The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Mini Money Mustaches => Topic started by: S.S. on January 17, 2017, 02:37:20 PM
-
I (26F) recently got into a big argument with one of my SIL (22F) over FB messaging, which culminated in her saying she "is sad" for me every day and "deeply sad" that her nephew (3 yrs old) will not grow up with God at the core like she did. This was a week ago, and the comment still irks me. My husband grew up in a deeply religious household (father is a Lutheran pastor). I grew up going to church every Sunday as well (non-denom), but have since become what I like to call "Atheist but very open to being proved wrong". Husband still has faith but is ambivalent about it.
I am starting to feel insecure about my ability to raise my boy to be a moral, well-adjusted, and loving human being without the church-going background. I wonder if my husband and me received immeasurable benefits from growing up with Judeo-Christian values even though we have both since moved away from regular church attendance. I even toy with the idea of attending church during his childhood and adolescence and let him make his own choices when he comes of age, even though it would be complete ruse on my part that I would have to keep up for 15+ years.
My questions: Anyone else in a similar situation where you grew up with God and recognized the benefits of that upbringing but have since renounced it? Do you think it's possible to raise a child with all the positive attributes that faith has to offer without the actual "God" part?
-
This seems relevant: A Rational Sunday School (https://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2009/features/rational-sunday-school).
I don't have children, but I was raised in the Catholic Church. That education and community was great, but the dogma was damaging. If I have my own kids, I'd try to take the best from both worlds. The article sounds like a good option.
-
Totally possible. Be supportive, loving parents and set a good example in your own behavior and the kid will be just fine. Religion is in no way necessary to teach morals. I went to church as a child but have no intention of going regularly (excpet by special request of my parents) with my children.
One small tip is to make sure you intentionally engage in age-appropriate discussions of morals and ethics on a regular basis. This is a good progression to note and follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
So to start, "morals" are necessarily tied to entirely self-centered interests, but as they age you can start tapping empathy (e.g. "would you like it if Jamie took your toy away while you were playing with it?") and eventually more complex moral reasoning.
Volunteering is a great way to model moral behavior as well, as is introducing an allowance with the expectation they donate part of it. You can research charities together and discuss the pros and cons on how they impact society, go pack groceries for impovershed seniors together, etc. Stuff like that.
-
I think it is absolutely false to think that you can't be moral without some sort of religious framework. You could read some books on ethics or a philosophy text on various moral codes if you want to get deep into it. I had one graduate-level class (in engineering of all things!) that discussed ethics and we had an assignment of writing our own moral code. If you are atheist then you have to take the step of being reflective and thoughtful to determine what kind of life you want to live and what is important to you. This is more work than having someone sell you a prepackaged set of Shalls and Shall Nots. In my experience the extra work is absolutely worth it.
My parents fell for the idea of religion while my mother was pregnant with me. I rejected religion in the middle of high school and most of my immediate family followed over time. Personally I am a much happier person without that added baggage and guilt in my life. Other people will have other experiences.
Either way you go I would argue that not taking the time to self reflect and make conscious choices about what is important to you and what your values are can lead to problems. Religion is like going to McDonalds and ordering the #3 meal as a moral code. Creating your own moral code is like finding a recipe and buying groceries and then cooking. The first option is easier and will mean you will find more people eating the same thing as you. The second option is more work but probably means you will not be surprised or appalled by some of the ingredients that might sneak into your adopted moral code.
-
I don't have kids yet so I'm only offering my perspective from my upbringing.
My mom was raised in a very Italian Catholic home, Made her first communion and all of that. My dad was raised in a conservative (I think) Jewish home, his mother and father were conservative and orthodox Jews respectively. My parents made the choice not to raise me and my two sisters in any religion. We celebrated Christmas and Hanukkah and I remember a Passover Seder with my paternal grandparents once but church/temple was not a part of my life. I don't believe I suffered because of it. We had a sense of community and family surrounding us, I'd like to think I still have a moral center and code and I'd like to think (though I can be proven wrong) that I'm still a well-adjusted, loving human.
I married a reform Jewish man whose religion is very important to him. We were married by a rabbi because it mattered to him and because I was ambivalent about it. We attend high holidays at temple and are members of the temple but only go to services maybe once a year outside of the high holidays. Our children will be raised Jewish because it is important to him that they are. Not because it's important to his sister or anything like that, but because it was a family decision he and I made and one I'm very comfortable with.
-
https://news.uchicago.edu/article/2015/11/05/religious-upbringing-associated-less-altruism-study-finds
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children’s tendency to share—a measure of their altruism—and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
-
Thank you so much for all the helpful replies so far. BabyShark, if I could choose a culture that most closely matches my personal values, it would be Orthodox Judaism. I would love to figure out a way to raise a good Jewish kid without the Judaism. I wonder if it's possible or if faith is integral to producing a child with that set of values.
Bender, nobody but my husband knows I'm an Atheist. It would cause many of the people in my life a lot of psychic pain to know I've turned away. When we fly out to the Midwest and visit, I attend service and say my prayers like everyone else. Why this SIL called me out is beyond me. One of the other sisters (there are 5 in total) who have come out and visited us must have told her that we don't attend church in our normal lives.
-
I was raised in a 100% secular home and I think I turned out ok! I try to contribute to society and not be a dick and that's basically my moral code. A lot of publicly religious people seem to have trouble grasping either or both of those two tenets, in my perception :/ A downside of my particular brand of upbringing is that I'm kind of awkward about religion...like it pretty seriously weirds me out when people proselytize outside of church or "praise the Lord" every other phrase in conversation (a neighbor of mine does this).
Bf was raised in a protestant home, church every Sunday and prayers at mealtimes. We join his family in these rituals at Christmastime but don't follow them ourselves. I've thought about it, and I would cooperate with whatever their wishes are re: taking future kids to church when we visit. I wouldn't do it at home (unless bf reverted I guess) but at their home they should be able to share their lives and values and culture/history with their grandkids. I'd look at it as an exposure to a diversity of viewpoints and prepare for questions. I guess another factor in this is that as churches go, theirs seems very focused on volunteering and giving, which is something I can respect. If it seemed like a really unhealthy environment (I hear some communities are unfortunately very catty, even hateful) I'd have more reservations...
-
S.S. our early life experiences mirror each other closely. I still do the "go to church with Grandma" thing when I'm back home because I know it is important to her. But I won't compromise MY Morals to do so and have walked out of one of her church services when something was said in the sermon that struck me as fundamentally wrong.
I think there are two distinct issues here, that of community and that of religion. You usually get community (for good or bad) with religion. This is the part you have to consciously cultivate if you don't choose to get involved. It is important for children to see themselves as part of a community, a bigger system.
As far as morality, I think it is up to you to help your children discover their own framework. Did you know that EVERY major religion and philosophy has some variation of "the Golden Rule" Every single one. It is a universal truth that goes beyond religion.
Teaching your children to differentiate between a Bullshit rule (something that you have learned by upbringing, culture, religion whatever) and a universal truth - something that applies to all people everywhere - is one of the greatest gifts you can give them. It teaches them to question, to think critically and come up with their own framework. It might very well include some of those "bullshit rules" but it will be a conscious adoption instead of something that is impressed upon them by other people who are carrying on the traditions or operating from their own agenda.
-
My parents came from different faiths and when they married, both sets of parents disowned them and cut off their college tuition as retribution.
As a result, my parents each left their church/synagogue and at some point (before or after their marriage?) became atheists, so that's how I was raised.
Within my family's history, then, what I saw was intolerance within the church and its members and doing the exact opposite of the golden rule. And among my peers as a kid, what I saw was that I was being taught to do what's right because it's the right thing to do, whereas some of my peers were taught that they needed to do what's right because they would get punished by God otherwise (which is a lower sort of rung on the ethical ladder - do the right thing so you won't get caught and punished).
I have certainly seen the full range of ethics between church goers and non believers, with some church people being horrifically corrupt and some doing great things at personal sacrifice - and the same true of atheists. Personally - because of how I was raised - I would feel sad for someone like your sister in law, who thinks they can only behave right if they get an actual reward for it in the afterlife. And I can't help noticing the comment she made seemed designed to make you feel bad and make her feel superior, which feels counter to the behavior she should be modeling if she hopes to convince you that her way creates more ethical, compassionate people.
I don't know what you contributed to the argument, of course - so that could run both ways. :D
I am not sure that arguing with inlaws about religion, especially over facebook, is a productive and rewarding way to spend your time, in any event. Whatever decision you come to is personal, and does not need to be justified to an in-law. She is not God's version of Santa Claus, deputized by him to make a list of who's naughty or nice.
-
if I could choose a culture that most closely matches my personal values, it would be Orthodox Judaism. I would love to figure out a way to raise a good Jewish kid without the Judaism. I wonder if it's possible or if faith is integral to producing a child with that set of values.
Two things: I would say yes to the latter, and yes to the former. Your problem isn't with G-d, your problem is with man. Judaism and Christianity both should be the exact same expressed faith if you adhere to the teachings of the actual way. The problem you're encountering is with the man-created structures of religion. Religion is not about your relationship with your maker, His creation and your fellow man. It's about power, control and subjugation of others. That is not true Torah, nor is it the true teachings of Yeshua. It should not be top-down authority as most churches do, and some synagogues.
What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend. This is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary. -Hillel
Love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these. -Yeshua
Torah and Yeshua's teachings aren't about doing X to believe, which is how its usually presented. That is what sours most people as it's hypocritical and/or lawless. It should be through the faith that we come to understand the wisdom of doing X. I don't act on the wisdom of Torah to be a "saved" good person, that way lies madness and condemnation as I fall short. I have faith in my salvation and covering through Messiah and the grace afforded there-in, therefore, I see wisdom in the teachings of Torah in showing me how to better love and be a good steward in more practical matters, guiding me as I learn.
True morality is the teaching of the way, given to us by HaShem. It is valuable, useful, and sweet as honey. Redemption and salvation afforded by Yeshua's sacrifice is the same way. Your problem is not with Him, it is what people have done to twist that message of love and redemption for their own ends. This is the instruction set we've been given to truly thrive and live in this world and the one to come, so do what you should do with all valuable wisdom - embrace it. You want to raise good kids? Understanding Torah, the rest of the Tanakh, and the B'rit Chadasha (New Covenant) will help you do that when done through the perspective of love, defined by justice tempered with mercy. You might even find a few others doing likewise in some Messianic Jewish/Netzari gatherings, though do be careful, there's a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing out there in those groups currently as there are in the rest of the church these days. That sort of faith held in that sort of community will satisfy the yearn of one's soul... but it's harder to find these days as hearts keep growing colder.
I feel your pain, and I sympathize with you, but as I've found myself... the problem isn't the message. You see that yourself given your draw to Orthodox Judaism. You see the value. If you see the value, you see and recognize the wisdom of the divine. Don't let man interfere with that relationship or that ability to learn and grow in His way to its fullest and richest. Of course, you do that, you'll eventually have to make peace with man in love and forgive, but that too can be rewarding.
You can absolutely do this, but you have to embrace these teachings for what they truly are. Fortunately, you already know what they aren't given your current status as secular/atheist. It's okay and perfectly rational to believe in a higher power, it's just not okay to use that belief like most wield it.... those who see the teachings of Torah for what they are and truly follow Messiah Yeshua find themselves unable to do that for the very same reason they believe. It's not about power, it's about love and kindness.
-
I.P., thank you for that beautiful response. I myself am not in any way affiliated with the Jewish faith, but I know tangentially of this community and the wonderful families and children it produces. One of the people who has influenced my life very positively is a devout Jew and speaks deep truths through the lense of his faith.
I also kind of love that Jews are generally not evangelical. The ones I have known will give wonderful answers when asked but are not actively trying to recruit. I grew up in an aggressively evangelical Christian church and now loathe this strain of believer. Coming from that background, I understand the "spread the good news of great joy" mindset, but it grates on me nonetheless.
Jake, thank you. Aside from my genuine "How Might I Raise a Good Child?" question, this post is pulling double-duty as a space with which to rage at my SIL. You provided me the perfect segue.
The Incident in Question:
We have an ongoing family FB chat with my in-laws. The SIL I am currently extremely pissed at is a bully to the other sisters, except the one she likes. She's been rude and bitchy on that chat many times and no one calls her out because they are all very passive and sweet and avoid conflict at all costs. For years I have let it go as well b/c I wanted to get along with my husband's family. Until last week, when I finally said something. Long story short, she got angry and extremely defensive but sent me a private message the following morning apologizing (in a very fake way) b/c, according to her, everyone was mad at her for starting this fight with me. I called her out again for being passive-aggressive and not really apologizing.
Eventually, however, we almost came to a real reconciliation when, in response to me saying something like "hey, if we lived closer we might actually be good friends", she types a BOOK about how she can't be close to me because I am not as religious as her and about how she weeps for my son because he won't be raised with God at the core. It was bizarre because it came from nowhere. It was infuriating for obvious reasons.
3 Notes:
1. She has no idea the extent of my religiousness. She barely knows me so I can only surmise one of the other girls told her about my household's lack of church-going and came to her own conclusions.
2. My husband has said many times how various family members have told him in confidence how much they love me. His father, the pastor, told him he chose a wonderful wife. I am closer to my MIL than my own bio mom. His parents and other sisters are all deeply devout, but they are not obnoxious about it in any way. They are wonderful people who I love spending time with. My not being "devout enough" has never come up. Until
3. this SIL gets her feewings hurt for finally getting called out on her shitty behavior. I am starting to think this God stuff is a way to recapture the moral high-ground in our spat. Sure, she's a bitch but I'm *GASP* *FAINT* not a regular CHURCH-GOER. MERCY.
Thoughts on this theory?
-
No religion has a monopoly on being good. Your kids will learn from your actions; be a good model. :)
-
I.P., thank you for that beautiful response. I myself am not in any way affiliated with the Jewish faith, but I know tangentially of this community and the wonderful families and children it produces. One of the people who has influenced my life very positively is a devout Jew and speaks deep truths through the lense of his faith.
I also kind of love that Jews are generally not evangelical. The ones I have known will give wonderful answers when asked but are not actively trying to recruit. I grew up in an aggressively evangelical Christian church and now loathe this strain of believer. Coming from that background, I understand the "spread the good news of great joy" mindset, but it grates on me nonetheless.
Myself? Gentile. I followed where the evidence lead, and I went towards the wisdom. It's why I'm involved in a local Messianic Jewish community, it's why I believe as I do, it's why I shared what I did. Again, don't let man get in the way of your relationship with HaShem and pursuing His wisdom for your sake and your children's. It is the lens of that faith that is so profound, for Jew and gentile alike.
-
Ah yes….the “you don’t have God so you must be empty” thing.
First – you can’t argue with these people. Their belief in God is so much a part of their identity, they have myopia and can’t fathom any other type of existence. Their feelings about your supposed lack of meaning in life says nothing about you, and everything about their own inability to put themselves in someone else’s position. It’s the equivalent of a Christian saying to a Muslim “ah you must be so empty because you don’t have Jesus” and the Muslim responding by saying “no YOU are empty because you don’t have our Prophet.” Silly right?
I grew up Roman Catholic. I am an atheist. Never felt the God thing…just didn’t. Husband was the same.
There are many, many ways to raise smart, loving, community oriented people without deities in their life. For us, science and nature fills the role that others use religion to fill – a way to make sense of life, a way to describe tough stuff like pain and death in a meaningful and hopeful way, etc. Nature in many ways is the original god – she shows us everything we need to know….from how to be part of a family, to how to respect and appreciate differences in others (humans and non human), that pain and death are as natural as joy, love, and new life, that we are a part of something so much bigger and more powerful and important than just ourselves. She also teaches humility...that we are just one form of life on this earth, no better, no worse. Hell, what more do you need right? :)
-
Ahhh Sisters in Law. I have one of those too. I feel your pain. It sounds like she is the definition of "holier than thou." You don't get to be a mean person and then justify it because you go to church. You and your husband have a clear view of how you want your son to be raised. Stick to that and he'll turn out great. And I bet some of your other in laws are glad you said something to SIL because they would never be able to.
have you thought about looking into sending your child to a Jewish preschool? My MIL teaches at one at her temple and most of those children aren't Jewish, it's just a great program that offers some Jewish teachings. Our Jewish Community Center here also has one and it's considered one of the best early ed programs around; again many of the students aren't actually Jewish. Just a thought if your looking to expose your son to the culture without all the religion.
-
3 Notes:
1. She has no idea the extent of my religiousness. She barely knows me so I can only surmise one of the other girls told her about my household's lack of church-going and came to her own conclusions.
2. My husband has said many times how various family members have told him in confidence how much they love me. His father, the pastor, told him he chose a wonderful wife. I am closer to my MIL than my own bio mom. His parents and other sisters are all deeply devout, but they are not obnoxious about it in any way. They are wonderful people who I love spending time with. My not being "devout enough" has never come up. Until
3. this SIL gets her feewings hurt for finally getting called out on her shitty behavior. I am starting to think this God stuff is a way to recapture the moral high-ground in our spat. Sure, she's a bitch but I'm *GASP* *FAINT* not a regular CHURCH-GOER. MERCY.
Thoughts on this theory?
This is a little...tangentially related, but... in high school, I had a group of friends, including this girl, T. (other girls: A., B., & L.) Around sophomore year I found out I was moving several states away and they were very sweet and threw me a going away party except (a) they planned it the exact same way we did for another friend and (b) they planned it for the week my mom was visiting (I was staying with friends for a while to finish the school year). The situation exploded and there were lots of dramatic statements about the meaning of friendship and yadda yadda. We made up. I came back to visit for 2-3 years until, with college, and changing communication habits (less AOL more Gchat) we fell out of touch. I kept in touch with B who was on facebook but that was about it. Well, toward my senior year of college, I see T pop up on my messaging app, so I say hello, but I only get emoticons and punctuation in response. So I figure her brother or someone had hacked her account and give up. The next day I find a message on my screen to the effect of "So now you want to talk after everything?" and I'm like "We fell out of touch like people do, I want to catch up, what's the big deal?" And eventually come home to a tirade on my screen about how HURT she was that I *never called* and how this single-handedly destroyed her self-esteem etc etc and if I wasn't actively dying or something she didn't want to hear from me. And I was all poised to apologize and talk it out with her...and then I realized...it would be entirely in line with her personality to want this reconciliation to happen on HER terms, with me begging forgiveness (for falling out of touch? perceived slights? etc?). And I had no desire for that kind of friendship in my life. I had some really solid ones from college. So I basically told her, "well, if you ever do want to catch up let me know :)" And I let it go.
Some people are just...snots. Some grow out of it, some don't. Obviously you can't just not talk to her, as with me and T. But you don't have to reply to her book; just say "I'm sorry you feel that way, let me know if it changes," leave the ball in her court, and be civil on the family chat and at family events. Obviously, you have the love of other people in the family and that's a really really good thing!
-
I think I am raising moral children in a secular household. My husband and I were both raised religious, but deconverted before we had kids. So far I think my kids seem to have a moral compass inside them that tells them what is right and fair or not. The Golden Rule has been around since Buddha- no religion has a claim on that, and IMO it's the rule that all the others are set upon. The further from faith I get, the more I realize that it's really not what they claim it is. I reject the idea that children are born with the tendency to sin, IME it seems they are born with curiosity and a natural tendency toward fairness and helping others. I do not have a threat of hell to encourage good behavior- they are good for the value of being good. It's my job to guide them into good decision making.
My advice- if your family still has the faith you grew up in, they are always going to wish you were raising your own kids that way. You cannot change their minds about it, but you also don't have to feel guilty. Your responsibility is to raise your kids to the best of your ability to be helpful, loving, caring individuals. Don't bother trying to justify yourself or arguing with others. Keep in mind that at some point in history, one of your relatives left their faith to join the one your family is a member of now ;)
There are a few books you might like- Parenting Beyond Belief and Maybe Right- Maybe Wrong by Dan Barker
I think you will find that there are a lot of us who left faith and are raising secular kids. We are not in the majority, but there are lots of us out here! Our kids are doing great, and great caring kids.
