[jdanieli]

I agree, influencing is what parents do, but influencing is also a form of lying:

> Influence: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.

The effect in the case of parents is that the children will end up believing the same things as their parents did. This is completely distinct from education, because education is the teaching of what is known to be true, or at least a non-biased account of the available information. This is something most people cannot do as its very difficult to do right. Either you stick to known facts (1 + 1 = 2) or you give a non-biased account of history (say, a war) by arguing for and against both for both sides equally. If you look at any moment in history and think someone was evil or good, you probably misunderstand something and need to go back to that topic and learn more.

Influence breeds from a onesidedness that is not evident in education. Education breeds from understanding. If one tells their children they believe in god and this makes them believe in god, is it really significantly different then saying there is a god? Either way they still have a choice, to believe you are right or not. As they are the child's parents, isn't it almost guaranteed that they'd trust your judgment at such a young age? (I'm assuming an age of around 4 years old.)

> It's unavoidable, and there's nothing wrong with it if you do it with honesty and respect.

This is also true, almost. As described above it will take more energy to fully explain the correct answer to any question then the child is willing to listen to. I'm not arguing that there is something wrong with it. I'm just acknowledging that it is lying, albeit unintentional and without malice, but it is still lying.

[euccastro]

Influence may be a goal of lying, but it may also be a motivation for honest communication.

If your intentions are self serving, or anyway if you are covertly selective in what you tell to others, if you use fallacies, or if you outright lie, you are probably doing wrong. There's a word for that, and it's manipulation. Influence doesn't have neutral connotations in English. Much on the contrary: when you say someone has influenced you, or is/was influential in general, you're praising, not condemning them.

Full neutrality is impossible. You should keep neutrality as a general aim, while recognizing you're more biased than you realise.

More specifically, arguing equally for and against both sides of any war is not neutral; it's a futile attempt guided by political correctness. My first impression on reading that is that you're overreacting to typical western (esp. American) good vs evil rhetoric.

You can teach about a war without making explicit moral judgements about either side. There are many reasons to study a war that don't require you to discuss ethics (for example, you may be studying socioeconomic motivations and impact.) Or, if you want to discuss morals in a non judgmental way, you can describe the system of values that was current in each side at the time of the war.

That said, using the narration of a war as an illustration of some point in ethics is no worse, per se, than making such point in first place. In general, one side of the war will conform better than the other to some system of values. As a parent who is transmitting your child a system of values anyway, making a taboo of stating explicit judgments on either side of a war is pointless.

Hiding your beliefs from your children just not to influence them is a form of lying, and it's futile IMO. Do you have to make up cover stories about where you're going when attending church? Do you have to tell your relatives to keep the secret? Ridiculous.

And anyway, where would a 4 year old get his first ideas about religion from? Will they discover the Truth by themselves from cogito ergo sum? Nope, they'll be marked by the next influential person they meet: a teacher, a friend, etc. How is that any better?

Just stating your beliefs, while acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong, is a very honest thing to do. The child will grow to make their own opinion before it matters for any practical purposes anyway. That's what my parents did with me, and I stopped believing in God at around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I never felt pressured either way, and I carry no trauma that I know of.

[jdanieli]

This was a very good response to what I wrote. I applaud you.

> Full neutrality is impossible.

Completely agreed.

> You can teach about a war without making explicit moral judgements about either side.

True, and the more I think about it, the less I believe it'll come up in a conversation with a 4 year old. Especially on specifics such as the morality of a specific war.

> Hiding your beliefs from your children just not to influence them is a form of lying, and it's futile IMO.

Very true. Hiding information is definitely a form of lying. See Mark Twain's On the Decadence of the Art of Lying, he makes a very good argument for saying lying is not a bad thing, in certain circumstances, but also that not telling the whole truth is also lying.

> Do you have to tell your relatives to keep the secret? Ridiculous.

My general belief was that relatives would have less of a dramatic impact on the child's behavior patterns than the parents of the child. So while the child might know they believe in god, it wont necessarily translate to the child believing in god himself. Oddly, I never connected Christmas with Christianity when I was a child.

> Just stating your beliefs, while acknowledging the possibility that you're wrong, is a very honest thing to do. The child will grow to make their own opinion before it matters for any practical purposes anyway. That's what my parents did with me, and I stopped believing in God at around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I never felt pressured either way, and I carry no trauma that I know of.

I believe your point was well made. I took things a bit to far with the not lying. I still believe influence is a form of lying when working from the perceptive of a parent to a child, but I now believe that the effect is far less than I had originally believed. Thinking back on it, my own parents did the same thing yours did, though I was pressured slightly into believing in Catholicism, the pressure wasn't so harsh that I felt compelled to actually do so. I guess I was a bit harsh on the naivety of children, thinking ideas would be implanted in their young minds far easier than they actually are. I think also, that I was tying the words 'influence' and 'manipulation' a bit closer than they actually are. It does irk me though, that some children take their parents beliefs to heart without even thinking about it, sometimes without even realizing it.

[euccastro]

Influence doesn't have neutral connotations in English.

Sorry, I meant to say it doesn't have negative connotations.