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

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Russ

Yeah I've lost count of how many people I've off'd.

Jihadi Russ? Who'd have believed it.

Only Muslims have Jihad..

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Only Muslims have Jihad..

sense of humour failure.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

sense of humour failure.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Chris

That's what happens right now, certainly within my own experience. I really have no idea where this idea comes from, that bringing up a child in a certain religion is akin to brainwashing them and rendering them incapable of functioning in society as adults. Having been brought up in a churchgoing household, I walked away from it as soon as I was old enough to refuse to get out of bed on a Sunday morning. I then thought things through and, a few years later, made my own commitment, freely, of my own choice. Since then I have seen countless young people do likewise. In one family I am acquainted with, one son is considering training for ministry while the other is a committed atheist. Both were brought up in a Christian home.

Dawkins seems to think that all families who bring their children up in their faith can be equated with Waco-style cult houses and his remedy is to use the power of the state to force families to bring up their children like Dawkins. Which is actually a horrible thought.

I think that if parents follow religion there is no problem with encouraging their children to follow, unless of course the religion is extreme. (encouraging sacrifices, devil worship, harming others etc)

The problem with some devout families is that they almost forcibly encourage their children, and if the children decide it's not for them they are then ostracised from the family.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ

Yeah I've lost count of how many people I've off'd.

oh bless

[idi banashapan]

there's a difference between being taught about religion and indoctrination, the later being what is referred to by Richard Dawkins. I think anyone in their right mind wouldn't argue with that. to be fair, they actually couldn't argue with that unless they simply do not understand the difference.

Brainwashing of any kind is a very dangerous thing, be it religion, any ideology, propaganda or any other form of focusing a belief so tightly that rational and free thought processes become seen as dangerous or against the state / society / mainstream. The problem we have is that influence is far easier than we would all like to think. in fact, we are all subjects of it on a daily basis. Cialdini's 6 principles of influence (Reciprocation, Commitment/Consistency, Scarcity, Likeability, Authority and Social Proofing), can be seen every day in many, many places. religion is no exception to it. in fact, one could very easily argue that religion employs all 6 principles.

A knife in the hands of a skilled chef can create works of art. but a knife in the wrong hands is a very dangerous weapon. skills in influence are no different. if it's used for the wrong purposes, forcefully or used unwisely, it can create monsters. indoctrination by definition is to focus the subject's belief system around a particular ideology - in this instance, religion. this is vastly different from simply teaching children about what religion is.

in my view, children should be openly taught about what religion is and the varied types, but should not be forced to follow that ideology by anyone. if the child is subjected to all the religions and is allowed to mature being aware of what they stand for, then they can make their own choices when old enough. but labelling someone 'Christian' or 'Catholic' or whatever else when they don't have any real comprehension of what that means, let alone have a say in the matter, is just not right in my opinion. it's unfair and very selfish of those who forcefully (and it is forceful as the child has no educated or unbiased, cognitive, reasoned judgement or choice in the matter) bring a child into such an ideology.

Idi - I suspect you have no real comprehension of what "parenthood" means.

A family home is not a university campus.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

Idi - I suspect you have no real comprehension of what "parenthood" means.

A family home is not a university campus.

That's a very bold statement. How do you come to the conclusion I don't know what parenthood means? And what makes you believe I think a family home is like a university campus?

Because your previous post bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the reality of what goes on in a normal family home.

With the possible exception of Guardian-reading households, families do not sit round the dinner table holding dispassionate seminars on comparative religion. Kids want to know what makes the world go round; every adult has a view on the answer to that question and every adult is free to offer it. Anyone who goes round the houses saying "some believe this, some believe that" will pretty soon be pestered with the response, "but what do you believe?" Actually, it's as likely to be "what do we [i.e. we as a family] believe?".

Insisting that every comment should be prefixed by "IMO" is a fun trick for winding up other posters on an Internet forum but its applications in real life are severely limited.

[papa smurf]

http://journeyfree.org/childhood-rel...ndoctrination/


Factors in Childhood Indoctrination in Fundamentalist Christianity
From this graphic, it should be clear that a child in a fundamentalist Christian environment faces a powerful array of factors influencing indoctrination. Many of these techniques are quite deliberate, such as keeping children at home for their schooling to control what they learn and don’t learn. The primary goal of sincere Christian parents is to pass on their faith, not help their child develop critical thinking to make a fully informed decision about religion. Christians do not present their offspring with literature on all the religions of the world and make field trips to temples, churches and mosques to help them decide. Yet in their theology they claim that “accepting Jesus” is a personal choice of free will and only those who reject God’s free gift of salvation will go to hell.


