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.

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.

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

I can't decide whether it's amusing or shocking that some are so blind to the double standards.

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

Not surprising though..you must have expected the reactions you got.:erm:

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

There's always hope they'll one day own up to it. I'd respect that a whole lot more.

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

there are none so blind as those who will not see, The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

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

It all comes down to.
some people believe in fairies. and some people don't.

regardless of which one you are. there's no reason we all can't get along.

Amen.