Upbringing and roots, Christian and otherwise...

Remove all ads!

The question popped up in the topic about Christians here: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/20/963.html.

Darkthrone pointed out there being diverse desirable traits associated with different religions.

I would stretch it further to include other criteria than religion, but still related to upbringing - as I reckon it's the upbringing here that matters, in so far as it shapes one's character, personality and moral principles. Granted, people change in this respect even long after childhood and adolescence, but in a certain way, this is also a kind of upbringing - upbringing you serve yourself.

There are groups of good and bad traits associated by default with members of religions and other groups. And that association quite often proves true.

However, perhaps we want to see it come true and we overlook situations when it doesn't? After all, stereotyping is part of human nature.

One could suppose Christians will be good folks, kind and helpful, if somewhat dim and overly straightforward. Kind of a holy simpleton. However, history is full of Christians doing outrageous things, and it's not like we haven't experienced that in our lives. I've also known Christians well capable of handling the back stage. Christians who could say whatever without a single muscle on their face moving, no matter if they wouldn't lie for selfish goals.

And I've seen people who weren't Christian, but showed lots of the qualities Christianity holds so dear. Sometimes I catch myself thinking they would make better Christians than most of those who already believe. Compassion, selflessness, selfless concern, perseverance, spreading hope and building people's spirits, and responsibility for whatever they do - if I were to give examples, a great part of those people wouldn't actually be Christians or practicing Christians, although Christian upbringing might be the case.

Between Christians themselves, I've seen Catholics, at least nominal ones, who practically think membership grants salvation, and I've seen Protestants willing to repent and work on their character in order to improve.

One would expect nobles to have a fixation on honour, keep their word no matter what, honour their commitments, behave always in a sophisticated manner, and so on and so forth. But I've seen nobles lying, not having a vague idea of what an obligation is, and behaving so rudely that it was disgusting. And I've come accross people from various not-very-prestigious backgrounds with such traits taken to extreme.

Guys who grow up without fathers are supposed to grow less male than others. And the biggest macho I know practically never lived with his father and doesn't want to see him.

What else? Sons of ranking policemen who get in trouble with cops whenever an opportunity arises? Lazy children of hard-working parents? People craving knowledge against their families who think no one ever needs more than secondary school? Whatever you can imagine, it is there.

 

I agree that upbringing (childhood) is the most important part of the whole moral issue. The best example would be that the majority of all serial killers have been abused or otherwise in their childhood.

These are all great morals, and while I'm not going to say that I uphold them all (because I think we're all selfish in one way or another) I do think that the most important one is - responsibility for whatever one does. Yet I call all of these traits common sense. In my opinion it's not the church' job to teach these morals, but the parents.

If I hear tales of my parents and the crap they had to withstand during their time at church I call that forcing morals upon someone which is never good. A child should figure these thing out in a non-forcing way, it should be done by their parents in an educational/commen sense way by actually doing these things in front of the child. Children talk because their parents are talking, if parents where showing their morals, children would follow those as well.

 

I agree to a large extent. The upbringing has the biggest influence on the worldview and behaviour of each of us. But the whole idea of something I'd call "extended moral education" for loss of a better expression is that hardly every parent is capable of being a moral lighthouse to their offspring. Apeman indicated the connection between childhood abuse and a carrier as a criminal later on.

This is and should be where the third party has to step in, be it church, school, sports club or any other form of educational influence. To be honest, many parents seem to be swamped with the responsibility of raising a child. Many are too young themselves and don't possess a reliable set of moral codes.

In conclusion, while of course the parents have the greatest influence on the moral development of children, there nevertheless has to be a framework given by the state (and being filled by church or state or NGOs) within which this development should occur.

 

Honestly Darkthrone, if parents themselves aren't morally mature and/or have no time to teach morals to their children what makes you think that the Church/State can. IMO nowadays the church or state (in this way) are no authorative figure for kids. It's not like the church/state has any time for this either.

Same goes for schools. Here in the Netherlands it's the ungoing debate if schools should teach morals. I say it can't be done because kids stand negatively against the school. There are way more kids that would rather not go to school than kids that can't wait to go.

The problem is that there are no substitutes for parents.

 

Well well, what kind of argument is that? Most of the people I know and most of the posts I read here and elsewhere go on all the time about how dumb humankind really is - but when it comes to parenting and rasing children we're unbelievable clever, it seems.

