Lancaster, Minnesota
Children Praying
Nearly a year ago, I wrote a post at Tangled Up in Blue Guy about my real hometown of Lancaster, Minnesota. A science teacher was fired for teaching evolution because the school board was largely made up of Creationists. The situation was a real mess of “small-town values,” politics and other chicanery that had to do with sexual misbehavior.
A student who graduated from Lancaster High School recently contacted me and promised to get me more details, because I was basing the story on the details provided by my dad. I will update that story after he gets back to me. The interesting and ethical question related to this post is based on a comment he sent me in an e-mail:
The crazy thing was that it wasn’t the kids from that covenant church that had the problem; it was their PARENTS! Some oversaw the homework they were doing and then one mom talked to another mom at their women’s church night and before you know it something like this happened. The kids who led the protest of Mr. D not being hired back by the schoolboard was actually the kids of the parents who caused the biggest stink about it. Thats what you do for your kid, get their favorite teacher fired.
Okay, Mr. D wasn’t fired but his contract was not renewed. The question I have been turning over in my ethical mind is the question of the responsibility of parents to raise their children in the best way possible to give them all of the tools they need to live happy, productive and intellectually- and emotionally-rich minds.
Of course, this subject is going to touch on religious education. My parents raised me in the Catholic Church because even though she had been brought up as a Lutheran, my mother had agreed to raise us in the Catholic religion. It was a stipulation of marrying a Catholic.
Richard Dawkins took a lot of flak for suggesting that the raising of children in a religion is a form of child abusre. The question sensibly raises quite a furor among the religious and the atheists alike because of society’s conflicting values over who “owns” children. I am a parent now, with one child out of the house and two teenagers who are intellectually rebellious (yea!) Actually, all three of our children have been taught to question authority and to “speak truth to power.” (Except when the Power is Mom discussing chores and homework that need to be done.)
I am divorced and the kids are being raised in their mother’s home. I am an atheist and their mother is an active pagan. We try to balance our beliefs in regards to the children, giving them the opportunity to participate in our activities but not forcing them to do so. When they have questions we give them our best answers. We sent them to a Catholic School because of the reputation that Catholic Schools provide the strongest educational opportunity (unfortunately, this didn’t turn out to be the case,) and also to give them exposure to Christianity untainted by our own biasees. Both their mother and I had been raised Catholic.
We want our kids to interact with people of other religions so that they don’t fear the people who hold other beliefs, and I have to admit that sometimes I say things in their presence which could bias them against Christianity. So, they also need to learn the perspective of other people because as they grow into adults they will have more of a grounding in religious belief when they start to think about how they approach religion as adults.
Most people I know are in the same religion as they were when they were children. They are not necessarily in the same Church, or Jewish tradition, or even the same Mosque, but their core beliefs are still the same. Because we live in a “Christian Nation” most of them are still Christian. Sure, they may be evangelical where they were raised liturgical, but in the case of Christianity their core beliefs on religion are still based on the salvation issue, even if the specific teachings differ quite wildly from the church of their youth.
My cousin was raised in an atheist family, and he and his brother adapted a fundamentalist faith when they went on their own. My aunt and uncle were dismayed, but still loved their adult children. One of my cousins has backed away from the fundamentalist faith he tried, but the other is now a sincere Jehovah’s Witness. His parents still love and support him, and he has an understanding that he is not going to try to evangelize his famly members. Raising children in an atheist household is no guarantee that they will always be atheists despite our best hopes.
I think parents of all religious positions need to take a step back and examine how much contriol they should have over their childrens’ minds. I maintain that the best we can do for our children is to make sure that as they grow they should be taught critical thinking skills so that as they approach adulthood they have the tools to make thoughtful decisions about the directions of their lives. As adults, our kids need to own their own miinds.
Since the creationism-evolution debate is not a scientific one, it really is a cultural debate over how we educate our children and the reaction of creationist parents is a religious one. If children are taught about how evolution works, they will abandon religions which insist on a literal belief in a Genesis-creation myth. While there are large numbers of people who homeschool because they have better intellectual tools than the public schools provide, a much larger majority homeschool because they don’t want their kids exposed to evolution. They think that evoluton is a threat to their children’s (read their own) religious beliefs, and that their children will turn to atheism if they find out how natural mechanisms account for the diversity of life. They are afraid that their children will lose their chance at “salvation.”
I want to open this up for discussion, and I want to know what the readers think:
1. Do parents have the right to thought-contril of their children until those children are grown and on their own?
2. Does society also have a role in shaping the way that children learn to think? is this too redolent of socialism?
3. For religious parents, is the question of choosing one’s own religion too dangerous when eternity is at stake?
4. For atheist parents, is it mush-minded to allow your children to participate in religious activities?
I would also appreciate any other questions and answers in this thread.
Thanks!
