At what age should a child be introduced to religion?

[emjay]

Honestly, it depends on what "to introduce" means.

"Daddy, what's that building you go to every Sunday morning?"
"Sorry, Timmy, I can't answer that question until you're 12 years old."

"Mommy, what's that pendant you wear around your neck?" 
"This is not for you to know until you reach the age of reason. Ask again then."

Do you personally make any distinction in your mind between how a person arrives at their beliefs/faith? And do you think God, if he exists, does? Ie is faith/belief arrived at through curiosity, critical thinking and weighing up the evidence equivalent in your and/or God's mind to belief/faith arrived at let's say passively, not through curiosity or any act of will but instead through repetition and the trusting nature/suggestibility of youth?

That's ultimately my problem with all of this. If belief is all that matters in Christianity, not how it's arrived at, then basically that strikes me as both incredibly unfair as well as unrealistic to expect of a God to make no distinction between the two.

Now I'm not saying that all teaching of religion is indoctrination, deliberate at least, or that it can't come from good intentions... my own parents for instance, very loving, and brought me up as a Christian... I don't consider myself 'indoctrinated' in the worst sense of the word, but at the same time, when those beliefs were arrived at passively, basically soaked up like a sponge, as children's minds can be likened to, can or should that basically default/implanted belief really be considered true belief, and from a Christian point of view, be just as valid on Judgement Day as reasoned belief?

As to the OP's question, it's not something I think should be legislated on or whatever, or be as arbitrary as your parody implies, but just thinking about what could have helped in my own upbringing; I just think it the main thing is the delivery; ie don't state as fact that which is belief. Just that tiny little behavioural difference, no matter how strongly you believe in something yourself, and is thus essentially fact to you, I think could make a big difference... 'I believe this... other people believe that...'. I don't have kids but if I did I'd hope I could remain mindful of that.

[Orbit]

Maybe my profession biases me, but I think religion should be taught as an academic subject - as an examination of culture, society, politics, power, and history, and not as a source of "belief" or "truth", starting at about junior high school.

[emjay]

Maybe my profession biases me, but I think religion should be taught as an academic subject - as an examination of culture, society, politics, power, and history, and not as a source of "belief" or "truth", starting at about junior high school.

Yeah, I have no problem with it being taught as an academic subject. We had that... Religious Education (RE)... in Middle School I think (ie in the UK about 9-13 age) and it was an interesting subject as far as I recall...but that sort of comparative study of religions pretty much exemplifies the sort of dispassionate objectivity, that as I said, I hope people would try and be mindful of in private... unlikely I know... because there's no realistic expectation that parents won't passionately pass on their beliefs to their children, intentionally or otherwise, but it's still a nice ideal.

[John 6IX Breezy]

When kids start asking questions, it's the time to answer them in a way appropriate to their age and level of understanding.

I think that's a great heuristic. If a child is developed enough to ask the question, then they're developed enough to begin understanding the answer.

[Belacqua]

"Daddy, what's that building you go to every Sunday morning?"
"Sorry, Timmy, I can't answer that question until you're 12 years old."

"Mommy, what's that pendant you wear around your neck?" 
"This is not for you to know until you reach the age of reason. Ask again then."

Could you elaborate on how this relates to Bruce's post, particularly given that Bruce was kind enough to elaborate on what was meant by 'introduce', which you omitted?

It means that it's not practical to wait until a child is 11 or 12 to discuss religion.

[Belacqua]

Maybe my profession biases me, but I think religion should be taught as an academic subject - as an examination of culture, society, politics, power, and history, and not as a source of "belief" or "truth", starting at about junior high school.

Yeah, I have no problem with it being taught as an academic subject. We had that... Religious Education (RE)... in Middle School I think (ie in the UK about 9-13 age) and it was an interesting subject as far as I recall...but that sort of comparative study of religions pretty much exemplifies the sort of dispassionate objectivity, that as I said, I hope people would try and be mindful of in private... unlikely I know... because there's no realistic expectation that parents won't passionately pass on their beliefs to their children, intentionally or otherwise, but it's still a nice ideal.

Children will be introduced to religion if they have any contact with society. 

They will also be introduced to politics, economics, sexuality, violence, and other things that kids become aware of. 

If parents want to keep their children un-introduced to religion until the child is in the 9-13 age range, and then introduce the concept in a way that the parents can control, they will have to keep the child completely isolated from society and carefully pre-screen all media.

