Ask Lemmy

No it's not ethical. I say this as a queer man indoctrinated in Christianity. I was lucky to make it through childhood without killing myself. I tried several times. Religion is a cancer that should be exterminated.

I'd say yes, as long as they're tolerant of their children questioning those beliefs and developing their own later on in life. Parents will always make an impression on their kids, that's just what being a parent is. It can get more nuanced of course. Teaching your kids homophobia is unethical, but that's regardless of whether it's for religious or other reasons.

Where do you think the line is between practicing your own religion faithfully and unethically forcing your beliefs on someone else?

That's not just someone that's a child, their child. So, the question should be: where do you think a parent should stop being a parent who has authority over their child? And where a child stop being a child (someone being taken care of and who is subject to the authority of their parents) to become a person (someone responsible for themselves).

Parents are responsible for their kids up until the child is reaching the 'age of reason' (sorry, not sure how to say that in English: when the is (legally) able to live and decide by themselves). How would anyone be able to raise (be responsible for) a child and make decision without pushing their own values on the kid? I mean, for me it's almost impossible. You can give options, a lot of options, but there will still be limits. Heck, even the simplest 'eat your veggies', 'brush your teeth', or 'you must do your homework before you can play your video game' (or their exact opposites, aka 'do whatever you want, I don't care about you') is already telling a lot about what values the parents are pushing onto their children.

My parents raised me as the atheists they were. That too is an ethical/philosophical/moral personal choice they pushed onto me without me being able to object anything, right? They never asked me if I was an atheist, or not.

The funny thing is that them being hardcore atheists did not prevent them to tweak the system so I could be send to a private catholic school because my father knew it was the best school. Another (unethical?) choice of them on which I had little to say as a child. And to be frank with you, now aged 50+ this is probably the second of only two reasons I feel gratitude towards my parents (the first one being that I had a roof and I was fed up until I was able to leave): the teaching there was demanding but it was also amazingly good.

Like mentioned already I would say: it's the parent's call. Because if christian or whatever else parents should not be allowed to share their faith with their own child, then logic mandates that no parent at all should be allowed to share no personal value at all with their child. Then, no parent should be allowed to raise their own child.

That may not be bad, though: Plato considered the idea in his Republic, suggesting kids should not be raised by parents but by city (the Ancient Greek ancestor of our modern States and Nations) operated and controlled institutions. But then, the question instantly becomes: who will decide what this city/state/nation controlled education should be about?

Real great question, with no simple answer I'm afraid.

It's not ethical to train your child's brain to believe fairytales. It's like foot binding, forcing an unnatural form on their growth. They grow up handicapped.

The problem with "faith" is its literal meaning: belief that is not based on evidence.

A society based on faith can only work is everybody has the same faith (think: Ancient Rome, theocracies, communist countries). The only reason modern Western democracies work is precisely that they are not based on faith but rather on evidence, on reason, on truth-seeking. This is the amazing and historically anomalous heritage of the enlightenment and it's looking more fragile by the day.

Teaching kids fairytales and calling it truth is the reason religion exists. It's the reason it's so hard for adults to leave the religions they assimilated as children. And in a free society where we have to find a way to live together, it's profoundly dangerous.

So my answer is: no.

Imagine how different society would be if people weren't introduced to religion until they were 18.

I think the ethics mostly come into how you raise them, religion or not. It's ethical to teach kindness and empathy. It's ethical to allow your kids to explore while asking them questions that help that exploration. You can do those kinds of things no matter what faith (or non-faith) you practice.

Speaking as someone who was raised in an environment that gave lip service to kindness and empathy but was really very harsh, judgmental, and rigid, only one of my siblings kept something reasonably approximating my parents' faith. The rest of us are mostly some variety of pagan. Each of us had a painful journey out of our parents' faith to something. No matter how you raise your kids, they are their own people and will come to their own conclusions. You can make the path much more difficult than it needs to be or you can set them up for a much less traumatic journey.

Definitely think that kids should be explained different beliefs early on.. plus they should be respected if they don't want to follow the same beliefs, and be able to opt out of any traditions.. though I suppose the faith I follow tends to be a lot less "damned to hecc" than some others, so to some parents if breaking a tradition means making their kid go to hell that's probably a lot tougher of a thing than im imagining it to be

I think it's important to teach children the cultural traditions of their family and religion can be a good tool to teach children the social contracts of ethical behavior. The abstract metaphysical elements of faith can be a good substitute until they're old enough to understand the usefulness of moral behavior from a social contract perspective.

The line is crossed when religion is used as a tool to teach bigotry. But the world is made richer by cultural traditions and those should be carried on.

If it impacts someone else besides yourself.

Their kid, their call up until the point the child's safety is in danger.

