Jennywocky
Creepy Clown Chick
Just an amazing thread, honestly, in terms of topic.
I'm torn over the whole thing.
As a parent, I very much respect autonomy and allowing families to make decisions for themselves about how their children should be raised.
At the same time, I have been horribly impacted personally due to immersion in particular world views, and I have seen the devastation caused when parents bring up their kids to be racists (for example).
I'm honestly not really sure where that line should be. At some point, what is the parents' prerogative does start to intrude on the needs of the government to maintain social stability, since certain attitudes underlie and contribute to social ills.
I think good parents and good institutions can present their POV but really should shy away from mandating a particular perspective. It's funny, but the broad principle the Amish have of letting young adults leave the community to see if they want to live in the world or return to the community is a wonderful practice.
The thing simply is that even when kids are not being particularly abused intellectually by their subculture, they're still be indoctrinated. It's just that this indoctrination will happen from SOME source, whether it's the parents or otherwise. Who says that the government or others have better ideas of what to ground a child in but the parents? It seems almost dangerous to take away that primacy of care from the parents, although some parents abuse their authority or do not equip their children to make good choices -- just impose a particular view on them.
My spouse and i, while both being very sensitive to each other and our children's needs, do vary a bit in our approach; one of us is a more evangelical Christianity, the other is more a "challenge and test everything and earn it and learn it for yourselves." We did not really actively teach a lot of different views, but I knew I strongly endorsed branching out and comparisons to other faith traditions, because I feel it can only make one's beliefs (however they eventually turn out) stronger... and those who never challenge their faith are weak and will falter when things get hard.
I have to admit I was hurt at times when my kids would tease me about saying "Genesis was quite possibly a metaphor." And here is an issue with kids: They are not adults. They are more literal. They saw this stuff written in a book, they were told it was "true" (whatever that means), and so they had trouble comprehending more flexible and abstracted POVs at that age. As they get older and their abstraction abilities grow, then they become more capable of challenging things.
i think ultimately one thing I have focused on is that regardless of what they 'believe' (i.e., the points of doctrine), what ultimately matters is the sort of person they are becoming and how they treat others. The true sign of faith of any sort is how you love others.
So I think the real pisser is when parents inadvertently teach their kids to hate others in whatever way; that to me is bad social engineering AND bad religion.
Unfortunately, people still need grounding.
Think about this in terms of language. learning English means we lose some capabilities and understandings of other languages, but it gives us a framework from which to learn new things. Without the basic framework< NOTHING can be accomplished; it's just how people work.
So one could claim we are biasing children by indoctrinating them in English and even US culture (for us Americans) by raising them in this culture... but we don't have a choice. We all have to start somewhere. All we can do is push them to explore other languages and cultures as they age, try to see them from the perspective of THOSE cultures, and get a sense of true positive/negatives of those cultures.
Christians can't even agree on what events in the Bible even occurred.
Who makes the decision of what is abuse and what is bad? at some point, an outside agency -- government or therapists or whatever -- has to impose a value judgment in order to make this decision and thus interfere. This might be necessary, but in any case, there can be no real "hands off "policy.
I'm torn over the whole thing.
As a parent, I very much respect autonomy and allowing families to make decisions for themselves about how their children should be raised.
At the same time, I have been horribly impacted personally due to immersion in particular world views, and I have seen the devastation caused when parents bring up their kids to be racists (for example).
I'm honestly not really sure where that line should be. At some point, what is the parents' prerogative does start to intrude on the needs of the government to maintain social stability, since certain attitudes underlie and contribute to social ills.
I think good parents and good institutions can present their POV but really should shy away from mandating a particular perspective. It's funny, but the broad principle the Amish have of letting young adults leave the community to see if they want to live in the world or return to the community is a wonderful practice.
The thing simply is that even when kids are not being particularly abused intellectually by their subculture, they're still be indoctrinated. It's just that this indoctrination will happen from SOME source, whether it's the parents or otherwise. Who says that the government or others have better ideas of what to ground a child in but the parents? It seems almost dangerous to take away that primacy of care from the parents, although some parents abuse their authority or do not equip their children to make good choices -- just impose a particular view on them.
With our children, we grounded them in Christianity (regular church attendance) but gave them the option to involve themselves more if desired.
My spouse and i, while both being very sensitive to each other and our children's needs, do vary a bit in our approach; one of us is a more evangelical Christianity, the other is more a "challenge and test everything and earn it and learn it for yourselves." We did not really actively teach a lot of different views, but I knew I strongly endorsed branching out and comparisons to other faith traditions, because I feel it can only make one's beliefs (however they eventually turn out) stronger... and those who never challenge their faith are weak and will falter when things get hard.
I have to admit I was hurt at times when my kids would tease me about saying "Genesis was quite possibly a metaphor." And here is an issue with kids: They are not adults. They are more literal. They saw this stuff written in a book, they were told it was "true" (whatever that means), and so they had trouble comprehending more flexible and abstracted POVs at that age. As they get older and their abstraction abilities grow, then they become more capable of challenging things.
i think ultimately one thing I have focused on is that regardless of what they 'believe' (i.e., the points of doctrine), what ultimately matters is the sort of person they are becoming and how they treat others. The true sign of faith of any sort is how you love others.
So I think the real pisser is when parents inadvertently teach their kids to hate others in whatever way; that to me is bad social engineering AND bad religion.
I think it depends on the school, but it's kind of hard for someone who teaches that a particular set of "beliefs" is "right" to not undermine other opinions in the process.
From a practical standpoint, I don't think it will ever happen. Who agrees on what "equals" means? And if someone believes your life will be bad or you'll go to hell if you don't share their faith, they can't realistically allow "lies and perversions" to be taught to helpless children, you know.
Idealistically I think kids should be equipped with the ability to evaluate truth claims and given a clear picture of the tenets of different faiths and an idea of what the "model" for that faith is... then let them decide themselves.
Unfortunately, people still need grounding.
Think about this in terms of language. learning English means we lose some capabilities and understandings of other languages, but it gives us a framework from which to learn new things. Without the basic framework< NOTHING can be accomplished; it's just how people work.
So one could claim we are biasing children by indoctrinating them in English and even US culture (for us Americans) by raising them in this culture... but we don't have a choice. We all have to start somewhere. All we can do is push them to explore other languages and cultures as they age, try to see them from the perspective of THOSE cultures, and get a sense of true positive/negatives of those cultures.
Who determines the facts?
Christians can't even agree on what events in the Bible even occurred.
When a personality becomes rigid and unable to function, or develops anti-social tendencies, or develops other neuroses, of course that's one point. Again, the fundamentalist is seen by themselves as firm, upright, unrelenting, scathingly true, brave, faithful; by others, sometimes as a nut case.
Who makes the decision of what is abuse and what is bad? at some point, an outside agency -- government or therapists or whatever -- has to impose a value judgment in order to make this decision and thus interfere. This might be necessary, but in any case, there can be no real "hands off "policy.
A controlled environment (appeals to parents); a set of consistent standards; religious education integrated with "secular" knowledge (although perhaps there really is no line there); adult role models in the preferred faith.
