Religion or manners? Which values lead your list to teach your children?

We all want our kids to be responsible, hard working, helpful to others and well mannered, too.

What about religious? No, not so much, evidently.

A new survey released today (Sept. 18) by the Pew Research Center finds that adults’ political ideology and their religious identify often make a significant difference in the qualities they say are the most important to teach their children.

Cue the Crosby, Stills & Nash here.

Pew conducted the research with 3,243 adults responding by mail or online between April 29 and May 27. They were asked to rank the importance of 12 different qualities and choose their three most important traits.

The answers align like a scouts’ handbook: Being responsible was important or very important with almost everyone (93 percent overall); hard work (89 percent) and being well mannered and helpful tied for third in the rankings (at 84 percent).

Religious faith, however, registered last on the list of 12 qualities for overall importance (53 percent) — below curiosity (59 percent) and obedience (60 percent).

- See more at: http://cathylynngrossman.religionnews.com/2014/09/18/religion-faith-evangelical-pew-research-center/#sthash.FTbNle6v.dpuf

Thank goodness people are starting to see past man made myths, which have little value, when these religions were formed to do nothing but instill fear to control people.
The more people move away from dogmatic religions, that play on fear, the better the chance humanity will have in finding some sort of cohabitant peace.
Religious laws deny such cohabitation, because such laws are ultimate, they do not allow for disagreement, as how can you disagree with what is divinely commanded?
Religion is fine when it is not constrained by such man made religious myths, nothing of supreme intelligence would even make such emotive commands onto people, or yearn for such attention seeking.
If I as a human can see past this, why are people so easily led by religion, that they believe a deity would make such poor rules for humans?

I don't teach religious values but I do teach spiritual ones.

Having said that, I do like the simple bible stories to read to children as they teach good morals.

eddie wrote:I don't teach religious values but I do teach spiritual ones.

Having said that, I do like the simple bible stories to read to children as they teach good morals.

Hi Eddie

There are some great moral stories Eddie, but do you teach the ones that teach barbarity, like Abraham willing to sacrifice his own son, just to play out a poor game based on loyalty?
I agree there is some great moral values learnt from religion, but they were borrowed from far more ancient stories, where you have to ask was there any religious value to them?

Out of curiosity which ones Eddie?

   I should think that ethical and moral considerations, along with gentleness and kindness, would take preference ahead of good manners, as well as religious teachings, when instilling 'qualities' into children's early education and upbringing?

Crosby, Stills and Nash may well urge people to "Teach the children well.";  but I also like this little ditty from a little ol' French cartoon that pops up on TV occasionally :

"Be quite, kind and gentle,
quite, kind and gentle,
In everything you do.
Be quite, kind and gentle,
quite, kind and gentle,
And the whole world smiles with you."      

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:I don't teach religious values but I do teach spiritual ones.

Having said that, I do like the simple bible stories to read to children as they teach good morals.

Hi Eddie

There are some great moral stories Eddie, but do you teach the ones that teach barbarity, like Abraham willing to sacrifice his own son, just to play out a poor game based on loyalty?
I agree there is some great moral values learnt from religion, but they were borrowed from far more ancient stories, where you have to ask was there any religious value to them?

Out of curiosity which ones Eddie?

Hi didge! X

Noooo! These stories are found in the Usborne Bible for children so are very very tame!
I like Noah and there's the one about the Good Samaritan.
They are specifically targeted for children so are just there to teach children a good moral code.

Lone Wolf wrote:
    I should think that ethical and moral considerations, along with gentleness and kindness, would take preference ahead of good manners, as well as religious teachings, when instilling 'qualities' into children's early education and upbringing?

Crosby, Stills and Nash may well urge people to "Teach the children well.";  but I also like this little ditty from a little ol' French cartoon that pops up on TV occasionally :

"Be quite, kind and gentle,
quite, kind and gentle,
In everything you do.
Be quite, kind and gentle,
quite, kind and gentle,
And the whole world smiles with you."      

I have to admit when I first saw the question, I changed it in my mind to humanism...rather than manners. The cute stories of the Bible usually involve an old man walking among the clouds in his bare feet. On the other hand, manners are so banal. There are better things to teach children than these two options.

Not religion for sure.  It has no place in our household.  My kids managed to grow into respectable citizens with love and firm boundaries.  We may have borrowed one tenet from the bible - 'treat others as you you like to be treated yourself' - but without the religious mumbo jumbo that goes with it.

