When kids bring God to dinner
COLUMN BY MARY ELLEN SIKES
Humanist Network News
May 4, 2005
"What's that Communion thing Grandma does at church?"
It's one of those zingers kids like to hit you with at the dinner table, usually while you're focused on someone else's spilled milk, or the smoke suddenly billowing out of the oven. And as mealtime zingers go, I guess it could be worse. (Take "My snake just escaped!" -- for example.)
For humanist parents, zingers involving religion -- and especially those involving religion and relatives -- are rife with both opportunity and risk. The wide-open potential of such a moment is undeniable: without even trying, here you've got an opening to discuss not only the extended family's religious beliefs, but the reasons you don't share them. To a humanist parent, this is something like going to McDonald's and discovering prime rib on the menu. But let's face it -- with careless handling, even prime rib will cause food poisoning. If your extended family is really religious, like mine, dealing with a zinger thoughtlessly now could turn the next family reunion into one giant Unhappy Meal -- the kind that generates belches for years to come.
If religion dominates the present and children are the future, the fateful intersection of religion with childrearing might be one of the most important topics today. Scientist Richard Dawkins himself takes it on in his April 28 article for Salon, [See: The atheist (story by Salon.com, April 28, 2005).] He criticizes parents who give their kids religious labels like Catholic or Muslim, noting, "We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion."
(Section deleted by me)
I do agree with him, though, about the harm of molding children to conform to the expectations of an inherited faith....
(Section deleted by me)
But some might also ask if we're kidding ourselves. Don't we freethinkers also give our kids ideas about "the cosmos, life, and morality" when faced with a zinger like the one above? Are we, too, guilty of labeling our kids?
I certainly hope we are raising our children to know about our values -- and without apology! -- but I do think there's an important difference between religious parenting and what most humanists practice. The goal of religious parenting is to raise a child to follow the family faith, using authority and revelation as resources. The goal of humanist parenting is to raise a child to craft her own lifestance, using reason and free inquiry as her resources. One assigns the child's religious identity; the other expects him to develop it himself.
As a Catholic child (and therefore a victim of "label abuse," according to Dawkins), I received plenty of instruction on what to think about the universe and my place in it. Whatever questioning occurred did so within strict boundaries involving church authority and the presumption of a supernatural realm (both strictly outside the limits of scrutiny). My husband was raised in a similar way by Southern Baptists.
For our own children, however, authority and faith were simply not reference points. As humanist parents, my husband and I gave objective, common-sense justifications for the ideas we offered our kids. We were careful to distinguish fact from opinion. And we tended to describe rather than endorse -- even when presenting thoughts we do endorse for ourselves, personally. "Some people believe..." and "We think..." were phrases our children heard frequently.
In this way, we did not raise "atheist children," even though both have, indeed, become nonreligious adults. We raised children who were exposed to the ideas of their atheist parents -- ideas they were free to challenge, accept or reject. We raised children who were also given information about others' beliefs and opinions, as appropriate. This would please Dawkins, I think; it turns out he is just as hard on parents who label children "atheist." I have a feeling most humanist parents would earn his approval on this score.
I started with a dining room zinger involving children, extended family, and religion. It seems only fair to invite you back to the table for the ending.
"Communion is a Christian ritual," began my answer to our daughter's question. For Protestants, I added, the Communion wafer symbolizes Christ's body sacrificed on the cross. At 10, our daughter knew the Jesus story.
"But for Catholics like Grandma," I continued in what I hoped was a neutral tone, "Communion is the most important part of their faith. It's not just a symbol: they believe the priest changes the bread into Christ's actual body during the Mass, and the wine into his blood. During Communion, people go up to the altar to eat and drink the body and blood of Jesus."
She put down her fork and stared at me in disbelief. "No way!" she said.
Really, I assured her. It's what Catholics believe. It's what I was taught to believe when I was young.
