21 December 2009
Humanists Need to Give Children Choice Too
"... a classic mistake; the first of which is never start a lang-war in Asia ..." (Princess Bride quote for the unlearned) the second of which is, in this case, for secularists to assume that their perspective is somehow neutral or that it is possible to be neutral about ultimate beliefs. The idea that we can bring children up without a family default commitment is like saying that they should make up their minds which linguistic community they will join when they are old enough, in the meantime they should be brought up without a particular language (though, of course, they will be encouraged to respect all languages -and none- and to learn about aspects of syntax, phonology etc -though of course which medium of communication this might take place in is a moot point!) Anyway, have a look at Kester Brewin's great little comment: Kester Brewin � #Humanists Need to Give Children Choice Too. And one of the main reasons he identifies for the problem is: "The key problem here is, of course, that it’s simply biased. Humanist parents are going to try to encourage their children to see the world in the ‘right’ way that they see it, just as religious parents are too."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
5 comments:
I find it difficult to talk about this subject because the very topic brings up a number of disparate yet semi-related issues and experiences in my mind. Trying to sort them into anything cohesive is almost impossible.
Ultimately, I'm not sure where I stand on the whole "teaching religion to your children" issue. On the one hand, there's a lot about my religion I wouldn't "foist" on my child. I follow a particular tradition of witchcraft, and it's a path that's right for some but not for everyone. As an analogy, I doubt most Christians priests and ministers would try to force their children to become priests or ministers.
But at the same time, I do think that there are important aspects of my religion that my children (were I to have any) would benefit from. Some examples include the interconnectedness of all people, the importance of virtues such as compassion, and the recognition that "it isn't all about you." But then, I'd note that these are all things that my religion (nor any other religion) doesn't have a monopoly on.
One of my big issues with teaching kids about religion is the underlying message included by some of "you will follow this religion or else." Kester mentions in his great post that part of responsible religious education is giving children "an invitation to freedom beyond it." This sounds great. But when you've spent years teaching your children that "freedom beyond" your religion means terrible things and your words and deeds either explicitly or implicitly demonstrate a very low valuing of people "beyond" your own religion, how can such an invitation be regarded as sincere? I think that's a question people need to struggle with.
As I mentioned to Kester, I also think there's a question of just what is being taught. I'd like to give a personal anecdote to help underscore this one. My sister, her husband, and her kids are Christian and attend a Baptist church. In my opinion, they tend to be pretty insular in terms of religion and even when it comes to contact with people who see the world differently than them in general. I'd also say that there are aspects of my sister's faith and personal outlook and faith that are fear based. To put it bluntly, I've seen signs of the "everybody else is out to get us decent Christians" mentality that is common in some evangelical circles here.
The fruit of that mentality became disturbingly apparent to me during on of my sister's visits to our parents' home a couple years ago. (My sister and her family live in Mississippi, whereas my parents are in northern Pennsylvania.) The discussion turned to some issue and my sister got going about how "parents' rights" are being threatened and how the government is trying to decide who is and isn't a decent parent. She went so far as to suggest that some day, the government might even start trying to take her kids away if she didn't "toe the line."
My nephew (who was about eight at the time) was in the room and immediately burst into tears. He was suddenly terrified that someone would take him away from the family he loved. It took quite a few minutes for my mother and my sister to calm him down together.
My sister's response after that was basically, "Oops!" I just sat there shaking my head. She just terrified (and I might even say terrorized) her own son with her passionate belief in coming persecution. And the only introspection that brought about was "Ooops"? In my not so humble opinion, that kind of religious belief is one that shouldn't be taught to an adult, let alone a child.
Thanks Jarred. I really appreciate your writing with such candour and sensitivity. I'm really sympathetic to your concerns about children in households where alarming viewpoints are implicitly and explicitly passed on and critical thought discouraged. However, I would have to say that we should be wary of thinking that this is an issue exclusive to 'religious' households. We should note, too, that the normal 'mechanisms' of socialisation and acculturation work to make it that children tend to adopt generally the perspectives of their family and, later, peer groups (interesting sociolinguistic correlates of these).
Anyway this means that we should be aware when debating such things that families with strong political views may generate similar incidents. I'm also mindful of families where certain types of criminality and anti-sociability are part of the 'air they breathe'. The point is that this is part of the 'risk' society takes incontinuing parental primary care.
The 'risk' is mitigated, however. I was acutely aware as a parent that being too heavy handed in 'religiosity' as we brought up our kids would (by observation of others) almost certainly result in a rejection of pretty much everything we held dear. In Christian terms the gospel paradox tends to hold true in parenting: if you would save your life, you must lose it: ie to hold onto what you value, you must hold it very lightly (and even then there are no guarantees). So the hope is that over-dogmatic parenting tends to push children back towards a socially-normed mean in their own attitudes because it is felt to be oppressive or inhumane.
First, let me thank you for taking my comments in the spirit they were intended and giving a thoughtful response to them. I really don't have much else to add as we seem to be much in agreement.
You are right that passing on alarming viewpoints and discouraging critical thought are merely religious problems. I didn't mean to imply they were and apologize if I appeared to do so. I'd add to that list of common societal problems the tendency to be insular and isolationist. It seems as if to many people, the best way to deal with differing viewpoints is to make sure one simply never comes into contact with any. Unfortunately, I think that approach is unhealthy and ultimately disastrous.
As for overly dogmatic parenting pushing children back towards a socially-normed mean, my experience indicates that happens sometimes and doesn't happen other times. I can't really say what the percentage for each would be. Of course, the other thing I'd note is that even for those who do come back to a socially-normed mean, that can be a rocky, painful, and even treacherous journey. I do hope there comes a point where less and less people have to make that journey.
I hear you Jarred, I think. After I replied, I wondered whether I was being a bit too Pallyanna-ish because I think you are right that there are still many children becaming adults who are struggling with the guilt and inner cnoflict brought about by an over-dogmatic or strict upbringing. And I was also aware that the returning towards social norms (or even reacting against) does rely on access to communities where wider and more diverse perspectives are affirmatively available. So I certainly don't want to give the impression I think that all in the garden is rosy. THere is still much work to do and that's a social struggle. In the UK the stats seem to indicate that educating people to degree level is a major factor in opening people up to diversity and other perspectives. So the sturggle for HE is important in a society. And linkng therefore to the topic we have been discussing on another post ...
Just noticed that the Guardian recently ran an op-piece very relevant to this and makes rather similar points in some places.
Post a Comment