ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (ajs) (07/19/84)
Should parents be allowed to push religion onto their children? Now there's a good question. I don't think we can prevent it, but sometimes I wish we could. For example, I once had this conversation with a young child: child: "Do you know what makes the sun come up?" me: (mildly amused) "No, what makes the sun come up?" child: (proudly) "Jesus Christ makes the sun come up!" me: (quietly shocked) "I see... What is 'Jesus Christ'?" child: (taken aback) "Gee... I don't know... umm... uh..." Here was a poor kid not old enough to think for himself, with ideas being shovelled into his brain. Sad.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/25/84)
> Brings up another point- should parents be allowed to brainwash > their children with religious teaching? How do you propose to prevent it? Thought police? Seriously, you can't prevent religious teaching. The way their parents live will teach them a lot about religion. Of course, a lot of times the message isn't what the parents intended; if the parents go to church every Sunday and lie, cheat, and abuse each other the rest of the week, most probably the children will learn that all Christians are hypocrites and that religion is a bunch of crap. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
forys@sunybcs.UUCP (Jeff Forys) (07/26/84)
Unknown human writes: > Brings up another point- should parents be allowed to brainwash > their children with religious teaching? I think it's easier to explain to children the difference between right and wrong using religion. For example, which would a child be more likely to understand: 1) Don't do that because it isn't socially acceptable. 2) Don't do that because god will get mad and... And for all those who say this belongs in net.religion, what can I say, you're right and I beg your forgiveness. UUCP: {cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!forys {allegra,decvax}!watmath!sunybcs!forys ARPA, CSnet: forys.buffalo@rand-relay
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/84)
>> Brings up another point- should parents be allowed to brainwash >> their children with religious teaching? > I think it's easier to explain to children the difference between right and > wrong using religion. For example, which would a child be more likely to > understand: > 1) Don't do that because it isn't socially acceptable. > 2) Don't do that because god will get mad and... So, make up an entity that a child's mind (apparently some adult minds, too) can accept, because that's easier than explaining the real reasoning behind something. How about "Don't do that because it isn't socially acceptable BECAUSE...", followed by an explanation. Such laziness and game-playing in the practice of child-rearing is disgusting. Since when is the "easier" method for raising children the "preferred" one? (I know, since the beginning of time...) -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
forys@sunybcs.UUCP (Jeff Forys) (07/29/84)
From mark@umcp-cs.UUCP, Posted: Fri Jul 27 23:38:03 1984 > Aha, a reason for religion I can understand. It is a convenient > way to manipulate one's children. Manipulate children? I was thinking more along the lines of "teaching" them. I suppose you won't be sending your kids to school either as they are sure to be manipulated there. I don't think there's anything wrong with using religion to teach children -- it worked out fine for me (can't you tell :-). I guess that's why I think it's okay... Each to his own. > I, for one, do not want my children not to do things > because someone will "get mad", be she god or anyone else. > Often the right thing to do WILL make someone mad, and one > should do it anyway. Often, the right thing to do will make someone mad, and one SHOULDN'T do it. I believe it's called using your best judgement -- now, try to teach that to your kids. UUCP: {cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!forys {allegra,decvax}!watmath!sunybcs!forys ARPA, CSnet: forys.buffalo@rand-relay
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/29/84)
From Jeff Forys >I think it's easier to explain to children the difference between right and >wrong using religion. For example, which would a child be more likely to >understand: > 1) Don't do that because it isn't socially acceptable. > 2) Don't do that because god will get mad and... > >And for all those who say this belongs in net.religion, what can I say, >you're right and I beg your forgiveness. How about 3) "Don't do this because you might hurt someone, see if a person came up to you and did .... how would you feel about that? wouldn't that hurt you?" etc... or if you don't really believe in society's standards but you don't want your child to get hurt: 4) "there are some people who don't like it when other people do .... It's not always easy to understand why, but they might get very upset if you do this, and as they are bigger than you, they might hurt you if you do it" (more or less sophisticated depending on the age of the child of course). Children might be more ignorant than adults, but they are certainly not stupid and are usually very interested in having things explained to them, so why not do it? it's not that hard. Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
simon@psuvax1.UUCP (Janos Simon) (07/31/84)
[] Can't resist challenging that one: (it's easier to explain to children that something is wrong because god doesn't like it than saying it's wrong because other people don't like it). 1)Assuming (as the original submitter did) that you don't personally believe it, you'd be telling the kid a lie. 2)Children tend to believe the concrete, and are quite aware of peer and parental pressure. A statement that Mom (or dad, or whoever - a real person, or even a well defined imaginary one) doesn't like it is a lot more direct (and effective) than mking up an abstract entity. js
forys@sunybcs.UUCP (Jeff Forys) (08/01/84)
From saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley), Posted: Sun Jul 29 16:34:26 1984 > Children might be more ignorant than adults, but they are certainly not stupid > and are usually very interested in having things explained to them, so why not > do it? it's not that hard. Alright, explain to a child what happens when a parent (grandparent, etc) DIES. To tell a child "You will never see <name> again because (s)he died" *must* be difficult for a child to understand -- what about emotional trauma? Even many adults have trouble understanding death, maybe another reason for religion? UUCP: {cmc12,hao,harpo}!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!forys {allegra,decvax}!watmath!sunybcs!forys ARPA, CSnet: forys.buffalo@rand-relay Hey Rosen (rich), Have you got a copy of: "The Amazing Adventures of Captain Gladis Stout Pamphlet And Her Intrepid Spaniel Stig Amongst The Giant Pygmies of Bechoels, Volume VIII"?
