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

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Hmmm. One could easily apply that opinion to all ideologies.

---------- Post added at 16:42 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

It's not theoretical. It's a simple question. It refers to ANY ideology or ANY manipulated scenario.

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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?

That is exactly how every parent brings up children ..even atheist parents

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by martyh

That is exactly how every parent brings up children ..even atheist parents

You haven't read all of this thread thoroughly, have you?

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

You haven't read all of this thread thoroughly, have you?

pretty much yes

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by martyh

pretty much yes

Then it surprises me your comment was made

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Then it surprises me your comment was made

why? you seem to be of the opinion that raising children is all about giving them choices ,it's not

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Hmmm. One could easily apply that opinion to all ideologies.

It is not normal practice in a Christian family home (not any home I have ever come across, at any rate) to deny the existence of other views of the world. It is common practice, and self evidently reasonable behaviour, for parents to bring their children up in their own faith.

It's not theoretical. It's a simple question. It refers to ANY ideology or ANY manipulated scenario.

Which makes it theoretical, and far too broad to be of any use, or relevance.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by martyh

why? you seem to be of the opinion that raising children is all about giving them choices ,it's not

You don't think children should have choices about major life components that are not compulsory or mandatory such as rules or laws??? Really???

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

You don't think children should have choices about major life components that are not compulsory or mandatory such as rules or laws??? Really???

Nope ,they can choose a flavour of ice cream but when it comes to morals, ethics,religion or lack of religion the parents make the choice and raise their children accordingly .Children have all the choice they want when they grow up .

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

It is not normal practice in a Christian family home (not any home I have ever come across, at any rate) to deny the existence of other views of the world. It is common practice, and self evidently reasonable behaviour, for parents to bring their children up in their own faith.

I can't help but think then, you are accepting that there may be an element of indoctrination involved when a family of faith brings up a child.

Originally Posted by Chris

Which makes it theoretical, and far too broad to be of any use, or relevance.

Apply it to a theoretical scenario of your choice that includes the elements of ideology and manipulation and give me an answer then. If you get stuck, you could choose the Nazi movement in WW2, communism, religion, a family of Everton fans trying to make a child follow their team, to name a few examples... Any scenario where the option of free choice is diminished through manipulation (reciprocation, commitment/consistency, scarcity, likeability, authority and/or social proofing). Do you not feel that if those elements are forcefully employed, that is wrong?

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

Nope ,they can choose a flavour of ice cream but when it comes to morals, ethics,religion or lack of religion the parents make the choice and raise their children accordingly .Children have all the choice they want when they grow up .

I implore you, please read this thread.

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

I implore you, please read this thread.

I implore you please to be more clear about what the point you are trying to make re me reading the thread which I have done .If you have something to say then say it

I have simply answered your question

---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Apply it to a theoretical scenario of your choice that includes the elements of ideology and manipulation and give me an answer then. If you get stuck, you could choose the Nazi movement in WW2, communism, religion, a family of Everton fans trying to make a child follow their team, to name a few examples... Any scenario where the option of free choice is diminished through manipulation (reciprocation, commitment/consistency, scarcity, likeability, authority and/or social proofing). Do you not feel that if those elements are forcefully employed, that is wrong?

.

At what age should a child start to choose what is best for them ?

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

I can't help but think then, you are accepting that there may be an element of indoctrination involved when a family of faith brings up a child.


Apply it to a theoretical scenario of your choice that includes the elements of ideology and manipulation and give me an answer then. If you get stuck, you could choose the Nazi movement in WW2, communism, religion, a family of Everton fans trying to make a child follow their team, to name a few examples... Any scenario where the option of free choice is diminished through manipulation (reciprocation, commitment/consistency, scarcity, likeability, authority and/or social proofing). Do you not feel that if those elements are forcefully employed, that is wrong?

Idi, I appreciate, from a debating point of view, what you're trying to do here. But I'm not biting. The simple, unavoidable truth of human existence is this: I am responsible for my children. Instructing them is my right and my responsibility. That includes my faith.

Down the road from here is a family which actively subscribes to paganism and they teach their kids accordingly. I believe them to be absolutely wrong in their world view, but I absolutely respect their right to teach it to their children, because that is how life works, and that is what a normal parent-child relationship looks like.

You just can't escape from the fact that Dawkins (and yours) is an argument that is simply self-serving, aiming not to open up equal exploration of competing world views, but to replace one with another and make atheism the default position in the life of a child, regardless of what that child's parents believe.

[idi banashapan]

Just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean it's the only or necessarily the best way. But this is where the whole point of this thread comes in. If we stop questioning why we do what we do, or stop asking ourselves if there is a better way or more suitable way, then we become stuck in the status quo. We can never progress. We cannot be more. And so the cycle continues from one generation to the next.

Faith, per-se, is NOT the issue. The manner in which some find themselves a part of it, is.

There's no fishing involved, I just want to be clear in how I understand your thinking. Much the same as you do me the grace of asking how I think. I will be as honest as I can be.

I understand that I am not always the most clear in what I say or ask, but I try to put things in a relatable manner so that others can identify. I may not know all the big words and my use of language can, at times, imply the wrong message. I apologise for that.

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=martyh;At what age should a child start to choose what is best for them ?

as soon as they can crawl out of the cave

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

Just because that's the way it is, doesn't mean it's the only or necessarily the best way.

I struggle to think of a better way to raise children other than allowing parents every right to make choices and decisions for their children

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

[QUOTE=papa smurf;35762357][QUOTE=martyh;At what age should a child start to choose what is best for them ?

as soon as they can crawl out of the cave[/QUOTE]


and this is where a reasonable discussion descends into stupidity