How far should religious proselytizing go in child rearing?

I think parents get to raise their children with their religious views without interference from the government, or neighbors for that matter; unless it endangers the child physically.

Let’s just go ahead and remove freedom from all of our political documents.

I think children should be taught to critically analyse every tenet of every potentially plausible belief, and the development of a belief system of their own should not be at the coercion of any other person. I do not mind if a person does not think like me, it just makes for a more interesting discussion. I do take offence if a person does not think. Religion, like other important and touchy issues, should be self determined.

But then I am a natural idealist, and I realise that this is impossible since children glean information from all over their environment. In practice everyone exerts a bias, but for children it should be minimised.

I think the line should be drawn at “I believe this is what happened.”, instead of at “This is what happened.”.

”...they have to teach them about the bigotry and gods special bias towards americans…”

Wait what? They actually do that?

Aside from that, I’m actually doing some reading right now, and it seems as if many Christians have the picture wrong when they try to just use faith as a blanket reason for everything, From what I’m reading, it looks as if both faith and reason are needed in order to truly create a whole person.

Now, I can’t answer any questions; I’ve only started on this book. But it looks like it’s an interesting read. But if what it claims is true, then we should be teaching them about faith, but the reasons why we believe in them, if only to really help them grow as good logical people.

I don’t think it should go far at all.

But that’s because I think religion is bullshit. It’s not because I’m opposed to proselytizing or teaching kids things you think are true. I am certainly not at all comfortable with preventing parents from indoctrinating their children.

I worry that arguments like this get all meta and deal more with how we communicate ideas (like religion) rather than the truth-value of the ideas themselves.

“Well, nobody really knows whether there are any gods, or what happens after you die, dear. So all we can do is, well, a bit like guessing. Many people think about it for a very long time and then decide to believe this or that. And other people also think about it very long and then decide to believe something else. And some people don’t really think about it but believe things anyway. And nobody really knows who is right.
Mommy and daddy have thought about it too, and we believe there are no gods and when you die your mind stops working, like when you’re asleep. Other people believe other things, but we think this is true.”

Something like that.

I think every human being has a right to choose his or her beliefs, and that early indoctrination is to be avoided. I didn’t really learn about Judaism as a religion until I was nearly 40, although I was acquainted with Jewish culture when I was a child.

No parent who forces a child to slavishly adopt unexamined beliefs is doing the child a favor, nor will those efforts be rewarded with anything but rebellion later.

@Saturated_Brain you wrote From what I’m reading, it looks as if both faith and reason are needed in order to truly create a whole person. Huh? I realize this is from the book, and not necessarily your opinion. I was raised by athiest parents, Jewish, but the religion was never really refered to when dealing with life situations, but rather a reason to see family on holidays. When they say faith do they mean a specific belief system, or being able to identify with a group? What is your interpretation so far?

@Saturated_Brain Yes, remember that phrase we hear pretty frequently, ‘God bless america’? And I don’t need to explain the level of unfairness to homosexuals I’m sure. I’m not saying all religious people are like this, just a large portion.

I’m not a parent so I don’t think I have the right to tell a parent how they should or should not raise their children or what their beliefs should be. That said, I believe children should be given more than one option so they are able to form their own beliefs. If the parents are only willing to tell their children their beliefs then I hope the school will give the chidren more options in Science lessons and religious studies lessons.

@JLeslie I’ll answer your question later on yeah? I was re-reading my answer and realised that I used “but” three times in two sentences and “actually” twice in consecutive sentences. This just means that it’s time for me to go to sleep or else I’ll end up embarrassing myself more online.

@Blackberry Hmm.. I always thought that was just a song. And yes, peoples are persecuted everywhere by religious bigots. Still.. I don’t think we can deny that religion does allow people to rise above and beyond what they thought their limits were in order to achieve something truly magnificent (if not on a global scale, at least on a personal scale)

@blackberry I think about this, too. As a teacher I see alot of kids who are obviously mimicing their parents’ beliefs and not truly what they feel/think, especially when we talk politics or sexuality.
That’s the great thing about growing up…the epiphany that your parents are human and don’t know everything..and that you don’t have to become them!
BTW, I’m sorry I traded you in for this iphone. Your trackball wasn’t enough for me!!!
:)

I think it’s a family decision. There is a line that society shouldn’t cross. If it’s not child abuse, it’s the parents business who the family will or will not worship. American was colonized by those seeking religious freedom. You’re walking a slippery slope when you want to tell parents they can’t teach their children what ever religion they want. You’re looking at the ugliest side of communism.

In an ideal world, kids would be free to discover their own truths and these old cults would die out.

But like the above, I wouldn’t go so far as to legislate that. I think the fallout from legislating belief systems and parenting styles is not worth the benefit of having fewer religious people around.

Oh…I didn’t mean I would want religion wiped off the earth soviet style. Just the damaging fundamentalism that sets humanity back to the bronze age lol.
@Judi I see what you mean, but compared to the ugliest side of religion…...hmmmm lol. (Note: that didn’t mean I’m in favor of communism)

@Judi Doesn’t religious freedom involve imparting the freedom of choice to others, rather than a strong bias to your own ideas? As @nikipedia says, legislation is over the top, but shouldn’t the attitude of parents be to encourage critical thought over thought in a particular vein?

