreciation of its beauty, excitement, and mystery. It is founded on the premise that direct experience in nature is essential to children's physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual development."

Or, there's the "Joyful Path", published by the Center for Progressive Theology, which offers "behavior-over-belief curriculum that teaches God within all, interdependence, self awareness, respect for nature, stillness, forgiveness, prayer, meditation, integrity, finding wisdom within, the Bible and other wisdom stories, and that follows the teachings and the path of Jesus." Youtube -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBLXw3jIDWM

There's a bunch of similar things out there.

edited to gain control over wayward links

#397: Even within a broadly Christian context ... Check out, for example, the Unitarian curriculum

Except that the Unitarian-Universalist Church is not a Christian church.

> 398

Yes.

> 397

To clarify hardly any actual self-identified christian denomination considers the UUs to be christian. And most UUs do not call themselves christian - only a minority do. So there is that.

I think the situation might hinge on the fact that it is perfectly OK for a member in good standing in the UU organization to be a publically professed atheist.

I have no problem with the idea of christian atheists but a lot of christians do, even very liberal ones.

LOL.

If you really want to talk about ridiculous religious indoctrination, go to the "religion" of Scientology.

399: "Christian atheist" makes no sense-an atheist doesn't believe in god, but I haven't see a christian that doesn't

> 399

The sad thing is that when it comes to non-falsifiability, the scientologists are no more or less than any other religion you could name.

>401 aleng: well, I put them as less credible, because they don't reveal a lot

> 401

George Carlin did a whole routine on paradoxical phrases - military complex, jumbo shrimp, christian jew, etc.

Things don't have to make sense to exist. Otherwise there would be no religion.

LOL.

> 398. Unitarian-Universalist Church is not a Christian church.

From the UUA web site: "Our Unitarian Universalist faith has evolved through a long history, with theological origins in European Christian traditions. Today Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal faith which allows individual Unitarian Universalists the freedom to search for truth on many paths. While our congregations uphold shared principles, individual Unitarian Universalists may discern their own beliefs about spiritual, ethical, and theological issues."

Having attended a Unitarian church for several years, I know from experience that there are many unitarians who consider themselves Christian and their church a Christian church.

Anyway, I said "broadly" Christian context.

Oh, also there's the Unitarian Christian Emerging Church. the Unitarian Christian Association (UK), the Christian Unitarian World Information Net, and the American Unitarian Conference.

According to George Willis Cooke -- "The future of Unitarianism will depend on its ability further to reconcile, individualism with associative action, the spirit of free inquiry with the larger human tradition. Its advantage cannot be found in the abandonment of Christianity, which has been the source and sustaining power of its life, but in the development of the Christian tradition by the processes of modern thought." -- Unitarianism in America

401: Christian atheism is not believing in God, but following the moral teachings of Jesus (like a Christian would).

> 405

"....many unitarians who consider themselves Christian and their church a Christian church..?

Really? The last poll I have seen had about 3 per cent of UUs self-identifying as being christian, and a much larger per cent self-identifying as atheist or agnostic.

But that was a ways back. Have things changed significantly?

> 406

"...the development of the Christian tradition by the processes of modern thought."

I wonder what the heck all that means? I'm guessing it means they will keep the name "christian" and that's about it.

> 408. Have things changed significantly?

Things are changing all the time. Or don't you believe in evolution?

> 409. I wonder what the heck all that means? I'm guessing it means they will keep the name "christian" and that's about it.

Why not try thinking about it instead of guessing about it?

Oh, also, one final link. Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship -- http://www.uuchristian.org/S_Who.html

And a quote from the UUA web site: "As one Unitarian Universalist (UU) Bruce Southworth writes, "Jesus' message remains strong in our efforts to create a beloved community here on earth, impelling us to witness to the injustices of this time." And Rev. Anita Farber-Robertson has said, "Jesus gives us the strength to fight, the courage to love, and hearts that do not give up on anyone."

The Bible and its many interpretations have largely shaped our Unitarian Universalist history. Today, the Bible is used in most Unitarian Universalist congregations as one of many sources of inspiration and reflection. To quote Unitarian Universalist Laura Spencer, "I claim the Bible as one more chapter, among several religious texts, in the Unitarian Universalist guide to living."