Mike
Hey Mike, great questions. I wanted to say, first, that your blog is probably the most evenhanded and respectful blogs I have ever seen from an atheistic perspective. So, kudos to that.
In regard to your excellent questions, let me suggest the following answers.
1. If not parents, then who else? According to John Locke, the age of accountability (18 in the US) was set so that youth who are not yet able to reason for themselves can have protection from themselves and from the state. Under this line of reasoning, the parents are the most likely candidates for having authority in ALL areas of their childrens lives. You would have to prove that religious education is not in the childrens best interest, and is, in fact, abuse. Frankly, you would have to argue against centuries of tradition and well established philosophical thought.
2. The problem with this question is that the term “society” is far too vague. Religious institutions fall under society. Friends and family fall under society. If you mean the government specifically, I would suggest that the government role is to place all aspects of child rearing in the hands of parents inasmuch as they are able. Again, it’s a tall order to suggest that ALL parents are incapable of correctly and ethically educating their children in religious ideals. But your question refers specifically to THOUGHT, which is a great distinction. Traditionally, I think, this is handed to the schools. My personal belief is that schools should include in their academic standards, education in basic logic and personal reasoning skills. In this area, I think that school’s are failing miserably, as are parents. Why? Compare our current education to the Classical education of the west, even just as far as a hundred years ago, and you will find that earlier education was far more robust. However, does placing this task to the schools take it away from being PRIMARILY in the hands of the parents? I think not.
3. Being a Christian and, as of yet, childless, I can only speak from a very limited perspective. But Biblically speaking, while the parent is charged to raise the child in religious training, they are also charged to love all people, including non-believers, and even enemies. For a child to leave the faith, while it might be devastating to the parent, it would still be their primary charge to continue loving their child. Furthermore, the Bible acknowledges that Christianity will divide families. Any Christian parent who doesn’t acknowledge this reality and the pain that can come with it is simply being small-minded.
Lastly, when it comes to Dawkins I think that his condemnation against religious training is utterly divisive and unfounded. He forgets that Oxford, where he teaches, was for centuries a center of higher learning that kept religion and education closely tied. This produced some of the greatest minds in Western culture, if not the world. Our greatest thinkers have understood that questions of religion are intrinsically tied with history, philosophy, literature, and even science. If this is the case, then when does this pairing of education begin? 18? College only? Well then, I would pity the college that receives such uneducated thinkers. Unfortunately, I think this is the exact problem we already have today.
Dawkins is great at pointing out the extremists. He doesn’t realize that this trend of education is a quickly dwindling minority. The great trend is against indoctrination and for full fledged separatism. I would suggest that both are extremist positions and are potentially damaging. The answer must be for a thoughtful, reasonable, inclusion of beliefs within the education system AND within private education by parents and privates schools. There is a great distinction between education and proselytizing. The educator that confuses them is as bad as the educator that shoves the questions into a closet, never to be heard from again.
Mike, great post. You ask some great questions. This is something that I’ve thought about for literally 30+ years, even back when I was too young to be thinking about such things. Even though you could probably guess my responses, here they are:
1) Thought-control children? Is this possible?
But, I know what you mean. Yes, I firmly believe that parents have both the obligation and the primary right to raise their children in the way that they see fit, as long as it’s not abusive. Here, of course, we get into that “what constitutes abuse” question. Setting Dawkins’ “religion is abuse” theory aside, I of course mean actual abuse from a “reasonably prudent person” standard, including withholding necessary medical care. Having to eat vegetables, do chores, or go to church isn’t abuse. I’d even support Satanist’s rights, as long as there’s no sacrifices or orgies involved. 
As a parent to 3 teenagers, I have seen where independent thinking starts to take hold and parental authority is challenged. My children are all very different from each other, so it takes on different forms. But, I think it would take some very good mind-control approaches to keep children believing something they didn’t want to. Up until that time, the issue is similar to the “can we legislate morality” question. The truth is, we always will legislate someone’s morality, the question is whose. Children need some guidance, and the question is whether parents have that right/obligation, or someone else. I’m not ready for a Brave New World yet.
2) Yes; we can’t avoid that, unless we choose the Amish route. Society does influence our children in both good and bad ways. I think government’s role should be to support families, perhaps offer opportunities and assistance, but not to control. It only takes a village if you want a homogenized village. I actually have a theory against state-controlled education that involves the whole mind-control / behavioral aspect and the self-preservationist tendency of systems, but there’s not enough space for that here. Bottom line, I think parents should have the upper hand.
3) Not necessarily. (Here, you’re probably shocked.) In a nutshell, I believe that it is God who finds us, we don’t find him. I also believe that everyone gets an opportunity to respond to God, regardless of their culture/religion. I may be verging on heretical ground here, but I’m not necessarily alone in my thinking. And, it could be argued that God chooses the family… I think most Christians would have to agree with that.
