Well, because there is a clear distinction between what I want and what’s expected of me most of the time. I prefer doing things on my own, and can in many cases, though admittedly not all. I think most of us are fairly independent and can take care of ourselves (put aside the young, old, and disabled). Society usually takes away from this, though, especially the larger it is and the more we become smaller parts of the whole, but this can also mean more security within it.
That if we somehow got all the flat earth people to come live in your neighborhood, that the shape of the earth would become “controversial” in your neighborhood… yet somehow I still can’t imagine you NOT teaching your kid that the earth is round… and I can’t imagine you feeling guilty about it either.
So if your kid asked you about the shape of the planet you’d tell him to make up his own mind AFTER giving him ALL the arguments from both sides?
I feel sorry for the kid… he could have been outside playing but now he has to ponder the arguments of crazy people because you wanted to make a point on a philosophy forum!
While the concepts of honne and tatemae or “reality as you personally believe it” and “reality as you are expected to believe it” are extreme in the Japanese case, the notion of such a distinction is transcultural. We all have duties that demand that tatemae take precedence over honne, we do that sort of thing all the time! Religious faith can fall under that banner as easily as anything else.
As for being independent, I don’t see how anyone living in the modern world could claim to be independent to any degree. We eat food that we didn’t grow (and increasingly didn’t even prepare) on plates we did not make using utensils we did not make. The food, in turn, was grown using tools the farmer did not make (the tractor, the fertilizer, often the seeds are purchased elsewhere), and so on. We have others with whom we cohabitate (even a person living alone in a studio apartment has neighbors), others with whom we work and upon whom we rely to perform our work, and so on.
As for people being able to live on their own and society strips that from them – have you read “Into the Wild”? It doesn’t end well . . .
Of course I would teach my kid the Earth is round. I just wouldn’t feel I have to present it in a “we’re right/they’re wrong” manner.
I wouldn’t tell him to make up his own mind explicitely. If the subject was a controversial one, and if I thought it was in his best interest to hear both sides of the argument, I would present both sides but I would still explain to him why I think we (our family/community) are right. However, if he came of age and decided to believe in the flat-earth side, I wouldn’t stand in his way except maybe to argue the matter over with him and persuade him back to our side, but I wouldn’t be such a tyrranical father as to insist that our side is right, like dogma, and if he doesn’t agree then I’ll disown him or something. At the end of the day, he’s still my child and I’ll respect his views despite how much I disagree with them.
Better that than living in fear of being disowned the minute he disagrees with his father.
Exactly, that was my point about a large society full of professions and career specific duties rather than a smaller one that is self-sufficient and communally focused. We are independent souls but are incapable of acting out our autonomy within the endless paradigms of modernity.
Lol, have you seen indigenous landbase living? We’ve survived it for thousands of years… and now suddenly we have to have civilization to survive, and healthily and happily at that? I don’t buy it.
Anywho, that swerved off-topic.
But Xun is right, religion is just one little aspect of a broader spectrum of societal indoctrination that is really inevitable.
It’s a good point. Apart from the fact that this discussion is specifically limited to the topic of religion (since to broaden it would make it completely unwieldy), I think we can still single out religion as different in the way you’re saying we cannot. Religion is not just an academic subject, like mathematics, biology and history. Religion is a way of life, and its impact on how human beings conduct their lives is far more profound than their ‘indoctrination’ into the methodology of long division, say. Religion is therefore special in this particular respect because of the special degree to which it affects people.
By the way, I’m perfectly happy to limit the dialogue to evangelical Christianity, if you insist it makes my position more honest. In fact, my point applies equally to all organised religion in principle, though it may well be less relevant to some than it is to Christianity (and indeed more, to others). I only single out Christianity because that’s the faith I happen to know most about.