Frazzled wrote:Not religion for sure.  It has no place in our household.  My kids managed to grow into respectable citizens with love and firm boundaries.  We may have borrowed one tenet from the bible - 'treat others as you you like to be treated yourself' - but without the religious mumbo jumbo that goes with it.

There's no reason morality should be in any way dependent upon belief in anything non-material or supernatural.

I don't understand why people can't see that religion is basically a fusion of primitive ways of explaining natural phenomena and moral beliefs. "God brings the harvest and explains right from wrong." It seems like once we understand where the harvest really comes from, we should be able to understand where right and wrong really come from as well.

I also have no tolerance for those who say that morality is subjective; I really do believe in an objective morality. The fact that people disagree on moral tenets simply means that some people are right and other people are wrong! If you think it's immoral for people to behave in a way that doesn't hurt others, you're wrong. If you think it's moral for people to behave in ways that do hurt others, you're wrong. It's amazing how well this simple rule of thumb works, and yet some will insist it can't be that simple. It really can be. There is no sin without a victim, and in the absence of a victim there is no sin.

For example -- sex. Any situation in which all participants know up front what's going on, agree to what's happening, are not being coerced and are capable of agreeing to it is not doing harm, thus is not immoral. Any situation in which one participant does not know, does not agree, is coerced or is incapable of consenting to it is doing someone harm and is thus immoral.

For another example -- employment. Employment is when one person pays another person to do a task. It's the responsibility of the employer to let the employee know what is expected, and the responsibility of the employee to do the job as defined up front.

If the person being paid knows what is expected, agrees to do it, is not coerced and is capable of entering into such a contract, everything's fine. If the employee is led into doing something they weren't informed they were going to be asked to do, is being exploited on the base of their material need, or is mentally incapable of understanding the nature of what they're being asked, there's a problem. Likewise, if the employee engages in anything that affects his/her ability to fulfill the predefined task, the employee is at fault.

I really don't see how anybody could have any objection to the idea that pretty much any action that you're deceived or forced or coerced into doing is immoral, and any action that you do with knowledge of what you're getting into upfront, that you do voluntarily, and that you do without harming others, is moral.

*whoosh*

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Not religion for sure.  It has no place in our household.  My kids managed to grow into respectable citizens with love and firm boundaries.  We may have borrowed one tenet from the bible - 'treat others as you you like to be treated yourself' - but without the religious mumbo jumbo that goes with it.

There's no reason morality should be in any way dependent upon belief in anything non-material or supernatural.

I don't understand why people can't see that religion is basically a fusion of primitive ways of explaining natural phenomena and moral beliefs. "God brings the harvest and explains right from wrong." It seems like once we understand where the harvest really comes from, we should be able to understand where right and wrong really come from as well.

I also have no tolerance for those who say that morality is subjective; I really do believe in an objective morality. The fact that people disagree on moral tenets simply means that some people are right and other people are wrong! If you think it's immoral for people to behave in a way that doesn't hurt others, you're wrong. If you think it's moral for people to behave in ways that do hurt others, you're wrong. It's amazing how well this simple rule of thumb works, and yet some will insist it can't be that simple. It really can be. There is no sin without a victim, and in the absence of a victim there is no sin.

For example -- sex. Any situation in which all participants know up front what's going on, agree to what's happening, are not being coerced and are capable of agreeing to it is not doing harm, thus is not immoral. Any situation in which one participant does not know, does not agree, is coerced or is incapable of consenting to it is doing someone harm and is thus immoral.

For another example -- employment. Employment is when one person pays another person to do a task. It's the responsibility of the employer to let the employee know what is expected, and the responsibility of the employee to do the job as defined up front.

If the person being paid knows what is expected, agrees to do it, is not coerced and is capable of entering into such a contract, everything's fine. If the employee is led into doing something they weren't informed they were going to be asked to do, is being exploited on the base of their material need, or is mentally incapable of understanding the nature of what they're being asked, there's a problem. Likewise, if the employee engages in anything that affects his/her ability to fulfill the predefined task, the employee is at fault.

I really don't see how anybody could have any objection to the idea that pretty much any action that you're deceived or forced or coerced into doing is immoral, and any action that you do with knowledge of what you're getting into upfront, that you do voluntarily, and that you do without harming others, is moral.

Couldn't sleep last night?  Lol.  Good to let it all out.

