Parents Educating children when one is religious and the other is not...

Well, guys, just in the case people don’t know yet, I’m an atheist – well, that I stated many times here in CFC, but there can always be a reader that never joined the previous religious discussions here, right?

Anyway, I have a girlfriend and we are together for some years now, so it’s natural that we think of each other as future man and wife, and discuss how would some important issues on our lifes be; And, in account of that, once this discussion came to be how we would deal with eventual kids considering the differences in our religious approaches. And what is not much of a problem when it’s down to the two of us, proved to be a hard issue when we discussed even the children we don’t have yet.

See, she is catholic, and a very active one. She goes to church once a week at least, more from time to time. She takes part on praying groups, and she join some church activities of the community quite a lot.

It’s like this: She said she’ll take any child she has to the church, to see the ceremonies, and to take classes about Catholicism. I, on the other hand, said that I think that none of us should impose their own view, but only answer their questions, when made, to the best of our abilities, and let them decide for themselves. But she said that nothing can dissuade her from teaching her children to be Catholics.

I answered them: “Well, if you feel so strongly about that, I suppose that I cannot stop you from trying to teach to your children what you honestly think is the best for them. However, I reserve myself equal privilege. So, if you are going to show him the Catholicism, I’ll see that the kid(s) will also learn about Protestantism, Islamism, Buddhism, Kardecism, Candomblé and other african religions, and also about skepticism and secularism, and than I’ll let the child to make an informed decision – that mean, being able to equally consider them all – about what is his(er) position about such theme.

She argued on me that would only be too confusing for the kids, to what I answered that I don’t accept indoctrination, and it’s her that is imposing one (as for me we would both stay inert), so that I’d have to make it up for all the others, and that the age that she considered them ready would be the same age that I would, so it’d be all up to her to see when that marathon would start.

She than said that she didn’t want to see the kids being taken to see "spiritual possessions" nor anything else visually “impressive” because it would affect to much their judgment. I questioned how much she believed in the convincing power of her own believes, but complied to exercise my plan in controlled environments in which people would express themselves with words and ideas, and not with physical shows (such as exorcisms for example).

Than she argued on me that I didn’t have the “right” to teach religions that aren’t even “mine” and that I know nothing about; I said she underestimated my knowledge of religions, but that would be unimportant, as I’d choose people who have uncontroversial understanding of each specifically religion in my task, being my responsibility only the skepticism/atheism part.

Finally, she got emotional, asked what did I have against her religion, and that I should not do that just to challenge her. I replied that it was not about her at all, that I simply do not accept indoctrination and that if she so much wanted to use her parental prerogatives to make one, I’d use mine to minimize it’s effects in favor of ample knowledge and unbiased postures. Also, and proving my impartiality in detesting proselytism, that I was coherent enough to not even teach my opinion as “the right opinion”, but only to teach it as one of many options, and leave the decision, to the kid(s), respecting whatever may it be.

We only agreed to disagree, what made me wonder how would people evaluate the theme we discussed, and the reasonability of both our postures.

What are your inputs, fellows?

Regards .

I would be very wary of the viability of such a relationship; but I assume you two have found ways around obvious obstacle in the past?

You sound like a much more level-headed arguer than she is, which is perhaps why you had the victory in the end. I would have used a different technique than your girlfriend's appeals to emotions.

Suppose you were arguing about what language to teach the child? And if one parent said they only wanted the child to be taught Spanish, would it be reasonable for the other to call it "indoctrination" and insist that the child learn every other language on earth, so as to have a fair and knowledge-based choice of which he or she wanted to end up speaking?

Probably not! It would be a waste of time, for example, to teach the child Swahili, because there is next to no chance that he or she will ever live in that part of the world.

But you could say that it WOULD be useful to learn English as well, because there are so many English-speakers. Chinese would also be useful, but slightly less, because even though there are more people who speak Chinese, it is less likely the child will work or speak with Chinese-speakers than with English-speakers.

So my advice is that you offer a compromise based on this analogy. Both of you have the right to educate the child impartially based on your own personal beliefs, and you should also choose three or four of the other religions which have the largest amount of followers or which are most common in the area your child will grow up and maybe live in [the New World].

But I agree with your girlfriend that educating your son or daughter about Confucianism or Anglicanism is a waste of time. When your child is older you should encourage him to learn about as many religions as possible, but that's not what is being discussed - what's being discussed is which religions should have the first impression on him, and those are his parent's beliefs and any other beliefs that are prevalent in the area.

Even if you don't teach him about these, he will eventually learn about them anyway, so it's best that he has a balanced view and doesn't grow up with any prejudices or misconceptions.

Hehehehe. Despite I don't see any intrinsical difference between Confucionism and, say, Islamism in terms of merit, it's for sure that I'd limit myself to SOME of them arbitrarily chosen (or probably along the lines of most usual ones in present days, as you suggested), for pure pragmatic reasons. So of course I'd act in that "compromise", despite the manner I described my argument did sound like an absolute.

