religious peer pressure on kids

[talltrees]

re: religious peer pressure

The only thing wrong with Christianity is that nobody's tried it yet.

Seriously, the best option for spiritual exposure in a non-creedal, nonthreatening way might be the Unitarian Universalist church, as noted by several others.

The website is www.uua.org

Peace

 

[FUEGO]

To ER_Hopeful,

DW and I are nominally Buddhist and atheist, respectively. I'm devoutly atheist, DW is just nominally buddhist. Our kids (age 3 and 5) have been raised fairly religion free so far. They get a little buddhist mish mash from the in laws I think, mixed in with spiritual animism and non-buddhist superstition (and american branded belief in ghosts, monsters, etc).

I'd say make them informed. Put your spin on it if you like, but present other religions in an age appropriate, understandable and objective manner. You can explain to your children your beliefs, and tell them why you feel that way. Explain to them the thought processes that lead to your particular conclusions.

One book that I found helpful as a parent facing these issues is "Parenting beyond Belief" by Dale McGowan. It provides suggestions on ways to cope with the influences of religion, and how to deal with issues that religion has traditionally dealt with (holidays, death, birth, rituals, etc). Pretty quick and easy read. For a while I was a member of a parenting group by the same name (Parenting beyond belief). It was a very welcoming group. Maybe find something local?

Some acquiesce to a religion to "fit in". Probably more folks like that than care to admit if they were honest with themselves. It's the easy way.

Let's face it - religion is comforting, it's sexy, it is appealing. I think even atheists would agree the idea of an eternal after life is beautiful. The idea that I can see my long departed friends and family sounds pretty sweet. Unfortunately to my rational mind and my evaluation of what I can see and understand, I just don't think this eternal after life is out there. Now clearly, I am human and I can be wrong. But my thoughts on the "what if you are wrong" question is that if God exists, and he knowingly created me with this brain of mine which I use to think, and these rational skills to analyze and observe, and I just don't see Heaven, God, etc as something that is even remotely likely to exist, surely he's benevolent enough to welcome me into the fold upon my passing. That's my gamble with respect to Pascal's Wager.

Take a look at the ten commandments. A little over half are pretty solid rules to follow in life. Honor your family (I'll add "if they deserve it"). Don't murder, commit adultery, or steal. Regarding others (ie "your neighbor") - don't bear false witness against him, and don't covet his wife or his $hit. Aaaand done. I think most of us can all agree these are some decent rules of thumb.

All that crap about only 1 god, don't use the name of god in vane, respect the sabbath, no idols, etc - hey, if it helps you live the good life, go for it! To me it just sounds like a cult. Maybe that's going to send me downstairs instead of upstairs when I die, but that is a risk I am willing to take.

 

[Bimmerbill]

Sounds like a great opportunity to take her to several local area churches and try them out. Then you could do a daddy/daughter lunch afterwards and discuss stuff. Good bonding. Nothing wrong with trying new things and saying "I don't believe in it, but some do. What do you think?"

 

[MuirWannabe]

Oh brother. This is so serious. We must all protect our children from those crazy whacko spiritual people who believe in God. It could be the greatest threat to your children IN OUR LIFETIME.

Spare me. You're the parent. If you don't want her to attend church then prevent it. When she is an adult then she may choose her own path whatever that may be.

 

[Brat]

MuirWannabe, that is not at all what Er_hopeful said or implied. He has no issue with church attendance but he is concerned that others would imply that his 7-year old child would be threatened with damnation in school. That is not spiritual behavior nor what I think Christ would want to be done in his name.

I do think it is important that parents teach children about spiritual beliefs at an age appropriate level.

IMHO,the classmate, or their spitural advisor, who spoke that way is a bully cloaked in religiosity.

 

[MuirWannabe]

Things are said all the time in school and everywhere. If she was hearing in school that there is no such thing as heaven and all we are is worm food would the grave concern also be there? Pun intended BTW.

 

[FUEGO]

Things are said all the time in school and everywhere. If she was hearing in school that there is no such thing as heaven and all we are is worm food would the grave concern also be there? Pun intended BTW.

That's a deep question - is the fear of absence of eternal bliss in heaven worse than the fear of burning in eternal hell fire ? Which is more damaging to the psyche of a child? I know which one would scare my children more.

 

[Martha]

Odds are Er_Hopeful is in what I call a churched community, the message to the child is coming from more than one direction. Meeting with the parents won't stop the message if that is the case. Young children should not be expected to deal with this stuff and if you are in a churched community your family will be expected to be affiliated and attend religious services. It's not right, but it is what it is.