I think it all boils down to humanism...which is what I think Christian Charity is...in fact, what Christ was all about.  Paul made him Superman; I think he was just another guy.

The golden rule is central to humanism, if not an actual statement of it directly.  But I do question whether morality is really objective and not subjective.  Perhaps it is on some level.  But that level--like full knowledge of the universe--is one we will never achieve.  Think about it: if we did come to know it, we would start tinkering and eventually muck it all up anyway.

But I think there is another element essential to humanism.  That is absence of deceit.  Look how sacrosanct we make truth.  It is fundamental to our legal system.  Even when we distinguish between 'white lies' and full lies, our premise is if I could tell you it all, you would understand.  I believe that truth or honesty is fundamental to a humanist philosophy.

Maybe that's what it is all about, after all.  Discovery.  Making our own way.  It's about the trip, not the destination.  Maybe that's what they meant with their metaphor of the garden and their tree of life...We keep going until we...don't.  Doesn't that story or fable come at the end of the Neolithic age, about 10,000-years ago, when culture is coming into self-awareness?  Agriculture, pottery making...the bronze age?  We are learning to think abstractly, and we are beginning to build things..."make the world our own," as John Locke said.  Tree of knowledge...it's just about casting off our lines, letting go of the wharf of instinct and habit, and embracing the open seas on our own. (Mixed metaphors be damned.)

(Here I will skip over a huge discussion about the difference, in the late Neolithic, between things we discover (natural) and things we create as a result of our discoveries (artifice)--man discovered wood could float; then man made ships.)

And so morality is just another thing we 'come into awareness' of...not an artifact, but a discovered (natural) part of the tree of life.  In that sense, it comes to be objective.  But it's an objectivity about which we will never fully know.  It's a work in progress...

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

There's no reason morality should be in any way dependent upon belief in anything non-material or supernatural.

I don't understand why people can't see that religion is basically a fusion of primitive ways of explaining natural phenomena and moral beliefs. "God brings the harvest and explains right from wrong." It seems like once we understand where the harvest really comes from, we should be able to understand where right and wrong really come from as well.

I also have no tolerance for those who say that morality is subjective; I really do believe in an objective morality. The fact that people disagree on moral tenets simply means that some people are right and other people are wrong! If you think it's immoral for people to behave in a way that doesn't hurt others, you're wrong. If you think it's moral for people to behave in ways that do hurt others, you're wrong. It's amazing how well this simple rule of thumb works, and yet some will insist it can't be that simple. It really can be. There is no sin without a victim, and in the absence of a victim there is no sin.

For example -- sex. Any situation in which all participants know up front what's going on, agree to what's happening, are not being coerced and are capable of agreeing to it is not doing harm, thus is not immoral. Any situation in which one participant does not know, does not agree, is coerced or is incapable of consenting to it is doing someone harm and is thus immoral.

For another example -- employment. Employment is when one person pays another person to do a task. It's the responsibility of the employer to let the employee know what is expected, and the responsibility of the employee to do the job as defined up front.

If the person being paid knows what is expected, agrees to do it, is not coerced and is capable of entering into such a contract, everything's fine. If the employee is led into doing something they weren't informed they were going to be asked to do, is being exploited on the base of their material need, or is mentally incapable of understanding the nature of what they're being asked, there's a problem. Likewise, if the employee engages in anything that affects his/her ability to fulfill the predefined task, the employee is at fault.

I really don't see how anybody could have any objection to the idea that pretty much any action that you're deceived or forced or coerced into doing is immoral, and any action that you do with knowledge of what you're getting into upfront, that you do voluntarily, and that you do without harming others, is moral.

Couldn't sleep last night?  Lol.  Good to let it all out.

I think it all boils down to humanism...which is what I think Christian Charity is...in fact, what Christ was all about.  Paul made him Superman; I think he was just another guy.

The golden rule is central to humanism, if not an actual statement of it directly.  But I do question whether morality is really objective and not subjective.  Perhaps it is on some level.  But that level--like full knowledge of the universe--is one we will never achieve.  Think about it: if we did come to know it, we would start tinkering and eventually muck it all up anyway.

But I think there is another element essential to humanism.  That is absence of deceit.  Look how sacrosanct we make truth.  It is fundamental to our legal system.  Even when we distinguish between 'white lies' and full lies, our premise is if I could tell you it all, you would understand.  I believe that truth or honesty is fundamental to a humanist philosophy.

