quote:I think that it's ridiculous to try and equate the psychological pressures put on normal Catholics by their religion and religious leaders, and the pressures put on, say, the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate folks.
Who did that?
The guy who posted these:
quote:I think that most religious beliefs are very extreme, and that these groups religions undertake actions that individuals would normally consider wrong, (Crusades?) yet they undertake because the rest of their "group" thinks it needs to be done. Like the non-Mormon community in my town that has an almost hatred of the Mormon community.
I think extreme is the will to remove another's rights because of your beliefs that they do not share.
quote:But with children, they do not have a choice!
This is the greatest crime on this earth!
You are indoctrinating them into beliefs they may or may not have chosen given free will, and you are stealing their options away from them, and setting them into a groove that may cause them to be attacked, discriminated against, or any other such, or they may do that to others because of their religions!
quote: Adults take responsibility for their own actions. If some adult is going to church and blames it on being manipulated, then they need to grow. Of course we are all products of our culture and upbringing, but we are not SOLELY products. Blaming other people for one's own actions is, funnily enough, the action of a child. Choose to go or not to go, but whatever you decide, take responsibility for it yourself.
Squicky responded:
quote: Ladies and Gentleman, I present you with The Milgram Experiment. 60% or so of people will kill someone if someone in a lab coat asks them to. Properly done, manipulation is much more effective than I think is being credited in this thread.
You linked the [EDIT: manipulations in the ] Milgram experiment with religion.
I'm willing to grant that you didn't mean to.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, No, I didn't. I specifically said, in the part you quoted, what I was doing. Establishing that "manipulation is much more effective than I think is being credited in this thread".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, but as kmboots and kat pointed out, the Milgram experiment doesn't translate well to their understanding of religion. So an explanation, by you, perhaps supported either by your own comments, or by comments that are readily available to your audience in the form of links, is in order.
Then it is good that I didn't bring it up in direct reference to religion, but rather to establish the potential power of properly done manipulation, as I already have explained.
My problem with is (and I probably should have been more clear) is not the camparison to religion particularly, but rather the disparity between types of pressure. In the experiment, the pressure is intense, the subject had to make a fairly immediate decision, there is only the one outside influence. In making a decision about religion (or career choice, or who to marry etc) the pressure (if there is pressure) is long term but usually diffuse. There are other influences, the parent is not always present, the "subject" can take many years to decide - or never decide.
I don't think the Milgram experiment as I understand it is very relevant to the type of pressure parents put on their children in terms of long term life decisions.
Not that parental influence isn't significant. It is. It just isn't insurmountable (as I have noted anecdotally) or necessarily bad.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, When I get the time and have my materials, I'll try to present examples/explanations of how more subtle forms of manipulation work.
However, in this particular case, I was responding to a characterization of all manipulation as being much weaker than I believe is shown in Milgram, so I brought it up to specifically challenge this idea. Which I tried to make clear with the sentence following it.
There was no attempt to equate this with religion at all. Just like, when I brought up the cults, it was for the specific purpose that I said it was for and not to equate it to religion (like Scott accused me of and Dag is pretending wasn't clearly about what I said).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Establishing that "manipulation is much more effective than I think is being credited in this thread".
You tied manipulation to the Milgram experiment; since you were responding to kat's claim that adults can make choices about church attendance, it appeared that you were counter claiming that religious authority figures were manipulating adults to come to church, similar to the way that lab technicians were manipulating subjects to perform painful experiments against the subjects better judgment.
(Just for the record, I wasn't disputing that you had presented evidence. I was just discussing what you had presented.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, When you read what I write and you come up with an interpretation that makes what I said incredibly stupid, like you presented above, I would hope that you consider that, no matter what my faults, extreme stupidity isn't generally one of them.
---
Which reminds me (edit: because people were attributing incredibly stupid statements to me in the interpretation of what I said, not because I'm calling anyone stupid), I have to get back to that one abortion thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You tied manipulation to the Milgram experiment; since you were responding to kat's claim that adults can make choices about church attendance, it appeared that you were counter claiming that religious authority figures were manipulating adults to come to church, similar to the way that lab technicians were manipulating subjects to perform painful experiments against the subjects better judgment.
