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.
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 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 31 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 57 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Oui - Sep 15
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
by Oui - Sep 49 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 331 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments