Should Parents Have the Right to Force Religious Belief?

[Dylar]

No. Never. In any case or in any religion. I was pretty pissed, when I found out I am actually baptised Roman Catholic. I thought previously that I am at least Orthodox Christian, since my father is, this one is still lesser evil.

Only 'okay' Christians in that are Anabaptists to me: "are Christians who believe that baptism is valid only when the candidate confesses his or her faith in Christ and wants to be baptized."

I felt violated by that, even if I love my parents and they are as much liberal as possible for their generation.

I have so many questions.
1. How did you find out you were Catholic?
2. Why are you pissed for being Catholic?
3. Baptism in the Catholic Church is the washing away of Original Sin, and marks the first step of becoming a member withing the Church, so why do you feel violated? Also, it could be that you were baptized in a Catholic Church because your family was nowhere near an Orthodox parish, considering that the Catholic Church says that Catholics can receive Communion in an Orthodox Church if there are no Catholic Churches around them.

[Slightly Mouldy Biscuits]

Is it right for a parent to make their religous beliefs (or nonbelief) a rule in the household? If one believes that they've found the way to salvation and true happiness, they're likely going to want to share that with their offspring, just like when parents tell their children about their own experiences to teach them a lesson and make them less likely to repeat their mistakes. A parent, ideally, wants what they see is best for them.

Let's say (for the sake of noting that this convesation applies to any religious belief, I'll use meme-cult placeholders) there's a family of four. Mom, dad, two tween sons. They are devout worshippers of, uh, I don't know, Shrek? And because they are sure about the Ogrelord being the true path to salvation, they taught their children all about him. The first son was unsure of Shrek's existance, while the second son believed immediately and happily followed. The first discovered the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and felt the hole of confusion in his life was filled with this newfound joy. So he tells his parents about his new floating pasta lord.
His parents grounded him for blaspheming Shrek and insisted he was brainwashed, even though he converted on his own will. They banned him from attending mass to praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and wouldn't let him do any of the acts to follow the new religion. If his friends believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he had to tell them to pretend to be worshippers of Shrek since they wouldn't be allowed to hang out if his parents learned of it. They did everything in their power to try to make the child believe in Shrek again.

Are these parents, no matter what you replace 'Shrek' and 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' with, doing the right thing? Should it be legal, or is this an injustice?

Honestly, while I'm Christian, I'm not going to put pressure on my children, if I have them, to believe in Jesus Christ. Religious belief shouldn't be something that's forced on you, but something you genuinely find joy in and genuinely believe without being pressured. God knows whether you really love Him or not. So I'd tell them about God, but not react in a hostile way if they doubt.

If my child came to me and said they wanted to convert to Islam, a religion that, keep in mind, I am strongly against, here's what'd happen. If I could tell they made the decision by their own desire and not pressuring, they are well informed on Muslim beliefs by their own research into the texts, and they're older than 14 (age may vary depending on religion) - then I'd accept it. I'd be very upset for a while. But I wouldn't try to stop them from pursuing what they believe is the truth, because if they passed my requirements, they did this on their own. They're my child, and I'd still love them and treat them like I did before. If they didn't fit the requirements, then I'd go over Islam's beliefs and values with them, reading straight from the text, and showing them what Shariah law is like. This way, they see what it'd really be like from an unbiased source, untouched by both my disapproval of Islam and a street preacher's advocacy of it.

They should know, however, that if they start supporting terrorism, or doing or justifying fucked up activities because "Muhammad said it was okay", I'm not going to defend them in it. And, if they're supporting terrorism, I'm turning them in. If Christians can ignore verses that would result in hurting people for the sake of not hurting people, so should they. Same with any other religion, it's not a pass to break the law. Any child of mine would understand why having respect for other people is important, so I doubt I'd even hopefully have to deal with that.

But if I see it's a cult where their leader is a man with shades with an obsession with socialism who likes giving people Kool Aid, I'm grabbing my child's arm and getting the fuck out of there.

Not force, but just raise them that way, at around twelve years old the key to their beliefs should be unlocked so that they have the ability to convert to whatever or be athiest. But I will not support child abuse

I am in no way in support of abusive practices in the pursuit of religious conversion. Parents may wish to lead their children to religious belief from a young age, though I do not believe that this is something that should be exercised to massive extent until the child has the mental capacity and development to make their own decisions and decide which path they would like to take themselves.

It is possible that young age rituals that involve the harm of innocent children should now, perhaps, be considered something of the past; it is our responsibility, especially that of society's prolific religious groups to move forward and provide contemporary, less harmful and dangerous practices which benefit all in the future.

[The Rich Port]

No. Never. In any case or in any religion. I was pretty pissed, when I found out I am actually baptised Roman Catholic. I thought previously that I am at least Orthodox Christian, since my father is, this one is still lesser evil.