The way I read it was not the Squick was making such a claim -- he was saying that he believes that such a manipulation is within the realm of possibility.
Of course, I'm sure he'll be along to clarify. If he hasn't already.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as raising your kid in your religion, of course you're going to do so. If you believe in your religion, you want your kid to grow up in that. Do people really belong to a religion, and not teach their kids, bring them up in it? What's the point then? I can't imagine being catholic, not teaching my kid about being catholic, and just let them figure it out for themself. It's your duty as a parent to teach your kids about your beliefs, and about God. How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
As has been said, many people are not saying that this is a matter of doing or not doing it, but rather of how one does it. There responsible and irresponsible ways of raising your children inside a religion.
I think that the way a lot of parents force religion on their children is not only irresponsible, but counter-productive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
JT had kind of got what I was saying. Again, I wasn't reacting to the religious angle specifically, but rather making a statement about the wider point of how effective manipulation can really be by using one of the most vivid and familiar examples.
In a way, that is how JT saw it in that I was saying that psychological manipulation can result int this in a state where cooperation was completely voluntary just like kat had gone off on how religion is completely voluntary.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love that tune, but I don't like those words. I know much better words.
kat, I think that often-times people brought up with religion in a very rigid way (as many Catholics are) tend to end up being very good atheists. Or Catholics who haven't ever really deeply considered their faith.
I, as I have mentioned, am a catechist for our RCIA program (adults converting to Catholicism.) Over and over I hear from sponsors (sponsors attend the classes as well) who have been raised Catholic that they hadn't really thought much about it until the class. This certainly isn't universal or even "most", but I think it does happen a lot.
I think that religion is (at least it is for me) a very personal journey. Parents can point the way, give directions, provide their children with maps and compasses, teach them how to find their own way. Dragging someone along the path, though, seems to defeat the purpose.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kate, I am interested in what you mean by a rigid way. What does that mean? Can you give some examples of methods of teaching religion that you consider to be too rigid? What's preferred instead?
I think we can all agree on general principles, but I'm curious as to what specific actions you consider to be effective or ineffective.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: kate, I am interested in what you mean by a rigid way. What does that mean? Can you give some examples of methods of teaching religion that you consider to be too rigid? What's preferred instead?
I think we can all agree on general principles, but I'm curious as to what specific actions you consider to be effective or ineffective.
My two cents: Any teaching which says that if you don't believe in it you will burn for eternity in hell is too rigid.
Just my personal opinion.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After a certain age (different, I suppose for different children) forcing a child to participate at all.
If we consider a child at the age of reason to be sufficiently mature to confirm his or her faith, he or she should be sufficiently mature to decide against it.
edit to add: I also think that giving the impression that there is only one right way is a bad thing, but that is more of a reflection of how I view religion than a question of effectiveness. Though, presumably, the kid is going to be exposed to other traditions at some point.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Are you saying that the only acceptable religious teaching is one that says that no matter what you believe, the end result is the same? Is the phrase "burn in hell" necessary, or is it any idea that believers will go to a different place than nonbelievers?
In that case, it isn't the method of teaching that is considered unproductive - it is the tenets of the religion itself. That's an entirely different argument.
quote:After a certain age (different, I suppose for different children) forcing a child to participate at all.
If we consider a child at the age of reason to be sufficiently mature to confirm his or her faith, he or she should be sufficiently mature to decide against it.
Thank you. This is very specific.
I think this is a good idea. The age might depend on the parents, but I think it is a good idea to give kids the freedom to decide whether or not to go while they are still living in the house, so the parents can be around when the decision is being made, so to speak.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Are you saying that the only acceptable religious teaching is one that says that no matter what you believe, the end result is the same? Is the phrase "burn in hell" necessary, or is it any idea that believers will go to a different place than nonbelievers?
In that case, it isn't the method of teaching that is considered unproductive - it is the tenets of the religion itself. That's an entirely different argument.
You're right. But when the tenets of a religion eliminate the possibility of considering another or no religion because you will be punished in some way for it, then the two subjects intertwine.
