ruby

I have no religious belief, though I consider myself spiritual. I am soon to marry my partner who is Baha'i. We have discussed and agree any children we have, will be raised to respect our difference of beliefs and learn about both. The child will not be Baha'i or any other faith.. as we will raise them to respect a balance of both our beliefs and values. Can any share any thoughts on marriages they know of, that are inter-faith, where children are being raised?

Fadl

Dear Ruby,

I haven't any children yet, and, although my wife is now Baha'i I do have prior experience in interfaith marriage and relationships. Even though Baha'is do vary in individual beliefs and practices, there are a few things about the faith that should give you any easy time if you are aware of them.

1. The Baha'i "principles" (especially those that are social and not concerned with God or religion) are largely accepted as common place and normal by the average educated and thinking individual. That makes it simple because, whatever your thoughts about God or religion, you probably already share many of the social beliefs as your Baha'i partner and you will probably both agree that these are values worth instilling in children.


2. Baha'is do not believe in compulsion in religion, and believe in the individuals right and duty to independent investigation of truth. Furthermore, according to Baha'i writ, an individual is not considered mature enough to make a declaration of belief before the age of 15. While many children of Baha'is do declare themselves Baha'is as early as 15, a great many also do not, indicating that parents take it seriously that their children investigate truth for themselves and declare their beliefs free from coercion.


That being said, Baha'is are not perfect, and I am sure that there are those of us who bend or breach these from time to time. If that happens, just remind your partner of the Baha'i teachings and also share your feelings and wishes with your partner about children. Better yet, have this discussion before children and if possible, before marriage to make sure that unity and consensus might be acheived before any problems arise.

I would also hope that, while it is certainly wise to not allow children to be proselytized and converted in their own homes against their own conscience and their own right to think and decide, it would similarly be unfair, in my opinion, to try and censure any talk of faith in the home, or to banish your partner from saying or sharing anything about what he feels or believes with his children because that would be asserting your own beliefs and values (if these are your beliefs and values) above your partner's. To me, encouraging thinking and shaping of one's beliefs and values comes from being free to learn, think, and know about what is out there. While I feel it is certainly wrong of a parent to force his or her faith on a child or to presume that his or her faith is what is destined for the child, I think it is also wrong banish talking about or exploring these things in the home with the understanding that, ultimately,each must always decide for one's self.



Good luck!

Iconodule

Interfaith marraiges should never happen. Period.

tonyfish58

Welcome Ruby - Yes this is a complex Question.

I am in an interesting relationship an Atheist and a Baha'i Both our children from previous marriages, were raised before we were married so we did not have to tackle this issue.

I think Fadl covered the answer well above. I would like to re-post what Fadl stated. "...in my opinion, to try and censure any talk of faith in the home, or to banish your partner from saying or sharing anything about what he feels or believes with his children because that would be asserting your own beliefs and values (if these are your beliefs and values) above your partner's".

I also feel this is very important. It is not good when one has to suppress their spiritual feelings. It is like you can not be the real you!

We wish you well in life & your spiritual journey.

Regards Tony

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule Interfaith marraiges should never happen. Period.

Speaking of prejudice ("pre-judging"), and the Baha'i principle of the elimination thereof, . . . :-(


Bruce

Iconodule

Would you tolerate your child being reared in the ORthodox church? Being brought up a believer and participant in the body of Christ? No you wouldn't. You would find this action (which was the commandment of God) totally evil.

Marraige of interfaith only causes problems.

tonyfish58

How do you know what some one may feel - That is very presumptuous.

In fact it would not be that way as I know of mixed marriages.

They would be raised with both views made known to them and when they are of age they would make their own decision.

the only evil in this is with people who would want to find fault.

Regards Tony

Iconodule

Don't lie, you would never accept it. And neither would the orthodox, they certaintly shouldnt as it is their duty to rear their children in the faith. This leaves no room for allowing them to be reared in Bahai. Christians have long since believed in catechism. It isnt just eaching, its rearing and establishing God in them, because GOd is the most important thing.

Its not letting them choose, though they can certaintly abandon the faith when older. It is putting hte love of God in them, the knowledge of prayer of fasting of practices of salvation in them so that they might know the truth. This is the orthodox position and we would baptise our children and have them take eucharist from the moment they are able to.

ahanu

No.

I would, but it depends on how educated the people are within a particular community of faith, because I wouldn't let any Orthodox community raise my kid.