Only 'okay' Christians in that are Anabaptists to me: "are Christians who believe that baptism is valid only when the candidate confesses his or her faith in Christ and wants to be baptized."

I felt violated by that, even if I love my parents and they are as much liberal as possible for their generation.

I have so many questions.
1. How did you find out you were Catholic?
2. Why are you pissed for being Catholic?
3. Baptism in the Catholic Church is the washing away of Original Sin, and marks the first step of becoming a member withing the Church, so why do you feel violated? Also, it could be that you were baptized in a Catholic Church because your family was nowhere near an Orthodox parish, considering that the Catholic Church says that Catholics can receive Communion in an Orthodox Church if there are no Catholic Churches around them.

A Muslim becomes very upset when it's revealed they were given pork without their knowledge. I'm sure it's somehow similar.

Or for example, if you were circumcised, even though you're not Jewish...

... Oh, right. That happened to me... Welp. MAZEL TOV.

[Dylar]

I have so many questions.
1. How did you find out you were Catholic?
2. Why are you pissed for being Catholic?
3. Baptism in the Catholic Church is the washing away of Original Sin, and marks the first step of becoming a member withing the Church, so why do you feel violated? Also, it could be that you were baptized in a Catholic Church because your family was nowhere near an Orthodox parish, considering that the Catholic Church says that Catholics can receive Communion in an Orthodox Church if there are no Catholic Churches around them.

A Muslim becomes very upset when it's revealed they were given pork without their knowledge. I'm sure it's somehow similar.

Or for example, if you were circumcised, even though you're not Jewish...

... Oh, right. That happened to me... Welp. MAZEL TOV.

Hmm...fair enough...

[Socialist Czechia]

1. I found the original document signed by the priest.
2. Because I despise Catholic Church from multiple historical, nationalist, ideological reasons and also personal thoughts and own actual experience with it's members and affiliated organisations in my country.
3. There are actually Orthodox temples and also temples of modern Hussite Church. Although I don't consider myself Christian, I would be somewhat okay with these two in case of baptism, as they have other more 'okay' qualities, be it history, organisation, role in society or relationship with the State.

But I know enough about history of Christianity and theology to know, that Orthodox christians (and not only them) are technically still heretics in eyes of the Pope, no matter what Vatican says today.
I don't believe in 'Catholicism with Human face'. If they want to remove their own sins, they must dissolve it all. Starting with abolishment of certain title: Bishop of Rome.

[Dylar]

Well, honestly, I don't know. I think it was something like if they were Catholic but left the faith, then their soul will be in jeopardy. As in, it's a possibility whether or not they'll go to Hell, but we wouldn't know, and, as they say, "Only God knows."

"I think it was something like" is not the most reassuring thing to hear before one learns the fate of one's eternal soul.

Turns out I didn't need to email anyone

[The Rich Port]

1. I found the original document signed by the priest.
2. Because I despise Catholic Church from multiple historical, nationalist, ideological reasons and also personal thoughts and own actual experience with it's members and affiliated organisations in my country.
3. There are actually Orthodox temples and also temples of modern Hussite Church. Although I don't consider myself Christian, I would be somewhat okay with these two in case of baptism, as they have other more 'okay' qualities, be it history, organisation, role in society or relationship with the State.

But I know enough about history of Christianity and theology to know, that Orthodox christians (and not only them) are technically still heretics in eyes of the Pope, no matter what Vatican says today.
I don't believe in 'Catholicism with Human face'. If they want to remove their own sins, they must dissolve it all. Starting with abolishment of certain title: Bishop of Rome.

Really... That's your first worry...

I would more worried about all the... You know... Child rape.

[Bhanaland]

Firstly, it is important to show recognition to families raising their children in accordance of a certain religion due to our modern adapted civil rights and democracy. It is also important to put across the significant realization that parents are entitled to have their child practice their preferential chosen religion beliefs through non violent and non abusive means. I personally believe that a child should have the freedom to make an informed decision on their spiritual, cultural and religious beleifs without disregarding their family and friends negatively. The family also have to support their child in their decision, without forcing them to retract from the means that they have chosen for themselves.

[The Rich Port]

A Muslim becomes very upset when it's revealed they were given pork without their knowledge. I'm sure it's somehow similar.

Or for example, if you were circumcised, even though you're not Jewish...

... Oh, right. That happened to me... Welp. MAZEL TOV.

Hmm...fair enough...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jI6iAa-cC0

[Socialist Czechia]

So, again, parents have the actual right to teach the kids all what they know - that means, also their religious thoughts and inclinations, but only if they will allow them to go their own ways.

I mean, Jewish or Muslim parents should be totally okay, if kid wants to eat Pig head, just because.



