Teaching Religion to Children May Not Be Easy, but It Is Necessary

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/teaching-religion-to-chil_b_6379288.html

Dan Arel
Author of Parenting Without God



Posted: 12/29/2014 11:03 am EST Updated: 12/29/2014 11:59 am EST

I was raised in a Christian home and was taught very little about other religions. I also attended a Christian school for a number of years where I was taught a great deal of misinformation about other beliefs, most of which revolved around their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Lord, or that even that some Christians who didn't understand the Bible correctly and wanted to lead me astray from my faith, guaranteeing me a place in hell.

Had I not taken an interest in world religions later in life, I would not have questioned the misinformation I was given and would have a drastically different view, likely thinking the worse of other religions.

And so when I began researching subjects for my latest book Parenting Without God, one popular question from parents was how to teach religion, or whether they should teach it at all. Many felt religion was harmful to society so they should avoid the subject altogether.

It didn't take long to discover that it is not only non-religious parents who confront this dilemma. Religious parents struggle with teaching their children about other religions in the same way. Christian parents, Muslim parents, Jewish parents, you name it, they all face a time when they have to address what others believe, and the common response I found was that they just tell their children everyone else is wrong.

more at link

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Bullshit on both claims in the title.

[hrmjustin]

2. My parents are non-religious but sent us to Catholic school.

My brother and sister are secular and I go to church for the free bread and wine.

[cbayer]

3. I wish I had had more education about different religions when I was a child.

My family's approach was very open towards different religions, but I didn't get a lot of exposure.

[hrmjustin]

4. Living Brooklyn my whole life I was exposed from an early age.

I went to a public high schpol so it was then when I learned a lot about different religions.

[cbayer]

5. I grew up in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood until middle school.

When we moved to the big city, I met people of different religions for the first time.

[hrmjustin]

7. As for the question of faith and kids I don't have kids but I do bring my sisters kids to church

every once and awhile to expose them to religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Why would you have needed it as a kid, as opposed to just... doing it now?

[on point]

6. When teaching a myth, essential to block info that destroys the myth. Classic religion problem

That is why better to teach about myths in general and how some people still need these primitive delusions to help get through life, but yes thy are just myths. That way child can better protect themselves from religious lies, and other lies on other subjects.

Teach critical thinking skills,

[cbayer]

8. Well, I am glad he is the one that is providing general guidance on this.

He has a much more open minded and positive attitude which I think is more likely to result in open minded and positive children who will be able to understand and embrace all kinds of people, even though they are different.

Were he to teach his children that believers are people who need primitive delusions and are reliant on lies, they may turn out to be, well, bigots or something.

What you are proposing has nothing to do with critical thinking skills. What Mr. Arel is proposing actually does.

[on point]

11. Sorry CB. Have to disagree. Indoctrinating children in a lie is harmful to them

Telling them the truth that religion is just a myth does not teach them intolerance. That is more likely to come from ideas that claim the truth, like religion, and need to oppose other ideas to keep their own from being shown to be a sham.

Religion is a sickness that should not be taught to children at all. The myths and parables can be good educational literature, but religion, no that should fade away as civilization grows up and learns it is just a delusion.

[cbayer]

12. First, you have to have data to show that it is a lie, which you don't.

It is a lie to say that something is a lie when you have no data to support your assertion.

Second, you have to provide data that teaching children about religion is harmful to them. Do you have any such data?

What you are proposing is teaching prejudice. You are proposing teaching children that the vast majority of people on this earth are delusional and weak and sick.

What you are proposing is the sickness. It is at least as rigid and dogmatic as any religious beliefs. It is the sam "one way" philosophy and the impulse to save others that makes fundamentalism so objectionable. It is your belief system.

Religion is not going anywhere, no matter how intolerant you are of people that are different than you. I hope that others will hold you in higher regard than you hold them.

[on point]

15. You have this backwards. You have to have prove it is true. Otherwise made up nonsense

Just because a bunch of delusional folks think it is true doesn't make it so.