Maybe that's what it is all about, after all.  Discovery.  Making our own way.  It's about the trip, not the destination.  Maybe that's what they meant with their metaphor of the garden and their tree of life...We keep going until we...don't.  Doesn't that story or fable come at the end of the Neolithic age, about 10,000-years ago, when culture is coming into self-awareness?  Agriculture, pottery making...the bronze age?  We are learning to think abstractly, and we are beginning to build things..."make the world our own," as John Locke said.  Tree of knowledge...it's just about casting off our lines, letting go of the wharf of instinct and habit, and embracing the open seas on our own.  (Mixed metaphors be damned.)

(Here I will skip over a huge discussion about the difference, in the late Neolithic, between things we discover (natural) and things we create as a result of our discoveries (artifice)--man discovered wood could float; then man made ships.)

And so morality is just another thing we 'come into awareness' of...not an artifact, but a discovered (natural) part of the tree of life.  In that sense, it comes to be objective.  But it's an objectivity about which we will never fully know.  It's a work in progress...

Again I hardly class Jesus as a humanist, someone that advocates leaving your family to follow religion is hardly a humanist, but tantamount to child neglect and abuse, where people have families. He may have had some ahead for the time views, but views to abandon your family is not something I would class as human at all. Jesus played up to the gullible, he certainly knew the Jewish doctrine and played upon this to open this out to many people and was nothing short of a failed messiah.

The reality is humanism began many thousands of years before Jesus, humans went nearly extinct, and it was humanism that allowed our race to survive and it was this cooperation and need to exist that helped us be who we are today. We are not the only species that shows compassion and in reality it is something we have inbuilt within us, as you do not need to be taught certain things to feel whether something is right or wrong morally.

I think what Eddie does in teaching good moral stories from the bible is actually good, it is no different to the many fantasy stories we teach children, from Cinderella to Snow white for example, all of which have morals to their stories. Manners is very essential which is clearly lacking in today's society, where in the past people showed respect to others, which with the advent of the internet has gone out of the window. Because of the bad left wing affect as I call it has made people where before they were grateful, have gone from wanting everything to demanding everything on a plate. The left wing affect has made people selfish to their own needs and not others, there is little respect for elders and eve more so the elderly, all brought about because of the left wing affect, which panders to the selfish.

Didge wrote:

The reality is humanism began many thousands of years before Jesus, humans went nearly extinct, and it was humanism that allowed our race to survive and it was this cooperation and need to exist that helped us be who we are today. We are not the only species that shows compassion and in reality it is something we have inbuilt within us, as you do not need to be taught certain things to feel whether something is right or wrong morally.

About the time this Shire to the great rainbow serpent was made circa 20,000 BC

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Couldn't sleep last night?  Lol.  Good to let it all out.

I think it all boils down to humanism...which is what I think Christian Charity is...in fact, what Christ was all about.  Paul made him Superman; I think he was just another guy.

The golden rule is central to humanism, if not an actual statement of it directly.  But I do question whether morality is really objective and not subjective.  Perhaps it is on some level.  But that level--like full knowledge of the universe--is one we will never achieve.  Think about it: if we did come to know it, we would start tinkering and eventually muck it all up anyway.

But I think there is another element essential to humanism.  That is absence of deceit.  Look how sacrosanct we make truth.  It is fundamental to our legal system.  Even when we distinguish between 'white lies' and full lies, our premise is if I could tell you it all, you would understand.  I believe that truth or honesty is fundamental to a humanist philosophy.

Maybe that's what it is all about, after all.  Discovery.  Making our own way.  It's about the trip, not the destination.  Maybe that's what they meant with their metaphor of the garden and their tree of life...We keep going until we...don't.  Doesn't that story or fable come at the end of the Neolithic age, about 10,000-years ago, when culture is coming into self-awareness?  Agriculture, pottery making...the bronze age?  We are learning to think abstractly, and we are beginning to build things..."make the world our own," as John Locke said.  Tree of knowledge...it's just about casting off our lines, letting go of the wharf of instinct and habit, and embracing the open seas on our own.  (Mixed metaphors be damned.)

(Here I will skip over a huge discussion about the difference, in the late Neolithic, between things we discover (natural) and things we create as a result of our discoveries (artifice)--man discovered wood could float; then man made ships.)

And so morality is just another thing we 'come into awareness' of...not an artifact, but a discovered (natural) part of the tree of life.  In that sense, it comes to be objective.  But it's an objectivity about which we will never fully know.  It's a work in progress...

