Should children be exposed to religon?

[atheistdebater96]

When a child is raised in a Catholic family, goes to church every Sunday, reads the Bible, attends Sunday school, all of this from the moment he was born, it seems very reasonable and logical to him. However, if a child is raised without religion at all, no church, no parental influence when it comes to the subject, then does it make as much sense? If you took both of these kids, sat them down and asked them about God and what they believe, what do you think the answers would be? Is this good, bad, what? Personally, I think it's bad. Kids grow up with this in their ears and that's what they believe to be true. The truth is that it can't be proven either way. I think it's all a load of crap, but have no hope of proving it until I'm dead and don't go anywhere. It can't be proven, nor disproven, so should children be exposed to it at a young age from a biased person, or should they be left out of it until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

[realthinker]

When a child is raised in a Catholic family, goes to church every Sunday, reads the Bible, attends Sunday school, all of this from the moment he was born, it seems very reasonable and logical to him. However, if a child is raised without religion at all, no church, no parental influence when it comes to the subject, then does it make as much sense? If you took both of these kids, sat them down and asked them about God and what they believe, what do you think the answers would be? Is this good, bad, what? Personally, I think it's bad. Kids grow up with this in their ears and that's what they believe to be true. The truth is that it can't be proven either way. I think it's all a load of crap, but have no hope of proving it until I'm dead and don't go anywhere. It can't be proven, nor disproven, so should children be exposed to it at a young age from a biased person, or should they be left out of it until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

The value of religion is not merely in the truth of its ideas. There are personal and social benefits. Until you have a workable substitute for all that religion satisfies, you cannot prohibit its practice without the potential for great trouble.

I believe that religion is false, not wrong. Falsity is a matter or truth. Wrongness is a matter of value. Religion has value, though I believe it is not true. I think it's been absolutely vital to the development of human society. I'd be happy to elaborate, but here's not the place.

At the same time, though, I believe that religion's value is diminishing in our connected world of wide-spread social distribution. It's becoming a liability rather than the glue of small-scale societies, a differentiator in our bedroom communities rather than a commonality in our neighborhoods. Let the evolution of the global community decide religion's place. I think it's easy to see that it's different now than it was even a generation ago. As religion's prominence wanes, only the fanatical followers will be left. Those will be most threatened, most driven to destruction in God's name. Their actions will only drive the demise of religion faster.

I think it will be very interesting to see what the next 50 years brings with respect to religion. Troubled times and times of liberation, I expect.

[chris_brown207]

When a child is raised in a Catholic family, goes to church every Sunday, reads the Bible, attends Sunday school, all of this from the moment he was born, it seems very reasonable and logical to him. However, if a child is raised without religion at all, no church, no parental influence when it comes to the subject, then does it make as much sense? If you took both of these kids, sat them down and asked them about God and what they believe, what do you think the answers would be? Is this good, bad, what? Personally, I think it's bad. Kids grow up with this in their ears and that's what they believe to be true. The truth is that it can't be proven either way. I think it's all a load of crap, but have no hope of proving it until I'm dead and don't go anywhere. It can't be proven, nor disproven, so should children be exposed to it at a young age from a biased person, or should they be left out of it until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

The value of religion is not merely in the truth of its ideas. There are personal and social benefits. Until you have a workable substitute for all that religion satisfies, you cannot prohibit its practice without the potential for great trouble.

I believe that religion is false, not wrong. Falsity is a matter or truth. Wrongness is a matter of value. Religion has value, though I believe it is not true. I think it's been absolutely vital to the development of human society. I'd be happy to elaborate, but here's not the place.

At the same time, though, I believe that religion's value is diminishing in our connected world of wide-spread social distribution. It's becoming a liability rather than the glue of small-scale societies, a differentiator in our bedroom communities rather than a commonality in our neighborhoods. Let the evolution of the global community decide religion's place. I think it's easy to see that it's different now than it was even a generation ago. As religion's prominence wanes, only the fanatical followers will be left. Those will be most threatened, most driven to destruction in God's name. Their actions will only drive the demise of religion faster.

I think it will be very interesting to see what the next 50 years brings with respect to religion. Troubled times and times of liberation, I expect.