@Blackberry the thing is if you decide to control religion, then you are being like the communists and the Muslims run governments. I think @Judi is right on point. @FireMadeFlesh I don’t understand your response to @Judi I think you are agreeing with her.

My man and I were talking about this the other day although I don’t recall the conclusion to which we came. It’s the parents’ right as parents to raise their child however they like. Saying “there is no God. There is no God. There is no God.” is no more or less “damaging” then immersing your kids in church and God.

@Facade I agree and I agree with what someone stated above that telling children ‘This is what may happen’ works much better. It leaves it open ended.
@Judi Everything needs a little control, that whole moderation concept…..If we as adults didn’t have our rational thinking, we’d become immersed in fundamental beliefs and end up like Falwell and Polpot.

@JLeslie Not quite. @Judi is defending the right of a parent to teach children as they wish in the name of religious freedom, but I am trying to address it on an individual level rather than a social level. Children have the right to choose their own religion, and parents should realise this and not push their ideas too hard, if at all. You can’t tell parents what to teach their children, but they should feel an obligation to pursue open mindedness over belief in a particular system.

Edit: But its 4am here, so maybe I’m getting mudeld… mudled…. muddles…. oh you know. FMF over and out.

@FireMadeFlesh I see. In the end I agree with Judi. I think it is nice if your children are raised with open minds, but I would not support the government obligating a parent to teach anything specific about religion. If they want to teach their kids their way is right, I would go along with it. I would hope as the children get older and interact with others they would see there is more than one religion and more than one way to think.

@Blackberry There’s no need for “open-endedness”.

@JLeslie As I said, I do not support legislation, but as an idealist I hope to give the ideological zeitgeist a little shove in my favoured direction.

@Facade Lol…..uhhhmmmm, why not?

@FireMadeFlesh Idealist. :)

You know, I find I am not very open minded when I think of what I would want my children to believe. I want them to treat all as equals, respect that there are many religions in the world, but I would prefer they be sheltered from Evangelical Christian bullshit for as long as I could manage if I had children. So, I have a hard time telling an evangelical that their children should be learning about people like me who are atheist Jews. I mean young children, I want to keep them more sheltered. I am all for comparative religion classes at the high school level.

@FireMadeFlesh @daemonelson gave really great responses – that is how I raise my kids – whenever any religion symbol or structure or experience is seen or had, I explain to them what that religion is, what the general idea is – I am pretty knowledgeable about many religions and I do my best to stay emotionally detached as I teach the beliefs to them – they are aware that mommy and daddy do not practice any organized religion but that their great-aunt and paternal grand-parents do.

I wanted to add I am married to someone who was raised Catholic, I have Christian friends, I do not mean that I would keep my children from interacting with Christians. I mean I don’t want them hearing any of the judgemental stuff, or anything very contradictory to what I would be teaching them. I have beautiful Catholic neices and nephews, I would never interfere with their religious teachings. I don’t tell them I am an atheist, I am happy to be at their confirmations.

@Judi not allowing religion was not the ugliest side of communism, imo – the poverty and hunger that millions of people were left in when promised otherwise was

“I personally think it shouldn’t because of all the negativity that comes with religion.”
Sounds like something Hitler, Napoleon and Genghis Khan would say.

That statement can apply to anything “you” do not agree on. :-)

You raise your children the best YOU can. You prepare them for the outside world. Based on what YOU think is best.

That is pretty much all YOU can do. Any other intervention is anti human.

@ChazMaz “sounds like something Hitler, Napoleon and genghis khan would say” sounds like something Hitler, Napoleon, and Genghis Khan would say.

Right! :-)

I know that I am going to get flamed for this, but there are some people who go a step beyond and actually try to shut off their kid’s brain and replace it with either Holy Scripture and/or a carbon copy of their own beliefs. That can lead to 5-year-olds who hate (and I quote) “Niggers, Jews, and Fags”.

Personally, I feel that parents should just offer a bit of guidance but let their kids think for themselves. Even if the kid turns out to be a homophobic racist, at least they will be a more intelligent one since they actually had to use that grey squishy thing between their ears to form those beliefs. Spoon-feeding them like that really stunts their growth and deprives them of the ability to do any sort of actual thinking later on in life.

We are in a strange situation in this house.

My husband and I were extreme Fundamental Christians (Pentecostal) for many years before we met.

Now, he’s a “backslider” – that is, someone who still believes in the religion, but doesn’t follow the tenets – and I have completely deconverted to atheism.

I will have no part in teaching my son religious beliefs. As far as I’m concerned, he can choose any religion he so desires, or none at all – whatever makes him happy. I will, however, DIScourage any religious encouragement toward intolerance or violence.

We (as humans) have one life to live. I want my son to be happy, and I want him to find happiness without causing unhappiness to others. That’s all I can ask.

@Seek_Kolinahr That sounds reasonable enough!

