Debate Should teenagers have the right to choose whether they go to church or not?

I certainly agree that it is arrogant on your parents part, but the truth is that we are only kids, and nobody cares what we think. I would love to make it illegal, but there is no lawyer out there who is going to fight for a teenager to not go to church.

If I were you, I would just have fun with it. Question everything that the preacher says, and if you can get away with it, get yourself a Bad Religion shirt

​

and wear it under whatever your parents make you wear and take it off when you get there.

 

As said by Richard Dawkins, mandatory church attendance is nothing but child abuse.

On a side note, I've been wanting to get a bad religion shirt for a very long time. I love that band.

 

Catholics don't believe that the Pope is God.
Just sayin'.

 

I agree with that and I am Roman catholic we don't say the Pope is God the Pope as we Roman catholics say is the leader of Gods people but not the real God. And about you're Priest, Priest's shouldn't do that that is wrong

 

I think this is more a case of parental attitude in general, not deserving of the focus on religion as the central factor that is so often the case. On the note of Dawkins being mentioned, I think this is something he's often guilty of as well, and it always frustrates me considering how vehement he is about it as a focus. Now I'm not religious by any means, and yet I don't see the root of people like Dawkins' focus on religion as a vendetta, when isolating it as a subject is, in itself, countering the logic on which his objection is (or at least is for me) based in the first place.

My perspective on religion is as a product of humanity, rather obviously on the surface since I don't believe in any of them, but in the deeper sense that the nature of religion (how it came about, how it works, how people react to and engage with it) is entirely a product of human nature as animals driven partly by our emotional nature. On this basis, I see discussions such as this one on religion being thrusted on children as an unwarranted focus on a principle that is common throughout human parenting just because it revolves around religion. Do people complain so much when political opinions are pushed upon children? When no visible manifestation of such opinion (eg. Chruch) doesn't exist, do people consider so strongly the equally (if not more) influential impact of parents strongly imparting political views, or even simple social opinions, in day to day life, reinforced time and again throughout childhood?

These are all products of the same aspects of human nature, to have faith in an opinion and be driven by an emotional understanding of the universe in both larger and day to day senses, to be a 'self really, and fallible in every sense implied therein. Now I do agree that religion is the most pronounced manifestation of this human nature within our society, not least because it has developed within itself that eternal context and righteousness. It's principle is to be beyond the confines of humanity, humanity that religion and atheism alike hold to be fallible, albeit in different senses. To one who believes in it, it is beyond question in the way that a human perspective is, it is (if you'll forgive this) Bible Truth in the most literal sense. It's the most potent display of the emotional nature of the human self, clear from it's constant place at the fore of social discussion now that it's universality has been called in to serious question in many societies including our own.

As such, bearing in mind the fact that it's the most pertinent aspect of our emotional nature, and has the most prominent icons within our society such as traditions of church and conventions ranging in to even the days of the week, it's gonna be the most prominent factor in the tricky business of raising kids as well. That said, I have to appreciate that it deserves specific focus as a topic when confronting the issues of parental influence and freedom of thought for developing minds, and where the line is drawn with parental rights and responsibility. But isolating it as it's own issue, an issue of religion as opposed to an issue of human nature (again, if you don't believe in religion, how can you not think that it is wholly an issue of human nature as animals in itself) in the larger context, only serves to offer distinction where there should be none, and give unwarranted weight to the counter arguments, those defensive of religion as objective truth. See it for what it is, even if it is the most obvious example of it, it isn't inherently different or wise to take it up as a dedicated crusade like Dawkins does (only at times, to be fair).

As I said, you're venturing in to very tricky territory here, and if you look at it in its wider context as I said above instead of an isolated argument of forced religious participation in people's own children, then it becomes clearer how tricky the proposition of limiting parental rights here is. The role of government, and the question of it's right and responsibility to put controls upon rights 'within the home', is a rather larger issue than 'can I make my children go to church?', though that's not even to say that the latter is an easy question by any means. Now I'm talking from a British context here, and British society is generally more open to government having a more developed presence in the rights of the individual than the US, this being heavily intertwined with (you guessed it) christianity still being a core part of much of society. Now I'm sure if you were saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to force their children to go to Mosque you'd get a riot of support from certain, rather large circles in the US, you'd have cries of 'American rights to freedom of thought being restricted in our own country' and probably even a few 'Children being indoctrinated as terrorists within our boarders!'.

