For many religious people, raising their children in their faith is an important part of their religious practice. They might see getting their kids into heaven as one of the most important things they can do as parent. And certainly, adults should have the right to practice their religion freely, but children are impressionable and unlikely to realize that they are being indoctrinated into one religion out of the thousands that humans practice.
And many faith traditions have beliefs that are at odds with science or support bigoted worldviews. For example, a queer person being raised in the Catholic Church would be taught that they are inherently disordered and would likely be discouraged from being involved in LGBTQ support groups.
Where do you think the line is between practicing your own religion faithfully and unethically forcing your beliefs on someone else?
No. Simply put no.
I think it can be done if the parents are tolerant, flexible, and understand that people are naturally curious about other worldviews. Unfortunately, that’s a stratospherically high bar for a lot of people. When the parents sincerely believe that their child’s eternal soul is in danger, ethics come second.
Ironically, I think the people best suited to give religious guidance are agnostics, who readily admit that they don’t know squat about the afterlife or other supernatural topics. Ideally, they won’t pass on hate or bigotry whose only basis is ancient hearsay or hallucinations.
Imagine how different society would be if people weren’t introduced to religion until they were 18.
There probably wouldn’t be much religion, how nice that would be. Religion would mostly cease to exists if children were not indoctrinated before they developed critical thinking skills.
Religion relies on naive children being brought into the fold, and to a lesser degree damaged and desperate adults needing hope or something to believe in.
Same place america is with safe sex: it doesn’t solve any problems, just defers the issue of ignorance and learning until adulthood
Are you really comparing learning about safe sex to indoctrination to cults?
No, i’m comparing learning about safe sex to learning about skepticism and critical thinking. Refusing firsthand experience with the cults that are ubiquitous won’t save people from those cults, it will just keep them from developing the skills necessary to cut thtough the bullshit until they’re suddenly thrown in the intellectual deep-end at 18.
What? Safe sex solves a significant amount of issues like sexually transmitted diseases and underage pregnancy. What In the world are you trying to say?
Yes, but people learn about it late (if at all), and we end up with lots of adolescents getting STIs/pregnant/etc.
What In the world are you trying to say?
America has a problem with sex ed because people don’t learn about safe sex; many still learn abstinence only. This doesn’t stop STIs nor teen pregnancies, it doesn’t stop SA, it doesn’t stop myths about men and womens reproductive systems from proliferating, it just defers the problem of educating people until later. Basically, America’s sex ed is to avoid teaching people about sex, then hope they suddenly know how to have safe sex when they’re 18 because they’re 18.
Likewise, deferring learning about cults until they’re 18 doesn’t stop people from getting indoctrinated, it just expects 18 year olds unfamiliar with cult tactics to suddenly be immune to cult tactics because they’re 18.
The problem with “faith” is its literal meaning: belief that is not based on evidence.
A society based on faith can only work is everybody has the same faith (think: Ancient Rome, theocracies, communist countries). The only reason modern Western democracies work is precisely that they are not based on faith but rather on evidence, on reason, on truth-seeking. This is the amazing and historically anomalous heritage of the enlightenment and it’s looking more fragile by the day.
Teaching kids fairytales and calling it truth is the reason religion exists. It’s the reason it’s so hard for adults to leave the religions they assimilated as children. And in a free society where we have to find a way to live together, it’s profoundly dangerous.
So my answer is: no.
think: Ancient Rome,
As far as I know, Ancient Rome (pre-christian) welcomed many and very different faiths.
That’s fair. Although I believe the Jewish minority was the only one that seriously dissented from the prevailing polytheism.
My main point is that secular liberalism is the only political system that has been shown to protect individual freedom and rights - i.e. without the need for a shared supernatural mythology or an iron fist. And this system relies on a shared commitment to evidence, reason, facts.
In this context, to inculcate irrational beliefs in children seems to me to be like playing with fire.
Although I believe the Jewish minority was the only one that seriously dissented from the prevailing polytheism.
Edit: There were the Christians, a little later on. But I wouldn’t know that all religions would be polytheist back then except Jews. I’m really not an expert.
In this context, to inculcate irrational beliefs in children seems to me to be like playing with fire.
It sure can be. But, talking irrational beliefs, wouldn’t you agree that telling a child they’re a unique and amazing person and that all they do is perfect and amazing too, that they should not have to get bad grades at school because it’s infuriating, that they should not have to do their homework because it’s tiresome, that they should be allowed to do whatever they fancy the moment they fancy doing it, is also like playing with fire? Still, despite it containing not a single mention of god, religion or spiritual beliefs it’s something hordes of parents are telling their own kids every single day.
I do sincerely wonder what will do more harm to those kids but, once again, I’m not pro religion nor am I against it. I’m only pro taking nothing for granted—beginning with our very own certainties if they can’t be demonstrated ;)
All fair points. There are definitely multiple ways of playing with fire.
I saw that article about illiterate college kids too. Worrying.
I saw that article about illiterate college kids too. Worrying.
Indeed. We have the same issues here in France, btw. It’s an absolute failure of our educational system (and of too many parents persisting in wanting that failure to be used) that will cost dear to all those kids, and then will cost to the society as a whole: that’s our future ‘elite’ that’s being uneducated.
It’s not ethical to train your child’s brain to believe fairytales. It’s like foot binding, forcing an unnatural form on their growth. They grow up handicapped.