4) Mush-minded? no… But, I’d support an atheist’s right to not let kids participate in religious activities. I’m actually concerned about groups that evangelize children without their parents knowledge; if God gave parents the right to raise their kids, we need to respect that. If I want to keep my rights, I need to support yours as well. Surprised again? That, of course, doesn’t extend to the folks who try to erase all signs of religion from the world, but that’s a different issue.
As a christian, i think the most important thing we should note is that our God has never given any one the responsibilty to fight his battles, He is our God.
Children should be taught our faith as christians and allowed to know about the rest of the worlds idea on creation and all that. All you need to do as a parent is pray and guide your children in your belief and allow the holy spirit to guide them. I know thats what faith is all about.
Christianity has been around for a long time and its not by any human power, but by Gods’. So you try and stand firm on your belief and live as an example to your kids, thank God will all know the difference between good and bad.
Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They came through you but not from you and though they are with you yet they belong not to you. -Kahlil Gibran
As a parent myself (I am Buddhist, DH is Atheist) I have always believed it is in our children’s best interest to teach them everything we can about everything. Not just our own flavor of beliefs but others as well…how can you understand and empathize with anyone if you don’t know where they are coming from?
DH is a religion hater but is more than willing to allow the religious to have their beliefs as long as it doesn’t infring on him or his family (read: us). However I have told him he cannot preach to our children. When they are adults they have the right to make their own choices…if they choose to be religious, that is the path they should take…but they need to know about all religions and not just the select few around us (his family is Catholic, mine is Protestant/Baptist/Church of Christ).
The only requirement I would have of my children is to not push whatever they believe on anyone and not spread lies to further their beliefs (yes, I have known people who have done that). They can believe whatever they want, but they can’t try to force anyone else to believe. Talking and debating are one thing, pushing your beliefs and even threatening is something else.
In other words…to your questions…
1. No. We are obligated to give them all the information they need to make informed decisions.
2. Yes and No. This one is a bit complicated as children need to know how to function in society…but at the same time they shouldn’t be pressured to follow the majority. (I feel if more people had free minds to make up themselves the majority may not be a majority after all…but that is another post for another day).
3. I could see how religious parents would be scared to allow them to choose since almost every religion is steeped in “if you don’t go our way you are damned”. Even the Amish shun their children that turn their backs on their way of life.
4. DH does feel this way…but unfortunately he is married to me and I insist that if they choose to participate then they should be able to (they are 3y and 3m old so they really haven’t been exposed as of yet to have a choice).
1. Do parents have the right to thought-contril of their children until those children are grown and on their own?
2. Does society also have a role in shaping the way that children learn to think? is this too redolent of socialism?
Purely from a legal standpoint, the answers are: “depends on what you mean by thought control,” “yes and no” and “depends on your sense of smell”.
Parents have enormous legal control over their children until age 18 but it is not unlimited. Before courts will interfere, the parents’ actions must border, at least, on what society (not Richard Dawkins) considers child abuse.
Certainly parents have the right in the first instance to choose which schools children attend. On the other hand, it has been recognized that society has an interest in having an educated citizenry and, therefore, can set minimum standards for education. The courts have not been fully consistent in this matter, generally upholding state standards being imposed on private schools and home schoolers but allowing the Amish/Mennonites to end their children’s education before the state-mandated age/grade. “Schools” that engage in physical punishments that reach what is considered abusive behavior have been investigated for and charged with child abuse.
Similar ambiguity attends religion. The state has been recognized to have an interest in the wellbeing of children and, therefore can take them away from parents on a number of grounds. Courts will not interfere in the parents’ right to drag their kids to church unwillingly but, neither will they generally force older children, at least, to attend church (say, by declaring a child a “person in need of supervision” on that grounds alone) against their will. But courts regularly order transfusions for JW children who are ill or medical treatment for Christian Science kids, even though it violates the parents (or the children’s) beliefs.
In short, there is no “bright line” between the rights of parents over children and the right of the state to protect children and few areas where the law is even outlined very well.
Whether it is socialism for the state to be involved at all depends on your definition of socialism. There was not much interest in children’s welfare before the 20th century in the US (there was a reason Fr. Flannigan of “Boys Town” was considered such a reformer) but there is little real controversy over the state having some role in protecting children. Where in the spectrum between “doing nothing” and “doing everything” it turns into “socialism” is a matter of opinion.
Thanks for some great responses. The point of this blog, Brian, and thanks for recognizing it is to discuss these issues respectfully. I am glad you appreciate it. I will have to say that I find John Pieret’s answers the most helpful on this respect.
As for centuries of tradition, I will have to say that I don’t accept that as a justification for saying that a practice is acceptable. Women are only now emerging as being seen as equal partners in Western society, held down by centuries of religious tradition. The murder and live burial of Pakistani women because pre-teen girls wanted to choose their own husbands illustrates another reason that tradition serves as a fallacious argument.
