Parents who force their children into religion?

Rowingirl

I think it's less about the religion and more about the person. OH and his two older brothers were brought up as Christains; his older brother is still a Christain and OH and his other brother are athestists. While his parents are slightly unhappy that they won't all be together in heaven they supported his choices and never push their beliefs on anyone. OH's eldest brother is totally different - he believes it's a life goal to convert OH & their other brother to Christainity and refuses to accept that they will not go back to the church or their reasons for not doing so. OH & his other brother now refuse to discuss religion with him to avoid the conversion spiel and interrogation.
No real advice for OP except to offer the son support and a listening, non-biased ear.

bonniecata

although me and my sisters weren't brought up with a religion my sister became a muslim when she married her husband her older children (not his ) don't have a religion but her youngest son ( not his ) is being brought up muslim ,my sister has had nothing but hassle from school over his meals and she was told if you don't like it make him a packed lunch

andygb

Rowingirl wrote: »

I think it's less about the religion and more about the person. OH and his two older brothers were brought up as Christains; his older brother is still a Christain and OH and his other brother are athestists. While his parents are slightly unhappy that they won't all be together in heaven they supported his choices and never push their beliefs on anyone. OH's eldest brother is totally different - he believes it's a life goal to convert OH & their other brother to Christainity and refuses to accept that they will not go back to the church or their reasons for not doing so. OH & his other brother now refuse to discuss religion with him to avoid the conversion spiel and interrogation.
No real advice for OP except to offer the son support and a listening, non-biased ear.

I think that many people who follow religion (any religion) devoutly, fail to comprehend that atheists/agnostics simply dismiss words like heaven/hell/purgatory because they have no meaning.
The one glaring fact about ALL religions, is that THEY have been forced to change and evolve as the World has become more knowledgeable - advances in science being a main reason. Certain sects/branches remain fixed in a primitive state, causing much misery and ignorance for the poor people who are forced to live by their rules.
So, to sum up, all religions have been affected or influenced by progress, to the extent that the main ones have become - "Religion light".

andygb

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I'm not really that keen on kids being indoctrinated into religions before they are old enough to make up their minds for themselves, but what I dislike more is atheists telling religious people what to do. Some atheists really don't seem to understand that by actively campaigning against religion they are actually becoming fanatical themselves, I.e. their atheism has become a religion to them and they have become the very thing they seek to criticise. The odious Richard Dawkins is the perfect example of this.

I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins, because he presents an alternative view, something which was not possible even in very recent history.
As for atheists being loud and proud and actively campaigning against religion, I have NEVER noticed this.
The only time that I have ever volunteered my views are when they have been asked for, and then some may take offence. I find this confusing, because ordinary people who follow religion do not offend me - offensive people offend me.;)

lostinrates

andygb wrote: »

I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins, because he presents an alternative view, something which was not possible even in very recent history.
As for atheists being loud and proud and actively campaigning against religion, I have NEVER noticed this.
The only time that I have ever volunteered my views are when they have been asked for, and then some may take offence. I find this confusing, because ordinary people who follow religion do not offend me - offensive people offend me.;)

So are creationists offering an alternative point of view to what is now main stream, its just that its easier to appreciate a 'different' point of view if its closer to one's own I think.

I find Richard Dawkins lack of tolerance somewhat offensive tbh.

Mojisola

Rowingirl wrote: »

While his parents are slightly unhappy that they won't all be together in heaven they supported his choices and never push their beliefs on anyone.

andygb wrote: »

I think that many people who follow religion (any religion) devoutly, fail to comprehend that atheists/agnostics simply dismiss words like heaven/hell/purgatory because they have no meaning.

But they do have a lot of meaning for the people who believe.

Can't you see how people who really, really believe that there is an afterlife and that you have to live in a certain way to get to the good place would find it difficult if their children didn't follow their religion?

If I was a believer, I think I would end up an extremist - this life is just a few years but eternity is forever. It would be heart-breaking to think that your loved ones would be in a bad place for the rest of time.

I don't know whether people who can let their children go their own way don't really believe or think that God will give people a second chance or hope that their children will change their views before they die.

Person_one

lostinrates wrote: »

I find Richard Dawkins lack of tolerance somewhat offensive tbh.

