This is a topic very near and dear to my heart, since I was raised Christian and feel like that upbringing really messed me up for quite a while. Sure, I learned a lot about Christianity that helps me today, but it made me so judgmental, so arrogant, and so stubborn in the process. Becoming Agnostic was the best thing that ever happened to me, because it freed me up to really consider other possibilities and be tolerant of every belief system.
Even when I was a Christian, I thought that maybe it was a bad thing that kids were being taught a religion from the beginning. I read and loved C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia and, as those who have read The Last Battle know, Lewis included a bit at the end about a soldier from the Satan-worshipping army. The main characters run into him in heaven, and he tells them about how even though he didn't believe in the true god in name, he believed in the proper values, and saw his own god, Tash, as being the same way as Aslan. Thus, he truly was a believer of Aslan instead, and despite being brought up to believe that Tash was the good one, he was accepted into heaven.
I really liked this universal notion, that anyone could be accepted. But it really got me thinking...if Christianity was true, and non-universal ideas were true, then people who didn't believe in the true faith would go to hell. What if they were taught that Christianity was wrong, though? Christian parents teach their children that other faiths are wrong, so it only makes sense that other faiths would teach children that Christianity is wrong. And most religions have very similar values!
It came to me then that perhaps parents shouldn't teach children religion. First, it might make them turn away from the religion they are taught if they have a bad relationship with the parent. But more importantly, it makes them shut out any other faith, and look down on those who believe them. Children are very impressionable, so if you tell them that your faith is the right one, they will believe you. Or they will think that if they don't believe it, you won't love them. Or some other connection like that.
In this country, we see another problem: by making children believe a faith, we generally make them less inquisitive. If it's all solved from the start, they won't question anything. Give them the answer to life, the universe and everything from day one, and they don't spend anymore time thinking about it. And what's worse, they usually don't even care to fully understand the answer you give them. In the US especially, so many people don't even know very much about the religion they profess, let alone what other people believe. And understanding religion is a very important thing, with such a globalized society as ours.
Blind faith doesn't help anyone. A lot of people just accept that God exists, that homosexuality is wrong, that people of other faiths are awful, etc. True, not all religious people are this way, and I am very thankful for the exceptions. I appreciate seeing people like that, because it gives me hope that religion doesn't have to divide people. But there is still a huge social dilemma.
In very important places in the world today, the government is influenced--if not controlled--by religion. In the US, a country founded on religious freedom and the separation of church and state, the Christian Right is still making it hard to pass legislation that goes against any "traditional Christian values." Most of these values seem, to me at least, to be exactly the opposite of what the religion teaches. Yet, if people try to go against them, they point out religious/Biblical reasons for their viewpoints. Even where they do line up with the faith they profess, they do it in such a way that it doesn't foster peace or goodwill.
Worse, the public is generally Christian, and so most people won't vote for someone who isn't also a Christian. This is discrimination, and it needs to stop. It's great that we got a half-black president and are seriously considering a female president. But I won't think we've made real progress until we either have or seriously consider a Muslim president, a Jewish president, a Buddhist president, or, most of all, an Atheist or Agnostic president. (Mormon doesn't count, since it's still Christianity.)
Of course, with so many people being indoctrinated from an early age, it's very unlikely that this will occur for a long time. I don't expect to ever see it. I would be ecstatic if I did. With such a big hurdle as this, I see very few solutions other than time. But I thought up one anyway.
My idea--and please only think of it as one, since I know there are some problems with it--is to simply not teach children a religion. If you believe in something, don't tell your kid that what you believe is 100% correct. Instead, teach them about the multitude of beliefs out there. And if you don't know enough about them, at least tell them that different viewpoints exist, and that no one knows who is right for sure. DO NOT make your belief sound better. Rather, do your best to make them realize that all faiths are just as likely to be true.
How will this help? Simple: instead of having a religion stewing in their minds ages before they can actually understand it, treating your children this way will give them the chance to decide for themselves what religion to follow, or whether to follow one at all. Doing this for your children will show that you respect them enough to choose what they believe. Philosophically speaking, that choice is the most important choice anyone can make. And, hopefully, this plan of action will lead to religious people who don't rely on dogma, and have a much greater appreciation for other faiths.
Now, as for the practical side of things... This solution might be good for the US and its Christians, but what about Jews? Their religion is tied up in their heritage, so it would be awful if they couldn't share that, right? Though I guess my plan doesn't entirely leave them out: they can teach their children that this is their heritage, but that they can choose another faith and still be part of the Jewish people. I'm not sure how many Jews would be happy with that, though. And what about Muslim countries, where the state itself is controlled by religion? Well, that's a very hard nut to crack, since Islam is pretty strict about people not leaving the faith once they've joined. But I'm sure that this could be seen as a boon to them: it gives the child the decision to be Muslim or not, instead of indoctrinating them from the start. So if they decide not to be Muslim, it won't be a big deal, because they won't already be Muslim. Another issue is traditional rituals completed before children can possibly decide if they want them done. That's a huge snag, and leads into many different avenues I won't explore here for brevity's sake (baptism, circumcision, dedication, etc.). For these, assume that they are either abolished or allowed with the understanding that they are not binding. This would have to be worked out with each religion individually, and of course many people won't accept it based on this alone.
