Letting children decide for themselves

[Kathryn]

If you're instilling religious belief and habits in your children at an age when they aren't capable of reflecting on them properly, then IMO, you create a shallow faith in your children... and one that I think is at the expense of the process that would allow them to come to a deeper, fuller belief system later when they are capable of it.

This is why so many religions have the equivalent of confirmation, bar or bat mitzvah, or something along those lines.

Raising children with religious traditions can be a sort of layering experience. With ongoing religious training, they learn the deeper meanings as their maturity level progresses. In my case it was sort of a case of "connect the dots." As I grew older and learned more about doctrine, I began to be able to grasp the deeper meanings of rituals like communion, Holy Week, Lent, and Advent. In fact, I'm still learning them as I continue to grow and mature.

Like I said before, parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. If it's clear that the adult that the child will become will not want to take up the family business, then IMO, a parent has no business forcing the child into it.

I'm trying to decipher what you mean by this statement. Most parents cannot FORCE an adult to take over the family business, no matter how hard they try to do so. If the adult (former child) bows to their pressure, that's his or her problem - grow a backbone. But when that same adult is a child, the parents who are also the business owners have the right to expect that child to help with the family business - AS A CHILD - if the tasks are age appropriate (for example, a teen working in the office or at the sales counter). I see nothing wrong with that. Passing on a business to a second or third generation can be a great gift - if the adult wants it.

But most children don't really know what they want or don't want to do career wise - and I don't see that it would be so evil to expose a child to the family business - especially if there is a chance that child will want to run it some day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is why so many religions have the equivalent of confirmation, bar or bat mitzvah, or something along those lines.

Raising children with religious traditions can be a sort of layering experience. With ongoing religious training, they learn the deeper meanings as their maturity level progresses. In my case it was sort of a case of "connect the dots." As I grew older and learned more about doctrine, I began to be able to grasp the deeper meanings of rituals like communion, Holy Week, Lent, and Advent. In fact, I'm still learning them as I continue to grow and mature.

I have a different take on these sorts of rituals. I don't think they typically happen at an old enough age that the child will usually appreciate the full ramifications of the decision. I think they're less about being an expression of free choice than they are about instilling a sense of obligation toward the religion... even if somewhat coerced.

I'm trying to decipher what you mean by this statement. Most parents cannot FORCE an adult to take over the family business, no matter how hard they try to do so. If the adult (former child) bows to their pressure, that's his or her problem - grow a backbone. But when that same adult is a child, the parents who are also the business owners have the right to expect that child to help with the family business - AS A CHILD - if the tasks are age appropriate (for example, a teen working in the office or at the sales counter). I see nothing wrong with that. Passing on a business to a second or third generation can be a great gift - if the adult wants it.

But most children don't really know what they want or don't want to do career wise - and I don't see that it would be so evil to expose a child to the family business - especially if there is a chance that child will want to run it some day.

All the stuff about family businesses came out of Dunemeister's response to this from me:

Do you think this approach should extend to other areas as well?

"I'm a Christian, so I'm raising you to be a Christian until you're in a position to refuse."

"I'm a Conservative, so I'm raising you to be a Conservative until you're in a position to refuse."

"I'm a carpenter, so I'm raising you to be a carpenter until you're in a position to refuse."

"I like baseball, so I'm raising you to like baseball until you're in a position to refuse."

Is this approach appropriate generally? I'd say no. So why would it be valid in the special case of religion, then?

I've been giving Dunemeister the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he's not trying to move the goalposts on me, so I've been taking this hypothetical family business we've been discussing as something more like a parent laying down the law about what a child is going to become ("I was a carpenter, so you're going to be a carpenter!") and less like a matter of a parent having a child help out with the family business as they're able.

 

[Dunemeister]

No, I'm not.

Ehw kay.

Politics can't be all-encompassing? :areyoucra

Being a conservative doesn't envelop all of you. If it does, there's something wrong with it. Religion is supposed to be all-encompassing.

I'd suggest that if you feel this way about religion and its value, this is because of your own subjective point of view and not because of any inherent importance of religion.

So you say.

Also, it seems to me that the position you argue doesn't just highly (I'd argue overly highly) value religion, it over-emphasized certain aspects while neglecting others. If you're instilling religious belief and habits in your children at an age when they aren't capable of reflecting on them properly, then IMO, you create a shallow faith in your children... and one that I think is at the expense of the process that would allow them to come to a deeper, fuller belief system later when they are capable of it.