Kids are blank slates for us to write whatever we want in their minds? Kids can't have choices too? Why can't we raise kids in a faith while giving them choices too?

Iconodule

Ahanu, if you have a problem with rearing children in truth and with God, then I suggest you have a problem with teaching your child anything. You indoctrinate your children from the moment they begin life. Not to mention this is the tradition of Judaism and Christian and islam. All the major religions agree on this fact. But now it is suddenly wrong? I don't buy it.

ahanu

Indoctrination and teaching are not synonymous: indoctrinated children aren't expected to question and critically examine what they are taught.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule Would you tolerate your child being reared in the ORthodox church? Being brought up a believer and participant in the body of Christ? No you wouldn't. You would find this action (which was the commandment of God) totally evil. Marraige of interfaith only causes problems.

Yet more hot air. :-(

My son was reared in accordance with Baha'i Law, which requires that he be taught about ALL the great religions, which he was! And indeed, putting hte love of God in them, the knowledge of prayer of fasting of practices of salvation in them so that they might know the truth (all of which you mention) is PRECISELY THE SORTS OF THING he was taught! Having him raised Orthodox would be a far narrower method and one completely unacceptable to us because it violates our precept of Independant Investigation of Truth.

Having received this Baha'i education, he was then fully free at the Age of Maturity (15) to choose his own religious path, which he did without our interference!

And substantially less prejudice (pre-judging) on your part might well enhance your understanding of this.

Bruce

Zhang

Guys, relax, Iconodule knows so much that he even knows how we would feel in relationships. In fact, I might just stop doing things for myself since Icon already knows what I am going to do, before I do it! Mash'Allah! What are next weeks lottery numbers?

Good thing the Orthodox Church isn't shoving young-earth creationism down kids throats anymore! ...Wait...

As per the topic, I think it's important that you discuss with your partner and ensure that you are 100% on board. Religion is such a deeply personal thing, it transcends family in a way, and often is the source of great unity and separation between husband and wife, mother and child.

Do keep us informed, let us know if you have any questions about the faith, we have lots of answers!

-张

Iconodule

So teaching the children to worship God, to know God, to love God? Is immoral and should not happen? Is this what you are saying ahanu? I hope not. If you consider this indoctrination and you consider it immoral then clearly we are different. You are secularist who will suffer the children to come to Christ, I want the children to come to Christ and not bar them from him as Christ himself said.

Bruce, I sincerely doubt you taught him anything comprehensive as regaruds to Christianity and indeed most likely gave biased and flavoured opinions towards Christianity toward him. As Indeed if I had a child I would clearly tell them what I think of Bahai or islam and teach them the truth of Christianity.

As for your comment Zhang, what do you mean by Young earth creationism? Certaintly there are creationists within the orthodox church, but this is a matter of theologumnia of opinion. I am not a Creationist but I am an Orthodox Christian and that aspect is but the least significant in terms of Christian theology. Really it is. And Zhang, do things for yourself, but just be smart about them.

ahanu

If I had a child, I would teach them how to think, not what to think. This is what I am saying.

ahanu

Let's review.

In post #128 in the thread about homosexuality, you wrote:

Creationists accept "the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed." The fall presumes nature fell from something--in this case, a perfect world, a world without homosexuality. The fall presumes creationism; the fall can't exist in an evolutionary universe.

Iconodule

Oh you would indoctrinate an understanding of the world which prohibited miracles and things beyond science right? You would not teach your child to give glory to God? How sad.

Now lets define a creationist, someone who traditionally holds to a literal six day creation event as describe in the first two chapters of the book of genesis within the Old testament. I do not hold that it is exactly literal. I do however believe it is inidicative of the fact that God did create the world and ordered it in such a manner as to exclude homosexuality as being valid. Ali Nuri would probably agree with this, but maybe the pre existent manifestation who saw the creation of the world was wrong on this as well. So please learn what I actually believe before forcing a position on me.

Seriously bahai have some obsession with southern fundamentalist baptists or something.

ahanu

Your definition of creationism is too narrow. Creationism can be defined various ways, because there are various types of creationism: Young Earth creationism, gap creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design, and theistic evolution. Usually, when I think of the word creationism, I think of biblicists rejecting evolution because of the Book of Genesis, so I said you are a creationists. I usually don't like to call myself a creationist because of the negative connotations with the word, such as antiscience. If we accept the various types above as creationism, though, I would fall into the theistic evolution category:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.