If you have evidence that any of the many religious god myths out there are true, then trot it out. Otherwise, lies for the gullible, and a great disservice to them getting them to buy into such nonsense. In fact, I would say it is preying on them to brainwash them into delusional magical thinking. It will harm them their entire life.

It is not teaching prejudice to tell people they are being lied to. The intolerance comes from trying to preserve the lies, because the lies can't stand the light of day. Tolerance is taught as understanding others, including those who have fallen victim to religious myth. And yes, the truth is that that they are 'delusional and weak and sick'. The only reason this isn't widely and publicly acknowledged is the historical deference, and fear from persecution by religious authorities, that every, dare I say it, intolerant, society has delivered to those that question their myth.

It us not rigid or dogmatic at all to ask for evidence. It is rigid and dogmatic to insist that what ever religion (which ever one) makes up is true, even though there is no evidence.

Sorry religion is going away. Just a matter of time before people wake up and realize it is nothing but a big scam. Might take many years, but today's religions will die off, just as all the old religions before them died off. Though I grant you there will still be people needing delusional myth as a crutch in life, but they will have proper psych diagnosis, and consideration for their affliction.

[cbayer]

16. No, no. I don't say it's true, so I don't have to prove anything.

OTOH, you take a definitive position and the ball is 100% in your court to provide the data to back your assertion.

You can keep throwing disparaging terms around if it makes you feel better, but they are meaningless.

If science said that anything for which there was no evidence was a lie and anyone who pursued it was delusional, we would be in quite the pickle. All research would be abandoned. Let's use some of the critical thinking skills you trumpet, what do you say?

You are proselytizing here. You are preaching about your belief set which has no basis in evidence but is based solely on your faith. You are exemplifying all that you find wrong with religion. Isn't that ironic?

[on point]

25. You misunderstand science. It only says this is our current best model

And it never accepts anything without proof. That people postulate certain possibilities, and then seek the evidence to back up their theory is a great thing.

Sitting there and saying something is true without evidence, is not part of science. Brainwashing others about a fantasy is a tremendous injustice perpetrated on them. One does not need religion to have morals, nor to be tolerant of others.

Historical records (evidence you know) says that religion is one of the greatest sources of intolerance, because the myth just cannot stand to shown to be fake and so must oppress any that challenge it.

[cbayer]

29. Lol, I truly do not misunderstand science, but thanks for the chuckle.

Science never shuts the door because of lack of proof. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Of course religious belief is not science. Who has claimed it as such? It is you that is conflating the two by taking a definitive stand on something which can't even be adequately defined.

I totally agree with you that one does not need religion to be moral or tolerant. Those are things that may be completely independent of religious beliefs or may be tied in with someone's religious beliefs.

What you see, and I guess experienced, as brainwashing bears no resemblance to what others experience. Perhaps a great injustice was perpetrated on you, but that does not give you the authority to proclaim that it is what happens to others. You really sound like you are on a mission to "save" people.

Rubbish on your historical records statement. There is no such evidence of religion being the greatest source of intolerance. If there were, we would have to challenge that notion because you are not religious but express a great deal of intolerance when it comes to people with religious beliefs.

Perhaps it is your myth that cannot stand the light of day. Perhaps that is why you express the wish to oppress any that challenge it. Possible?

[LTX]

50. Actually, pretty much everyone touting "proof" and "truth" while talking about science

misunderstands science. It's a pretty clear signal that the speaker has just selected a different church.

[on point]

85. Science is a methodology that results in facts and theories supported by evidence

It is not another religion, which is a speculation that abhors facts, evidence and theories that make sense.
It is not another church. That is just a simple concept for people who cannot conceive of other paradigms for understanding reality other than the church. The church meme is a trap for the weak mind.

[cbayer]

86. Hey, on point! Welcome back.

Did you have a good new years eve?

Just a few things about science.

Science does not result in facts. It is a a way of systematically testing theories. It results in evidence that either supports or counters a theory. All theories and hypothesis remain open to further scientific study and what was once thought to be true, may be shown not to be true later.