I do take your excellent general point about the limitations of our free choice and the nature of informed knowledge, which I found erudite and compelling. Indeed, no man is an island, and all our ‘choices’ are hardly ever truly free. However, my particular point here still stands, in that the parent/child influential relationship is, pertinently here, one of massive inequality. A parent can very easily deprive his child of the freedom to choose to adopt a religious belief in a way that he could not with another adult, say. His particular advantage, in this specific respect, is his child’s inherent vulnerability.
Please understand my argument is not against indoctrination, per se, which, as you point out is not only universal but also necessary. My point here is strictly limited to the indoctrination of religious belief, which I feel should be a matter of free personal choice and not influenced by deliberate external influence serving its own agenda. The fact that Christians themselves claim that this free choice is important to their ideology only affirms my stance. But in any case, I make a special plea about religious indoctrination in this regard since I feel it is a basic moral right that we should all have the unimpeded and uninfluenced freedom to elect for ourselves whatever we believe in when it affects our own lives as profoundly as religion does (for better or worse).
The reasons you state, for why a person might rightly be obliged to adopt a religion, are contrary to the central tenets of Christianity, in which duty to family, country (where an official religion has been established) is superseded by a duty to God. That is a matter of Commandment. The other reason you suggest- that by being religious the person may procure food or museum artefacts- is a gross and somewhat hilarious perversion of Christianity’s own principles!
Your definition of what makes a person a nominal Christian is fine- I’m sure people are called Christian for even more dubious and arbitrary reasons than those. What actually matters, of course, is how the individual identifies himself, since true Christianity is a truly personal faith. In that respect, whether they are ‘saved’ is indeed as crucial (pun intended) to them as you claim, based on your own disbelief, it isn’t.
Your claim that a baby can be a ‘Christian’ baby simply by virtue of your labelling it so (according to its parents’ beliefs and whatever rituals it may be subjected to) is extraordinarily presumptuous of what is actually important in an individual’s personal religious beliefs. If I were a Christian, I’m sure I’d find your idea of what makes me one not only ignorant but also mildly offensive. Christians are not Christian by virtue of how others engage with them (except in a very narrow and almost useless sense of the term). They are Christians by virtue of their personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Hell, if that’s how it works, I hereby unilaterally pronounce you a Christian! So there!
I agree that religion is a way of life but I also think that many of the ways which it impacts lives is transcultural. There is an inner core of rules for conduct that are almost without exception universal. This makes a great deal of sense since these are also the rules that line up nicely with universal human moral grammar. After that, there are the rules that deal with the conditions in which the religion developed. Agricultural vs. urban, settled vs. nomadic, and so on. The next shell, and the one that often gets the most press, is the one that is used to distinguish in-group from out-group.
But those also tend to be important and defining characteristics of a culture. Choosing that sort of thing when one is grown is far too late. One is raised and indoctrinated in such things from an early age for a reason – otherwise we’d be savages!
Fair enough.
But that inequality is largely what defines the parent-child relationship. That inequality is the essence of the relationship. The parents have a duty to provide for the children during times of vulnerability and to help them develop into the best individual (within their cultural matrix) that they can be. Their experience is what allows them to be that guide. Their religion, irrespective of its fundamental truth, is an important part of that experience.
Well, I don’t think we ought have that uninfluenced freedom since that would demand uninfluenced freedom in other areas. If religion were a minor issue, off in a corner all by itself, what you are saying would make sense. But it isn’t, as you recognize.
Is it? Then why the soup kitchens? The missions? And all manner of other sources of conversion? These also play vital social roles, of course. There needs to be resources for the poor to diminish social strain. There need to be cross-cultural outreach programs to transcend parochialism, and so on. But I don’t see those as being inauthentic or going against the central tenets of religions like Christianity unless we accept the theological foundations of Christianity as being true. Since I don’t, those points are moot.
Self-identification rarely means much. For example, megalomania is most common amongst societal rejects and depressives. Because of that self-identification, are depressives and societal rejects therefore the most important people in existence? I don’t think so. Self-identification is meaningless unless it is attached to a larger group with mutual recognition.
