In the God Delusion, Dawkins makes a big stink out of there being no "Christian children" or "Muslim children" because children aren't capable of rationally deciding these things for themselves. He instead proposes we call kids, "children of Christian parents" or whatever faith the parents' are raising their children in.
Well, last weekend my kids attended a birthday party. One of the children there was Jewish. He was running around with his yarmulke on his head, prayer thingie tucked into his pants, his forelocks growing out (pretty orthodox for my neck of the woods)... It just made me sad to think of his chances of escaping the beliefs of his parents. I know we've discussed this before, and I don't think it's abuse or the kid should be removed from his home. But I also don't think it's right to raise a child believing they will be punished by a god if they don't conform to the religious standards of their parents.
Don't know what I'm trying to achieve with this thread. I guess I'm just expressing my sadness at what I saw. It really does break my heart thinking of what this child would/will go through if/when he starts questioning the faith of his parents.

Did you just say that you made the inverse theological decision when you were 6 or 7 in a different thread?

Jews don't believe in hell. Their concepts of punishment are much different than Christians as well.

I heard a radio piece by Marcus Brigstocke which among other things expressed Dawkins' point in perhaps somewhat clearer terms: that a child is no more a Christian or whatever than he is a member of the Postal Workers' Union. We all know how impressionable kids are, how readily they accept what their parents tell them and how keen they are to please. It is sad to see one so young being pigeonholed into one narrow slot, when he has his whole life to find his niche. Maybe this little tyke will outgrow the beliefs of his parents - after all, shouldn't that be the dream of every parent, to see their offspring become much more than the sum of their parts?

(February 2, 2013 at 12:30 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Did you just say that you made the inverse theological decision when you were 6 or 7 in a different thread?

Yes I did. I also said that my chucking the whole religion thing was due to my inability to determine which doctrine was correct. I didn't start to call myself an atheist until I was 11 or 12, though that was rooted in my experience when we switched churches. (ETA: This is to say, I might not have self-identified as an atheist at 6 or 7, but in hindsight that's where my faith broke.) This boy at the party isn't likely to suddenly start attending a Mosque or Mass. His religious experience isn't going to be diverse, it's going to be absolute. There isn't going to be a questioning of the absoluteness of his parents' faith until he's older, by which point he may or may not have drunk the Kool-Aid, so to speak.
I don't know if one can do away with the terms "Christian child" or "Jewish child" or whatever the faith may be. But seeing this boy brought Dawkins' argument to my mind and it was within the context of that argument that it has been bouncing around my skull for the past several days.

I've met several Jewish people who see their 'Jewish-ness' as more of a cultural thing and not so much a religious thing. Which, hey, if it works for you, run with it.

Quote: It just made me sad to think of his chances of escaping the beliefs of his parents.

Why?

Religious people tend to be happier and may live longer.
http://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?tid=16962

You should be sad for kids who aren't religious.

(February 2, 2013 at 5:07 pm)John V Wrote: Religious people tend to be happier and may live longer.
http://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?tid=16962

You should be sad for kids who aren't religious.

Er... what were you trying to link to?

(February 2, 2013 at 5:07 pm)John V Wrote: Why?

Religious people tend to be happier and may live longer.
http://atheistforums.org/newreply.php?tid=16962

You should be sad for kids who aren't religious.

So are people who do yoga or have a lot of friends. The thing with these surveys is they never answer the question "Compared to what?" Also, how do they define "religious"? How often do they have to attend church? What religions are polled? Is this regional? How many of these people are saying they're more religious than they are? The best thing my psychology of religion course taught me (besides content) is that these types of surveys are to be bewared, not accepted.

I wouldn't doubt at all that religious people are happy. There are a few possible reasons for this. 1. Ignorance is bliss and 2. Eternal life is security and protection from fear of death. That being said, it is not my experience that religious people tend to be happier. I know some who are and some who are abysmally depressed.