Just a few things about religion.

Religion does not abhor facts, evidence and theories. Much of science and discovery has been underwritten by religion. Most religious beliefs can not be systematically studied the way that nature is. Religion involves concepts that are considered supernatural, and at this time, we are really only able to study what we know as natural.

And lastly, a few things about religious people.

Religious people are no more or less capable of conceiving other paradigms for understanding reality than non-religious people. They are not weak minded nor are they trapped. The only thing different about them is that they have beliefs in something supernatural and because this can not be scientifically proven or disproven, their beliefs are based on faith.

Hope that clears things up for you.

[edhopper]

17. What parts do we need to reserve as

"possibly true"

Genesis? Exodus? The lives of the Kings? The birth of Jesus? The resurrection?

Do we have to accept that all of it might be true?

What part of the Bible do we have to say, "this happened?"

Do you have a single shred of data to support that any of it isn't myth?

[cbayer]

18. You don't have to reserve a single word of it as possibly true.

That's a personal decision and if you don't believe any of it, that's fine.

Do you have a single shred of data to support that all of it is a lie or a myth?

Of course you don't. That is why it is religion and not science.

You don't believe, others do. So what?

[edhopper]

19. Depends on what they believe,

it's a very big so what.

I have a lot of data to show a lot of it isn't true.

Want to start with Adam and Eve?

It's not a history book and to be taught as such is a lie. It's that simple.

That denouncing any belief offends you is a given.

[cbayer]

20. No, it depends on how they act, not what they believe.

I didn't ask you if you had data to show that parts are not true. I asked for data to show that none of it is true, which you con't have.

Start with the existence of god and proceed from there.

If you take the definitive position that something is a lie, then it is your responsibility to provide the data to back that up. It's that simple.

Denouncing belief does not offend me at all. Disparaging others for their beliefs offends me a great deal.

Your assumptions about me continue to miss the mark, ed.

[edhopper]

21. Define God

and we can start from there.

[cbayer]

22. I have no definition for god at all. Do you?

[edhopper]

23. Outside

of a supernatural agent, no.

But most believers seem to have a more definitive view.

If we talk about the God that performed the acts described in the Bible, we can see if that holds up to scrutiny.

[cbayer]

26. So, do you have evidence that this vaguely defined supernatural agent does

not exist?

If you want to pin down a person's specific definition and debate it, go for it. But you can not in all honestly say that this thing is a lie. The best you can do is say you don't believe it.

We had dinner last night with a very devout couple whose belief and faith are pretty profound. They talked about revelation and how they had experienced it. Who am I to say they have not? I personally don't believe that occurs, but I have no evidence to say that definitively. No one does.

[edhopper]

27. No

I was saying I don't have a definition, except that very general one.

But I can talk about others definition.

The lie remark was about specific stories told as truth.

Anyway this is getting far afield and it's New years Eve.

So I'll just wish you well on this one.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. "Do you have a single shred of data to support that all of it is a lie or a myth? " series?

yes there is plenty of data to suggest that genesis, for example, is a myth. What a load of total crap that statement of your is. Did your really mean that?

There is also plenty of data to suggest that Exodus is a myth. Shall we continue?

That is why when religion intersects with science, as it does with both genesis and exodus, religion is revealed to be bullshit.

[Rainforestgoddess]

35. I taught my kids that it's all mythology

My 15 year old says that people believe because they're afraid of "void" and believing gives them comfort.

As long as they don't try to force it on her she doesn't care.

Caveat - we live in a highly secular part of Canada and the majority of people we know are open atheists. It's a slightly embarrassing thing to be religious. At least in my circle of friends.

[cbayer]

36. I also live in a community where being religious is far from the norm

and something people don't usually say anything about unless asked. Interestingly, it is a community within a highly religious community (small town in Mexico). There is very much a live and let live philosophy.