-
One option is a Unitarian universalist Church. They are very big on "you can believe or not". I think a typical congregation is a mix of mixed religion families , agnostics, and atheists. It gives a nice social group, a framework for morality education (I don't know the details on their Sunday school program but I've heard the sex Ed program for older kids is spectacular) and a community.
-
Thank you so much for all the helpful replies so far. BabyShark, if I could choose a culture that most closely matches my personal values, it would be Orthodox Judaism. I would love to figure out a way to raise a good Jewish kid without the Judaism. I wonder if it's possible or if faith is integral to producing a child with that set of values.
Bender, nobody but my husband knows I'm an Atheist. It would cause many of the people in my life a lot of psychic pain to know I've turned away. When we fly out to the Midwest and visit, I attend service and say my prayers like everyone else. Why this SIL called me out is beyond me. One of the other sisters (there are 5 in total) who have come out and visited us must have told her that we don't attend church in our normal lives.
I feel your pain. I'm an Aethist in the Deep South, so that has led to some crazy interactions with people. Luckily, my family is pretty cool (mom was raised in the church but didn't feel any connection and stopped going, my dad grew up in an Islamic country and quit practicing once he moved to the US), so the only people who get goofy about it are acquaintances and strangers, and they can go step on a Lego.
I married a Jewish girl and if this is how you feel, I would seriously check out some Reform Judaism temples in your area. Ours is great about being very big on Cultural Judaism and only a minor emphasis on the spiritual aspect. I had to take a couple of classes at the temple in order to to allow us to be able to have a Jewish wedding ceremony, but the classes were very focused on the history and custom of the Jewish people over time, not about building a connection to God. The class also had couples and individuals who were not raised Jewish and had no prior connection to Judaism, but were looking to convert and they were welcomed and I have since seen some as members of the Temple.
That said, I agree with previous posters who have stated that there is absolutely no reason to think that you can raise someone to have good moral character and integrity in a secular/agnostic/atheist household.
-
The SIL I am currently extremely pissed at is a bully to the other sisters, except the one she likes. She's been rude and bitchy on that chat many times and no one calls her out because they are all very passive and sweet and avoid conflict at all costs.
The next time this happens you should respond by letting her know that her behavior is not very Christ-like :)
-
SIL's are the bestest.
yes you can raise decent non-religious kids. My dad was raised agnostic, in a family of rather arrogant agnostics. Their view was that religion is an invention of man, to control other (weak willed, non-thinking) men. However they taught a good moral/ethical code, and my dad was about the best guy I know.
Teach them basic morality and above all, critical thinking and a desire & appreciation for the truth. If they desire truth, they'll find it. best of luck.
-
The SIL I am currently extremely pissed at is a bully to the other sisters, except the one she likes. She's been rude and bitchy on that chat many times and no one calls her out because they are all very passive and sweet and avoid conflict at all costs.
The next time this happens you should respond by letting her know that her behavior is not very Christ-like :)
I'm picturing "Bless your heart!" as the go-to response. (sinking to the same level of passive-aggressiveness as the SIL, so you might not want to be that person.)
-
Totally possible. Be supportive, loving parents and set a good example in your own behavior and the kid will be just fine. Religion is in no way necessary to teach morals. I went to church as a child but have no intention of going regularly (excpet by special request of my parents) with my children.
This. And I just want to chime in as someone who was not even baptized, much less taken to church as a kid. My grandparents very very occasionally took us to church with them, but I never picked up anything there; we just sat in the back wondering why the dude in the dress up front kept droning on and why we kept having to kneel. I don't recall our grandparents ever telling us Bible stories or trying to teach us about Jesus; they only took us to church, when they did, because we happened to have spent Saturday night at their house and they couldn't leave us alone when they went to church the next morning.
We learned ethics and morals from our mom and maternal grandparents (dad and paternal grandparents were on the other side of the country). Partly it was a matter of just watching them live; partly it was talking about why they did X or didn't do Y; and partly it was a matter of learning about society, what is wrong or right about it, and how people have worked to make it better (my mom was active in the 1960s civil rights movement and 1970s feminism, among other causes).
You learn morality from examples (people around you) and stories, both true stories (mom's anecdotes about XYZ person she knew...) and fairy tales, children's books, etc. Stories in which people get what they deserve are morally satisfying. Stories in which good people don't get what they deserve are sad. Stories where someone sees a good person and helps them out are happy. It's all about the Golden Rule, a concept that long predates Christianity and exists in every culture I'm aware of.
Reading such stories and talking about them afterwards makes it clear what is right and how you should and should not treat people. Jesus/Moses/Buddha/etc. do not need to be part of the story in order for that to be true. And if Jesus/Moses/Buddha/etc. are in the story, that's not the reason the kid is learning morality from that story; they're learning it because what HAPPENS in the story shows you what is good and what is bad.
-
I.P. said it best about the state of modern religion.
I think of church as the teachers of religion in the same way public school teaches math. Both do a good job and you can learn from either. However as the homeschool community points out, you can definitely teach math without the use of schools. In many cases you can do an even better job, so why stop at Catholicism and Judaism when you can learn non-Judaic teachings? Church generally limits you to learning a very strict set of rules, whereas religious studies opens you to more (I suspect I.P. has done some private studying, it was far too eloquent and thought out).
As with homeschooling, the biggest pitfall is not getting the work done. As long as you're prepared to teach moralities (and religion if you choose) there's little difference. Church happens to be an easy way to get the lessons in weekly doses, its not a misnomer calling it Sunday School.
Please note, I'm not disparaging any religion here, I happen to think religion has great value. I like the introspection and reflection that's encouraged, I view prayer as a time to reflect on your actions, not a bad idea in anyone's life. Its the idea that G-d is taking attendance that seems strange.
-
Something interesting for the thread....this study found that being non religious was associated with more compassion/kindness. Just one study, but still very intriguing and reassuring for those of us who don't do the God thing. The more religious the kids the LESS compassionate they were, with non religious kids being the most generous and least likely to want to severely punish others for being "bad."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nonreligious-children-are-more-generous
-
I (26F) recently got into a big argument with one of my SIL (22F) over FB messaging, which culminated in her saying she "is sad" for me every day and "deeply sad" that her nephew (3 yrs old) will not grow up with God at the core like she did. This was a week ago, and the comment still irks me. My husband grew up in a deeply religious household (father is a Lutheran pastor). I grew up going to church every Sunday as well (non-denom), but have since become what I like to call "Atheist but very open to being proved wrong". Husband still has faith but is ambivalent about it.
I am starting to feel insecure about my ability to raise my boy to be a moral, well-adjusted, and loving human being without the church-going background. I wonder if my husband and me received immeasurable benefits from growing up with Judeo-Christian values even though we have both since moved away from regular church attendance. I even toy with the idea of attending church during his childhood and adolescence and let him make his own choices when he comes of age, even though it would be complete ruse on my part that I would have to keep up for 15+ years.
My questions: Anyone else in a similar situation where you grew up with God and recognized the benefits of that upbringing but have since renounced it? Do you think it's possible to raise a child with all the positive attributes that faith has to offer without the actual "God" part?
Grew up Catholic, husband grew up non-denominational Christian. His mom is Danish, and not particularly religious. His dad isn't either.
I'm now atheist, he's agnostic. Our boys (10 and 4) are quite moral and know right from wrong...because we teach them to treat others like you'd want to be treated.
It's not rocket science.
-
Something interesting for the thread....this study found that being non religious was associated with more compassion/kindness. Just one study, but still very intriguing and reassuring for those of us who don't do the God thing. The more religious the kids the LESS compassionate they were, with non religious kids being the most generous and least likely to want to severely punish others for being "bad."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nonreligious-children-are-more-generous
I would like to point out that this doesn't disprove the existence of a divine creator or even the possibility that we can best learn those lessons through His instruction and guidance, it simply confirms what I stated about religious institutions being in opposition to a practiced faith in the one and only divine creator who's wisdom is made visible and manifest through the observation of the very universe around us and making the choice to follow His way.
I get not wanting to buy into the "gods" of man's religions, they're about as genuine as mythological deities as presented. Heck, the Christian Jesus as normally presented represents an anti-semitic pagan sun god more than anything (and the Reformation is still trying to untangle from that some 400+ years later). However, none of these points disprove the possible existence of a very real creator of the universe with a very specific name or the actual Jewish Messiah who extended the covenant and salvation to all nations some two millennia ago, nor does it invalidate the core accepted writings of Judaism or Christianity. These points are considerably more verifiable, and only strengthen the case for the way itself and our need for redemption and covering in the universe we have if we desire a relationship with that creator. That said, it does heavily poke holes in the lol-random-cruel-sky-wizard or G-D 2.0 (The Christian G-d is not some better refined and different G-d from the Jewish one! It's the exact same caring and righteous G-d!) style deities that man tries to create and present, even through the usage of the very writings addressing that far deeper truth by twisting them for the sake of controlling others.
I don't post this to sidetrack the topic, evangelize or try to pick a fight. (Trust me, I don't want to fight about this - only further clarify my own position.) My desire is to make a point about distinction and nuance in the subject. It's not as black and white as many like to think it is on either side of the fence. It's my hope that can be read and understood.
-
The important point is that it doesn't matter whether there is a God or not. It is literally irrelevant to one's ability to live a moral life. Thus personally, I don't identify as anything. Not Christian, agnostic, or atheist. I find no particular satisfaction or enlightenment from church so I don't go. I find no comfort in defining my level of disbelief on the agnostic-atheist spectrum, so I decline to do that as well. But I care deeply about my fellow humans and try to live my life in such a way as to benefit the common good, as well as myself.
Good works do give me deep satisfaction, and I commit my energies accordingly. This is what I will teach my children as well, and if they decide a particular religious or philosophical framework helps, I'll happily support them on their own journey.
-
If it hasn't been mentioned yet, I highly recommend the book "Parenting Beyond Belief" for a thoughtful discussion of this topic, coupled to specific strategies you can implement to raise moral human beings without threatening them with magical retribution.
A key component is teaching compassion and tolerance, including the lesson that everyone has a right to choose for themselves what to believe. That includes atheists and fundamentalIst in equal measure, which means everyone has to learn to allow other people to believe in stupid stuff.
Sounds like your SIL still needs to learn that lesson, and you are in danger of joining her there if you argue with her about it.
-
I'll write about my personal experience. My siblings and I were raised in a secular/atheist household. I believe that we have high moral standards. I completely trust my siblings to do the right thing. ysette9 makes a good point: a key thing was establishing our own moral code, independently from our faith (or absence thereof).
That said, religious education was an important part of our upbringing. Even though we did not believe in religious myths, we were expected to be knowledgeable about them and understand their significance (including Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish and Christian myths). Notably, we were taught that many of our secular moral codes are inherited from our Judeo-Christian heritage (in particular, from our Roman Catholic heritage).
My parents emphasized the importance of respecting others, of generally trusting them, of being open and honest. They explained very clearly that we have rights, but also responsibilities. And that our rights end were the rights of others start. The explained the importance of the social compact, but also that it can only work if we take responsibility for our actions. They emphasized the importance not only of hard work, but also of happiness (both of ourselves, and of our surroundings). We were expected of being involved in our communities, giving back, and being thankful for the hand that life dealt us.
Of course, this does will not necessarily reassure your sister. Perhaps you can explain what actions your son takes in order to become a good human being. Concrete examples of the development of his moral compass. But more generally, remember that this is, in the end, no more than armchair parenting. Don't take it too seriously.
-
Thanks, group. The MMM community never disappoints. I have read and thought over every response and greatly appreciate your input. I have a lot of good reading material to look into now, as well as overwhelming reassurance that transmitting a strong moral framework to my little one does not necessitate regular church attendance.
I was pleasantly surprised to see a few responses from people who are involved in the Jewish community but not necessarily the faith aspect. I had no idea this was even a possibility. My previous impression of Jewish culture was that it was a pretty closed-off group with a take-it-(all of it)-or-leave-it mentality.
Edit: I particularly wanted to hear from people who are now secular but think at least somewhat fondly of their religious upbringing (which I got!); it seems to be more of a minority POV. I was briefly part of an Atheist club in college where I met some smart, interesting people, but their total derisiveness and contempt for anything having to do with faith (Christianity especially) was not my cup o' tea. Plus if I want that POV I have Bill Maher.
Now that I have had time to mull all this over, I realize my SIL is still a child in many ways, despite technically being a grown woman (at 21-22). She's newly married and recently graduated from a small Lutheran college. She has never ventured outside the community in which she grew up. In other words, she doesn't know her thumb from her asshole and her comments should not have set me off like they did.
Perhaps she did actually mean what she said, instead of this being some weird power play. It's shitty but at least we don't live nearby and probably never will, since my husband is in the Navy and the likelihood of being stationed in the Midwest is <0%. I haven't responded to her diatribe yet and left the family chat, so there is this noticeable rift in the family now that no one has ventured to bridge yet.
-
Now that I have had time to mull all this over, I realize my SIL is still a child in many ways, despite technically being a grown woman (at 21-22).
Fun fact: current research shows that the brain is not truly fully formed and matured until around age 25 on average, so maybe there is hope she can still grow up yet.
-
Your SIL is way out of line and you should not let it get to you.
Children raised in deeply secular countries (like northern Europe) turn out perfectly fine and contribute to thriving and peaceful societies everyday. Children in very religious countries like Pakistan on the other hand... But oh well, at least they grow up knowing that god is on their side so I guess they can deal with being dirt poor, uneducated and in constant danger of being blown up for no reason at all or lynched should they ever dare to express doubts...
Your SIL is VERY lucky she did not say something like that to me...
If you lead by example your kids will be fine.
I would also recommend that you and your husband are open with them what you both personally do and do not believe and to tell them that they can make up (and change) their own mind. This would open up the possibility of your little sunshine telling 'mommy is an atheist' to your parents over dinner or after visiting church when your at their place but I still think it's worth it. Putting up a deliberate act on the other side could damage your relationship with them (they would at least sense something is of from a certain age) and to tell them 'I don't believe in god, but don't tell granny!' could give them the idea that being an atheist is wrong and immoral.
-
This would open up the possibility of your little sunshine telling 'mommy is an atheist' to your parents
We did have to deal with an 10 year old who would say things like "you know god isn't real, right?" to other kinds on the playground when they would talk about their faith. Kids have no filter. This is why I think it's so important to start early teaching the lesson that everyone gets to decide for themselves.
I know his comments weren't actually any worse than a kid on the playground talking about loving Jesus, but atheists are still actively discriminated against in America and saying that Jesus isn't real is considered dangerously offensive while saying Jesus is all powerful is totally normal and accepted. You have to learn to deal with the double standard.
-
Edit: I particularly wanted to hear from people who are now secular but think at least somewhat fondly of their religious upbringing (which I got!); it seems to be more of a minority POV.
It's probably a minority POV because for those of us who are currently living a secular life but were raised in a religious household, we probably have a lot of complex feelings about the religious aspect of our upbringing. Everyone has baggage from how they were raised and religion is notorious for instilling strong opinions and heavy baggage. I appreciate some aspects of my religious upbringing, and it taught some interesting lessons in 'how to sit still and quiet for an hour', when I was older 'how to sleep upright without being obvious', how to think carefully about my place in the world, how to think about what kind of person I want to be, how to differentiate science and fact from belief or faith, etc. It also taught me about hypocrisy and prejudice and power and sexism. Odds were never great that I was going to grow up to be a believer once they told me I could never be Pope because ~*~reasons~*~.
Now that I have had time to mull all this over, I realize my SIL is still a child in many ways, despite technically being a grown woman (at 21-22). She's newly married and recently graduated from a small Lutheran college.
This made me realize I have no idea how old you are, but for at least your SIL, she is still incredibly young and sounds like she has been very sheltered from the wider world in a lot of ways. In addition to the brain development thing mentioned above, you are probably one of the first people to really 'challenge' her belief system by existing outside of what she considers 'normal' and she's reacting very badly (along with generally being an unpleasant immature person) to being shown that what she has been told is the One True Way is maybe less than a singular truth. None of which is to say you should not stand up to her rudeness and disrespect, but maybe to give you a little more patience and perspective when dealing with her.
-
This would open up the possibility of your little sunshine telling 'mommy is an atheist' to your parents
We did have to deal with an 10 year old who would say things like "you know god isn't real, right?" to other kinds on the playground when they would talk about their faith. Kids have no filter. This is why I think it's so important to start early teaching the lesson that everyone gets to decide for themselves.
I know his comments weren't actually any worse than a kid on the playground talking about loving Jesus, but atheists are still actively discriminated against in America and saying that Jesus isn't real is considered dangerously offensive while saying Jesus is all powerful is totally normal and accepted. You have to learn to deal with the double standard.
Oh yes, we have dealt with this too in our secular family -- our 10 year old is only now starting to understand he needs a filter on this subject. Our other, older child always understood it and was tactful/respectful from the time she was little. So strange how they vary.
Also -- just wanted to say this post is a breath of fresh air. Love your cooking/morality analogy Ysette.
-
I have no children but will talk about myself. I was raised in a deeply religious household. Forced to go to church and even attended a school where we had service like three times a week.
I never felt like religion gave us any moral codes. It did not stop me trying a cigarette at thirteen and drinking either. It just made me feel guilty for being human.
I loved reading so inevitably I started challenging everything I believed in when I was 14 and I remember telling my mom I no longer wanted to go to church when I was 15 and we had a big argument about it.
She inevitably let me be and I haven't stepped foot since then. If anything, I feel I have influenced her some.
The only person who was never religious in my family was my grandfather. He was the smartest person I've ever known and he approached everything with a skepticism. He said, you don't have to be religious to be a good person.
I don't think I'll ever have kids but if I do, I would never put my child through church. Absolutely not. I am heavily against organized religion. I feel this is nothing more than brain washing.
-
I grew up in a religious family (the country was 94% Catholic back then) and endured five years of nuns and Christian Brothers before we moved to an area with more lay teachers. The nuns made me switch from being left-handed to right-handed, because left = sinistra/sinister. I only endured a few months with the Christian Brother who taught our class, and thought he was a sadist. It was worse - he ended up in prison - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/exbrother-becomes-fifth-man-guilty-of-sex-abuse-at-school-26635155.html
I haven't been remotely religious since I was eleven years old, and had no intention of ever forcing my daughter to follow any religious dogma. I always tell her she can decide for herself whether she wants to believe or not, but I've always emphasized that I have no expectation either way, and she can believe or not as she sees fit. She seems to be following my path, and is a perfectly nice kid with great values. No religion necessary.
We went to (my one and only) Bat Mitzvah a few years ago. It must be a more liberal/relaxed temple, because I didn't have to wear a yarmulke, but I couldn't tell you any more about it. However, I was impressed with the service, and the Rabbi. It was very much focused on life lessons and preparing for the future, and there was no "you must do this because God says" rhetoric.
In this part of the country, I've noticed that maybe 20% of my daughter's friends seem to attend church on a regular basis. There has only been one Saturday night sleepover where the parents requested an early pickup on Sunday because they were going to church. It certainly doesn't seem to have any negative affect on the kids. In fact, most of them are envious of the kids who don't go to church and don't have to get up and out on a Sunday morning :)
-
I saw a great meme on this that said: Morality: Doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion: Doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
My kids are 11 and 13, never gone to church, not baptized, never raised to believe in supernatural beings, superstition or the like. I routinely get complimented on what nice/polite/caring children they are from people like teachers, nurses, other parents, etc. We also associate with a lot of freethinkers/humanists and their kids are pretty nice/moral/kind too.
Follow your instincts on this.
-
that her nephew (3 yrs old) will not grow up with God at the core like she did.
