Poll: Should Parents have the right to force there religion on there kids ?

[Ashsaver]

No way should any parent force their religious belief on their children,I've been in this kind of situation before,so i know how...unreasonable these parents can be.

Teaching,yes they can,but forcing them to believe? i don't think so.

 

[Tdc2182]

Yes, I believe that parents should be able to force religion on their kids. /sarcasm

Honestly, why the fuck is this even a thread. Is there even one person on this site that would say yes?

This is just a poor pathetic attempt at flaming religions... something this site is all to good at.

 

[Jadak]

They certainly have the right to try, just as the child has the right to choose for him/her self and tell the parents to stfu if they don't like it.

 

[Ampersand]

I think you're creating a dichotomy here where there isn't any. Athiests do not teach their children that there is no god, nore do they necessarily teach them about evolution. I would expect any parent (be they athiest or otherwise) to teach thier children to base their conclusions about the world on evidence and critical thinking.

The route you're going with that is more Agnosticism than Atheism. The two are often confused in society, but in reality they are just as different as Agnosticism and Christianity.

Atheist believe that there is no god. Period.

Agnostics believe that there could be a god, but it has not been proven. They don't really have a belief either way aside from acknowledging that either side could be true.

Atheist do tend to attempt to spread their beliefs almost as much as Christians, especially in their teen and college years. Atheist are also just as receptive to counter arguments as Christians (I know this from experience).

Agnostics, on the other hand, are generally willing to engage in a religious debate, but they don't have a vested interest in it.

Funnily enough, my experience has shown me that agnostics are often better equipped for a religious debate because they have already examined most issues from both sides and come to their own conclusions, while religious people and Atheists (though I still assert that Atheism is a form of religion) typically only see the issues from their own perspective. As such, both are more willing to debate with each other than an agnostic.

I'm aware of the difference between agnostic and atheist. I think you've missed the point that i'm making. What i'm saying is that it is wrong for a parent to force thier beliefs on thier child regardless of weather they are religions or not. Children should be tought to challenge everything, ask lots of questions and then reach their own conclusions based on the evidence available to them.
PS. Atheism is can not be classed as a religion by any definition that i can think of.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I went for "F*ck no."
The kids should be able to believe what they want to believe.
If they want religion, let them have it.
If they don't, don't force it onto them.

 

[Blandman]

In my most humble opinion, it is not only the incorrect thing to do, but it is entirely unfair on the child. Forcing beliefs on them before they have a chance to see the wider world for themselves is dangerously close to indoctrination. Children are highly suggestible, and are link a blank slate to be filled. If you fill that slate purely with what you believe, then they don't have the opportunity to become their own person, merely a being of your design.

Some children do cast off these beliefs later on, but the effects will last a life-time, and children with especially forceful parent's will probably never make their own opinions on it. This sort of behaviour is what has caused a good number of religious nut-jobs to come about.

Teaching them these beliefs are fine, and I would never tell a parent to stop that. But forcing it upon them is a different matter entirely, and is not something I could personaly abide by.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

My understanding is that from their birth until the time they're adult, my children's religious education will be my responsibility.

All I can pray thereafter is that it sticks.

Feel free to flame liberally until evenly crispy and tasting slightly of gasoline

Education and indoctrination are different, so for the sake of arguement il assume you mean education. I plan to tell my child about every religion and educate them nuetraly. I wont give my own opinion unless heavily pressed. When they are old enough to properly debate with me then i try and reason with them, for the sake of a fun debate. Until then any bias is indoctrination pure and simple. The child will learn so deeply that one set is more true than another and will be unable to reason and only to be a fanatic for the set you told them is the only right set.

Im of the opinion that if religion WASNT forced on kids no one would be religious. Indoctrination is 90% of religious people. From those people i know who i have asked.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I think you're creating a dichotomy here where there isn't any. Athiests do not teach their children that there is no god, nore do they necessarily teach them about evolution. I would expect any parent (be they athiest or otherwise) to teach thier children to base their conclusions about the world on evidence and critical thinking.

The route you're going with that is more Agnosticism than Atheism. The two are often confused in society, but in reality they are just as different as Agnosticism and Christianity.

Atheist believe that there is no god. Period.

Agnostics believe that there could be a god, but it has not been proven. They don't really have a belief either way aside from acknowledging that either side could be true.

Atheist do tend to attempt to spread their beliefs almost as much as Christians, especially in their teen and college years. Atheist are also just as receptive to counter arguments as Christians (I know this from experience).

Agnostics, on the other hand, are generally willing to engage in a religious debate, but they don't have a vested interest in it.

Funnily enough, my experience has shown me that agnostics are often better equipped for a religious debate because they have already examined most issues from both sides and come to their own conclusions, while religious people and Atheists (though I still assert that Atheism is a form of religion) typically only see the issues from their own perspective. As such, both are more willing to debate with each other than an agnostic.

I'm aware of the difference between agnostic and atheist. I think you've missed the point that i'm making. What i'm saying is that it is wrong for a parent to force thier beliefs on thier child regardless of weather they are religions or not. Children should be tought to challenge everything, ask lots of questions and then reach their own conclusions based on the evidence available to them.
PS. Atheism is can not be classed as a religion by any definition that i can think of.

Athiesm isnt a religion. Period. There is no belief. No faith. No anything. I dont BELIEVE anything. I dont have faith that something is true that i have no idea about. I just instantly assume that if something has no evidence it is false until proven other wise. Faith is accepting something without proof by defination. I dont do that. I have no faith. Therefore it isnt a religion.