Maybe if every religious teaching was followed by the phrase: 'But I could be wrong.' it would be better?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you read what I write and you come up with an interpretation that makes what I said incredibly stupid, like you presented above, I would hope that you consider that, no matter what my faults, extreme stupidity isn't generally one of them.
GIGANTIC PET PEEVE.
Person 1: "Statement that seems to indicate a certain thing, which is dumb."
Person 2: "Refutation of that dumb thing."
Person 1: "How dare you interpret my statement that way? I'm insulted. You should assume that when I say something, and it sounds dumb, you must be interpreting it wrong, and I must have actually meant something else, which was brilliant."
How is Person 2 supposed to divine what Person 1 "really" meant in time to avoid offending him? And if this happens a lot with Person 1, shouldn't Person 1 begin to suspect that the problem is with his ability to communicate his ideas, and not with other people's comprehension skills?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
What if a parent shares, when the kid is old enough to understand, their own stories of how they came to believe what they believe? What if they include, along with the tenets of the religion, an instruction that every person should find out for themselves if the religion is true? The quest to consider the question carries the inherent possibility that the answer will be negative. Does that satisfy?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think rivka was responding to "Could this win for the most posts within a 24 hour period?"
Edit: I think this because I typed "Not even close" into the reply box as soon as I read that, then noticed rivka's comment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
What if a parent shares, when the kid is old enough to understand, their own stories of how they came to believe what they believe? What if they include, along with the tenets of the religion, an instruction that every person should find out for themselves if the religion is true? The quest to consider the question carries the inherent possibility that the answer will be negative. Does that satisfy?
That sounds fine. I hope the majority of parents do that.
I think the important thing is to teach a child how to think, and not necessarily what to think.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, Where did you get the idea that I was offended? I'm just mentioning that intrepretations of what I said that are very stupid are quite likely not what I was saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the important thing is to teach a child how to think, and not necessarily what to think.
I think this is true, but it is more of a continuum than an either/or. The style of teaching that is appropriate depends a great deal on the stage of development of the kid.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
What if a parent shares, when the kid is old enough to understand, their own stories of how they came to believe what they believe? What if they include, along with the tenets of the religion, an instruction that every person should find out for themselves if the religion is true? The quest to consider the question carries the inherent possibility that the answer will be negative. Does that satisfy?
It doesn't sound like that is honestly asking someone to weigh the possibilities or actually question what they believe in an evenly weighted manner. Nor do I believe, despite possible protestations to the contrary, that this is a common practice. Asking a person to weigh the case of their beliefs and stacking one side of that case with a short lifetime of doctrine, practice, and context of one possibility is not normally going to yield much more than the confirmation of what is already assumed. It sounds too similar to how a child may relay a story often with themselves as the positive character because that is how they can relate to things that happen around them. It isn't that the child is intentionally lying in relaying their story or making their case, it is that you cannot realistically assume that a child is going to be aware enough to relay to you all sides of a story that might involve numerous perspectives that are not always corroberating.
Also, please let's not use the "Faith A requires as a part of accepting the faith that the person has considered fully the possibility that Faith B through Faith Z are actually true, so Faith A is completely voluntary" argument here. Such a claim is ultimately insulting to those who are not the same faith as the one you claim has that practice. All faiths make that claim. Some even have a whole period where a youth is reaquired to explicitly examine alternatives, and return of their own choice. That simply seems to me a roundabout way of stating that your faith is better than others, that it passes some litmus test others do not.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Justa, you are then arguing the tenets of the religion being taught instead of the method. That's an entirely different argument.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
JNN, children do not usually think that their parents are always right. At least after the age of two. If teaching a child that there are other beliefs, religions, traditions and that they should explore them isn't sufficiently not forcing your religious beliefs on them, what would you suggest?
I think that suggesting (if I am reading you correctly) that people who teach this to their children are being insincere does border on insulting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina: I am not arguing that. That is too broad a thing to argue. Religion is not something that is taught to children in closed sessions. It begins with examples and stories, and evolves to causes and effects, then grows to doctrine and practices, and during that whole time with most faiths a significant amount of activity goes on with other members of that same faith under the auspices that everyone is present there due to their shared faith. It is a constant reinforcement of that faith on many levels. That is the whole point of congregation in any religion, is it not? Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism. . . we all assemble because we want to study together, pray together, learn together, uplift each other, support each other, and bolster each other's faith as we would hope they do for us.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: JNN, children do not usually think that their parents are always right. At least after the age of two. If teaching a child that there are other beliefs, religions, traditions and that they should explore them isn't sufficiently not forcing your religious beliefs on them, what would you suggest?