I took my kids to church maybe 5 times during their entire childhood. They all had friends of many different beliefs and non-beliefs. Some of their friends were very religious, others just as part of their culture.

It's been an interesting ride. One married a muslim, another a strong catholic. A third is about to marry the son of some very evangelical evangelicals, lol.

How would you feel if one of your children did embrace a religion?

[Rainforestgoddess]

42. Honestly, I'd be a bit disappointed

In their choice. I like to think I've taught them critical thinking and the value of evidence over anecdote.

But I'd be more disappointed if they chose homeopathy as a career.

[cbayer]

43. That's very unfortunate.

I hope for their sakes that none of them do embrace religious beliefs and for your sake that one of them does.

It might completely change your perspective, which, imo, would be a good thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. You keep selling it, but nobody's buying. Probably doesn't help that you claim not to use

the product you are selling, yourself.

[Rainforestgoddess]

47. Wow. That's an interesting thing for you to say.

Being slightly disappointed doesn't mean I'd treat them like shit. Doesn't change what
I'd think of religion personally.

[cbayer]

53. It may have gone to far and I apologize for that.

But I was reacting to your position that you would be disappointed in your child because it would indicate that they had failed to learn to think critically. There are lots of very, very bright critical thinkers who are religious. It's not a fault or weakness.

And I do think it would change your perspective.

[rug]

57. The start of critical thinking is the ability to distinguish between myth and religion.

[PassingFair]

63. What IS the difference?

Elapsed time since the last "believer"?

[rug]

64. Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology#Religion_and_mythology

The good stuff is in the citations.

[PassingFair]

66. Thank you for the wikipedia link, oh critical thinking one.

Religion IS myth, unless YOUR revealed truth says it's not.

[rug]

68. Read the citations, oh befuddled one.

Bigotry is fed by willful ignorance.

[cbayer]

67. Or we could just start with the ability to distinguish between belief in god

and belief in santa claus, as this is one of the most simplistic and grossly misused analogies one sees. If one can't make that distinction, then critical thinking may be an unachievable goal.

[rug]

69. The best way is to distinguish between discussion and bigoted bullshit.

[cbayer]

70. Which is easily done if one uses critical thinking instead of knee jerk reactions.

[PassingFair]

75. Checklist.

[cbayer]

79. Exactly the point.

[Prophet 451]

9. I would support a World Religions class in schools

I'm thinking such a class would do about a month on the top X most populous religions, covering the basics of their beliefs, history, offshoots and so on. The more familiar we are with other faiths, the less we fear them.

[cbayer]

10. I agree and I think this author lays out the reasons for this really well.

It is much more difficult to hold on to your prejudices once you actually begin to understand something.

[phil89]

13. We should be prejudiced against

irrational beliefs and religions based on books of torture, slavery, abuse of women and animals, etc. One belief informs another. What are you thinking by trying to act like all viewpoints are equal with respect to mythology vs science? Bizarre.

[cbayer]

14. "We should be prejudiced" is not a phrase that I will accept.

Being prejudiced is unacceptable. Prejudice denotes bias and judgement which is not based on reason or rational thought or critical thinking. That is what you propose and I reject that.

You don't like the books? You don't share the beliefs? No problem. I will hold your viewpoint as equal to other people's viewpoints when it comes to their personal religious beliefs. But if you or they attempt to impose your beliefs on others, we are going to have an issue.

I'm not bizarre at all. I object to prejudice and will challenge it when I see it expressed, just as you have done here.

[trotsky]

28. Yes, in cbayer's world, if you cannot prove something is false...

you must accept it as possibly true. Everything. Since we can't prove human life *doesn't* begin at conception, she has conveniently justified the entire anti-choice movement.

[bvf]

40. You won't even get cbayer to admit the non-existence

of unicorns. Just ask and see where it gets you.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Of course, after all, there's an invisible, fire-breathing, pink unicorn hiding in my garage.

Not sure where it polices its poop, but absence of poop isn't evidence of absence of unicorn.