I don’t think religious adherence is synonymous with personal religious belief. As for having a personal relationship with Jesus, that assumes that Jesus exists. Since I reject that claim, I can’t well incorporate that into my conception of what it is to be Christian. So instead I look to the social aspects of Christianity. That overt, outward manifestation is what is real and what I engage as real. The rest is just fluff.
I’ve been treated as a Christian many times in my life. As an American, that is a normal and expected part of the narrative. In America, being a Christian is “normal” and being non-Christian is “odd”. Internationally, Americans are “Christians” and so the notion of a non-Christian American is really strange. And this makes a lot of sense. The overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian and American culture is heavily influenced by Christian thinking. I’ve said before on this site that because I was raised in America, I am in many ways culturally Christian.
Such assumptions do eventually break down and often in rather spectacular ways. I’ve been in a fair number of social situations that have become awkward because people assumed I was Christian and when it was revealed that I was not, well, that sort of disconnect is what socially awkward situations are made of. When we engage another person, we have a model of how that person is. When that model breaks down, well, it is hard on everybody. What can you do?
If everyone engaged me as Christian, especially those closest to me (girlfriends, family, good friends, and so on) then I would be a Christian irrespective of my own feelings. What are those anyway? So much fluff, that is all.
Xunzian, thank you very much for your post. I think we’re in close agreement about some of this- I guess we’re bound to be, sharing an apparently similar non-theistic worldview- especially your observation of the cultural and societal characteristics of religion.
However, I’m still struggling with two particular aspects of your argument:
A) that a person’s religion is an inevitable and immutable component of his socio-cultural makeup (especially his upbringing), and:
B) that the essential inevitability (and moral good) of parental indoctrination in general justifies the specific indoctrination of religion.
Reference point A). Yes, our individual cultural identity is influenced by many factors, from genetic heritance, through societal and cultural influence, to parental indoctrination. A newborn child is not an absolute tabula rasa since we’re hardwired to be predisposed to religious conception, and if I may propose a metaphorical cup of coffee, then a baby’s genetic template is the water that carries the ingredients. Our societal and cultural influence is then the coffee grains, and parental upbringing is the cream. Stir it all up, and you have your mixture. So far so good, but you also seem to be suggesting that, because it’s impossible to take the indoctrinated solutes out of the coffee it makes no effective difference whether the parent adds sugar or salt.
And what about apostasy? And conversion? Many people brought up to be devout Christians defect to atheism or another religious faith, suggesting the solutes are in fact removable from the coffee. [In fact, I’ve seen this same point offered as a refutation of my charge that the parental indoctrination of religion is immoral (on the basis that the indoctrinated child is anyway free to reject his religion as an adult), which is of course nonsense.]
Reference point B). You seem to be suggesting religious indoctrination is morally justified if a parent feels it’s in the best interests of his child. This is probably the strongest argument against the immorality of parental indoctrination, but I’m not at all persuaded by it.
Again, my point about the inequality of the parent/child relationship is not that it’s bad in itself, but that by means of it harm may be done- deliberately or inadvertently. Even if a parent is convinced they’re doing what’s best for their child, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are, and I posit their ‘cultural matrix’ is no moral mitigation in this respect.
Take for extreme example, physical abuse. Evidently, parents who abuse their children are often victims of parental abuse themselves, so their cultural matrix is clearly causal. But this does not magically cure the immorality of their abuse of their child. Likewise with religion- just because it’s an essential component of the cultural matrix and therefore a dissolved ingredient of the child’s coffee, it doesn’t necessarily follow that its parent-child propagation is morally good. Salt and sugar.
On a slight tangent, I still don’t understand your view of how people might morally be obliged to adopt a religion- even if it avails them of food or some other advantage. Food may be given to the hungry without obligation. Indeed, it’s grotequely immoral to demand the adoption of religion in exchange for charity. Furthermore, whether or not you happen to accept the theological foundations of Christianity as being true, authentic charity requires that soup should be unconditionally free for the hungry. I don’t see this is a moot point.