#405: There are many Christian UUs; but while I can't speak about individual congregations, the overall church is not Christian. As they say, "Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal faith which allows individual Unitarian Universalists the freedom to search for truth on many paths."

Anyway, I said "broadly" Christian context.

As in "In a broadly Communist context, look at the US Democratic party"?

Oh, also there's the Unitarian Christian Emerging Church. the Unitarian Christian Association (UK)

And funny that, I won't object if you cite them and their programs.

> 410

Sure, things evolve. How have the UUs evolved in the last few decades? In a good way? How?

As liberal in their thinking as they were, surely they have not become even more liberal, i.e., less illiberal. If so, how?

The many that you say now think of themselves as christian - how is that different from just being a good person?

Is it that they are more into jesus than they used to be? And what does that mean? They don't think jesus was god, do they? As for as his moral teachings I see nothing unique there. So what's the deal? More lip service for jesus as a ploy to get more in the good graces of the christian majority?

> 412. OK. If you're so bound and determined to strip the Christianity out of UUism, what about the "Joyful Path" program of "indoctrination" also referenced in #397. That's unashamedly Christian. I could pelt you with a bunch of other similar-type curricula that have nothing to do with "the God-less ending up in hell" or "interior decoration with gory scenes of martyrdom, upheld as threat, example or even a fate to aspire to."

> 413. Here's a page from the Unitarian Universalist Association web site that might answer some of your questions (or maybe not).


How Jesus claimed me: One Unitarian Universalist's religious journey.

> 415

OK. You have an example of a christian mystic who is a UU. Well, it is a non-creedal religion which accepts all persons who seek the good in their own way. Bigots and hell-believers and political conservatives are not drawn to the UU association very much, but in theory all law-abiding citizens are welcome to join.

But I found it interesting that the women spent a good deal of her article complaining about how her non-christian UU friends thought her rather irrational and how rejecting they all were of christianity, including her view of it.

Which gets me back to my understanding that UUs who self-identify as christian are a small minority and the UU association is not a christian church under any meaningful definition. That is all I said.

> 416. Which gets me back to my understanding that UUs who self-identify as christian are a small minority and the UU association is not a christian church under any meaningful definition.

The "christian mystic" you're talking about is the minister of the First Parish Unitarian Church in Norwell, Massachusetts.

Also, here's something that might qualify as a "meaningful definition" by Thomas D. Wintle, Senior Minister of the First Parish, Weston, Massachusetts.


Who Are the UU Christians?

edited to add link

> 417

So?

Even if a strong majority of UU ministers nationwide self-identify as christian mystics it could still be perfectly true that UUs who self-identify as christian are a small minority and the UU association is not a christian church under any meaningful definition.

I.e., UU ministers make up a tiny minority of UUs.

As to the article you added by the other UU minister - again, does all that translate into a sizable plurality of UUs being christain, or a majority - or a tiny minority, as I suspect?

Once again, in # 397, I offered the UUA curriculum as an example from a "broadly Christian context." I believe I've provided sufficient evidence to justify that claim.

> 419

If merely giving lip service to the reigning paradigm is being a christian, then maybe the UU association is now a christian organization. Even though most UUs would disagree. Even though most orthodox christian organizations from baptists to episcopalians to catholics to lutherans would disagree. Ditto seventh day adventists, jehovah's witnesses and any other self-identified christian organization who is on record as averring jesus is god (and generally the second part of the trinity).

But what do hundreds of millions, yea billions, of people's opinions count up against YOUR opinion + the opinions of two UU ministers pulled out of a hat?

Nothing, apparently.

An excerpt from -

http://archive.uua.org/news/011205.html

"....Whereas "human reason and knowledge" was called very important by 96 percent of UU congregational leaders who took part in the multi-denominational Faith Communities Today (FACT) survey released early this year, the Bible was termed only "somewhat important" by 50 percent and had little or no importance to 48 percent as a source for worship and teaching..."

And just to be clear most of what jesus had to say is in the bible.

So, at most only two per cent of UU leaders are hot for jesus.

I would have to say this is good evidence that the UU association is pretty much what we would call a humanist group.

Not christian.

> 420. OK. Once again. On the UUA's official web site we read: "Our Unitarian Universalist faith has evolved through a long history, with theological origins in European Christian traditions."

