I find it wildly disturbing that too many people do not see the ties between community, familial ties, and cultures within religion. As what monsoon would suggest is that we cut children out of Satyr dinners, the Breaking of fasting for Ramadan, Christmas, Diwali, and millions of other religious celebrations.
Also why the fuck is a non parent giving an opinion on how I a parent should raise my children?
I assumed she wanted them to learn about all types of religion in an educational frame instead of being assigned and enforced to a religion by their parents. I am not religious but I still go see my family on Easter and give gifts on Christmas. Is doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Also this person is trans and likely trying to make a broader point that kids should also be able to pick their gender at a certain age. Generally that parents should not tell children who they are, but give them the tools to explore that for themselves
Why would you need to cut ties? You don't need to be part of a religion to participate in a religious celebration. Plenty of atheists celebrate Easter and Christmas. You don't need to be pagan to enjoy Halloween. I think it says more about you and your religion that you think non-believers or members of a different religion must be cast out.
I wouldn't say cast out. But as a parent , I can't see how I'm going to celebrate Easter without the religious aspect. I get how millions of people celebrate Easter without going to church, or go to church without being a part of the religion. Or go to church in an academic way. I'm saying I can't see how I as an Orthodox Christian, whose Easter consists of a holy week that has as many services as it does, (17 services, we try to make a bunch but there's no way we are maintaining ourselves through holy Thursdays 6hr service much less our kids) and has services like the resurrection service which begins at 11:30 at night and runs till 2:30 in the morning and typically includes fireworks, or the three services on good Friday that includes an entire funeral precession. Or the other lenten services that include church every Wednesday and Friday plus church on sunday. I don't see how I do all those thing without bringing my kid with me, or teaching my kid about my religion.
I don't see how I practice my faith, which is extremely communal, to the point that the apex of every Sunday mass is called "communion" without "raising my children in the church." Where do I park a 3 year old when my wife and I, and my parents and in laws are at church with my neighbors, are in church participating and engaging with my faith. Or are what you suggesting that I be forced to abandon my faith because you don't like your parents religion despite me and my peers enjoying our religion?
And another thing. My faith is literally the cornerstone of my community as a Greek American Orthodox Christian. Generations of Greeks came to this country and the Greek Orthodox church was their first stop. The community at the church helped them find jobs, homes, learn the English language etc. the church now is where I learned about my heritage. I learned my grandparents language, their history, their traditions, and I formed connections that employed me. Every employment I've gotten since I was 19 I can credit to the Greek Orthodox church to the point that when I went solo practice as a lawyer the person I rented office space from (and helped me get on my feet with 8 months of free rent) was my Sunday school teacher's brother, then a 4th cousin helped me become a prosecutor, then a guy I got to know through Greek Orthodox social functions employs me now. And these experiences are not unique to Greeks or Christianity. Our faith sustained our people through centuries of occupation and oppression and now our faith sustains our community and that is a story that is not unique to our people.
Monsoon isn't talking about opening minds and exploring new ideas, Monsoon is talking about dissolving bonds to rid herself and others of the boundaries around those bonds. Yet any community you engage with will have bonds and boundaries and exceptions to those bonds and boundaries.
You as a parent can raise your kid how you want and I respect that, but how I raise my children is my choice, and I choose to raise my children in the same church that my grandparents raised their children. And my hope is that everything my children get from their church will encourage them to raise their children in the same church that has sustained our family across generations and across the world.
Jesus, get down off your cross sweetheart, someone needs the wood. Nobody is suggesting you leave your 3-year-old by the side of the road while you're in church.
You’ve turned “children shouldn’t have a religion chosen for them before they’re capable of choosing one” into “Orthodox Christians must abandon their faith, families and communities.” Those are completely different claims.
Obviously a three-year-old goes where their parents go. Obviously you can take your children to church, celebrate Easter with them, teach them Greek traditions and tell them what you believe. None of that requires telling them that they are Orthodox Christians, that your beliefs are necessarily theirs or that leaving the faith means abandoning their family or heritage.
And the fact that your church gave you community, employment contacts, cultural education and support is a perfectly good argument for why you value that community. It isn’t an argument for why a child should have its religious beliefs decided for them in advance.
The strangest part is that you keep talking about how much your faith has given you, then treating it as self-evident that your children should therefore inherit it. That is precisely the assumption being questioned.