I’m enthralled by your definition of what makes a person a Christian. I object to it in so many ways I should probably start a separate thread. The (personal) criteria you astonishingly discard as ‘fluff’ comprises the only true measure of religious identity- notwithstanding self-delusion or megalomania. You cannot make me a Christian by your perspective of me, in any context of where I live, say, or even by which church I attend. My personal identity is mine alone (and my Christianity is between me and Christ), not yours to decide by your rather spurious observation and judgement of it. Your suggestion otherwise is at best silly and at worst chauvinistic, as indeed you yourself know from your experience of wrongly being labelled (by virtue of your Americanness) a Christian. It’s preposterous that you can be somehow made into a Christian by the manner of the engagement of those around you! You cannot make a duck out of a fish just by assuming, because it lives in a lake, it quacks.
It isn’t that, so much as it is that I find indoctrination to be a morally neutral activity. What the child is being indoctrinated in does matter but I haven’t seen a case made that religion in general or specific religions like Evangelical Christianity are bad. What I have seen put forward is that indoctrination is bad because it restricts the freedom of the indoctrinated but since I don’t value that freedom I can’t see a problem with indoctrination in general.
Sure, but a lot of those conversions are based on factors relating to the indoctrination of youth and their rejection of it. Many atheists (and I daresay nearly all of the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens “New Atheists”) have a beef with religion as it relates to their upbringing so their atheism is more than a rejection of traditional beliefs but also of the traditional society embodied by their parents. Likewise, conversions reflect a change of circumstances. The snake-handling Baptism that was suitable for a person in a small town would be out of place in a large city and so a conversion is done to adapt to those situations. Isolated Mukyōkai-style Christianity is popular in South Korea but South Korean ex-pats will convert to a sect that very much does have a building so as to maintain contact with the Korean community. People can and do switch around for a variety of reasons. But I don’t really see what this has to do with much of anything.
Yes, but I haven’t seen a case put forward that religion is equivalent to child abuse aside from a restriction of the freedom of choice which I’ve already argued isn’t as morally loaded a concept as one might initially think.
Things may be given without obligation, sure. But they rarely are. The “free food” at charities comes with a sermon and thanking Lord Jesus for the food. Noblesse oblige builds devotion.
I disagree with the bolded portion. That is likely where the rest of our disagreements stem from. Though I will point out that you yourself seem to disagree with your own conception of the self and personal identity since you’ve already started making exceptions for it. A model with gaping holes at first glance is rarely a model that is good for much.
As for being wrongly labelled a Christian, where did I say the label was wrong? I admitted that because of my Americanness, I am in many ways a cultural Christian. Now, the model does break down after a while and that can result in shock on the part of the person employing that model but I can’t say it has ever negatively impacted me. Unless you count the occasional awkward situation but, really, come on. That isn’t a terrible thing.
Xunzian, I apologise for the ‘gaping holes’ in my model. Discussing philosophical matters with me is doubtless a most frustrating experience for those who do know what they’re talking about, because I generally don’t. Although my interest in these matters is genuine and passionate, I’m extremely poorly educated in epistemology and philosophy, and my powers of ordinary reason are puny and highly vulnerable to argument. However, I try to make up for that with my enthusiasm, and beg you to indulge (or at least forgive) me.
This is perfectly sensible to me- thank you for your patience in explaining your position. I agree the immorality or otherwise of indoctrination depends largely on whatever harm is caused by it. My sweepingly general view is that religion is often harmful, and therefore indoctrinating children into it is generally immoral. But if you see no harm in people being religious, you surely wouldn’t see any immorality in their being indoctrinated into it. As for the freedom of choice issue, well that’s a side dish at this table. I happen to disagree with your opinion that it has no value, but although I was the one to bring it up in the first place, I understand this is somewhat tangential here.
