The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
What do you expect of me, that I tell my children lies, that is things that I don't believe in?
I don't expect you to tell your children anything. I expect you to leave them to make their own decisions about your beliefs until they're mature enough to be able to make a personal choice about them.
I expect that for the same reasons I don't believe reasonable parents should force their children into any other activity that may not be appropriate for them, or which doesn't match their interests or aptitudes.
Do you really not understand the fundamental contradiction between being a flag-bearer for 'human rights', and denying kids catch-free no-pressure freedom of religious choice - not 'make them agree with me now and hope they follow later', but genuinely free?
What has your "revealed authority" stuff to do with anything I said?
Because you're acting on the basis of a moral authority which is somewhere between arbitrary and subject-to-change-without-notice-as-churches-evolve, and non-existent.
It's one thing to make moral points on the basis of humane morality. It's quite another to imply to kids that your (and their) morals are ultimately favoured by religion and/or god.
You must be aware how offensive your constant attempts to put things into my mouth are. Why are you doing it?
I'm not. You keep claiming that I - and everyone - is putting words into your mouth, but at least 90% of the time we're simply repeating your own words back to you.
You don't seem to have considered the consequences of your beliefs as they apply to the people around you.
Now that you are considering them, you appear not to like those consequences - which is something I quite understand, because I don't think they're reasonable.
'Genuinely free' means teaching what you believe, while teaching what I believe is 'forcing' them. I understand. You are projecting all sorts of nonsense on me. Disgusting.
ThatBritGuy:
It's quite another to imply to kids that your (and their) morals are ultimately favoured by religion and/or god.
More nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have ever said. You are making up your stuff freely. Do you feel very much better when you are throwing with dirt?
Oh no, not everyone. Don't hide. Tell me why you are projecting your shit on me.
'Genuinely free' means teaching what you believe, while teaching what I believe is 'forcing' them.
No. I'm quite sure I didn't say that, or imply it in any way.
What I did say is that kids should be allowed to make up their own minds about the beliefs of their parents - because, you know, that's what freedom of belief is [1] .
If you genuinely believe that's 'disgusting' there's hardly any point in continuing this.
[1]Not to be confused with freedom of religion, which seems to be something rather different.
No. I'm quite sure I didn't say that, or imply it in any way
Well, it is there, for everybody to see.
I don't expect you to tell your children anything.
So speaking with my children about my belief is illegitimate in your view. I can't believe that you have the same standard for non-religious parents. There, I expect, you have no objections if the parents explain the world.
What I did say is that kids should be allowed to make up their own minds about the beliefs of their parents - because, you know, that's what freedom of belief is
No, what you did say is that I wasn't expected to even tell my children anything about my beliefs. If you had your way they would not even KNOW them. How can they make up their minds about what they don't know, eh?
Actually I'd wonder which adult had been evangelising in their general direction. If it turned out it was a free choice based on spontaneous interest from books/reading/TV and not on unsolicited pressure from an adult, I'd be perplexed but supportive - which is not, I suspect, what you would be.
In practice the difference is that most churches baptise children before they can have any possible idea what the symbolism of baptism means, and also before they have any possible way of expressing dissent.
Obviously it's nonsensical to claim that's an expression of free choice for the kids, for reasons that are surely obvious.
May God preserve the sense of superiority of all atheists!
Enough with the weasel words, insinuations, and victim plays already.
Your 'freedom of religion' clearly extends only as far as the 'rights' of the religious to evangelise their beliefs.
When confronted with the possibility of actual freedom of belief you're dead set against it.
Katrin, this is hilarious. You are trying to equate the enforcement of a specific dogmatic system with the lack of enforcement of a whole class of dogmatic systems. Even an atheist parent actively railing against religions to her six-year-old child is not a parallel to religious indoctrination (it would be a parallel to a religious parent railing against all atheists, or all polytheists). But "raising people without religion" is just that: raising them with things not including any religion. You can't "make them practice none" if they don't have one and don't first know the practices of any one. The parent doesn't even have to make any reference to religions, though the child may force her to say something if asked. (BTW this is pretty much my case; I knew religion as something from history but knew almost nothing about contemporary religion until my parents forced me to pretend to be a good Catholic boy in front of my grandparents.)
