Is religion important when raising children to become good members of society?

I don't believe it is. Religion, for me personally, was just a basic moral code to live by in the beginning. Although each is diverse in its own set of rules and restrictions, the common theme that seems to be present is to be "caring towards others" Basically, it's just a small stepping stone that everyone seems to reinforce at an early age, like a Kindergarten teacher telling her students to be kind to one another. It's a simple concept that just seeks to be reinforced. However, as you get older, I think you should incorporate some of the other views you see in this world and add it on to this basic structure, for the basics aren't always right. For example, people at a young age are desensitized to believing that a married couple (or any couple in general) should always consist of a man and a woman. The Bible (moreso the older versions, I believe) enforce this as the only way to go about such a relationship. But, this leaves no room for the, let's say, lesbian couple down the street. What I'm trying to say is that don't focus solely on the words of religion. Encompass what you discover in the world into this scope of your beliefs, and you have the potential to turn out to be a good, well rounded person.

...badpostisbad. ;;

 

Yes, you're right. I have no problem admitting this. I've already said that I don't believe religion is necessary to teach kids stuff like this. The point is it helps. It's a good alternative to everything you just said.

 

Really, the best starting point for any child shouldn't be to get them to decide, but to encourage them to be the best they can be while learning & paying attention to as much from the society as they can (parents showing them why certain things are wrong fundamentally along the way, etc). As a child in a public school, it can work both ways. It just depends on who they decide to take from: the teachers, adults; or the other kids who might corrupt the child's thinking. If they were in a religious school I can certainly imagine them being raised to believe a certain paradigm of "just don't do X, Y and Z." However, in my experience, most of the men and women who were raised in a religious family/upbringing actually just want to be the best they can be; they turned away from seeing sins as "bad" pretty much right the time they started becoming adults. I have met some who were still considered "bad kids," but that was usually the result of issues at home (abusive parents, drinking, yelling, etc).

Some people can also just be dumb right out of the box, despite having similar opportunities and being around people of "equal" potential.

 

Makaze, I understand the point your trying to make about how morality can be taught without religion, but Religion is a tool for teaching on many levels, philosophically, spiritually, mentally and so on. The tool can not be blamed for what it's master does.
It is the teacher that is at fault if they are unable to properly teach using religion as a proper tool. Time and time again I have to tell people that since any religion's origins, people have altered the very words that it once stood for. For example in Christianity, the voice of Jesus Christ has been changed over 2000 years of time, translated many times from many sources, in over 150 countries and through over billions of people. You think that after that period of time and people the original image of Jesus or God is still pure as the days they were uttered? I highly doubt. As such by the time it gets to us, the current generation, we haven't got a clear picture on moral teachings. It's why we have so many forms of religion and sub-religions, because so many people have constructed thief own views and advertised it to the world as truth and word.

As such it really depends on how you see religion and how you use it to it's fullist potential that defines whether it is an effective way to teach morals. So I neither support or deny religion, as long as it's used effectively and for the right purposes then I accept it fully.

 

I would agree that many people grow up to be fine in a religious setting, but you could argue that people in nearly any setting will grow up to be generally good people. I feel that self-righteousness is the worst thing that you can nurture in a person, and religion is probably the most common tool to that end.

In which case being a good member of society is a useless notion in its entirety. You have to be able to make ethical choices to be a good person.

The tool does not exist without its masters. It is a concept in the masters' minds. The point is moot when the masters are not there to teach it. In that case, let us say that religion is as master does.

If the original is not used and cannot be used, then what we have now is what the question is asking about. Today's religions may not be the same religions, but they are religions all the same. Let us continue to focus on the question using religion in general.

The most efficient tool is the best one to use. Religion may be effective on some level, but so is any other method. It does more harm than many other methods, even if it works. Therefore it is not needed, and we could easily do without it. In fact, we would do better without it; there would be fewer self-righteous people around. See my other arguments against it for more.

 

I would agree as well. It just happens to be that in a religious setting it is more likely the people growing up become more moral and "good" members of society. The religion notions of "being moral" or "good" seep not only from those religious teachings, but society dictates the direction the morality goes (what is socially acceptable in the US vs. India, etc). And if they're devout enough, it magnifies even more.

I agree that religion shouldn't have the face of having "good" members of society, but you can't be upset either. It's certainly not a surprise; it's more organized than atheistic notions of morality, which is essentially "be nice" and "don't litter." That doesn't make it worse, but it does make it less reliable.

