Should Children be fed religion

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:47 pm

We teach kids a lot of things. Reading, writing, math, and healthy eating the list is just too long to even attempt to write down. Why should religion even be considered in a different mode? If someone suggested that I hold off teaching my children to read until they were old enough to choose, I'd laugh at them. I began reading to them immediately. Am I a shameless proselytizer for literacy? You bet, litearcy is a good thing and they will benefit from being literate. There is much within Christianity that they will benefit from as well.

There are many different religions & philosophies in the world. At some time in their lives each of my children will choose one or choose to reject them all. That's a fact. That will be their right as adults. Until that time, I will include them into every part of my life that I find fulfilling and helpful. In my opinion, to do any different would be to neglect them. They will gain a cursory knowledge of many religions and as in-depth a knowledge of Christianity as I can provide. The idea is not to take away their choices, but to give them a frame of reference and respect their choices even if I do not agree with them.

I will, however, teach them to respect every person's beliefs.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:02 pm

Crazy Angelican - it's because you'd have to teach all sides of a religion since no religion is proven. Philosophy is different since it is the backbone of law, but religion...ptffthhhppp (pfff? ... )

nmhunate · Post by **nmhunate** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:32 pm

I don't know... all I know is from my personal experiences. I dated a girl who was raised catholic... That faith really messed her up in concern to her own sexuality. She told me that after attending sunday school one day, she came home crying because they said that it was wrong for her to touch her self in a sexual way... The thing was that she had been doing it for years not knowing or caring that the Church thought it was a sin, all she knew was that it felt good.

The church had messed her up royally in regards to her sexuality,... I had to break up with her because of that... I was fine with the fact that she wished to remain a virgin until marriage, I broke up with her because she felt guilty about the times we went to second base (Touching the boobs)

Caleb the Cruel · Post by **Caleb the Cruel** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:39 pm

Mar 10:13 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them.

Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Mar 10:15 “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”

Mar 10:16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

ESV

Serbia · Post by **Serbia** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:54 pm

Well here's my take.

Parents do teach their children the religion they believe in whether they know it or not. And it doesn't really matter what you say. Your children are watching you, observing how you live your life. And if what you SAY you believe in doesn't jive with your actions, the kids will see it and will reject the teaching, because the evidence is that it doesn't work. So parents, if you're going to teach something, you'd better make sure you're LIVING what you're preaching. Whatever it is. Because your kids will see through your words. So sure, I say parents should teach religion to their kids. Even the most non-religious person is passing that on to their kids. Just make sure you really believe what you're teaching!

areyouincahoots · Post by **areyouincahoots** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:08 pm

Children should be taught morals, not fed religion. End of discussion...

CrazyAnglican · Post by **CrazyAnglican** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:58 pm

unriggable wrote:Crazy Angelican - it's because you'd have to teach all sides of a religion since no religion is proven.

I'll certainly teach all sides of Christianity that I understand as I understand them. Being unproven is irrelevant. Any theory is, by its nature, unproven, and which is more likely to be truthful is often the subject of lively debate. I have respect for and enjoy talking to people of differing religions, so my kids will see that as well. The stereotypical "I'm right and you're screwed" Christian that is often invoked in this forum doesn't live at my house. Bigots, of any variety, aren't welcome so those who show up to insult others are shown the door. In this way my kids are likely to get much more than a one-sided view.

unriggable wrote:Philosophy is different since it is the backbone of law, but religion...ptffthhhppp (pfff? ... )

If you mean that philosophy is okay because it's the basis for law, but religion isn't because it has no influence on the law. Well that can certainly be the subject of another debate. Suffice it to say I disagree. Religion has had significant influence on the law and other aspects of all cultures. There is no reason to silence it.

I'll say it again; if it's a choice between a podium and spotlight for my opponent and a gag for my friends. I'll man the spotlight and then take my turn in the discussion. There is no reason to discourage anyone from teaching their children in the best way they can, and with the best morals possible. The true evil, in my opinion, is trying to silence the opposition in the hopes that people will default to a particular worldview. It's in that stratagem that choices are truly taken away.

vtmarik · Post by **vtmarik** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:33 pm

To be serious, the question is should they be fed religion.

The answer is no. They should be given a decent moral compass, be raised in a child-centered home, and given the necessary tools to begin looking for their own faith.

Sure, this sounds somewhat altruistic and lofty, but it's a bad idea to shoehorn someone into one particular faith just to have them end up either wholly devoted to it without considering other options or have them resentful of that religion (or even all religions) and have them become spiteful atheists.

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:05 am

As opposed to atheists by informed choice.

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:21 am

CrazyAnglican wrote:Any theory is, by its nature, unproven, and which is more likely to be truthful is often the subject of lively debate.

Care to debate the Theory of Gravity with me? Or Pythagoras' Theorum?

The word "theory" does not imply that it only exists in theory

Titanic · Post by **Titanic** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:44 am

AlgyTaylor wrote:
CrazyAnglican wrote:Any theory is, by its nature, unproven, and which is more likely to be truthful is often the subject of lively debate.

Care to debate the Theory of Gravity with me? Or Pythagoras' Theorum?

The word "theory" does not imply that it only exists in theory

Um..Theorum means that it has been proven, and is no longer a theory...

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:47 am

Funny that...I don't hear Einstein's "theory of relativity" reffered to as "Theorem of relativity".

Maybe they just forgot to change it...

