SecularGuy,
<<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.>>
I remember receiving corporal punishment at both of the state-run secular primary and high schools that I attended.
Clearly, "parents and church-run institutions" did not have a monopoly on corporal punishment.
What's your point?

GlenC

‘Sorry to have to disappoint you’ You have not disappointed me and I am pleased your children/grandchildren are doing well. No doubt with this kind of result you must have imposed your values on your kids/grand kids,

My evidence that many people are rejecting your dogma (a humanistic course in ethics for kids) is the mass exodus of this failed Marxist ideology and dogma . State schools have claimed to have ethics and morals for years. If these have not failed there would not be a mass exodus from these schools.

No doubt you want your doctrine of ‘moral rights and responsibilities’ taught. Popular culture is and has been adopted as morally acceptable by those who don’t teach a replacement. If you are not happy for your children to adopt popular culture ( body image obsession) then you have done well. You seem blind however to the fact that you have imposed your beliefs on the child. The next person has imposed a totally different set of beliefs.

You also fail to acknowledge that many kids have a curiosity to where we come from and how they got here. The failure of science to give any plausible and provable explanations should be acknowledged. Science textbooks that have been full of frauds and men’s vain imaginations should not be taught to kids as science. This is deceitful and fraudulent (the very thing you accuse the religious of). The simple chance of something coming from nothing is really pathetic science compared to the obvious design we see in the universe. Many dogmas flow from the fantasy of evolution. No doubt you are comfortable with these dogmas brainwashing your kids. To teach a baby is not a human until a certain age is deceitful and destructive. It actually leads to people believing they can murder children without conscience.

The fruit of denying the obvious is shown by communist countries such as China and North Korea. The non belief in God in these countries make the protestant/Catholic casualties look very small indeed.

Childhood indoctrination ranges anywhere from ‘inappropriate’ in its most mild form, to ‘full-blown child abuse’ in the most extreme situations.

Telling children that a place like Hell exists and potentially awaits them if they don’t believe is mental and emotion abuse, and in extreme cases, has been known to cause severe anxiety problems that extend well into adulthood even after the victim has pulled themselves out of the indoctrination.

Mental and emotional abuse of a child would normally result in a visit by Social Services and probably a few family counselling sessions.

But not where religion’s concerned.

No, as usual religion gets its underserved free pass to do whatever the hell it likes. Not only are we not supposed to criticise religious belief, but were actually supposed to respect it when there is no reason respect it.

Parents can focus all they like on how allegedly loving their alleged god is, but so long as the concept of Hell is even so much as far off in the background, that’ll never really be enough.

Religious parents always see the need to get in there quickly before the critical thinking skills kick-in, yet it never seems actually occurs to them why that is.

In 2008, I ran a 9-week U3A discussion of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”. I’d read a 30-minute slab without comment and then moderate a 60-minute discussion among 35 participants. They came from differing religious backgrounds and most of them didn’t miss a week. I was thrilled by the quality of their input, by their ability to remain perfectly civil while putting their often conflicting views, and by the depth of learning — book and life — they brought to them. On the last day, eight accepted my invitation to present a ten minute paper under parliamentary maiden-speech rules — you can say what you like without fear of interruption. The papers were good enough to print; so I printed them.

This exchange has been almost as rewarding. Thanks everyone. I’m sorry I’m no expert in race/ethnicity, sociology or even nationality. All I meant by saying that everyone needed a nationality was that having one makes it lots easier to get passports, pensions and stuff. And overall I was only trying to illustrate that while there are certain characteristics over which children have no control, religion isn’t one. Or shouldn’t be.

I didn’t say, and don’t believe, that children should not be taught about religion. They just shouldn’t be forced to commit to one until they are old enough to know what it means.
Of course my wife and I encouraged our children to uphold certain values just as they now encourage theirs. But we never forced them to believe anything, religious or other, that flew in the face of evidence. And neither should anyone else. That’s indoctrination.
Two years ago, my seven year old grandson came home from SRE and defied his mother with the slogan “Anyway, you are not the boss of me. God is the boss of me.” A week later, I heard a Victorian mother on Four Corners complain of being confronted with exactly the same words. Coincidence? Even if you don’t agree that those children had been mentally abused by their religion teacher, you must see that neither had they been loved. Or respected.

Dear Secular Guy,

I was raised as a Catholic.
Staunch and true.
As I grew up, went to uni, travelled -
I didn't like what organized religion had
done to the world. I still do not.
I've come to see, however, that true
religion is internal, not external.
The spirit within us can't be blamed
for the blasphemies carried out in its name.
What some have done in the name of religion,
projecting their neuroses even perpetrating
evil on the world does not make religion as a
mystical phenomenon invalid.

Secularized organized religions have become,
in many cases, as calcified as other
institutions that form the structure of the modern
world. Our religious institutions have far too
often become handmaidens of the status quo, while
the genuine religious experience is anything but
that.

Anyway, the point that I'm trying to make is - children
will make up their own minds and choose what's right
for them as they grow. We all know this. They choose
their friends, and their own path in life. But to
suggest that parents have no right to pass on to their
children their beliefs, values, norms, et cetera -
is not very realistic.
That's what parents do when they're raising
a child. They try to give them the basics in life.
The rest is up to the child to choose which path their
life's journey is going to take.

By the way - you need to tone down your posts and watch
your language and work on the assumption
that you're dealing with people of at least
average intelligence. Phrases such as, "Get It!"
are unnecessary. And if people don't "Get It,"
it may be because they either
disagree with you, or you may need to look at your
posting style. This is after all merely a discussion.
We're all entitled to our opinions, even if they don't
happen to agree with yours.

The author actually demonstrates that his arguement is false.

He was 'indoctrinated' as a child, as he went to a Catholic school. Gee they didn't do a very good job brainwashing him, now did they.

I have no problems with religious education in schools, and actually think it should form a core part of the curricula, but it should cover all the major religions and the topic of cults. It should also look at the effect of religion on politics etc. It could be part of the social science section.

However, before an informed discussion can be had on religion, one must first know something on the topic. The small bits of religious instruction in schools is minimal, and if parents want to have thier children know nothing about religion, I believe they are doing the children a dis-service, not abusing them.

By including religion in the curriculum, the power for people to use religion as indoctrination is reduced, and children will form critical opinions for themselves, some choosing to stick with their parent's religion, others will choose a different path, as the author obviously has.

The author is acutally pushing for his form of religious instruction to be regulated - that is agnosticism (or whatever it is called).

I would much rather children are educated in religions as a topic, as many Catholic schools are doing, so that children can make a free and informed choice as adults.

An informed choice is far better than being denied the information with which to make a choice - that is indoctrination in itself.