Tell her that we all grow up without God, but some of us delude ourselves into believing otherwise.
One does not need a God or Gods or imaginary friends to be a good person.
I should also point out that all so-called "Judeo-Christian" values were around long before there was a "Judeo" or a "Christian."
People who believed in a multitude of Gods, and no God or Gods at all, have believe in similar values for thousands of years.
-
I love reading these type of discussions. It is like window to an alien planet. My kids are not allowed to make fun of religious people they know, or tell their great aunt that angels are not real, but other than that, religion is something we look at on tv or when we go to look at a historical monument that happens to be a church or religious statue.
The very idea that my little sweethearts, who have been exposed to discussions about ethics and philosophy their whole life, growing up in a big and loving family who all share solid core values, should be less moral than someone who was forced to go to Sunday school, is just ridiculous. There is a link to some research in this thread that indicates that atheist children are more altruistic than religious ones. I would also like to add the highly unscientific datapoint of my one neighbor, the only one who spoke loudly about being christian, who also was the only neighbor who ended up in jail (for embezzling his church).
-
I love everyone's responses! "Religious is not the same as spiritual" especially resonates with me. We are Christians, but I feel the same concerns as the O.P. because our church community is super small and intimate (not something you would really recognize as a church. sort of like an amateur Quaker meeting), with no other kids who come regularly. I often wonder if my kids would "turn out better" with a big rockin' Sunday school group and such, but am trusting they will get something more valuable from the authenticity they're seeing with our little group of non-religious Christ lovers.
I can see two aspects: moral/ethical content, and community. As others have said, you can provide the moral/ethical content through dinner table conversations, and great literature.
I think it is important for kids to have some form of community, too, whether it's a large extended family, an informal network of family friends, a small town, or a secular group. It's hard these days to find people you can trust. When my kids are in high school, I want them to feel like they have good, responsible people other than us to whom they can open up. Ideally, I want them to have a peer group, a tribe of others their age who are caring, ethical, and moral. (I had a friend who grew up un-religious but hung out with the mormon kids in high school because they were good people and knew how to have fun without alcohol.)
One secular parenting book that I love is "How to Talk so Kids will Listen and Listen so Kids will Talk" by Faber & Mazlish. It describes ways to meet kids' real emotional needs so they will feel understood and learn ways of working through problems and conflicts. Even if you only have 20 minutes, you can get something out of this book by peeking through the graphic novel / cartoon style illustrations to get the gist of many of the conversational tools.
-
OP, I don't know the social circle you hang out with. But for us, our friends extremely diverse, and a lot of them are without zero, limited, or "dimished with age" religious upbringing of many kinds, especially for people born in Asia I would say. They are all good people, raise good children. It is about being a good responsible person, and do the right thing with a clean conscience, even when there is no God watching, rewarding or punishing your actions. IMHO Growing up with a good core value doesn't have to tie to a central figure, altough it might help, but not a must.
-
S.S,
With atheism, belief and morality are separate components, instead of being packaged together like they are in religion. Once we realize gods are manmade myths, we've resolved many questions about the universe, but we then have the separate task of finding and justifying our moral attitudes.
Many religious people cannot imagine a moral system not tied to supernatural beliefs - their own systems have always been integrated with such beliefs. They've never seen, tried, or read about ethics outside the context of their religion (for many, doing this research would be considered immoral). Thus, it is not surprising to hear them claim that atheists must also be amoral. Many churches preach this as fact. After all, why would the Bible/Torah/Koran say secular people are going to hell if they weren't bad?
If you are at all worried that your atheism might make your kids amoral, you might still have some of these false religious assumptions in your head. The most atheistic countries in the world have the lowest crime rates in the world, and vice versa. Within the US, the most religious areas have the most crime, and vice versa.
As others have pointed out, your kids will eventually force you to confront these claims of amorality. If you are feeling unprepared to either answer their questions or defend your secular lifestyle, that's a sign it is time to think and study to understand precisely where you stand and why you stand there. It's time to hit the books! Parenting Beyond Belief, many books by Dan Barker, or many books in the American Humanist Association catalog can help you explore and articulate a whole menu of ideas. Been there. Done that! Still learning!
Now, we still haven't addressed community. We are fortunate to live in a time when people with minority viewpoints or atypical interests can find each other with the click of a button. Go to meetup.com and search for things that interest you - or secular keywords. There you'll find all sorts of interesting communities organizing get-togethers all around you for all sorts of reasons.
Non-believer groups are also a thing, and they've rapidly evolved since the days when grumpy old men held bitch-about-religion sessions in library meeting rooms. Yes, there is often some animosity toward religion, but keep in mind that many of these folks have experienced disownment, lost friends, been discriminated against or coerced, or been sexually abused by the "holy men" who lecture others about morality. Personally, I can't blame them.
The most successful groups have stuff going on: hikes, pizza parties, picnics, book clubs, conferences, game nights, family groups, pub nights, etc. If you don't find one within driving distance, there's a good chance you could find people through social media interested in organizing with you.
The secular life requires a DIY mentality that is somewhat surprising in comparison with the integrated, choreographed communities and beliefsets of religion. I find that being unaware of secular philosophy and community is harder than putting in the labor to learn about and immerse myself in these things.
Good luck on the journey of a lifetime!
-
You can definitely raise good kids in a secular home. I really like the idea of a family culture. Even if you identify with a certain religion not all member of that religion may share your family values. If I say we don't do that because we are Catholic or Jewish, then my kids could get confused when people of that religion are doing bad things. We try and have a family culture so that we can teach our kids that we do good things because we are part of our family. Part of creating the culture involves traditions taken from both sides of our family and a spirit of generosity.
-
I am starting to feel insecure about my ability to raise my boy to be a moral, well-adjusted, and loving human being without the church-going background. I wonder if my husband and me received immeasurable benefits from growing up with Judeo-Christian values even though we have both since moved away from regular church attendance. I even toy with the idea of attending church during his childhood and adolescence and let him make his own choices when he comes of age, even though it would be complete ruse on my part that I would have to keep up for 15+ years.
What would be a ruse about it? If you went to a minister and told him that you aren't sure about God, but would like to bring your kids to church, you would be welcomed with open arms. If you aren't, that church is very confused about its mission and is best avoided. I am probably best described as agnostic (or flat out apathetic) but I like going to church for a host of reasons from socializing to listening to the music. I won't go to a church that tells me I'm supposed to hate gay people or divorced people or something like that.
-
I guess my take is to ponder whether it isn't actually easier to raise moral kids in a secular home.
Having a sky fairy as a scapegoat that steals credit for the good, and "works in mysterious ways" for the bad is a really line blurring concept for little ones to wrap their head around. Attending church also exposes kids to a large dose of utter hypocrisy. The nice middle eastern man preached about helping the poor, yet you are often surrounded by piles of families who would not give a dime to him if they encountered him on the street.
I could go on, but I have to say that my personal experience is that there is a small negative correlation between religiosity and morality, with the first often giving cover for the lack of the second.
My mother was raised church going, and my domineering grandfather used it as one of the tools to terrorize the house. She raised two boys secular just fine (though my brother did end up picking a religious path at about age 10-11 and stuck with it). I am raising my child in a secular fashion and have no fears of qualms about it being the right thing for our household. If he chooses to go to church at some point I won't stand in his way, and reserve the right to step in if the church of his choosing starts taking the fantasy too far.
-
I could go on, but I have to say that my personal experience is that there is a small negative correlation between religiosity and morality, with the first often giving cover for the lack of the second.
I agree with your observed correlation, but I don't think it's causative. I think people raised with a religious justification for their morality just fail to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to answer those tough questions. They are spoon fed easy answers, and no longer feel the need to seek out or understand the concepts of ethics in any framework besides "because God says so".
The philosophy of ethics is a complex and fascinating topic, more than enough to fill multiple university courses. Basing your ethical framework on a single ancient text with a long list of known contradictions and clearly immoral behavior seems like an obviously bad idea, from my perspective, but I know there are millions of Americans who prefer to disregard the past few thousand years of thinking on this topic.
-
If you really want a religion but don't want to be religious just pick Buddhism. I'm an atheist myself but Buddhism doesn't seem to be against atheism really.
I also like this quote from Buddha:
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
-
My situation is not exactly the same, but I want to offer you some encouragement.
Just teach your children to understand that the world is bigger than themselves, and to be considerate of others, to be helpful, to be kind, etc.
Practice thankfulness, teach them generosity, do not let them become self-absorbed and self-driven. The world can be a very consumerist, me-me-me place, and popular culture will try to teach them to be selfish, rude, vulgar, impatient, and money-driven. The popular culture will get them if they get no other guidance, so guide them toward being connected to and caring toward their fellow men and women. You do not need to talk about God to do that. But you need to be active about teaching something and not letting the kids learn aimlessly. Give them a grounded purpose and sense of service. It's not easy! Hope that helps.
-
I particularly wanted to hear from people who are now secular but think at least somewhat fondly of their religious upbringing...
I would say this is me-ish.
I was raised super religious, and have had a big and long journey in relation to (multiple forms of) religion. Now I'm nothing, have great affection for some aspects of what I grew up with, and some repulsion for some aspects of what I grew up with. My primary point of "repulsion" is in an appeal to an external authority...but I land there in relation to government, limited science, "experts", any education system, etc, as well. i.e., This reliance on authority is not specific to religion. I prefer direct experience, thoughtful conversation, integrity, etc, in most matters.
As a kid, I LOVED some aspects of religion, and experienced it as personal, supportive, grounding, affirming, and helpful. In my late teens, I chose another religion and am pretty sure that choice saved my life, my life being in a pretty precarious place by then. I don't think all people need it, but I think *I* needed the ideas, guidance, rules, structure, and people of that group, perhaps because I had nothing/no one else helping me. So, I look back on that one too with respect and affection, even though I ultimately left.
I'm now raising my kid with exposure to many belief systems and practices (atheism, Buddhism, progressive Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc), and ongoing discussion of all of these as well as of conservative Christianity and some other systems. While he's being raised in a secular (or perhaps "spiritual but not religious") home, we engage with a variety of cultures and discuss it all freely. For me, the lack of avoidance, criticism, omniscience, or adoption is the sweet spot.
I'm confident he's a moral, compassionate, empathic, open-hearted, caring, "good" person.
-
If you really want a religion but don't want to be religious just pick Buddhism.
Buddhism is only a religion in the loosest sense of the word. It isn't predicated on a belief in the supernatural. It's a series of teachings designed to help people find happiness by thinking through your place in the world and reflecting on your circumstances and choices.
Like all religions there are many variants, and some of them certainly do espouse magical beliefs. Those beliefs are not central to the religion, though.
-
I'm interpreting this thread as one more data point to avoid family on Facebook...
In all seriousness though, I have not noticed a correlation with religion and morality, ethics, altruism, honesty or and other positive value. I know wonderful atheists and horrible fundamentalist Christians, and vice versa. Raise YOUR kids how you want to as long as you are not harming them. All kids need is love and attention. Religion is not required.
You SIL sounds like a person to be avoided whenever possible. She is trying to force her morality upon you, perhaps because she feels insecure about her own faith. Who knows, people are complex. Instead of being angry at her however, you should feel sorry for her. People that behave like that are usually not truly happy. There is usually some deeper struggle they are wrestling with.
Empathy, love and kindness are the greatest weapons.
-
Following because I have thought about this a lot since the birth of our kids. We also have pressure from family re: religion and church.
I'm just not that into it. Had enough to last me a lifetime as a kid. Don't want to subject my own kids to the same experience. If they choose it for themselves, then I will support it. But I will encourage a good amount of questions/deep thinking around all topics that have anything to do with religion. We don't want them to get sucked into the kool-aid gulp.
They have been exposed to religion in tiny bits - Wed night kid classes with cousins at church, a Christmas service, a few weddings, etc. Still too young to have any meaningful lasting impression, but we will be turning that corner soon.
Thanks for starting this thread. It has been interesting to read.
-
If you really want a religion but don't want to be religious just pick Buddhism.
Buddhism is only a religion in the loosest sense of the word. It isn't predicated on a belief in the supernatural. It's a series of teachings designed to help people find happiness by thinking through your place in the world and reflecting on your circumstances and choices.
Like all religions there are many variants, and some of them certainly do espouse magical beliefs. Those beliefs are not central to the religion, though.
With Buddism, there is a spectrum between theistic and atheistic varieties. Some worship the Budda; others consider him merely a wise man. In Asia, there are whole monastic villages comprised of men who have abandoned their families and children to pursue a life of poverty, begging, and prayer. They adorn the their temples with gold while their faraway families starve. In Burma, they relentlessly persecute the Muslim minority, leaving many to flee in boats. They have taken this destructive path in the false expectation of supernatural rewards.
The atheistic Buddists may seem harmless enough, but as you slide down the spectrum toward the theistic side, the old universal problems with religion emerge. Also, many of these theistic Buddists were initially atheistic Buddists, and ended up in their detrimental positions with just a few tweaks to the beliefset.
-
There are heaps of people on the planet (various religions, no religion) who believe in a god, gods, things unseen by many, things unseen by any, an after-life, etc, who don't do stuff like leave their families. So, I don't think theism is what triggers that kind of action; something else inside a given person does.
I realize no one here said theism = jerkism, but I felt this was worth noting. I get nervous when I see things correlated, or a correlation implied, when a correlation is absent.
I like what frugaldoc said. Any jerk can pin their jerkness on whatever they want—theism, atheism, other. The theism/atheism/whatever isn't the problem, the jerkishness is. And yes, avoid jerks, whatever excuse they use for that trait :)
-
I really do appreciate BBC's "Together" podcast for ages 7-11. I suppose in the U.K. they listen to it in school to help foster a baseline, shared sense of values.
They do mention God, but not in a provocative way. He figures in as a vague, benevolent force out there. I don't think it's done in a way that would offend those who do not believe, unless you're really staunch. Each episode includes a cheesy song; skip past that if you have to, and check out the radio drama portion. The one about Irena Sendler was utterly moving. (I cried!) It's exactly the kind of message I want my kids to hear: true faith (or true humanity, you could say) sometimes involves bucking the system and taking great risks to help those who are vulnerable.
This series has definitely sparked some great conversations for our family.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03g64pp/episodes/downloads
Edit: There is sometimes a prayer at the end, set up by saying "so-and-so is going to pray now; if you want to make the prayer your own, you can say "amen" at the end."
It's really simple stuff like "thank you, God... help us to be kind to others..."
-
These are my jumbled together thoughts on this topic. It's something I've thought about a lot because I've had some associations with very religious people in my time. Some of them thought it was impossible to be both an Atheist and a good person and it infuriated me but really made me think too.
I was raised secular but went to a very relaxed church school for several years. We had a very small amount of religious education and went to church a couple of times per year. I think in total, two children out of 60 in my grade went to church on Sundays. There were multiple Muslim children in my classes over the years because the school was so welcoming. I loved the small community feel of the school but I never believed in God.
I'm still a good person and I'm confident of that. I believe everyone should be able to believe in whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on other people's lives. That goes both ways in my mind: let gay people get married and don't require a Jehovah's Witness to donate blood. I do lots of other 'good person' things too. I donate a huge chunk of my income, sponsor children, support charities, donate to food banks, sign petitions for things I believe in and fight for other people's rights.
I think most of being 'a good human' is not being selfish. I think that would be easy enough for you to teach based on the fact that you're even thinking about this topic. As your son gets older, talk to him about things in the news. Show him how other people live their lives differently and often in worse circumstances than his. Take him to food banks and to volunteer days. Don't let him live in a bubble. If you're comfortable with it, teach him about different religions and expose him to those too. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable taking my child to a church that I had an affiliation with but no real belief in on a regular basis and lying to my child about what I believed. What about taking him to different places of worship when he's old enough and learning about their beliefs with him? He might decide that a different religion is what calls to him and he might find it's none at all but I can't see it having any kind of negative affect on him.
I do think every religion or lack thereof has a spectrum of people. Some will be good, some won't. I'm guessing your sister in law was raised in a way that she considers ideal. Has the upbringing really done her any good? Would you be glad if you heard your son talking to people the way she does?
For the record, I'm actually the same age as your sister in law and as others have said, our brains haven't finished developing. However, she is more than capable of being a decent human being and I really wouldn't write off the way she's acting as her still growing up.
-
I was raised by a very Catholic mom--it never took! Now I've gone between non-Catholic Christian church, wicca, Buddhism, atheism, etc., I think I've finally settled on a combination of Buddhism and Humanism. Humanism makes the absolute most sense to me--the motto is "Good without a God" which is exactly what you seem to be looking for!
-
OK. Religious people are kind of icky, per the board. But church attendance in the United States is associated with doing better at a lot of stuff. Not a lot better, but somewhat. It is hard to tease out the exact magnitude, because human studies have drawbacks (the primary one being that people organized enough to "get themselves to church on time" are going to do better).
Life expectancy is probably the most robust result.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2648114 "Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality" estimates around seven years.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2521827 "Association of Religious Service Attendance With Mortality Among Women" uses the Nurses' Health Study to give a 33% lower chance of death over the time window,with some confounding factors that are also ones themselves positively associated with church attendance.
Lower depression and anxiety associated with church attendance:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13674670903352837 "Anxiety, depression and students’ religiosity"
Decreased risk of suicide associated with church attendance:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395610003407 "results suggest that religious attendance is possibly an independent protective factor against suicide attempts."
Immune system
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00648.x/full "An Increase in Religiousness/Spirituality Occurs After HIV Diagnosis and Predicts Slower Disease Progression over 4 Years in People with HIV" being one of the more interesting examples.
Church attendance associated with delays in adolescent sexual activity
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Wilcox/publication/247721621_The_Impact_of_Religiosity_on_Adolescent_Sexual_BehaviorA_Review_of_the_Evidence/links/54eb89ae0cf2082851be17fb.pdf "The Impact of Religiosity on Adolescent Sexual Behavior:
A Review of the Evidence" (metastudy)
Church attendance associated with more education
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00221.x/full
Fertility impacts:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/06/education-religiosity-and-fecundity.html "Education, religiosity, and fecundity" Data from the GSS, with no control variables attempted and IQ loosely measured by WORDSUM. But the raw difference among the high IQ who do not attend church (1.5) and those that do (2.5) is very large. (The General Social Survey is close to my favorite dataset and I can talk more about this if anyone is interested.)
Anyway, using Google Scholer to look for church attendance and (whatever) gives you oodles of studies.
-
We started with a new therapist today, and when she asked about church (any affiliation/culture/etc), I was like, "Oh boy..." because I got to try to explain how it is that I'm not religious yet hang at churchy stuff a LOT. lol. She seemed to get it, though :)
I like that a person can go ahead and enjoy church (if they want) without having to be a religious person. Not necessarily a direct correlation. Even so, many of us are very surprised to find how many others of us there are in the same building, hee hee.
-
OK. Religious people are kind of icky, per the board. But church attendance in the United States is associated with doing better at a lot of stuff. Not a lot better, but somewhat. It is hard to tease out the exact magnitude, because human studies have drawbacks (the primary one being that people organized enough to "get themselves to church on time" are going to do better).
Life expectancy is probably the most robust result.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2648114 "Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality" estimates around seven years.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2521827 "Association of Religious Service Attendance With Mortality Among Women" uses the Nurses' Health Study to give a 33% lower chance of death over the time window,with some confounding factors that are also ones themselves positively associated with church attendance.
Lower depression and anxiety associated with church attendance:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13674670903352837 "Anxiety, depression and students’ religiosity"
Decreased risk of suicide associated with church attendance:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395610003407 "results suggest that religious attendance is possibly an independent protective factor against suicide attempts."
Immune system
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00648.x/full "An Increase in Religiousness/Spirituality Occurs After HIV Diagnosis and Predicts Slower Disease Progression over 4 Years in People with HIV" being one of the more interesting examples.
