AFA,
Of the six Chaplains I know all are graduate School teachers with degrees, and themselves have young family. In one primary school the chaplain organizes the breakfast program for children who come to school not having sufficient nourishment, as well as dealing with children with learning and problems at home.

It seems you are struggling with anger against the choices of adults you call indoctrinated. WHY? Is it because you wish to impose your atheistic doctrine on children against the will of parents? You are a desperate person with very little of real consequences to give to the needs of human society. Teach science not an interpretation you are obsessed with; i.e. "there is no god". One way or the other it does not change the facts of true science which all children learn. I worked for 9 years for Alexander Boden, at that time Australia’s leading Industrial Chemist, who wrote post Graduate courses and School text Books that were promoted around the World. He could accommodate God in his world view and it did not affect his authority as a scientist.

Can I ask how many children do you have?
Do you enforce upon them a view, "There is no God"?
Can they have access to persons with other points of view?
Do you give scientific validation of natural physics? Like "All actions have a cause, including the first action."
What was the first cause, was it physical or mental [spiritual]?

Josephus,

Because six chaplains have degrees as teachers does not make them, a) have expertise in counselling and b) does not validate others who do not have degrees in teaching anyway.

You see anger where none exists. What I see is injustice brought about by children being indoctrinated thus potentially harming their own lives as well as the lives of other because of the narrow views they may take on board.

Anecdotes about people are not proof of anything and that you think they are shows how religion has interfered with you critical thinking abilities or you have missed out on them for some other reason. This is not a derogatory remark, just an accurate one.

My personal life is irrelevant but I do not advocate the forcing of any view on children. Are you reading the thread? Children should have access to all points of view for their age but supernatural threats and promises should not be a part of that. That kind of thing has known long lasting and detrimental consequences. Think Twin Towers. Think runner.

David

AFA,
One's personal life is where the rubber hits the road, much more than one's beliefs. Your obsessive negative attitude to theism would alianate any children and they consider you an angry old man. Such attitude passes on to other areas of your life, so start being balanced and not paranoid. You are not the keeper of intelligent thought or the direction of evolution.

Mrs Mary O'Haire an atheist managed to remove prayers from American schools by her campaign. However her inquisitive son Murray researched the Christian Gospel and today is a Christian evangelist. I have attended six of his sessions while he visited Australia. It was his mother's negative obsession to theism that made him think there was a better more positive life than what he had grown up with.

Josephus,

Seeking social justice and attempting to improve democratic process is difficult. But I have to inform you that your label of me being obsessive is just a defensive mechanism for you. I might remind you that I answer posts as they appear because there is no hardship in that and it needs doing by someone. I am someone.

You have to pin something on me so that your way of thinking is not threatened. This is a common method used by religious persons who have run out of ideas. You will see it all the way through this thread.

The atheist is angry, had a poor experience with religion, is obsessive, hates a particular god, dislikes religious persons, is really going to create Gulags, is a sinner, is unhappy, will cause Stalinistic-type situations, wants to indoctrinate children with atheism(sigh), etc.

I suppose you know that children with atheist parents, from my experience and from what I have read, appear to be very well adjusted and happy with no thoughts of parents being ‘angry old men’ (or women).

Why are you lashing out with such nonsense as, “You are not the keeper of intelligent thought or the direction of evolution.” What does that mean?

If your understanding of atheism is from Madalyn Murray O'Hair, (Not Mary) then you are obviously living in the past and wish to bring it back. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, like us all, had good points to her character and bad points. Her son, William can be viewed here. The opinion piece is interesting as are the comments. I know you will view it with an open mind.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/07/madalyn-murray-ohairs-son-talks-to-mike-huckabee-about-his-conversion-to-christianity/

William left out some very important points such as how children who admit to their parents they are atheist are often disowned, particularly in the USA.

But the more interesting aspect is that you take one alleged case and extrapolate that to all cases. I respect logic, rationality, reason and common-sense far too much to do that kind of thing. On the other hand, religious people can often grab at any straw available to support their rickety-case.

David

There's a contradiction in here somewhere, Josephus, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

>>It was his mother's negative obsession to theism that made him think there was a better more positive life than what he had grown up with.<<

You appear to be suggesting that having militantly atheist parents is a force for creating born-again Christians. Why then are you being so censorious of David's views? Surely, you should encourage them, so that more Christians pop up in the future?

Incidentally, if you are up to it, I'd appreciate some clarification of this:

>>"All actions have a cause, including the first action."<<

You give the impression that this is a "scientific validation of natural physics". I am unfamiliar with the phrase - could you expand upon it a little?

In scientific terms, if you are able.

David wrote: "Atheism is a freely chosen position, unlike religion which is imposed in childhood."

Do you actually hear yourself? I feel like some elder trying to curb the rash impetuosity of a brash teenager. I can only chortle and shake my head.

Atheism is chosen, religion imposed. No chance of the reverse? Not in David fantasy world. A person raised in a religious family becomes religious because its imposed. A person raised in an atheist family, becomes an atheist through free choice! No such thing as a person raised in an atheist household choosing religion. Or maybe people who choose religion in adulthood are just too feeble minded to see that they are having it imposed. Two kids raised in a religious family. The one who chooses religion is a victim of indoctrination. The other who chooses atheism is a free thinker. What a laugh.

Amazing how we have all these clearly intelligent theists who just don't see that their beliefs are just the result of indoctrination from their parents.

Poor old (or juvenile?) David just can't get past it. Atheists are rational, educated, analytic. Theists are infantile victims of thought-control. Honestly....

And then he claims to be logical and rational.