Labelling children and the campaign not to.

[Clinton Huxley]

Humour me, describe HOW with any degree of plausibility it could change the topic of debate in a way that would achieve success faster than simply campaigning for all state schools to have open access to pupils of all faiths, abilities, race, and social background?

I see this as our "opponents" owning the very language in which the debate is conducted.

Again, I don't see why this has to be either/or. You can campaign for open access to state schools of whatever denomination (or for the total separation of eduction and indoctrination) AND campaign against labelling. The labelling thing is more to raise awareness of the issue than anything else.

[floppit]

Humour me, describe HOW with any degree of plausibility it could change the topic of debate in a way that would achieve success faster than simply campaigning for all state schools to have open access to pupils of all faiths, abilities, race, and social background?

I see this as our "opponents" owning the very language in which the debate is conducted.

Again, I don't see why this has to be either/or. You can campaign for open access to state schools of whatever denomination (or for the total separation of eduction and indoctrination) AND campaign against labelling. The labelling thing is more to raise awareness of the issue than anything else.

Eh? Not being funny but we can't exactly tackle the issue of faith schools without using the word faith.

For the second part I agree you can do both but was asking what the hell the second option is ever likely to achieve? It may raise awareness but what's the product of that? Do you think families will stop calling their children Muslim or Catholic that did so before? Do you think it at all likely that children who currently see themselves as religious would object to being told they cannot yet decide, might even conclude the poster/atheists are evidently wrong?

[Clinton Huxley]

For the second part I agree you can do both but was asking what the hell the second option is ever likely to achieve? It may raise awareness but what's the product of that? Do you think families will stop calling their children Muslim or Catholic that did so before? Do you think it at all likely that children who currently see themselves as religious would object to being told they cannot yet decide, might even conclude the poster/atheists are evidently wrong?

You see no value in raising awareness of labelling as an issue? Where else does one start with any issue but with raising awareness of it?

Sounds like a vote for the status quo to me. You must be one of these "accomodationist" atheists.....splitters!

[floppit]

For the second part I agree you can do both but was asking what the hell the second option is ever likely to achieve? It may raise awareness but what's the product of that? Do you think families will stop calling their children Muslim or Catholic that did so before? Do you think it at all likely that children who currently see themselves as religious would object to being told they cannot yet decide, might even conclude the poster/atheists are evidently wrong?

You see no value in raising awareness of labelling as an issue? Where else does one start with any issue but with raising awareness of it?

Sounds like a vote for the status quo to me. You must be one of these "accomodationist" atheists.....splitters!

So.... You suggest I support something that has potential to backfire big style based on - wait for it - it's what someone else is doing and best not to split the pack? Nope, not sold on that idea.

As for accomodationists - smeg, I'm just an atheist, didn't know there were subgroups. Anyway, if I belong to a subgroup it's pragmatist. I'll happily leave thumping a head against a wall and keep talking where people have at least some chance of scratching a few ounces of rationality together.

But back to the question - what is the perceived outcome of the campaign? Let's play pretend it's worked 100% and the awareness is now raised, what's that expected to lead to?

[Clinton Huxley]

For the second part I agree you can do both but was asking what the hell the second option is ever likely to achieve? It may raise awareness but what's the product of that? Do you think families will stop calling their children Muslim or Catholic that did so before? Do you think it at all likely that children who currently see themselves as religious would object to being told they cannot yet decide, might even conclude the poster/atheists are evidently wrong?

You see no value in raising awareness of labelling as an issue? Where else does one start with any issue but with raising awareness of it?

Sounds like a vote for the status quo to me. You must be one of these "accomodationist" atheists.....splitters!

So.... You suggest I support something that has potential to backfire big style based on - wait for it - it's what someone else is doing and best not to split the pack? Nope, not sold on that idea.

A) You may think it has a potential to back fire, I don't. B) You obviously haven't watched enough Monty Python.

As for accomodationists - smeg, I'm just an atheist, didn't know there were subgroups. Anyway, if I belong to a subgroup it's pragmatist. I'll happily leave thumping a head against a wall and keep talking where people have at least some chance of scratching a few ounces of rationality together.

Then here we must differ - personally I don't think that a great and enduring evil is going to be even dented by having polite discussions at focus groups. It's clear the whole "labelling" issue is getting up people's noses, atheist and otherwise. Good!