Now I should say that I'm not hating on the US in principle here, trust me there are just as many things that I hate about the UK, funnily enough we're too far the other way. Apathy in the face of whiny bastards and PC tendencies have taken too strong a root here imo, to the point that, not too long ago, I heard a depressing news article on the radio about a local council (I forget which) banning all employees eating in meetings during certain times of the year when Muslim employees were fasting. Now that, I think you'll agree, is absolutely ridiculous and stinks of backing down to certain circles who will make a cultural fuss based on what's currently a hot topic where political correctness is concerned. What I'd ideally like to see is some kind of happy medium (isn't that what we all want, right back to Goldilocks?) where religions are not distinguished in social question based on their history within the given society vs an 'outside' religion in historical terms, and where religion at large is treated fairly within society but in balance with the rights of those who don't adhere to it.

But anyway, back to the point of parental rights and the resistance to it from the right wing, again more prominently in the US as a vague social trend at least, and the sequential point of your specific example of Christianity (or certain branches therein) being strongly linked with these circles. Now I far from hold with that general political view at large, but in the question of parental rights I think there is slightly more merit in their conclusion, if not in their logic. Applying government (another product of human society as it just happened to evolve) to the process of parenthood itself in such a core way as restriction imparting of views, something ingrained in our very nature as animals who continue via reproduction and have the most developed nurturing stage of any animal, is something I have serious questions about.

Abuse is clearly an issue, and I don't say that I'm not thankful for the evolution of social conscience for children and various laws put in place to help children who are just being abused, a term which spans very far in terms of ideas. But I question whether such a basic parental process as imparting views on things ranging from universal understanding to basic social opinions (what is, to the human self as the animal that we are, an aspect of education that any animal does as a parent) can, or should, be regulated.

The fact is, we are animals, and to aspire to some manner of perfection in our own society at large is, ironically, kinda spiritual in the credibility it gives us. Didn't you wonder why Communism was labelled by so many as a religion in principle if not in facade? It offered that same sense of inherent justice, a reachable ideal of equality and objective justice that escaped our own emotional fallibility as individuals (though it focused specifically on greed and personal desire for wealth rather than more general 'vices' such as the sins of Christianity). Basically, we're not perfect, and so society (inclusive of government obviously) is never gonna be perfect since it is a product of us as animals, as a species. There are gonna be times when the question of social or governmental intervention just run in to the walls of us being animals before being individuals within our created society. If anything, this is further personal proof to me of the nonexistence of God or any other deity, since what caring, loving creator would make a race capable of abstract thought and gestures toward objectivity, then dump them in the form of an animal faced at all turns with the limits of their own nature as an emotional self? It's utterly draining at times. Then again maybe that's it. Maybe religion is the lie of the creator to stop us going insane with contradictions and brick walls when navigating the maze of social and universal consideration, although in my case it didn't work, so either way I ain't happy.

But, basically, you've managed to form your own opinion and consider things for yourself in a very key sense in our society, despite being in an environment where this isn't specifically encouraged and nurtured if it involves a conclusion different from that of your parents. Count yourself lucky in a sense, nurture that without getting bitter and you can consider yourself even luckier.

 

I do believe that political values shouldn't be forced upon children either, it's just not as bad of a thing to do. The problem with indoctrination into religion is that belief in a God is directly tied to lower income and less intelligence, while political views are much less so.
It's the intellectual equivalent of shaking a baby (and thus killing brain cells). You're hurting it's future. It's abuse.

 

The problem is that most kids wouldn't go because teenagers just want to have the easiest way they can. Also, many teens who are big into the internet are often swayed by the "I want it and want it now" that you get online. I think there's a lot to religion, but much of modern religion has been so distorted that it's really all BS at this point. In a way, I don't think it's wrong to do so...parents certainly have the right to try to impress their religion on their kids, as they should...but it should be a reasonable. If you're getting punished for NOT doing it, that's unreasonable. If they make you go to some place for a couple hours a week, I think that's perfectly reasonable. Once you're officially an adult, I think then you can make your own decisions on religion. Though most still don't do the proper research anyway...I know there's so much to Moslem and Hinduism, and I'm Jewish myself...but I don't really know a lot on Christianity...regardless, I think you should do real research on the origins and actual meanings behind your religion instead of whatever BS you're being fed. I've been studying Judaism on my own time and I have a very clear idea of what I think it's all about, along with being able to read and translate Hebrew, nearly fluently.

 

First off, you're last point is wildly inflammatory imo, I can kinda see where you're coming from but seriously, you're comparing imparting of opinion (pretty damn key opinion) with physical damage to a child's brain. Just no dude, just no. You're previous point about lower income is a pretty big leap from problem to solution as well, you say that political views aren't as significant when it comes to parental influence, then play the correlation card with lower income? You don't think political views are ridiculously linked to income groups? You're missing the point that the views, both political and religious, are more likely to be symptomatic of these social trends (particularly wealth) than the causes of them. Like I said before, religion is a product of humanity (nature and results within society), not a cause, calling it a cause is granting it the status of outside humanity that it itself claims and you should deny.