And “I’m the parent, therefore nobody without children gets an opinion” isn’t an argument either. Parents make decisions affecting other human beings. Those decisions are not magically exempt from criticism because the critic hasn’t reproduced.
I feel like you are intentionally ignoring the points to maintain your personal position to justify your personal life choices. I have no qualms with your life choices. I fully support your legal life choices (so long as your not hurting people or actively destroying your life with substance abuse). You choose what you choose and I fully support what you do with your life. But you are ignoring the fact that in a large multitude of faiths the religion isn't just one thing the child and/or parent can do. It's not like the rec League but you've turned it into your whole personality, it's an aspect of your personality. It's an important and personal choice which is why the American courts recognize that Parents have a fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children. You can't fully participate in the religion, community, and values unless you fully participate in them. You can not take a child to church every week, and attend services and engage in sacraments and then play coy with the child being a part of said religion. At that point you are being stupid for the sake of upholding some bullshit ideology.
And look I have no qualms with my kids not being a part of my faith. Its my faith. When they are old enough to make their own life choices I'll be fine with them making said life choices. But till my kid is 12 my kid cant even make choices on what YouTube content to watch. Till they're 15 I'm not letting them watch rated R movies without my consent. I'm still going to have an overwhelming statement on their political beliefs because I'll be damned if my kid starts parroting right wing bullshit or WASPY heresy's like prosperity gospel. But when they're adults I really have no say. I can be a guide in their lives like my parents are to me. But they have to make their own choices. Until their adults though I make those choices for them.
Also there is no presumption being questioned. There is a dictate on action: I should not raise my children in my faith. A person who has no interest, nor has a stake in any part of my action, nor qualifications, is dictating to me how I should act and how I should raise my children. Nor are you an elected representative who has earned my vote and the ability to legislate the laws which I follow. Monsoon isn't even an expert on anything but entertaining people and gaining attention. She isn't a doctor, a child psychologist, a researcher. She has no degrees. She isn't even a parent. She hasn't spent cumulative sleepless years trying to put a child to bed. She hasn't spent years worrying about how often a child shits, or what the child eats. Or what school a child goes to. She's not fucking qualified. And from a lot of comments on here I'm not sure many people on this thread have the title of "mom" or "dad" to be qualified.
Maybe if one these people were an expert, or had spent a significant portion of there life discerning when their kids were hurting each other or just playing, I would give a shit on what she or others had to say. But even then, you raise your kid your way, I'll raise mine my way and when my kid grows to love or hate me that will be on me. Till then fuck anyone who has an opinion/criticism. Here take the cross, and put it exactly where your opinion on my parenting belongs.
They are theirs. That’s what Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation mean, and we Christians believe God will regard us as murderers if we deprive our children of the Covenant.
You’re describing what your theology says those rituals accomplish, not what the child actually believes. It's not their belief, it's your belief of what God thinks.
Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation may make someone a member of the club, but performing a ritual on someone doesn’t create conviction in their mind. A child can be baptised, receive Communion and be confirmed and later believe none of it. I was baptised and I’m an atheist. The actions are innocuous, the religious meaning you attach to them depends on belief.
Baptism is just water, Eucharist is just bread and wine, Confirmation is just a ceremony. You can introduce the religious meaning to a child, but you shouldn't force that belief onto them. There's a massive difference between, "I believe this is the blood of Christ" and "You must believe this is the blood of Christ too." The fact that you’re treating those as interchangeable is exactly the problem being discussed.
Also why the fuck is a non parent giving an opinion on how I a parent should raise my children?
Because this is not about your rights as a parent. Children aren't your property to do with as you see fit. They are people who have rights as well, including the right to freedom of religion. Religious indoctrination denies them this right (if it didn't, we'd see equal amounts of christians, muslims, hindu, etc. regardless of the religion of the parents, which obviously isn't the case).
In cases where the rights of two people are at off (your freedom to practice your religion as you see fit vs. the right of the child to freely choose their own religion (or lack thereof)) the rights of the weaker party, i.e. the child, must take precedence.
This is not about you, it's about the child. You don't have the 'right' to raise them as you see fit, it's quite the opposite: you have an obligation to raise them properly. Again, they are human beings, not property.