Well, the point I was trying to make about apostasy is that, whatever the circumstances or reasons for it, the fact that it happens would seem to disprove your earlier argument that, “Choosing that sort of thing [characteristics of a culture] when one is grown is far too late.” If our religion were an immutable part of our childhood-nurtured makeup, then we’d presumably have no freedom to convert or abandon our religion as adults. Which can’t be right. But it was a minor point.
Setting aside the freedom of choice thing, there are countless examples of harm caused by religion, to those who practice it and to others, directly and indirectly. As a specific example, consider the harm that has been caused to children obliged by their parents to sing in choirs run by paedophile priests. My main point, though, is highly general, viz. Religion can directly or indirectly cause harm, therefore indoctrinating a child into religion can directly or indirectly be harmful.
So what? This is irrelevant to my point, which was to refute your suggestion that people may legitimately be called a Christian if they happen to eat free soup, and that making such charity conditional in that way is contrary to the authentic Christian tradition.
I’d be grateful if you could unpack this a bit. How do you disagree with the bolded portion? How do I disagree with myself? I’ve had another look through what I’ve written, but I can’t see the exceptions you describe. I’m sure you’re right, but I’d like to see how (because I’m keen to learn, I assure you, not because my pride is wounded by my position being found inconsistent- that happens a lot, and I don’t get piqued by it).
You didn’t. But it is, isn’t it? I propose your Americanness in no way qualifies you as being Christian (except perhaps nominally, and that label is clearly wrong and also ludicrous). Your earlier suggestion, “If everyone engaged me as Christian, especially those closest to me (girlfriends, family, good friends, and so on) then I would be a Christian irrespective of my own feelings” is total nonsense, and this has nothing to do with any negative or positive impact of being so wrongly labelled. You may be labelled a Taoist monk, but that doesn’t make you one. You may be labelled Napoleon, but that doesn’t make you Napoleon. And labels aside, your saying that you’re a Christian because you’re an American is like me saying I’m a rhinoceros because I’m a mammal. Silly.
No need to be so self-effacing. I’m kind of a dick but my bark is worse than my bite. Stick around and you’ll see. 
I don’t know if it is tangential, but I do think it is a good area where we can agree to disagree. Sometimes, that is the best you can hope for: mutual understanding and mutual disagreement.
Fair point, I can see where it would look like I contradicted myself there. Heck, I may well have. Let’s see if we can synthesize what I’ve said (and tell me if you think I’ve missed a part that should be included here):
- I agree that religion is a way of life but I also think that many of the ways which it impacts lives is transcultural. There is an inner core of rules for conduct that are almost without exception universal. This makes a great deal of sense since these are also the rules that line up nicely with universal human moral grammar. After that, there are the rules that deal with the conditions in which the religion developed. Agricultural vs. urban, settled vs. nomadic, and so on. The next shell, and the one that often gets the most press, is the one that is used to distinguish in-group from out-group.
But those also tend to be important and defining characteristics of a culture. Choosing that sort of thing when one is grown is far too late. One is raised and indoctrinated in such things from an early age for a reason – otherwise we’d be savages!
- Sure, but a lot of those conversions are based on factors relating to the indoctrination of youth and their rejection of it. Many atheists (and I daresay nearly all of the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens “New Atheists”) have a beef with religion as it relates to their upbringing so their atheism is more than a rejection of traditional beliefs but also of the traditional society embodied by their parents. Likewise, conversions reflect a change of circumstances. The snake-handling Baptism that was suitable for a person in a small town would be out of place in a large city and so a conversion is done to adapt to those situations. Isolated Mukyōkai-style Christianity is popular in South Korea but South Korean ex-pats will convert to a sect that very much does have a building so as to maintain contact with the Korean community. People can and do switch around for a variety of reasons. But I don’t really see what this has to do with much of anything.