Religion is so intertwined with society that there are varying reasons that people follow their particular religion, many of which are to do with social/class pressures and conditions, one of which being the beliefs of your family and particularly parents (I'm not denying this btw). Patterns develop and recur, trends relay as social conditioning maintains certain groups' characteristics, but saying 'religion did it' is missing the point completely. Our human nature did it, religion is a symptom (the biggest symptom, and one that denies its root as I perceive it), not a cause, just like I said above, and at the end of the day we are human, and animal, and riddled with foibles that distract from any gestures towards ultimate social balance and fairness.

What you're asking for is for parents' rights to educate their children on what they believe beyond question to be the basis of existence, even if they don't like it in practice at times, such as not wanting to go to church, or rejecting it at large. When you introduce the concept or sharing to a young child, they don't often like it very much at all, but do you say that to force it upon them as a value is abuse? No, you make them stick with it, as you see it as a parent, it's a lesson that must be learned, whilst not always pleasant to a child who maybe doesn't like sharing much at all.

Now you can say that this is a more basic example, and of course parents have more control over, say, a 3 year old than they should over a teenager. But the parallel rings true when the two concepts are put side by side, sharing within society is a pretty basic principle, one to which children are introduced to at a very early age and is overcome pretty soon afterwards in ideal terms. Compare that to religion and appreciation of the nature of the universe, and the span of where participation is forced for perceived benefit by parental action is increased massively, up to (as it happens) around the teenage years when consideration about the nature of existence starts to kick off.

If you believe in religion, this is as core a concept, in fact vastly more important, to impart to your child, as the appreciated role of the parent to raise not just an human animal, but a social person as well, goes it is a key responsibility of the parent to do so. And tbh, if what you're talking about is impact of parental faith or lack thereof on resulting childrens' views, atheists are just as likely to produce offspring of similar views, that's the way we work as animals. What you're proposing is to remove that aspect of individuality within our species in this society, the raising of our child is one of the things at the very centre of our nature. Sorry to say, but you just can't 'fix' that ultimately.

Now I personally would raise a child imparting my own views and reasoning behind them, but encouraging personal thought and choice as soon as they start to think about that kind of thing. But that is me, and I think you just have to deal with the fact that parenting is a diverse and basically flawed system in nature, at least in practice within our developed society, I mean animals seem to manage fine. That's it really, it's one of the parts of us that is truly animal and remains so very dominant in our society, so it doesn't always work, has a massive impact upon social development in all forms (again, not just religious, and I fail to see a reason for focusing on this aspect in isolation so often, other than a specific emotional reaction to religion over difference in political or more basic social opinion). If you take away the right of the parent to raise a child in what is, at the end of the day, a key sense of that process (we're talking about how you appreciate the whole damn universe here, what do you want them to do? Just leave the kid to their own devices and not try to guide them toward what they perceive as truth? Sounds like a pretty lax attitude to parenting imo, and I'm not even religious) then you deny our nature as animals. And if there's one thing Communism has proven, it's that utter denial of our nature as animals in practice (for religion only ever did it in principle, it never expected us to act like robots cause they wrote in that canny clause about us being flawed which allowed for the animal nature of humanity that it denied) doesn't work. It just doesn't, sorry.

 

You're associating religion with society and pressures, which is what the majority of people do, but it shouldn't be. Religion doesn't promote any of that.

Oh, and I don't really know alot about Christianity, but Judaism, you're Jewish if your mother is Jewish. I assume Christianity has some kind of similarity, and thus it is your religion. It's still your religion until your a full adult, regardless of if you like it or not. Also, I was trying to say I highly doubt you've actually done any real research into the original origins of these, and just want the easiest way out. I've been through that stage

Edit: Let me make this clear: I'm not promoting or trying to convert anymore. In fact my religion tries to keep people FROM converting because it only wants people who are interested in the real meanings behind everything (though in today's world, everything's all screwy). I'm trying to offer a different viewpoint you rarely, if never, see.

 

dude why did you make a post of this, it seems really dumb.

 

I personally feel most teenager's decisions are largely based on your emotions, even if you think it doesn't at the moment. Most aren't fully developed enough to make a decision anywhere near that magnitude already.

That's what I mean. That's nowhere CLOSE to a real study...if you think that's studying religion, you're about as wrong as you can get.

 

Parents should feel obligated to pass morals and manners onto their children, not their religion. Everyone has their religion, and to only expose your child to one certain religion is wrong and ignorant. I've explained this to my parents before.

 

The hypocrisy is hilarious.

 

Answers in red

ironic.

 

No. Most HUMANS decisions are largely based on their emotions, even if they don't think they are at the moment. Most aren't developed enough to make a decision near that magnitude. So they let someone else do the work for them.