[shraby]

24. Quite a claim considering religion came about originally for early man

to ease his fears of death and try to explain it. One minute he's talking to a companion, the next the companion cannot respond. For early man that's pretty scary.
The religion became a competition between the shaman and the chief of the tribe. Each vying for the hearts and minds of their followers which equated to power.
The whole bible thing came later when writing was invented to pass on the ideas.

[cbayer]

30. Interesting historical analysis that sounds about as good as any.

They only thing, though, is that this religion thing sprouted up all over the world and embraced very similar beliefs despite no communication between them.

So I am not going to totally reject the possibility that there might actually be something beyond our understanding at play here.

The fact that religion has played a critical role in social and political systems is not surprising and doesn't invalidate the core beliefs, imo.

[trotsky]

31. Racism and xenophobia arose in different cultures all over the world too.

So maybe something beyond our understanding is at play there as well. According to your logic, at least.

[Phlem]

33. The power of Myth by Joseph Campbell

A Moyer's interview.

http://billmoyers.com/content/ep-1-joseph-campbell-and-the-power-of-myth-the-hero%E2%80%99s-adventure-audio/

[cbayer]

34. What a great set of interviews.

I saw them initially but would love to watch them again.

[Goblinmonger]

41. I absolutely agree you need to teach myth to kids.

That doesn't mean you need to raise them in a religion. Or treat religion like it is anything different than any other myth.

One can (and should) teach the power of the myth without indoctrinating kids into religion.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

37. This is a subject that has haunted me for a long time....

I was raised a catholic in a very strict catholic household. In the same regard I was taught from a young age to think very critically about everything. Congnitive dissidence. As a young adult I studied religion, comparative religions. Very interesting.

I always contemplated the "why" people need to believe in something that was "greater" than they were. I'm still studying that aspect of human nature. I have read and studied many of the great phllosphers of time. Still no answer to my dilemma.
Time and locale seem to dictate what God we follow. Religion seems to point out the gods definition.

I consider myself an atheist. I have no belief or proof of any god. I cannot disprove the existence of god, but have seen no proof of the existence of any god. If proved to be true, I may change my stance.

Most people are more atheist than they believe, most religious people have negated the existence of many gods, holding the belife that theirs is the only one and true. You are one God away from being an atheist. Who is to say yours is the only one and true? Have you ever questioned that?

Have you questioned the why you need to have something/someone greater than you? Is it a fear of death? Eternal life seems awesome, but is it attainable?

I will and do not appreciate the myth dismissal, saying things about Santa or the tooth fairy, etc.. Those in my view are weak arguments with someone like yourself.

My wife and I have raised three children without religion but with very sharp critical thinking skills.
Two of the three have rejected any religion, one is experimenting with a form of Christianity. Experimenting, his word, not mine. I support him in his endeavor.

Teaching religion is not necessary, letting the individual child gain insight and fostering thinking skills is paramount.

[cbayer]

39. Thought provoking post. Thanks.

While I am not a believer, I have had a different perspective than you. I never wondered why people needed to believe in something greater, but I wondered how one could possibly be certain that there isn't something greater. I am not convinced that we are the top of the food chain, perhaps not even on this planet.

There are as many strains of belief as there are believers, imo. If there is a god, I suspect it is nothing like the anthropomorphized version that most religious humans adopt. Anyone that claims they know that they have the true version is foolish, but I also think anyone that claims to know that there is no god is equally foolish.

I also raised my children without religion, though two spent some time in catholic schools. I believe that they will find and follow their own paths and trust that they will be true to themselves.

I think the important thing about teaching religion is that it can potentially decrease prejudice, and that makes the world a better place, IMO.

You may have me confused with someone else, as I don't have an issue with sodium and I'm not religious. I do like pizza though!

[cbayer]

54. Ah, I see from C & B that you may have thought I was CTYankee.

She and I have some things in common so I can see why you may have mixed us up.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

83. That's exactly what happened....

Saw the "c" and my stroke addled brain took over. Lol. Thought I explained in the edit but....
Have a Happy New Year!