But back to the question - what is the perceived outcome of the campaign? Let's play pretend it's worked 100% and the awareness is now raised, what's that expected to lead to?

Who knows where it leads to? It gets an issue talked about, it maybe makes people change the way they think about something. You could make that criticism of ANY awareness-raising campaign.

[floppit]

So bearing in mind the above - you would presumably agree that the pro argument is a circular one as raising awareness need not lead to perceptible change change beyond raising awareness?

Again - I'd ask you to humour me, as you say you believe there's no risk of it backfiring, have you ever met a child or teen both receptive and grateful for an adult's judgement that they are unable to make a decision? Or is it that you don't equate a child seeing the athiest's poster as poo a backfire?

As for polite focus groups - I'll be rude if you want, just don't see the point.

I'm all for tackling things head on, hell - this is hardly what you would call a post from someone who dislikes a degree of conflict! Just I'd rather achieve something perceivable for my efforts.

[Clinton Huxley]

So bearing in mind the above - you would presumably agree that the pro argument is a circular one as raising awareness need not lead to perceptible change change beyond raising awareness?

Not circular, spiral-shaped.

Again - I'd ask you to humour me, as you say you believe there's no risk of it backfiring, have you ever met a child or teen both receptive and grateful for an adult's judgement that they are unable to make a decision?

Precisely the point. The child has NOT made the decision. It's parents, or even worse, it's society, has labelled it as a "christian" or "muslim" child. Once a label is applied, it's difficult to remove.

Or is it that you don't equate a child seeing the athiest's poster as poo a backfire?

One child may think its "poo", one may think its true.

As for polite focus groups - I'll be rude if you want, just don't see the point.

Not being rude, being serious and flippant at the same time.

[floppit]

Not circular, spiral-shaped.

Kind of looks circular but your perhaps suggesting it leads somewhere - just not yet figured that bit out? You'll have to explain spiral arguments to me - I'm afraid I've never heard of them.

Precisely the point. The child has NOT made the decision. It's parents, or even worse, it's society, has labelled it as a "christian" or "muslim" child. Once a label is applied, it's difficult to remove.

I have to say - the last sentence of that is just rank not true, no-one except ijits on RD net still think or call me christian. I think the fact I don't believe in a god sort of puts them off.

One child may think its "poo", one may think its true.

So you REALLY think there are enough kids able to see themselves as unable to decide or think for themselves to make it worthwhile? Out of curiosity - do you meet many kids?

Not being rude, being serious and flippant at the same time.

I think we may have wires crossed, I thought you had suggested the polite approach wasn't pragmatic - I was arguing rudeness doesn't add anything not that you were being rude.

[charlou]

I don't see objections to labelling children with their parent's ideology as a mode of attack but more simply as consciousness raising. You can call a child what you like but, unless that child is allowed to think autonomously and to apply his/her own rationale to any philosophy so labelled, the labelling is presumptuous and inappropriate.

[floppit]

I don't see objections to labelling children with their parent's ideology as a mode of attack but more simply as consciousness raising. You can call a child what you like but, unless that child is allowed to think autonomously and to apply his/her own rationale to any philosophy so labelled, the labelling is presumptuous and inappropriate.

The problem is, it doesn't tackle what they are taught at home or provide any alternative. I'm all for opening children's minds - right at the start I said a campaign with some of the nuts and bolts of reasoning for kids to use would be a really good idea. Thoughts are the one things parents have no physical control over, and although extreme indoctrination comes close it only truly works if you exclude the alternatives (which is why fundies home school). I'd like to see critical thinking as part of the national curriculum and then let nature and teen years run their course.

If you take away the label from a child but leave them living with (but not truly part of) religious families all they will be is excluded and angry, nothing in that course of action serves to give them the tools for autonomy, in fact if the child wants to be called by the religious label it works against autonomy.

Learning to think for yourself is a lifelong process learned via errors, those mistakes form an essential part of clarity. I'm not saying religion is essential, I'm saying allowing a child to say what they are even if they are wrong is.

Autonomous thinking is something I doubt any of us fully achieve but where it exists, I believe it does so because the tools for it have been learned rather than a wish for it to be the case.

[charlou]

I don't see objections to labelling children with their parent's ideology as a mode of attack but more simply as consciousness raising. You can call a child what you like but, unless that child is allowed to think autonomously and to apply his/her own rationale to any philosophy so labelled, the labelling is presumptuous and inappropriate.