Now explain to me how that statement is not compatible with the "broadly Christian context" that I have repeatedly referenced.

We have a church whose origins are self-described as "European Christian." A church where there are ministers who are out-and-out self-identified Christians. A church where there are many members who self-identify as Christians. A church whose web site contains published testimonials from members who are self-identified Christians. A church that includes a sub-group that explicitly calls itself the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. A church that draws from sources such as "Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves."

In short, a church that exists in a "broadly Christian context."

> 422

1. That was then, this is now.

2. My personal theological origins are in European Christian traditions.

3. I was baptised in a christian ceremony in 1959.

4. I was married in a christian ceremony in 1976.

5. Up until I was 22 years old I self-identified as a christian.

6. I not only was brought up in a broadly Christian context, I live day to day in a broadly Christian context - the United States of America.

7. Many of my neighbors, friends, and relatives are christians.

8. I many times use language or quotes from the bible.

9. I own three (3) bibles.

Conclusion: I am a christian?

Nope.

Ditto the UU association. The fact that they USED to be christian is irrelevant. (I refer you to item # 1 above.)

>423 JGL53: Similar situation for Humanists, though they often qualify it now, i.e. "Secular Humanists".

In short, a church that exists in a "broadly Christian context."

Only if you extend the term "Christian context" beyond all recognition in a desperate attempt to bring it under your preferred umbrella.

>396 StormRaven: That's a pretty weak justification, because it could be used to justify any kind of upbringing, and any type of practice.

But it isn't being used to do so. It's being used to suggest that it is natural for parents to bring up very young children in the same milieu, community, tradition, culture, society as themselves. In fact it's almost impossible not to do so. Do you tell your children that they are not Americans, they don't need to learn anything about America, they can choose for themselves to renounce it and go and get another nationality when they are 18? Do they not learn anything about whichever ethnic background you come from? Do they not learn about the culture in which they live? Do you impose a language (and worse still, a regional accent) on them instead of keeping them pure from the bad influences of language until they are old enough to decide for themselves that being a Chinese-speaker is far preferable to speaking an Americanised form of English? Do you refuse to allow your children to interact with any neighbourhood families because they mustn't be tainted by any of that stuff until they're old enough to know better? Does it sound ridiculous? Well it is, of course. As ridiculous as trying to bring up a child in a religious family without that child being exposed to the faith community. And of course I am assuming all the provisos which have been mentioned again and again on this thread that even while bringing a child up as part of the community she should not be exposed to stuff which is too mature for her, she is encouraged to be exploring and inquisitive, etc, etc.

>425 StormRaven: I wonder why some atheists are so intent on telling people who self-identify as Christian that they are not Christian?

Edited to add to my first paragraph: In other words, do you try to bring your children up in a vacuum without any sense of communal identity (which is pretty nigh impossible anyway) or do you bring them up with a sense of their own community but also with openness towards other communities and the idea that they can explore others and make choices about their identity as they mature?

#422: Now explain to me how that statement is not compatible with the "broadly Christian context" that I have repeatedly referenced.

Tell me how such a broadly Christian context is interesting? Whee, you can find someone Christian to support your argument if you stretch the meaning of Christian to include a multifaith organization with a Christian background. You can find a foo to match any broadly bar context, provided you are broad enough. I actually find your argument hurts your case; if you have to stretch for an broadly Christian example, apparently there were no examples from a context that everyone would agree is Christian.

> 427. apparently there were no examples from a context that everyone would agree is Christian.

Say what? Read # 414 again.

> 426. I wonder why some atheists are so intent on telling people who self-identify as Christian that they are not Christian?

It is very puzzling. It makes life simpler for them, I guess. "No true scotsman" and all that.

>429 jburlinson:: > 426. I wonder why some atheists are so intent on telling people who self-identify as Christian that they are not Christian?

It is very puzzling. It makes life simpler for them, I guess. "No true scotsman" and all that.

The funny thing is how upset they get when theists try to make a similar argument in reverse, e.g. that even atheists can be understood to respond unconsciously to the divine spark within them.

#426: I wonder why some atheists are so intent on telling people who self-identify as Christian that they are not Christian?

I wonder why some Christians are so eager to co-opt a pretty explicitly post-Christian church as Christian? Yes, a lot of UUs are Christian. The church as a whole is not, and the teaching of the children is going to probably reflect that most dramatically. There are explicitly Christian churches for 2 billion Christians; go use an example from some of them.

