Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: heksterb@apple.com (Ben Hekster) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Fundamentalism and Catholicism Message-ID: Date: 18 Sep 90 09:05:23 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 153 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu My apologies for taking so long to post this, but I have been taking a course this week and consequently have not had enough time to do any significant posting. Almost two weeks ago I responded to a posting in which Cindy Smith (emory!dragon!cms@gatech.edu) described a situation where an individual was prevented from distributing certain religious material to children by "the Monsignor": > The kind of fundamentalists I was talking about > are indeed the kind who dare distribute anti-Catholic propoganda in > front of a Roman Catholic church as people are departing after Mass. > When I received some hate-material from a fundamentalist as a child, > Monsignor said to the young, clean-shaven, well-dressed young man > (white shirt and tie), paraphrased to the best of my memory, "We're > not going to prevent you from distributing your materials, but please > restrict the distribution of your propoganda to the adults." Very > formal, with a wan smile. My response was: > But whatever for? Would that imply that non-adults are too impressionable > to be able to judge the validity of religious doctrine themselves? I had intended this rather simplistic question to be rhetorical, but I did not convey my meaning clearly. My reasoning was as follows: if children are not deemed qualified by this Roman-Catholic (or whatever the case may be) to appropriately judge the value of religious doctrine, how can this same person then in good conscience himself proceed to religiously `indoctrinate'? Or, in the larger question (and what I am really getting at), should parents force their children to adopt a particular religion while they are obviously not capable of judging its validity? It would seem to me more just if parents deferred spoon-feeding their children any particular religion until they were better equipped emotionally and intellectually to decide for themselves whether they wish to adopt any particular faith. Those who hold that these children are in any case free to choose any religion they like would seem to be proved wrong by the simple observation that children of religious parents have a very high probability of assuming that same religion the rest of their lives. This would not seem to corroborate the theory that these children have been significantly encouraged to apply a great amount of independent thought to the question of selecting a religion. In particular, Cindy Smith responded: > A thirteen year old child might be able to judge the validity of > religious doctrine himself; I'm not convinced a child is so smart at > ten. This is my point. Later, Cindy asks: > [would it] be acceptable for Catholic missionaries to distribute > to Baptist children coming out after Baptist morning service [...] [?] In my personal opinion, no. Religious material of any denomination should not be distributed to children. And also: > Do you think Baptist children adequately > understand their own theology such that they can judge the validity of > religious doctrine as expounded upon in Catholic literature? Again, in my opinion--no. Neither do I believe Baptist children particularly adequately understand their own theology such that they can judge the validity of Baptist doctrine. In another response to my question, Eric C. McClure (lionti@umaecs) wrote: > Of course they are! > Young children are pretty much unable to judge the validity of ANY doctrine > themselves. This, of course, brings up an interesting point. The poster exemplifies: > [...] my wife and daughter were out in the backyard (we > live in an apartment complex) a couple of weeks ago. They had brought out > a "picnic" lunch with a "juice-pack." While they were off playing, one of > the neighborhood kids stole the juice-pack. This upset our daughter alot, > but mainly it confused her. (Lots of questions about why anyone would > steal her juice-pack, didn't they know you are not supposed to steal, etc.) And it gets worse when her tricycle is stolen. As I would immediately affirm the parent's wish to teach his child ethics and morality, one might argue that there should subsequently be no valid ground for refraining from imparting religious instruction as well. However, I would think that morality and religion are very distinct in their self-evidence. That is, while few would say that it is right to steal, there is no such general consensus on adhering to any particular religion. Also, I would hold (although not to the extent that anarchists do) that Man has an innate ability to develop an ethic, as witnessed in this case where the child could not understand why anyone would want to steal, although obviously not everyone necessarily adheres to this standard (which is why we ourselves have developed legislature)--while religion implies that we relinquish our own power to sense what is just to a remote entity, or rather, an interpretation thereof. As an aside, it is interesting to me that Man's instinctive sense of ethics is still strong enough to cause someone who professes to follow a particular faith to modify this religion just enough so as to render it compatible with his own sense of morality. Then, finally, Charles Ferenbaugh (crf@tomato.princeton.edu) wrote: > Not necessarily. More likely, it meant that non-adults would not be able > to discern the fallacious arguments in the "propaganda". Also, my point exactly. Let me conclude by saying that I really do understand that most parents are trying to do the right thing by teaching their children morality and religion. However, I would hold that the two are separate, and it seems to me very odd that a person's religion should be based mainly on that of his or her parents, which itself is very dependent on geography. In case it was not obvious, I am not religious (and neither were my parents...) but I attended a Protestant high school (in the Netherlands), and frankly, I was rather dismayed by the carelessness with which many affirmed their `choice' of faith without being able to provide the least reasoning for its superiority over any other, or any at all. More apologies to the respondents, who deserve a less abbreviated response than I at the moment am able to provide. -- ________________________________________________________________________________ Ben Hekster | "Sitting targets Installer dude | sitting praying AppleLink: heksterb | And God is saying Internet: heksterb@apple.com | nothing" BITNET: heksterb@henut5 | --Nothing, Depeche Mode [101] [I find it frightening that a parent might *not* want to pass on their ultimate values to their children. I'm afraid my own view of is somewhat more radical than yours. I believe Christianity is true, and that we have an obligation to pass on everything of truth that we can to our children. But although ultimately I believe truth has rights that error doesn't have, I realize this isn't a sort of argument one can use in interreligious discussions or discussions of public policy. I understand that non-Christian parents no doubt feel that their own beliefs are true, and should feel the same obligation to pass those beliefs on to their children. I would rather see that than see each generation have to start religion from scratch. It's exactly this failure to pass on faith that sentences the next generation to naive and probably extremist religions. If we don't pass on a balanced Christianity to our kids, those who adopt Christianity are likely not to have the sort of mature perspective that will allow them to resist various forms of easy answers. --clh]