EDIT: This was a double post i decided to make into a discussion worthy reply.

 

[gl1koz3]

If you ain't got anything to do, can get religious. But I don't see much use of it beyond.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Fuck no! I'm an Atheist, and the closest to that is my brother (who's more of an Apatheist). The rest of my family is Catholic. I thought my mom was gonna crash the car when I told her I didn't believe in God.

 

[meglathon]

you cant change standered thought. like you cant change the sun and the moon cycles.

 

[Ampersand]

I think you're creating a dichotomy here where there isn't any. Athiests do not teach their children that there is no god, nore do they necessarily teach them about evolution. I would expect any parent (be they athiest or otherwise) to teach thier children to base their conclusions about the world on evidence and critical thinking.

The route you're going with that is more Agnosticism than Atheism. The two are often confused in society, but in reality they are just as different as Agnosticism and Christianity.

Atheist believe that there is no god. Period.

Agnostics believe that there could be a god, but it has not been proven. They don't really have a belief either way aside from acknowledging that either side could be true.

Atheist do tend to attempt to spread their beliefs almost as much as Christians, especially in their teen and college years. Atheist are also just as receptive to counter arguments as Christians (I know this from experience).

Agnostics, on the other hand, are generally willing to engage in a religious debate, but they don't have a vested interest in it.



Funnily enough, my experience has shown me that agnostics are often better equipped for a religious debate because they have already examined most issues from both sides and come to their own conclusions, while religious people and Atheists (though I still assert that Atheism is a form of religion) typically only see the issues from their own perspective. As such, both are more willing to debate with each other than an agnostic.

I'm aware of the difference between agnostic and atheist. I think you've missed the point that i'm making. What i'm saying is that it is wrong for a parent to force thier beliefs on thier child regardless of weather they are religions or not. Children should be tought to challenge everything, ask lots of questions and then reach their own conclusions based on the evidence available to them.
PS. Atheism is can not be classed as a religion by any definition that i can think of.

Athiesm isnt a religion. Period. There is no belief. No faith. No anything. I dont BELIEVE anything. I dont have faith that something is true that i have no idea about. I just instantly assume that if something has no evidence it is false until proven other wise. Faith is accepting something without proof by defination. I dont do that. I have no faith. Therefore it isnt a religion.

EDIT: This was a double post i decided to make into a discussion worthy reply.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[jultub]

well, yeah to a degree. they should be able to teach them what they believe and make them go to church etc.
i mean, if we stop religious people from teaching their kids about their faith then we'd have to stop atheist parents teaching their kids about evolution and how god doesn't exist.

Evolution is a fact, not a religious belief.

I only believe that animals evolve. And the reason is to be better able to live in the changing earth. I do not believe that we came from damn monkeys.

And yet still the very blueprints for what we are only differs from them by 2%.

 

[Get_A_Grip_]

Nooooo!

Let them choose when they reach the age of reason.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well I think they should go to church or whatever with their parents when they're young because A) The parents shouldn't have to stop practicing their beliefs to look after their kids B) Their children should see their culture.

However, When they start asking questions I think the parents should give them an open answer, expressing as many different points of view as is nescessary and let the child decide.
By the time the kid gets to about 13 they'll probably have their beliefs sussed regardless of what their parents make them do anyway.

 

[matt87_50]

remember, the question wasn't SHOULD parents force their religion on their kids... it was: should they have THE RIGHT to.

in which case, within reason, I would say yes. who are you to say what they can and can't do with THEIR kids? kids have rights, but so do their parents.

of course I say 'within reason' I can imagine that all your minds went to arranged marriages (which, btw, is that anything to do with religion? or just culture?) little terrorists, and suicide pacts.

really, its just like forcing anything else on your kids... like piano lessons ect, military service, continuing the family business ect. as you say, deep down, past a certain age, you can't really control what they believe at all. so its not much different.

 

[IronStorm9]

While I don't think they should be allowed to, This question is statistically biased in its wording. particularly when you use the word "forced" Just saying.

 

[butternut]

In an ideal world, Parents should be unable to enforce any religion/politics etc on their children. Unfortunatly, this is basically impossible to prevent, just by living with their parents children will learn from them and most likely believe what their parents believe. However, when the child is older and able to question the parent then they should be allowed to do so.

Additionally, on the subject of evolution that always enevitably pops up in this subject, it makes me cringe when I read "Evolution is just a theory". Its as though this sentence is almost burned into every persons skull. The scienctific method (this is a very simple explanation) works by looking at the world and taking a FACT (E.G. The sky is blue) and then using those FACTs to form THEORIES about the world. (E.G. The theory behind why the sky is blue is because air particles reflect blue light)

Now use this with evolution, we look at nature and see the FACT that animals adapt to their environments over time and the most commonly accepted THEORY as to why the animals adapt over time is that of Darwin's theory of natural selection, it is this that is the theory and it attempting to explain the fact of evolution.

tl:dr version

Evolution (FACT) is thought to occur though natural selection (THEORY).

Sorry for the science lesson its just this is something that really bugs me alot.

 

[tomtom94]

I believe (as an atheist) that religion should be kept out of children's lives until they can make a decision about it.

This does not mean that I would let them roam freely causing anarchy, or that I would stop them being converted if they wanted to.

This means that faith schools must be abolished, particularly the ones where teachers are not allowed to teach evolution.