#428: Then why are you arguing about the UUs if you have a real example?

#429: The Unitarian-Universalists don't identify as a church as Christian. Stop being so fucking hypocritical.

>431 prosfilaes:: Are those Unitarian-Universalists that have been under discussion in these posts -- i.e. ones who do identify as Christians -- not Christians because other UU's aren't?

For example, is the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship that jburlinson mentions in 422 not Christian because other UU's are not Christian?

Are Sunnis not Muslims because they aren't Shi'ites? Are Lutherans not Christian because they aren't Catholics?

#432: This subthread started at #397, where jburlinson said

Even within a broadly Christian context, there are some pretty decent "indoctrination" programs that take a very different approach to the one described in the OP.

Check out, for example, the Unitarian curriculum -- http://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/children/index.shtml

That is, this is not talking about the UU Christians; this is talking about a program of the UUA as a whole, a program designed with the involvement of pagans and atheists and other non-Christians to produce a curriculum that wasn't Christian, that was UU in a way that no Christian church would be.

It's being used to suggest that it is natural for parents to bring up very young children in the same milieu, community, tradition, culture, society as themselves.

And what you fail to realize is that because it can be used as a justification for anything it fails as a justification in all cases. You keep insisting that parents should be free to teach their children their religious beliefs because it is natural that they do so. That's not a valid justification by itself, because with that justification you can justify anything at all.

Parents should be free to beat their children because it is natural that they do so. Parents should enslave black children to raise their children because it is natural that they do so. Under your logic, both those statements are just as valid as yours is. When anything can be justified by your reasoning, nothing can be justified by your reasoning. You need more than what you are proffering to support your claims.

>433 prosfilaes:: Then rather than beating a dead horse, why don't we go back to the other half of post 397, eh?

Or, there's the "Joyful Path", published by the Center for Progressive Theology, which offers "behavior-over-belief curriculum that teaches God within all, interdependence, self awareness, respect for nature, stillness, forgiveness, prayer, meditation, integrity, finding wisdom within, the Bible and other wisdom stories, and that follows the teachings and the path of Jesus." Youtube -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBLXw3jIDWM

Here we have an example of an explicitly Christian curriculum that DOES NOT focus on hellfire and whatever else has been continually offered on this thread as the universal hallmark of abusive religious education.

The question, then, is this: does such a curriculum as "Joyful Path" qualify as abusive indoctrination, and if so, why?

#435: Then rather than beating a dead horse, why don't we go back to the other half of post 397, eh?

Because I don't really care about the other of post 397? I care about the UUs and people trying to shove them in the Christian box when it's convenient for them. And then the person doing so joining with other Christians in attacking atheists in the claim that's what they're doing.

> 436. Because I don't really care about the other of post 397

The topic of this thread is "Religious indoctrination of children". The examples in # 397 show that this "indoctrination" does not have to involve sin, hell, damnation, misery, gore, etc. etc. As I've said several times, there are numerous other examples from specifically and determinedly Christian sources. These include: Seasons of the Spirit, Godly Play, Gather 'Round, The Thoughtful Christian, Growing in the Light, and more.

Apparently, you don't really care about the topic under discussion here. What you do care about is dumping on Unitarian Christians.

> 433. a curriculum that wasn't Christian, that was UU in a way that no Christian church would be.

That is simply untrue. In my own town, deep in the heart of God-fearing Texas, there are Christian churches that incorporate elements from the Tapestry of Faith curriculum into their christian education programs.

And the UUA and the United Church of Christ partnered on the development and implementation of "Our Whole Lives", a sexuality curriculum for six age groups (K-1 through adult) that helps participants make informed and responsible decisions about their sexual health and behavior.

edited to brag on my state

I don't understand all the heat generated here. My point is that a minority of UUs identify as christian and a majority of them do not. Is someone seriously disputing that mild claim? If so give us a reference.

No one is THE authority on who has a right to the label christian. I mean no one. And anyone apparently has just as much right to the word as a label as anyone else. Who disputes this? If someone does, give us your reasoned argument as to why all the rest of us should accept you or your church as the authority on this?