[cbayer]

84. That's ok. I've mad much more embarrassing mistakes and I haven't had a stroke!

Hope you have a happy and healthy new year, N_E_1!

[bvf]

49. This is the most ridiculous, stupid, intellectually

vapid, brain-dead OP I've ever read here on DU.

[randr]

51. Indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse

They grow up to abuse others.

[cbayer]

52. Oh my god!! We need to start building more jails ASAP.

I say we get the Obama kids out of the white house today! Who know what kind of harm they might be preparing to perpetrate on others.

[randr]

55. Actutal child abuse can be deceptive

There are many indications of child abuse today that we did not acknowledge a few years back. Failure to use child restraints in cars, which is a punishable offense, comes to mind. I would not go so far as to propose religious education is equivalent to putting a child at risk by not securing their safety or to imply that we need "thought police" to keep our children safe from wrong thinking.
When children are taught that the concepts of "hell" or "heaven" are actually real it programs them for a life of victim hood. They become less capable of assuming responsibility for their actions by assuming some mystical force will make thing right and it sets them up to believe that people think differently are somehow "evil".
I would cite Mr. Campbells work as a step in understanding this human fragility and hope more people come to an understanding of how "religious indoctrination" fuels most of the conflicts the people of the earth become subject to.

[cbayer]

56. When you make a comparison between raising children in a religious home and

child abuse, you have step over the cliff. It is an outrageous slap in the face to children that actually face abuse and a grossly prejudicial view of people with religious beliefs.

You are indeed proposing thought police.

When making such serious allegations, you had best be able to back up your outrageous claims with some kind of data, otherwise it just sounds mad. There is no evidence to support what you are saying at all.

If you are speaking about Joseph Campbell, his field is in comparative religions and mythology. Nothing I have ever seen by him would substantiate your beliefs about what happens to children raised with religion.

You are expressing your beliefs which are based on faith. Although I did not raise my children in a religious home, I would rather they be raised in one than in a home that would take the position you express. Your view is fundamentalism at it's core.

[randr]

58. Call it what you want

The majority of intolerant and evil people on this planet have been indoctrinated in one form of "faith" or another and use that mindset to perpetrate madness upon us all, in my opinion.
On edit:
I do not equate religious upbringing with the teaching of human values. The major religions all teach kindness and love at their core and we may be witness to a remembrance of these values with the new Pope.
Teaching our children how to coexist with others in a peaceful world does not require religious tenets.
Inspiring our children to seek knowledge and spirituality does not require religion either.
Additional edit:
Definition: Fundamentalism is a religious position typically characterized by a rigid adherence to what are perceived to be the most basic and traditional principles and beliefs of that religion.

[cbayer]

59. Again, you are making hyperbolic statements that have no basis in fact.

That is exactly what you accuse religion of doing.

The majority of people on earth have been raised with religion. The majority of tolerant and exceptionally good people on this planet have been raised in one form of faith or another. The majority of red heads, people named john and those who like strawberries have been raised in one form of faith or another.

I am glad you are able to see something possibly positive from the new Pope. I share some hope that he will bring back the kindness and love that is the center of christianity, imo. But he's facing a huge uphill battle.

I absolutely agree with you that teaching children how to coexist in a peaceful world does not require religion and that seeking knowledge and spirituality does not require religion either.

But I strongly feel that teaching children how to coexist in a peaceful world must include teaching them about the various religions and encouraging them to not just tolerate but embrace those that are different than they are.

Teaching children that being raised religiously is child abuse and that it leads to intolerance and evil is exactly the opposite of that.

[randr]

60. I would not paint our fellow men/women with such a broad brush

I am merely expressing an opinion that there are subtle lessons in many religious teaching that, again in my opinion, are abusive.
The concept of eternal damnation would be an example of a dangerous thing to teach a child.