How could you know any of this? I haven't even spoken about what aspects are to be emphasized (and when) or neglected.

It's not up to me to create faith of any sort. I simply provide the conditions under which it can flourish. Hence the appropriate exposure to beliefs and practices depending on developmental level. (I wont teach my two-year-old principles of exegesis.)

It's a problem if the child doesn't want it. Like I said before, parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. If it's clear that the adult that the child will become will not want to take up the family business, then IMO, a parent has no business forcing the child into it.

Well, when the child becomes an adult and can make this decision, she's welcome to. Meantime, she will participate with us in the way we are teaching her.

False dichotomy. How did you get "no guidance" from any of what I said?

I was speaking in general terms.

BTW - if a person does end up apathetic toward religion, why would this be a problem?

If a person ends up apathetic about oxygen, why would that be a problem?

This makes no sense. You prefer wrong direction given with certainty to uncertainty? When you're navigating in the car, do you get lost often?

If people really don't know much about religion or don't care, I don't expect those parents to teach their children anything. But if someone knows and cares, they have a moral obligation to teach their children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being a conservative doesn't envelop all of you. If it does, there's something wrong with it. Religion is supposed to be all-encompassing.

Says who? There are many approaches to religion.

And I don't see any particular reason to say that the statement "if being a conservative envelops all of you, there's something wrong with it" has anything more going for it than "if being a Christian envelops all of you, there's something wrong with it".

In fact, a sufficiently "all-encompassing religion" would probably meet five of the ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader (Numbers 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8, in case you're keeping score).

So you say.

Well, if religion were vital, then all the irreligious people out there wouldn't be able to survive, would they? Yet here I am, somehow able to (generally) function well and even carry on a conversation with you.

Religion is optional. If you want to argue that it's beneficial, fine - go for it. But don't argue that a person can't live without it, because many people do.

How could you know any of this? I haven't even spoken about what aspects are to be emphasized (and when) or neglected.

You've talked about the mental capabilities of young children, and also said that you think it's important to raise even these young children in religions. What sort of beliefs do you think that this will instill? A child is only capable of a child-like understanding of religion.

It's not up to me to create faith of any sort. I simply provide the conditions under which it can flourish.

Except that's not what you say you're doing... or at least, it's not the whole picture. IMO, to "provide the conditions under which [faith] can flourish" would mean something like the UU approach to children's religious education. When you raise a child in a single religion, you don't allow "faith" to flourish; you allow the variety of faith you personally prefer to flourish while weeding out any form of faith you dislike.

Hence the appropriate exposure to beliefs and practices depending on developmental level. (I wont teach my two-year-old principles of exegesis.)

But what will you teach your two-year-old? These early years are key for what the child will grow up to be in adulthood. There's a fair bit of truth in the Jesuit saying "give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man."

Well, when the child becomes an adult and can make this decision, she's welcome to. Meantime, she will participate with us in the way we are teaching her.

Because it's your house and your rules, right?

I was speaking in general terms.

... but responding to my specific argument. Do you think that "letting children decide for themselves" necessarily means not providing guidance at all? If not, then how is your statement relevant?

If a person ends up apathetic about oxygen, why would that be a problem?

Because they would probably die very quickly. Religion does not share this characteristic.

However, if you disagree, we can do a simple test: on the count of three, I'll withhold religion from myself, you'll withhold oxygen from yourself, and we'll see who passes out first. Are you ready?

Or, if you'd prefer not to do the test, then maybe you could actually answer my question.

If people really don't know much about religion or don't care, I don't expect those parents to teach their children anything. But if someone knows and cares, they have a moral obligation to teach their children.

Yet you're here disagreeing with the approach I advocate and care deeply about. How do you explain this contradiction?

 

[Luminous]

It doesn't scare me for that reason. It scares me to think that people seriously think that a twelve-year-old (say) has the cognitive, emotional, and social equipment to make such an important decision as to abandon a religion. Ridiculous. The emerging ability to reason is not yet fully formed until well into a person's teen years, and even then, they lack maturity to reason well. It's not child abuse to insist on a way of life for your children. It's child abuse to burden a child with momentous decisions when they are not ready.

haha that might have been the way for you. but i clearly recall being able to reason since the beginning of any memory I hold. I recall making much more mature decisions than some of the "adults" around me. you don't really abondon the believes that other falliable humans tried to instill in you, you step forward from them. with any luck, you arive once again at the truth of Agnosticism.