I am not suggesting anything. I am simply saying that it is and not making a judgment of it. Such things are necessary for passing on our culture, our personal history, our ways and practices. I haven't been making a judgment of it, I have been saying that it exists and that it is significant in relation to the decisions we make later in life. It doesn't dictate, and I have already pointed out that there are only predictors in very extreme cases (like abuse, heavy neglect, etc.).
We never again in our lives learn the way we do when we are children, and we can never really remove ourselves from the perspective in which our lives have given us. We can append, adjust, expand, or rebuild how we view the world, but it will always start from how we learned to do it early on. That does not mean that it is always necessarily our parents who eventually give us our largest impression of the world, and barring living in isolation I would say that it is never only the parents who do so. We don't have to agree with our influences in order to be influenced by them, but in a majority of the cases regarding specific topics like religion, it turns out that we often do.
quote:I think that suggesting (if I am reading you correctly) that people who teach this to their children are being insincere does border on insulting.
That is not what I said. I don't think it is incincere. I said that it simply is. There are good things and there are bad things, but neither give what I am talking about the value of good or bad because of it. What Scott R mentioned regarding his kids sounds good to me, an example of bad could be passing on of harmful and untrue rhetoric regarding people of another country, faith, social class, or other normally opposing group. Much behavior, when reinforced through contant and extended repetition, will eventually colour a person's view, child and adult alike. Whether it is good or bad is not a judgment I am trying to make. I am only trying to establish that it exists.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do think that there are parents who genuinely want their children to make their own choices, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, I think the part that's problematic for me is the ostracization. While that kind of treatment is certainly not a given for a person de-converting, I would guess that it is a common occurance. To contrast, I played soccer throughout my childhood. When I was in high school, I decided that I wasn't really getting a whole lot of satisfaction out of it anymore and decided to quit. My life, except that I had a few more free hours during the week, didn't change substantially. Nobody thought I was a bad person.
Now, I recognize the difference between a serious religious commitment and an after-school activity. My point is, if part of the doctrine of your religion is the encouragement of free thinking, it's a hypocrisy to socially punish those who leave the church. Judging from the way you write, I wouldn't think you do that, but I'd have a hard time believing it doesn't happen regularly.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A parent's job is to pass on their values to their children. That includes religion. If you hold your faith to be important, are active in your faith and trust and believe, you should pass that on to your kid. If you value it, you would want your children to do so as well. And religion is more than just belief in God. It's also culture, shared experience, community, etc. Just like a parent would want to pass on their ethnic background, they would and should want to pass on their religion.
I do NOT think that it's a parent's job to instruct their children on comparative religions. Especially if you believe in a certain faith. Why would you? If you believe your faith, your religion, why would you teach your kid to believe in another religion? As a catholic, if I had kids of my own, they would be raised catholic and I would stress to them the importance of being catholic. I certainly wouldn't want them to become baptist or luthern or any other religion that I don't consider to be true.
As far as forcing your kid to participate in religion, it's the best thing my mother did. As a teenager, I certainly did NOT know what was best for me faith-wise. I frankly didn't have that maturity until much later in life, and when I figured it out I came full circle back to what I was born with. Kids don't want to do things that are hard, or listen to stuff that is contrary to popular culture. Kids make dumb choices. Kids make choices that are easy, make them happy in the short term, and don't consider long term consequences. If I hadn't been forced to go to church and participate by my mother, I wouldn't have had the foundation I have now and known where to go when the time came to make that choice.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
I do think that there are parents who genuinely want their children to make their own choices, though.