John’s point about no bright line drawn as to where societal responsibility and parental responsibility separate is a key one. It also illustrates the difficult claim that there can be such a thing as Absolute Morality applicable to everyone based on a religious faith. In a pluralistic society, these questions are up for debate.
Alden, I never read “It Takes A Village” but I think that the theme has been wildly distorted to mean “homogeneity.”
Mike, I wasn’t referring to Hillary’s concept, just using the phrase.
“… there can be such a thing as Absolute Morality applicable to everyone based on a religious faith. In a pluralistic society, these questions are up for debate.”
The problem with a pluralistic society, if indeed we have one, is that someone’s morality will be legislated… but whose? In a true pluralistic democracy, a rational approach would to give more power to the families, to support pluralism. However, that’s not necessarily what we’re seeing in the U.S. I think I am just as afraid of a move toward fascism as I am as a move toward socialism. Both extremes are moves away from pluralism, which I think was an American ideal which has never really been acheived.
That’s the thing about a Republic is that behavior regulation has to be hashed out through compromise and struggle. The purpose of the Constitution and the Courts is to make sure that whatever norms are legislated don’t run afoul of the basic liberties of the minority.
And I agree, we are a long way from achieving the ideal that America is supposed to stand for.
“As for centuries of tradition, I will have to say that I don’t accept that as a justification for saying that a practice is acceptable.”
The point is that the tradition is not an argument in and of itself. But it does build a strong case for an argument.
If a tradition is deemed good, then the centuries of tradition should be seen as a strong weight against rejecting it.
Your question is so broad, stretching across widely differing religions and types of education, that one must necessarily start by evaluating cases individually.
I am arguing that within the Christian framework, Christian education (Oxford specifically) has created a huge tradition of great western thinkers. John Locke being no small example as someone who has specifically impacted America for the better.
Outside of public education, informal Christian education within homes and the church has given rise to enormous developments in charity organizations, the Salvation Army just being one small modern example.
Examples of bad Christian education, or bad Christian traditions being passed down to children in no way outweigh the impact and number of the good examples I have mentioned above, as far as I can see.
You’re argument might be valid against education within Islam, but the same argument would have to made independently for Christian education.
As to the point about the “no bright line”, I would agree that this is absolutely the problem today. In fact, we have moved this vague, amorphous, line, closer to the parents, heaping more responsibility into the hands of schools. Putting things like sex education into the hands of teaches means that increasingly fewer parents have these important conversations with their children.
People like Dawkins seem to want even more authority taken out of the hands of parents, and I claim that this will lead to even more tragedy and confusion in our future.
A plurality of voices, without a guiding influence, can often confuse more then it can educate. Shouldn’t parents remain as the primary givers of that “guiding influence”, as history has always allowed?
Brian – there is a difference between guiding influence regarding sex education and teaching kids how things work. It is still the responsibility of the parents to offer that guidance.
I don’t think that Richard Dawkins wants “control” over the childrens’ minds, his point is that by completely bringing the kids up in the parents’ religion they are handicapped against critically reviewing all religions in order to choose a religion when they are adult.
I am sure that many muslims would disagree with your implication that my arguments have more weight against muslim education than christian education. I fail to see how you can make that statement except by showing a natural bias towards your own beliefs. All religions hold the same value to me.
People, I like. Their beliefs, eh, not so much.
“It is still the responsibility of the parents to offer that guidance.”
Exactly. And by placing more of this responsibility in the schools, we allow for it to fall out of the hands of the parents. I’m not saying they don’t still have a responsibility, simply that it is being met less and less.
In regards to Dawkins, I understand his argument, I just don’t think it is feasibly possible. He offers no distinction between education and indoctrination that I know of, and I haven’t seen a distinction offered on this site either. Without that argument, he is offering a problem with no solution.
And to your last point, I was saying that your argument was specifically against Muslims. You would have to make a distinct argument of the same type against Christianity. Arguing that Mormonism is a racist religion doesn’t make Christianity racist as well. I simply am suggesting that a similar argument against Christianity would hold up as well as the one you just made, especially in light of the positive evidence I have offered.
However, my overall point is that this topic is very difficult if you are considering religion as a whole. The truth is that religions are vastly different in their specifics, and thus necessitate distinct arguments for and against them.
I just had a thought. Do you, Mike, (and other parents) find it possible to truly educate your children to make up their own mind and chose their own path without also communicating the ardent desire that they conform to your thoughts and beliefs? I believe it is possible to raise a child without the former sentiment, but is it possible to raise them well without the latter?
My inclination is that to keep your own desires at bay would simply be bad parenting (this, of course, coming from a non-parent).
Discussion? I think Nicholas Humphrey said it all: