Religion is good for kids

Or so says a new study by a Mississippi State University sociologist and reported by one the right-wing blogosphere's leading atheists.

Comments

[seeker]

So, the atheist commentator wonders how such things could be, since his Catholic parents had the opposite affect on him. But maybe he didn't read the study, which showed that kids whose families actually DID attend church regularly (more than twice a year) and DIDN'T argue about religion did better.

The author of the scientific paper suggested three possible reasons for why children of healthy religious households (as defined above) were better behaved and adjusted than other kids:

1. Religious networks provide social support to parents, and this can improve their parenting skills. Children who are brought into such networks and hear parental messages reinforced by other adults may also take more to heart the messages that they get in the home.

2. The types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family
These could be very, very important in shaping how parents relate to their kids, and then how children develop in response, he said.

3. Religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance

Spoken like a sociologist. I'd suggest the following reasons instead:

1. Kids with harmonious religious homes probably have harmonious homes in general.

So they've already selected for a special group. They might want to compare these kids to non-religious kids who don't have arguing in their house. That's apples/apples.

2. The Christian emphasis on the chain of authority (father/mother/children) produces order, security, and freedom, and funny enough, less argument and strife.

Contrary to the stereotypes of paternalistic abuses of "wives submit to your husbands," most Christian marriages I know are very happy, and each couple works out how that plays out in their home. And this clear authority structure helps give stability and easier resolution to difficulties.

OK, maybe that's hypothetical, since in my family, I have rarely pulled rank on my wife, and she has acceded. However, sometimes, we discuss, and I back off. Because the second part of that scripture is "love your wives." I want her best, not just mine. I can count on one hand the number of serious arguments we've had, and none that lasted more than a few minutes before being resolved. Thanks to God for his wisdom.

3. Christian views of parenting, training, and discipline produce respect for authority AND healthy self-concept.

Contrary to popular "liberal" opinion and a few perhaps poorly conducted studies, loving discipline, including spanking, produce healthy children, in part for the reasons I proposed earlier - clean conscience and self-control due to a well-bridled (broken but not crushed) self-will.

4. Regular church attendance probably provides regular, superior socialization.

Meaningful and joyful, creative Sunday school instruction, lively worship, and positive people at weekly church meetings (if your church is not like that, why not?) probably give kids positive social experiences that other kids won't get at school. I mean, you've got WEEKLY peer socialization in the context of creative, moralizing learning, WEEKLY cross-generational fellowship, and usually, meals afterwards at which the children learn more about good behavior in a positive atmosphere.

Where would non-religious kids get such weekly cross-generational, positive socialization? At the weekly Secularist Humanist get-together? I don't think that exists. At the public school? Not likely.

Again, this study may have some holes in it, as I pointed out in my first point, so I'm not going to hang my hat on it. Still, it's worth recognizing, at the very least, to counter the claim that religious instruction in general turns out brainwashed psychopathic atheists ex-religionists. Again, there's a big difference between brainwashing and moral instruction, and many churches most certainly have hurt people. Anyway, nice find Aaron.

[Sam]

Seeker,

Your willingness to endorse child abuse never ceases to amaze. If you can't raise your child without hitting him or her, you have no concept of what it is that you're doing as a parent. I can't be any clearer than that. There is no lesson that you can teach that requires violence to send a message.

[seeker]

Your willingness to endorse child abuse never ceases to amaze. If you can't raise your child without hitting him or her, you have no concept of what it is that you're doing as a parent. I can't be any clearer than that. There is no lesson that you can teach that requires violence to send a message.

1. Spanking is not child abuse

2. Just because you spank or do not spank does not mean you have "no conc3ept of what you are doing" as a parent.

3. Spanking is not violence any more than "forcibly making your child get in the tub" as you suggest I should do.

4. Thank you for your patronizing message, we hear you loud and clear. Now get back on topic.

[Sam]

If you actually believe that you're doing the right thing by hitting your children Seeker, I feel awful for your children.

[seeker]

Don't waste your time on such a useless point of view. My kids are happy, loved, and secure. And rarely spanked anyway. But I affirm the value of spanking when used properly.

[Sam]

I repeat the point: if you can't figure out a way to communicate to your children WHATEVER it is that you want to communicate, you're the one doing a bad job. Stop hitting your children when you get frustrated by their behavior, and start actually dealing with it. Convincing them that you're right because you're physically able to intimidate them isn't the same thing as actually being right.

[seeker]

Aye, but discipline is communicating, just like taking away privileges. I"m sorry that you misunderstand the wisdom of appropriate use of physical discipline.