The problem is, it doesn't tackle what they are taught at home or provide any alternative. I'm all for opening children's minds - right at the start I said a campaign with some of the nuts and bolts of reasoning for kids to use would be a really good idea. Thoughts are the one things parents have no physical control over, and although extreme indoctrination comes close it only truly works if you exclude the alternatives (which is why fundies home school). I'd like to see critical thinking as part of the national curriculum and then let nature and teen years run their course.

If you take away the label from a child but leave them living with (but not truly part of) religious families all they will be is excluded and angry, nothing in that course of action serves to give them the tools for autonomy, in fact if the child wants to be called by the religious label it works against autonomy.

Learning to think for yourself is a lifelong process learned via errors, those mistakes form an essential part of clarity. I'm not saying religion is essential, I'm saying allowing a child to say what they are even if they are wrong is.

Autonomous thinking is something I doubt any of us fully achieve but where it exists, I believe it does so because the tools for it have been learned rather than a wish for it to be the case.

I agree with most of that, floppit. I'm not talking about taking labels away from children, but rather not applying the labels in the first place. I disagree that not applying labels and pigeon-holing children will lead to children feeling excluded and angry. Children don't feel excluded and angry if they're not labelled by the political leanings or musical interests or sporting affiliation or whatever other personal belief/interest of their parents. Children do feel comfortable with and even empowered by having their individuality, their curiosity and their interests respected and nurtured.

[FedUpWithFaith]

I like labelling people with real tangible labels, like swastikas and crucifixes. I think people should be tattooed with their parents religion and political party at the time of birth. I think they should only be allowed to change affiliation by paying a tax to have the label painfully removed. I'll bet if we demanded this, labels would go away quick though.

[floppit]

Children don't feel excluded and angry if they're not labelled by the political leanings or musical interests or sporting affiliation or whatever other personal belief/interest of their parents.

I agree with the sentiment behind this but would like to throw another idea into the pot. What you say about musical interests and politics is very true, in some families but whether it's true in families where those leanings are seen as the central and defining quality of the group I'm less sure. Look at Tony Benn's family, his offspring have followed suit into politics 2 out of the surviving 3 being elected and now his granddaughter also joins the fray. I remember a conversation with my horse boss over when to buy his daughter her first pony, he was in no hurry to rush things but by the age of five he was beginning to think about her starting to ride. I was very pro her having a pony, not because I think 5yr old's in general should have their own pony but because HER entire family and social group rode, because horses were the primary topic of conversations, because what was learned in the yard defined the way of being as people - 5yrs old is old enough to join your tribe and begin to learn what it is that binds them. It worked out rather well I might add.

For families that fall into the non practising groups with regard to religion I would totally agree that it is in every way level to interests and politics but for those in families who define themselves first and foremost in terms of religious belonging I don't believe there is any parity to other interests.

For children who grow up defined by religion there are many challenges, I don't doubt that for a second and those need to be addressed. I'm not in favour of no action, just action that has as it's goal a plausible effect. Introducing critical thinking into the national curriculum (here in the uk) would mean it would have to be evidenced even with those pupils home schooled, more to the point it would have to be taught in all schools. Forceful indoctrination usually involves isolating people from alternative ideas, this isn't just for fun it reflects the incredible power of alternatives to disrupt brainwashing attempts.

I would rather tackle a parent's ability to isolate a child from ideas than worry over how they describe or the kid describes themself . I do think state supported faith schools is an issue which should definitely be campaigned over in a way that maintains the value of faith schools who educate kids well - ie just closing schools would be a bit dumb where the alternatives have more problems of a different nature than the school being closed.

[Clinton Huxley]

I do think state supported faith schools is an issue which should definitely be campaigned over in a way that maintains the value of faith schools who educate kids well - ie just closing schools would be a bit dumb where the alternatives have more problems of a different nature than the school being closed.

Who's advocating closing a school? No-one has said anything of the sort. Besides, faith schools do not perform well (where they do perform well) because they are faith schools but because of the way they are able to select children.

I am frankly bewildered that you seem to advocate that atheists should not try to put their point across to children, leaving the field totally to the religious.

[Feck]

If you bring up children as atheists will they grow into teenagers that sneak around giving each other side- hugs and quoting from the bible to upset their parents?