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

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

so, are you saying that as someone of faith, with children, you are indeed more bias towards getting them to follow the faith you feel suits you best without considering what they might feel best suits them, or without allowing them to stay neutral until a time comes in their life where they are mature enough to make their own choice? Would you freely accept their choice to not have a faith, or if they did have faith, to then abandon it without question?

Just to pick up a few of your points ...

I have tried to explain how a parent with a faith does not instruct his children in that faith because it is convenient, but because he is convinced that it is every bit as important as preventing his child from falling over a cliff edge. That's how it is in our family. My wife and I are convinced of the truth revealed in the Bible. We bring up our kids accordingly. It is nothing to do with whether it's more convenient for us to take them to church as opposed to getting a babysitter in.

As with all the issues facing children, their ability to understand that they even have preferences, and free agency, develops from a state of non-existence at point of birth, to being highly developed, if not entirely controlled, by their mid teens. Parents take decisions for their children when they are unable to take a balanced decision for themselves. When one of my children, aged 3, decided they didn't want to go out and staged a sit in on the hall floor, I took action appropriate to their age and their ability to understand - and simply carried them to the car. A similar situation with one of my children, aged 15, might involve some discussion as to their place in the family and their responsibilities that flow from that. I will let you know how that works out when I have a 15 year old.

I, myself, gave up on church aged 14, when I was too big to be dragged out of bed on a Sunday. My parents accepted it, albeit reluctantly. They also accepted it when I chose to join an evangelical house church, aged 17, rather than recommit to the Church of England. Similar situations have occurred in my current church. The children are brought up in our faith. The teenagers are not compelled to continue in it.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris

I can at least take comfort from the fact that nobody in a position of power in this country (or anywhere in the developed world for that matter) has yet attempted to demonise families in the way you do

Soviet Russia did.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Soviet Russia did.

The Russian orthodox church continued to exist, and was tolerated, throughout the Soviet era. Same for the orthodox churches in all the Warsaw Pact countries, as was. There were plenty of underground churches as well. I know some of the people who used to smuggle Bibles in for them.

There is no degree of tolerance in N Korea, although there is an underground church.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by martyh

This little phrase highlighted shows how little you understand what faith is .No one of any faith chooses a faith to follow based on what "suits them" ,it is not a fashion statement .

"or without allowing them to stay neutral until a time comes in their life where they are mature enough to make their own choice?"

Again ,as has been pointed out already this is not how things work ,A religious family will always bring up children in that religions ways ,loving and caring parents will always allow their children a choice as to whether or not to continue following a religion as they grow older

Are you saying all faiths are equal? If so, why would someone choose one faith over another? There must be something about the faith that the person thought suited them or that they agreed with more than the others.

Your last paragraph merely highlights precisely the points made by Dawkins. The choice is made to bring in the child to thinking in a particular way instead of saying from the start "there are many things you can believe in or not believe in. Let us examine them and when you are mature enough you can choose".

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Are you saying all faiths are equal? If so, why one someone choose one faith over another?

Your last paragraph merely highlights precisely the points made by Dawkins. The choice is made to bring in the child to thinking in a particular way instead of saying from the start "there are many things you can believe in or not believe in. Let us examine them and when you are mature enough you can choose".

Again, Dawkins' argument (and yours) is merely self-serving. He argues that other families should bring up their kids like Dawkins. Obviously Dawkins wants to commend his own parenting techniques; he chose them. The big no-no, however, is the implication that people who don't emulate Dawkins are behaving in a way that is dangerous to their children's development.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well it's hard to prove that every parent indoctrinates their children.I suspect most don't.

I'm not saying that the parent has to even deliberately 'indoctrinate' the child. Childrens minds are incredibly malleable and children naturally look to their parents for guidance on how the world works. If the parents believe in a god, the children are very likely to believe in that god. It's the way that we are wired.
Simply talking about god (with a sense of belief) or regularly praying will probably 'indoctrinate' the child.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The Russian orthodox church continued to exist, and was tolerated, throughout the Soviet era. Same for the orthodox churches in all the Warsaw Pact countries, as was. There were plenty of underground churches as well. I know some of the people who used to smuggle Bibles in for them.

I know that but the fact remains that communist doctrine was against religion and hence presumably the teaching of religion by parents to their children

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I'm not saying that the parent has to even deliberately 'indoctrinate' the child. Childrens minds are incredibly malleable and children naturally look to their parents for guidance on how the world works. If the parents believe in a god, the children are very likely to believe in that god. It's the way that we are wired.
Simply talking about god (with a sense of belief) or regularly praying will probably 'indoctrinate' the child.

