It seems that many religious people assume incorrectly that religion has the monopoly on family values? We live in a pluralistic society and as such people’s values will clash. Fundamentalist believers in particular have to learn that they cannot censor someone else’s values or culture because those values offend their rigid fundamentalist value system and sensibilities. This is especially true with regards to parenting.
I have observed two distinct views of parenting. The first view is the predominantly fundamentalist religious view, which over the last thirty or forty years has trickled into the mainstream of most American homes. That view is that a parent’s job is to protect a child from the evil and sinful world. In this view, all undesirable thoughts, images, sounds, and ideas must be censored or hidden because they may corrupt children and “warp their fragile little minds.”
This is now the dominant view of parenting in America and it preaches censorship above all else. This view creates a worldview dominated by fear which leads to paranoia. The common refrain of those who subscribe to this view is, “What if a child saw or hear that?” My response is usually something like this: “He or she would probably be bored.”
The problem with any kind of censorship is always the same, who then becomes the arbiter of what is safe for someone else’s children? Who watches questionable material only to determine if something is not family-value friendly? Right now fundamentalist religious people are attempting to set those standards for everyone.
On the other hand, there is another view on parenting. While this view is certainly not exclusive to atheists it is a view held primarily by atheists and people of reason. This view is one in which the job of parents is to guide their children through the world and teach them the critical thinking skills needed to decide for themselves what is appropriate and why. In this view, even undesirable cultural trends are viewed as learning experiences used to help shape a child’s view of right and wrong. Those things are conversation starters, and even children as young as three or four years of age are encouraged to think about the world they live in and to engage their minds.
These parents aren’t failing to make moral judgments on cultural values as many fundamentalist religious people often assert, rather they are teaching their children how to make moral judgments and cultural values privately. They aren’t presuming to have the monopoly on good taste or high-minded culture either.
Instead of telling children that they are not allowed to see a particular movie, these freethinking parents are instructing their children to make that determination for themselves. Many religious parents can’t imagine a child telling their friends that they don’t wanted to see a particular movie because they think it might not be appropriate for them. This would be a different kind of pride then a parent might have if the child told their friends that they weren’t allowed to see a particular movie. In this case, the child would probably end up seeing the forbidden movie anyway because it was forbidden.
It really does say something about a child’s character when they are allowed to see an inappropriate movie but choose not to see that movie because of their own value judgments and not those dogmatically imposed on them. This is the type of parenting that people of reason employ. It involves independent thinking and reasoning on the part of the child, not dogmatic commandments about what is permitted and what is sinful and forbidden.
Authoritative commands by a more powerful parent (or deity) are simply not as effective in building strong character in children and teaching critical thinking skills and inspiring individual decision making. “Thou shall not” type rules encourage defiance and a curiosity for the forbidden.
Keeping children in protective bubbles away from the world is just not an appealing parenting method for most atheists. We tend to prefer to act as teachers and guides for our children rather than an authoritative disciplinarian.
If you enjoy this article, please consider sharing the link and subscribing to the Philly Atheist Examiner column using the ”Subscribe” button above so that you can be notified about new articles.
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Why do atheists care about religion?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: What happens when we die?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: The Nature of Good and Evil
Atheism 101: The Problem of Evil
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the lord, liar, lunatic argument?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: Is atheism a religion?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Atheism 101: The “No True Scotsman” Fallacy
Atheism 101: Refuting Presupposition Theology
Atheism 101: Refuting Dispensational Theology
On Faith Series:
On Faith: Re-evaluating the Afghanistan War
On Faith: The morality of tweeting the death penalty
On Faith: Do animals have souls and rights?
On Faith: Religion and the oil spill
On Faith: Sarah Palin’s feminism, faith, and abortion
On Faith: National day of prayer and masturbation
On Faith: Can religion handle sex?
On Faith: Is the media biased against the Catholic Church?
On Faith: Is the Pope above the law?
On Faith: What is heaven like?
On Faith: Disbelief in the pulpit
On Faith: Catholic Church’s attempt to blackmail Washington fails
On Faith: Is proselytizing overseas religious freedom or coercion?
On Faith: Should religion have a role be in U.S. foreign affairs?
On Faith: Should the president be a religious figure?
On Faith: Does God allow Haiti to suffer?
On Faith: Media biased against Christians?
On Faith: Free speech vs. God
On Faith: Religion’s Impact 2009
On Faith: Climate change a moral issue?
On Faith: Good News -- Oral Roberts is dead
On Faith: Just war or holy war in Afghanistan?
On Faith: A crèche in the White House?
On Faith: Swiss ban on Islamic minarets
On Faith: holidays or holy days?
Comments
Overly simplistic and in a sense espousing a rigid view not unlike that of the fundamentalists.
As a parent of (too) many, ranging from 17 to just under 2 years old, I would argue that the level of "because I said so" parenting changes a LOT as kid mature (in age and emotional and intellectual maturity).
That's especially true with the pre-teens playing online on semi-social sites (e.g Barbiegirls); we exercise a lot more control over what they do than we do over their almost-18 sibling.