She went back to her food, quietly eating. I wondered if the discussion might be over, or if I'd somehow blown it. This was her grandmother we were talking about, after all (even though I was pretty sure my explanation and Grandma's would have been 99 percent the same). Our daughter was deep in thought.
After a few minutes she looked up from her food. "Why don't they just do a science test and find out if it's true?" she asked.
On some nights, there's just no end to the zingers a kid can throw at you during dinner.
Mary Ellen Sikes is the Associate Director and Web Analyst for the Institute for Humanist Studies.
Editor's Note: For more information on humanist parenting, click the "Parenting" tab in the left-hand sidebar that appears on every page of the Institute for Humanist Studies website, or visit: http://www.HumanistStudies.org/parenting
The Institute for Humanist Studies encourages readers of Humanist Network News to forward articles freely, including to list-serves. Please read our terms of use, however, before republishing anything contained in HNN. http://www.humaniststudies.org/terms.html
14 comments:
Labels are a part of life...you can't escape them and they are not always bad. You can call your child Catholic the same way you say they're Caucasian, a Kansan, or an Indian (mascot for your school). They are all just categories to describe things the child is a part of. It doesn't mean that the child can never join another faith, move out of Kansas, or go to another school. Although I'm assuming they will always be white...Parent who raise their child Catholic, any other religion, or atheist are not doing them a disservice. They are laying a foundation based on their belief system that they want to instill in their child. The same way we tell our children not to hit their peers. That is a value judgement but you would be hard pressed to find a parent that would tell their child, "some people" don't believe in hitting but other may consider it a valid way to get your point across..you decide." Children will learn about all the other options out there..no parent can avoid that, and it is the parent's job, moral obligation, and right to teach their children their values so that the child has a point of reference when they come across other options. Kay
I am a believer in choice and free will. We've all been taught that God wants us to have free will. But you (collective you) are talking about giving free choice to a child who does not have the mental capacity to fully understand any of those choices. If the individual in that writing wants to talk about child abuse, then let us consider that as abuse..giving a child more choices than they can understand or possibly reason with. If I would not let my child choose whether or not they want to have a cookie for dinner as opposed to a balanced meal, why in the world would I give my child a choice about religion...what sort of a terrible parent truly believes that is the way to accurately raise a child...it's mind boggling. And I realize that the article is saying, just let them know that other people believe different things but again, why on earth would a parent fill a child's mind with the numerous religious choices out there when that child is not capable of reasoning through those choices. That is confusing and overwhelming and I cannot fathom how that could actually be helpful to a child trying to understand religion. Do you really think children don't know that there are other beliefs out there? I knew and I was little miss perfect Catholic when I was a kid. And then I got older and I started to exercise my free will and I changed my rigid ideas about faith as I saw fit. But as a child, I couldn't possible have made those decisions. It's not realistic. Kay
Where did it say that the children were making that choice AS children. I thought it said that the parents were raising their children WITHOUT religion (not without morals) were giving them that choice later in life as adults, rather than saying here's what we believe and you have to believe it too because that's what we decided. And the mother writing this article was quoting someone else who said labeling a child was abuse. Just because labels are a part of life doesn't make it right - I know that there are many Native Americans who find mascots like the Indians offensive. And being a Kansas or a Caucasian isn't a choice - it's something people are born being - born in KS, raised in KS, so you're a Kansas...born white, you're white. But faith is a choice parents make FOR their children when they're children. I think it's valid for parents to say these are our values. But values are different from religion. One may go along with the other - ie, we get some of our values from our religion; but not all people have a religion - does that mean they don't have values that correspond with values that a person who has a certain religion also holds?
"I certainly hope we are raising our children to know about our values -- and without apology! -- but I do think there's an important difference between religious parenting and what most humanists practice. The goal of religious parenting is to raise a child to follow the family faith, using authority and revelation as resources. The goal of humanist parenting is to raise a child to craft her own lifestance, using reason and free inquiry as her resources. One assigns the child's religious identity; the other expects him to develop it himself."