First of all, a church or a state is no bloodless, lifeless god-given ideal. It's us, really. People compose states and schools. So how come the parents you deem so clever become dumb as soon as they enter service of state?

But there's more to it: do you deny the state or church to uphold some kind of moral? Where does this come from? Well, from the people of course. It is not very exact, but for the sake of argument think of the "official" moral as an average over the morals of the population. Clearly, if you have higher standards, you may be capable of laying a sound foundation in the upbringing of your child. But if you're below average? Then we end up with some of the criminal problems you mentioned.

In these cases - wouldn't you rather like some other party to step in to achieve what the parents missed?

And concerning kids not attending school: what has that to do with the contents of the teachings? Do you think they avoid being sent to school because of the moral teachings? I don't believe this.

As a last point: of course there's no substitute for parents. I didn't say´it, and I don't think anyone can really make a stand for such a position. But yes, often this lack of alternatives is a problem...

Edit: And no, I didn't want to talk exclusively about church or state. True, children don't look towards the church anymore when seeking spiritual or moral guidance. But, obviously, there has to be someone besides the parents as a moral compass.

 

@Darkthrone

With my first 'if' I didn't mean all parents, I meant the small group that has not got the capabilities of raising/teaching their children (teaching morals). In my opinion it is very diffictult borderline impossible to teach them what they are missing through state/church. Mainly because the state/church are not close enough to get a real bond with those children. They will in their turn not trust the state/church and will not readily accept the possible right morals they are willing to teach.

Of course the Church/State has a set of 'good' morals, I never said I didn't. I merely tried to express that the two have a distance to cover to the child which IMO is in most cases too big.
And yes that would be great.

I never said I did. Again I mentioned the distance of School to the children. The school is the only one who IMO are potentially closest to the child to have effect (because kids are generally there the largest part of the day). Problem is that most children are not overly zealous to attend school. It's not the content it's just a worldwide fact that children do not stand positively towards school (although I think if they sat home all day they'd get pretty bored)

I agree but family is the only one that springs to mind.

 

I have to agree with Apeman here. The issue I think is time. Think of a typical child's day. Let's say, for arguements sake, that the child is awake for 16 hours every day. On a weekly basis, that's 112 hours. The typical school day is about 7 hours long. The typical church service is 1-2 hours. So the school has 35 hours a week to spend with a child, church has at best 2, and parents/family have the other 75. It's just a question of time of influence. No matter what you do in church, or at school, since the time they are in either place is considerably smaller than they time they are not, it's not surprising their effect is substantially less than the child's parents and family. Parents and family will always have the greatest influence on the children no matter what the church or school, or other authorities attempt to do.

 

You're mostly right, of course, and, as I said before, I agree to a large extent. Only the bit about school still bothers me.

You see, you question the authority of school in moral matters.

Thing is, authority may be granted from above, but never from below. That's how you can tell it is authority. The kids mustn't choose whom they want to listen to - otherwise it wouldn't be authority.

However, I understand the problem: how to reach the unreachable? Maybe no one can, but it's nevertheless the responsibility of the state to give it at least a try. That's the reason for compulsory school attendance in the western world.

In reality, maybe you're right and some kids are simply lost. My motive for posting was something different, though: In most cases I can't stand how parents view their children as a kind of property, don't treat them with due respect - and on the whole make a mess of the idea of rasing children with ethical values. Most parents are quite possessive when it comes to their kids. "No one has to tell me how to raise my child!" I understand the way they feel and their way of thinking - but it just makes me want to puke. And I don't just mean intelligently challenged parents...

But I know there are not many people who share my views. Tsts. That's why the world still is no nice place after all these years of trying.

 

Yes, I recognize that. My stomach always churns when I see a parent hitting their child for real if has done something bad. Now a playful slap is OK but if parents are actually cruelly hitting their children and I see it I usually say something. That's when I hear that above.

That's true but when parents are no longer an authorative figure for their kids, there (almost always) can't be another. One authorative figure has to point out other authorative figures to whom the child must listen to. Without that there is only force or (positive) persuasion that can achieve the goal and that's the whole point, who can achieve that without force.

This of course is the best thing the state could even do and I'm very glad they are doing it. Teaching normal subjects and Morals are a seperate issue in this case. But it seems they are not teaching morals at all, and the only thing I question is if it's even possible.