“actually try to shut off their kids brain and replace it with either Holy Scripture and/or a carbon copy of their own beliefs.”

See now YOUR opinion. :-) Who gets the nazi position at the top of the world? Deciding what is right and wrong in someone’s home?

You have been flamed!

My parents had 6 kids and raised us to be Christian. (Lutheran.) They also raised us to think and to question and test everything. I was the only child to stay Lutheran. Oldest sister ended up raising her children 7th day Adventist, although she has abandoned the church for a more Universalist thought. Second oldest (brother) became Christian Scientist and married a Pentecostal. (their family is REALLY confused.) Third (brother) is woo woo new age, 4th (Sister) Is Christian, but doesn’t go to church often, and when she does it is a primarily black baptist church. My baby brother worshiped drugs and ended up committing suicide while in a cranked out mania.

Only the parents of a child have a say in religious upbringing. Religion isn’t even the worst thing a parent can force on a child. I see parents doing hideous things to their children all the time, all in the name of best interest.

I don’t have children, and probably won’t for at least 10 years. That said, when I was a very young kid my mom took me to a church for a while. She isn’t very religious so she eventually stopped going. My friends in elementary school were sometimes from religious families and they would invite me to go to church with them. My mom would allow me to go (she did not allow me to go anywhere, fyi).

Fast forward a couple decades. I am not religious at all. I don’t even consider myself atheist because I honestly haven’t took the time to figure out what that really is (beyond its common definition). When or if I do have kids, I would do something similar – I’d let them go with their friends to various churches. Or, I’d take them to various churches – or countries – to learn about different religions. I’d make them read the law that allows churches to operate under the 501c3 tax exemption. I think it is important to be free to make decisions as much as possible. I wouldn’t want to impose my views on them, rather provide them w/ the resources to make informed decisions for themselves.

“Religion isn’t even the worst thing a parent can force on a child.”

Force?! LOL :-)

@ChazMaz A lot of kids were forced to go to church lol.

@Blackberry I find it funny that most of the Pagans, Wiccans, and Satanists I know grew up in a strongly Christian (mostly Roman Catholic) household. It’s almost like getting God shoved down their throat made them the opposite of what their parents wanted them to be.

@jerv Lol, yeah I guess that’s what happens when you feed senseless stuff to people before letting them think.

@Blackberry – LOL Yea, I hear ya. Call it a right of passage. :-)

Okay.. I feel better now… @JLeslie You asked me what my own personal view was. After sleeping and mulling over this issue even more, I realised that I actually am in perhaps quite a unique position.

I was raised a strict Christian, and have only recently started unraveling from that mold. This does not mean I disbelieve in God, oh no, quite the contrary. However, my only concern is that organised religion can get too under your skin and start controlling your life in ways any thinking person wouldn’t like.

As such, I guess this shall be my strategy:

I won’t force my views upon my child. What I believe in is extremely important to me. I pray. I want to learn more about what’s out there, but I won’t make my child believe in what I believe. Rather, I’ll let him see me in action. My child will see me praying, my child will know that I go to the local church/mosque/temple/whatever. My child will know that religion (or at the very least, this sense of guided spirituality) is very important to me.

I want to foster critical thinking in my child. I don’t want him/her to be brought up the way I was, believing solely in one way and that that one way is the way. As of such, I’ll explain why I think what I think to my child, but constantly tell him that the decision isn’t mine to make, it’s his. It will therefore be my hope that he’ll grow up questioning the world around him. He’ll grow up not necessarily believing in a religion, but he’ll know that religion can be a very beautiful thing because I’ll teach him about it.

I know that many people abhor religion, but my initial fear in raising a child without religion would be that he would grow up totally ignorant about religion and in the end just be one of the people who think that religion is senseless and stupid and illogical. I don’t think so. I think that if you really study religion, there is a sense of logic there, just that it’s been mucked up by people. This is what I’m starting to do now.

I’ll probably have a section on the book shelf dedicated to critical analyses of religion (not just Christianity, but other religions. For example Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism etc. etc. ). I’ll tell my child how I got to where I am at the point in time when he’s finally old enough to understand and tell him that his path is his alone to tread. I’ll show him those resources and tell him that if he wants to contact any religious people, I’m totally cool with it. Maybe we can sit and chat about his quest at times, just to see that he’s being intelligent about it. And as long as he doesn’t stop his search for the truth, I’ll be happy.

Because that’s what I believe everybody’s life should be about: The truth.

I think an indepth teaching of ANY religion to young children as child abuse. Religious teaching should be rated R for Mature Audiences Only.

If you want to tell them the stories about all the animals on Noah’s Ark or about Santa Claus, or even the Nativity fable, that’s fine. But books like the bible do not belong in children’s hands. It is too full of all sorts of immoral behaviour. It would be better to give them a Hustler than the bible.

@Ron_C ~But bloodshed, violence, and killing are rated PG in the US!

I think that organized religion. and the intolerance taught in many of them. is a part of a lot of problems we have today. While I see why people raise children into their belief system, there are some that I wish never had another child brought up in it. Anything that teaches hate instead of love shouldn’t be a part of what we’re teaching kids.