Those who love the word christian will refuse to label the Westboro baptist church as christian, or even as baptist. Those of us who don't see the word christian as necessarily indicative of the good have no problem with identifying W. baptist church as a christian organization. So who will be the arbiter of who is using the word correctly and who incorrectly?

Protestants vs. Orthodox vs. Catholics vs. Mormons vs. a thousand other groups - who is christian and who is not? The word is meaningless because many use "christian" just to mean a good person. So then Mahatma Gandhi was a christian. If Richard Dawkins is a good person then so is he. LOL.

There are extremely liberal christians who believe that the personal god idea is crap. They think Jesus was just a man who was the greatest moral philosopher of all time - and thus follow his moral teachings - and thus see themselves as christians. Those more conservative than that - believers in the anthropomorphic god idea - say, no, they are definitely not christians. This raises the question "So what?".

The Romans thought the first christians were atheists and labeled them as such. Then they murdered them in droves because of their atheistic heresy. Later christians murdered untold numbers of people who they deemed atheists - in the sense those people did not believe in the real god but some false god. That was the traditional meaning of atheist for many people. So, were either of these groups right? Which ones? And how do you make an airtight case for your opinion or belief?

When and if Jesus himself comes back and tells us who is and who is a christian it will be settled. Until that unlikely day everyone - and I mean everyone - is free to define the word as he or she sees fit - because it has no empirical basis and is a totally abstract concept AND, most importantly, there is no universally recognized authority regarding the true and accurate definition of "christian", no matter what the church one belongs to tells one.

Is that clear enough or shall I elaborate?

> 439. That's all well and good, but if "there is no universally recognized authority regarding the true and accurate definition of 'christian'", why have you and others given me so much grief about Unitarian Christians?

> 440

Correct me if I am wrong. I inferred you were making the case that some sizable majority of extant UUs self-identified as christian, or were at a minimum excessively proud of the UUA's christian beginnings or history.

If I got that wrong, then I apologize.

I myself certainly admit that SOME UUs think of themselves as christians. If you got the opposite impression then I apologize for being a poor communicator.

>434 StormRaven: So should one try to bring one's children up in a complete vacuum, not identifying with or rooted in any community? That's the point I'm trying to get at and my apologies if the way I have tried to do it in the last 400+ posts has not been 100% water-tight and is open to misinterpretation by you and about three other people. I rather thought it had been repeated often enough in slightly different words that anybody would have got the point, but apologies for being over-optimistic on that.

I would repeat (again) that I and others have already repeated again and again that it is not a licence for teaching just anything to children as it should include age-appropriate material, openness to other communities and an exploring and inquisitive attitude. That would generally preclude racism, for example.

#437: Apparently, you don't really care about the topic under discussion here.

No, I don't care about the title topic.

What you do care about is dumping on Unitarian Christians.

I did not say anything about Unitarian Christians in this thread. I was speaking only about the Unitarian-Universalist Association as a whole, and rejecting attempts to assimilate UU pagans and UU atheists to "broadly Christian".

So should one try to bring one's children up in a complete vacuum, not identifying with or rooted in any community?

I'm saying that, by itself, is not a justification for teaching anything.

I would repeat (again) that I and others have already repeated again and again that it is not a licence for teaching just anything to children as it should include age-appropriate material, openness to other communities and an exploring and inquisitive attitude. That would generally preclude racism, for example.

Why not? Your repeated claim has been that parents should raise their children in whatever their faith, cultural, or national community is, and many of those communities embrace racism and discourage openness to other communities. By your own argument they should be allowed to do so.

>444 StormRaven: Our repeated argument has always been qualified by those provisos.

445: Except you've given no reason why your preferred teaching should be privileged. You've claimed that parents should be allowed to teach their children religious claptrap because of its value in incorporating them into the community. But then you hypocritically say that other forms of claptrap which you disagree with should not be taught to children, even though the people teaching said offensive claptrap would say the exact same thing about what they are teaching.

In short, your argument in favor of allowing parents to teach their children religious bullshit fails, and even you see it as a failure because you aren't willing to apply it across the board.

>446 StormRaven: I haven't said that religious teaching should be privileged. I have said that the child should be brought up in the community and identity which the family belongs to, which includes national, ethnic, linguistic, socio-economic, cultural, religious and probably others. That doesn't sound like privileging anything to me.