And it comes with some other practical things to work on. First, there would need to be religion classes in all schools, and much earlier on. I'm thinking about having all schools--public and private--be made to teach world religions at least around sixth grade, if not earlier. Second, there should probably be some sort of age limit to when you can pick a religion. I don't think this necessarily needs to be a strict, mandated thing, but it would help with Muslim countries as described above, and perhaps with the Jewish heritage problem. Third, there is the problem of children who die before they can choose a religion. For these, you should just treat them as Agnostics, unless they were leaning towards one religion at the time. This could potentially ruin my plan, since many parents want their kids to go to heaven. But, by universal philosophy, they should still be allowed that, given that they are good enough people before they die, or get some kind of divine mercy. Fourth, there will of course be corruption in this system (teachers who feel it is their duty to teach their own faith, people who don't follow the rules, etc.), but there already is corruption in every system, so that's not a huge deal. The whole point of this is to make it into a social norm, after all.
Hopefully, doing this will lead to a world in which religious people believe things not because they have been taught to believe them, but because that belief system makes sense to them. Because it works for them. Because it feels right to them. And with that, people should be less intolerant, because they realize that everyone out there had the same decision in front of them, the same arguments for every side, and the same doubts. Does this mean there will be less religious people in the end? Most likely. But it probably won't go away, and the study of religion will not disappear either. Those who are religious will just be less hateful than they currently are.
The big problem I have with this plan is this: it's biased in favor of Agnosticism. Obviously an Agnostic would come up with a plan that basically makes all children Agnostic! I mean, at least Agnosticism isn't really a concrete belief, though. Rather, Agnosticism is the absence of belief. So it might be indoctrination, but all teaching of children is indoctrination. What this does is provide the least indoctrination possible. Justify it all I might, though, I feel like it's probably not the best plan. There are enough problems with it, that I freely admit, for it to be accepted by anyone but Agnostics and the more liberal people of each faith.
What do you guys think? Are there any problems I missed? (I'm sure there are.) Do you think it would be a good idea?
My idea--and please only think of it as one, since I know there are some problems with it--is to simply not teach children a religion. If you believe in something, don't tell your kid that what you believe is 100% correct. Instead, teach them about the multitude of beliefs out there. And if you don't know enough about them, at least tell them that different viewpoints exist, and that no one knows who is right for sure. DO NOT make your belief sound better. Rather, do your best to make them realize that all faiths are just as likely to be true.
How will this help? Simple: instead of having a religion stewing in their minds ages before they can actually understand it, treating your children this way will give them the chance to decide for themselves what religion to follow, or whether to follow one at all. Doing this for your children will show that you respect them enough to choose what they believe. Philosophically speaking, that choice is the most important choice anyone can make. And, hopefully, this plan of action will lead to religious people who don't rely on dogma, and have a much greater appreciation for other faiths.
Now, as for the practical side of things... This solution might be good for the US and its Christians, but what about Jews? Their religion is tied up in their heritage, so it would be awful if they couldn't share that, right? Though I guess my plan doesn't entirely leave them out: they can teach their children that this is their heritage, but that they can choose another faith and still be part of the Jewish people. I'm not sure how many Jews would be happy with that, though. And what about Muslim countries, where the state itself is controlled by religion? Well, that's a very hard nut to crack, since Islam is pretty strict about people not leaving the faith once they've joined. But I'm sure that this could be seen as a boon to them: it gives the child the decision to be Muslim or not, instead of indoctrinating them from the start. So if they decide not to be Muslim, it won't be a big deal, because they won't already be Muslim. Another issue is traditional rituals completed before children can possibly decide if they want them done. That's a huge snag, and leads into many different avenues I won't explore here for brevity's sake (baptism, circumcision, dedication, etc.). For these, assume that they are either abolished or allowed with the understanding that they are not binding. This would have to be worked out with each religion individually, and of course many people won't accept it based on this alone.
And it comes with some other practical things to work on. First, there would need to be religion classes in all schools, and much earlier on. I'm thinking about having all schools--public and private--be made to teach world religions at least around sixth grade, if not earlier. Second, there should probably be some sort of age limit to when you can pick a religion. I don't think this necessarily needs to be a strict, mandated thing, but it would help with Muslim countries as described above, and perhaps with the Jewish heritage problem. Third, there is the problem of children who die before they can choose a religion. For these, you should just treat them as Agnostics, unless they were leaning towards one religion at the time. This could potentially ruin my plan, since many parents want their kids to go to heaven. But, by universal philosophy, they should still be allowed that, given that they are good enough people before they die, or get some kind of divine mercy. Fourth, there will of course be corruption in this system (teachers who feel it is their duty to teach their own faith, people who don't follow the rules, etc.), but there already is corruption in every system, so that's not a huge deal. The whole point of this is to make it into a social norm, after all.
Hopefully, doing this will lead to a world in which religious people believe things not because they have been taught to believe them, but because that belief system makes sense to them. Because it works for them. Because it feels right to them. And with that, people should be less intolerant, because they realize that everyone out there had the same decision in front of them, the same arguments for every side, and the same doubts. Does this mean there will be less religious people in the end? Most likely. But it probably won't go away, and the study of religion will not disappear either. Those who are religious will just be less hateful than they currently are.
The big problem I have with this plan is this: it's biased in favor of Agnosticism. Obviously an Agnostic would come up with a plan that basically makes all children Agnostic! I mean, at least Agnosticism isn't really a concrete belief, though. Rather, Agnosticism is the absence of belief. So it might be indoctrination, but all teaching of children is indoctrination. What this does is provide the least indoctrination possible. Justify it all I might, though, I feel like it's probably not the best plan. There are enough problems with it, that I freely admit, for it to be accepted by anyone but Agnostics and the more liberal people of each faith.
What do you guys think? Are there any problems I missed? (I'm sure there are.) Do you think it would be a good idea?
