GlenC
I think you may have confused me with Proxy, I hope so as i would not ever wish to go Nazi on any one.
I do though have to question your assertion that race or ethnicity is a purely gene based issue.
Now I maybe confused but I was of the understanding that science has shown with the development of our understanding of DNA that race does not exist. The differences we experience as race are environmentally based.
Again I could be confused and this may relate to a different area of genetics, I am a bit slow, so please refer me to the appropriate articles to correct me.
Non the less, if we are actually all one race in essence and matters such as evolutionary environmental effects and the influence of religion, lifestyle and community are what really form the differences between us, are we not then better to seek neutral ground and the homogenisation of culture to lessen the burden of cultural conflict.
Therefore your comment that we all need a nationality is well, What for? This maybe a naive comment by me but is not nationality cause for useless conflict and nationalism that lead to things like Nazism.
Lastly nearly all nationalities use religion as a core element of there identity. You don't need to look far to hear the "we are a country with values based in Christianity".
Look at the constant damage the indoctrination of children does. Identity is mostly built on the fears and prejudices of the community, so one could say that national identity and racial divide are merely indoctrinated concepts and don't exist.
Yes I think I am just a simpleton.

Proxy,
I can't argue against your logic.

It is always a good idea to constantly test proposals for weaknesses.

However, it is even better to offer another (hopefully improved) proposal to advance the debate and move forward. Do you have one?

BTW, it was not my intention to focus on Christianity per se, but to focus on the current issue with the rampant Christian indulgence of forcing "Scripture" classes onto ALL state school children in Queensland. It seemed relevant to this discussion.

Also, you don't need me to demonstrate recent examples of hate speech by church leaders. Have a look at the recent Easter Messages by most of the prominent AUSTRALIAN Christian church leaders where (for example) today's atheists were openly compared with the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin.

How disgustingly low can they go? I mean, Hitler (as a child) was taught to hate Jews by the Catholic church and openly supported by them during the war, and they THEN have the audacity to "point the finger" at a harmless group of people who have some integrity by checking the validity of what they're told to believe. What hypocrites!

At a time when the world needed messages of hope, compassion and understanding, this sort of mindless garbage was propagated with glee by Christian parents to anyone with an email address.

I'm not against people practising their own religious beliefs in private. I realise that there are many who have had this ideology thrust upon them from an early age, and they really need it to continue in their lives.

What I strongly object to is having religion imposed on all of us from every corner and it all starts with children being "required" to adopt some religious belief to avoid segregation from their mates.

THAT's what has to end!

Religion is private and does not belong in schools. Parents wanting a religous education should send their kids to sunday school or its equivalent.

Freedom of religion is a human right see artcile 18 of the UDHR:
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I am all for a course in comparative religion and a history of religion in schools. It could be quite controversial though as each religious parent would have an individual interpretation of religion and its values.

For example thou shalt not worship graven images is interpreted by:
-Protestants as not worshiping any images
-Easterners as not worshiping statues but pictures are ok
-Catholics as ignoring this rule (or pretending statues of Maria and saints are just decoration)

This may not lead to too much trouble. But pointing out that the trinity is a 4th century invention that was widely ignored by the Arians or that Mohamed married a 9 year old might rock the boat a bit. I imagine that most teachers will not be looking forward to parent interviews after delivering that part of the curriculum.

On the other hand the knowledge that Christ is known as Issa the "Prophet of Love" in islam might appeal to aging hippies.

"This debate, as so often happens, seems to have got polarised. "

You are right squeerz that always seems to happen on this topic. I wonder if anyone has changed their religous preference, gained a better understanding of others or learned something as a result of reading or contributing to this forum.

It often feels like everyone is talking and no one is listening.

People don't become fully human until
they're socialized, and the primary
context of this socialisation is the
family, starting at birth. Because the
child is theirs, the parents normally
take particular care to monitor his or
her behaviour and to pass on
the language, values, norms, and beliefs
of the culture. Although in modern society
many of these socialisation functions have
also been added to by other institutions such
as schools, churches, or even the media, the
family remains the earliest and most
significant agency of socialisation.

After all birth into a family gives the
individual a stable place in society.
We inherit from our family not only material
goods but also our social status. We belong
to the same racial or ethnic group and it's
no surprise that usually also to the same
religion and social class that our parents
belong to. Our family background is the most
significant single determinant of our status
in society.

The family is a "haven in a heartless world."
Human beings have a need for affection, nurturance,
intimacy, and love. The family is the primary
social context in which emotional needs can be
fulfilled and the deepest personal feelings can
be expressed. To suggest that teaching children
the religion of the parents is a form of abuse
is ludicrous. The family is the place of ultimate
emotional refuge and comfort and it fulfills its
role so effectively that it takes primary
responsibility for it in human culture.

The author obviously has not studied the subject
of sociology.

Foxy,
All those nice, warm, fuzzy things you mentioned about families can easily be achieved without any religious indoctrination.

Until recently, it was considered OK for parents and church-run institutions to physically abuse children with belts (and the like)' That behaviour is now recognised as abuse.

Times change! Standards change with the times and public opinion!

You might (or might not) know something about sociology, but your lack of knowledge or understanding about real life issues is very evident in your post.

BTW, the question is not about "teaching children the religion of the parents", as you put it. It is about indoctrination and "REQUIRING children to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents". Big difference!

Got it?