There are some Protestant denominations that recruit like crazy and teach that if you don't subscribe to their beliefs you will not be "saved".

I see your choices: Move to another community without this culture; meet with the school administrator and tell them you want this to stop (potentially making your child an issue - which she won't appreciate), find a religious group of YOUR choosing and take her to services (she shouldn't go alone as you need to help her put the experience in context).

That was my family issue. There is a big difference between schools with a wide variety of beliefs among the students and a school and town where everyone professes the same beliefs and if you don't fit you can be treated very poorly. I would have been much happier as a child if we had moved or at least home schooled.

I hope this is not the situation in the OP's case. If it is I would move.

(Leo, atheism is not a "belief," see http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/where-is-the-bible-belt-exactly-44714-3.html#post826397, as I do not want to derail this thread).

 

[ziggy29]

(after all, isn't atheism just the belief that God doesn't exist?).

It would seem that way to me, but that's a time-tested way to get into a flame war with an atheist. It seems to me that without this distinction -- active belief in nonexistence -- there's no difference between atheism and agnosticism. I've never really had an explanation of "atheism is not a belief" that convinced me, unless someone wants to claim atheism and agnosticism are one and the same.

 

[MuirWannabe]

That's a deep question - is the fear of absence of eternal bliss in heaven worse than the fear of burning in eternal hell fire ? Which is more damaging to the psyche of a child? I know which one would scare my children more.

I would say both concerns have my proper respect.

 

[ziggy29]

That's a deep question - is the fear of absence of eternal bliss in heaven worse than the fear of burning in eternal hell fire ? Which is more damaging to the psyche of a child? I know which one would scare my children more.

I think most mainline, non-fundamentalist churches and preachers emphasize heaven MUCH more than hell. Yes, there are references to hell but by and large the message is carrots, not sticks, with many mainline and moderate congregations.

 

[Martha]

It would seem that way to me, but that's a time-tested way to get into a flame war with an atheist. It seems to me that without this distinction -- active belief in nonexistence -- there's no difference between atheism and agnosticism. I've never really had an explanation of "atheism is not a belief" that convinced me, unless someone wants to claim atheism and agnosticism are one and the same.

No need for us to flame each other at all--it is good for people to understand each other's point of view. I linked above to a post I made before on this issue and what I view as the differences between atheists and agnostics. I'll reproduce it here:

An atheist doesn't take on faith that there is no life after death. The absence of a belief isn't a belief. It is nothing. Instead, the approach is that there is no evidence of life after death. If there was evidence the atheist would change his mind. The problem is partly with the word atheist. It implies an affirmative position when none is needed. That said, the atheist may chose to draw some conclusions as to likelihood of certain specific religious beliefs. The atheist may examine biblical or other religious texts that discuss God and how the world was made and conclude that these stories are inconsistent with the evidence on how the world works and maybe even inconsistent with their own morality. (Why are religions so exclusionary and what may happen to you after death be an accident of your birth?). After examining the evidence, the atheist may go so far as to say that it is unlikely you have a separate self or consciousness apart from your physical self. The atheist would say that it is unlikely there is a god, at least as god is described in religious literature, as we would have to stretch science way out of proportion to make science consistent with religious writings. Based on analysis of evidence and his own ethics, the atheist decides there is no need to spend any more time on the matter.

In contrast, I think that an agnostic is one that either says it is impossible to know (which is an affirmative belief) or that the subject does not interest him enough to think it through thoroughly and draw a conclusion based on the current evidence, or deep down inside he wishes he had faith that some people just seem to have.

What bothers me is when the religious triy to modify science to fit their religious faith. At least the Dalai Lama says that if a religious belief conflicts with science, the belief must give way.

Most atheists do not define themselves by the absence of belief, but on how they approach the world. Maybe they are scientists who see the utility of the scientific method for figuring out how the world and people work. Maybe they are also secular humanists for whom rationality and doing good are of prime importance. And yes, some atheists are angry atheists like some deists are angry as well. It is hard to be part of a small minority, to know that many people think that there is something wrong with you, that you could fix that wrong by just believing. But you cannot just manufacture faith.

Now sometimes religious people say that the atheists' religion is the scientific method, but I think is a non-sequitur. The only reason that I rely on science is that it works. It is replicable. It is a process that gives helpful answers and through time it has built on itself. It isn't a matter of faith that the atheist relies on science, it is a matter of what works best to make the world understandable. Does it work best to carbon date a bone as being millions of years old or to rely on a biblical analysis that the world is 6000 years old? Does it work best to say that life developed through evolution, based upon what we know about genetics and what we find in fossil records, or does it work best to rely on one of many creation stories as literally true?