How does that mean they're raising a child of completely free choice?
And asking, how can a parent fill a child's mind with the the numerous religious choices out there when the child is not capable of reasoning those choices - children gain the ability to reason things through. Parents are supposed to help teach their children this, it's a process not a magic step - but waiting until the magic age of adulthood is just as insane to me. Kids know there are different beliefs and learning about those beliefs is a good thing - so how is that confusing and overwhelming. If you knew about other religions as a kid was that overwhelming and confusing? They're not making their children CHOOSE any religion at all. They're teaching them how to reason things through, about all religions and what those religions consist of, and then waiting for them - as adults! - to choose a religion or not to choose a religion.
How is a religious choice free will if that's the one thing you were taught all your life? Your religious views may have changed as you grew and reasoned things out, but did your religion itself actually change. Did you find another religion that fit your views better? No. You're still Catholic and proud to be one. I'm not saying you shouldn't be or that you shouldn't raise your kids to see your beliefs - but they're not a child's beliefs, because children are born without any. It's only parents who say, ok, you're Catholic and then turn them into Catholics by teaching only Catholic religious practices. These particular parents didn't teach ANY religious practices and let their kids grow up and THEN choose. But the article said nothing about making their young children CHOOSE a religion based on all the information they gave them.
And parents often DO say, in action, that some people believe in hitting and others don't - look at all the parents who think spanking or even using a belt or something for discipline is ok and others who don't! You can say that: I don't believe in spanking; I don't think it's a valid way to get my point across - but some parents DO.
Religion isn't values. They just happen to intersect sometimes. People who are atheists don't go out and murder people, even though they don't have religion to tell them not to.
Well I definitely don't agree with the Dawkins quote that making your children identify with a particular religion is abuse (and I don't think the author actually does either). That's a little extreme. And his other point is moot too---children do often have the same political beliefs as their parents. I think the only harm comes from later in life when they might change their mind and parents can't except that. But kids often have to conform to their parents rituals, whether they are religious or not, because that's just how life is for kids.
I also think kids are a lot smarter than some adults give them credit for. They are perfectly capable of deep thought, and I don't see a problem with encouraging this, and teaching them about all sorts of different belief systems. I agree that people don't need to be religious to have morals and standards.
So basically I am somewhere in the middle. I don't think raising kids with religon or without religion is harmful. As long as parents love them and and accept them for who they are and who they become.
I actually agree that it is the parent's job to teach their kids about their values and give the child a point of reference. But I DON'T agree with consigning all values to religion. I'm just going to use myself as an example; I was raised Catholic, as everyone knows. I went to church. But I wouldn't argue that my values came from my religion - my values came from my parents, from my school, from my friends, from my community. In my case, Catholics made up the community, pretty much. As I got older, I started questioning whether the values of the church were really in line with MY values: is divorce really a mortal sin? Is premarital sex a mortal sin? Is it even all that bad? What about people who weren't Catholic? I can still remember my parents yanking Jackie out of religion class because the teacher told her that anyone NOT Catholic was going to hell. And that didn't conform to our values - our values went AGAINST the church.
Values are not religion. I think the author was arguing not so much that you being a particular religion and even letting your child have an exposure to that religion was bad - it's forcing YOUR label of religion onto that child. You don't force them to CHOOSE the religion, they eventually reason through everything and possibly choose a religion later, after you've taught them your values, and your beliefs, AND the other options.
You did notice, I hope, that the mother didn't tell her daughter, in response to her question about communion, that her grandmother was a nutjob who believed in cannibalism. She just said that SOME people believe that communion is this and others believe that. I don't see how explaining the beliefs of others is overwhelming or confusing - you explain the beliefs of others all the time, even if you belong to a certain religion. And HOW you explain the beliefs of others might depend on that religion -or it might depend on your values.