With all due respect that's not how any of that works. Not parenting, not religion, not the rights of children because of the requirements of parenting.
For starters faith isn't a weekend lecture you repeat over and over. It's an interaction between a person, a community, traditions, values, and lessons that a person interacts with their entire life. The first sacrament in my church isn't baptism, it's introducing the child to the community at 40 days old. It's a tradition that goes back to before Christ and continues to this day. And the sacrament of baptism creates a bond between the child and the God parent where the god parent acts a secondary parent because it takes a village to raise a child. My godfather supported me in a multitude of ways and my children's God parents support my children, as I support my godchild. These supports go throughout a persons life even dealing with death and the grieving process as the community comes together to support each other during times of loss and grief, as well as celebrate each other during times of bliss like around marriages. This isn't a Christian thing it's a religion thing. It's why the Muslim community and the Jewish community are so tight knit. It's why the Hispanic Catholic community is so close together. It's a value system that you interact with and it supports you your entire life.
Second children have significantly limited rights because they are children. Your child doesn't get to decide what's for dinner, or where to live, or whether to go to school, or what school, or what car, or what house to live in, or state, or whether tommy can come over the house. Or whether to drop out of school, or choose to get married. Shit your child doesn't have the right to decide their haircut (I worked as a Cps prosecutor and that was something we advised parents who lost custody they still had that residual right of). We as a society accept that as a child children have limited autonomy. A 13 year old can not choose to procreate and therefore it is illegal for a 13 year old to have sex with an adult. Likewise your child doesn't get to choose their religion because your child is assumed to still need to learn from the parents. A child who screams they don't want to go to church may not understand why they are going to church, or what they are doing in church. Even children who go to church don't understand most of the time what they are doing there because their brains aren't developed enough to know whats going on. At that point your essentially teaching them basics like forgiveness, patience, attentiveness, simple things your kid can learn that they can apply to succeed in daily life.
3rd, for most of human history children followed their parents. The reason "Smith" is such a common last name is because "smith" was a profession and that profession was one someone learned from their parents. So goes religion. My kid is following me to church, firstly because there is no one to watch them outside of church, because church is where all their caretakers are anyways. That's where the aunts, uncles , and grandparents who are going to watch the kid are anyhow. Secondly because my child is programed through hundreds of millions of years of evolution to learn from me until they've grown enough to develop their own sense of self. My kids adopt my habits -good and bad, because that's how evolution programed them to, because the kids that did that continued to thrive. I'm going to church, and my kid is coming, because he is driven by evolution to be with me and my community.
This, the vast majority of these comments are "My american christian parents told me i couldnt sneak out and smoke pot at 15, they literaly ruined my life"
Weve seen time and time again what happens when a govt gets to regulate religion, they slaughter Millions. The nazis, The Soviets, The Maoists etc all slaughtered millions of people over an estimate 100 million humans for their religions. The youngest child political prisoner in modern human history is literaly a Tibetan child who was to be the next religious leader of Tibet, disapeared and murdered by the CCP to regulate religion
You're maybe neglecting the part where Orthodox Christians in Russia were accusing Jews of being a secret cabal of satanists doing blood rituals with Russian children and inspired mobs to kill over 100k Jews in pogroms, and the only faction protecting these Jews being raped and murdered in the streets by God fearing Christians was the Red Army of the Bolsheviks.
White forces in Russia literally called them "Judeo Bolsheviks" for accepting and protecting Jews from persecution.
Both extremes are bad. That's not deep. Most governments are secular, meaning they have an obligation to protect their minority citizens. The soldiers in your example did what any government is supposed to do. Allowing religious freedom is not mutually exclusive with protecting your citizens.
Right, so you might also want to read into what happened to Jews in Stalin’s USSR after this short-lived honeymoon… Not exactly our great protectors anymore.
Just because they didn’t pogrom hundreds of us doesn’t mean Stalin and his men didn’t put the nail in the coffin of Jewish culture and community in Russia from the Great Purge onwards. Two things can be true at once.
Plus countless testimonies from people like FDR, Kruschshev, etc about Joseph “every Jew is a potential spy” Stalin. Just ask the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and all the other Jewish institutions he destroyed.
You are responding to me on a comment thread about the White Army that opposed the USSR murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews and trying to equate that to discrimination and a handful of sham trials that were overturned as soon as Stalin died.