Now, following the definition above, I'm a creationist too. This would mean my definition of creationism in the previous post was too narrow also.

I did learn what you actually believe before "forcing" a position on you. You believe in the fall, no? This is what you wrote. An evolutionary universe can't fit in the framework of the fall, at least not one in which sin--imperfection--all of a sudden entered the world, which is what you suggest when you claim homosexuality did not exist until the fall.

Then you're a creationists . . .

LordOfGoblins

You are my hero..

ahanu

You're not listening. I said I would teach my child how to think, not what to think. I would provide plenty of resources on both views, and the child would have to reach his or her own conclusion.



And I accept some things beyond science. The afterlife would be an example. Now who is forcing positions on the other?

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule Bruce, I sincerely doubt you taught him anything comprehensive as regaruds to Christianity....

Sigh.

Yet another statement from ignorance, given that you have NOT ONCE attended such a class! (Nor did I say that _I_ taught him.)

But then, why am I not surprised?


Bruce

Iconodule

Your definition is too vast and misleading, to the point you would have to say that Bishop Lazar of the Canadian orthodox church monastery is a creationist, despite his adamant belief and defence of the scientificid theory of evolution. So no, creationist has a meaning that contemporary culture understands Ahanu and you forcing it onto Christians would inevitably lead this title forced on to bahai such as yourself, unless you reject God creating the universe. In which case you have basically rendered the term useless and meaningless. And no Im not a creationist, but you’ve just essentially redefined the term for the vast use of it.

Ahanu you would have to teach them what to think at certain times, or are you saying you will not teach your children right from wrong? That certain things are evil? That you will alow them to consider the morality of stealing first? Remember you won't teach them what to think so you cannot punish them for immorality. This neccesarily follows.

Bruce, given your knowledge of Christianity I have submit you are in no position to teach it to anyone.

arthra

Baha'is do have an obligation to raise their children in the values of our Faith... It's also encouraged to introduce the children to a variety of religions so they can learn about them and respect them...I raised four children..three sons and a daughter.. and exposed them to a wide variety of religions as they matured. When they reached the age of maturity all decided to be Baha'is.

Baha'is have a concept that a child at fifteen years of age reaches what we call the "age of maturity"...at this age the child can decide for themselves what they want to do in terms of faith and other issues..

Reaching the Age of Maturity -- Fifteen

Upon attaining the age of fifteen a child becomes spiritually mature and is responsible for stating on his own behalf whether or not he wishes to remain a member of the Bahá'í community. If he does not then reaffirm his faith, he must be treated, administratively, as a non-Bahá'í.

Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, dated December 12, 1975

(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

ahanu

Then why is Harry Rimmer called a creationist?

Harry Rimmer (1890–1952) was an American creationist, evangelist and writer of anti-evolution pamphlets. He is most prominent as an early pioneer in the creationist movement in the United States.

Rimmer contended in some of his writings and lectures that there might have been several million years that could be squeezed between the first and third verses of the first chapter of Genesis, a position now described as "Gap Creationism" and one that is rejected by adherents of the Young Earth creationist view. Rimmer was particularly interested in the Noachian Flood and Joshua's long day. Rimmer maintained that the Flood in Genesis was only a local flood, another view that is inconsistent with young-earth creationism.

If you're tired of Wikipedia, do a quick search of Time.com:

Darwin's theory has been a hard sell to Americans ever since it was unveiled nearly 150 years ago in The Origin of Species. The intelligent-design movement is just the latest and most sophisticated attempt to discredit the famous theory, which many Americans believe leaves insufficient room for the influence of God. Early efforts to thwart Darwin were pretty crude. Tennessee famously banned the teaching of evolution and convicted schoolteacher John Scopes of violating that ban in the "monkey trial" of 1925. At the time, two other states--Florida and Oklahoma--had laws that interfered with teaching evolution. When such laws were struck down by a Supreme Court decision in 1968, some states shifted gears and instead required that "creation science" be taught alongside evolution. Supreme Court rulings in 1982 and 1987 put an end to that. Offering creationism in public schools, even as a side dish to evolution, the high court held, violated the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

But some anti-Darwinists seized upon Justice Antonin Scalia's dissenting opinion in the 1987 case. Christian fundamentalists, he wrote, "are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools." That line of argument--an emphasis on weaknesses and gaps in evolution--is at the heart of the intelligent-design movement, which has as its motto "Teach the controversy." "You have to hand it to the creationists. They have evolved," jokes Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., which monitors attacks on the teaching of evolution.