I would say that the good that religion does in the name of charity and community, is probably a balance to the bad that charity does in the name of oppression, misogyny, racism, genocide, homophobia, etc.

That being said, while I don't necessarily agree with all of the things that religion teaches, I do agree with some of the things they teach. And even if I disagreed with it all, I strongly agree with the individual freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The parents have every right to teach their kids as they wish, as long as they are not impeding anyone else's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[cnorman18]

As usual when this subject comes up, I have to ring in and point out that any cure for this "problem" is going to be far, far worse than the disease.

First, we have to abolish religious freedom. I have an objection or two to that.

Then, we have to set up a Government agency whose responsibility it is to police what parents teach their children. Methods of doing this will be needed; what do you suggest? Surveillance cameras? Interviews with the children? Teaching the children to tattle on their parents if they do or say anything vaguely religious?

Then, we have to establish what shall be done when the law is violated. Terminate parental rights? Put the children in foster care? Allow adoption only by people who swear never to mention religion around the children?

Further: Where does it stop? Depending on the Administration in power, might we not see amendments prohibiting political "indoctrination"? Don't teach your children anything about Democrats or Republicans or abortion or affirmative action or term limits or fiscal responsibility till they're old enough to make up their own minds.

Does anyone really want the Government - or anyone other than oneself, for that matter - to have the right to dictate what one may or may not teach one's children? Make no mistake, that is precisely what is being proposed here. Otherwise, the subject is entirely and irrevocably moot.

[McCulloch]

First, we have to abolish religious freedom. I have an objection or two to that.

On this I completely agree. I wish for religion, particularly fundamentalist revealed religion, to vanish from our society. But it must do so from lack of interest and from people's disagreement with its tenets.

Does anyone really want the Government - or anyone other than oneself, for that matter - to have the right to dictate what one may or may not teach one's children? Make no mistake, that is precisely what is being proposed here. Otherwise, the subject is entirely and irrevocably moot.

But where does one draw the line, if a line can be drawn? Should it be legal to teach your children that honor killings are justified? Should it be legal to teach our children that homosexuals and abortion providers should be killed? Of course not. So, at the extremes, we accept that society should not condone complete unfettered freedom with regard to what we teach our children.

On the other hand, it should not be illegal to expose our children to a faith tradition that is protected and accepted by adult society.

[McCulloch]

Children and Religion?

• Parents should be allowed to raise their children as they see fit.
• Children should not be exposed to Religion until they are old enough to understand it.

Both.
Parents should be allowed, within the limits of what is acceptable by the laws of our society, to raise their children as they see fit. However, it is my opinion, that children should not be indoctrinated into any specific religion. However, I do not feel that my opinion on the matter should be made into law. I support the teaching of comparative religion, where children can learn about the "many mutually incompatible belief-systems."

I feel that the dogma of some religions, that devalue human worth, that emphasize God's wrath and eternal torment, could be considered a form of child abuse. But, as CNorman points out, the solution may be more problematical than the problem.

[Lux]

I agree with both of the options in this poll, at different levels.

Parents have the right to teach they kids whatever they see fit, and I stand behind that right. I would never support a law restricting free speech or freedom of religion.

On a personal level, however, I don't think indoctrinating children is the way to go. I don't believe that children have the ability to understand religion.
I'll accept it if my kids want to be part of a certain religion when they have enough mental capacity to at least read and comprehend holy books, and are mature enough to make such a decision on their own instead of just following my views or do what their friends are doing.

[Guest]

When a child is raised in a Catholic family, goes to church every Sunday, reads the Bible, attends Sunday school, all of this from the moment he was born, it seems very reasonable and logical to him. However, if a child is raised without religion at all, no church, no parental influence when it comes to the subject, then does it make as much sense? If you took both of these kids, sat them down and asked them about God and what they believe, what do you think the answers would be? Is this good, bad, what? Personally, I think it's bad. Kids grow up with this in their ears and that's what they believe to be true. The truth is that it can't be proven either way. I think it's all a load of crap, but have no hope of proving it until I'm dead and don't go anywhere. It can't be proven, nor disproven, so should children be exposed to it at a young age from a biased person, or should they be left out of it until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

Because I believe that neutrality is a myth, I believe the same about bias...there is no such thing. So removing one bias simply replaces it with another. Kids should be left with their parents....that is the general nature of man and animals. The parent will nurture them as they see fit and at some point the child will be able to make up his own mind.