I hope this does not come across as confrontational, but given how few admitted atheists there are in the US it is good to share where they might be coming from.

 

[FUEGO]

I hope this does not come across as confrontational, but given how few admitted atheists there are in the US it is good to share where they might be coming from.

Thanks, very eloquently stated. Flame away now folks!

 

[FUEGO]

I think most mainline, non-fundamentalist churches and preachers emphasize heaven MUCH more than hell. Yes, there are references to hell but by and large the message is carrots, not sticks, with many mainline and moderate congregations.

It's kind of hard to sugar coat hell. Probably doesn't fill many pews either if you're always dwelling on it. Unfortunately reducing emphasis on hell doesn't remove it from the "good" book. Just my cynical $0.02. Hell seems to be a very scary place, and if it existed, I would hate for tales of hell to fill my impressionable children's heads. There's enough to be scared of in this world (earthquakes, terrorists, car crashes, and war to name a few vivid examples we have seen in the news recently).

 

[ziggy29]

What bothers me is when the religious triy to modify science to fit their religious faith. At least the Dalai Lama says that if a religious belief conflicts with science, the belief must give way.

I think some of this depends on the degree to which one takes every word of Scripture as absolutely literally true. Yet some scholars have opined that maybe some of the works are written more like an allegory or a parable (or a "fable") to illustrate how folks should strive to live.

For example, take the book of Jonah. Some pretty heavy-hitting scholars think this may not have been an actual historical event, but rather an instructive tale about obeying God. (For those who aren't familiar with the story, Jonah doesn't obey God's command, God puts wrath on Jonah which includes winding up in the belly of a big fish, and then God's grace allows the fish to expel Jonah and give Jonah a second chance to comply after seeing what God could do.) In reality, the message is more important than the specifics.

The story of Noah and the flood, also some believe, a parable about God's wrath on wickedness. (But why did Noah have to take mosquitoes?)

And then there are the absolute literalists who think the world is 6,000 years old. Is it really clear in Genesis 1 that the reference to a "day" really means the current equivalent of 24 Earth hours? Are we to believe that God had no "poetic license" in providing the inspiration for the scribes to write these accounts? If so, science renders that absurd unless you believe God set up science to contradict Scripture as a test of belief (personally I don't believe that). And starting with "let there be light" (the Big Bang?), the general evolution (yes, I intentionally chose that word) and sequence of developments in subsequent "days" -- cooling of the earth, development of plants and then animals and then humanity -- is fairly similar to what we've discovered about the earth's first few billion years. That was pretty impressive for a people some 3,000 years ago who recorded this stuff before science really had any of those answers. These aren't problematic contradictions unless -- again -- you take every single word of text literally and assume no errors in translation along the way from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

I don't intend to persuade anyone here (or recruit or whatever), but in reality I think belief in the Bible only breaks down into a series of serious, intractable contradictions with science if you think every single literary reference is intended to read as historical fact. Just as Shakespeare wrote tragedies and comedies as well as histories, who's to say that every book in the Bible (or every chapter of a book) is history? There are other ways to get the Word of God out than simply citing historical events.

Some literalists and fundamentalists would have me stoned as a heretic, but that's how I see it. Maybe it's an excuse, but it's much easier to reconcile science and religion by allowing that possibility -- that some of the divinely inspired works were intended to send a story with a message rather than simply record history.

(Anyway, I have to be off to prepare for tonight's Lenten services, especially since we have choir practice in less than an hour. )

 

[HsiaoChu]

This has turned into a fairly even tempered religious discussion and that's OK.

But the original topic was about a parent who was concerned for the situation of his/her small child who was exposed to very strong adult views on religion in the form of statements by peers, that apparently s/he hadn't prepared the child for.

We really can't help other than the great suggestions made. I wonder if it might be possible to go back to a little bit of discussion on the real point here---- on the view point of the kid, and perhaps how kids might feel when these things happen? I do remember how when these things happened to me adults seemed to be clueless that I would be scared, or maybe they just didn't care.

Z
(I'm a professional counselor who in my soon ending long career have had to help many more than one child blown away exactly by adult issues like this presented vehemently by children his or her age.)

 

[Texas Proud]

I was brought up a bit different than most others I have met...

I went to church almost every week from when I was young until I would say 12 or 13... my father was going until I was about 6 and people in the church bad mouthed him because he was not giving 'enough' even though he had 6 kids and did not make much money...