Let's get a definition from an authoritative source. Since Eugenie Scott is the executive director of the National Center of Science Education, I decided to check it out, to see if they have defined creationism. Here's their definition:

"Creationism" refers to the religious belief in a supernatural deity or force that intervenes, or has intervened, directly in the physical world. Within that broad scope, there are many varieties of creationist belief. Some forms of creationism hold that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth. Such "anti-evolution" creationists have been leading opposition to the teaching of evolution since the 1920s.

For more than two decades, the National Center for Science Education has been opposing efforts by creationists to weaken or block the teaching of evolution. This section of our website offers articles about anti-evolution creationist movements, critiques of creationist writings, and collections of materials on the leading lawsuits over efforts to teach creationism or to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Please note: the term creationism as used in this section refers to anti-evolution creationism. For perspectives on meanings of creationism in theological contexts, please see the Science and Religion section.

Seems like creationism, as I posted above, is hard to define because of the broad spectrum of beliefs out there. For example, Intelligent Design is defined as a form of creationism:

"'Intelligent Design' creationism (IDC) is a successor to the 'creation science' movement, which dates back to the 1960s. The IDC movement began in the middle 1980s as an antievolution movement which could include young earth, old earth, and progressive creationists; theistic evolutionists, however, were not welcome. The movement increased in popularity in the 1990s with the publication of books by law professor Phillip Johnson and the founding in 1996 of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (now the Center for Science and Culture.) The term "intelligent design" was adopted as a replacement for "creation science," which was ruled to represent a particular religious belief in the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987.

IDC proponents usually avoid explicit references to God, attempting to present a veneer of secular scientific inquiry. IDC proponents introduced some new phrases into anti-evolution rhetoric, such as "irreducible complexity" (Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box, 1996) and "specified complexity" (William Dembski: The Design Inference, 1998), but the basic principles behind these phrases have long histories in creationist attacks on evolution. Underlying both of these concepts, and foundational to IDC itself, is an early 19th century British theological view, the "argument from design."

The essence of the argument from design is that highly complex phenomena (such as the structure of the vertebrate eye) demonstrate the direct action of the hand of God. Modern ID proponents typically substitute cellular or sub-cellular structures (such as the rotor motor of a bacterium's whip-like flagellum) for anatomical complexity, but make the same argument: the appearance of complexity in nature categorically cannot be explained through natural causes; it requires the guidance of an "intelligent agent."

Following Phillip Johnson's lead, IDC promoters focus less on "proving" creationism and more on rejecting evolution and redefining science to make it more compatible with their version of Christianity. IDC advocates attack evolution as a way of attacking science itself because they believe it is the foundation of materialist philosophy. This strategy is explicitly laid out in The Wedge, a fund raising document from the Center for Science and Culture that set forth the group's "Governing Goals":


* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Although in the 1990s IDC advocates had encouraged the teaching of ID in public school science classes as an alternative to evolution, in the early 2000s they shifted their strategy. IDCs currently concentrate their efforts on attacking evolution. Under innocuous-sounding guises such as "academic freedom," "critical analysis of evolution," or "teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution," IDCs attempt to encourage teachers to teach students wrongly that there is a "controversy" among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. So-called "evidence against evolution" or "weaknesses of evolution" consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier.

Clearly, with an in-depth understanding of the history of creationism, the people in the National Center of Science Education reject your narrow definition of creationism, which you define as "someone who traditionally holds to a literal six day creation event as describe in the first two chapters of the book of genesis within the Old testament." I'm now revising my definition. (^_^)

Emilia

My husband was an agnostic (raised Catholic) when we married. He had respect for the Baha'i Faith but just hadn't found a reason to believe in God. I could respect he was acting out of integrity. I mean what is he supposed to pretend to believe something he doesn't?

Some important things that helped us:

1. Especially as I was an atheist for some years, I know better than to do anything that could be even vaguely considered teaching at home. A person has a reasonable expectation at home not to be pressured to even investigate, much less join, a faith they do not adhere to. I accepted that he may or may not even investigate the faith, much less find a time when it made sense for him to join. This doesn't mean I didn't speak about anything concerning my faith -- it's a part of my life. Just not in a way that he would feel pressured into thinking the price of staying married was pretending to be someone he was not.

