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

it is a simple question. definitions are definitions - they are not personally malleable, they do not change meaning depending on what side of a fence you sit. the same definition applies to me as it does to you. I have answered without prejudice towards or against my viewpoint, sticking strictly, i believe, to the question and it's own context. feel free to ask me a question back, once you have answered mine.

in fact, I open the question to anyone who wishes to answer. it would be very interesting to see what we get.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------

you are right. it is not the answer I am looking for, but it is the one I expected. I know it is an uncomfortable question, because it does force you to question the techniques at play. I get that. but for me, the fact both yourself and Russ have avoided answering speaks volumes to me. but that is only my opinion.

---------- Post added at 23:19 ---------- Previous post was at 23:14 ----------

If I may add, this has been an excellent thread. Kudos to Mr A. for this one. it's a shame that it has ended without all questions being answered, but as always, when religion is involved, it can become uncomfortable for some. I hope nobody has been offended or upset by any posts here.

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

Idi ... Reverse psychology is wasted on me. You are free to construe my reply any way you like, however, if you're interested in what I actually think or feel on a subject, you can, genuinely, see it in the words I have chosen to use. My view of the subject truly is as I just described it, and I promise you faithfully, nothing anyone had said in this thread (or anywhere, ever) has made me feel even remotely uncomfortable with the way my wife and I have brought our children up to believe that Jesus died for them, and to bring their prayers to him. I am absolutely convinced that that is the right thing to do.

And now I really am going for a shower.

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

I have no doubt you do believe it is the right thing to do. that has never been the point of the thread at any stage for me, personally. but then, I have also clarified that on many an occasion.

I thank you for your time and constructive input. have a good night. :)

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

well having read through all that what else can i say but the cycle of indoctrination just passes on through the generations :(

but to be fair after 16 or so years of having god forced on them the unfortunate offspring get to make up their own minds [if there's any mind or self will left ]then they can choose to leave the fold or start making plans for the next unfortunate generation ....

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

Trust you to really try and muddy the waters in this manner..:rolleyes:

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

You know I'm right though.
you know it's the same thing that you're saying.

but you have the option of saying "this is different. this has Jesus and harp playing angels in it"

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

I’d say children need to be protected from any kind of destructive indoctrination whether religion, atheism, sectarianism, racism, sexism etc.

Dawkins singling out religion was quite quaint of him and it’s touching to know he never has the subject far from his mind. Some of the most devout Christians I’ve heard of started out as staunch atheists so there’s hope yet. What a catch he’d turn out to be ;)

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

That's the spirit Russ.

New day. different angle on it :)

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

Like Malcolm Muggeridge?
http://www.crisismagazine.com/1984/c...ion-of-a-cynic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Muggeridge

;)

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

Seems to keep coming round that bringing up children in a religious belief is indoctrination but bringing them up with no belief isn't.

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

Bottom line is people are free to bring up their kids any way they damn well please,as long as it is within the law.

Now people may have an opinion on that, but that's all it is.

Forget religion for a minute, and I have friends that have a different ethos on how to bring up their kids around discipline, routine, diet, etc etc.

There's no "right way" to bring up kids, there's only the best way you know.

If religion is a part of that, so be it. It's not for me, I don't agree with it, but it matters not a jot and it shouldn't do for anyone else either.

As mentioned, once the child reaches a certain age it will make its own mind up, about a great many things.

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

A good point.

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

repent now ;)

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

but what if he tried to commit suicide because a rabid religionist got to him .

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

Not ‘rabid’, but ‘fundamentalist’ ;)

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

True, but there are many wrong ways to bring kids up. To believe in a god is one of them imo :shrug:

---------- Post added at 22:39 ---------- Previous post was at 22:38 ----------

Spot on.