.... lmfao

 

While I would be tempted to say fair enough, religions change with social standards more than social standards change with religion. Consider how far Christianity has come from stoning people. Has the religion changed and so changed society? Not so much. At some point, such as now, it should become obvious that the more devout you are, the more hateful you are when compared to your non-devout contemporaries. The more violent; the more war-mongering.

Can't be upset by what? I am not sure what you mean here. The problem may be one of ends versus means. A society of people who do good because they are told that it is good is useless, because the very reason for making them good is based on having a true morality that one has created for one's self. Let me explain this more clearly.

If you have a group of people that all defined a morality based on simple ethics, then all would both be good and understand what good means. Therefore, a good group of people would exist. Not only would you have a group of good people, but the word good would mean something because enough people understood it to make it worth something. Someone who defines both good and bad and chooses good without prodding is truly good. This is the ideal situation.

If you have a group of people that are all taught a morality, probably based on fear, then all would be good but none would understand what good means, or even what the value of being good is, or how it feels. Therefore, a good group could not exist. Good would be borrowed, or driven into them based on fear; the word good would mean nothing to them, and so good would mean nothing at all. At best, only the one who taught them the morality could truly understand what good meant and appreciate the work that they had done.

Efficiency is irrelevant here because no matter how many people are taught that something is good, that number does not make it any more good than it really is. If the people do not decide and judge what is good for themselves, then good would be whatever was taught to them. Who decides what is taught to them and whether or not it is truly good in this case? The leaders of the church? The writers of the law? Either way, the people cannot be called good because they did not define good. Their teachers did. So, only their teacher can be good. How can you argue efficiency if so few of those in the religious morality model are truly good? Doesn't the first one turn out more good people by this standard? I think so. Let me summarize again.

Spoiler

Group A (20 Individuals) (Questioning of all standards; religion-free)

Self-taught ethical people
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I

Unethical people
I I I

Group B (20 Individuals) (Religion; faith/fear based moral conditioning)

Moral leaders/conditioners
I I

Morally conditioned people
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I

Unethical people
I I I I

I allowed for more unethical factors in the second group because some people would be turned off by the religious approach alone while I cannot think of a way for the other to backfire in a similar way. The number of green or morally aware people in the first example is far higher because each of them will have just as broad a view as the two leaders in the second one, or at the very least will be able to have one. This is what I meant by my paragraph above.

No, honestly. Morality is the privilege of the truly strong, and all of that. The only reason why we even consider morality or, more likely, disregard most of it with animals and other people is because we think ourselves more intelligent, educated, or generally "civilized" than we were before as children, animals or peoples past. If you are seriously impeded in your faculties from grasping these things, specifically morality, then you become the same as animals that cannot do the same. A dog, for instance; the only guilt that it feels is something that is put into it by fear. And it has no real morals. The only things that it feels bad about are the things that it is punished for. If your emotional and intellectual level is that of a dog or close, then you cannot be said to be good even if you are trained to not do good things. A dog may be called a good dog if it does what it is trained to do, but then it is not good at all. Saying that it is is essentially the same as saying that a program did a good job with its execution. It may be more useful, but it did not make an ethical choice on the matter. If someone is literally incapable of going beyond that, then they have no hope of becoming a good or morally worthwhile person. They simply do not have it in them. Not that I would be quick say that of someone, but it if it were the case, it would be true all the same.

Doing what is wanted is not being good, and that I would like to get across very clearly here; it is the crux of my argument in whole, and I will not shake on it easily. If I am to decide what is good and manipulate people to fit that model, then I am the only good one there. Whether I set this in motion thousands of years ago or did it today, the results are the same. The people are merely used for that purpose. Neither materials nor tools are responsible for the shape of the art itself, and even less so for the value attributed to it. A crop of good people is less valuable than a crowd of them. It is as simple as that.

 

Agreed.

You can't be upset/surprised at how religion turns out more "good" members of society (or perhaps "efficient" members might be more accurate); it is simply built into the structure. Of course you also have pride and self-righteousness, but that is built in too; no matter who you are, it's just the way it goes. Self-actualization, perhaps, or just simply fitting in: humans need a purpose, yes? It just so happens that religion appeals more easily to this fundamental human need, but at the cost of this faith-based fear.

I would disagree with this logic only on the case that all you've done is changed the source of the meaning. People will believe what they are taught, regardless of the fact it came from a religious teacher or from a life experience. In either case, meaning was derived, not simply invented.

