Study: Religious kids are better off

The Washington Post ^ | 3/27/04 | Laura Sessions Stepp

[LdSentinal]

WASHINGTON — Here's a crazy idea: After all our ambitious child-rearing with Discovery toys, Suzuki piano lessons, conflict-avoidance classes, 4 a.m. swim practices, SAT prep classes, driver education and summer flights to study folk music in the Republic of Georgia, we might have done as well (and saved a lot of money) by just sending our kids to church, temple or mosque.

Late last year, a commission convened by Dartmouth Medical School, among others, studied years of research on kids and concluded young people who are religious are better off in significant ways than their secular peers. They are less likely than nonbelievers to smoke and drink and more likely to eat well; less likely to commit crimes and more likely to wear seat belts; less likely to be depressed and more likely to be satisfied with family and school.

"Religion has a unique net effect on adolescents above and beyond factors like race, parental education and family income," says Brad Wilcox, a University of Virginia sociologist and panel member. Poor children who are religious will do better than poor children who are not religious, he adds — and in some cases better than nonreligious middle-class children.

Meanwhile, a social groundswell may be under way, as a larger proportion of teenagers than a decade ago say religion is important. In 2001, about three out of five teenagers said religion was "pretty important" or "very important" to them — a significant increase, according to Child Trends, a research organization that analyzes federal data. The biggest jump occurred not among poor and unambitious teenagers — the stereotyped believers — but among young achievers who anticipated finishing four years of college.

[Betaille]

"summer flights to study folk music in the Republic of Georgia"
Who's idea of child-rearing is this? All in all though, I'm pleasantly surprised that the Washpost even printed this.

[cyborg]

me too...I'm surprised.

[LdSentinal]

Saturday edition, though. Least read day of the week of just about any newspaper.

[Just Lori]

Late last year, a commission convened by Dartmouth Medical School, among others, studied years of research on kids and concluded young people who are religious are better off in significant ways than their secular peers. They are less likely than nonbelievers to smoke and drink and more likely to eat well; less likely to commit crimes and more likely to wear seat belts; less likely to be depressed and more likely to be satisfied with family and school.



Surprise surprise from the post. Wonder what they think about vouchers?

[Betaille]

The study is clearly true though. If you know kids who grew up in religious households, they are infinitely healthier. We no longer live in a society where we can be secular and still instill values in our children... there are way too many corrupting influences. Morality can survive for a few generations without Religion, but after that it starts to die out. Most of western society has now reached the point where it is dying out.

[Coleus]

`

[Spirited]

Ya-Hoo!
Thanks for the post.
A truth that never should have been forgotten.....

[I still care]

Listen, I grew up on Long Island. This is the norm in upscale communities. Nothing is too good for the little darlings. If it's expensive, well so be it, their babies deserve every advantage. Summer camp, fencing lessons, music lessons, dance, gymnastics, tennis - you name it, they get it. And they view that you are depriving your kids if you don't catch yourself up in the whirlwind.

I have a girlfriend who owns a party store there yet. Money is not an object with the mothers. I used to take my son to karate class there. There were more adults than kids in the classroom, watching.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

"Morality can survive for a few generations without Religion, but after that it starts to die out. Most of western society has now reached the point where it is dying out."

Not only that, but failed political philosophies, such as Marxism, frequently become a surrogate religion for the far left, a philosphy which is a profound enemy of religion and religious people.

[freebilly]

Late last year, a commission convened by Dartmouth Medical School, among others, studied years of research on kids and concluded young people who are religious are better off in significant ways than their secular peers. They are less likely than nonbelievers to smoke and drink and more likely to eat well; less likely to commit crimes and more likely to wear seat belts; less likely to be depressed and more likely to be satisfied with family and school.

The eggheads are just figuring out what all of us extremist Christian folk have known for decades.

If they want to find some off the chart well adjusted kids, all they have to do is look at the academic, social, and cultural achievements of children whose parents are missionaries....

[Choose Ye This Day]

A big ol' DUH!!! in order for this study.

Definitely a BFO story: Blinding Flash of the Obvious.

Thanks for posting it, though. It's always nice to have confirmation of what the sensible have long known to be true.

[Schnucki]

This is like the chicken soup discovery way back when: it wasn't just the soup, it was mainly the loving, caring family.

In this case, it isn't just the attendance at church, it's the child's believing family that sees the church as an important place to attend regularly.

[Tax-chick]

Definitely a BFO story: Blinding Flash of the Obvious.

Good one ... I'll have to remember that!

[kittymyrib]

Well, if the Washington Post says it, it must be so. Never mind that the Bible has said this for thousands of years, because this is the way God intends for children to be brought up. My only criticism is the statement that parents should "send" their children to church. No, they should TAKE their children to church. Then the whole family can worship together and be instructed in the faith that saves their souls and makes this world a much better place. You never outgrow your need for God's love.

[ladylib]

In my mother's church bulletin yesterday, there was an article about the parish school. A mother and father (who were quick to say that their town's public schools are very good and who are both public school teachers)said they sent their daughter to the school for the religious values and the excellent education which is more advanced than the town's public schools.

They also mentioned how much calmer and happier the kids seem to be than their public schooled counterparts.

Even my brother mentioned that at one time. He's also a public school teacher.

[George from New England]

"who were quick to say that their town's public schools are very good and who are both public school teachers)said they sent their daughter to the school"

Notice how they take the taxpayers money and will take all the retirement benefits too, but my Johnny will get a real education. Hypocrits!

Time for school choice --- parents choice - even money for homeschooling supplies.

[EdReform]

BTTT

[ladylib]

I think parents have a right to choose whatever education they want for their children. I don't look at their choice as hypocritical.

They may "take" the taxpayers money, but they earn it, as well as the benefits. And they do pay tuition for the Catholic school.

Years ago, when I was a kid, the principal of the public grammar school sent his children right across the street to the Catholic school. As far as I'm concerned, that was his right. It's all about choice for everybody.

[RepubMommy]

Just signed my oldest up for parochial K next year. My olny beef with this is many parents are doing it for the wrong reasons, simply becuase it's a full day class as opposed to half day public school K. I fully inted to keep my kids there for the entire elementary school years. It's going to cost us, but well worth the money.