Church attendance associated with delays in adolescent sexual activity
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Wilcox/publication/247721621_The_Impact_of_Religiosity_on_Adolescent_Sexual_BehaviorA_Review_of_the_Evidence/links/54eb89ae0cf2082851be17fb.pdf "The Impact of Religiosity on Adolescent Sexual Behavior:
A Review of the Evidence" (metastudy)
Church attendance associated with more education
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00221.x/full
Fertility impacts:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/06/education-religiosity-and-fecundity.html "Education, religiosity, and fecundity" Data from the GSS, with no control variables attempted and IQ loosely measured by WORDSUM. But the raw difference among the high IQ who do not attend church (1.5) and those that do (2.5) is very large. (The General Social Survey is close to my favorite dataset and I can talk more about this if anyone is interested.)
Anyway, using Google Scholer to look for church attendance and (whatever) gives you oodles of studies.
I've also seen religiosity negatively correlated with drug abuse, depression, and other outcomes. However, if you replace "religiosity" with "having a wide social network of friends" you find the same results. So religious is just a proxy for socially active. Religion is also positively correlated with some negatives, like child abuse, misogyny, etc.
Unfortunately, secular people tend to spend more time interacting with media than socializing, and we see the expected results of that lifestyle. Not only does it lead to bad health outcomes, but it also leads to political marginalization.
Bottom line - if you're secular, you need to be proactive about joining or building a supportive, physically-meeting community around yourself. Your well-being depends on it.
Living a lie as a churchgoer is unlikely to leave you feeling secure with your social network, friendships, etc.
-
Bottom line - if you're secular, you need to be proactive about joining or building a supportive, physically-meeting community around yourself. Your well-being depends on it.
I think this is true for some people (people who thrive with those elements) and not for others (natural hermits, etc). Human community can be painful, destructive, eroding for people who don't thrive with it, who are overwhelmed or exhausted by it. i.e., Different strokes for different folks.
Living a lie as a churchgoer is unlikely to leave you feeling secure with your social network, friendships, etc.
+1. In my experience, a lot of us feel compelled to leave such a situation sooner or later. It's important that one's network aligns with one's internal values, etc. (In my case, I found a church that aligns with my non-religious internal system, so get the best of all worlds.)
-
Thanks so much for all this participation. I love reading about everyone else's experience on this topic.
+1 To the idea that receiving the ancillary benefits of church (primarily feeling a part of a network and community) can be achieved without actual church-going but will require a lot of hustling and extra effort on our part to make that happen. I am naturally an introvert and shy around new people, so when I was younger, going to Bible studies and church camps were great because I was always surrounded by kind, supportive people who wanted nothing more than the awkward newcomer to feel included.
I have mostly overcome this for work purposes, but my personal life outside my husband, son, and a couple good friends is sorely lacking because every time I go out of my way to meet new people (e.g. going to a Meetup thing), my body and mind revert to fight-or-flight mode and I just want to make a run for it. The Navy and Marine Corps family community is low-hanging fruit that I haven't tried to take advantage of, either. It just feels so incredibly uncomfortable to me to reach out to people unless we have been forced together (e.g. work, standing in line for a long period of time, etc.).
If the following deets were unclear before:
-I am still fairly young at 26 and my SIL is super-young at 21 or 22.
-I am definitively Atheist but have mostly Christian friends who don't know that about me because it simply doesn't fucking matter. We (the people in my life and I) share similar values and enjoy each other's company- are there any other requirements to building a friendship? According to my SIL, there is.
-Parenting has come fairly naturally to me and I have a good idea of the values I want to transmit to my son and the vehicles with which to do it. I was just concerned about bringing him up in a secular manner, which is foreign to both my husband and me since we both grew up in the church.
FB Transcript, notes in bold mine
ME: I know by default you should probably hate me... We might actually get along really well if we lived closer and got to know one another better.
SIL: I'm not going to pretend that I feel close to you two (She means my husband and me). You know J (her husband) and I are religious (as are the rest of the family), and it is painfully hard for me to know that you aren't. I feel hopeless, and I wish you could feel blessed with our faith too. I don't know if I could feel close without also feeling sad for you. The thought of my nephew growing up without knowing religion as a core part of his life the way we did makes me sad. I pray for you every day. I know you're a lovely person. My mom wouldn't love you so much if you weren't (thanks...?).
To remind everyone, this response fell out of the clear blue sky. We were resolving an incident where I called her out on being a bitch to her other sisters and were just reaching a point of reconciliation.
It's been like 3 weeks and I haven't responded to her. I left the family chat because of her, which is our primary form of keeping in touch with the rest of the family and being apart of everyone's lives. No one has tried to reach out to mend the rift. Where before everyone was perfectly happy to be ignorant/in denial about how I felt about God and such, because of her bullshit it's now a Thing that needs to be Dealt With.
I don't know how she did it since, again, she has spent such little time with me, but she has correctly deduced my Atheism and has essentially "outed" me to my husband's (deeply religious) family. I don't know where to go from here- I'm angry and they're sad (presumably).
-
Maybe you should send her a lovely little card:
"You don't have to worry about our children growing up without religion anymore. Thanks to you profound advice, we have been thinking and praying and seeking council from our local religious leaders, and we are happy to announce that we have found a wonderful community in our neighborhood mosque. We have converted, and [child] will start Quran School this Saturday. Looking forward to seeing you after Ramadan, and hope Allah will bless you all, S.S."
-
Maybe you should send her a lovely little card:
"You don't have to worry about our children growing up without religion anymore. Thanks to you profound advice, we have been thinking and praying and seeking council from our local religious leaders, and we are happy to announce that we have found a wonderful community in our neighborhood mosque. We have converted, and [child] will start Quran School this Saturday. Looking forward to seeing you after Ramadan, and hope Allah will bless you all, S.S."
I will donate $20 to a charity of your choosing if you do this.
#epic
-
Maybe you should send her a lovely little card:
"You don't have to worry about our children growing up without religion anymore. Thanks to you profound advice, we have been thinking and praying and seeking council from our local religious leaders, and we are happy to announce that we have found a wonderful community in our neighborhood mosque. We have converted, and [child] will start Quran School this Saturday. Looking forward to seeing you after Ramadan, and hope Allah will bless you all, S.S."
I will donate $20 to a charity of your choosing if you do this.
#epic
And I would simply ask that you not. If actually expressing love to your fellow person is a very real value you support, doing such a thing makes you a hypocrite and no better than the person you intend to mock. An eye for an eye of this nature, even jokingly, leaves the world blind. Why? Because it's a lie, it's insulting and it's mockery.
I cannot and will not bribe with vainglorious offers of money to charities to get anyone to do the right thing, but I will simply point out that this is not the right thing. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's not as funny as you think.
-
Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's not as funny as you think.
Oh come on, it's a little bit funny.
The alternative here is to try to explain to the SIL that her "concern" is misguided and hypocritical, unless she would be happy to have a Muslim relative. Which she obviously wouldn't be, but you can't exactly call someone out for being a raging bigot on facebook so this proposed alternative is a much kinder way of making the same point.
In general, I think that responding to such hatred, especially when it comes from a person's faith, is better done with love and compassion. I certainly wouldn't have left the family chat, because that's exactly how discriminatory religious communities flourish, by isolating themselves from the rest of society.
Rejoin the chat. Tell the SIL she can pray for you all she wants, and if she pushes the issue you can point out to her that prayer has been empirically proven to be a waste of time by about a hundred peer reviewed journals, but if it makes her feel better to waste her time she should continue to do so. If she doesn't push the issue, just tell her that you will still love her and respect her choices, because that's what a good and moral person would do. Ask that she does the same, in the future. You don't even have to make explicit that she has done neither (love nor respect), because she is neither (good nor moral).
-
Oh, S.S., I can understand how you'd be feeling sad and angry. I'm embarrassed to say I did a version of that to people when I was 19, so while I'm sad now when it happens, I remember that place. If she's like I was, it's definitely not personal, just an idea some of us get locked into sometimes.
Our own beautiful network lost someone very dear to me this week because of our group not being "religious" (our church group is a mix of atheists, agnostics, progressive Christians, pagans, and so on). She is correct; as a group we are not religious, and the members that do happen to be religious are not her Very Specific Brand. But, for the rest of us there, our differences are moot. We were all blown away, and so sad.
I am definitively Atheist but have mostly Christian friends who don't know that about me because it simply doesn't fucking matter. We (the people in my life and I) share similar values and enjoy each other's company- are there any other requirements to building a friendship? According to my SIL, there is.
I hear ya. That was pain I felt when this came up in my circle last week. i.e., It is not enough that we love and care for each other and hold shared values for living, and work hard to live out our beliefs? We must also agree on semantics and sources, too? Darn :(
Yes, lots of loss there.
I do think it's very cool, though, that your relative is being so honest. I like that she's being responsible for her own feelings/experience, and also not hiding who she is. I do like that. That actually gives me hope that quite a positive relationship could be formed between you, when you both feel keen on that.
In my case, that's where my dear friend and I have landed so far and, while I'll sure miss her at our group's gatherings because she is opting out of all of those, I'm happy and relieved that we'll still hang out elsewhere.
I encourage you to reconnect with the family (because I think you like the rest of your family?) and to just keep being who you are, and sharing honestly and peacefully with SIL your own "I feel [sad/angry/hurt]" statements. Just, staying present and letting things develop as they will.
-
When people come out as atheists, they are often rejected by friends and family (i.e. "don't ever talk to me again" kind of rejection). This is why life in the closet is so hard. You cannot know if the people who love you would still love you if they actually knew who you are.
Atheists often come out to a handful of confidants first, and then decide from there. Sometimes, one or more of these confidants reject them. The pain of this rejection leads some to flee back into the closet, and others to vow that they will create a new circle of authentic relationships and live in the open.
There are many parallels to the LGBTQ community. The fear of rejection leads many to live a lifetime in hiding. "Coming out" leads many to the shocking loss of their entire family and friend circles. The percentage of trans people who have attempted suicide is 40% for a reason - being disowned by your Christian family is brutal. Even worse, they will blame you for forcing them to reject you.
I've tried living both ways. To me, life in the closet is agonizing beyond the value of the conditional friendships or family bonds propped up on false assumptions. As you find your way into the open, you should be prepared to lose more than you ever expected, and be pleasantly surprised by the loved ones who stick with you. You should also be prepared for the things people will say. The assumption that you have no ethics, no hope, or that your kids will grow up to be criminals are among these claims, and only you will be there to debunk them.
Do your homework on secular ethics and philosophy, and find your tribe so to speak, so that you have people to fall back on who will not reject you. The happy middle ground of not mentioning it can only be maintained for so long, but you can at least vow not to treat others as you would not want to be treated. Let your religious family know that you love them unconditionally. If they want to shun you after that, it will not be your fault.
-
One option is a Unitarian universalist Church. They are very big on "you can believe or not". I think a typical congregation is a mix of mixed religion families , agnostics, and atheists. It gives a nice social group, a framework for morality education (I don't know the details on their Sunday school program but I've heard the sex Ed program for older kids is spectacular) and a community.
I'd like to echo MayDay here. My wife and I have been to a UU, and I loved it. It was mostly atheists, and the sermons were a nice mix of religious and secular stories. They do a great job of discussing all religions in a fair manner, without making any judgement about them, positive or negative. If we lived closer, we'd likely still attend.
My parents consider themselves Catholic, but haven't regularly attended mass throughout my life. This peripheral position allowed me to observe religion, participate in religious cultural Holidays, while lowering the chance of indoctrination. This led me to accepting that there was a God, until I was maybe 13 and actually thought about it. Then I was able to educate myself, and make my own decisions.
My wife considers herself Deist, but doesn't attend church regularly either. Most of her family are regular church-goers, and they pray at all meals, etc. However, if they know about my lack of faith, they don't bring it up. I'm fortunate there.
Her Brother married us, and provided a very Christ-heavy ceremony script. I responded with some changes, so that it touched on God, but didn't make it sound so much like we were marrying Jesus, rather than each other. He accepted the edits without comment, and was clearly unaffected by my choice. He did great.
My advice, and what I intend to do as my son grows up, is to just be a good example. Always be kind, and the kids will do the same.
-
My wife and I have been to a UU, and I loved it.
+1.
In my case, mine isn't UU, but it sure acts like one :) So, if one seeks this particular experience, but doesn't have a UU locally, check out other spaces too. The name of a space doesn't always tell who and what is inside it.
...didn't make it sound so much like we were marrying Jesus, rather than each other.
:))))
-
Your SIL is 22 and doesn't know anything.
-
Thanks so much for all this participation. I love reading about everyone else's experience on this topic.
+1 To the idea that receiving the ancillary benefits of church (primarily feeling a part of a network and community) can be achieved without actual church-going but will require a lot of hustling and extra effort on our part to make that happen. I am naturally an introvert and shy around new people, so when I was younger, going to Bible studies and church camps were great because I was always surrounded by kind, supportive people who wanted nothing more than the awkward newcomer to feel included.
I have mostly overcome this for work purposes, but my personal life outside my husband, son, and a couple good friends is sorely lacking because every time I go out of my way to meet new people (e.g. going to a Meetup thing), my body and mind revert to fight-or-flight mode and I just want to make a run for it. The Navy and Marine Corps family community is low-hanging fruit that I haven't tried to take advantage of, either. It just feels so incredibly uncomfortable to me to reach out to people unless we have been forced together (e.g. work, standing in line for a long period of time, etc.).
If the following deets were unclear before:
-I am still fairly young at 26 and my SIL is super-young at 21 or 22.
-I am definitively Atheist but have mostly Christian friends who don't know that about me because it simply doesn't fucking matter. We (the people in my life and I) share similar values and enjoy each other's company- are there any other requirements to building a friendship? According to my SIL, there is.
-Parenting has come fairly naturally to me and I have a good idea of the values I want to transmit to my son and the vehicles with which to do it. I was just concerned about bringing him up in a secular manner, which is foreign to both my husband and me since we both grew up in the church.
FB Transcript, notes in bold mine
ME: I know by default you should probably hate me... We might actually get along really well if we lived closer and got to know one another better.
SIL: I'm not going to pretend that I feel close to you two (She means my husband and me). You know J (her husband) and I are religious (as are the rest of the family), and it is painfully hard for me to know that you aren't. I feel hopeless, and I wish you could feel blessed with our faith too. I don't know if I could feel close without also feeling sad for you. The thought of my nephew growing up without knowing religion as a core part of his life the way we did makes me sad. I pray for you every day. I know you're a lovely person. My mom wouldn't love you so much if you weren't (thanks...?).
To remind everyone, this response fell out of the clear blue sky. We were resolving an incident where I called her out on being a bitch to her other sisters and were just reaching a point of reconciliation.
It's been like 3 weeks and I haven't responded to her. I left the family chat because of her, which is our primary form of keeping in touch with the rest of the family and being apart of everyone's lives. No one has tried to reach out to mend the rift. Where before everyone was perfectly happy to be ignorant/in denial about how I felt about God and such, because of her bullshit it's now a Thing that needs to be Dealt With.
I don't know how she did it since, again, she has spent such little time with me, but she has correctly deduced my Atheism and has essentially "outed" me to my husband's (deeply religious) family. I don't know where to go from here- I'm angry and they're sad (presumably).
Since this is your husband's side of the family: would it make sense to have him talk to them? Like in: explain why you have left the chat and how hurt you were by the criticism of your parenting and telling them that he has no interest in an estrangement of his and the rest of the family? If MIL loves you I guess the others want you in their chat and their life? Even if not: dear son clearly siding with his wife can work wonders even for atheists...
Don't let SIL frame the issue and make you the bad guy. You can obviously not go back to your husband's family not knowing but maybe a few of them care enough about you to learn that being an atheist does not make you a bad person and that there is no reason to pity your kid?
-
I did not grow up in a religious household, although when we moved to the "Bible Belt" my Mom tried to get us all involved in church, so I may not fit your criteria of people you were asking input from in your OP I do feel like listening to people outside of your situation provides substantial insight (occasionally). I believe in karma, actions/consequences, maybe a little momma nature (although this could just be karma), and when you die you are simply dead (if there is a soul, it is recycled).
This is my experience and I am not trying to imply this happens in all organized religions/churches. As I said, I have never been religious, when Mom tried to get us to church I was actually the family member that continued going the longest. I also attempted attending 3 different churches with friends to see if maybe we just picked the wrong denomination. The longer I went the more I noticed that some of the most outspoken followers of the church were also some of the people that would do exactly the opposite of what they were preaching about as soon as they walked out the door. I found that my definition of morals and ethics had nothing to do with what the Bible said. I also found that there were some in the church that did things only because they were told to by the church, and that they would not choose that same option on their own. I found that some people in the church and sometimes the church itself would pick and choose what in the Bible they wanted to follow/read/respect and what they didn't.
I feel that treating people with respect is the right thing to do, not because the Bible said to "love thy neighbor as thyself". I feel that all people judge others actions but it is our moral duty to try to understand that not all people will make the same choice as you and that is what makes the world so awesome. I judge people to determine if they are open to hearing what I have to say, I judge people when they do not use their blinker to turn, I judge people to determine if I think we can create a long lasting friendship. For the Bible to say "do not judge, or you too will be judged", it is against our human nature (which God supposedly created) so why set your people up to have to continually ask for your forgiveness. I feel that if somebody is pro-life they should be contributing the the foster care system in some way here in the US and that they should care just as much about the fetuses as they do about a human when they are 5,12,18,30, or 65. I also could not get behind the thought that if I was not able to follow all the rules/guidelines/commandments/etc laid out in the Bible I would be punished (Hell) if I did not ask for forgiveness and proclaim unending love, that seemed a little to narcissistic to me.
I could go on but I really just wanted to show you some support. People should not practice morals simply because they are religious and the church/Bible/God told them to or they will be punished. People should determine what their morals are and practice them because that is what they believe at a core level is right.
In response to your SIL I have responded both the civil way and the b*tchy way in the past, depending on my mood and the goal of the response. Only you can understand the dynamics of your family and determine the best way to respond.
All that said, if my child determines at some point in her life to join a religion I will support her decision. I may encourage her to look into several different religions, including non main stream American religions, before she fully commits to one but I will support her choice.
-
Lyssa, for some reason on this day, at this particular time, I was spurred into action by your comment. After over three weeks of radio silence, I finally responded to her just now. No I don't want her being the one to frame the issue to make me look as bad as possible to the rest of the family. You all indirectly helped me craft a good way to sidestep the religion landmines she lobbed at me while addressing the most insulting part of her message (and the inspiration for this post)- that my son should be pitied because he is being raised without God.
I accidentally hit "send" before I was ready. I still wasn't sure if I had the balls to tell her what I was thinking after all this time, but my butterfingers made the decision for me. We'll see what she says.
I did not grow up in a religious household, although when we moved to the "Bible Belt" my Mom tried to get us all involved in church, so I may not fit your criteria of people you were asking input from in your OP
I enjoyed your contribution, NicoleO. Thanks for caring enough to comment. I feel as you do. The inconsistencies and hypocrisy of organized religion is ultimately what turned me off to the whole thing.
-
I was taught the fruits of the spirit in 7th and 8th grade confirmation class and it was really powerful, especially at such a vulnerable time. I'm not religious now, but I do plan on talking about the fruits of the spirit with my kids!
-
I guess my take is to ponder whether it isn't actually easier to raise moral kids in a secular home.
Having a sky fairy as a scapegoat that steals credit for the good, and "works in mysterious ways" for the bad is a really line blurring concept for little ones to wrap their head around. Attending church also exposes kids to a large dose of utter hypocrisy. The nice middle eastern man preached about helping the poor, yet you are often surrounded by piles of families who would not give a dime to him if they encountered him on the street.
I agree.
