Please don't label children

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Please don't label children" by AndromedasWake.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/reason/please-dont-label-children/

 

[monitoradiation]

Dawkins must be proud.

However, I do think that parents have the rights to share their belief systems with their child, when they think it has served them well personally. The line should be drawn at calling kids "a catholic child" as Dawkins likes to say. Unless it is possible to establish child abuse through indoctrination and brainwashing, I don't really see how we can have parents NOT teach their kids about their belief systems...

I think I'd only advocate for secular public schools and a mandatory introduction to logic course for kids starting at the age of perhaps 8 or 9. I remembered at that age I was specifically interested in lists, for some reason. So if they gave me a gigantic list of logical fallacies I'd stay up at night and try to remember all of them.

 

[rabbitpirate]

@AW

Completely changing the subject but is the photo of Ariane one of the ones you took at TAM? It's a really good photo. Did you ever put the photos you took up online somewhere as I for one would love to see them as from what I saw at the event you got some really great shots.

Ok back on subject. I have to say that I am not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I agree that labelling a child after the religion of their parents is wrong, though I think calling it child abuse goes a bit too far, but on the other hand I agree with monitoradiation as to the impossibility of a child raised in a religious family, or any family for that matter, not picking up on the beliefs of their parents, for good or ill.

I also agree with the idea of teaching kids critical thinking skills at a young age while at the same time allowing them to make their own choices about things like religion etc. So while I support the general idea behind this campaign I really don't see how practically it can achieve anything, at least not to the extent of the pervious campaign. But hey I would be happy to be proven wrong.

 

[derkvanl]

Ok back on subject. I have to say that I am not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I agree that labelling a child after the religion of their parents is wrong

Most people don't label kids after their parents religion. It's the religious parents that make sure the label is on their kids.

though I think calling it child abuse goes a bit too far, but on the other hand I agree with monitoradiation as to the impossibility of a child raised in a religious family, or any family for that matter, not picking up on the beliefs of their parents, for good or ill.

When parents make sure their kids grow up religiously and do not have the chance to question faith, beliefs and religion, it's child abuse.

I also agree with the idea of teaching kids critical thinking skills at a young age while at the same time allowing them to make their own choices about things like religion etc. So while I support the general idea behind this campaign I really don't see how practically it can achieve anything, at least not to the extent of the pervious campaign. But hey I would be happy to be proven wrong.

The problem in faith-based schools is that the children do not get that "critical thinking" skills on the topic of religion. That's an unquestionable topic in faith schools.

Good education is very important. My opinion is that all kids should mandatory go to basic, public, non-faith/religion based schools where they learn in an objective way about the knowledge we have. In those schools they should also objectively teach the facts and histories of the different religions in history class. Language education, critical thinking, biology, chemistry, maths, physics and a lot more is what these schools should teach. If parents want their kids to get any religious education they can educate their kids themselves or have kids go to any kind of club, institute, sunday-school they choose. Outside regular public shool hours.

Because of a, in general, polite common respect of non-religious people towards all religions, we allow people to send their children to schools where the kids are denied certain knowledge.

 

[Mariano]

This is merely more atheist propaganda as Richard Dawkins wonders whether there is occasion for "society stepping in" and hopes that such efforts "might lead children to choose no religion at all." Dawkins also supports the atheist summer camp "Camp Quest."

Phillip Pullman states the following about his "fictional" books for children, "I don't think I'm writing fantasy. I think I'm writing realism. My books are psychologically real." But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, "My books are about killing God" and "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

More evidence here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/deceptive-manipulative-propagandist.html

Yet again, atheists are collecting "amazing sums" during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be,while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance,need any more be said?

 

[borrofburi]

Yet again, atheists are collecting "amazing sums" during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be,while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance,need any more be said?

I am sure plenty of us would be willing to debate your unsubstantiated claims of "ignorance and arrogance", but I imagine you are a one-time hit and run person whose tactic is merely to say "you're all stupid! nananana!" It's certainly an easy thing to do, but what on earth do you hope to accomplish by it?

 

[aeroeng314]

Yet again, atheists are collecting "amazing sums" during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be,while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance,need any more be said?