Synthesis) This is the line of thought I was following in my reply here: Religion is an important vector for the transmission of values. Some of these values are specific to certain cultures but many of them are transcultural in nature. Both of those feed into what makes a person civilized. Conversions, as I see them, are a reaction to those values. Sometimes it represents a rejection, other times a more fervent acceptance, and still other times a compromise between aspects of the complete value set that have come into conflict because of a changed situation. But all of those are still grounded in the values that were originally taught to the child by the parents. This is distinct from a person who has no value set and then later attempts to adopt one.
Now, I don’t want you to think that I think that religion is the only vector for values. There are plenty of other systems that can and have done this. But religion is good at doing this because a) it has survived the test of time and so it is able to account for human randomness that other more modern systems have more trouble with and b) the values of any given society tend to be phrased in the language of the dominant religion so why not go to the source material?
I’m generally suspicious of placing the blame directly on religion because I usually think there is a better answer. In this case, it is worth pointing out that between 1%-5% of the American population molests children and that around 2%-5% of Catholic priests are child molesters. It follows that priests are no more likely than any other member of the population to engage in child molestation.
Now, that doesn’t in any way mitigate the horror that we should rightly feel when someone abuses their power in the manner. Likewise, the cover-up the Church engaged in is truly evil.
But given the statistics, is it any more harmful to expose your child to a priest than it is any other random male? Teachers, Uncles, leaders of youth activities – these all come with some risk. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Given enough samples of hierarchical relationships and you will find members in the superior position abusing their power.
Is religion different from any other hierarchical system in this regard? I’m not sure it is. Furthermore, can we separate the abuse in religious institutions from the abuse in any other societal institution? We certainly feel more betrayed by abuses in the case of religious systems because they are the very institutions which are supposed to stand against that sort of thing. So they (rightfully) get hit hard because of the hypocrisy. But is the hypocrisy of having a normal failure rate damning?
What is the authentic Christian tradition and how does one determine whether someone is an authentic Christian?
So, you stated that your identity was yours alone. So the identification of being a Christian deals with your own perception of your relationship with Jesus. But you made an exception in this schema for depressives and social outcasts as it relates to megalomania, right? Race is another example where no matter what we may personally choose to identify as, our race is determined by social narratives outside of our own minds. So already we can see and agree that aspects of our identity, at the very least can be defined outside of the interior self. If there is an exterior aspect that does matter in these cases, it follows that our identity is not our own but rather a broader entity. We contribute many aspects to our own identity but our contribution is not equal to the totality of our identity.
Then it becomes a matter of finding a balance. How much do we contribute vs. how much is contributed by other sources? I’m admittedly rather extreme in this area because I think that what “we” contribute to our identity is so small as to be essentially negligible. I don’t think things like self-identification actually matter. You seem to be on the other extreme thinking that self-determination and identification provide the majority (if not nearly all) of what the identity is.
Why? This goes back to the question of what makes an “authentic Christian”. Why can’t a nominal Christian be labeled a Christian? For example, my family tends to get together around Christmas (schools and places of work tend to be generous with time off around that time of year so it is easier) and we put up a Christmas tree and exchange presents. There are plenty of Christian families were their faith consists of just that as well, so where is the difference? Aside from the fact that Christianity and Christmas never had any connection in my mind growing up. But does that matter?
Why is the label wrong in this case? This is where our different perceptions of self come into conflict.
Labeled by whom? What we need to do is look at what is being signified, who is signifying, and in which context this meaning exists in. I think that matters of identity are signified not by the person themselves but rather by those around them. You say that others labeling you a Daoist monk does not make one a Daoist monk – but I’m saying that someone saying that they are a Daoist monk does not make them a Daoist monk. And so on down the line. Matters of identity exist in a context that transcends the individual – indeed, identity does not make sense in isolation. Since identity is socially realized, I look at the social aspect rather than the individual aspect when determining identity. What makes a Daoist monk a Daoist monk? What makes Napoleon Napoleon?