We were raised "Methodist," which in my family meant my parents got married in a church, then never showed up again (Thanks Mom and Dad!). They never came out as atheist, because "coming out" back then was fairly rare- it was just easier to get along in the USA if you pretended to believe in the Sky Fairy. They were decent, hard working people who were always willing to help others. So straight laced that most consider them dull as dirt. Didn't drink, didn't carouse, didn't philander, didn't even cuss.
Our neighbors were "good Catholics." All 6 of them went to Church every Sunday.
They went to Church, did their "confession," said their "Holy Mary's" or whatever, then spent the rest of the week RAISING HELL.
Drinking, partying, philandering, fighting, cursing. Never a dull moment. Probably the only time they weren't raising a ruckus was that 2 hours they spent in church every Sunday.
And they NEVER helped anyone. I learned early on to just walk past their house when fundraising for charity, they would never give a penny (their money was, apparently, better spent at the local tavern than giving to the sick or poor).
-
I'm the daughter of a minister. That said, The rumors about the pastors' kids being the hellions? It's true... at least in my world. When it comes to being moral or ethical, it really didn't matter in the long run as we are all ethically and morally sound. None of us has committed a heinous crime, none of us judge others for their choices... Though we may not understand those choices, we all just accept. Kind of strange, but family comes first for us, and part of that is faith... not faith in a points system, but faith in forgiveness. We've all fucked up and we've all needed forgiveness. And we've all given forgiveness.
That said... OP, as to your SIL -- This is purely anecdotal. There was a young woman, in her freshman year of college who went a bit wild. She hadn't "been a teenager" when she was still at home. To my knowledge (I was the RA who heard her drunken confessions... oh joy), she arrived at school a virgin who'd never been kissed, who'd never had a sip of alcohol, or smoked, and on and on. Straight A's in school, the works.
What had happened was that she didn't already know her limits, for anything, including alcohol. Luckily she hadn't been raped or otherwise assaulted, but in her quest for "experiences" she'd blown through a ton of boundaries that she didn't even realize she had possessed. She left that school (small private christian school by the way) after her freshman year to study closer to home. She married by the time she was 20, and is now around 25 with 5 kids, and ULTRA Religious. I believe, from conversations with her, that she's chosen to hide in religion because she doesn't trust herself, and can't forgive herself.
I'm not saying that this happened to your SIL, but there may be a grain of insight. People who are guilty by their own reckoning are usually the ones who try to find guilt in everyone around them. Just love her from a distance if you can, and someday she may come around. She may not. But she may end up needing to hear forgiveness at some point. Please just forgive her and move on.
-
Hello to the people who resurrected the thread. Thank you for your contributions.
SEAKSR and libertarian, if only this were my SIL (i.e. someone who parties her ass off Mon-Sat and makes penance on Sun)- would be much easier to like her and sympathize. Instead, she's a very boring, narrow-minded asshole.
If anyone is interested, shit hit the fan and my husband and I are no longer on speaking terms with her (or the rest of the family, really). Instead of discussing the initial conflict (me thinking she acts like a bully to her other sisters), she was hell-bent on the religion angle. My husband got involved and she started getting on his case about why he "threw their religion in the garbage, etc." She mentioned during the argument that on her wedding day she noticed our (3 year old) son didn't know how to pray as proof my husband was full of shit when he tried to explain to her that we are spiritual in our own way.
She's dead to me now after mentioning my kid again in such a shitty context. I am angry and upset this has caused a rift with my in-laws, who (I thought) I got along great with. In addition to her, I'm a little mad that no one has tried to call or reach out to us after hearing about all this second-hand from the scorned SIL.
The somewhat okay thing from this dumpster fire of a situation is at least my wallet can take a rest if we're not speaking to each other. We're the only ones in the family who are on decent financial footing so we (happily) footed the bill for meals and activities when one of them would visit or we would spend the money to fly out and see them and (again) pay for food and activities. Eff that noise.
-
So sorry, S.S. :(
I can hear all the anger, hurt, and pain in your post. So sorry about what has transpired so far, and where things are at now.
Sometimes, we do have to let some people go, even family members. Even when it seems necessary for our sanity and joy, the pain and grief can be a lot.
-
When it comes to people with blinders on, it's best to just not cross their paths. I'm sorry your son doesn't have a better aunt. I hope you and your husband, as well as the rest of his family can find peace.
-
Hello to the people who resurrected the thread. Thank you for your contributions.
SEAKSR and libertarian, if only this were my SIL (i.e. someone who parties her ass off Mon-Sat and makes penance on Sun)- would be much easier to like her and sympathize. Instead, she's a very boring, narrow-minded asshole.
If anyone is interested, shit hit the fan and my husband and I are no longer on speaking terms with her (or the rest of the family, really). Instead of discussing the initial conflict (me thinking she acts like a bully to her other sisters), she was hell-bent on the religion angle. My husband got involved and she started getting on his case about why he "threw their religion in the garbage, etc." She mentioned during the argument that on her wedding day she noticed our (3 year old) son didn't know how to pray as proof my husband was full of shit when he tried to explain to her that we are spiritual in our own way.
She's dead to me now after mentioning my kid again in such a shitty context. I am angry and upset this has caused a rift with my in-laws, who (I thought) I got along great with. In addition to her, I'm a little mad that no one has tried to call or reach out to us after hearing about all this second-hand from the scorned SIL.
The somewhat okay thing from this dumpster fire of a situation is at least my wallet can take a rest if we're not speaking to each other. We're the only ones in the family who are on decent financial footing so we (happily) footed the bill for meals and activities when one of them would visit or we would spend the money to fly out and see them and (again) pay for food and activities. Eff that noise.
Sorry to hear, I had hoped for a different outcome.
Kudos to your husband for backing you.
-
You can rest well at night knowing this confrontation was not your fault. Still, it's hard being a person whose mere existance is offensive to others.
Is it coincidental that cult indoctrination destroys relationships just like addictions do?
-
This thread is actually a surprizingly good read. Even in spite of blanket explanations from both extremes, there's a lot of really good compassion in here, and it's probably in the top 10 most civil and thoughtful discussions of it I've seen on the internet.
I may marry a devout Catholic girl. I am probably most easily described as a Deist, and worked through a lot of my own philosophy learning a lot about many religions, many of which respect extra those atheists who are virtuous, for not having felt the command of God to act virtuously, yet doing so anyway. I am skeptical of any religious authority, and the hubris or even reckless disregard with which, like any human institution, they are sometimes administered by some leaders. But it's false that you give up all power to your religious leaders - you acquire a lot as well.
The great loss of society via its flight from religion, a loss which society has yet to largely notice, is its failure to put something in its place. My best advice for anyone who wants to raise a good child without religion is to put something in its place. St. Augustine once asked who could possibly offer a command, what philosopher or wise man, that would be greater than a command from God? What self-interest would be more obvious, what command would come with more authority? The answer, at least to a large, functional extent, can still be your parents, but it requires a commitment to a pride in good deeds, whatever virtues you would like to teach, and a life lived well, and a discipline to hold fast even (and especially) when it's most difficult to do so. It's the toughest example you could try to be a role model for. And unlike your SIL, you have to show kindness - not vengeance - in response to deviation.
Many concrete advantages can be gained and lost via religion. The discipline of "one way" is a powerful thing, and it can be used for good or ill, but there is no discipline in the most common response I hear from any of my peers, which is "I'll teach him a bit about a few religions and if he wants one he can pick one." That saccharine approach leaves out all the challenges and the sense those challenges must be faced. Ala carte religion has neither the same benefits nor the same drawbacks. It's just not a method that imparts determination, steadfastness, confidence, thoughtfulness, or a sense that one must always confront one's self when looking in a mirror, that good and bad deeds have effects greater to the self than simply whether anyone notices.
A metaphor stops being a metaphor once you describe it. Part of the power of the "one way" roads and living that way is the strength and reassurance one finds on them, but people all have flawed perceptions, and varying capacity for understanding and nuance. It can be easier to live a habit than to explain its value. Your SIL can't hear you because she has used her duty to the one-way road to blind herself to her unkindness to your family. Think of it as a person speeding fearfully down their one-way road at 90mph, who doesn't know how to slow down, who is afraid to slow down, who is angry at anyone who endangers her on this dangerous route, or seems to suggest people go the other way on it. Then consider people who get out and walk down their one-way roads, giving kindness to passers by headed in any direction, but continuing on their own way, in just one direction. These are two extremes of people who try to adhere to religious life.
Someone posted the Jewish tenet on kindess. Jesus said something very similar, roughly that if you remember nothing else, remember love (in all its forms, from charity to brotherly to filial to romantic), and give it freely. It's hard to live that example and forge it without the cultural additions that religious communities offer, but religious communities vary as much as any communities. Atheists can be virtuous as surely as the religious can be without virtue, but religion has no monopoly on cruelty or oppression. A book is not responsible for the actions of the people who believe in it. The people are.
You can do this, and hopefully one day your SIL can come to her senses, and you can forgive her and be on good terms again, too. Good luck to you.
-
Hey S.S.
I am so sorry about the falling out with the in-laws. Like you I've grown up in a very religious house (different religion though lol) and I would never dare admit that I have my doubts about religion to anyone of my in-laws. My sisters know and though they are all still praying regularly, they never judged me or questionned me when they visist and notice that I don't pray that often. But I haven't given up on it and I want my kids to be exposed to the religion. However I would not be sick if they chose to not follow. I think that kids can have values in a secular home. In general most of the values I received from my upbringing were here before this religion. I joke sometimes by saying that religion is another kind of cultural colonisation.
The funny thing is that whatever 'coping' mechanisms or let say lying methods (telling people what they want to hear) I learned it indirectly from religion. I know how to dress as it is expected, say the correct words and even preach to little kids when we are with family. I always do this when I visit but I like the sense of community that is associated anyway, so it is not hard. As for your SIL, she's young and might be much more accomodating after she goes through some life experiences. My young sister used to be the same (though she would have never been such a jerk sorry), but she's grown-up and been so much more open-minded now. She's 26.
Hope you'll find a way to reconcile with the INL. I couldn't support it (mostly for the sake of DH) but I'd probably give them some time to miss me and then talk to who ever is the most sensible and try a reconciliation without giving up much of my values. You will never see eye to eye on this topic unfortunatelly. Family relationships can be messy but I see it as necessary evil as it can also be fulfulling. We have a saying 'you chose your friends but you support your family'. YMMV.
-
Sounds like your real problem is your SIL is a 22yo who just got married and graduated so her head is huge.
Ignore her and just talk with the rest of the family when you see fit. Give her 5 years and she will be tolerable, but probably never your bestie.
-
Sorry to hear this S.S. It sounds like your SIL has been very close minded on religious views. For what it is worth, I am in the same boat as you, and I have 4 kids (5, 3, 1, Newly Baked). I grew up in the church and my views have changed dramatically. In short, yes, you can raise your kids to be moral outside of the church. That said, secular people will agree on many things the Bible teaches (kindness, truthfulness, generosity, etc..). A bonus, Ecclesiastes is VERY mustachian if you haven't read it. While I have distanced myself from church traditions, I will still teach my kids the wisdom that is written down in the Bible (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc..) because I believe it is sound even outside the religious veil.
-
,secular people will agree on many things the Bible teaches (kindness, truthfulness, generosity, etc..).
Just don't forget that those values were recognized virtues long before the bible was ever written. Some people seem confused on this point, and tend to think the bible is the source of virtue, rather than a codified and magical retelling of virtues (with some horrible evils thrown in).
We should all strive to teach virtue to our children. I find the bible to be a very ineffective way to do that, incomplete, contradictory, misleading, dishonest, and in some cases outright wrong.
-
My husband thinks this is about my SIL being insecure. She said growing up she thought her brother (my husband) was more loved by their parents than any of the other kids (only boy of 6). When he started bringing me around, the whole family immediately took to me. She thinks Mom likes her brother and me better than her and her husband.
Maybe this whole thing isn't an important debate about the place of God and the church in my family after all. Maybe it's silly high school bullshit.
Thanks everyone for continuing to share your experiences. As someone else previously mentioned, I, too, appreciate how this hasn't devolved into a Reddit-esque clusterf***.
I can tell that a few have very negative feelings towards Christianity and religion in general, but I do not. I will never begrudge a person their faith if that is what gets them through. Life is bleak and rife with pointless suffering otherwise. Then you die. For some absurd reason I am okay with that.
That being said, I can't help but throw in again (this is the MMM forum after all), that a good amount of my husband's family don't seem to make savvy life decisions (particularly when it comes to money), always citing the ever-enduring platitude, "God will provide". So very annoying.
-
We're in the same boat. Not opposed to the whole God thing but not subscribed to it either. We don't go to church, read religious texts etc. What we do is teach based on our chosen philosophies. We both lean Stoic so that's what we teach. Honesty, not seeking approval outside of yourself, not trying to control things/ people outside of yourself, duty to help others, enjoy intellectual pursuits etc. I feel like those teachings will keep them grounded, knowing who they are and what their purpose in life is.
-
I am not at all religious, but was raised Catholic and went to catholic school for a few years and Sunday school and catechism from age 3 thru high school. I think an understanding of the worlds religions is invaluable and it seems that you are in a perfect position to expose your child to various teachings. Why not take him to different services every once in a while and talk about the differences? Maybe even let him decide how to celebrate holidays? Learning the similarities of religious teachings can certainly be helpful later in life. Don't forget Buddhism and Shintoism as they are fascinating subjects. Even some of the ancient religions have stories in common with Judeo-Christian teachings.
-
I (26F) recently got into a big argument with one of my SIL (22F) over FB messaging, which culminated in her saying she "is sad" for me every day and "deeply sad" that her nephew (3 yrs old) will not grow up with God at the core like she did. .... My husband grew up in a deeply religious household (father is a Lutheran pastor).
I am starting to feel insecure about my ability to raise my boy to be a moral, well-adjusted, and loving human being without the church-going background.
I read this part, and (being lutheran, myself) interpreted a completely message.
Having God at your core, for me, is knowing that there is someone out there in addition to your parents, who will provide your unconditional love, forgiveness, and strength when you need it. This is pretty powerful, but only comes into play when you go through a troubled time. For example, I can't help thinking that my friend's daughter, who tried to commit suicide at age 16, would now benefit from placing trust in spirituality of some sort.
For me, who went to church on most sundays -- I did not really "catch" this message until I needed it, in my 30's...It just was not relevant to me as a child, and I would not have missed it being not there.... but the core of practicing faith when young made it easy for me to reach out and grab it now. When I go to church now, I often don't bring my kids. I go because I get something out of it, not to force something on my kids.
My case is maybe a reverse of what you ask -- I went through childhood being told about God, but only believing in a shallow way, and am starting to learn the powerful difference as an adult.
So, I too, would be sad to think of someone going through life without spirituality of some sort, awareness of a larger purpose and beauty in life, and the trust that we are not alone even at our worst moments.
----------
This has nothing to do with morality or "good" or anything else. As a parent, you may be much better at instilling morality than many that are going to church each sunday, you know! I don't see any conflict with being moral and not attending church.
-
Amazing thread so far! This has been something I've thought about a lot over the years. I see you've tilted in a certain direction already but will add this anyway!
I would say it's closer to the truth that you can't be truly moral if you are religious. Morality in religion is treated as a fixed decree rooted in the power and authority of a deity rather than in adaptable reason. Necessarily, this moral ideology is stagnant and unchanging. But any reasonable pursuit of knowledge must involve possible falsification and revision of belief, so a fixed moral system is profoundly wrong at a meta-ethical level--even if (as Christianity does) it embraces a fair amount of reasonable moral ideas by happenstance.
I was raised in an agnostic household with no pressure to believe anything in particular. Nevertheless, I recognize Christianity does encapsulate some moral truths and overall can be viewed as a sort of beautiful mythology (it's popular for a reason, after all).
Regarding Vindicated's comment in the UUs, I have gone to a few of their meetings and found their talks (as well as strong coffee) invigorating in comparison with tired regurgitated sermons at more traditional religious institutions.
farmerj's post on better outcomes for religious people (aside from mixing causation and correlation) misses the broader point: even if religious people are happier and live longer because of religion it doesn't make their system of beliefs valid. If you're seeking an instrumental way of achieving social involvement and the concomitant benefits for your kids, pretending to believe could be a way, but ultimately at the highest level, it cripples achieving further moral progress as discussed above. Moreover, if religious notions of sacrifice and suffering for the sake of illumination are to be taken seriously as ideals to strive for, the harder path of no moral authority (other than what reason can determine) is the more "pure" path in that regard. Religious authority is the cheap way out of embracing the actual complex universe we live in and if the blue pill is what you choose, you might as well chase it with the Soma of false enlightenment that religion offers.
-
I would say it's closer to the truth that you can't be truly moral if you are religious. Morality in religion is treated as a fixed decree rooted in the power and authority of a deity rather than in adaptable reason.
This is both awful and inaccurate.
Necessarily, this moral ideology is stagnant and unchanging.
"Being good" should change often or else it's "stagnant"...?
But any reasonable pursuit of knowledge must involve possible falsification and revision of belief, so a fixed moral system is profoundly wrong at a meta-ethical level--even if (as Christianity does) it embraces a fair amount of reasonable moral ideas by happenstance.
Religion isn't a piece of bread you eat and then are done with. There IS revision of belief among many religious, just like there's revision of belief among philosophers, and there is rigidity and inflexibility among BOTH groups as well, because both are made of PEOPLE. The efforts of 2000 years of philosophy and 2000 years of religion did not come upon moral ideas "by happenstance."
Regarding Vindicated's comment in the UUs, I have gone to a few of their meetings and found their talks (as well as strong coffee) invigorating in comparison with tired regurgitated sermons at more traditional religious institutions.
You are conflating an experience at one church with one group and the entire religion. This is like viewing a painting and then making a declaration on painting as an artform. You could view a hundred paintings and not really be great at making declarations about what it means to paint.
farmerj's post on better outcomes for religious people (aside from mixing causation and correlation) misses the broader point: even if religious people are happier and live longer because of religion it doesn't make their system of beliefs valid.
Of course it does. Your value system seems to be one of truth-as-fact. There are many unknowable things about which we can only have correct or incorrect opinion, and if in that gap religion improves your life, it's obviously better for you to believe. That's Kierkegaard's whole thing.
If you're seeking an instrumental way of achieving social involvement and the concomitant benefits for your kids, pretending to believe could be a way...
Pretending to believe would be as beneficial as pretending to be married.
Moreover, if religious notions of sacrifice and suffering for the sake of illumination are to be taken seriously as ideals to strive for, the harder path of no moral authority (other than what reason can determine) is the more "pure" path in that regard. Religious authority is the cheap way out of embracing the actual complex universe we live in and if the blue pill is what you choose, you might as well chase it with the Soma of false enlightenment that religion offers.
I am not a Christian. And I have done study groups with some good friends of mine who are Catholic. I can assure you that examining a moral authority with an honest, emotional openness is not "easy" or "cheap." Existentialism that leads to religion requires significant courage. I don't know why you assume reason has a unique call on "purity." Embracing the universe is not an embrace of only calculations.
-
I saw a great meme on this that said: Morality: Doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion: Doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
My kids are 11 and 13, never gone to church, not baptized, never raised to believe in supernatural beings, superstition or the like. I routinely get complimented on what nice/polite/caring children they are from people like teachers, nurses, other parents, etc. We also associate with a lot of freethinkers/humanists and their kids are pretty nice/moral/kind too.
Follow your instincts on this.
This hit the nail on the head. Our kids (18 and 15) were raised pretty much the same way. We also get compliments on how polite/caring they are.
However, when they do come home with questions, we encourage them to look at all religions and consider the good *and* bad side of each of them. We are also fortunate to live in a smaller city that does have a wide mix of cultures and religions, etc... so that tends to get them thinking.
I think the greatest gift of raising your kids this way is it encourages empathy towards others...something I find severely lacking in may people these days. I see this empathetic nature in our kids frequently.