[realthinker]

First, we have to abolish religious freedom. I have an objection or two to that.

On this I completely agree. I wish for religion, particularly fundamentalist revealed religion, to vanish from our society. But it must do so from lack of interest and from people's disagreement with its tenets.

Does anyone really want the Government - or anyone other than oneself, for that matter - to have the right to dictate what one may or may not teach one's children? Make no mistake, that is precisely what is being proposed here. Otherwise, the subject is entirely and irrevocably moot.

But where does one draw the line, if a line can be drawn? Should it be legal to teach your children that honor killings are justified? Should it be legal to teach our children that homosexuals and abortion providers should be killed? Of course not. So, at the extremes, we accept that society should not condone complete unfettered freedom with regard to what we teach our children.

On the other hand, it should not be illegal to expose our children to a faith tradition that is protected and accepted by adult society.

What you're saying is that religious ideas that cannot be accepted universally are destructive to society. Religious ideas that are accepted universally through society are OK. What you're asking for is a religion that permeates society and is a consistent, predictable part of its fabric. In other words, what religion was up to ten generations ago, when communities were generally isolated and religion was at the core of social behavior.

We as a species aren't that way any more. We move about the whole globe and ideas move into and out of our lives from around the world in less than a heartbeat. There will likely never be a religious consistency in any significantly identifiable population again.

Religion helped smaller, isolated communities thrive because it helped to protect them from the individuals of which they were made. Religion isn't doing that for the global population any more. It's a differentiator among the population, and as such it will become more and more of a liability, except for those who keep their identity and their activity within a sub-population. Its influence is waning and those sub-populations will become more isolated every generation until they are fringe groups, some of whom will be fanatical.

One hundred years ago we wouldn't likely be having this conversation because our understanding of religion would be just like everyone else's around us because we'd live, most of us, in smaller, more isolated communities. We'd never question our parent's right to teach us. That's just how it was. It's only today's communication media and our understanding of social diversity that brings us to understand that we don't appreciate what some parents are teaching, or even that some things are being taught.

[atheistdebater96]

When a child is raised in a Catholic family, goes to church every Sunday, reads the Bible, attends Sunday school, all of this from the moment he was born, it seems very reasonable and logical to him. However, if a child is raised without religion at all, no church, no parental influence when it comes to the subject, then does it make as much sense? If you took both of these kids, sat them down and asked them about God and what they believe, what do you think the answers would be? Is this good, bad, what? Personally, I think it's bad. Kids grow up with this in their ears and that's what they believe to be true. The truth is that it can't be proven either way. I think it's all a load of crap, but have no hope of proving it until I'm dead and don't go anywhere. It can't be proven, nor disproven, so should children be exposed to it at a young age from a biased person, or should they be left out of it until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

The value of religion is not merely in the truth of its ideas. There are personal and social benefits. Until you have a workable substitute for all that religion satisfies, you cannot prohibit its practice without the potential for great trouble.

I believe that religion is false, not wrong. Falsity is a matter or truth. Wrongness is a matter of value. Religion has value, though I believe it is not true. I think it's been absolutely vital to the development of human society. I'd be happy to elaborate, but here's not the place.

At the same time, though, I believe that religion's value is diminishing in our connected world of wide-spread social distribution. It's becoming a liability rather than the glue of small-scale societies, a differentiator in our bedroom communities rather than a commonality in our neighborhoods. Let the evolution of the global community decide religion's place. I think it's easy to see that it's different now than it was even a generation ago. As religion's prominence wanes, only the fanatical followers will be left. Those will be most threatened, most driven to destruction in God's name. Their actions will only drive the demise of religion faster.

I think it will be very interesting to see what the next 50 years brings with respect to religion. Troubled times and times of liberation, I expect.

How is it vital to the devolopment of society? It brings people together, yes some people but not all of them. Technology and science? Hm, what about the Christian dark ages?