(Even the youngest has some basic computer skills like moving a mouse; the 'net has been a fantastic boon to secular home schooling.)
Bottom line, parenting is the ultimate balancing act.
Agreeing with Pastafarian!
Critical Thinking is a full core subject in our atheist/secular homeschooling family, but it doesn't prevent us from recognizing the truths of child development and psychology. Our 3yo is most definitely sheltered from what we, the parents, deem inappropriate because his mind is not yet equipped to make informed judgments. Meanwhile, our 12yo is less sheltered than the 3yo, but much more so than we'd consider for an 18yo. That's common sense, not some irrational fear.
If you've ever been in a car with a 4yo emerging reader sounding out the billboard for the local strip joint, you know there needs to be SOME sort of compromise between sheltering and fully exposing. No pun intended.
This all may be true, but they are still the fruit of a preconceived morality. For instance a child that is raised around nudity their entire life view nudity in a total different manner than those that are not. If you choose to hide your child from say the drunken slob to protect them from the horror of this illness, as opposed to using this as a tool to enlighten them on the horrors of over drinking, then there is a good chance that they grow up not knowing how bad over drinking may effect them.
I think you're over simplifying this too much. Yes, some religious parents are extreme in their approach and raise their child in such a bubble that it harms them in the long run. However, some atheist parents do the same. Likewise, some religious parents let their kids do whatever they want, and some atheist parents do the same.
The moderate approach is obviously the most logical one. One where parents channel their children based off a system of societal and personal benefit. Anyway, that's a much longer discussion; I just think you're oversimplifying this. There's no cookie cutter approach to parenting.
All of the above dismissed, I really only want to know one thing -- if you are a parent yourself???
It's a rather broad statement to say that the fundamentalist approach to parenting is the dominant view of parenting in America. There are many liberal, religious folks who would disagree strongly with you.
I'm sorry it was still on my mind. Can you clarify if you are, or are not a parent yourself, or have you ever been a parent? Feel free to email me privately if you prefer not to say on a public forum. Thanks again.
So the "rationalist" way to teach children how to be adults is to trust immature minds to make mature decisions? I would hope even someone as generally irrational as you tend to be could see the foolishness in that concept. For example does this mean that you think parents shouldn't steer a child just hitting puberty away from say hard core sadomaschistic pornography trusting their "rationality" will override their biological interest in sex? I find it extremely amusing you felt the need to attack my encouraging parents to read the Harry Potter series themselves, and talk to other people who's opinion they respect rather then giving them a blanket answer and then turn around and offer this foolishness instead. Moral relativism is a popular idea but it just doesn't work for one thing its doubtful anyone really believes it (if they did they'd have to accept Hitler was every bit as morally justified *continued*
as a member of doctors without borders giving his time and risking his life to help those less fortunate after all by Hitler's moral beliefs he was completely justified and he got an entire country to agree with him). Good parents concern themselves with their childrens well being and shield them from things they aren't prepared for. Negligent parents leave there children to their own devices and hope they'll do whats best.
Godwin's law alert! What does Hitler have to do with this? For that matter, why does it matter that you're a member of Doctors without Borders. It's nice that you give your time and risk your life for people, but that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
A rationalist does not trust immature minds to make mature decisions. It teaches the child how to make mature decisions. It allows for trial and error. Wrong turns are to be expected but even if the child does make a bad decision, that too is part of learning.
Besides, expecting a child to turn out exactly the way you intend it to if only you're controlling enough is optimistic to the point of foolishness.
Guff what does Hitler have to do with it? Did you read the original post? Prefer a different example ok fine pick your prefered moral paragon and relate them to Osama Bin Laden (after all irrational atheists love religious boogey men). Osama is morally justified in everything he does by the standard of moral relativism because to his morality theres nothing wrong with it. It just doesn't work.
As to the rest I'm pleased you think you can get children to make mature choices with out them needing to experience life but on what basis do you make that conclusion? You claim to be rational so (for once) why not support your claim rationally instead of assuming the rest of us should blindly trust that people like Staks are rational solely because they are atheist.
Kevin, In the Atheism 101 article dealing with Moral Grounding, I discuss this. Please see that article.
Also, your straw man in really poor. Guff has already explained this: "It teaches the child how to make mature decisions. It allows for trial and error. Wrong turns are to be expected but even if the child does make a bad decision, that too is part of learning."
I was fortunate enough to have my parents raise me like this. They weren't atheists. My mom was agnostic and father a Christian. They just talked it over and decided to let us make our own mistakes and to guide us through everything. I truly feel that it made a world of a difference to me. While my friends were being told to go to church or to go to boy scouts or baseball... my parents asked what I wanted to do. I did a lot of cool things and some not so cool. When I got bored and wanted to stop, they let me make my own decision on it. I think it's positively attributed to the man I am today. I hope my future wife will agree to raise our children like this to become smart adults who make their own decisions without the pressure of society or a religious group to do or act a certain way. Thanks for the great article.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!