How far should antireligious proselytizing go in child rearing?

I personally think it shouldn’t because of all the negativity and intolerance that comes with aggressive antireligious movements.

@mattbrowne

How many people throughout history have been killed due to these “aggressive antireligious movements”?

How many killed due to religious movements?

Point made.

@Seek_Kolinahr That wasn’t his point at all. His point was that aggressive antireligious movements are in themselves intolerant of those who are religious. They deny that religion has any value and that those who do follow religion are mindless sheep when that simply isn’t true.

@Saturated_Brain

Define: Aggression – violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked, a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack, the act of initiating hostilities, deliberately unfriendly behavior

Considering that the majority of atheists couldn’t give a damn what you believe until you make mention of it yourself, and atheist childrearing basically consists of saying absolutely nothing at all about religion until the kid comes home from school crying because some religious child has told them they’re going to hell for not attending church, I doubt the word “aggressive” applies here at all.

@Seek_Kolinahr good points. We never really mentioned religion with our kids unless they asked questions. We always told them to make up their own mind and always think for themselves. They did some, I guess you call it religious searching, then concluded that organized religion and Christianity is a waste of time. Instead they are concentrating on raising healthy happy families. They let their kids look into religion but caution them about the harm caused by deep involvement in it. Their kids are coming out pretty well. I highly recommend not indoctrinating children in religion. That’s how you end up with zealots and suicide murders.

@Seek_Kolinahr You have to admit, it’s much easier to raise a child the atheist way rather than the religious way. Atheist parents make no mention of religion at all, save at the opportune moments. However, raising a child the religious way involves the teaching of a huge system, inevitably costing much in terms of time and effort.

So what if the “anti-religious” atheist parent makes no mention of religion until the kid comes home from school crying because some religious child has told them they’re going to hell for not attending church? What I believe @mattbrowne is saying is that in that one case, that parent can then effectively spread his/her beliefs about religion being a huge toshload. Then ta-dah, you have a kid who’s just as averse to religion as his parents may be.

I think that by using the word “aggressive”, @mattbrowne is referring to the way in which those anti-religious atheists would attack religion when the opportunity arises, rather than them being belligerent folk looking for a fight.

Of course, we’ll need his clarification to be really sure.

At this point in time, do you think religion is a total waste of time? If so, in the above situation you raised, you wouldn’t tell your child that you believe religion to be rubbish, would you?

@Saturated_Brain just to make a small point most of us atheists aren’t anti-religious, we are a-religious. We don’t fight religion (unless attacked) we don’t think religion is important enough to care of think about. You make good points about the costs of indoctrinating children into a religion.

@Ron_C Point taken. =)

However, I think the onus is now on @mattbrowne to fully explain what he meant by his statement, and to show us whether the anti-religious atheists really do make up that much of the population. Perhaps their numbers seem much larger than they really are because of the media attention they get, just like the fundies of our world.

Still, I am very curious. What would you do, as an a-religous atheist parent, if faced with the situation raised above (ie the kid who comes home crying because he’s been condemned to hell by another religious kid)? I feel that there’s a lot we (or I, at the very least) can learn from your response.

@Saturated_Brain actually that has happened twice. There really wasn’t much crying though. One daughter was worried because a classmate told her we were all going to hell because we didn’t go to church and confession. I just explained about religious myths and that it is not possible to follow all of the religions and it is unlikely that any god would send all of his creations to hell. After that we made a joke and made up our own myths about heaven, hell, god, and the devil. My grandson went to a christian summer camp because he likes to color picture and likes to meet girls.

He heard the same things and thought it was pretty funny, he’s only seven and we may have problems with him when he gets older but they won’t be based on religion. I think seven is too young to start meeting girls.

@Ron_C Hmmm… But.. If I may, what type of attitude towards religious people do you think you’re fostering? And as an extension, what sort of ideas about religion do you think you’re giving to your kids?

@Saturated_Brain my kids and I take people as they appear and don’t really judge them. We see the evangelists as somewhat deluded and actually spend time trying to understand why they believe as they do. We don’t condemn them unless they are truly destructive like Falwell or Robertson.

I have had some interesting discussion with the kids on a Mormon mission and a couple that were working with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I find it all fascinating. Sometimes I feel like an Anthropologist discovering new tribes or aliens from another planet.

My kids grew up to be kind, well adjusted, intelligent, successful, but a bit rebellious. I just can’t believe my wife and I did so well. I give my wife the credit, I just helped.

@Saturated_Brain

I hope the attitude I foster to my children toward religious people is one of… probably pity. A sort of calm sadness over the fact that they have been so swayed by the illogical teachings of a religion that requires constant devotion, the setting aside of entire days of the week/year, and a considerable chunk of one’s income (with threats of pain and torture if those are not done)

The attitude I hope to foster toward those that profit from religion (that includes the pastor that takes 10% of his poverty-stricken congregation’s salary, and uses the money to buy a new boat, all the way up to the Pope himself) is one of complete disgust and contempt.