Yes, I agree that forcing them--either way--is bad. But, and I am sure you agree, just teaching your kids about your belief system and even making them go to church when they are younger is fine. If they get older and decide that they no longer believe the same as their parents, I also think it is important for parents to accept that.
Same with non-religious parents. If their kids decide one day that they would like to belong to a particular religion (as long as it isn't like a cult or something), those parents should also accept it. And I thought the author of the article handled her situation well.
I would think it'd be hard either way - but possibly harder for religious parents. After all, many believe that if their kid isn't a Christian, they'll go to hell. Humanists don't have to worry about that.
But my entire point is that raising your children as a certain religion or as an atheist if that is what you are, is not a bad thing, in my opinion. Parents do have the right to force their child to go to church just like they can force them to go to the grocery store even though the child would rather stay home playing video games but mom really needs to shop. In fact I think it's a parents RESPONSIBILITY to teach their child whatever faith they believe in b/c I'm assuming that if they believe in that faith, they think it's a pretty good thing. Again, we're arguing from two different viewpoints, which makes this argument hard. I believe that a parent must teach their child about their faith b/c to not do so would be gravely inappropriate (I.E. Catholics believe that you have a duty to spread the word and while I would never go up to a stranger on the street preaching about catholicism, I will most certaintly teach my children). And you are coming from a more atheist viewpoint in terms of people don't have that duty to spread the word and in fact spreading it is forcing your beliefs on someone else. So this argument will never be resolved. But my basic feeling is that I teach my children morals and values and those things, to me, are encapsulated in my religion. yes, you can have morals and values without religion. I would never argue against that. But for me religion is a perfect way to ensure that you have external reinforcement and motivation to follow those morals and values and I want my children to have the religious foundation I had so they can make good choices. I would truly feel I was not doing my job as a parent if I did not give them that. Just like I make them go to school and socialize and join extracurricular activities, etc. Religion, to me, is another necessity of life. They are allowed to question and wonder. But as long as they are still minors under my care, they have to participate...In any religion or other group you will have some who stay and some who leave..but that doesn't mean that you don't make a child particiapte just b/c someday they may decide to stop going and join another group. That reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Kay
I think maybe I agree with everything you say - but participate is not belief. Maybe you're just different from other Catholics, or other religious people, or maybe you're meaning something different. But I distinguish between participate, like making your kids go to church and seeing your religion, and MAKING your children into a part of that religion before they're ready to really decide. I can kind of understand up to a point, but what really bothers me isn't so much that parents might make their kids go to church or even Sunday School, but that if their kids say, I don't think this is true or I want to go to another church, parents freak out and squelch that. I'm not saying kids should just decide automatically, or that they should necessarily get whatever they want here - it's more that telling your kids that one religion is the truth for almost twenty years and then saying ok, well, it's the truth but go out and see the numerous choices, and if you don't become stay a Catholic you'll break my heart (even just unconsciously, cause kids know these things) than they're not prepared to make honest choices about their beliefs.
I don't think taking your kids to church or letting them see what your religion is - just don't force that religion ON them. You can tell them your values come from this religion, or not if that's the case, and you do have the right to teach them what you think is good about the religion. But making them choose that religion before they're even ready to choose - by say, infant baptism or communion - that's saying we want you to be this religion.
Do I make sense here?
Ok, and yes, you probably do want them to be that religion. But making that the be all- end all of your values/moral system means they don't really HAVE the ability to really think things through and weigh everything. I'm not saying they won't eventually or that college won't help...but by laying that foundation of, this is what we are and it's the only way you can be, when you're an adult you can decide...how many are really going to say I'm leaving the church or I am going to this church now (or even no church at all) and be able to do this without fear of hurting their parents and worrying them immensely because of what their parent believe, and how many are going to just stay in the church, regardless of how many times they go to church or what they think about the teachings and doctrine.
I feel like I'm only dancing around what I'm trying to say but can't find the words.
If it makes you feel any better, I read about some study a while ago, and it said almost half of adults had changed their religion.
Post a Comment