The fact that parents go along with churches inducting toddlers into the belief system and programs for preverbal children are readily available only indicates the depth of internalized fear and anxiety that would ignore such a blatant contradiction. The saddest example of teaching toxic messages to preschoolers is the widespread use of the “Wordless Book,” with just colored pages for major concepts. Gold is for heaven where you can’t go, black is for your sinful heart, red is for Jesus blood shed because of you, and so forth. This is used in thousands of churches and now thousands of after-school Good News Clubs on public property.

Christians are likely to counter this diagram with wanting a vector listing the good things that are given a child – the love of God being the top of the list. But in the fundamentalist scheme this comes at such a great price that it is greatly overshadowed by the anxiety of not knowing for sure about salvation and the intellectual suicide required to accept the irrationality of the system.

In effect, the indoctrination of a child with immature cognitive abilities in the helpless context of a family is an abuse of power. The child has no perspective and no choice but to cooperate in order to survive. The messages are received and embedded in the brain while certain areas of brain development are repressed through lack of stimulation, chief of which is critical thinking. This, combined with accepting the teaching that one is unable to trust one’s own thoughts, and the abject fear of terrifying consequences, completes the trap. Even as the child gets older, there are social forces in place to enforce these dynamics and the circular reasoning can continue on, making the child feel highly disturbed but not have any idea why.

The typical pattern is for a person to keep trying harder to make the religion work because the doctrine always makes the individual at fault. Many describe a pattern of highs and extreme lows much like the mind-twisting cycle of abuse in domestic violence. The victim is always to blame and escape is extremely difficult because there is periodic emotional relief but no overall perspective. The attribution for the pain is always put on the victim’s bad behavior. For Christians, even when they are living exemplary lives and still miserable, they are charged with searching themselves for “secret sin” to explain the problem. It’s no wonder there is so much depression and “feeling crazy” when this mental abuse is happening.

Finding a path out of this morass is also complicated by the Christian training against self-reflection. Just thinking about oneself is considered bad, so it is very difficult to sort out feelings. Believers who are troubled manage to stay in the faith using self-deception and medication for their mental health issues. Those who leave struggle with recovery issues both from the faith and also the trauma of leaving. Beyond basic mental health, they also have the task of catching up with important areas of human development.

The most difficult thing to overcome, by far, is overcoming the intense indoctrination of early years. As an adult, for example, the fear of hell can pop up and cause panic attacks even if a person rationally rejects the doctrine. They have to learn how to label the emotion as “conditioning” instead of “truth” in the process of healing what is essentially early brainwashing. Gradually people in recovery can learn to trust their own feelings and discover critical thinking. Self-trust is the key to reclaiming one’s own life, and not easy when there has been mental abuse. However, understanding what has happened can help to disengage the power of early messages.

Clearly, for the author of that piece, it's intensely personal. It's sad that they have apparently suffered some form of abuse, and it's disappointing that their response is to project their own experience into the lives of people they don't know, and have never met - especially as the implications of their argument would be an extremely authoritarian shift in the balance of responsibility in the family, from parents to the State.

Anybody who thinks that State interference in the family is a good idea, just because at this precise moment their own ideology is aligned with that of the State, is being very naive and short-sighted.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Chris

Because your previous post bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the reality of what goes on in a normal family home.

I'm not sure how you deduced that. In my opinion, the role of a parent is to guide a child to be the best they can be without using forceful tactics. Speak to the child as you would any other person. don't talk to them in silly child-talk. call things by their proper names, explain things so the child understands the best they can (appropriately for age), listen to the child (which is something so many people seem to not do these days and are too intent on just telling a child what to do or what to think) and help that child reach an equilibrium where they are able to express their thoughts and feelings to a level you can understand. With psychology diplomas under my belt, which include but are not limited to child development and cognitive development (and with a 13 year old daughter and a sister 10 years my junior whom I saw grow up, plus my mother was a childminder whilst my sister was between the ages of 2 years to 11 years), I do have some experience in children, how they learn and raising them. I am fully aware of what happens in a home, and in my home I will not use force of any kind to make a point, be that smacking or shouting, or press an ideology/preference such as religion, sexual orientation or musical tastes, to give a few of examples.

