Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Forget any assumptions... By the definition of indoctrinating, are you indoctrinating your children into your faith by using any of the 6 principles of influence I have listed in this thread in a manner that removes choice from the child?

Not 'in you opinion'. No convoluted, riddled answers. No disclaimers. But by definition of 'indoctrinating', and referencing the 6 principles?

Let's just cut all the beating around the bush and finally get a yes/no answer.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

In other words you want to shoehorn me in to giving you a response that doesn't take in to consideration any personal variables and puts in in terms of your definition? OK fine, show me your boundaries again.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Idi, life is not a psychology textbook. I think your six principles are rather besides the point - as is your perjorative use of the word "indoctrination". (It does also have a non-perjorative sense but I get the impression you don't mean it that way - this may be why Russ is refusing to engage with you over it).

Children get more choices as they get older. In some areas they get choice when they themselves ask for it. To ask whether a chid being brought up in a faith is in that situation without "choice" is as meaningless as asking whether that same child is getting fish and chips for tea without "choice".

I can only repeat what I have already repeated multiple times in this thread: parents make choices for their kids. Clothes, food, holiday destinations, football teams and, yes, religion. This is what normal family life looks like. There is nothing sinister, manipulative or power-crazed about it.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Wasn't my example..but the point still remains that children have their own reasoning and intelligence at some point in their lives to either accept their parents ideology or reject it.I do have 40+ years experience of teenagers to back that up..

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

no. I believe Russ is being intentionally difficult, facetious and pedantic. which is a shame, because earlier on, he responded very well, for which I commended him in private. but in this case, he doesn't want to answer, i think, because he knows how it will look to the observer.

absolutely right. however, not getting a choice in fish for tea is not likely to determine a potentially life long, permanent change in the way in which one lives or thinks. about the future choices they make. about what they believe to be acceptable questions to ask. not having a choice in what t-shirt to wear is in no way comparable to a forced ideology.

---------- Post added at 22:11 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------

yes they do. and I respect that your profession has given you that experience with teenagers. but I fear you are rather missing the point. to choose 'in' on something when mature enough, when one has a good understanding and balanced view of all options available is far easier than choosing 'out' of something that has become a major focus and factor of ones life because they were indoctrinated into a group at a time when they had no choice in the matter. I have no idea if members here indoctrinate - they dance around the questions. but if they do, then I think that is wrong. I won't tell them not to, it's not my place. but I do think it wrong.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I think you're drifting into special pleading. I don't think it's a valid point in any case. Many choices parents make for their children can have a profound and lasting effect on them. Even things like where they choose to live, what clothes they dress them in, even what haircut they give them. The "wrong" choice in any of these areas can affect educational outcomes, the likelihood of getting bullied at school, the friends they will make - any or all of these things can permanently change the way that child's life might otherwise have been, yet none of these are things any reasonable person would think to attack as parental preferences that their children should be "protected" from.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

This may be a bit OTT but is of the same thinking and reasoning.

isn't that the same as saying you can abuse a child either sexually or mentally until they reach a certain age where they can make up their own mind as to whether to accept or reject it?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Am I to take this to mean you also accept that enforcing an ideology, regardless of subject, is also potentially, just as damaging and therefore should be approached with caution? Should this therefore not lead one to perhaps refrain from those 'choices' which do not need immediate resolution (such as a haircut) and excluding those 'choices' that are not always one which can be changed (such as where one lives) until a time when the child is old enough to make that choice for them self whether to be included in an ideological group rather than enforcing it upon them?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

No - my meaning is normally confined to to what I've actually said, rather than any extension you might like to make. ;)

As I did say earlier, as far as I am concerned, my faith is of immediate importance, and bringing up my children in that faith is of vastly greater importance than any other life decision, including where we live and what school my children go to (that is to emphasise the importance of my faith, not to minimise the importnace of a good home and school).

Naturally you categorise it as something that can wait for adulthood, as it is not a faith you subscribe to. It is easy to argue that something can be delayed when you don't consider it to be important. And that, as far as I can see, is the essence of the debate here. What it boils down to is that you, and Dawkins, want other families to take the same approach to child rearing as you do, because you think your way is better.

Billions of people worldwide disagree with you - as is our right, our responsibility and our imperative.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

On the contrary, I think that making a life choice regarding religion, as we are focusing on that at this point, is a vitally important and complex choice to make. Which is why I believe it all the more important to delay it until all options are understood and have been explored by the person it affects most. Such a huge decision, in my opinion, should not be one someone else makes on their behalf.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Which is to miss a whole chunk of the point of a life of faith in a family context - but again, as you don't subscribe to it, you naturally don't understand it.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

I suppose the thinking is that you bring a child up with Jesus and all the rest. and hope that little Billy or chubby Jill stick to the thing when they reach the accept or reject age.

how do you explain to the congregation that little Billy or chubby Jill won't be attending anymore? :)

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

fair enough.

if I may pose the same question to yourself as I asked Russ earlier: by definition of the word 'indoctrination', are you indoctrinating your children into religion by use of influencing techniques such as Reciprocity, Commitment/Consistency, Scarcity, Likeability, Authority and/or Social Proofing?

as Russ found it a little tricky to answer as I may have been vague with my questioning, can we agree to use the Oxford definition found HERE in points 1 and 1.1

I would also like to, if we may, discount any personal contexts, using only the definitions and influencing concepts as the points of reference.

I am hoping to get an honest and simple yes or no answer, followed by an explanation, if you please.

I will also go first in answering and explain what I believe:

Yes. It is my belief, that should the child not be given any say in whether they are brought into an ideology, that it constitutes indoctrination by the Oxford definition, even if it is only during the introductory stages of involvement. in order to fulfil this, I also believe that at least one of the 6 principles of influence must be employed. As the principles are being employed in an indoctrination, I believe them to be manipulative techniques.

I do not ask this to 'catch anyone out'. I would like to find out the honest perspective of a differing viewpoint.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

So you are asking me to explain something personal to me and my family but without using any personal contexts. Are you genuinely unable to see how you're trying to shoehorn us in to answering things on your own terms?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Idi, I am sorry, I reject utterly the premise of your question. For me, this is life, and a simple, natural and truly ancient process of fulfiling my duty and privilege as a father by bringing my children up as I believe best. I'm not prepared to engage with the subject of my children, my relationship with them, and our relationship with God and our faith, in the terms you are requesting.

That obviously is not the answer you're looking for, but then I was never very good at giving only a 'yes' or a 'no' just because it was what someone else wanted. ;). It is, however, totally honest, so it will have to do.

Shower calls. I may be back briefly before bed.