Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting study. It seems the study was designed to cast a negative light on religious people in general, but if you really look into the numbers it gives some very revealing information about muslim children in particular.
Odd that you changed the title of the article in order to suite, some prejudicial view in regards to Muslims versus Christians.
The gist of that study is that being secular/non-religious is better for children in regards to being altruistic. Both Muslims and Chrsitian children were worse than secular/non-religious children.
There have been a few studies on this sort of topic. All of them cite that secular children are usually much more empathetic to the plight of others than religious children. They are also less likely to be bullies versus children reared with a religious upbringing.
As a secular humanist raising children, I actually can see that in my own daily life. I teach my children that everyone's views should be respected. I also teach them that they should do the "right" things in life based on their reasons and the way their actions may affect others, not to do the "right" things because they are afraid of a deity. Morality, is not linked to being religious. Most non-religious people are much kinder than religious persons due to not having as many prejudices. This of course will show up in child hood.
From the article:
Quote:
Muslim children judged “interpersonal harm as more mean” than children from Christian families, with non-religious children the least judgmental. Muslim children demanded harsher punishment than those from Christian or non-religious homes.
At the same time, the report said that religious parents were more likely than others to consider their children to be “more empathetic and more sensitive to the plight of others”.
In regards to the blue it is interesting that the parents of the children feel their kids are more empathetic than other children. Probably because they associate a religious upbringing with empathy. IMO religion is a huge barrier to empathy for many as the adherents are empathetic first and foremost to followers of their particular religion and second to people who they feel they can convert to their religion. If you are neither, then most religious people IMO are not empathetic to your plight. A secular person would be since they do not see "god's punishment" as a reason for someone's trials and tribulations in life for the most part.
The gist of that study is that being secular/non-religious is better for children in regards to being altruistic. Both Muslims and Chrsitian children were worse than secular/non-religious children.
Yes, but of the two, the study indicates that Muslims were worse than Christians.
Odd that you changed the title of the article in order to suite, some prejudicial view in regards to Muslims versus Christians.
Not so odd, really. The entire study was based on a prejudicial point of view to begin with. Why would it ever occur to someone to even conduct such a study unless there was some sort of ideological motivation involved? My title is as accurate at the title chosen by both the Daily Mail and the authors of the report themselves. Their wording does not portray a lack prejudice it portrays a different one.
And for the record I do not prejudge, I discriminate.
Teen Hitler was very very religious, maybe we should just kill all the religious teens and make the world a better place.
Secular ideologies killed as many if not more people than religious ones in the 20th century, so let's just kill off all teens and children who are either religious or non religious and make the world an empty place.
Secular ideologies killed as many if not more people than religious ones in the 20th century, so let's just kill off all teens and children who are either religious or non religious and make the world an empty place.
I've heard this line before and do you know why I don't like: It's broad a ****. Literally, anything can be secular. To say someone killed for a secular reason is really just saying they killed for a non-religion one. Do you see how unhelpful it is to point to the Nazis and Soviets in your childish attempt to hide the fact that religion creates more violence than anything?
Look at Hitler. Sure, what he was doing was by definition secular. He was not doing it to appease a supreme being. But was he doing it in the name of not doing it in a supreme being? To label it as secular is basically ignoring every other factor, because when you consider those factors, it being secular becomes extremely unimportant.
Instead of carrying children frequently to public worship, I should prefer
simply to conduct them upon great days in nature or in human life into the
empty church, and show them the holy place for adults. To this I might add
twilight, night, the organ, the hymn, the priest, exhortation; and so by a mere
walk through the building, a more serious impression might remain in their young
hearts than after a whole year of common church routine. 'Jean Paul Richter
Why would it ever occur to someone to even conduct such a study unless there was some sort of ideological motivation involved?
What... simply wanting to know isn't enough motivation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