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/01/84)
> > I think it's easier to explain to children the difference between right and > > wrong using religion. For example, which would a child be more likely to > > understand: > > 1) Don't do that because it isn't socially acceptable. > > 2) Don't do that because god will get mad and... > > Sounds like a great way to grow atheists! Let's make God the great > spoilsport! While we're at it, why not make them memorize Bible > verses as a punishment? [ One might speculate that some contributors to net.religion were brought up just this way, but that would be just sheer speculation... :-) ] What's very interesting is that here we see that BOTH non-religious/atheistic people (who don't feel the need to speculate on the nature of god's "rules") AND religious people (who feel that this sort of methodology is counter- productive to producing sincerely religious adults) have a strong dislike for this sort of child-rearing technique. And yet it lives on: Don't do this because you'll be punished by XXX. Is it any wonder that when people realize "Hey, nobody's going to punish me; I won't get caught", they feel free to do what they will, not caring about the effects it may have on others. Had they been brought up to think rationally and behave rationally, it might have been another story. [By the way, the previous [ ]'d sentence was meant to refer to people on BOTH sides of the net.religion fence; it may be a great way to "grow atheists", but it is also a great way to reinforce autocratic thought, producing people who are part sheep and part tyrant and NO part independent thinker. But what's wrong with growing atheists, anyway? :-] -- "Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while." "Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (08/02/84)
-From: forys@sunybcs.UUCP (Jeff Forys)
-> I, for one, do not want my children not to do things
-> because someone will "get mad", be she god or anyone else.
-> Often the right thing to do WILL make someone mad, and one
-> should do it anyway.
-Often, the right thing to do will make someone mad, and one SHOULDN'T
-do it. I believe it's called using your best judgement -- now, try to
-teach that to your kids.
Sometimes one should avoid doing something because it would make
someone else mad, but it is a pretty poor reason as such. If it *ought*
to be done, other people's reactions need to be taken account of but
not bowed down to. Maybe there will be *another way* to do the
right thing, which takes accounts of the initial objections.
Teaching children this kind of approach to ethics in life I
believe is primarily a matter of LIVING ones own life this way, and
communicating ones beliefs to the children as opportunity arises.
What one does in life teaches more than what one says, though
explaining can be a help to another person's understanding.
Julian davies
{deepthot|uwo}!julianrap@oliven.UUCP (08/03/84)
. > I think it's easier to explain to children the difference between right and > wrong using religion. For example, which would a child be more likely to > understand: > 1) Don't do that because it isn't socially acceptable. > 2) Don't do that because god will get mad and... Maybe you don't expect an answer, but my kids would accept the first example and be confused by the second. I don't believe in useing fear to control others, especially children. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
gds@homxa.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (08/04/84)
If I may be so bold as to offer a way to teach children right from wrong.
The Golden Rule:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Assuming everyone is rational (ie. no one actually wants a brick upside their
head) if everyone followed this rule no one should do anything wrong.
Send flames please. I like net mail. It makes my day.
--
Those who know me have no need for my name.
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!hou2e!gregbobobw@ss4.UUCP (Bob White) (08/07/84)
If religious "brainwashing" is wrong, how about other forms of "brainwashing"? I mean like "clean your room", "obey your parents", etc. I'm sure there are many who feel the religious instruction they give their children is just as "right" as the latter ones above.