I have no more right to tell them how to raise their kids than they have about my entirely hypothetical and undesired kids. I may not agree with their choices and they may not agree with mine, I may think they are raising their kids to be less moral, they may think the same with the added bonus that I'm condemning mine to an eternity of torment.

That's life in a pluralistic society.

Yes, it's their familial culture and it's up to the kid to decide whether to break out from that or not later

I'm not sure this is a question of ethics. It's a question of whether you agree with a particular parent's world view. A good parent tries to set their child on a positive path in life, and they are going to pick a path based their personal knowledge and beliefs.

Even if you try hard not to "indoctrinate" your child with any particular world view, they will still see you as a model for what to believe and how to behave. You will tend to be your child's baseline for what "normal" is, at least early in their life. Your beliefs and behaviors will affect your kids whether you want them to or not.

Ethically, depending on the religion, it is absolutely mandatory for parents to teach their children their religious views.

For example, let's make up a cult. "Pireneists" are devout religious cultists that genuinely believe in their god, Kundo. Kundo's holy book says that any who partake in the evil plant, the peanut, have been led astray by evil and will suffer for all eternity in the dark chasm of the lost.

For parents who legitimately believe this it would be completely unethical for them to let their children eat peanuts, their mental state has everything to do with their ethical mandates. The only ethical thing to do is to teach their children about their beliefs in such a way that the children will follow the same beliefs for their whole life. Indoctrination is indeed within the bounds of ethics.

To you it may seem silly. In fact to most of us this is peak idiocy and if the leaders of the pireneists have been known to take money from people to pay for their lavish lifestyles you could say that the organization itself is evil. However the mental state and beliefs of the parents override the fundamental veracity of the claims of the cult/religion. True or not, the parents believe and their inaction would be unethical.

The fundamental difference between religion/spirituality and science/reason, as far as I'm concerned is this: religion demands that you accept something as an indisputable truth and that questioning it is not only discouraged but forbidden and will be met with an arbitrarily horrific punishment (eternal damnation, etc), with what the specific something is dependent on the teacher, their interpretations and their intentions. As a mental framework, I don't think it's healthy for either individuals or societies to unquestioningly accept - or be made to accept - that any ideas are defacto sacred.

I'm with Terence McKenna here: Culture is not your friend

Each teaching has to be evaluated on its own merits, its basis in reality, and its effect on the child and how they relate to others. Whether it's religious in origin is ultimately beside the point.

Ideally when properly understood each religion usually means well and enhances oneself in some way, from my little studying into a couple popular ones they seem to be aiming for similar things so I'm less and less convinced of inherently biased religious practices and more and more convinced of sucky people.

I think spirituality goes hand in hand with mental health and when we understand it badly we dig ourselves into deeper holes or when we understand it rightly we keep ourselves from falling in holes.

If what you teach someone helps them, that is good, otherwise just leave them alone.

I think it can be done if the parents are tolerant, flexible, and understand that people are naturally curious about other worldviews. Unfortunately, that’s a stratospherically high bar for a lot of people. When the parents sincerely believe that their child’s eternal soul is in danger, ethics come second.

Ironically, I think the people best suited to give religious guidance are agnostics, who readily admit that they don’t know squat about the afterlife or other supernatural topics. Ideally, they won’t pass on hate or bigotry whose only basis is ancient hearsay or hallucinations.

It depends on how you view the parent/child relationship. In most countries parents have a sort of "ownership" role of their child. A right to raise them in their own way, religion and traditions. It is THEIR child to teach, and raise.

This has become pretty contentious in Norway, and Norway has lost cases child protection cases regarding this in international courts. Our child protection services has taken children from their parents and that has ended up in international courts in some cases. This is due to a difference in opinion in what is acceptable and OK ways to raise a child, and what constitutes the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. In some of these cases Norway have rightfully been convicted. But you won't lose the ability to raise your child in Norway over nothing, as some people will have you believe. The child protective services can't explain why to the public, and the parents can pretend to be innocent.

Personally I believe parents do not own their child. I believe parents are in a privileged position and lucky to be allowed to raise a human (yes, also biological), and that the privilege should be revoked if the parents are not sufficiently fit to raise the child.

The perspective of ownership is harmful in my opinion and does often conflict with the interests of the child in my opinion.

Should the child get vaccinated? Yes, exceptions are only allergies.

Should the child be home schooled? No.

Should the child interact with peers at the kindergarten and school and get the social skills they need? Yes

What sorts of punishments are acceptable?

Should the child be heavily involved in religion? No, but should learn about it, and can in a limited degree practice it. But no religious schools, or religious camps. Genital mutilation should not be allowed for boys either. If they want to, they can do it as adults. Doing unnecessary surgery on a defenseless child due to religion is in no way acceptable.

If the parents are neglecting their child, how much neglect is okay before the right/privilege is revoked?

If the parents are addicts, what then?

Etc.