I felt like most of the people in church were hypocrites... they did not 'live' like Christians. Some of the deacons (or whatever they were called in our church) were arrested for running a prostitution ring..

One discussion I had with a girl that I liked was kind of like... 'have you been baptised?'... "No"... 'oh, you are damned than'... "Why?" 'because you have not been baptised!'.... "but I lead a Christian life"... 'it does not matter, you are damned'.. "so, if someone has been baptised, but is a mass murder and asked for forgivness just before they die, he is fine?"... 'yes', "but someone who has lead a Christain life, who had not done anything bad in life is damned because he has not been baptised?"... 'yes'... "then I guess I don't believe in your God if the rules are set up like this...." She decided that we could be friends, but that was it since I was damned.....

To the original poster... I would point out that the child who is saying this does not know what they are talking about... they are saying things out of context. But I would probably take them to church a few times so they can make a decision on their own what they want to think. But peer pressure can be very strong. Do not ignore it or she just might do other things because of peer pressure.

 

[haha]

This has turned into a fairly even tempered religious discussion and that's OK.

But the original topic was about a parent who was concerned for the situation of his/her small child who was exposed to very strong adult views on religion in the form of statements by peers, that apparently s/he hadn't prepared the child for.

We really can't help other than the great suggestions made. I wonder if it might be possible to go back to a little bit of discussion on the real point here---- on the view point of the kid, and perhaps how kids might feel when these things happen? I do remember how when these things happened to me adults seemed to be clueless that I would be scared, or maybe they just didn't care.

Z
(I'm a professional counselor who in my soon ending long career have had to help many more than one child blown away exactly by adult issues like this presented vehemently by children his or her age.)

I agree with this POV. Adults often do not take the time or they lack the ability to see things from the child's perspective. Children are not just miniature adults. Their whole world is experienced differently from the way an adult sees the world. Children need to be protected, and it is the job of their parents to do this.

Ha

 

[Martha]

I think some of this depends on the degree to which one takes every word of Scripture as absolutely literally true. Yet some scholars have opined that maybe some of the works are written more like an allegory or a parable (or a "fable") to illustrate how folks should strive to live.

For example, take the book of Jonah. Some pretty heavy-hitting scholars think this may not have been an actual historical event, but rather an instructive tale about obeying God. (For those who aren't familiar with the story, Jonah doesn't obey God's command, God puts wrath on Jonah which includes winding up in the belly of a big fish, and then God's grace allows the fish to expel Jonah and give Jonah a second chance to comply after seeing what God could do.) In reality, the message is more important than the specifics.

The story of Noah and the flood, also some believe, a parable about God's wrath on wickedness. (But why did Noah have to take mosquitoes?)

And then there are the absolute literalists who think the world is 6,000 years old. Is it really clear in Genesis 1 that the reference to a "day" really means the current equivalent of 24 Earth hours? Are we to believe that God had no "poetic license" in providing the inspiration for the scribes to write these accounts? If so, science renders that absurd unless you believe God set up science to contradict Scripture as a test of belief (personally I don't believe that). And starting with "let there be light" (the Big Bang?), the general evolution (yes, I intentionally chose that word) and sequence of developments in subsequent "days" -- cooling of the earth, development of plants and then animals and then humanity -- is fairly similar to what we've discovered about the earth's first few billion years. That was pretty impressive for a people some 3,000 years ago who recorded this stuff before science really had any of those answers. These aren't problematic contradictions unless -- again -- you take every single word of text literally and assume no errors in translation along the way from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

I don't intend to persuade anyone here (or recruit or whatever), but in reality I think belief in the Bible only breaks down into a series of serious, intractable contradictions with science if you think every single literary reference is intended to read as historical fact. Just as Shakespeare wrote tragedies and comedies as well as histories, who's to say that every book in the Bible (or every chapter of a book) is history? There are other ways to get the Word of God out than simply citing historical events.

Some literalists and fundamentalists would have me stoned as a heretic, but that's how I see it. Maybe it's an excuse, but it's much easier to reconcile science and religion by allowing that possibility -- that some of the divinely inspired works were intended to send a story with a message rather than simply record history.

(Anyway, I have to be off to prepare for tonight's Lenten services, especially since we have choir practice in less than an hour. )

Enjoy choir practice! Christians of whatever stripe have some really nice music.

I understand and appreciate the substantial difference between literalism and those who take more of an allegorical viewpoint of religious texts.

 

[Martha]

I agree with this POV. Adults often do not take the time or they lack the ability to see things from the child's perspective. Children are not just miniature adults. Their whole world is experienced differently from the way an adult sees the world. Children need to be protected, and it is the job of theor parents to do this.