No it’s not ethical. I say this as a queer man indoctrinated in Christianity. I was lucky to make it through childhood without killing myself. I tried several times. Religion is a cancer that should be exterminated.
I am a trans woman who was raised Catholic, so I feel similarly. I’ve had to do so much work in therapy just to get to a place where I can accept myself for who I am. A lot of those old beliefs were baked in deeper than I realized.
I carry a lot of resentment towards my (very devout) parents for raising me in the church, but I also recognize my experience is not emblematic of every person’s experience being raised in a religious household.
deleted by creator
It depends on how you view the parent/child relationship. In most countries parents have a sort of “ownership” role of their child. A right to raise them in their own way, religion and traditions. It is THEIR child to teach, and raise.
This has become pretty contentious in Norway, and Norway has lost cases child protection cases regarding this in international courts. Our child protection services has taken children from their parents and that has ended up in international courts in some cases. This is due to a difference in opinion in what is acceptable and OK ways to raise a child, and what constitutes the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. In some of these cases Norway have rightfully been convicted. But you won’t lose the ability to raise your child in Norway over nothing, as some people will have you believe. The child protective services can’t explain why to the public, and the parents can pretend to be innocent.
Personally I believe parents do not own their child. I believe parents are in a privileged position and lucky to be allowed to raise a human (yes, also biological), and that the privilege should be revoked if the parents are not sufficiently fit to raise the child.
The perspective of ownership is harmful in my opinion and does often conflict with the interests of the child in my opinion.
Should the child get vaccinated? Yes, exceptions are only allergies.
Should the child be home schooled? No.
Should the child interact with peers at the kindergarten and school and get the social skills they need? Yes
What sorts of punishments are acceptable?
Should the child be heavily involved in religion? No, but should learn about it, and can in a limited degree practice it. But no religious schools, or religious camps. Genital mutilation should not be allowed for boys either. If they want to, they can do it as adults. Doing unnecessary surgery on a defenseless child due to religion is in no way acceptable.
If the parents are neglecting their child, how much neglect is okay before the right/privilege is revoked?
If the parents are addicts, what then?
Etc.
Ethically, depending on the religion, it is absolutely mandatory for parents to teach their children their religious views.
For example, let’s make up a cult. “Pireneists” are devout religious cultists that genuinely believe in their god, Kundo. Kundo’s holy book says that any who partake in the evil plant, the peanut, have been led astray by evil and will suffer for all eternity in the dark chasm of the lost.
For parents who legitimately believe this it would be completely unethical for them to let their children eat peanuts, their mental state has everything to do with their ethical mandates. The only ethical thing to do is to teach their children about their beliefs in such a way that the children will follow the same beliefs for their whole life. Indoctrination is indeed within the bounds of ethics.
To you it may seem silly. In fact to most of us this is peak idiocy and if the leaders of the pireneists have been known to take money from people to pay for their lavish lifestyles you could say that the organization itself is evil. However the mental state and beliefs of the parents override the fundamental veracity of the claims of the cult/religion. True or not, the parents believe and their inaction would be unethical.
No. Children should be taught about all the major religions and allowed to decide for themselves.
it’s nice to have culture or whatever, but practicing a religion is inherently unethical as it is giving legitimacy to a scam and perpetuating objectively bad ideas
Not all religions are abrahamic
They are all unethical tho
religion itself is a categorically problematic approach
Yes, it’s their familial culture and it’s up to the kid to decide whether to break out from that or not later
I’m with Terence McKenna here: Culture is not your friend
Their kid, their call up until the point the child’s safety is in danger.
I have no more right to tell them how to raise their kids than they have about my entirely hypothetical and undesired kids. I may not agree with their choices and they may not agree with mine, I may think they are raising their kids to be less moral, they may think the same with the added bonus that I’m condemning mine to an eternity of torment.
That’s life in a pluralistic society.
Their kid, their call up until the point the child’s safety is in danger.
You’re answering the legal question instead of OP’s ethical question. You’re not wrong in your legal answer, but that wasn’t what OP was asking.
I think that’s the ethical answer too.
We can’t know who is right, so I don’t see any ethical way to intervene.
I hate when I see parents giving their kids a screen instead of interacting with them or worse, ignoring their kid im favour of their phone. But again, I don’t feel it is ethical to interfere.
If a child is homosexual, I would argue its unethical to teach them they are freak of nature and they are wrong or broken. However, its not illegal.
It’s act vs rule ethics, what is ethical in a particular situation may not be broadly applicable to society.
Edit: And from the religious parents perspective, letting your beloved child suffer an eternity of torment is probably not super moral. I may disagree but that’s their perspective and there’s no arbiter make the call.
You’re citing Bentham Utilitarianism but you could make a stronger argument for your side if you cited Kant I would think.
Utilitarianism makes sense from first principles, Kant is just his opinions.
I think it can be done ethically to the extent that the children are presented with the faith of their parents, but when they reach an age of maturity (which will be different for each child), they will be free to pursue their own faith practices.
I’d say yes, as long as they’re tolerant of their children questioning those beliefs and developing their own later on in life. Parents will always make an impression on their kids, that’s just what being a parent is. It can get more nuanced of course. Teaching your kids homophobia is unethical, but that’s regardless of whether it’s for religious or other reasons.