@Ron_C Hmm.. Thanks for that. So.. Just let me double check. You’re saying that your family as a whole doesn’t judge people based on whether they’re religious or not, but on who they are as people, am I right?

I also agree about the anthropologist part. Visiting a Buddhist temple recently, I found myself quite amazed by what they believed. I got a couple of free booklets giving a basic overview of Buddhism and plan to read them in due time. I think it’ll prove to be fascinating, especially since I plan to really wonder about the truth behind the teachings.

Lastly, congrats on your kids. Your family seems like a very happy one. =)

@Seek_Kolinahr If you want to foster that sort of attitude towards religious people, aren’t you then just being what @mattbrowne said? An aggressive anti-religious person? You have taken the stance that atheism is the pinnacle of human existence and that all those who believe in religion are poor sods to be pitied.

I think that’s rather arrogant of you to believe so, don’t you think?

Instead, why not foster an attitude of searching? Holding the possibility that religion might just hold some truth, and then let your kids find out that journey by themselves? I admit that in what I want to do with my kids, there’s always going to be a level of biasness; my kid will probably want to emulate me since I’m religious (assuming I’m still religious by then). However, I will keep the option of atheism open to my child, as long as he can prove to me that he has done his research, that he has looked at the world as objectively as possible and that he can convince me that his decision is an intelligent one.

Why not do the same for yours?

(Edit: Never did I say that it would be easy for me to accept that my child would think so drastically different from me if he does so. But chances are, if he can intelligently prove to me why he believes he’s correct, I’d be forced to change my view too, since I’m not one who wants to stay stuck in a rut [I may be slow to start, but I’ll get there eventually])

“instead, why not foster an attitude of searching? ”

That is pretty much it. :-)

There is nothing aggressive about shaking your head at someone who is obviously being made the victim of the world’s largest moneymaking scam.

“Aggressive” would be, say, attending funerals with the intention of punching the minister in the face in front of a grieving family.

If people want to be deluded, good for them. If they want to sign 10 percent of their family’s income over to someone who isn’t even going to contribute back to society for it, whatever. TIf they want to ask the Big Guy In The Sky for relationship advice and physical healing, great. I’d prefer to not teach my child that voluntary paranoid schizophrenia is an acceptable way in which to live your life.

Now, if my son, upon reaching an age of reasoning, decides it makes him happy to believe crystals have healing powers and chanting mantras over a bronze pentagram will give him extraordinary mental faculties, whatever. As long as he’s not hurting anyone, I’m fine with it.

The problem with Christianity is that it is entirely based upon hurting people – making them feel guilty enough for living their lives to turn over their souls and their wallets to the church. I will not support that.

@Seek_Kolinahr As much truth as there is to your words, even I have a hard time agreeing. Trust me, I hate “Bible-thumpers” just as much as you do, but let’s not belittle all Christians just because their religion has a horrifying history and there are some people wandering around today who take it too far.
I have met more than a few Christians who are genuinely disgusted at some of the things that have been done in God’s/Jesus’ name.

I think the “aggressiveness” of disagreements about religion is often overblown. It’s just disagreements. People also feel strongly and have arguments about politics; I don’t see why that’s any different than religion.

six days…off the subject, but how long was God’s six days????

Ya know. We all need to take a deep breath and ask ourselves…

What Would Jesus Do?

;-)

Qingu is correct. Maybe I’m just a bit more mature in this aspect, but I can have heated debates and go back to being friendly. I do this at work a lot with a friend who is very conservative and me being liberal, we argue about capitalism and socialism. The only reason I hate talking about this is when the other person can’t handle it.

@pdworkin

No parent who forces a child to slavishly adopt unexamined beliefs is doing the child a favor, nor will those efforts be rewarded with anything but rebellion later.

Totally agree….forced is not the answer…it has to be done with love and understand. Never was forced on me…my parents did not go to Church. My dad was a victim of World War II (landed on Normandy on D-Day) and spent his whole life in and out of mental institutions. My mom, waited on tables in a cafe 7 days a week, making 22 dollars a week…we lived in the worst part of town. So, i found religion on my own. Went to the gym 7 days a week and worked my ass off to get out the mess. Religion played a huge role in my life at that time. It kept me out of trouble and it all paid off…got a scholarship and played basketball in the Southeastern Conference. Made sure that my brother did not get in trouble. I was the parent then…he became a teacher and coach and I also was a teacher and coach. So, my feelings are strong about my religion. But, having said that, no one forced it on me. My life has not been easy, but give Him all the credit. And, believe me, I’m not a narrow-minded person.

@Saturated_Brain I can truthfully say that the religion of our friends and acquaintances is completely disregarded. The only time it comes up is when they tell us where they are getting married. My wife and I were married in a Catholic church. My oldest daughter and her husband were married by a legal officer on their base in Japan. My youngest daughter was married by a friend of theirs that was a pastor of a church close to their house in State College. I think he was a christian or maybe a Unitarian, I’m not sure. I think my best friend and his wife are Church of England or something like that. They’re both from Ontario and of English descent. Like I said it never really comes up.