Nonetheless, your analogy with languages is flawed. People needs at least one language to live in society, and choosing the one of your country is a pragmatic choice. Now, one can want one religion, but no one really needs at least one, in a visceral sense, myself being the living proof of that.

regards .

No, you're like a deaf person: sign language. You have a language which has its own rules and methods, even though it isn't really a language. So you have your own religion, which is lack of religion, but it still has its own commandments and tenets and dogma. If you say "God does not exist" isn't that as much of a belief as "God exists"? You cannot prove either.

Language of deaf people IS language. Just not a spoken one.

This is the definition of language according to the Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary:

Main Entry: lan·guage
Pronunciation: 'la[ng]-gwij, -wij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from langue tongue, language, from Latin lingua -- more at TONGUE
Date: 14th century
1 a : the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community b (1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs (2) : a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings (3) : the suggestion by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas or feelings <language in their very gesture -- Shakespeare> (4) : the means by which animals communicate (5) : a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions (6) : MACHINE LANGUAGE 1
2 a : form or manner of verbal expression; specifically : STYLE b : the vocabulary and phraseology belonging to an art or a department of knowledge c : PROFANITY
3 : the study of language especially as a school subject
[language table]

Click to expand...

As you can see, both entries 2 and 3 accepts perfectly the "deaf signs" as a language.

Regards .

edit: Oh, now I have read carefully and I got what you mean. Now, atheism is not an religion nor the same of an religion. There is a big difference between the active posture of beliving in the existence of something, or the active posture of beliving in the non-existence of something, and the negative posture of not believing in something.

You're a cruel, cruel man. You should never use your superior skills at arguing against someone you are sleeping with; it is an abuse of power, especially someone professionall trained.

I've had this type of discussion before, and perhaps you can find something useful out of it:
So, you're going to tell your kids about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too, right? Well, perhaps not, but they're more cultural than religious. However, its not unusual for children not to know everything, and to grow into their beliefs as they get older.

So, what I think you should do is make an agreement that your potential children get to chose on their own what they believe. She should allow to take her children to these events, though indoctrination in your eyes, many, many people have been 'indoctrinated' in the same manner and survived in their independant thinking. Until the child comes of age and tries to identify who THEY are, these issues really aren't important. They may chose to leave religion behind or not. Remember, the church events are also very social atmosphere, and it IS more important to your significant other than to you. Unless you are militantly anti-religious (which I doubt), I'm certain you can wait until your child is old enough to doubt.

Have no fear, FredLC. You've hit the geographic lottery: IMHO, no religion produces people more open to moving beyond their blinders than Catholicism. It is the nature of a religion that was adapted once to fit the pagan predilections of Rome (and again and again, as you must know by the orixas of candomble). I was raised Catholic, and as a friend once said to me "If you believe in Catholicism, you'll believe anything!"

I would not raise this subject again with your enamorata, but should it come up the thing to do is cave in verbally now "yes, yes, of course, you can baptise them and send them to sunday school". Of course the plan you state for explaining the many religions to them is a great plan, and I am sure you will do it: there is no need to give them sacraments in multiple religions, but a good understanding of the differences in belief is a major part of intellectual development that I personally believe ought to be taught in all schools (to save the world the serious trouble religion can cause).

Put it this way: as an atheist, you know your kids aren't going to go to hell if they are baptized or confirmed. So let your wife do her worst, and just remember to offset the indoctrination with examples from the wider world to keep their minds open. If your kids are as smart as you, they'll figure out, as I did by age 9, that Apollo and Buddha are just as likely to show up and answer pleas as Jesus and Moses.

I say raise him Catholic, but let him have a choice. Tell him your opinion, and let her tell him hers. I think you should take him to Church when he is young - if you give him the choice then, he'd say know just because he'd rather watch cartoons. But, when he's older, tell him that can choose what he beleives...

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
If your kids are as smart as you, they'll figure out, as I did by age 9, that Apollo and Buddha are just as likely to show up and answer pleas as Jesus and Moses.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the great revelation that sways us all .

Personally, my piece has already been said...I think that it's a good idea to educate your children about other religions more than it would be done to them by standard education and by the church, just don't do it so much as to offend your loved one .

Your argument sounds like the way I was raised. My mother took us to church every Sunday, Irish Catholic priest, Latin Mass, all that. My father got to stay home and sleep in on Sundays, only attended church on holidays to please my mother. By age 11, the nuns grew tired of trying to answer my questions (so how did that guy live in a WHALE for 3 days) and I saw the benefits of sleeping in. The church and I reached a mutual agreement whereby they would not hold me back in Sunday school and I would stop attending. You can only fool kids for so long....

Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
a good understanding of the differences in belief is a major part of intellectual development that I personally believe ought to be taught in all schools (to save the world the serious trouble religion can cause).

Click to expand...

Agreed. At my school, we actully had to keep a comparsion chart for like 6 different religions in history class.