Again I hardly class Jesus as a humanist, someone that advocates leaving your family to follow religion is hardly a humanist, but tantamount to child neglect and abuse, where people have families. He may have had some ahead for the time views, but views to abandon your family is not something I would class as human at all. Jesus played up to the gullible, he certainly knew the Jewish doctrine and played upon this to open this out to many people and was nothing short of a failed messiah.

Silly interpretation.

Didge wrote:The reality is humanism began many thousands of years before Jesus, humans went nearly extinct, and it was humanism that allowed our race to survive and it was this cooperation and need to exist that helped us be who we are today. We are not the only species that shows compassion and in reality it is something we have inbuilt within us, as you do not need to be taught certain things to feel whether something is right or wrong morally.

I agree, humanism long pre-dated Jesus. Humanism, as I said, is at least implied in the golden rule...the ethic of reciprocity is found in Leviticus 19:18 and 34, and other Deuterocanonical books. It's not the speaking or originating of the idea that I attribute to Jesus, it's the living of the idea.

Thus, Jesus reified the concept. The real hostility to this notion comes from the Pauline Church. Paul, in Romans, proclaimed the episcopal polity, a hierarchical form of authority. Humanism, with its emphasis on the human individual, stands opposed to the hierarchical idea...the idea that the Bishops have a monopoly on interpretation of Scripture.

That was the principal challenge of Luther, and the theme of Protestantism everywhere except the Anglican Church. (Indeed, the Anglican Church is sometimes called the Episcopal Church.) So, we've been sidetracked for quite a while, and you can see why Paul is not a Protestant favorite.

That is the contribution of Jesus, and its overall importance is debatable...except inasmuch as Paul made it an issue.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:



Again I hardly class Jesus as a humanist, someone that advocates leaving your family to follow religion is hardly a humanist, but tantamount to child neglect and abuse, where people have families. He may have had some ahead for the time views, but views to abandon your family is not something I would class as human at all. Jesus played up to the gullible, he certainly knew the Jewish doctrine and played upon this to open this out to many people and was nothing short of a failed messiah.

Silly interpretation.

Didge wrote:The reality is humanism began many thousands of years before Jesus, humans went nearly extinct, and it was humanism that allowed our race to survive and it was this cooperation and need to exist that helped us be who we are today. We are not the only species that shows compassion and in reality it is something we have inbuilt within us, as you do not need to be taught certain things to feel whether something is right or wrong morally.

I agree, humanism long pre-dated Jesus.  Humanism, as I said, is at least implied in the golden rule...the ethic of reciprocity is found in  Leviticus 19:18 and 34, and other Deuterocanonical books.  It's not the speaking or originating of the idea that I attribute to Jesus, it's the living of the idea.

Thus, Jesus reified the concept.  The real hostility to this notion comes from the Pauline Church.  Paul, in Romans, proclaimed the episcopal polity, a hierarchical form of authority.  Humanism, with its emphasis on the human individual, stands opposed to the hierarchical idea...the idea that the Bishops have a monopoly on interpretation of Scripture.  

That was the principal challenge of Luther, and the theme of Protestantism everywhere except the Anglican Church.  (Indeed, the Anglican Church is sometimes called the Episcopal Church.)  So, we've been sidetracked for quite a while, and you can see why Paul is not a Protestant favorite.

That is the contribution of Jesus, and its overall importance is debatable...except inasmuch as Paul made it an issue.

Pauline Christianity is poor to say the least, but the beliefs of Jesus himself advocate abandonment not something I hold in any high regard, let alone he did not change or even come to change the Jewish law.
Humanism is based upon principles and much can be learnt from the Celts who again pre date Jesus, where women were held in high regard and had as much rights as men, sadly of which the Romans destroyed. They had protection under law, where they could serve as warriors and rulers.
Again Jesus advocated separation from his own family and he clearly shunned them, yet it was his brother James, who went to to lead the Jewish Christians, who all advocated Jewish law and only saw him as a Messiah.

You make the same failings of other religious people, even though you claim not to be you are, where you pick and choose over what text you follow from the testaments on Jesus, where they are either all valid or not. If you follow the stories, he did advocate people to give up everything, including their families, which is wrong and child neglect if they have families, because he is placing himself above what is right for a father of mother to do/ If you cannot see that, or more to the point you try to ignore that is up to you, but you cannot escape this reality, where what he advocated was poor and wrong.