Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymoss
well you suspect wrong.
My daughter was born in 96 and my ex wife cheated on me and left in 98. I had a break down and was inactive as Witness until 7 years ago when I returned. My daughter is 25 and asks me questions. I do not preach to any of my none witness friends but do discuss it when they ask me questions which they do.
|
Good to know. I assume that this is the standard approach with the JW church then?
---------- Post added at 10:07 ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I’ll jump in here …
this is a really old, and very, very silly argument, which presupposes that to teach children a faith is to teach them a world view, whereas not to do so is to not teach them a world view.
The truth is that every parent imparts a world view to their children. Those who think they are not doing so, simply because they’re not bringing their children up in a religious faith, are being naive at best, and duplicitous at worst. Children always learn a world view from their parents. In the case you have outlined, that world view includes the rather patronising idea that only adults can form worthwhile opinions or hold deep convictions.
Families sharing faith convictions (or even atheistic ones) is absolutely natural and actually, totally unavoidable, unless you were to propose state intervention (in which case, who on earth would decide what’s appropriate for children to be told about the world, relationships, and ethics? And on what basis would they make those decisions?).
|
Sounds like a self-validating argument. You fail, however, to cover the case where parents attempt to not impose a specific world view (to the best of their ability) and encourage awareness and discussion of many. You also, deliberately, conflate an anti-faith atheist parent imprinting their view with a faith parent doing the same, they do not cancel each other out and does not validate the process.
I understand you have to validate your parenting choices because your faith demands it but that does not make it appropriate in a wider, societal context. The way I see it is that all individuals have the right to determine their own journey in life and not have one imprinted on them during their formative years. There is nothing patronising about the proposition that children can be conditioned during their early years. To imply that young children have the ability to process cogent argument and debate complex issues and so determine their own choices is a weak argument.
Of course, we have centuries of historical precedence to backup & reinforce your position but history does show us that change is possible. I also think that raising this point for discussion & debate does not merit your pejorative response.