I can certainly see the value of religion for many people at a personal level. On the other hand, I see religion causing many of the world's problems...not only throughout history..but also today. It is yet another thing that causes 'tribal' tendencies in people...which leads to a lack of empathy...and causes bad things to happen.
Also, every religion has a dark side. Some folks tend to gloss over that fact. A recent example is the catholic priest sexual abuse scandal...enough said. I have a hard time understanding how people can gloss over things like this and still rationalize that their religion is providing a moral environment, etc.. I think it has to do with the 'forgiving' nature of their beliefs, and hats off to them if they can do that.
-
I think it has to do with the 'forgiving' nature of their beliefs, and hats off to them if they can do that.
Don't worry, Jesus died for your sins. Your sexual abuse of innocent children is forgiven, and you get to go to heaven! Your sixty year long cover-up of systemic pedophilia in your organization is also forgiven, and you also get to go to heaven!
But your lifetime of moral behavior motivated by a genuine desire to be a good person, well, you get to burn in hell for eternity for that because you weren't baptized. Sorry!
-
FWIW, my money is on HS bullshit. You should mentally thank your SIL for demonstrating that being raised religious is no guarantee of becoming a good person.
Honestly, the question itself is insulting. There are billions of people on this earth who have grown up without religion of any sort, much less evangelical Christianity. The implicit assumption that they therefore must be inherently immoral, barring some sort of miracle, is narrow-minded, sad, and offensive.
My opinion on this is formed from my conviction that if God didn't exist, we'd have invented Him anyway. In order for humankind to populate the earth and become the dominant species, we needed to learn to work together in larger and larger communities. That requires generally-understood and -followed codes of conduct, empathy, shared sacrifice, doing unto others, and all of that. These rules can be conveyed and enforced by secular rulers or by religious ones, with equal effectiveness. The universality of many concepts across many religions underscores this for me: they are, at heart, the very foundations of our society. The difference today is that religions make it easier to accept a pre-selected series of rules and behaviors, if you are so inclined; if you do not subscribe, you must develop your core principles yourself. Both ways have pros and cons, and neither is a guarantee of success.
FWIW, I was raised atheist, joined the Episcopalian church in HS, faded away over the years, married a Jewish man, and now take our kids to a Reconstructionist synagogue. I like our synagogue because the main tenets are strikingly similar to those I was attracted to as a teen, minus the Jesus bit. I have known both good and bad people, in both religious and unreligious categories. I would currently classify myself as agnostic -- at heart, I don't have the faith the truly religious have, but I wish I did; I don't really believe but would love more than anything to be proven wrong. My vision of God is that, if He exists, He is far, far greater than any human mind can comprehend in full, and so all of the various religions represent individual humans seeing and interpreting their own little sliver of the whole. Which means, by definition, each interpretation is inherently limited and fallible, just like those humans who first envisioned/interpreted them.
With respect to the SIL, as an old fart who has been through the younger know-it-all relations phase, I would advise to simply ignore her and don't engage. I have a SIL, whom I actually like quite a bit, but who sometimes is breathtakingly condescending and unaware of her own presumption. She also feels like the "overlooked" sibling, so I assume these two behaviors are connected -- it is so important for her to be right, to know best, to prove/establish her place in the family. I mean, at one point, she told me I needed to have a second child so my first wouldn't be lonely (guess which one of us decided to stop after one kid?); at another point, she got ridiculously angry at my DH when their mom was in the hospital, because he showed up for a visit on "her" shift. WTF? The problem is, people like that are literally unable to see their own shortsightedness; they are so wrapped up in their view of the universe that they don't have the maturity or perspective to really understand that other people may be different from them, and that that is ok. But, you know, when I get past the insecurity, she is still a decent person, and the family as a whole is awesome.
So why give someone like that the power to control your interactions with her whole family? She's basically having a tantrum. What do you do when kids have tantrums? Do you engage, argue, try to persuade the they are wrong? Of course not! You pat them on the head and say "there, there, let's talk when you've cooled down," and go about your business. Which, of course, only pisses them off further, because you are not giving them the attention and power they crave. My mental image comes from 1-2-3 Magic, where the guy talks about being the horse in the field, enjoying the sunshine, calmly chewing on some grass, while this horsefly buzzes around, poking, poking, trying to get attention, and the horse just periodically swishes his tail and goes on with what he's doing. When you respond to the bullshit she's throwing around, you're giving her the power to control the relationship. OTOH, if you just ignore the taunts and hypocrisy and condescension and metaphorically pat her on the head and go on talking to her and everyone else as if it didn't happen, you take back your power from her. It's hard, because you have to let a lot of wrongheaded and insulting stuff go. But if it got my 4-yr-old in line, it can work with a 22-yr-old know-it-all. :-)
-
FWIW, my money is on HS bullshit. You should mentally thank your SIL for demonstrating that being raised religious is no guarantee of becoming a good person.
Honestly, the question itself is insulting. There are billions of people on this earth who have grown up without religion of any sort, much less evangelical Christianity. The implicit assumption that they therefore must be inherently immoral, barring some sort of miracle, is narrow-minded, sad, and offensive.
My opinion on this is formed from my conviction that if God didn't exist, we'd have invented Him anyway. In order for humankind to populate the earth and become the dominant species, we needed to learn to work together in larger and larger communities. That requires generally-understood and -followed codes of conduct, empathy, shared sacrifice, doing unto others, and all of that. These rules can be conveyed and enforced by secular rulers or by religious ones, with equal effectiveness. The universality of many concepts across many religions underscores this for me: they are, at heart, the very foundations of our society. The difference today is that religions make it easier to accept a pre-selected series of rules and behaviors, if you are so inclined; if you do not subscribe, you must develop your core principles yourself. Both ways have pros and cons, and neither is a guarantee of success.
FWIW, I was raised atheist, joined the Episcopalian church in HS, faded away over the years, married a Jewish man, and now take our kids to a Reconstructionist synagogue. I like our synagogue because the main tenets are strikingly similar to those I was attracted to as a teen, minus the Jesus bit. I have known both good and bad people, in both religious and unreligious categories. I would currently classify myself as agnostic -- at heart, I don't have the faith the truly religious have, but I wish I did; I don't really believe but would love more than anything to be proven wrong. My vision of God is that, if He exists, He is far, far greater than any human mind can comprehend in full, and so all of the various religions represent individual humans seeing and interpreting their own little sliver of the whole. Which means, by definition, each interpretation is inherently limited and fallible, just like those humans who first envisioned/interpreted them.
With respect to the SIL, as an old fart who has been through the younger know-it-all relations phase, I would advise to simply ignore her and don't engage. I have a SIL, whom I actually like quite a bit, but who sometimes is breathtakingly condescending and unaware of her own presumption. She also feels like the "overlooked" sibling, so I assume these two behaviors are connected -- it is so important for her to be right, to know best, to prove/establish her place in the family. I mean, at one point, she told me I needed to have a second child so my first wouldn't be lonely (guess which one of us decided to stop after one kid?); at another point, she got ridiculously angry at my DH when their mom was in the hospital, because he showed up for a visit on "her" shift. WTF? The problem is, people like that are literally unable to see their own shortsightedness; they are so wrapped up in their view of the universe that they don't have the maturity or perspective to really understand that other people may be different from them, and that that is ok. But, you know, when I get past the insecurity, she is still a decent person, and the family as a whole is awesome.
So why give someone like that the power to control your interactions with her whole family? She's basically having a tantrum. What do you do when kids have tantrums? Do you engage, argue, try to persuade the they are wrong? Of course not! You pat them on the head and say "there, there, let's talk when you've cooled down," and go about your business. Which, of course, only pisses them off further, because you are not giving them the attention and power they crave. My mental image comes from 1-2-3 Magic, where the guy talks about being the horse in the field, enjoying the sunshine, calmly chewing on some grass, while this horsefly buzzes around, poking, poking, trying to get attention, and the horse just periodically swishes his tail and goes on with what he's doing. When you respond to the bullshit she's throwing around, you're giving her the power to control the relationship. OTOH, if you just ignore the taunts and hypocrisy and condescension and metaphorically pat her on the head and go on talking to her and everyone else as if it didn't happen, you take back your power from her. It's hard, because you have to let a lot of wrongheaded and insulting stuff go. But if it got my 4-yr-old in line, it can work with a 22-yr-old know-it-all. :-)
I loved every word of this response. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
-
I would say it's closer to the truth that you can't be truly moral if you are religious. Morality in religion is treated as a fixed decree rooted in the power and authority of a deity rather than in adaptable reason.
This is both awful and inaccurate.
Necessarily, this moral ideology is stagnant and unchanging.
"Being good" should change often or else it's "stagnant"...?
But any reasonable pursuit of knowledge must involve possible falsification and revision of belief, so a fixed moral system is profoundly wrong at a meta-ethical level--even if (as Christianity does) it embraces a fair amount of reasonable moral ideas by happenstance.
Religion isn't a piece of bread you eat and then are done with. There IS revision of belief among many religious, just like there's revision of belief among philosophers, and there is rigidity and inflexibility among BOTH groups as well, because both are made of PEOPLE. The efforts of 2000 years of philosophy and 2000 years of religion did not come upon moral ideas "by happenstance."
How is it inaccurate? Is there now an 11th Commandment? Was the 8th Commandment repealed? Is there an addendum to the Bible containing erratum being studied in Catholic schools? I understand the position of a church may change over time and it may put emphasis on different components of the religion's ideology, but that does not seem to equate to the sort of foundational changes in belief of the sort that have punctuated the Scientific Revolution (e.g. Einstein usurping Newton). Arguably, many of the ontological changes religion has adopted were informed by rational efforts within the auspices of the Enlightenment.
Regarding Vindicated's comment in the UUs, I have gone to a few of their meetings and found their talks (as well as strong coffee) invigorating in comparison with tired regurgitated sermons at more traditional religious institutions.
You are conflating an experience at one church with one group and the entire religion. This is like viewing a painting and then making a declaration on painting as an artform. You could view a hundred paintings and not really be great at making declarations about what it means to paint.
This was intended as an anecdote and not a generalization.
Moreover, if religious notions of sacrifice and suffering for the sake of illumination are to be taken seriously as ideals to strive for, the harder path of no moral authority (other than what reason can determine) is the more "pure" path in that regard. Religious authority is the cheap way out of embracing the actual complex universe we live in and if the blue pill is what you choose, you might as well chase it with the Soma of false enlightenment that religion offers.
I am not a Christian. And I have done study groups with some good friends of mine who are Catholic. I can assure you that examining a moral authority with an honest, emotional openness is not "easy" or "cheap." Existentialism that leads to religion requires significant courage. I don't know why you assume reason has a unique call on "purity." Embracing the universe is not an embrace of only calculations.
Predicating truth in an absolute authority is inherently anti-rational since one can always declare that something is the way it is because God said so. To the extent one does not rely on God said so as an explanation, I will concede intellectual progress is consistent with a religious worldview. Consequently, there is still a lot of room for deists to make moral, scientific, and other forms of rational progress. Notably, Christianity was a reasonably good incubator of critical thought in the West during the Middle Ages (notwithstanding things such as the Index Librorum Prohibitorum and the Inquisition; I found this (https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Science-Christian-Scientific-Revolution/dp/1596981555) to be a good overview).
I don't think I said that embracing the universe is a matter of calculations, unless you are reducing all of reason and epistemology to mere calculations. I'm curious: if you think reason is not the only way of approaching truth, then what are the other approaches and how do you argue in their favor without using reason?
-
Christianity is not about being moral or "good". It's about following God. Thing is, many churches preach a feel-good, essentially secular message these days; thus, all too many people confuse morality and godliness. This confusion dilutes and confuses God's message, and it leads to questions like this one.
You can absolutely raise a moral child without God or church.
You cannot raise a godly child without God or church.
-
Christianity is not about being moral or "good". It's about following God. Thing is, many churches preach a feel-good, essentially secular message these days; thus, all too many people confuse morality and godliness. This confusion dilutes and confuses God's message, and it leads to questions like this one.
You can absolutely raise a moral child without God or church.
You cannot raise a godly child without God or church.
I can agree with the moral vs. godly distinction, and I'm an atheist! It comes down to one's definition of morality. For most secular people it has to do with maximizing human well-being or doing minimal harm. For certain Christian denominations, however, the definition of morality is doing what God wants. These two definitions often conflict.
Consider the aborted human sacrifice of Isaac. Among Christians, this story is celebrated as a sign of Abraham's goodness that he was willing to murder his child just because God asked him to. However, for someone with the human well-being definition of morality, this reads as a horror tale.
-
How is it inaccurate? Is there now an 11th Commandment? Was the 8th Commandment repealed? ... I understand the position of a church may change over time...
(Previously): Morality in religion is treated as a fixed decree...
I'm trying to understand which of these points you most want to make. Is your issue that religion is too slow to change for your liking? As regards things we can know, like where rain comes from, I'm with you. As regards immutable things, anyone should be slow to change.
Predicating truth in an absolute authority is inherently anti-rational since one can always declare that something is the way it is because God said so.
Tautology is not necessarily anti-rational. Photons are energy and matter. Electrons can apparently be in more than one place at the same time. Physics exist, as they do, because they do. Time has no beginning or end, some say, because "that's the way it is." .9999 repeating is equal to 1 because that's how calculus works. Higgs Boson?
To the extent one does not rely on God said so as an explanation, I will concede intellectual progress is consistent with a religious worldview.
So it seems more specifically that your qualm is not with religion but with intellectual laziness. In what way are these things different? Religion says use discipline, pursue wisdom, pour yourself into study, set aside time to pray/meditate... though any may do with religion what they will. Science says practice rigor, use peer review, knowledge above personal ambitions, yet we have plenty of scientists fabricating research papers and deceitfully winning grants. We don't blame science for the actions of these people, and it makes similar sense to discern between lazy thoughts and schools of lazy thoughts elsewhere.
A book isn't responsible for the actions of the people who read it.
An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it.
I don't think I said that embracing the universe is a matter of calculations, unless you are reducing all of reason and epistemology to mere calculations. I'm curious: if you think reason is not the only way of approaching truth, then what are the other approaches and how do you argue in their favor without using reason?
A tricky question to answer! I'll give it shot. Dante would argue that it leaves you incomplete, unfulfilled. His placement of philosophers in his afterlife suggests they have removed themselves from, well, joy, which Dante believed required religion. I would simplify it to say that approaches that work should be considered reasonable even if the mechanism is not understood. We take Tylenol but honestly we have little idea how it dampens the central nervous system's response to pain. We don't take it because we have carefully evaluated its inner workings, but because we know it works. Correct opinion, as it turns out, reaches more of truth than pure empiricism, because empiricism boxes itself in - it forbids correct opinion in order to avoid incorrect opinion, a benefit and a drawback.
Jumping that boundary, if one is accustomed to empiricism, takes a lot of courage. If it improves one's life...? First possessing plenty of reason helps. Dante was kind to the philosophers because of their love for reason, but valor and hope are also valuable. Hope, a kind of faith, is beneficial. Is it not therefore reasonable? Would you have considered it reasonable?
ChpBstrd: I would just say be careful identifying Christians so broadly. I looked into that story a few times to find out how it could be acceptable to anyone, feeling just as you did. The answers I got were varied and interesting. 1) Human sacrifice was common once, so leading Abraham to it and telling him to stop was to end human sacrifices. 2) As a metaphor, being devoted to a cause means focusing on what can be done, without regard for the cost. 3) If you are devoted to something good, or in the Christian message, to God, the message may be that you will not lose what you cannot or should not sacrifice.
-
Christianity is not about being moral or "good". It's about following God. Thing is, many churches preach a feel-good, essentially secular message these days; thus, all too many people confuse morality and godliness. This confusion dilutes and confuses God's message, and it leads to questions like this one.
You can absolutely raise a moral child without God or church.
You cannot raise a godly child without God or church.
This is an interesting point...however, it goes both ways. There are certainly 'godly' people who are not moral at all ( including the priests in the scandals, etc... ).
-
How is it inaccurate? Is there now an 11th Commandment? Was the 8th Commandment repealed? ... I understand the position of a church may change over time...
(Previously): Morality in religion is treated as a fixed decree...
I'm trying to understand which of these points you most want to make. Is your issue that religion is too slow to change for your liking? As regards things we can know, like where rain comes from, I'm with you. As regards immutable things, anyone should be slow to change.
Religions rely on varying degrees on dogmas, so if I were being more careful with my phrasing (it takes me a lot of thought to get things to come out reasonable in writing!) I would say that to the extent a religion is predicated on unchanging dogma that that religion was in error. It might be that the folk-morality incorporated into the Christian religion contains much wisdom and is fairly robust (I think it is); however, that is clearly not the same thing as perfection. To the extent any dogmas overlap with moral precepts that might reasonably be questioned, I think those views are anti-rational and constrain moral progress.
To expand on a previous point I may have been less clear on, the extent to which this applies is variable across individuals and across history. For those people who take a more open view of Christian theology where they don't respect the dogmas absolutely, there is a path to incorporation of the broader base of human knowledge from science and philosophy. It was this openness that helped spawn the scientific revolution (since a popular view was: to know nature was to know God). However, many religious people I have known use (sometimes unknowingly) religious dogmas or an underlying cloistered religious epistemology where many basic questions in philosophy are considered impolite to even acknowledge (I have a friend who told me some fairly mundane philosophical issues I raised once were "the devil," which is an amusing tie-back to your commentary on Dante's Inferno!).
Predicating truth in an absolute authority is inherently anti-rational since one can always declare that something is the way it is because God said so.
Tautology is not necessarily anti-rational. Photons are energy and matter. Electrons can apparently be in more than one place at the same time. Physics exist, as they do, because they do. Time has no beginning or end, some say, because "that's the way it is." .9999 repeating is equal to 1 because that's how calculus works. Higgs Boson?
This is a great point and emphasizes that science and reason is no warm embrace. Following the arguments of physicist David Deutsch, there will be no end to the cycle of creating knowledge and asking new questions. The "that's the way it is" statements of the past have been answered by some of the work conducted in the present, and in the future, some of these questions will fall in turn, only to be replaced with new questions. The strength is the answers are not presupposed and so the exploration remains open; the cost is one never has ontological certainty. Arguing religious dogma reasonably fills that gap is a difficult case to make, to say the least.
To the extent one does not rely on God said so as an explanation, I will concede intellectual progress is consistent with a religious worldview.
So it seems more specifically that your qualm is not with religion but with intellectual laziness. In what way are these things different? Religion says use discipline, pursue wisdom, pour yourself into study, set aside time to pray/meditate... though any may do with religion what they will. Science says practice rigor, use peer review, knowledge above personal ambitions, yet we have plenty of scientists fabricating research papers and deceitfully winning grants. We don't blame science for the actions of these people, and it makes similar sense to discern between lazy thoughts and schools of lazy thoughts elsewhere.
A book isn't responsible for the actions of the people who read it.
An idea isn't responsible for the people who believe in it.
Yes, the underlying problem is intellectual laziness. Thinking is hard and can lead to uncertain outcomes that challenge one's ego, sense of self, or puts the meaning of one's life into question. Such laziness is probably the default state of the mind, without the influence of particular strains of human culture. There is a lot of garbage, bias, and dogma in secular scientific belief as well and surely enough hypocrisy to make the Pope blush.
I don't think I said that embracing the universe is a matter of calculations, unless you are reducing all of reason and epistemology to mere calculations. I'm curious: if you think reason is not the only way of approaching truth, then what are the other approaches and how do you argue in their favor without using reason?
A tricky question to answer! I'll give it shot. Dante would argue that it leaves you incomplete, unfulfilled. His placement of philosophers in his afterlife suggests they have removed themselves from, well, joy, which Dante believed required religion. I would simplify it to say that approaches that work should be considered reasonable even if the mechanism is not understood. We take Tylenol but honestly we have little idea how it dampens the central nervous system's response to pain. We don't take it because we have carefully evaluated its inner workings, but because we know it works. Correct opinion, as it turns out, reaches more of truth than pure empiricism, because empiricism boxes itself in - it forbids correct opinion in order to avoid incorrect opinion, a benefit and a drawback.