I recently have a long conversation with a couple Mormon missionaries that helped me find my dog. I like Mormons, they always seem to be friendly and polite.

To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, I judge a man by the content of his (or her) character, not by their religion. By the way, my youngest daughter once dated a Muslim, I guess just for variety.

We practice what we don’t preach.

@Saturated_Brain Thanks for writing your thoughts out; sounds like a good plan. I always feel like I have to explain that growing up without religious belief does not mean you are not moral, or not ethical or don’t care about your neighbor. When people say to me, “well you have to raise them with some sort of religion,” I feel offended almost. Like a negative assumption is made about me because I am not religious and an atheist. The truth is mostly we learn to be good human beings from our parents through modeling, behavior modification, and our own conscience, eventually having an understanding of the golden rule, and other larger more abstract concepts. I am not saying people should raise their children without religion (again I am supportive of people raising their children as they see fit), I am just saying if some people don’t it is not necessarily a bad thing.

For me, I feel their are many paths to goodness. Some find it through religion. But, from what I understand Christianity doesn’t really care if I am good, I will never be good enough. I find that the saddest part of Christianity, a seeming unnacceptance of other faiths, and the idea that God would judge a person negatively, even if that person followed his doctrine to the letter, because they don’t accept Jesus as their saviour. I do know many Christians who do seems accepting of others, but that underlying message in the religion bothers me.

@Ron_C I love that you site Martin Luther King’s quote. I usually think of him related to race, but of course his message works for religion also.

@jerv I have hypothesized that those raised with religion are more likely to seek and be religious, and be swayed by religion. What I mean is I tend to think the religious are more likely to join cults, or join up with some less than mainstream religion if they become unhappy in their own. I have no data to support this. I just can’t imagine an atheist falling in with a nutty religious fringe group.

@JLeslie I’m a white guy that was in Chicago during the race riots in the 60’s. King was the voice of reason in the shrill of riots and with loud mouth Alabama Governors. I was also kicked out of a required Navy Equal Opportunity seminar for saying that I was forced to be there and I didn’t care what sex, color, creed, or sexual orientation was for people assigned to me. All I cared about was if they could do their job. For some reason, I was seen as a disrupting influence to the group.

I like a good quote and MLK was full of them.

@Ron_C In the Navy, “bitch” is a gender-neutral pronoun ;)

You know.. I was so afraid that when I came back to this thread I would find it filled with angry comments. I am really pleasantly surprised at the level-headedness of the answers (thanks all of you guys). So.. To each to his own, so long as we’re all doing our best to be good non-judgmental people. =)

@jerv It is also a verb as in “I have a bitch with you!” Or if you are a surfer, “that shure is a bitchin’ board”. It has almost as many uses as the F word.

@Ron_C In the verb sense, it is a sailor’s second favorite pasttime, right after getting drunk enough to forget how much the job sucks

@jerv I have 12 years in the Navy and have to say that I really loved my job. I loved going to sea, and I loved the family atmosphere living on base. My wife, however, did not like the 9 month deployments and moves every four years or less.

As for drinking, there really wasn’t much after the first Med. cruise, you pretty much get it out of your system. It is no fun puking over the side as the liberty boat takes you back to the ship.

@Ron_C You must not have been in Engineering department, though I will say that I took it a bit easier on my 2nd WestPac.

I love the bubble of being on base. Its a different life. My father was a commissioned officer, so I grew up with military health care, flew space A a few times, and we stayed on base frequently when we travelled. It was great.

@jerv I was in Operations or Outside Repair on the repair ship. I figured the engineers liked that kind of stuff, they volunteered for it.

I have a couple friends that were Nuke-Machinist mates, they really like their jobs but I can’t see spending nine months under water.

@Ron_C I didn’t choose EM; Nuke field chose it for me, so I never really liked it in the first place. When I wound up losing the school over something stupid and wasn’t allowed to cross-rate, I tried to make the best of it but most of my 5½ years sucked when I was in E-Div. Fortunately, between cranking and going TAD, I wasn’t there half the time which made things great.

The majority of atheists are very tolerant and open minded. I share many values with them. Critical thinking is one of the most important activity fueling the progress of humankind and and being able to solve the great many challenges of the future. I’m religious and I’m a critical thinker. Which also means I’m critical about certain forms of atheism. An example of an aggressive atheist fundamentalist is Richard Dawkins.

For a more detailed explanation of my views, see

http://www.fluther.com/disc/61293/aggressive-atheism-promotes-religious-fundamentalism-what-are-the-pros-and/

It also shows the similarities between religious fundamentalism and atheist fundamentalism.

Both have to be rejected. When we raise kids we should teach them about tolerance, critical thinking and open mindedness. They can decide for themselves what to believe when they are old enough.

@mattbrowne
“An example of an aggressive atheist fundamentalist is Richard Dawkins.”
I recall Richard himself writing the following in response to that very accusation.

“No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.” – Richard Dawkins, How dare you call me a fundamentalist

In addition to this, although I agree with you about tolerance and open-mindedness being important for our collective future, I and various other Jellies have explained to you at length why atheist “fundamentalism” (or dogma) cannot exist. Closed-mindedness, yes, certainly, but not fundamentalism.
À propos, if Dr Dawkins is right about this and fundamentalism is characterised most of all by never changing your mind, that makes you a pot calling kettles black, my friend.