Xunzian,
Thank you for your post. Without undue obsequiousness, I’d like to say how grateful I am for your indulgence. I appreciate the time and trouble you’re taking with this.
I find I agree with the substance of your theses and synthesis on the importance of the transculturalness (so to speak) of religious values, which I think fairly summarises your position. Our disagreement over certain minor points only reflects my misunderstanding, not your inconsistency, and I’m grateful for your clarification. As an aside, I merrily agree with your point about “New Atheists”, whose agenda I’ve similarly considered dubiously inspired. Otherwise, I’m privileged by our agreement to differ.
As for the harm caused by religion, well my example of priestly abuse was perhaps unhelpful (although I think it’s fair to point out the harm caused is greater when one factors in the collateral betrayal of trust. In this respect, I feel priestly abuse is morally worse than abuse by uncles, teachers and leaders of youth activities- which people are not supposed to be examples of holy virtue in the same way as clergy. For that reason, I would say, yes, the hypocrisy of having a ‘normal failure rate’ is indeed damning). There are however countless other ways in which we may safely adjudge religion harmful, though this is obviously a huge subject in its own right. I hope it might suffice here to say religion is the origin of both harm and goodness?
Again, this is another huge topic in itself. As I’ve said, I’m no expert on these matters, but as I understand it, truly being a Christian is about truly practicing Christianity (not talking the talk, but walking the walk). Even Christians cannot safely identify other Christians by perception- since the only authority on being (or not) a true Christian is God, or so I’m told. Only She can judge our hearts, they tell me. But anyway, I think you’d have to ask a Christian what the definition of ‘authentic Christian’ is.
I’m afraid we’re talking across each other with the related issue of rightly or wrongly being labelled a Christian. Nevertheless, I think we can draw a distinction between (a) being perceived and externally identified as ‘Christian’, and (b) actually being Christian. These are categorically different things (though they may interrelate).
This issue of identity is an immensely interesting one for me. The reason I can legitimately make an exception for the mentally ill and megalomaniacs is that their self-identity is deluded, so they’re excluded. Obviously, if I self-identify as Napoleon, it does not necessarily follow that I am in fact Napoleon. Right self-identity depends necessarily on right function (and thus, the lack of delusion). Given right function as a prerequisite, I claim our identity primarily belongs to us. Hell, it’s all we’ve got, so I’m not letting it go! 
Ultimately, the labels by which we may be externally perceived and identified are just that. Labels. They’re only ever as good as the perception (which is often drastically poor), and in any case they have little or no bearing on being. If you were shipwrecked alone on a remote desert island, what would become of what and who you are? Would who you are vanish in the absence of all external perception? No, of course it wouldn’t- you’d remain essentially yourself. Identity can and does make sense in isolation. I should know- I’ve been there. i
I don’t want to back myself into an existential-solipsistic corner here, but your idea that we only amount to whatever we’re perceived to be is surely mistaken. I am identified in various ways- male, English white, forty, professional, landowner, brother, father, son, golf-buddy, fool. None of these labels (nor all of them) determines who or what I am to any real extent. Indeed, I can masquerade easily enough as something I most certainly am not! I’m very much more than the sum of my labels, both external and internal.
I’m sure you understand the category difference between what we may be perceived to be and what we are. Our superficial nominal identity in no way determines our inner being. The fact that you have a Christmas tree once a year no more makes you a Christian than I’m Chief Bignose because I had a Red Indian costume when I was a boy. But even if, for the sake of argument, we define our being as contingent on our identity, then surely our self-identity trumps our external identity, since we know ourselves better than anyone else does.
In the end, what makes Napoleon Napoleon is his actually being Napoleon, not his being perceived to be or labelled Napoleon. Even if the entire world stood up and said, ‘You, sir, are Napoleon!’ you still wouldn’t be.
This is a great discussion and one that’s sort of hitting close to home. I’m a Christian mom homeschooling my kids and married to an atheist. This is interesting in all sorts of way for me.