Jumping that boundary, if one is accustomed to empiricism, takes a lot of courage. If it improves one's life...? First possessing plenty of reason helps. Dante was kind to the philosophers because of their love for reason, but valor and hope are also valuable. Hope, a kind of faith, is beneficial. Is it not therefore reasonable? Would you have considered it reasonable?
That's the crux of the matter: people want to be (or feel like they are) "complete" or safe and secure in their beliefs. It could be that the actual structure of the universe precludes this state of affairs from honestly taking place. If people find utilitarian value in bridging this gap with religiously motivated assumptions, that is up to them, of course! As long as such individuals remain open to the stream of knowledge generated by good science, philosophy, and reason, I can't fault it much.
The issue is when we draw a line (such as Gould's non-overlapping magisteria) that we have problems since that closes off avenues of exploration from each other. Descartes took a similar step by walling off the soul in the pineal gland, though at least that allowed the course of science to continue by allowing everything outside of that gland to be subject to standard materialistic/deterministic forms of scientific inquiry (though I do recognize materialism and determinism should be questioned deeply, in addition to the probing of the "soul" via philosophy of the mind).
The likes of Sam Harris goes so far as to argue for a "scientific" basis of morality in his book The Moral Landscape but he seems to fall into the trap of sneaking utilitarianism through the window to provide room for morals to enter in via the door of science. It's a sleight of hand trick that appears to side-step Moore's open question argument. Morality, if based on reason, needs to be founded in meta-ethical arguments, not in science.
-
Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing for Dante's point, I was explaining what it was. As for people who don't respect the dogmas absolutely, I offer you... human beings. It is not exclusively a religious person's tendency to use dogmatic thinking - it is a person's tendency to use it. And, it makes life easier. Heuristics generally make life easier. Micro-analyzing every decision would otherwise use up our lives.
The strength is the answers are not presupposed and so the exploration remains open; the cost is one never has ontological certainty. Arguing religious dogma reasonably fills that gap is a difficult case to make, to say the least.
Per my previous point, heuristics make our lives better even though we may make imperfect or outright bad decisions based on them sometimes. I would say it would be hard or impossible to live without heuristics, and attempting to filter out religion may make as little sense as filtering out heuristics, if religion makes your life better. For a great many religious, there is no ontological certainty (certainty defies faith, faith deifies certainty). Religion is, for those, an imperative to never stop seeking, contemplating, praying, etc. Mother Theresa struggled with her faith until her death. Religion has no monopoly on intellectual laziness OR rigor.
If people find utilitarian value in bridging this gap with religiously motivated assumptions, that is up to them, of course! As long as such individuals remain open to the stream of knowledge generated by good science, philosophy, and reason, I can't fault it much.
An accord!
The issue is when we draw a line (such as Gould's non-overlapping magisteria) that we have problems since that closes off avenues of exploration from each other. Descartes took a similar step by walling off the soul in the pineal gland...
Descartes' ghost can still be found in the will to live. As for morality as meta-ethical argument... Categorical Imperative, then?
Anyway, you're home alone. There's a strange sound coming from the basement that you've never heard before. Maybe intrepid scientists totally hate NOT checking out the noise in the basement. A lot of people will not check the noise, though. Are they bad or their lives worse for it? Maybe, but maybe not. We don't really know before they check. There could be a monster. There could be the answer to cold fusion. There could be just a furnace. The quality of a human life may not change substantially with any of those results. Religion is more concerned with emotional health than you may prioritize, which is also something many benefit from. Religion may also be less likely to assume an inherent value in "progress," technologically. We could already feed the whole world easily - the problem isn't insufficient technology, it's insufficient inclination.
-
Christianity is not about being moral or "good". It's about following God. Thing is, many churches preach a feel-good, essentially secular message these days; thus, all too many people confuse morality and godliness. This confusion dilutes and confuses God's message, and it leads to questions like this one.
You can absolutely raise a moral child without God or church.
You cannot raise a godly child without God or church.
This is an interesting point...however, it goes both ways. There are certainly 'godly' people who are not moral at all ( including the priests in the scandals, etc... ).
Yes, that's a fair statement.
All too many people have the idea that Christianity is about being a good person, a nice person, a good citizen who does community service and cares for others. That's not accurate. As an example, I'm thinking about a woman at our church ... I really don't like her. I find her abrasive. I don't think she's a nice person at all, I really don't think she's raising her children well ... yet she is strongly devoted to God. It shows in her life, and I don't doubt if for a moment ... but I don't want to hang out with her.
On the other hand, Scientology seems to be all about being a nice person. However, I don't know much about that topic, so maybe I shouldn't speak.
-
All too many people have the idea that Christianity is about being a good person, a nice person, a good citizen who does community service and cares for others. That's not accurate.
Christians would probably disagree that goodness and godliness are so separate. I think you're significantly weighing impressions of people you know and dislike as if their actions proved something from the religion. There's lots of unpleasant stuff in the book for sure. And there are obviously core sections (ten commandments for example). I think one core piece is that Jesus says basically if you remember nothing else, love, and let others know you by your love. It's pretty hard to not come away with that as including some version of "be a nice person and help the community." If you want to say the culture as practiced can seem unfortunately at odds with that sometimes, I get it, but to say it's inaccurate to describe Christianity that way...? That I don't think fits. You could say it's incomplete, not observed to your liking, not prioritized highly enough, but I don't think it's accurate to say that "be a good, nice person who cares for others" is missing from the religion's advice on conduct.
-
All too many people have the idea that Christianity is about being a good person, a nice person, a good citizen who does community service and cares for others. That's not accurate.
Christians would probably disagree that goodness and godliness are so separate. I think you're significantly weighing impressions of people you know and dislike as if their actions proved something from the religion. There's lots of unpleasant stuff in the book for sure. And there are obviously core sections (ten commandments for example). I think one core piece is that Jesus says basically if you remember nothing else, love, and let others know you by your love. It's pretty hard to not come away with that as including some version of "be a nice person and help the community." If you want to say the culture as practiced can seem unfortunately at odds with that sometimes, I get it, but to say it's inaccurate to describe Christianity that way...? That I don't think fits. You could say it's incomplete, not observed to your liking, not prioritized highly enough, but I don't think it's accurate to say that "be a good, nice person who cares for others" is missing from the religion's advice on conduct.
To judge "the culture as practiced" as being an inaccurate portrayal of Christianity would require us to have some objective definition of Christianity. However, Christianity is practiced/believed thousands of different ways by hundreds of sects. It is also amended every day by human influencers: bestselling authors, preachers, and politicians - and this has been the case since its beginning. Today, people envision Dante's hell and a Europeanized face of Jesus popularized by medieval European artists. Most think their pets go to heaven with them - an obviously modern amendment. Warlords changed the cultural norms about the trinity, Jesus' divinity, iconography, and papal authority.
I would have a hard time justifying why today's culture gets it wrong and some other time/place/culture got it right, because those human influencers have always been at work spinning the story in new directions. Even our historical understanding is through the lenses of the victors' historians and theologians.
It's more practical to measure what we can personally see here and now, and speak in the present tense. Christianity is what it is today. So it's a fair question to ask whether Christians are really better people, or whether Christianity just convinces people they are better?
If you are still interested in uncovering a historically authentic Christian ethos, you might be disappointed. Jesus' words of wisdom about loving thy neighbor were spoken among slaveowners who took child brides, and he saw nothing worth mentioning about those sins.
-
To judge "the culture as practiced" as being an inaccurate portrayal of Christianity would require us to have some objective definition of Christianity.
Well, why would the reverse be true then, that the culture as practiced should be judged as an accurate portrayal?
Almost everything else you said I agree with. Yes, its practice is as different as there are people. You and I can read the same book, any book, and come away with not only different conclusions about the value of the book, but different conclusions about what the book itself meant! All we know for sure is, according to the religion itself, everyone falls short of the ideal, and the goal is to move towards the ideal. It's absolutely valid (and directly recommended) for each believer to ask how well they're doing that, themselves.
Saying today's culture gets it right or wrong, or any other culture did, is kind of an irrelevant errand, absolutely. Christian practices vary tremendously. And at some point, if you're a believer, you make decisions, consciously or unconsciously, from whether you support gay marriage to whether it's ok to accept the dispensation to eat corned beef because it's St. Patty's Day. Ancient Norwegian Christians wore crosses with Thor's hammer in them - culture affects a LOT. However, if the point of the religion is to try to interpret the ideal and live by it, I don't think it makes sense to say "don't try to interpret the ideal."
I won't try to tell you how to interpret the ideal, but I definitely think a religious person should be trying to interpret it, and even laypeople who want to understand. In that respect, Christianity is absolutely not confined to what it is today, nor is the question "Are Christians better people?" specific enough to be useful. The more useful, very personal question is whether Christianity can improve your own life. If you know 30 professed Christians you like, that doesn't really mean that the religion would be automatically your own favorite practice. Are two-parent homes better for kids? Looks like it. Does a religious background offer some measurable psychological benefits? Some studies have said yes. Are there Christians who are doing pretty bad things? Yes to that too.
If you are still interested in uncovering a historically authentic Christian ethos, you might be disappointed. Jesus' words of wisdom about loving thy neighbor were spoken among slaveowners who took child brides, and he saw nothing worth mentioning about those sins.
Historically authentic...? I'm not sure where to start about how far this is from anything I ever tried to do, or would try to do. It's overwhelmingly clear we have an incomplete story of Christian thought, frayed by memory, time, translation, and just outright limited recording, and I think it's very silly to suppose we know what was NOT said. As for what I would be interested in when examining it myself is determining whether there were an idealistically authentic Christian ethos. Who would determine that for me? Me. People who conclude "yes" convert, and people who don't don't. But I look at religion as a set of roads from which to begin a search and define the ideals of a life lived - not a set of roads from which to never venture, but a framework for venturing ever further. I don't see any religion as an answer to a great question, but a question asking you to live a great answer.
-
I am starting to feel insecure about my ability to raise my boy to be a moral, well-adjusted, and loving human being without the church-going background. I wonder if my husband and me received immeasurable benefits from growing up with Judeo-Christian values even though we have both since moved away from regular church attendance. I even toy with the idea of attending church during his childhood and adolescence and let him make his own choices when he comes of age, even though it would be complete ruse on my part that I would have to keep up for 15+ years.
My questions: Anyone else in a similar situation where you grew up with God and recognized the benefits of that upbringing but have since renounced it? Do you think it's possible to raise a child with all the positive attributes that faith has to offer without the actual "God" part?
If you are looking for help raising secular kids I highly recomend looking up Dale Mcgowan with Parenting Beyond Belief. He has written several fantastic books on raising confident well adjusted freethinking humanistic kids. https://www.amazon.com/Parenting-Beyond-Belief-Raising-Religion/dp/0814474268 Here is a link to a talk he gave (there are a lot out there, just search it on youtube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgDb_IMoKyQ There are meetup groups based off this book in several cities. You could also try looking into local humanist or freethought societies, most are welcoming places were you will be able to find a peer group involved in the same struggles and work as you trying to raise "a child with all the positive attributes that faith has to offer without the actual "God" part."
"I even toy with the idea of attending church during his childhood and adolescence and let him make his own choices when he comes of age" I'd be against this personally. While I think religious literacy is important a religious ruse is a bad idea. It also doesn't make sense to me to indoctrinate a child at a young age when they don't really have a choice about what they believe and then expect them to figure it out as an adult. To me it just seems like a backwards way of doing things. To me one ought to get educated and exposed to many different cultures, thoughts and beliefs and then be confident able and mature enough as an adult/young adult to make their own reasoned choices.
Family is important and Dale talks extensively in his books on how best to deal with religious folks who are disappointed with us. One of the points he stresses is finding common ground. Maybe a religious relative would respond well to being asked to take the child to church with you some time? It can be both a part of religious literacy and a part of building nurturing relationships within your family. Maybe the family member and you would benefit from sitting down and talking in depth about what they are afraid of and what they hope for their family. If SIL or other extended family sees and understands you have the same goals and hopes as everyone (a happy, healthy confident and capable child and adult) and sees a way she/they can be included in that, having her/their faith and thoughts play a role in it you all will come out closer and stronger.
-
I have to chime in here...
I go to church. My kids often go to church (but not always), and they went to sunday school. Heck, I taught sunday school for 3 years...
Going to church does not teach your kids to be moral. The only thing that comes close is a lot of Jesus stories about helping out others, thinking beyond yourself, asking what's really important and IMO, fighting oppressive governments that do not help all of society.
You can get the same or better, by choosing good kids books to read to your kids at night. You know, books about sharing, about helping a friend, books about minorities and how they are like us and can be our friends... that sort of thing.
Church is very good for spiritual teaching, and opening our minds and hearts... but IMO that only begins when they are 12 years old, sometimes takes until a person is ready at 30 years old... Going to church earlier will only help them be familiar with it and its customs / culture.
-
Came across this yesterday and thought it would be relevant to this thread: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/florida-church-sends-1000-collection-notice-to-single-mother-because-she-didnt-tithe/
Godly? Moral? Shitty? Discuss.
-
:) Shitty.
...and the practice, shittiness, or the comments of Maxwell mustn't be transferred to people and groups using the term Christianity who do not do, say, or believe those things.
-
Church is very good for spiritual teaching, and opening our minds and hearts... but IMO that only begins when they are 12 years old, sometimes takes until a person is ready at 30 years old... Going to church earlier will only help them be familiar with it and its customs / culture.
I certainly acknowledge that church does give 'spirituality' to many people. Frankly, all church ever gave to me is a good nap.
Honestly though...I feel more 'spirituality' being outdoors hiking or fishing, etc...
-
:) Shitty.
...and the practice, shittiness, or the comments of Maxwell mustn't be transferred to people and groups using the term Christianity who do not do, say, or believe those things.
Absolutely! Bf and I are atheist but his parents are quite religious, and their church and practice seem very focused on service, personal morality/godliness (vs public/proselytizing), community, those kinds of things. His dad has been posting pro-refugee articles from a Christian perspective (which isn't necessarily how most people of their demographic see it). My religiously inclined friends, on the whole, seem to practice/worship in similar ways.
But are definitely those out there who think if you can slap the "churchgoing Christian" label on someone it automatically makes them a good person, and if you can't, they are automatically suspect. And that, I think, is a dangerously erroneous road to go down. Churches and church-goers and church leaders can all be really shitty people. As can atheists. There just isn't a great correlation either way.
-
I certainly acknowledge that church does give 'spirituality' to many people.
I don't think church does or can "give spirituality" to people. I think at most it can reflect the spirituality already in a person, offer a safe space to talk about spiritual experiences or questions, provide language around some shared experiences, introduce a person to practices that might enhance their personal journey, etc. That's what it does for me (nonChristian who goes to a Christian church a lot, as well as to a bunch of other nonreligious and religious spirituality-focused spaces).
-
...definitely those out there who think if you can slap the "churchgoing Christian" label on someone it automatically makes them a good person, and if you can't, they are automatically suspect. And that, I think, is a dangerously erroneous road to go down. Churches and church-goers and church leaders can all be really shitty people. As can atheists. There just isn't a great correlation either way.
100%!
And (not in response to you, galliver, just talking generally about the bigger topic) I think it sucks when people pretend there is or should be a correlation. Every group has people that are great and people that suck. I'm squicked out when people expect more from an atheist or a Christian or a Muslim or an agnostic or an ethical vegan just because they have some beliefs and are trying to align with a certain path. They're still just people! Foibled, imperfect people who are usually trying their best.
And, a lot of people who go to church don't do so because they think they rock and god deserves a chance to gaze upon them inside a particular building on a Sunday, but because they are acutely aware of their imperfections and are taking every opportunity for help and support to become more whole, more balanced, more just, more kind, more open. I like that in a person :)
I was once part of a religion that had a strong message around appearances, because they were aware that people judged them by a higher standard per their religious beliefs. I think that's wrong. I think people should be able to be religious or spiritual (or even both) without others demanding they be perfect, and attacking/criticizing/nitpicking when they're not.
-
To judge "the culture as practiced" as being an inaccurate portrayal of Christianity would require us to have some objective definition of Christianity.
Well, why would the reverse be true then, that the culture as practiced should be judged as an accurate portrayal?
If, as I'm claiming, there is no objective or historically accurate Christianity, then there is no yardstick or standard we could point at and tell modern Christians that they are Christianing incorrectly. With no other definition, Christianity is what it is, here and now. This is the only observable definition.
I hear this claim often: Christianity is not at fault for the things Christians do, because some Christians are doing it wrong or have a misunderstanding of their own religion. If they only subscribed to my brand of belief, they would be true Christians and be wonderful.
Rather than go down that sectarian rabbit hole, it makes more sense to consider religion to be a series of ever-changing social clubs with few firm principles and flexible "ideals". The truth at any given time is what the authoritarian leader says it is. These human leaders reinvent the religion anew for each generation, with minor changes. Maybe pets can go to heaven. Maybe stem cell research is wrong. Maybe Jesus is aligned with our favored political party. Maybe the earth is round after all.
To me anyway, the world, history, and theology make a lot more sense from this perspective than if I get on my pedestal and lecture followers of religions I don't belong to that they're doing it wrong. I can tell you when your belief contradicts objective observations, but if asked for an opinion about Calvinism, for example, all I can say is "it's one of millions of almost-certainly false religious ideas."
-
To judge "the culture as practiced" as being an inaccurate portrayal of Christianity would require us to have some objective definition of Christianity.
Well, why would the reverse be true then, that the culture as practiced should be judged as an accurate portrayal?
If, as I'm claiming, there is no objective or historically accurate Christianity, then there is no yardstick or standard we could point at and tell modern Christians that they are Christianing incorrectly. With no other definition, Christianity is what it is, here and now. This is the only observable definition.
I hear this claim often: Christianity is not at fault for the things Christians do, because some Christians are doing it wrong or have a misunderstanding of their own religion. If they only subscribed to my brand of belief, they would be true Christians and be wonderful.
Rather than go down that sectarian rabbit hole, it makes more sense to consider religion to be a series of ever-changing social clubs with few firm principles and flexible "ideals". The truth at any given time is what the authoritarian leader says it is. These human leaders reinvent the religion anew for each generation, with minor changes. Maybe pets can go to heaven. Maybe stem cell research is wrong. Maybe Jesus is aligned with our favored political party. Maybe the earth is round after all.
To me anyway, the world, history, and theology make a lot more sense from this perspective than if I get on my pedestal and lecture followers of religions I don't belong to that they're doing it wrong. I can tell you when your belief contradicts objective observations, but if asked for an opinion about Calvinism, for example, all I can say is "it's one of millions of almost-certainly false religious ideas."
I agree with all you are laying out. Judging culture, or religions gets very sticky very quickly. However, how else do you battle religious folks claiming the problem with X is the the lack of Christian values (substitute any religion).
If we were to put on our sciency hat the answer would be to compare a cohort of non-religeously active folks to a cohort of practicing (or self reporting) folks with equivalent income/region/race/age/etc from a religion and compare outcomes. You'd want to look at crime rates, charitable giving, health, etc and evaluate the comparison.
Sadly you can't have this conversation with most religious groups, they want to compare some mythical ideal of what their religion should be to a bunch of negative stereotypes of non-religious folks, or to other religions.
If we want to start cherry picking the right era to be a proper christian, I could easily pick the era of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades, etc, etc. Religion is just too malleable to pin down. Groups that do end up like ISIS and kill, punish, or marginalize those who deviate from the chosen ideal.
-
If, as I'm claiming, there is no objective or historically accurate Christianity, then there is no yardstick or standard we could point at and tell modern Christians that they are Christianing incorrectly.