Ha

Absolutely. That is why knowing the culture of the community the OP lives in is so important.

 

[Dreamer]

I find great comfort in knowing that God is always there for me and will always be there for me. I pray to Him and can turn many of my problems over to Him. Does this mean that I will not have any problems? No, it does not. Does this mean that I will not make any mistakes or sin? No, it does not. I guess that I would be deemed to be a hypocrite by many people, because all humans sin.

I think that it is very sad that young children would instill such a fear in another young child. I think that it is also sad that that young child does not focus on our loving God. I would certainly hope that no adult was behind this fear being spread to other young children. I was fortunate that I was never exposed to this type of thing in school.

However, I can remember my own DD coming home from school and crying. One time it was because her "best" friend, who also went to our church, told her that she could not be friends with her anymore, because she was "best" friends with someone else. I am sure that this child's mother did not tell her to go to school and tell my daughter this and probably had no idea this was even going on. Kids, and it seemed especially little girls, could be very mean to each other. I had a boy and a girl and this was my experience. I can remember my DD telling me that she had to go to the counselor one time in third grade along with some other girls, because of the way that they were treating each other.

I did not dwell on talking to my children about Hell, any more than I dwelt on talking to them about murderers, terroists, molestors, etc. However, I did tell both of my children that adults could do bad things to children and that they were to tell me even if the person doing it were a preacher, boy scout leader, police officer, teacher, etc. I also stressed that this would probably never, ever happen, but if it did, they should tell me or another adult right away.

I agree with some of the others, that you should expose your daughter to religion at a place that does not scare them to death and talk to her about it. I wanted my children exposed to all aspects of life through at least reading about it, so they would not have an ignorance to it.

 

[Meadbh]

Excellent thread.

I don't have kids, but if I did, I would want them to learn about the basic beliefs of all major religions and would want them to respect people of all faiths. Presenting religious faith in a punitive way could do a great deal of damage to a child's development and self esteem. I think the ideal environment would be a diverse and supportive classroom in which a child could develop friendships with children of many faiths. Unfortunately such a place may not be easy to find in the OP's neighbourhood.

 

[MuirWannabe]

I find great comfort in knowing that God is always there for me and will always be there for me. I pray to Him and can turn many of my problems over to Him. Does this mean that I will not have any problems? No, it does not. Does this mean that I will not make any mistakes or sin? No, it does not. I guess that I would be deemed to be a hypocrite by many people, because all humans sin.

As has been said many times before. If you ever find a church without hypocrites then don't join it. Otherwise you would ruin it.

Only one perfect person ever lived.

 

[simple girl]

When I was a child I was friends with a very religious family. They took me to a service one night, and I was subjected to watching a movie depicting hell. It was very graphic (for a child to watch). I specifically remember it showing people with worms crawling into and out of their ears and eyes. I was petrified. After the movie they asked people to come up and be "saved" from all of this.

I had trouble sleeping for weeks - nightmares. I cried myself to sleep many nights and thought I must be the worst possible sinner ever. These types of things really do deeply affect children.

 

[kumquat]

Excellent thread.

I don't have kids, but if I did, I would want them to learn about the basic beliefs of all major religions and would want them to respect people of all faiths. Presenting religious faith in a punitive way could do a great deal of damage to a child's development and self esteem. I think the ideal environment would be a diverse and supportive classroom in which a child could develop friendships with children of many faiths. Unfortunately such a place may not be easy to find in the OP's neighbourhood.

You and I are Canadian. This is a bit of a non-scientific observation, but Canadians are a lot less religious and/or judgmental than our southern neighbours. I was at a business dinner in NC where the guy next to me started the conversation with "what church do you belong to". That would never happen in Canada.
I agree that you (or your kids) should have a reasonable knowledge of other peoples' religious beliefs. If not, you can hardly point out their fallacies.
I'm a bit of a cross between an agnostic and an atheist (as in, I don't know and I don't care). I do know a lot about many beliefs (originally, the better to mock them). Our kids were never subjected to any religion before their teen years. Both were caught up in it (peer pressure) during their teen years. I did share what little I knew at that time (it wasn't to encourage them). Now at 27 and 30, one (DD) is even more militantly anti-religion than I am. The other is a church-goer (I suspect, largely due to his DW). However, leave me alone and I will leave you alone. Seems to work for us.
Teaching your kids to accept other's beliefs is something any good parent should do (IMHO). Some creeds have a problem with this since their "duty" is to save the "rest". How does the poor OP handle this? That's what this thread us all about.