I am sure plenty of us would be willing to debate your unsubstantiated claims of "ignorance and arrogance", but I imagine you are a one-time hit and run person whose tactic is merely to say "you're all stupid! nananana!" It's certainly an easy thing to do, but what on earth do you hope to accomplish by it?

Rhetorical masturbation, I guess.

 

[Aught3]

Yet again, atheists are collecting "amazing sums" during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be,while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance,need any more be said?

Religious organisations also advertise their existence and try to get their message out. It's important for all organisations to do this, why would you deny atheists the chance to tell people what they're up to? Loudly and proudly displaying their ignorance reminds me of the creation 'museum' who have been shown to be factually wrong, are you saying that they shouldn't be advertising?

As for atheists helping people in material need, the most recent example I heard of is the Atheist Centre in India who help out with rural development in some of the most impoverished regions of that country. The most recent example of a christian charity in the news would be the Catholic church threatening to withdraw its aid in the district of Columbia if it wasn't given the ability to discriminate between who it employs.

 

[monitoradiation]

This is merely more atheist propaganda as Richard Dawkins wonders whether there is occasion for "society stepping in" and hopes that such efforts "might lead children to choose no religion at all." Dawkins also supports the atheist summer camp "Camp Quest."

We're allowed to have advertisements, if religious nutjobs are allowed to have theirs. You're not required to agree with the message that Dawkins want to put up, I'm not even entirely sure that I'd agree. But I agree that he has the right to put up these ads.

Phillip Pullman states the following about his "fictional" books for children, "I don't think I'm writing fantasy. I think I'm writing realism. My books are psychologically real." But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, "My books are about killing God" and "I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

And all fundamentalist Christians think that their fictional book is real, and psychologically real. They want to convert people. What's your point? Does this make Christianity false?

More evidence here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/deceptive-manipulative-propagandist.html

Evidence for what?

Yet again, atheists are collecting "amazing sums" during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be,while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance,need any more be said?

What amazing sums? You tell the Vatican to start donating its riches, churches to stop collecting tithes and I'll start maybe thinking about atheists not collecting these "amazing sums" of money that you seem to think we're getting. We don't have megachurches preaching the prosperity of the gospel, and the arrogance and ignorance of your viewpoint makes you a hypocrite.

While I hope you'd read what I wrote, you're probably just a post-and-run type of deal. Too bad.

 

[rabbitpirate]

So apparently the kids used in these pictures turned out to belong to Christian parents who have, of course, completely missed the point of the campaign and are claiming that the evil atheists behind it chose to use pictures of "Christian Children" because they were obviously happier than "Atheist Children". Seriously some people just don't get it.

Man I keep messing up these links, they this one

http://www.blaghag.com/2009/11/theists-completely-miss-point-of-bhas.html

 

[Giliell]

Well, they hit the nail on the head if those kids are being labelled "christian" by their parents.
No sense in using unlabelled children of atheist parents

 

[rabbitpirate]

The Times Online's religious correspondent appears to have completely missed the point.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece

 

[Aught3]

All this coverage is so ironic it makes my jaw ache. I mean they even used a picture of the ad saying that we shouldn't label children with a religion!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[Giliell]

They can have pics of my (mostly) unlabelled children if they need some.
And they look happy and free, too, most of the time, except when mummy and daddy turn into tyrants again

 

[borrofburi]

"Oh yah, well my <label> children have a different label than the label I apply to your ad about how labels are bad..."
What bothers me is that most of them really just don't understand why that's ironic

 

[AndromedasWake]

Completely changing the subject but is the photo of Ariane one of the ones you took at TAM? It's a really good photo. Did you ever put the photos you took up online somewhere as I for one would love to see them as from what I saw at the event you got some really great shots.

I never uploaded many of the photos due to being afflicted with incredible laziness. I'm struggling to make this post to be honest.

I will be publishing a full - albeit belated - review of TAML on the site before Xmas! Stay tuned.

 

[5810Singer]

More evidence here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/deceptive-manipulative-propagandist.html

Evidence for what?

Evidence for Mariano's ability to copy/paste.

Read the article that Mariano linked to, and then read Mariano's post again, and you'll notice that large parts of the two texts are identical.