Hear here, @Fyrius.

@mattbrowne, I could just as easily say you’re a unitarian “fundamentalist” because half of your posts on here aggressively promote what amounts to unitarianism.

I don’t like calling people who feel strongly about a subject and like to talk about it “fundamentalists.” That’s diluting the meaning of that word.

Yes, yes, I understand you don’t like my critical remarks. I won’t get any lurve for this. I understand your desire to defend Richard Dawkins. And I also understand that Richard Dawkins himself disagrees with people who think he’s a atheist fundamentalist. Most fundamentalists do not see themselves as fundamentalists. He crossed the line stating that all religious people, no matter what flavor, are deluded and infected by a malicious virus. He crossed the line when he declared his philosophical assessments are science. He crossed the line when he claimed a monopoly of truth. His truth. His God Delusion book is full of cheap polemics. He’s a brilliant scientists, no doubt. But he’s a lousy world citizen. He creates tension instead of peace. He doesn’t build bridges. He burns them. Many atheists I know do not share his radical views and approach.

Why is my own view not a fundamentalist view? I admit I could be wrong. I admit that other world views can be acceptable as well. I appreciate tolerant atheists. I appreciate tolerant believers of all faiths. I don’t want to promote my faith. Atheists should remain atheists if this is what they want. I’m glad if this works for them. Muslims should remain Muslims if it’s their own choice. I would never say that people who believe something else are deluded. I try to understand why people reject evolution instead of putting a label of delusion on them. I still appreciate them as human beings, but point out the dangers of superstition and science illiteracy. And I’m critical when people become radical in their views. I’m critical when some young immature atheists declare that they know for a fact that God doesn’t exist. I’m critical when Christians try to label evolution as an atheist theory. I’m critical when people attack the secular model or the freedom of religion which includes the right not to believe. I completely agree with Barack Obama when he said the following in his inauguration speech:

“For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.”

@mattbrowne
What’s this all of a sudden? Ad hominems?
I’ve said more than “I disagree”. I recall giving a few arguments too. One of them being that “fundamentalism” means strict adherence to an officially documented set of tenets, which atheism does not have.
Richard Dawkins is a ranter, and he is a radical and intolerant polemist. This is true. But he has nothing to be a fundamentalist about.
I say this not because of my personal admiration for the man, but because “fundamentalist” does not mean what you think it means.

And it’s nice that you admit you could be wrong, but in my experience with you, you never really take it to heart. You continue to believe that atheists can be “dogmatic” and “fundamentalist”, and probably also that the universe is “biophilic”, that there is definitely a purpose to the universe and that science can’t help us with it, even after you’ve given up trying to defend those views against the arguments that have been given.
You’re the very opposite of a radical person, that’s true, but where open-mindedness is concerned I think you do have fundamentalist tendencies where it matters. You won’t change your mind on your deeper beliefs.

“I would never say that people who believe something else are deluded.”
Does that include people who think they’re Napoleon?
“Deluded” is a clinical term for very strong false beliefs. There is no question that there exist people who are deluded.

@Fyrius
” One of them being that “fundamentalism” means strict adherence to an officially documented set of tenets, which atheism does not have. ”
The only real tenet of Atheism could fit on an index card… in bold print. Of course, most Atheists don’t bother with the documentation since they can remember four words; “There is no God!”. Beyond that, there are different types of Atheists, and not all of them have a complex belief system beyond their unshakable faith in the non-existence of higher powers.
Now, if you want to argue that only a religion can be a belief system then you are in the wrong damned place and no less bigoted than you accuse Richard Dawkins of being. However, you don’t strike me as that type of person, so I will take on faith that you won’t make that argument ;)

“You continue to believe that atheists can be “dogmatic” and “fundamentalist””
They can be, just as anyone else can be.

@mattbrowne, actually, I like your critical remarks, and I enjoy talking with you a lot. I also think we basically believe the same things about religion.

And I don’t even particularly like Dawkins; the Selfish Gene was great but he’s been kind of a dick re: group selection among other things. However, nowhere does the God Delusion claim to the “only truth”; I’m actually pretty sure he explicitly refutes this in the book and says that he is open to being wrong. Your reading of his use of the word “delusion” and his comparison to viruses is utterly lacking in nuance and context. And in fact, when it comes down to it, you would probably agree that the people who believe in the sort of god he is criticizing are “deluded.” He’s not talking about your polite deist/pantheist god.

You say, And I’m critical when people become radical in their views. I’m critical when some young immature atheists declare that they know for a fact that God doesn’t exist. I’m critical when Christians try to label evolution as an atheist theory. I’m critical when people attack the secular model or the freedom of religion which includes the right not to believe.

Dawkins, likewise, is critical about the content and application of religious belief. Why is his criticism “fundamentalist” and yours is not?

For my part, I don’t think either of you are fundamentalists. Being critical of something is not the same as being a fundamentalist. And conflating the two does real harm to open discussion.