I think most parents do. I thought I implied as much in what I said. I don't think that it is a reasonable thing to expect the influences from when a child grows up to be equitable to making an unweighted choice. Even if the parents themselves actively try to introduce and exhibit as many different variations of something like faith, it is probably impossible to cover all of the bases, and could arguably introduce an instability in the child's life that could be harmful later on. Besides, with the constant increase in communications technology (there was no internet when I was a child), the number of influences on any given person as they grow is exponentially higher today and will continue to increase. That is why I am not suggesting anything or making a moral judgment. Personally, I feel it is necessary and natural, and intellectually it is just something that exists in the framework it does because that is how we learn to associate and make sense of the world: first as an individual, then as a family (or similar group), and finally as a community or society. I know that there is much focus today on selling the idea that we are all special and unique individuals, but there are certain aspects to our development and methods of relating to the world that are heavily influenced by things outside of who we are as individuals, and that should not be marginalized or ignored. It isn't a method for making excuses. It is a method for understanding how and why someone else can have a view of the world that might seem so foreign and alien to your own.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think that it is a parent's job to raise human beings capable of forming their own good values.
I love being Catholic. I think it has amazing things to offer. I don't think it right for everyone. I would be delighted if my hypothetical child found what I find in it. I would also be delighted if he or she became a happy Methodist or even a happy agnostic and would support that. Just as my parents have supported me.
That being said, there are some religious choices that would concern me. Religions where one is not encouraged to think for oneself would be a choice that would cause me concern.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As far as forcing your kid to participate in religion, it's the best thing my mother did. As a teenager, I certainly did NOT know what was best for me faith-wise.
But as an adult, you do?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: As far as forcing your kid to participate in religion, it's the best thing my mother did. As a teenager, I certainly did NOT know what was best for me faith-wise.
I think that it is a parent's job to raise human beings capable of forming their own good values.
I love being Catholic. I think it has amazing things to offer. I don't think it right for everyone. I would be delighted if my hypothetical child found what I find in it. I would also be delighted if he or she became a happy Methodist or even a happy agnostic and would support that. Just as my parents have supported me.
That being said, there are some religious choices that would concern me. Religions where one is not encouraged to think for oneself would be a choice that would cause me concern.
I would agree, that as long as the kid was at least on the right track, and not fallen into certain religions I believe to be dangerous, I would be supportive. If, that is, the other choice was not being religious at all. My preferecnce would be for the religion they were raised in.
IMO, it's my job as a parent to begin their religious education in the religion I participated and believed in. You don't wait for the kid to grow older before you begin instructing them on anything else, so they can decide whether or not they want to learn. You send them to school at the minimum age. And when they kick and scream about that, you make them go to school because it's not only necessary, but good for them to go and learn even if they don't want to. It's the same with religion.
And faith isn't just a personal choice of what to believe. For many people, it's a part of their culture and background and ethnicity as well. The Jewish people intertwind their beliefs with their culture, and their faith bleeds into other aspects of their lives. It's an inseperable part of their families and culture. Most Jewish people would shudder to think of raising their kid without raising them in their religion.
Same goes for Muslims. You certainly won't find Muslims raising their kids without instructing them on their religion. And you're probably not going to get a comparative religion class in a muslim family. Yet no one questions that.
Would anyone suggest to a muslim or a jew that they should make efforts to raise their kids exposing them to every religion, and raise them to believe it's okay no matter what you believe, just as long as you're happy? I think if you did, in some cases, you wouldn't even get a discussion about it.
Yet in those religions, the very same, if not more strict, attitude toward ingraining those religions into your children exist. Like I said, you often cannot seperate religion from culture or family in those religions. So why then, is it okay to suggest that in a christian household that if parents want to raise their kids within a religion, make it part of the culture and family life, you're being unfair?
It's not unfair. A parent has every right to raise their kid as part of their culture and family life. I do not agree nor believe it is wrong or unfair to raise your children in a christian home with a specific christian religion and want your children to be part of that and continue on with that religion.
IMO, the fact that parents don't pass along a religious family life, and leave it up to the kid, is why so many people in our culture today don't understand religion, don't know what to believe. And if they don't know what to believe, or even where to start, they are most likely not going to try. Nor even think they even need to try to discern a belief. And I'm not sure, as a parent, I would feel good about believing in a religion, and not raising a child to believe in anything, or leaving it up to them if they feel like it.
BTW, this isn't aimed at km, just using her post as a spring board.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