Not joking there, I ate many pig heads. And hocks. And toes. They are delicious.

[The Rich Port]

So, again, parents have the actual right to teach the kids all what they know - that means, also their religious thoughts and inclinations, but only if they will allow them to go their own ways.

I mean, Jewish or Muslim parents should be totally okay, if kid wants to eat Pig head, just because.



Not joking there, I ate many pig heads. And hocks. And toes. They are delicious.

Or fucking pork rinds.

No wonder Muslims are against pork rinds. If they did, there wouldn't be any pork rinds left for the rest of us.

[Socialist Czechia]

Really... That's your first worry...

I would more worried about all the... You know... Child rape.

I rather tend to see entire cultural/historical picture, what Church did in last 1500 years in name of Christ. Child molesting endures, though, same as corruption. Crusades and inquisition and genocides approved by the Church will not return...I hope.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

As a atheist, religion will never be a topic presented to my child by me, unless I'm Directly asked. IF when they are older they choose to believe in some lie in the sky, then they can, and I won't appose it. But I certainly wont be presenting them with the ideas of any religion.

[Dylar]

1. I found the original document signed by the priest.
2. Because I despise Catholic Church from multiple historical, nationalist, ideological reasons and also personal thoughts and own actual experience with it's members and affiliated organisations in my country.
3. There are actually Orthodox temples and also temples of modern Hussite Church. Although I don't consider myself Christian, I would be somewhat okay with these two in case of baptism, as they have other more 'okay' qualities, be it history, organisation, role in society or relationship with the State.

But I know enough about history of Christianity and theology to know, that Orthodox christians (and not only them) are technically still heretics in eyes of the Pope, no matter what Vatican says today.
I don't believe in 'Catholicism with Human face'. If they want to remove their own sins, they must dissolve it all. Starting with abolishment of certain title: Bishop of Rome.

1. Oh, okay.
2. I'd argue that the historical atrocities that were committed would not be the Church's fault. It'd be the people within the Church, but it would not be the Church herself.
3. Ah...could it be that your mother baptized you?

I mean, you're not wrong in that we consider the other denominations as heretics. Simply because they don't fall in line with our teachings. But, even though they are heretics, it's not an excuse to condemn them. We won't dissolve the Bishop of Rome. The position isn't sinful, but, the person in that position is sinful. If we were to dissolve the Bishop of Rome because of previous popes that have committed serious sins, then we'd also have to dissolve the entire clergy for that same reason.

[The Rich Port]

1. I found the original document signed by the priest.
2. Because I despise Catholic Church from multiple historical, nationalist, ideological reasons and also personal thoughts and own actual experience with it's members and affiliated organisations in my country.
3. There are actually Orthodox temples and also temples of modern Hussite Church. Although I don't consider myself Christian, I would be somewhat okay with these two in case of baptism, as they have other more 'okay' qualities, be it history, organisation, role in society or relationship with the State.

But I know enough about history of Christianity and theology to know, that Orthodox christians (and not only them) are technically still heretics in eyes of the Pope, no matter what Vatican says today.
I don't believe in 'Catholicism with Human face'. If they want to remove their own sins, they must dissolve it all. Starting with abolishment of certain title: Bishop of Rome.

1. Oh, okay.
2. I'd argue that the historical atrocities that were committed would not be the Church's fault. It'd be the people within the Church, but it would not be the Church herself.
3. Ah...could it be that your mother baptized you?

I mean, you're not wrong in that we consider the other denominations as heretics. Simply because they don't fall in line with our teachings. But, even though they are heretics, it's not an excuse to condemn them. We won't dissolve the Bishop of Rome. The position isn't sinful, but, the person in that position is sinful. If we were to dissolve the Bishop of Rome because of previous popes that have committed serious sins, then we'd also have to dissolve the entire clergy for that same reason.

... The Church is people. Without people, there would be no Church.

[Alvecia]

Nor did it traumatize me. With all the crap that's up on TV and pop culture that's what would traumatize us? The idea is laughable.

I can still remember Eddy getting impaled from an antenna in Twister...*shudders*

If the picture of someone getting impaled is worse to you than the idea of eternal torment (which would probably include quite a lot of implaing) then I'd argue you really haven't put much thought into hell beyond "It's bad, m'kay?"

[Salandriagado]

No they wouldn't. The obvious correct solution is to teach them to behave in a way that you think is good, because it is good, rather than out of fear, and let the rest of it sort itself out later.

No, i obviously I teach my kids not to put their hands into a electrical outlet because if they were to do so there is a fairly good chance it will kill them. I am not leaving negative consequences out. Hell is a negative consequence of actions, much like getting arrested and jailed is a negative consequence of committing a robbery.

