First, it seems to me that parents cannot help influencing the religious views (or lack thereof) of their kids. Parents who take their children to church, synagogue, or mosque and parents who do not are influencing the religious views of their children. Those who take their religious faith seriously are communicating by both word and deed certain views about the role of religion. Those parents who are not religious do the same, whether they want to or not.
Third, all parents should respect the developing autonomy of their children. If parents attempt to force their faith, agnosticism, or atheism on their children, they are failing to respect the developing personhood of those children. Children have an interest in becoming autonomous and rational, and the manner in which parents raise their kids should respect and foster this interest. Religious parents for whom faith is a crucial element of the good life can raise their children within their faith, but they should do so in way that respects their children. The same goes for secular parents. A genuine and authentic religious faith should be embraced rationally and autonomously. When parents attempt to force their faith (or their secularism) on their children, they neglect this important truth. This does not mean that parents should not seek to influence their children, but that they should do so in a morally appropriate way.
Finally, whether or not a child embraces the faith or the secularism of their parents, those parents should remain committed to that child. Parental love is ideally an unconditional love, and those parents who reject or distance themselves from their children over issues of faith are making a mistake. Such love is not easy, but it is what all parents should aspire to give to their children.
(The above is based on my book Conceptions of Parenthood, written for scholars and professionals. It is available free online here.)
2 comments:
Regarding your second point, I think you’re right that treating religious choice as something like a preference between chocolate or vanilla misses the significance of what religious choice is.
However, someone who still maintains that religious choice is about how something might “suit them” might criticize you for overly simplifying their perspective.
What if the comparison is not to something such as “chocolate versus vanilla” but to something much deeper entwined with their character, individuality, and enduring interests, yet simultaneously preserving the sense that it “suits them.”
For example, consider choosing to be a math major versus a performing arts major. I can see someone who thinks of religious choice as much more similar to those sorts of choices, which are harder to assimilate to mere preferences for chocolate or vanilla.
The question about truth that you raise is an interesting one, but trying to bring it to consciousness by associating the phrase “suits them” with mere taste preferences may come under some fire.
Hey Dan,
Thanks, and you are right about the oversimplification charge. I had in mind a contemporary philosopher who does argue that religious choice is like a mere preference for chocolate or vanilla, though I think he used clothing as his example.
Post a Comment