Of course, you could also say that the meaning of being a "good" member of society was invented by religious teachers. And I would agree with this as well. In the case of a non-religious citizen, replace "religious teacher" with "parent," or "life experience."

Still, I know plenty of religious individuals that were given the definition of what is "good" through religion, but later came out and realized just how right those teachings were on a very fundamental level in society.

If individuals don't go out and self-actualize their teachings, then yes, it is completely pointless and contrary to being "good."

Yes, the first model does. Agreed.

The only difference is the path taken to reach that level of being considered "good." This is what you mean? Clearly one is more efficient.

100% agreed. :)

 

I've been in Greek Orthodox private schools until I graduated from elementary school, so I've taken my share of religion classes and I've attended my share of Sunday communions, and if there's anything I can say on the matter, it's that when you're introducing religion to a child, it's important that you leave certain parts out until the kid can understand the more serious aspects of it.

You see, in my schools, we were given the complete, uncensored story about Jesus Christ, The The Garden of Eden e.t.c. When I was 11 years old, in 6th grade, we had to watch the Passion of the Christ from start to finish and write a report about it. Because of this, I had a very serious case of Theophobia, something that still creeps up on me every now and then when I have to attend church or hear the usual preachings on the radio every Sunday. At one point I had to force myself to stop believing in God just to be able to stop thinking of the idea of Divine Punishment, Retribution, e.t.c.

My point is that if you're going to teach a child the values of religion, you should take care as to what extent of the content you're exposing them to. Religion is a scary topic to the unprepared, naive mind of a child, and a lecture on how "The Lord Only Accepts Blood For Forgiveness" is enough to scar a child for life. I would know :\

However, I won't dismiss that religious values are important for the moral development of any human being, but there are alternative ways to teach a child those values. Leaving it up to the church and schools is not one of those ways. You can't deny that some of the content should be censored until the kids are old enough to handle it.

 

Yeah. I am a full-on Christian and I completely agree. The fact is that some parts of the Bible are just kind of gruesome.
The other day my little brother told me that his Sunday school teachers taught him about Sodom and Gomorrah. He's five. I was extremely disturbed. But I guess the teachers replaced "Having gay sex" with "Doing bad things", so I guess it's not that big of a deal. Still though, it's kind of insane.

Apparently they also told him about Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt. He found it funny, but if I were told that as a kid I would be horrified, seriously.

 

I agree in your arguement, there are substitutes to religious teachings obviously. However, the degree of it's effectiveness is debatable and highly subjective depending on the person they are and the religious environment they are raised in. Personality and unique thoughts and traits have the greatest impact on our moral compass, whether we want to do right or wrong. Moral teaching isn't properly taught by man, but instead by experiences a young person faces.

Ultimately, if I boiled it down to basics it's not religion that would have such an effect but parenting techniques. Most parents try their best in rasing their kids, but the end of the day no one really knows which technique works better or worse, because each child is different, and responds differently to the different techniques parents use. There's no 100% chance any of it will work out but we can only have faith and hope in ourselves

 

I attended catechism classes from age 10 to 16, I' ve been told from starters that the Bible was just a bunch of metaphors that weren' t meant to be interpreted literally. I discovered the word "metaphor" that day, and it took me a while to figure out what it meant. I think I was still too young to be taught religion.
I also believe that religion should be a choice, imposing it on a 5 years old kid appears as plain proselytism to me, meant to mold a naive spirit into a belief system that he can' t even comprehend yet. We' re not taught philosophy at school until we' re 17 (at least were I live), religion doesn' t seem to be an easier topic to understand.
I mean come on :

How can that appear as anything but a bogeyman story to a five years old kid ?
Furthermore, who knows what his sexual orientation will happen to be years later, regardless of what he' s been told as a kid. People don' t willingly choose what or who turns them on. I get that sex orgies lead to bad things, I don' t get why being homosexual would necessarily be a bad thing. My younger sister is bisexual and I have no problem whatsoever with that, it doesn' t mean squat about her being a good or bad person.

 

Did I not just say that I don't approve of them teaching him that story? And I'm not getting into the gay argument in this thread. We have plenty of other threads for that, let's not derail this.

 

Yeah, I noticed.
My point was just that the religious definition of "bad" differs from mine on that point, which is funny coming from something preaching tolerance. That' s not a teaching I' d like to pass onto my children (with or without religion). I didn' t want to derail the thread by talking about homosexuality, I just used it as an example to show that religious values themselves are not necessarily perceived as sane or perfectly reasonable, some of them can be perceived as arbitrary and/or bad. I could just as well have chosen the Coran prohibition to eat pork.