Modern Christians are asked to judge this, of themselves, for themselves, all the time. They're also even asked to help their fellow Christians act in certain ways believed to be good for them. You don't subscribe to this obviously.
And... yet again... we are not actually arguing here... I agree that it would be ridiculous for YOU to tell THEM that THEY were "Christianing incorrectly," if only because it would be very unlikely to have any useful result.
Christianity is not at fault for the actions of its adherents because personal responsibility. Not because maybe they're "doing it wrong."
-
Christianity is not at fault for the actions of its adherents because personal responsibility. Not because maybe they're "doing it wrong."
Not sure if this is what you're proposing, but I often hear a similar argument being made in a subtle way:
If someone does something good, and they are a Christian, they did something good because they are Christian.
If someone does something bad, it's their personal responsibility, not a failure or outcome of their Christian ethical system.
The underlying premise is that because Christianity is good, anything bad could not have possibly come from it. If one believes this to be true, the two statements above will seem true. Any moral failures must be due to something outside of the good Christianity, such as flaws in the self - or at least a personal failure to do the Christianing correctly.
Bottom line, Christianity makes explicit product promises to make people better. But when the product does not deliver on its promise, we make excuses.
Imagine if my brand new car routinely broke down, but I kept blaming dirty air, contaminated fuel, my own imperfect driving, sabatours, the weather, cosmic radiation, or whatever for the breakdowns because my dealer promised the new car was reliable. My belief, er.. faith, in the reliability of my car is forcing me to make justifications and cast blame on myself or others.
-
^ Some branches of Christianity make explict product promises to make people better or "good." I don't know that the brand of Borg, Spong, Butler Bass, etc, do.
There's a large Christian movement around authenticity, personal healing and growth, integrity, etc, that isn't about external authority, rules, specific practices, etc, but rather about aligning with one's truest, considered sense of alignment with universal principles..proposing that this is what Jesus was getting at.
Or something.
ChpBstrd, loved your point about the underlying premise of some brands of Christianity...that "if Brand is good, anything bad could not possibly come from it." I'd never thought about that before, and it tickles my brain.
-
Not sure if this is what you're proposing, but I often hear a similar argument being made in a subtle way:
If someone does something good, and they are a Christian, they did something good because they are Christian.
If someone does something bad, it's their personal responsibility, not a failure or outcome of their Christian ethical system.
If someone does something good and they are a Christian, they did something good. Not Christianity.
If someone does something bad, and they are a Christian, they did something bad. Not Christianity.
Christianity cannot actions. I don't subscribe to the book-burning sentimentality of "it's the religion's fault." Nor do I think the religion performed the actions that the person did.
Whatever anyone thinks of their religion is what they think of their religion. That assessment IS their responsibility, that assessment IS what governs their actions. You spent several posts saying one could not pin down a single "correct" Christianity (the subtext was "for everyone"). My point is that one is asked by Christianity to seek anyway - for one's self. Not only does the faithful's belief in, of, and about Christianity say a lot about the faithful, it remains their responsibility. Christianity is neither the appropriate actor deserving praise nor the appropriate scapegoat deserving condemnation for the actions of people who make choices. People make good decisions and bad decisions with and without religion all the time.
Bottom line, Christianity makes explicit product promises to make people better. But when the product does not deliver on its promise, we make excuses.
You only a few posts ago argued the religion has no identifiable single correct expression, then complained that it was a "product" making "explicit promises" and "not delivering." I'm not sure which to respond to. Is it that it's not so simple to nail down, or is it the opposite, that you've nailed it down, it has specific features, and it doesn't give you those features?
-
Whatever some subgroup of Christians are doing, some other subgroup is doing the opposite. Point to the congregations of racists and someone will point out a rare multi-racial congregation preaching brotherly love. Point to the homophobes and someone will point out a LGBT church. Point to the Christians telling women they should be subservient to men, and someone will point out an online community for Christian feminists. Point to anti-science Christians, and someone will dig up a scientist who is Christian. Point out how Christians say "put it in god's hands" and someone else will say that, for them, Christianity is about personal responsibility.
To some extent, the counterexamples are inevitable when hundreds of millions of people are involved with the task of reinventing the religion on a daily basis. If Christianity is anything, it is a Rorshach Test - a slippery concept that becomes whatever a group of people in a time and place want it to be. And, as noted, there's no way to prove them wrong that they would accept.
Just as Christians can deflect criticism by saying others are just Christianing incorrectly, they can also funnel praise by attributing good behaviors to Christianity and bad behaviors to anything else. The first fallacy is the No True Scotsman Fallacy, and the second is Cherry Picking. Critics of Christianity are routinely thrown off by these fallacies, or drawn into the ridiculous position of explaining how to Christian correctly.
Yet, Christianity is more than just a framework used by individuals to explore or execute their individualistic will or sense of self, which they alone are personally responsible for.
There are shared beliefs/assumptions in almost any church, regardless of denomination, and beliefs always influence behavior. There is an element of conformity to cultural norms, even occasionally tolerant norms. There is the dogma; 99% of survey respondents would agree the Bible is the book of Christianity. And yes, in my experience the vast majority of Christians think their religion improves them.
This leaves us with the following options to discuss the pros and cons of Christianity:
1) Contrast bad behaviors with a presumed correct way to Christian.
2) Talk about what the majority of Christians think/do and ignore the minorities.
3) Think of religion from a systems perspective. This system yields this entire, diverse range of results. Ask if another system can do better than this entire range of results.
-
^ Yes.
It's why I think the word Christianity is about as useful as the word autism. Neither tell us much of anything. Only getting to know the individual will tell us anything about their experience, beliefs, interests, etc.
And:
4) Decline to use the word Christianity.
I'm not a Christian, don't need the word, don't really care what other (nonharmful things) others do or use, but if the above were the choices, I'd pick (4).
-
I think it depends on your understanding.
My point to the conversation is Christianity is not the same as religion. Religion is a man-made system to try to operate within. Being Christian is being a follower of Christ. It's the very definition of the word. Most of the arguments I hear from people are how it is all "interpreted" by this church or that one. That's religion and that is not to be confused with Christianity.
To answer the OP question, of course you can raise good kids in a secular home.
-
This leaves us with the following options to discuss the pros and cons of Christianity:
1) Contrast bad behaviors with a presumed correct way to Christian.
2) Talk about what the majority of Christians think/do and ignore the minorities.
3) Think of religion from a systems perspective. This system yields this entire, diverse range of results. Ask if another system can do better than this entire range of results.
1) Christians are asked to presume "correct way to Christian." If you're a Christian, you're doing this. If you're not, whether you're discussing it this way is a lot less relevant to Christians most of the time, but could be a fascinating discussion! That said, you don't have to be a Christian to acknowledge that there are more clearly correct and incorrect pieces, though nobody nails them all down obviously. Generally, Christians define a Christian as someone who "considers Christ their personal savior." I think Catholics include the Nicene Creed. Protestants are pretty flexible.
2) Eh. I think this is just a disappointingly incomplete and flawed approach. By this method we would have to conclude "diet and exercise" has failed America.
3) That's way more interesting, and I think how someone who didn't inherit a religion may look at it, but again, it's not possible to do this on more than a personal level. If I like cooking, I am certainly not going to use Stouffer's lasagna recipe, which is surely high on the list of purchased and cooked lasagna, because despite the preponderance of consumption and the lack of questioning of whether they're the lasagna to eat, I have a minimum bar for lasagna. Some people are happy with Stouffer's lasagna. I am not one of them. I am absolutely always going to include my personal experience in a field like cooking or religion when it comes to evaluating those fields. I don't think something like that can be evaluated WITHOUT the personal. I don't view experiencing a religion as purely a thought or systems exercize. It's harder than that.
-
This leaves us with the following options to discuss the pros and cons of Christianity:
1) Contrast bad behaviors with a presumed correct way to Christian.
2) Talk about what the majority of Christians think/do and ignore the minorities.
3) Think of religion from a systems perspective. This system yields this entire, diverse range of results. Ask if another system can do better than this entire range of results.
It is just weird to think of religion from a systems perspective... I think you have nailed Scientology, though. Maybe kwanza, too (maybe not, I don't know much about Kwanza).
It's like trying to measure how much you love someone from a systems perspective; it's like assuming we only have so much love to give in our lives or that we must love one child more because we love our kids differently. Doesn't fit very well.
-
My point to the conversation is Christianity is not the same as religion. Religion is a man-made system to try to operate within. Being Christian is being a follower of Christ. It's the very definition of the word. Most of the arguments I hear from people are how it is all "interpreted" by this church or that one. That's religion and that is not to be confused with Christianity.
I'm confident Jesus would be very sad at the religion-stuff that has developed "in his name", and I share your definition of religion, caracarn.
At the same time, even "follower of Christ" can have as many meanings as people declaring it. Follow as in wear a beard and sandals and walk a lot? Follow as in martyr oneself? Follow as in remain Jewish, even while proposing new ideas? Follow as in...?
I'm good with whatever path (that doesn't harm others) a person takes, I just think language for the Real Stuff is super limited and is difficult to use. Language for the Big Stuff allows people intent on nitpicking and judging to do exactly that.
-
UPDATE:
Hi everyone, I always appreciate when people who post about relationship issues check back in when there has been meaningful development, so I thought I would do the same.
After months of de facto no-contact with any of my in-laws, my other SILs besides the one I'm in a squabble with (remember, I have 5 SILs ranging from approx. ages 17-30) started texting my husband separately over the summer. One of them (the oldest) never mentions the rift- she just updates us on general stuff about her two kids and my BIL. Although they are all the type to avoid conflict, she seems to be the most allergic to it. I (correctly) surmised this is her way of letting us know that the fight with A wasn't going to affect our relationship with her, which was very nice to know.
Two of them, however, texted him specifically to tell him A has been acting really crazy since all this went down. In August, I finally told my husband to call MIL, that it was time to clear some of this shit up.
We called MIL and got the story from her straight. Over the last few months, my husband and I were still really pissed at A, but we had more important shit to do and worry about, so we kind of forgot about it for a while, assuming A was doing the same. Not the case, according to MIL and the other SILs. Apparently she has been stewing over this since January, even going so far as to tell her sisters to "choose sides". Meaning if they contacted us, it would be seen as a betrayal of their relationship with her. A told my MIL she would be angry with her if she visited us.
Apparently there was an incident over 4th of July when one of the SILs was texting my husband while they were all playing a board game at MIL's house. A asked other SIL because it was her turn to roll, "Who are you texting?" Other SIL answers sheepishly, "I'm texting B." This prompts A to clam up and act surly the rest of the night.
So, gang, now we know for sure. This is not about religion in the least, and my fretting ended up being wasted energy. She's just a crappy person. When I heard all of this, I was naturally incensed at A's destructive behavior, but I'm slightly ashamed to admit overall I just feel vindicated that I was right.
By the end of the phone call, we effectively cleared the air with MIL and other SILs, but MIL probably saw a harder side of me she hadn't seen before. I told her that I was upset about the rift, but no way were husband and I going to apologize just to appease A. I let her know I wasn't going to put up with her cruddy attitude like everyone else in the family just to get on to get along. She was a bit defensive of her daughter but pretty understanding of my ire overall. MIL agreed we would leave this be for now and see what A does. We reassured everyone in no uncertain terms that although we were angry with A, they were not to "choose sides" (God, does it really need to be said??), that we wanted her to find a way to be happy and to have all the support she needed.
So that's where we are. I'm no longer stressed that my in-laws are judging me for not being religious enough. They really don't seem to care much. They know husband and I are good people overall and dedicated parents, and that seems to be enough for them. Husband is extremely relieved as well.
-
My questions: Anyone else in a similar situation where you grew up with God and recognized the benefits of that upbringing but have since renounced it? Do you think it's possible to raise a child with all the positive attributes that faith has to offer without the actual "God" part?
Just look at how many good people there are in the world. Many of them were raised outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition (either athiest or just a much different religion), and they are perfectly fine. You shouldn't worry about it. Just raise them to be respectful (unlike your patronizing SIL), thoughtful, nice, hard-working people, and they will turn out fine.
-
UPDATE:
So, gang, now we know for sure. This is not about religion in the least, and my fretting ended up being wasted energy. She's just a crappy person. When I heard all of this, I was naturally incensed at A's destructive behavior, but I'm slightly ashamed to admit overall I just feel vindicated that I was right.
I still think religious privledge and discrimination played a role. Had this spat been about any other subject, you would not have had to worry that your entire family might take sides against you, much less be driven to question what you know is true and right. There's something special about a situation where most people in a family are running software in their brains that divides people into binary good/bad, saved/unsaved categories like some sort of cult. Your SIL's concerns/issues make sense to her based on the religious assumptions she's accepted, and so religion is at the root of this conflict. Because it's a religious conflict, no amount of evidence, argument, or logic can resolve it, and that's a tragedy. She's not necessarily a crappy person, but she has adopted beliefs that cause her to be toxic and destructive to the family. Meanwhile, you've seen all you need to see about religion's much-hyped effects on family cohesion.
-
Had this spat been about any other subject, you would not have had to worry that your entire family might take sides against you, much less be driven to question what you know is true and right.
I disagree. I've seen this occur in people who have no "religion" but behave precisely the same over whatever they are passionate about (veganism, monogamy, the chicken pox vaccine, gender bias, whatever). Some people are wildly vehement regarding their passion or position, and most definitely divide families, utilize shaming, urge others to implement isolation in order to bring others around, etc. This is just what I've experienced in my own life, never mind observed.
Jerkiness is jerkiness is jerkiness, regardless of what excuse/cover people use.
OP, I agree with your take. And I'm really glad you got to find out what the scoop was, and protect your relationships with good, open-minded, peaceful people (who are these things whether also religious or not).
-
UPDATE:
So, gang, now we know for sure. This is not about religion in the least, and my fretting ended up being wasted energy. She's just a crappy person. When I heard all of this, I was naturally incensed at A's destructive behavior, but I'm slightly ashamed to admit overall I just feel vindicated that I was right.
I still think religious privledge and discrimination played a role. Had this spat been about any other subject, you would not have had to worry that your entire family might take sides against you, much less be driven to question what you know is true and right. There's something special about a situation where most people in a family are running software in their brains that divides people into binary good/bad, saved/unsaved categories like some sort of cult. Your SIL's concerns/issues make sense to her based on the religious assumptions she's accepted, and so religion is at the root of this conflict. Because it's a religious conflict, no amount of evidence, argument, or logic can resolve it, and that's a tragedy. She's not necessarily a crappy person, but she has adopted beliefs that cause her to be toxic and destructive to the family. Meanwhile, you've seen all you need to see about religion's much-hyped effects on family cohesion.
I would actually argue that the causal link runs the other way: it is not religion that creates binary good/bad thinking, but rather that people who tend toward a binary view of the universe are attracted to rigid belief systems that justify this way of viewing the world. Certain religions serve that purpose (just as others do not), but so do many other "isms."
-
I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic elementary school/jr. high. I don't have warm feelings about it and knew I would never be religious from the time I was about 7. The nuns were some of the most twisted people I've ever encountered and my brothers have physical scars from the Christian Brothers. We have raised our kids to be kind, ethical and caring. We did volunteer work with them and they are both great people who are pretty altruistic. We tried UU for a time, but I find any kind of ritual intensely boring and didn't get anything out of it. I like UU values, but I don't have a spiritual bone in my body.
All that said, I suspect there's more than religion going on with this situation. I started dating my husband when I was 17 and am now 58. His many brothers really don't, when push comes to shove, genuinely consider me to be their family, nor do they consider anybody's wife to be family other than their own. Dh and I were the principal caregivers for his parents as we were the closest for over a decade. I did more for MIL in her declining years than anyone, yet the out of town ones who never saw her were testy about me having any say about arranging for her care. It's just how they are--I'll always be an outsider, despite the fact that there's no outward hostility. My family is not like that with the people who have married into the family. Dh has noticed the difference.
I wonder if the OP may have opened a can of worms by trying to manage the communication among the SILs. They (and A in particular) may just view her as an outsider who is butting into the family dynamic, and are using religion as an excuse.
-
My (as well as husband's) $0.02: this is not about religion or anything "larger" or more ideological. I gave her waaay too much credit here. Religion was used as a convenient way for A to try to punish me for hurting her evidently very fragile ego.
Every family has its weird stuff, but after knowing my in-laws almost a decade, I can authoritatively say they are truly kind and good people. I was accepted and beloved by them instantly. MIL and FIL have told husband privately they think the world of me and us as a couple. That's probably part of A's problem with me. She even said during our FB convo that she thought MIL liked husband and me better than her and her husband. High school much?
Sorry to disagree, but there's no doubt in my mind now that she's a crappy person. After hearing about her attempts to strong-arm her sisters and mother into disowning us over this relatively innocuous disagreement, the scales just seem to tip that way. However, due to her age, husband and I hold out some hope she will get her shit together and this relationship can be salvaged down the line.
-
My (as well as husband's) $0.02: this is not about religion or anything "larger" or more ideological. I gave her waaay too much credit here. Religion was used as a convenient way for A to try to punish me for hurting her evidently very fragile ego.
Every family has its weird stuff, but after knowing my in-laws almost a decade, I can authoritatively say they are truly kind and good people. I was accepted and beloved by them instantly. MIL and FIL have told husband privately they think the world of me and us as a couple. That's probably part of A's problem with me. She even said during our FB convo that she thought MIL liked husband and me better than her and her husband. High school much?
Sorry to disagree, but there's no doubt in my mind now that she's a crappy person. After hearing about her attempts to strong-arm her sisters and mother into disowning us over this relatively innocuous disagreement, the scales just seem to tip that way. However, due to her age, husband and I hold out some hope she will get her shit together and this relationship can be salvaged down the line.
Yes, you mentioned it earlier. It is very likely that she is jealous of the affection and trust her parents have in her brother (your DH), and very plausible that your in-laws also like you much better than her. (We love all our children, but we don't always have to like their actions).
Most people do mellow a bit after age 22... by the time they are 30 or a bit older. My SIL definitely changed into a responsible person from a "victim" before age 25 (or more accurately a "person without ability to do it on her own"). I like my SIL now (she is 36) and trust that she can make the best decisions for her family, now. Ironically, MIL (her mom) pushes back on that idea from time to time and on me for reminding her, but that is mystory, not yours......!
TLDR - just keep stepping away from SIL drama for a few years, but not in-laws, even if you need to preface conversations with other in-laws with "SIL is still so young, let's give her time to figure it out..." and change the subject away from her, I guarantee it will work.
-
If attending church and being religious made people more moral, wouldn't priests, ministers, and those who work with the church be the MOST moral? However you hear about SO MANY religious leaders hurting people. Hurting small children!
Church has nothing to do with morality. Children learn by example and by their inner voice. Be a good person and teach your children to do the same.
-
I was raised in a secular family.
Moral and religion do not have a causal connection if any connection at all.
Religion is just one of many ways to give rules of conduct. Philosophy works well for many, reason too. Think of Kant's imperative or ' dont do what you dont want done to you'.
-
If attending church and being religious made people more moral, wouldn't priests, ministers, and those who work with the church be the MOST moral? However you hear about SO MANY religious leaders hurting people. Hurting small children!
Church has nothing to do with morality. Children learn by example and by their inner voice. Be a good person and teach your children to do the same.
As a Christian I would wholeheartedly agree that attending church does not make one moral. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "church has nothing to do with morality" and I'd think you would agree that making that statement would also allow you to make the opposite statement to what you started with of "attending church makes a person immoral" and that that would be equally foolish.
One can get into an lengthy debate about the state of religion in the world today and how most churches do not contribute to a positive direction because they have moved from attempting to align with morals to instead becoming a form of business that seeks to find ways to pack the seats and in turn then turns religion into entertainment rather than teaching.