2. He respected the goals and values of my faith and had no objection to joining in raising any kids we had by teaching them religious values.

3. Whatever interference we might get from grandparents, we were in agreement that WE were the parents and ultimately would decide, and we weren't going to let the grandparents dictate any religious choices for our family. As it happens it was only my mother who even attempted such a thing (not a surprise really) but I know how to work around her pretty easily so we managed. But family unity (and that means you and your spouse) is essential especially in interfaith marriages.


I will say just as a matter of being a realist that during the time he was an agnostic I did miss out somewhat on Baha'i life, and missed the fact there were aspects of my life that I couldn't really share with him. But again being a realist I also knew that if I didn't marry him the odds are about 100% I would've remained single, so hey. *shrug*

Nowadays the kids are in their early 20s, both declared when they were 15, and my husband declared some years ago (about 18 years after we were married). I still don't know what caused the changed, but if he wants to share that sometime he knows where to find me. Otherwise, well, as a friend of mine would say, "It can wait till the next life!"

LordOfGoblins

he wont tell you?
Is he tormenting/ teasing you?
I dont understand..

ahanu

Good questions, Iconodule!

I would have to stay in the middle on this issue. As usual, I think your views are too extreme, for you wrote: "if I had a child I would clearly tell them what I think of Bahai or islam and teach them the truth of Christianity."

I would just make sure they know how to access factual information on various religions and philosphies, make sure they have access to factual information on various religions and philosophies, and make sure they can think about--compare and contrast, for example--factual information on various religions and philosophies.

As for teaching moral and immoral issues, if you teach kids what to think and punish them for deviating from your moral standards, then they learn to follow those moral standards because they fear their punishing teacher, not because they desire to follow those moral standards for the sake of following them because it pleases them on the inside. As with religion, I would make sure they know how to access factual information on various moral issues, make sure they have access to factual information on various moral issues, and make sure they can think about--compare and contrast, for example--factual information on various moral issues.

How can they learn what is factual information? They can learn what sources to go to, so this would involve teaching children how to find good sources for factual information.

As for very, very young children, I would have to model acceptable moral standards for them. At a very young age, I don't see a reason to teach them about theology from different religious systems.

Emilia

Oh, he just hasn't told me. He's a personality type that is intensely private (INTP if you know your Myers-Briggs at all) and that's just the way he is, and it doesn't bother me that he's that way.

And I haven't asked, just because he is that private a person, and he might think it intrusive of me.

Really, I'll find out soon enough anyway. As my friend says, "Next Life!"

Emilia

This is what we did. This is likely easier for a Baha'i though, seeing it's not exactly an exclusive sort of theology.

To be fair to Iconodule, if his faith *is* exclusive (and it is), I'm not sure how he could *not* tell his children what he thinks of other religions, because that is an inextricable part of his theology.

Like I said, I was raised a Calvinist. Don't take this as a reflection on the worth of Calvinism, but it was presented in a way that was all about being punished for not adhering to the Party Line, and partly that resulted in my becoming an athiest at a very young age. Like uh...about the developmental stage where you first understand logical principles.

Parents beware of demanding blind faith of your children. They may end up with no faith at all.

They aren't yet able to comprehend the explanations anyway. You'll only bore them if you try.

But young children sure do notice how their parents act and they will model that behaviour.

Iconodule

Ahanu, I simply say that this is the most consistent way to live. That this is the most Godly way to live. We know from the old testament that it was expected of parents to teach the next generation the ways of God, the Law of the Torah and how to worship God. They were not secularist. Christians likewise have always had a firm tradition of expecting the parents to rear their children in the faith, to give catechism (this is why infants were baptised). Islam likewise within its tradition has held that children ought be taught the correct faith (ie islam) and even islam itself would teach that everyone is born muslim (which is a silly belief) but it illustrates an important point within the history of these religions that the bahai so radically differ from them in their understanding (ironically claiming to be apart of the same tradition as these religions). Instead of God they have taken to secularism. God is now taboo for the child to learn or worship, except if they do it on their own. No we would much rather force on our child something poltically correct like tablemanners. If God truly is the greatest and most powerful and most loving being imaginable, how can we keep our children from him? How can we keep the children from coming to Christ? As a Christian the answer is clear, we cannot prohibit the children to Christ, we will teach them the truth of Christ that they might be more than the secularist. That Christ is the light of the world and that this truth is made clear. The Opinions of mere men are nothing to God.