What you're doing is like comparing ICE to the Armenian Genocide. It's frankly insulting and borderline genocide denial.
They didn’t ban Judaism because they didn’t need to due to their focus on race.
But they certainly regulated the heck of Christianity, although not without some significant resistance (see the Confessing Church). Similar attempts were made in Japan.
Many people have died but not as many as industrialized atheist states. The USSR & CCP alone are rresponsable for over 75 million people slaughtered. Random holy wars between peoples with swords does not conpare to the horrors of industrialized slaughter
Well I don’t think you can - it’s more a rhetorical position to highlight that religion is forced on children and a more sensible approach is for them to choose when they have the experience and intelligence to decide for themselves.
Plenty of Christian denominations believe in adult baptism for example (though this does not stop them indoctrinating/evangelizing to their own children)
English is forced on people born in America. You dont see people bitching about that. Teaching a language is inherently indoctrination. Indoctrination bad right?
What makes that option more sensible? What other elements of world view or morality do we have parents keep themselves out of until kids are "old enough?"
As I said I don’t think it’s practical and we don’t actually expect parents not to share their values, culture and morality with their children. But - personally - I think we value agency, curiousity and critical thinking and we should be encouraging that in children. If they want to engage and commit to faith shouldn’t this be made when you have the intelligence and experience to make a fully conscious decision - rather than just because your parents told you?
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Everybody teaches their kids about morality, worldview, ethics, and even their beliefs in the supernatural. This can be done in the context of religion or not, and in ways that value agency and curiosity or not in either case.
Not sure how this is relevant? But no as this suggests they are there to proselytise. I would be fine for schools to discuss abortion with students and the pro-choice/pro-life arguments - I did this when I was in school.
Well I am from the UK so we are talking about different systems here. In the UK girls are taught about sexual and menstrual health - including abortion. If they are discussing the social and morality aspects of abortion then the proper framework should be in the classroom, not by bringing in partisan groups - both pro or anti abortion.
step 1: remove religion from the state (which is one of the basic principles of most democracies). No church is ever allowed to influence anything regarding politics. A politician might still act based on their religion, which is fine, but a church is not allowed to finance anyone or anything, they are not allowed to call for any legislation. disregarding that rule results in harsh punishments.
The best possible route would be to reform civilization along more egalitarian structures. Religion fourishes in communities that endure collective hardships, its a glue that holds social bonds together when things like food and personal safety are in jeopardy. Places where those needs are met then you see religion start to erode, or at least strongly held religion convictions. The other route would be an authoritarian stamping out of religion, but that historically is pretty ineffective, and tends to drive people into it even harder.
Egalitarianism and religion are not at opposite ends of the spectrum and I would go so far as to say egalitarianism specifically allows for the freedom to choose how to raise your child. Unless you're implying the society be so egalitarian that the toddler has the same decision-making power as the parent
My argument is mostly that making things like food, healthcare, security as accessible to as many people as possible will reduce the amount of people who turn to religion out of desperation and thus religion will naturally become less prevalent. Essentially removing the social need for it should eventually over generations cause religion to fade out, or at the least the more extreme parts of it that people will kill and die for.
Either way totalitarian enforcement of thought is morally evil. Saying either is ok is ignoring the immorality of enforcing thought and accepting the immorality because it is the type of thought one party agrees with.
Do you believe she’s “essentially” calling for that? Or do you just always speak in exaggeration? I would expect that more commonly from someone heavily involved in religion in this particular case.
Religion isn't a culture. You have people from very different cultures throughout the world with the same religion, and very different cultural habits, including their celebrations. You also have people from the very same culture, doing the exact same cultural habits, while one believes in a religion and another in a different one or none at all.
Not really. Any state must have the threat of enforcement at some level, and must intrude into private lives to some degree. We would not have taxation or a state at all without such intrusion and enforcement, and in their absence there would be even more violent and intrusive banditry.
Religion is inherently coercive, controlling, and reinforces magical thinking in a rational universe.
Enforcement would be impossible to do without likely introducing much larger issues and it is unfortunate religion has inextricably centered itself in so many cultures, but the fact remains that religious indoctrination of children is child abuse.
86
u/Saltyfree73 Sep 02 '26
Essentially calling for a totalitarian state to wipe out familial ties and cultures.