Children should be exposed to various religions when they get to be an age where they can understand the differences. I'm thinking 8 to 10 years old. If the kid wants to tag along to Mom's service, I say let him. But also inform him of other religions and not to be trapped with only one. Let him (or her) make the choice.

I think you're on the right track here, Fred.

I was raised by my mother and her husband, both protestants. My dad is an atheist and didn't aprove the way me and my brother were raised, but didn't think it was a big deal.

My advice: let your future wife do whatever she thinks is good for your future children. It won't harm them! She has a point when she sais you shouldn't tell the kids all things you don't even believe! But you do 'believe' in atheism, so I think your future wife will understand you will tell the kids daddy thinks there is no God! There is no need to tell them at early age. When they are 8 they will find out Santa is a fairy tale, when they are 15, they will start thinking about God. They will notice anyway daddy doesn't pray before dinner!

Your marriage will be a bigger deal I guess! Will you be so hypocrite to say YES to the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

Gosh, what the hack is happening in here? The new replies are showing PRIOR to my original message. Some major bug here, I tell ya.

Anyway, Stapel, notice that I mentioned that I'd never prevent her from teaching what she thinks is right. I'd never do that, it's not within my rights. I just said that given that situation, than my natural reaction would be to demonstrate that such ideas are no objective truth, by displaying ideas that are different.

Besides, I don't know if she does have a point. Saying so relies on the assumption that Kids cannot handle not believing in God. I doubt very much of that, as the way I see religious is the way I see drug addiction; the necessity only exists after you create it.

As for the marriage thing, I told her that if it was just for me, I'd just have a civilian wedding and a big party. She, on the other hand, won't accept not having a church wedding (these religious people do demand a lot, don't they?). So I said: "Well, if it's unimportant for me and a big issue for you, I don't have any problem at going there, as long as it's a short ceremony (I hate those long ones from protestant churchs here in Brazil- I once was best man for a friuend and it meant spending two and a half hours sitting in the altar listening to the most preposterous things, like "how woman must, as oriented by the bible, be submissive to man"). The only issue I see here is that usually the catholic church demands that the couple take some "classes" before the marriage, to "teach" what's important fdor them (how is a priest supposed to understand about marriage is beyond me). Anyway, as i won't stand going there to listen to how we must take catholic principles to our love nest in daily classes for two weeks - this, unlike a 20 minutes ceremony i will consider great aggravation - she'll have to find some way of convincing the priest of her church to skip that part for me. Well, I just have to wait and see if she'll manage to do that...

Anyway, notive that I never take an aggressive position; I never act, but only react. I respect religious freedom enough to behave in that way.

As for Greadius, well, don't worry about her, pal. She's a lawyer as well, and thus able to debate in the same level. I just got the upper hand here because I'm beggining from more solid premisses in this particular issue.

Finally, Sultan, I'd say you are right, as that is pretty much what happened to me. My mother is religious, and my father couldn't care less about it, altough I never really heard him claiming to be an atheist (despite I saw him criticizing the religious mindset more than one time); anyway, i just think it's my duty to try teaching as much as possible, and I do think that those convertion tactics, when applied to kids too young, can be harmful if not properly put in present world context.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
You sound like a much more level-headed arguer than she is, which is perhaps why you had the victory in the end.

Click to expand...

There are no victors in arguments between lovers. If Fred's girlfriend was getting emotional then he is not a winner. It is hard to savour victory when the love of your life is the vanquished.

But anyway ...

Fred, I personally think that you and your girlfriend need to ask each other if you are committed enough to each other that your religious differences are not a problem. Do you have a problem marrying a Catholic? Does she have a problem marrying an atheist? This might be easier for you to answer than her.

Now, assuming that you made it past this step, and also assuming that you both want children (which I assume from the conversation), then how are they raised? I think that if she wants to take the children to church with her, then that's fine, so long as it is done properly. For instance, one of the first questions they will ask is "why doesn't daddy come to church with us?" You and your wife should both answer that question without disrespecting the other's beliefs. That should be a good segue into a discussion of other religions/beliefs. The children (like all people) should be encouraged to examine their faith. If they believe only because mommy does, then that's the wrong answer. Expose them to different religions and let them make an informed decision. Then, both of you, respect that decision. If the child decides to embrace Judaism for instance, than neither you nor your wife should stand in their way.

Originally posted by FredLC
Anyway, Stapel, notice that I mentioned that I'd never prevent her from teaching what she thinks is right. I'd never do that, it's not within my rights. I just said that given that situation, than my natural reaction would be to demonstrate that such ideas are no objective truth, by displaying ideas that are different.

Besides, I don't know if she does have a point. Saying so relies on the assumption that Kids cannot handle not believing in God. I doubt very much of that, as the way I see religious is the way I see drug addiction; the necessity only exists after you create it.

Click to expand...

What I meant: I don't think 'teaching' your children about all kinds of religion is useful. The whole point in mammy tells about catholicism and daddy tells about 'no God' is enough.

I honostly think you are over-worrying.

Hey, I was raised by a religious mother and only saw my atheist father twice a month. And I did become a dedicated atheist!