Originally Posted by Chris

With the possible exception of Guardian-reading households, families do not sit round the dinner table holding dispassionate seminars on comparative religion. Kids want to know what makes the world go round; every adult has a view on the answer to that question and every adult is free to offer it. Anyone who goes round the houses saying "some believe this, some believe that" will pretty soon be pestered with the response, "but what do you believe?" Actually, it's as likely to be "what do we [i.e. we as a family] believe?".

I'm afraid that I may not have been quite as clear as I could have been. I believe that schools play a bit part in teaching children about religion. But teaching about religion, as already mentioned, is not the same as indoctrination. The later being quite dangerous in certain circumstances. You are absolutely correct - children do want do know what makes the world go round. And thank goodness they do. I'm still trying to find out myself! if we ever stop questioning, it would be the end of us. And when that child asks a question, it is the role of the parent / main caregiver to give a valid and unbiased answer. And yes, I will offer my answers to explain that different people have different views and beliefs - that is extremely important. and if I am asked what my opinion or view is, I will give it honestly and openly and justify those opinions with reasoning and rationale. My daughter has not been brought up by myself or my partner to rely on what a hive mind thinks. We want her to think for herself.

For example, I am in no way religious. But I do understand that it holds great value to many people, and that's great. My partner is somewhat religious. Not an every-Sunday churchgoer, but she celebrates Easter and Christmas and welcomes Christenings and Baptisms as 'the right thing to do'. My partner's mother and family is even more religious and will attend church and mass more often. My daughter has never, ever been forced to go to church and she is always offered the choice to either go along or stay at home. It is always phrased as "Would you like to come to church?", with no emphasis towards either option and with plenty of time for her to make her mind up. She has been many times with my partner (obviously, I do not attend) and as a 13 year old girl believes that religion if not for her. I have never ever told her not to believe in a God, or rubbished religion to her. Her mum has never ever told her she should believe in a God and has never 'bigged up' religion to her. she has made a balanced and thought out decision derived from learning what she can and asking very sensible questions. she is well aware that religion can be very beneficial to some people, but likewise, she is aware that not everyone feels the need to have religion in order to live as a good and moral person. The big thing is however, that she may well change her mind at any time. She may now decide that actually, religion is for her. And I will be happy with that, because I know that it will be her own choice (provided she is not indoctrinated by another, external force).

Originally Posted by Chris

Insisting that every comment should be prefixed by "IMO" is a fun trick for winding up other posters on an Internet forum but its applications in real life are severely limited.

It is my opinion. If I were to state what I said as a fact, it would be incorrect as others would not necessarily feel the same. I do understand fully that anything I or anyone else says does not mean it should be held in the same regard by any other person. I'm sorry you feel that my stating my opinion as somewhat of a get-out. it is not meant as that. it is meant to indicate that what I say is how I, and possibly I alone, feel on the topic. It's what debates and debate-forums are for. If everyone stated everything they said as a fact, it would simply be an argument or argument-forum as everyone would be so blinkered and blind to other options than nobody would ever consider someone else's view as valid. That, I believe, would be very sad and very selfish and would 100% halt any cognitive or practical progression.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

<Snip>

Silly rational point of view. Far healthier on every level to fear 'eternal consequence' for your kids delivered by the all-loving God you worship and adore if you don't indoctrinate them appropriately.

Silly sarcasm meant largely in jest aside this has become a quite fascinating discussion. Kudos to Mr A for kicking it off and those who have participated in every manner.

EDIT: Hope all like the new avatar. I seem to have developed a fixation with Achmed the Dead Terrorist, sorry!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

With the possible exception of Guardian-reading households, families do not sit round the dinner table holding dispassionate seminars on comparative religion. Kids want to know what makes the world go round; every adult has a view on the answer to that question and every adult is free to offer it. Anyone who goes round the houses saying "some believe this, some believe that" will pretty soon be pestered with the response, "but what do you believe?" Actually, it's as likely to be "what do we [i.e. we as a family] believe?".

Spot on. If one of mine decides they want to follow a particular belief system there are those who will either accuse me of pressurising them in to believing or that I should have done my bit to discourage such beliefs.

Madness.