Anyway, as a Christian I’d have to answer you’re last question with, “I have no flippin’ clue.” I suppose I have my personal idea of what an authentic Christian is but the larger idea is something that’s been debated since the beginning of Christianity. Read the Pauline epistles and you get a sense that there are already splits and debates within the church and that’s within the time of Jesus’s expected natural lifetime (and just saying that I’ve opened a whole kettle of Christological fish ) had he not died. I know I’ve met many Christian who don’t consider my liberal, Anglican ass Christian.
As for truly practicing Christianity, how do you do that? We have wildy different traditions, some denominations that discount tradition entirely in favour of the “bibilical” and a holy book that is less a book then a library full of competing and contradictory histories, letters, stories, myths and liturgy. How does one find a forever-and-always authentic practice in that?
Wow, Wishbone. Great to have you on board! Ex-catholic atheistishist parent here… just wanted to say you sound like you’ll be able to provide a valuable perspective on it all!! My son’s in Gr. 3 and hanging on to Santa. Would it be indoctrination or counterindoctrination to push the truth into him? (I nudge, but don’t push.) And when he comes home from public school with such playground-theology as, “Only God knows the real face of Jesus”, do you see any cogent way of my responding? 
All Christians do. Do you see any way of indoctrinating your beliefs on other Christians, given the sheer number of Christian types? Let’s not forget those plucky atheists either, they’re not bad people.
If there’s any value in Christianity it’s that since its inception despite divine command theory being absolute, Christians have striven to apologise for if not openly condemn some of their own dogma, even the Catholics have reversed some beliefs that are or were called inviolable. Any belief system must be dynamic up to a point, because the zeitgeist really doesn’t stand still. Of course too dynamic and you end up with a cult, too strict and you end up with The Spanish Inquisition, and literally no one expects that because their chief weapon is fear… And surprise…
Thanks for the welcome.
On Santa, I don’t know. I think it’s more impatience. Isn’t more implied by indoctrination then some revelation about Santa? I would think it a more systematic and regular thing. However, I wouldn’t push myself. I think there’s some value in a kid reasoning out for herself that Santa isn’t real. In our house it’s a rite of passage. When my daughter discovered there was no Santa she moved to the other side and began to play some of the role of Santa for our youngest.
As for the Jesus question, when stuff like that pops up I tend to question. “What do you suppose that means?” With my older one I might ask something like, “But Christians tend to believe God WAS Jesus so how does that work?” Maybe that’s what makes the difference in the struggle to keep from indoctrinating the kids (as I and I think, most parents are apt to do in many arenas), instead of tell them what to believe when they come home with stuff like that, ask them questions about what they think about it?
My own experience with indoctrination has been inconsistant. We chose not to baptize the kids until they could make the decision themselves and it looks like it may not happen anytime soon. My daughter loves church but isn’t sure this whole Jesus-thing makes a lot of sense. The husband and I have however successfully indoctrinated the kids into a love of Star Wars. With two geeks as parents the poor little buggers never had a chance.
I hope not, I married one after all!
I see absolutely no hope of indoctrinating other Christians. Even other Anglicans. Even other fat, liberal, Canadian Anglicans.
Hehe. Too right.
Ya, I’m letting it drag out, but inserting the odd absurd association for his rationalizing pleasure, and he’s more than half way there himself… just don’t want it to come to the “Why the hell didn’t you save me from myself!” point after some embarrasing faux pas on the playground or something…
Right there with you, until he turns around and starts saying, “No, what do you suppose it means!” I’m pretty good at exemplifying my deep ignorance on most matters of concern, but I sometimes wonder whether children need the illusion that their parents actually know something… 
My son got his “Jedi Academy Training Certificate” at Disneyland last summer. I realized I had to buy the T-shirt for him to get selected out of the crowd (after two failed attempts, and my son sobbing in anguish about why the force wasn’t with him… 
). Collection plates abound!!