[cbayer]

61. I think we can agree on this point.

There is no doubt that some religious teachings are hideous and that they can be used to control people, including children. And I also agree that one can find examples of abuse within some religious families or groups that is somehow "justified" by their religious beliefs.

I think it's important to distinguish those from all the other religious teachings, some of which can be very positive.

[randr]

72. We are in agreement

It is my contention that religion is not necessary to raise wholesome children. I would also argue that children raised in homes without spiritual direction are subject to the abuses of ignorant and uncaring people.

[cbayer]

73. I am glad we found common ground.

The author of this book is exploring the ways that children can be educated about religion in a way that does not include the introduction of beliefs. That is an honorable goal and I think it could be valuable for many.

[randr]

76. We are Democrats and should be proud to discuss, disagree, and come to understanding.

[pinto]

77. +1

I'll second that.

[cbayer]

80. Thank you for having this conversation with me and for being civil

and thoughtful.

We obviously come to this with very different perspectives, but I think our ability to reach a point of understanding is what we are all about.

I hope you have a peaceful and loving 2015 randr.

[randr]

82. And back at ya

[2naSalit]

62. I agree

with your last sentence above. I hope your book is well read.

I have had a couple comment exchanges with you here and I wonder, when I read your comments - when I'm lurking, what your background/profession/learning has been/is. Very interesting.

I have a hefty dose of religious upbringing/interaction and education and from all that I have seen and studied, I am certain that your conclusion boils down to exactly that. Going further, I feel that an actual religion requires obedience to the deity (ies) which creates myopic groupthink among each sect and inhibits the curiosity to look at other sects and evaluating one's own sect. (I would suggest that this aspect could be a form of tribalism.)

I'll have to read the book, sounds interesting.

[cbayer]

65. Although I would love to take credit, the book is not mine.

The author is a very interesting man and I like what he has to say. He is an atheist who endorses the idea of tolerance and acceptance. Although not for everyone, his book could be very helpful for parents who are nonbelievers and figuring out what and how to teach their children about religion. Teaching intolerance either as a theist or an atheist is equally wrong, imo.

I am glad to see you back around here and appreciate your sharing your own background and perspective.

While I think that some religions do require obedience and can lead to myopic groupthink, my own experience was quite different.

I was raised in a church where people were encouraged to question and where the tenets of christianity were put into practice. There was a particular focus on social activism and peace. While I understand that this is not in any way typical, it is far from unique. I have a great interest in promoting religious people and groups that are liberal/progressive, that work for social justice and economic equality and encourage their members to remain curious and open-minded.

While not religious or a believer, I am inspired by the good people and good works that I see within religion and by those outside of religion.

Tribalism is clearly a factor in religious groups, but it is a factor in non-religious groups as well, including some groups of nonbelievers.

[pinto]

71. The more we de-mystify and better understand the "other", in whatever sphere, the better, imo.

And doing so in a way which doesn't deny differences but accepts them for what they are - different aspects of the big picture - flexes our perceptions and understanding.

I grew up in a very predominately Catholic area, but it was also ethnically diverse. So while we all shared a common religion our various immigrant backgrounds were the more interesting for me. Syrians, Lebanese, Lithuanians, Poles, Irish, Italian, Greeks, Portuguese, etc. The immigrant melting pot of the Northeast US.

I only knew two non-Catholic families well, though. One close friend was Jewish, another some sort of Protestant. It wasn't until I moved away from the neighborhood that I realized how limiting that was. And, lol, I moved into a different melting pot of all sorts of religions or no religion. An eye opener. Looking back, one I wish I had experienced earlier.

[cbayer]

74. Exactly. I think that is his goal - demystification in order to increase understanding

and tolerance.

Good advice both for those raising children without god and those raising children with god.

[pinto]

78. Unfortunate headline from HuffPo. "Teaching about religion" is the author's gist.

It's easy to misconstrue the point of the piece. (pinto's pet peeve with headline editors).

[cbayer]

81. That's a really good point and I think may explain some of the responses here.

Distinguishing between the two things is critical.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. That would significantly alter my response to the article.