All of which have negative consequences that can't be avoided by later actions, and thus are fundamentally different to hell.

[Socialist Czechia]

The position isn't sinful, but, the person in that position is sinful. If we were to dissolve the Bishop of Rome because of previous popes that have committed serious sins, then we'd also have to dissolve the entire clergy for that same reason.

That position is stained by the blood of countless of innocents. You can't wash away the blood as a dirt from symbols of this office.

And that's actually the great idea. Embrace that entire Catholic church is corrupted beyond redemption and start anew: like so many other Christians did, like my Hussite ancestors, who defeated FIVE crusades sent and blessed by the abominations sitting in Rome.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"I think it was something like" is not the most reassuring thing to hear before one learns the fate of one's eternal soul.

Turns out I didn't need to email anyone

Hmm. The very language of it would seem to imply that being hell-bound is indeed the default state of humanity. Talk of "salvation" etc. You don't need to be saved if you're not in danger, and since you need to actively do something to be saved, that would seem to mean that existing does indeed mean you "deserve" Hell.

[Dylar]

I can still remember Eddy getting impaled from an antenna in Twister...*shudders*

If the picture of someone getting impaled is worse to you than the idea of eternal torment (which would probably include quite a lot of implaing) then I'd argue you really haven't put much thought into hell beyond "It's bad, m'kay?"

I'd like to argue that pictures have a more profound impact on people than descriptions or words. I mean, which do you think will scar a child more telling him that some guy cut off his own foot in the movie Saw or showing him the scene in the movie?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If the picture of someone getting impaled is worse to you than the idea of eternal torment (which would probably include quite a lot of implaing) then I'd argue you really haven't put much thought into hell beyond "It's bad, m'kay?"

I'd like to argue that pictures have a more profound impact on people than descriptions or words. I mean, which do you think will scar a child more telling him that some guy cut off his own foot in the movie Saw or showing him the scene in the movie?

Those aren't comparable. An image of someone (not really) being mutilated isn't the same as a description of a real, horrible thing that will actually happen to you (supposedly). You could show the most beautifully directed scene from a horror film, and I won't be half as scared as if you convince me there's really an armed intruder in my home.

[Dylar]

I'd like to argue that pictures have a more profound impact on people than descriptions or words. I mean, which do you think will scar a child more telling him that some guy cut off his own foot in the movie Saw or showing him the scene in the movie?

Those aren't comparable. An image of someone (not really) being mutilated isn't the same as a description of a real, horrible thing that will actually happen to you (supposedly). You could show the most beautifully directed scene from a horror film, and I won't be half as scared as if you convince me there's really an armed intruder in my home.

So if i were to tell you about Hell, and go "Hell is a fiery place where you will be completely separated from God and tortured for all eternity." that'd be more terrifying than me showing you a picture with fire everywhere and the damned being impaled?

[The Rich Port]

If the picture of someone getting impaled is worse to you than the idea of eternal torment (which would probably include quite a lot of implaing) then I'd argue you really haven't put much thought into hell beyond "It's bad, m'kay?"

I'd like to argue that pictures have a more profound impact on people than descriptions or words. I mean, which do you think will scar a child more telling him that some guy cut off his own foot in the movie Saw or showing him the scene in the movie?

I take it you've never seen someone actually become mutilated, then.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Those aren't comparable. An image of someone (not really) being mutilated isn't the same as a description of a real, horrible thing that will actually happen to you (supposedly). You could show the most beautifully directed scene from a horror film, and I won't be half as scared as if you convince me there's really an armed intruder in my home.

So if i were to tell you about Hell, and go "Hell is a fiery place where you will be completely separated from God and tortured for all eternity." that'd be more terrifying than me showing you a picture with fire everywhere and the damned being impaled?

Not really the point*. That's "description of what will happen to you" vs "image of what will happen to you". But the argument was that fictional events on TV would be more disturbing than description of something that'll actually happen to you. Which I reckon is bullshit, because that stuff on TV is presented as fiction. When you see someone's head explode on Game of Thrones, you're not really worried that it's going to happen to you. When your priest tells you that if you keep looking at girls or whatever, you'll suffer X,Y, and Z in hell, that's something that's being presented as fact.

*Although description done right can be more harrowing than an image.

[The Rich Port]

Those aren't comparable. An image of someone (not really) being mutilated isn't the same as a description of a real, horrible thing that will actually happen to you (supposedly). You could show the most beautifully directed scene from a horror film, and I won't be half as scared as if you convince me there's really an armed intruder in my home.

So if i were to tell you about Hell, and go "Hell is a fiery place where you will be completely separated from God and tortured for all eternity." that'd be more terrifying than me showing you a picture with fire everywhere and the damned being impaled?

I think the issue here is that you have a poor imagination.