Arbustos · Post by **Arbustos** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:50 am

Titanic wrote:
AlgyTaylor wrote:
CrazyAnglican wrote:Any theory is, by its nature, unproven, and which is more likely to be truthful is often the subject of lively debate.

Care to debate the Theory of Gravity with me? Or Pythagoras' Theorum?

The word "theory" does not imply that it only exists in theory

Um..Theorum means that it has been proven, and is no longer a theory...

Isn't a theorem deductive in nature, and therefore proven, and a theory merely based on observation through experiment? (Not talking mathematics.)

Arbustos · Post by **Arbustos** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:55 am

Norse wrote:Funny that...I don't hear Einstein's "theory of relativity" reffered to as "Theorem of relativity".

Maybe they just forgot to change it...

It's a theory because he based it on observation.

*I think... I haven't taken Physics.*

btownmeggy · Post by **btownmeggy** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:56 am

Apparently, a theorem is a single proposition or formula to be used in conjunction with other theorems to form a theory, which is a a group of coherent, intertwining theorems that explain a phenomenon.

Arbustos · Post by **Arbustos** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:59 am

btownmeggy wrote:Apparently, a theorem is a single proposition or formula to be used in conjunction with other theorems to form a theory, which is a a group of coherent, intertwining theorems that explain a phenomenon.

Yeah, but that's in mathematics. They're talking about a different field.

(Just so everyone knows, I'm way over my head and trying to find ground on this subject. :wink:

)

salvadevinemasse · Post by **salvadevinemasse** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:02 am

vtmarik wrote:To be serious, the question is should they be fed religion.

The answer is no. They should be given a decent moral compass, be raised in a child-centered home, and given the necessary tools to begin looking for their own faith.

Sure, this sounds somewhat altruistic and lofty, but it's a bad idea to shoehorn someone into one particular faith just to have them end up either wholly devoted to it without considering other options or have them resentful of that religion (or even all religions) and have them become spiteful atheists.

I'm with you on this one. They should be allowed to pick for themselves!

btownmeggy · Post by **btownmeggy** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:04 am

Arbustos wrote:
btownmeggy wrote:Apparently, a theorem is a single proposition or formula to be used in conjunction with other theorems to form a theory, which is a a group of coherent, intertwining theorems that explain a phenomenon.

Yeah, but that's in mathematics. They're talking about a different field.

(Just so everyone knows, I'm way over my head and trying to find ground on this subject. )

Newtonian physics and geometry are mathematics.

Arbustos · Post by **Arbustos** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:05 am

btownmeggy wrote:
Arbustos wrote:
btownmeggy wrote:Apparently, a theorem is a single proposition or formula to be used in conjunction with other theorems to form a theory, which is a a group of coherent, intertwining theorems that explain a phenomenon.

Yeah, but that's in mathematics. They're talking about a different field.

(Just so everyone knows, I'm way over my head and trying to find ground on this subject. )

Newtonian physics and geometry are mathematics.

I know it is concerning Pythagoras, but I thought in this case "theory" is used because of its non-mathematic definition (observation-based), not because Relativity is a collection of theorems...

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:38 pm

to add to the debate, I guess you could say I was fed religion. I have considered other religions, in fact I appreciate some buddhist morals very much, I'm not resentful of my religion or any other religions, although I am resentful of my parents, its arguable that this is because of the...feeding... but they also fed me all their morals, rules, and judgements so that thickens the plot. So maybe their religion feeding backfired on them, however I'm happy with my life so far...

okay now go ahead and say its because of my ignorance

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:03 pm

I don't teach my kids religion, but I also don't teach them atheism. I just teach them ethics, morals and to be good citizens. When my son or daughter asks a question or makes a statement regarding something religious they heard at school, I go out of my way to remain neutral and say "Yes that's what some people believe. Others believe XXX, and still others believe YYY, but no one really knows for sure." It's hard to leave my personal bias out of it but I try, as I want my kids to decide on a religion (or none) on their own. It's a personal decision.

mandalorian2298 · Post by **mandalorian2298** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:16 pm

Childern shouldn't be fed at all. If you keep feeding them, they'll never learn to hunt for themselves. [-X

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:43 pm

mandalorian2298 wrote:Childern shouldn't be fed at all. If you keep feeding them, they'll never learn to hunt for themselves.

"Give me a fish, I eat for a day. Teach me to fish, I eat for life."

Right?

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:53 pm

Yep, and give a person a match and he's warm for a day, set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:58 pm

Serbia wrote:Well here's my take.

Parents do teach their children the religion they believe in whether they know it or not. And it doesn't really matter what you say. Your children are watching you, observing how you live your life. And if what you SAY you believe in doesn't jive with your actions, the kids will see it and will reject the teaching, because the evidence is that it doesn't work. So parents, if you're going to teach something, you'd better make sure you're LIVING what you're preaching. Whatever it is. Because your kids will see through your words. So sure, I say parents should teach religion to their kids. Even the most non-religious person is passing that on to their kids. Just make sure you really believe what you're teaching!

i actually really like this post. I think a lot of the rebellious preachers children types probably has a lot more to do with the fact that there are many inconsistencies with the parents behavior and what they are teaching, and kids are smart enough to recognize the difficulties. When one later on in life attributes the personality conflicts to religion they are necesarily going to attribute the problems to the religion, whether or not it was the person who was the problem...Sometimes its not religions fault (if it ever is?) but the fact that the person cannot live their idealized (which isnt always a good thing) beliefs with there life in praxis.