And I insist: raising children in a religion (or any other coherent system of dogmas) means pre-empting them in making up their own minds and denying them choices, and that based on a coherent set of dogmas held by a wider community rather than one of several individuals influencing the child's education. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And I insist: raising children in a religion (or any other coherent system of dogmas) means pre-empting them in making up their own minds and denying them choices, and that based on a coherent set of dogmas held by a wider community rather than one of several individuals influencing the child's education.
We don't agree on your definition of religion, Dodo. For me it is more basic: acknowledging the existence of God. The rest is secondary. And that makes it a dichotomy of belief in the existence of God or belief that there is no God. Religious freedom for me means that neither is enforced.
DoDo:
But "raising people without religion" is just that: raising them with things not including any religion. You can't "make them practice none" if they don't have one and don't first know the practices of any one. The parent doesn't even have to make any reference to religions, though the child may force her to say something if asked.
Which child would not ask? Very theoretically you are right, but practically not: children in a certain age are little machines emitting at high speed questions that are hard to answer. So realistically you will make statements about your position on religion. It's inevitable. And if you are an important attachment figure for the child, your answer will carry weight. And if the child knows you as someone who practises rites OR as someone who does not practise the rites it sees other people practise, that is more information about your position that you can't avoid giving, but which will lead to more questions. And all the answers you give can be sorted along the dichotomy if there is a God or not.
I am curious: why was it important for your parents to pretend religion?
Wait, the existence of God is a fact? A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
You're not going to get me to acknowledge that God exists. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
My parents were both brought up with religion, but grew out of it as thinking people in the 1940s. I don't think either parent "came out" for their parents, with respect to their non-religion. It was easier, less confrontational, to simply obey the minimal rites. Of their six children, all were baptised either Presbyterian or Anglican (depending, as far as I understand, on which grandparents were more likely to cough up some money at the time). It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
For me it is more basic: acknowledging the existence of God. The rest is secondary.
From my viewpoint, this notion is a common ignorance among monotheists. You use the word "God" as if its meaning were something singular and self-explanatory, but it is actually laden with unspoken assumptions about what "God" means, a lack of recognition that there are several different and incompatible "Gods" if one looks at the beliefs of different people (compare, say, the Prime Mover God of an Enlightement philosopher to the talkative personal God of an Irish drunkard), not to mention religions that have no God but multiple small-case gods. People's religious outlook is most certainly not a dichotomy, there are literally millions of different views on the existence of gods.
Because, like eurogreen's parents, my parents never told my grandparents about their apostasy, and didn't want me to blow their cover. It was also part of keeping that cover up that we didn't opt out of religion class at school when in West Germany (an experience which felt much less oppressive for me, BTW, than prayer before sleep and Sunday church when on holiday with my grandparents).
The reason my parents didn't tell about their apostasy is that they feared my grandparents (three Catholics, one of them converted from a Lutheran as a youth along with family, and a Calvinist) would both get emotionally distressed and angrily start to keep a distance, things that happened in other families. Both of those reactions are the consequences of the coercive nature of religious instruction: in their traditional way of religion, you are made to feel guilt for any omission of religious practice, and a child's apostasy is the child's moral failure and eternal damnation and the parent's failure at education.
(Actually, my grandmother was aware that my mother doesn't go to church every Sunday, but she suppressed suspicions by believing that it's because my mother has no time besides her job and home chores. Still, a few years before her death, her suspicions about us must have solidified, as once she levelled a cryptic accusation of "apostasy" at me.)
And, again, if you didn't have experience with such religious instruction, you were the lucky exemption. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
People's religious outlook is most certainly not a dichotomy, there are literally millions of different views on the existence of gods.
And my point was religious freedom, and that no religious or a-religious view is to be privileged. Surely, with notions around that religion has no place in the public sphere, there is a dichotomy of a public sphere without any reference to religion and one that includes the freedom to public references to religion, whichever religion that may be. I see signs of a reversal of the religious coercion (with all the consequences of "guilt" and so) that you describe, instead of a disappearance of coercion which I wish for.
And, again, if you didn't have experience with such religious instruction, you were the lucky exemption.
I have no idea whose experience is more representative of a majority, yours or mine. Is it important? Though probably I shouldn't complain: for the first time in this thread someone acknowledges that my experience exists, and does not tell me that religion automatically is something coercive and oppressive.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 32 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Oui - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 171 comment
by Oui - Sep 154 comments
by Oui - Sep 151 comment
by Oui - Sep 1315 comments
by Oui - Sep 13
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 92 comments
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 715 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 47 comments