Also, those who think that religion is important to raise a child might have a problem with their children being raised in a different religion.

 

It's not the religion that makes the child a good citizen, in fact there are cases where religious parents brought up there child to be religious also. They disliked being forced into it and so turned away from the religion and it's beliefs just to rebel against their parents yet they did turn out just fine. I can understand why some people may think it's the religion that makes someone a 'good citizen' but it's more just the beliefs, a non religious person can still agree on a religious persons viewpoint on, for example, the origin of your conscience, people don't need the religion to be model citizens, they need to know the difference between right and wrong. The concepts differ from person to person, family to family, but that doesn't matter, the main points are pretty much all the same e.g. Stealing is wrong.

 

I think that religion is most helpful when kids are taught religion, but not pushed into it.
Using my life as example, I became agnostic last year. I was raised in a Catholic family and went to Baptist churches growing up.
However, since my grandma was the most religious and the only one of the adults who went to church, I never went with her (she only spoke Spanish and went to Hispanic mass at Catholic churches whereas I preferred English speaking Baptist churches). Since I was a kid, I didn't really grasp any of the ideas. I did think of it as history when I was little, but it was the same way I thought of the World Wars, or the Holocaust, or even what happened ten years before then: I was 8 so I didn't think about it much. I stopped going to church in high school and started to stop believing in the stories, but not the moral teachings. No one really taught me anything like "you're going to Hell if you do this" so much as "you'll go to Hell if you sin" or "you'll go to Hell unless you accept Jesus as your Savior" or "you're not going to Hell at all because Jesus died for your sins." I didn't really try to discern the differences of was telling me what. I just focused on the moral teachings and took the religious aspect out of it.
"It's wrong to steal." Okay, I could understand that and agree with it, even if I did steal quite a bit myself. "It's wrong to steal" makes perfect sense by itself.
"It's wrong to steal because God will make you burn in Hell." ...Now I have to think about it? I'd rather just take the moral teachings and leave God (and the "God" equivalent for any religion) out of it, know what I'm saying? Then of course comes the teachings that are purely religious in nature: Don't put other idols before God or work on the Sabbath, etc. I do reject that now because it doesn't teach me anything and, not being Christian anymore, I don't worship God so I don't feel the need to worry about what He's going to do to me (even though to this day I still can't bring myself to say G-D) if I don't follow his teachings. My girlfriend is a really big Christian and hates it that I told her that it isn't that I don't believe in God so much as I don't see any proof to His existence and refuse to worship Him if we did have proof.

...I guess what the point of my life story is: I agree with whoever said children can't or won't comprehend the idea of God and it's up to the parents to teach them morals. I find it better to teach about the morals, not the religion. If all else fails, instead of teaching "Sin and you'll burn in Hell after you die for eternity," teach "break the rules and you get grounded and whooped. Break the law and you'll go to jail where you'll be raped and probably killed" >>

It also depends on what you consider a "good" member of society. Someone who doesn't break the law or someone who contributes a lot or what? I think I'm a good member, but not much of a contributing one.

 

Look, it's obviously not for everybody. But if you agree with Christian morals the easiest way to raise your child on them is to teach them Christianity, isn't it? I understand you may not agree with some Christian morals, but that's not really the point.

 

I was raised a Christian and I ended up not agreeing with all of the Christian values.
What if your child never really believes in God ? I know I never really did. As I already said IMO religion is something that should be offered as an option amongst many to someone who' s old enough to know what faith is.

I' m right there with ya.

The point is "Is religion important when raising children to become good members of society", not "Is religion important when raising children to become good Christians/Muslims/Chuck Norrists etc ...". Since society' s morals and values differ from those of religions I think the answer is no. It' s one way to raise your children amongst many, but you could also raise good members of society without ever mentioning any religious concept.

 

You seemed to miss the point. Even if you don't believe in God some of the Christian values are bound to stick with you if you introduce them so early in life.

I've already said this.

 

You mean the ones I discovered while living in society ? I didn' t wait to read the Bible to realize that stealing, lying and being violent was bad, I hope you didn' t either. One can be a believer, have those values, and not follow them anyway. Prisons are full of religious people.
I guess we could look for the proportion of religious people both in society and in prison, see if there' s a difference. I did. The website I found those statistics on also explains why that exercise is futile :
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html#altformat
In short, there doesn' t seem to be any correlation at all between religious education and good behavior in society.