Now Ahanu this would be the central problem you face. That its either the standards of God, (is God not true to you? Is God not worthy of your children?) or it is the standard of the modern age, which the bahai have eagerly and foolishly embraced I believe.
But Ahanu, in only making available moral references, of which you will never teach them anything or give any commentary on, you leave them open to a world in which they might literally embrace anything. Vile things like incest, perhaps they will come to the conclusion on their own that they love each other as Brother and sister and think it right and natural to do this thing, or maybe they might become the next Omar Khadr. Perhaps. We are only dealing however with hypotheticals. You cannot rear a child without telling them at somepoint some facet of your beliefs and saying this is fact. You as a moral person would not hesitate I imagine to say that 911 was an evil thing perpetrated by extreme muslims, or would you in fear of influencing your children say that you can’t comment on the morality of what happened? Quite simply Ahanu I don’t believe you when you say you would raise a child without indoctrinating them. This is impossible, at somepoint you have to talk to them about these things you will influence them no matter what you do. A valiant effort to try and convince me you can, but quite frankly I think its impossible, unless you give the children up for adoption, then they are at the mercy of whoever rears them, maybe some sweet catholic nun. This is not inherently a bad thing as I believe bahai are capable of raising good children. Though I would question some who raise children, like the Islamic extremists.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule Bruce, given your knowledge of Christianity I have submit [sic] you are in no position to teach it to anyone.

And given your gross ignorance of my background and my many related activities in that framework, YOU are clearly in no position to judge!!--me or anybody else.

Bruce

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule Instead of God [the Baha'is] have taken to secularism.

Ahanu, ever notice how popular the Big Lie Technique remains? :-(

Peace,

Bruce

Iconodule

When bahais insist that they will not teach their children to worship God and instead only give them knowledge of various religions and hope they come to bahai, I can only but say they have embraced the modern age of secularism over the law of God. You scarcely ignore the fact hat the faiths you claim to be in line with all taught their children to worship GOd, to obey God, to love God and to know God. But you will only give them knowledge you won't tell them they ought worship God. I find it a bad practice.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule When bahais insist that they will not teach their children to worship God . . .

In over 41 years as a Baha'i, I have heard no Baha'i make any such claim!

Simply more distortion and half-truth. :-(

Bruce

ruby

Thank you for your advice. I could not agree more. Both my partners (Baha'i) views and mine (agnostic) will be shared with and instilled in our children. The concern is more around in-laws not showing respect for and honouring our difference in beliefs. Though having said that, my partner and I communicate well and are very supportive and understanding of one another, so I am sure we will work through these issues, if and when they arise.

ruby

Well said Bruce. I found that persons response extremely narrow minded and clearly unhelpful to me, given the valid questions I asked. Fortunately we all have the right as adults to choose for ourselves and a marriage with someone who such limiting views and intolerance, could never work.

ruby

That's an extreme example, which is not part of my question. It is possible with love and respect to raise children (in my case) to understand their fathers Baha'i faith and be exposed to it... whilst also understanding and respecting my beliefs (I am not religious).... respecting blended faiths is possible.

ruby

"You indoctrinate your children from the moment they begin life."

This attitude and belief is toxic. Read what you've said... you actually believe you have a right to brainwash. You believe your faith is right and the truth (you have no proof of this) and others are therefore wrong? Is it any wonder, a growing number of people have no time or tolerance for people with extreme religious views like this.

ruby

As I explained.... my partner is Baha'i and I am not. Our rights as parents, surpass any faiths rules and expectations... Any children we have will be raised to understand both our views. They will not be raised Baha'i. When they are old enough... (age is not relevant and pre-determined by any faith), they will naturally decide for themselves. Are you saying because my partner is Baha'i, my beliefs are not relevant and Bahai' faith expects our child/children be raised int he Baha'i faith alone?

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruby [to a third party] Are you saying because my partner is Baha'i, my beliefs are not relevant and Bahai' faith expects our child/children be raised in the Baha'i faith alone?

That isn't what he said, and is in no way what the Baha'i Faith teaches and practices!

Peace, :-)

Bruce