Tolerance isn't always all its cracked up to be.

I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins too, I completely understand where he's coming from although I don't think he puts his message across in the most effective way.

He sees the wealthy powerful men who are at the top of most (all?) religions raking it in, enjoying a life of privilege while exploiting millions of vulnerable people, being generally corrupt and using their religion for less than positive ends. He sees millions of people having their lives ruled, or even dying, because of myths and fairy tales and ideas that have absolutely no basis in fact.

He sees all this and it makes him angry, fair enough! It makes me angry too! I don't at all think he's filled with hatred for little old ladies who run church coffee mornings, I think he sees them as innocent victims and is desperate for people to see what religion really does to the world, the 'bigger picture' as it were. I get that, I really do.

Most atheists have absolutely no problem with people believing whatever tosh they want, gods, angels, ghosts, fairies, alien abduction, conspiracy theories, its all the same to me. The problem is when individuals and organisations start expecting special rights and privileges for those beliefs, or start getting in a huff when people who don't share those belief don't follow their rules!

Person_one

Mojisola wrote: »

But they do have a lot of meaning for the people who believe.

Can't you see how people who really, really believe that there is an afterlife and that you have to live in a certain way to get to the good place would find it difficult if their children didn't follow their religion?

If I was a believer, I think I would end up an extremist - this life is just a few years but eternity is forever. It would be heart-breaking to think that your loved ones would be in a bad place for the rest of time.

I don't know whether people who can let their children go their own way don't really believe or think that God will give people a second chance or hope that their children will change their views before they die.

...and this is the kind of thing that upsets and angers me and RD!

You're absolutely right, for true believers the thought of your child in hell must be an absolute torment. Isn't it despicable that religious leaders perpetuate this hurtful, harmful idea in order to keep believers in fear and exercise control over them?

I have a friend from a very religious family, he's gay. Seeing the torture he's gone through of first accepting his own sexuality and realising it doesn't make him evil or dirty and that the god he was brought up to love doesn't hate him now, and then of facing the reactions of his parents and community and their reactions. Honestly, its awful, true belief can be a curse as much as a comfort.

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

Tolerance isn't always all its cracked up to be.

I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins too, I completely understand where he's coming from although I don't think he puts his message across in the most effective way.

He sees the wealthy powerful men who are at the top of most (all?) religions raking it in, enjoying a life of privilege while exploiting millions of vulnerable people, being generally corrupt and using their religion for less than positive ends. He sees millions of people having their lives ruled, or even dying, because of myths and fairy tales and ideas that have absolutely no basis in fact.

He sees all this and it makes him angry, fair enough! It makes me angry too! I don't at all think he's filled with hatred for little old ladies who run church coffee mornings, I think he sees them as innocent victims and is desperate for people to see what religion really does to the world, the 'bigger picture' as it were. I get that, I really do.

Most atheists have absolutely no problem with people believing whatever tosh they want, gods, angels, ghosts, fairies, alien abduction, conspiracy theories, its all the same to me. The problem is when individuals and organisations start expecting special rights and privileges for those beliefs, or start getting in a huff when people who don't share those belief don't follow their rules!

I don't have religious belief, and strive ...yet often fail to be tolerant. Peopl at the top of all trees are rich. One could put very similar arguments about science and medicine out. And tosh....well, one here's very interesting explanations about some scientific theories, and I'm sure the ones I don't understand are just as interestingly interpreted by me!

Tolerance is also something we seem to value when it suits us. We like it in the liberal west when directed at sexuality and colour for example. We don't seem to like it when peoe want to make different choices politically and to be less liberal.

chewmylegoff

andygb wrote: »

I have a lot of time for Richard Dawkins, because he presents an alternative view, something which was not possible even in very recent history.
As for atheists being loud and proud and actively campaigning against religion, I have NEVER noticed this.
The only time that I have ever volunteered my views are when they have been asked for, and then some may take offence. I find this confusing, because ordinary people who follow religion do not offend me - offensive people offend me.;)

You didn't notice Dawkins' book 'the god delusion' then? A diatribe from start to finish basically sneering at religion and how stupid it is, before extolling the virtues of the 'brights' movement which is just an organised religion itself. Dawkins attacks religion at every opportunity, especially if it means getting on TV.