Indeed. Which is why the argument that parents should not bring up children to believe in a certain faith is so dangerous. Even without active instruction from the parents, children would absorb their religious beliefs and practices in exactly the same way as they absorb everything from favoured holiday destinations to the brands in the kitchen cupboard and support for a particular football team. Once we accept Dawkins' argument that children need to be "protected" from religion, we are immediately on the road to accepting massive State intervention in child rearing within the family home.

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Are you saying all faiths are equal? If so, why one someone choose one faith over another?

It all depends on up bringing,if a child is raised in a Catholic family then the chances are they would be Catholic in religion the same goes for any other religious upbringing ,Islam Jewish etc .It is not normally the case that parents line up religions and instruct children to choose one.It is more normal for children to be raised in a religious surrounding and reject religion upon reaching maturity ,which incidentally was the case with Dawkins .He was Christian until his teens and then rejected religion so quite why he would want to deny the choice to others is beyond me

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

Again, Dawkins' argument (and yours) is merely self-serving. He argues that other families should bring up their kids like Dawkins. Obviously Dawkins wants to commend his own parenting techniques; he chose them. The big no-no, however, is the implication that people who don't emulate Dawkins are behaving in a way that is dangerous to their children's development.

Do you not believe ideologies can be dangerous? Especially ideologies that are imprinted through manipulation?

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

It all depends on up bringing,if a child is raised in a Catholic family then the chances are they would be Catholic in religion the same goes for any other religious upbringing ,Islam Jewish etc .It is not normally the case that parents line up religions and instruct children to choose one.It is more normal for children to be raised in a religious surrounding and reject religion upon reaching maturity ,which incidentally was the case with Dawkins .He was Christian until his teens and then rejected religion so quite why he would want to deny the choice to others is beyond me

Exactly. Thank you.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris

Indeed. Which is why the argument that parents should not bring up children to believe in a certain faith is so dangerous. Even without active instruction from the parents, children would absorb their religious beliefs and practices in exactly the same way as they absorb everything from favoured holiday destinations to the brands in the kitchen cupboard and support for a particular football team. Once we accept Dawkins' argument that children need to be "protected" from religion, we are immediately on the road to accepting massive State intervention in child rearing within the family home.

We'll have to disagree on your final assertion. I don't think that we are immediately on the road to state intervention. Simply pointing out to parents of all religions that they may be wrong in one aspect of the way that they are bringing up their children doesn't immediately call for state intervention. (imo)

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

so quite why he would want to deny the choice to others is beyond me

So that they don't have the struggle that he (and I) had?

Anyhoo. I'm off to cook a roast dinner now

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I'm not saying that the parent has to even deliberately 'indoctrinate' the child. Childrens minds are incredibly malleable and children naturally look to their parents for guidance on how the world works. If the parents believe in a god, the children are very likely to believe in that god. It's the way that we are wired.
Simply talking about god (with a sense of belief) or regularly praying will probably 'indoctrinate' the child.

Social proofing

Originally Posted by martyh

.He was Christian until his teens and then rejected religion so quite why he would want to deny the choice to others is beyond me

Dawkins is an evangelical atheist who believes that allowing children to be instructed in religion ensures continuing tolerance for religion in society, even if many of those children grow up not to actively believe for themselves.

He presents his argument as logical and reasonable, pointing out that he isn't proposing to deny free-thinking adults the choice to be religious if that's what they want. However, Dawkins is perfectly well aware that insulating all children from religion would, within the space of a single generation, relegate religion to such a small corner of society that it would go largely unnoticed, and many new adults would never even find themselves in a position of wondering whether it is something they should choose to investigate.

To repeat - Dawkins is an evangelical atheist. His agenda is not to promote open, free choice, but to maximise exposure of his own world view while minimising those that compete with it.

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Your last paragraph merely highlights precisely the points made by Dawkins. The choice is made to bring in the child to thinking in a particular way instead of saying from the start "there are many things you can believe in or not believe in. Let us examine them and when you are mature enough you can choose".

Which is not how parenthood works.Children are raised according to the parents ethics and morals and then the child has the choice to reject them as they reach maturity ......exactly as Dawkins did

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by martyh

Which is not how parenthood works.Children are raised according to the parents ethics and morals and then the child has the choice to reject them as they reach maturity ......exactly as Dawkins did

If you read back, we can see the potential affect of things working that way round by listening to the story of Russ' friend. Should we no try to void that scenario?

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Do you not believe ideologies can be dangerous? Especially ideologies that are imprinted through manipulation?

If your question is theoretical, it's not relevant (to me at least). I'm not bringing up theoretical kids in a theoretical house. It's real, and I am neither manipulating nor behaving dangerously towards them.

If you're suggesting that those criticisms apply to my active instruction of my kids in the Christian faith, then I reject the premises of your question - see above.