 

[Smoke]

All in all, I think it's clear all the time parents spend trying to indoctrinate their children in a particular religion would be better spent on sports, piano lessons, and taking them to the library. But I don't expect other people to come to the same conclusion.

I think children, barring threats to their safety, should be allowed to make their own mistakes.
I think parents, barring abuse, are going to have to be allowed to make their own mistakes, too.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

All in all, I think it's clear all the time parents spend trying to indoctrinate their children in a particular religion would be better spent on sports, piano lessons, and taking them to the library. But I don't expect other people to come to the same conclusion.

I think children, barring threats to their safety, should be allowed to make their own mistakes.
I think parents, barring abuse, are going to have to be allowed to make their own mistakes, too.

Why must you consistently offer reason and sensibility into your posts, Bill?

I agree. A LOT of parents take to heart not "leaving the kids to their own devices" to such heights that kids are severely micromanaged. I remember when it was a good thing for children to hop on their bikes in the morning and return home for dinner.

Now we're scheduling every second of their day and not giving them room to breathe or explore on their own.

Oh well. What do I know, right?

 

[waitasec]

By the time our children came along my husband an I had thrown our 'born again' status out with the garbage, and no longer believed. However, we were of the opinion that faith, unlike other things in life, is a matter of personal opinion, so we let our kids make up their own minds. They all opted to attend church and Sunday school. The eldest girl (40) stuck with it and is now an Anglican Priest (not a fundamentalist thank goodness). We are very proud of our girl as she is well respected, and does a good job in her two parishes. We don't see things her way where religion is concerned, so it is never a topic of conversation in our household, but we respect her views. I suspect if we had forced religion down her throat, and that of the other children, they would never have wanted to darken the doors of a church ever again.

just yesterday my 6 yr old said he wanted to go to church... as an atheist i am open to that because he will ask me if there is a god and i will say, some believe and others don't, it's up to you to decide... search for yourself, this is your life... exercise your freedom

 

[Misty]

just yesterday my 6 yr old said he wanted to go to church... as an atheist i am open to that because he will ask me if there is a god and i will say, some believe and others don't, it's up to you to decide... search for yourself, this is your life... exercise your freedom

Good answer!

 

[Peacewise]

I agree. A LOT of parents take to heart not "leaving the kids to their own devices" to such heights that kids are severely micromanaged. I remember when it was a good thing for children to hop on their bikes in the morning and return home for dinner.

Now we're scheduling every second of their day and not giving them room to breathe or explore on their own.

Ah yes the good ol' days of just getting on the bike after saying "I don't know where we are going, out somewhere." or my greatly shortened...
"Where you going son?"
"Elsewhere."

why did the kind of micromanagement you speak of begin? Earliest I can recall of it was when one year I was allowed out during daylight saving until 9 pm which was still daylight, and then there was a scare of a criminal escaping from a jail, 30 km away, and the following year I had a curfew of 6pm. Seemed quite weird considering it was a single incidence.

Just at a shot in the dark I get the impression that the vast amount of violence that is portrayed in the news creates a heightened sense of fear in parents that creates an overreaction into micromanagement.
Sure the world is dangerous, but not that friggin dangerous.

 

[Michigan Atheist]

I admit that I have not read all of the posts, mainly because I don't have the time or patience, but I do hold some ideas about children and religion. Like Dawkins, I do think forcing religion on children is akin to child abuse, mostly because I think it takes away free will that Christians particularly like to talk about. Children reared in religious households, tend to follow the path that their parents took, particularly IF they were indoctrinated. Some, but few according to the statistics, manage to break away from the dogma of their parents. I often wonder how many would actually chose the religion of their parents, IF they were not indoctrinated as such.

 

[Misty]

I admit that I have not read all of the posts, mainly because I don't have the time or patience, but I do hold some ideas about children and religion. Like Dawkins, I do think forcing religion on children is akin to child abuse, mostly because I think it takes away free will that Christians particularly like to talk about. Children reared in religious households, tend to follow the path that their parents took, particularly IF they were indoctrinated. Some, but few according to the statistics, manage to break away from the dogma of their parents. I often wonder how many would actually chose the religion of their parents, IF they were not indoctrinated as such.

I certainly wouldn't have chosen it, and opted out as soon as I left home. I wish I had been brought up in a secular family, which never mentioned God or Jesus. Both of which still send unpleasant shivers down my spine when I hear those words said out loud!

 

[LuisDantas]

In my case it was Spiritist belief. Talk about not missing them.