@jerv
Aren’t you contradicting yourself? First you agree with me that atheism has no documented tenets, then you disagree with me that atheists can’t be dogmatic or fundamentalist. Fundamentalism requires a set of documented tenets.
Dogmatism is just a bit different, that requires a central authority to tell you what’s true and false. But I think you’ll agree that atheists have no such thing either.

Furthermore I wouldn’t and didn’t call Richard Dawkins a bigot. I said, “Richard Dawkins is a ranter, and he is a radical and intolerant polemist.”
He really is intolerant. He does not take shit from religion, and he explicitly asks us to “stop being so damned respectful”. That is pretty much his trademark trait as an atheist spokesman (and not necessarily a bad thing). But bigotry is not the same thing as intolerance. Bigotry also includes prejudices and closed-mindedness, and I don’t think it would be appropriate to accuse him of such things.

This is starting to sound like a semantics class.

I wouldn’t even call that “intolerance.”

Think about what the word tolerate implies. You “tolerate” shit that annoys the hell out of you. I “tolerate” white supremacists, who have a right to exist in our society, despite thinking that they are utterly wrong and deserving of no respect.

And yeah, this is turning into semantics. And I’m sort of annoyed that I have to defend Richard Dawkins all the time from so-called “tolerant” agnostics who apparently feel the need to scapegoat him into some kind of equidistant pole on the religious-atheist spectrum from the Pat Robertson types on the other end. It’s just inaccurate, he’s really not that bad at all.

@Fyrius I’ll get back to you after my first cup of coffee hits. Maybe I was still asleep…

I can live with the idea of Dawkins being a radical instead of a fundamentalist. Have a look at this article defining fundamentalism: (Dawkins gets mentioned)

“Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life (...).

Fundamentalism is commonly used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase “Muslim fundamentalists” and “right-wing/left-wing fundamentalists”). Richard Dawkins has used the term to characterize religious advocates as clinging to a stubborn, entrenched position that defies reasoned argument or contradictory evidence. Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Dawkins thinks I’m deluded, but I don’t think he’s deluded. I don’t agree with him, that’s all. There’s the difference.

I see this Alister McGrath person makes the same mistake, and puts some prejudice icing on his mistake-cake by generalising his misunderstanding to all atheism.
Congratulations, doctor. The most skilled flame bait troll on the anonymous internet could not have done better.
Then again, the man is a Christian theologian. He has a doctorate in being wrong.

@mattbrowne, actually, Dawkins doesn’t think you’re deluded. He explicitly says so in the opening of The God Delusion, characterizing your style of religious belief as “Einsteinian” (iow you believe in a very abstract, “Nature”-like god that’s nothing to do with the deities described in religious text) which he’s apparently cool with.

@Fyrius – Thank God for all the doctorates in being right.

@Qingu – So only the religious fundamentalists are infected with a virus? I still wish Dawkins had written a less polemic book.

@mattbrowne, here’s the deal with the “virus” comparison.

Dawkins says all ideas can act like viruses. He calls them “memes,” a play on “genes” of biology. Like genes, memes can replicate themselves. The medium of their replication is the human brain. So, you get an idea in your head and you share it with your friend, and boom, the idea has replicated. Memes can be as simple as advertising jingles and as complex as religious theology.

Some ideas help their hosts. So evolution favors their replication and spread because more host bodies are willing to host them and spread them on the merits. Other ideas, on the other hand, do not help their host at all, and in fact can even harm their host. These ideas spread by essentially manipulating their hosts to forsake their own well-being for the sake of spreading the idea. Think missionaries risking their lives to spread the light of Christ, or Heaven’s Gate cultists committing suicide.

The “virus” designation is perhaps emotionally charge, but it only refers to the fact that religions are ideas that spread oftentimes with no tangible benefits to the people who hold the ideas, and sometimes to their detriment.

I think that is clearly accurate and also a pretty compelling idea.

Also, have you even read the book?

@Qingu
Well explained.

A quote on this that stuck in my head:

“Ten years ago, you could have traveled thousands of miles through the United States and never seen a baseball cap turned back to front. Today, the reverse baseball cap is ubiquitous. I do not know what the pattern of geographical spread of the reverse baseball cap precisely was, but epidemiology is certainly among the professions primarily qualified to study it.” – Richard Dawkins, Viruses of the Mind (or the tl;dr version)

I guess I contracted some sort of enlightenment-liberal-religion hybrid meme and I think that many atheists are fine with new testamental non-violence, anti-greed and forgiveness memes.

@mattbrowne
Well, yes, insofar as there are any memes like that in there, those obviously aren’t the memes atheists object to. Unfortunately they’re part of a memeplex including some rather nasty memes too.

I’m rather fond of a number of internet memes that live in my head symbiotically and in exchange let me enjoy jokes I wouldn’t understand otherwise.

@Fyrius – Yes, there are some rather nasty memes too. I’m trying to explore this issue, see my new question:

http://www.fluther.com/disc/71006/how-close-is-christian-dominionism-in-the-us-to-fascism/