[emjay]

Yeah, I have no problem with it being taught as an academic subject. We had that... Religious Education (RE)... in Middle School I think (ie in the UK about 9-13 age) and it was an interesting subject as far as I recall...but that sort of comparative study of religions pretty much exemplifies the sort of dispassionate objectivity, that as I said, I hope people would try and be mindful of in private... unlikely I know... because there's no realistic expectation that parents won't passionately pass on their beliefs to their children, intentionally or otherwise, but it's still a nice ideal.

Children will be introduced to religion if they have any contact with society. 

They will also be introduced to politics, economics, sexuality, violence, and other things that kids become aware of. 

If parents want to keep their children un-introduced to religion until the child is in the 9-13 age range, and then introduce the concept in a way that the parents can control, they will have to keep the child completely isolated from society and carefully pre-screen all media.

Sorry, how does this follow from what I've said? You don't become a Christian just by being aware of the existence of Christianity... and I wouldn't have become a Christian as a child without the active influence of my parents. Ie I wouldn't have become a Christian just by what I passively picked up from society... media... school etc.. unless I was specifically curious/interested which I was not.

[arewethereyet]

Yeah, I have no problem with it being taught as an academic subject. We had that... Religious Education (RE)... in Middle School I think (ie in the UK about 9-13 age) and it was an interesting subject as far as I recall...but that sort of comparative study of religions pretty much exemplifies the sort of dispassionate objectivity, that as I said, I hope people would try and be mindful of in private... unlikely I know... because there's no realistic expectation that parents won't passionately pass on their beliefs to their children, intentionally or otherwise, but it's still a nice ideal.

Children will be introduced to religion if they have any contact with society. 

They will also be introduced to politics, economics, sexuality, violence, and other things that kids become aware of. 

If parents want to keep their children un-introduced to religion until the child is in the 9-13 age range, and then introduce the concept in a way that the parents can control, they will have to keep the child completely isolated from society and carefully pre-screen all media.

Interesting to me that you choose politics, economics, violence and the main points of what children can learn if not kept in a bubble.

They can also learn about nature, about interacting with others, about thousands, if not millions, of things so long as they are open to learning.

Do you have children?  Mine were all exposed to religion, mainly through people not within our family.  I have two atheists and one who is religious when it suits her needs.  I didn't steer them one way or another and I didn't have to hide them from reality or fantasy.   They figured things out, often by asking.

[Belacqua]

Sorry, how does this follow from what I've said? You don't become a Christian just by being aware of the existence of Christianity... and I wouldn't have become a Christian as a child without the active influence of my parents. Ie I wouldn't have become a Christian just by what I passively picked up from society... media... school etc.. unless I was specifically curious/interested which I was not.

The thread topic, as I understood it, asks "At what age should a child be introduced to religion?" 

"Introduced to" casts rather a wide net, I think. When a child asks "why do those women have their faces covered?" or "why did the new President put his hand on that book?" the answers will involve religion. Giving the child an honest and age-appropriate answer will include introducing them to religion. 

Maybe you were thinking about a more targeted sort of introduction -- the sort of introduction in which there is a danger that the child will believe the religion is true. 

Religious people believe their religion is true. When a Shinto priest teaches his children that the rocks and trees have kami in them, he is not, in his own view, indoctrinating them. He is teaching them what's true. 

No doubt flat-earthers would like us to wait and not teach our children the earth is round until the kids are about age 12 or so, and are old enough to make up their own minds. Then the education should be given in a balanced way by neutral, government-approved education specialists. But I don't think so -- if a kid asks me what shape the earth is, I'm going to tell him what I think is true.

[Pat Mustard]

"Daddy, what's that building you go to every Sunday morning?"
"Sorry, Timmy, I can't answer that question until you're 12 years old."

"Mommy, what's that pendant you wear around your neck?" 
"This is not for you to know until you reach the age of reason. Ask again then."

When kids start asking questions, it's the time to answer them in a way appropriate to their age and level of understanding.

I remember having my first communion and really not having a damn clue what was going on...I was six, and was parroting what I had been taught.

For confirmation, I didn't know much more other than...this is what we do.

I think for the RCC those ages are a little higher now but I don't know how much the kids really understand what they are doing other than going through the paces.

They're only higher here in Ireland because kids are starting primary school later. Universal access to pre-school means that most kids are now not starting into school until five or, more likely, six.