Labelling children and the campaign not to.

[floppit]

This thread might get a little hot but I really hope we can let debate run it's course.

I think the campaign not to label children with religion is a waste of time and makes secularism look petty. That's not because I like children being labelled, but rather that it's an implausible goal and secondly if by some stroke of total - (hell I can't imagine what would actually bring it about!), anyway if by some amazing means the campaign succeeded it would do nothing at all to decrease the number of religious followers, quite possibly the exact opposite.

Here's why I think that:
[*]It doesn't tackle the underlying beliefs of adults in the home, nor does it tackle religious practice in the home - the campaign is not to ban nativity plays, prayer mats or saying grace before dinner.

[*]It will not do anything to prevent beliefs being passed on.

[*]It would require that adults as a family labelled themselves but TOLD their children 'We are Muslims but you're not old enough to be yet'. This in turn would have 2 results, one - children love nothing more than to do whatever it is only adults are allowed to do - they would likely be waiting with baited breath to get their label, and two - the preaching that would still continue would condemn the child, ie 'Only christians go to heaven but sorry love you're not old enough yet'.

[*]It teaches nothing about reasoning, it gains nothing in terms of a person's ability to think, on the contrary it is the practice of following a dictate. It is hardly persuasive to a believer as the believer sees the descriptor as a defining part of family identity and therefore to deny the child inclusion is nonsensical, we see it as one of many descriptors, we don't need the campaign.

[*]Last of all there are viable less fooked alternatives - like for example, to have basic reasoning as part of the National Curriculum, to have a poster campaign running one logical fallacy after another.

[Clinton Huxley]

Fair points, Floppit. For me one of the key issues is the religious segregation of children into different schools, (CofE, Roman Catholic, now some state-funded Muslim schools). The labelling of children is one of the enablers of this ludicrous policy.

[floppit]

For me one of the key issues is the religious segregation of children into different schools, (CofE, Roman Catholic, now some state-funded Muslim schools). The labelling of children is one of the enablers of this ludicrous policy.

But there's more sense in tackling the former than the latter because at the very least the solution is plausible.

I think this matters because in my experience, which with teens is considerable, just about the best way to entrench a child's belief that their opinion is their own is to tell them they have been brainwashed and are not yet able to think for themselves. Adults can't cope with being told they are followers, or even slightly fan like, children haven't a hope in hell.

In other words I think the campaign has the exact opposite effect to the one desired - I suspect (with good reason) kids reading the bus banners cling more tightly to their right to be Muslim, Catholic, Christian. They will always want to keep what is given to adults.

[Clinton Huxley]

So, don't tell children they are being brainwashed even though they ARE being brainwashed?

[FedUpWithFaith]

I agree with you floppit.

This not a good mode of attack or focus for atheists to debate. All the religious people I debate really circle the wagons on this one and its ancillary arguments. They see it almost a nonsensical personal attack that you're effectively against bringing up your kids in your faith, which many religious equate with teaching morals and what's right. They don't see a distinction between the label and raising in the faith. And to some extent, neither do I.

[floppit]

So, don't tell children they are being brainwashed even though they ARE being brainwashed?

What? The alternative is to imagine this conversation - or one like it:

"You realise that there's no god, you've been duped, those parents you love are brainwashing you, controlling your thoughts."

"Good golly you're right by Jove, I am too young to think for myself. If only someone had told me sooner."

My suggested alternative is just get on with teaching the tools of reasoning and let teen rebellion do the rest. leading to potentially this:
Mum "There is a God because it says so in the bible."
Kid "But Mum, ideas that are only tied to other ideas, ones that have no firm basis in the observable world, are more likely to be the product of human beings than the creator of them."

It takes maybe 1hr to teach a principle of observation. Even with adults see how long it takes to convince a person they cannot think well, let alone a kid who's probably less able to imagine their own shortcomings in the reasoning department!

More to the point the latter kid is actually in an improved position where as the former is just listening to a new instructor.

[floppit]

I agree with you floppit.

This not a good mode of attack or focus for atheists to debate. All the religious people I debate really circle the wagons on this one and its ancillary arguments. They see it almost a nonsensical personal attack that you're effectively against bringing up your kids in your faith, which many religious equate with teaching morals and what's right. They don't see a distinction between the label and raising in the faith. And to some extent, neither do I.

I would have guessed that to be the case but I don't do the whole debate with fundies thing so thanks for confirming my guess.

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm not recommending opposing labelling of children OR teaching them reasoning skills. Do both.

I repeat, you can only have CofE, Catholic, Muslim schools because society acquiesces to the labelling of children.

[floppit]

I'm not recommending opposing labelling of children OR teaching them reasoning skills. Do both.

I repeat, you can only have CofE, Catholic, Muslim schools because society acquiesces to the labelling of children.

Ok - the state has at least the potential to alter the status of faith schools, it has none to alter what a mother calls her child. I'd happily see a campaign to challenge faith schools - no question about it.

So as we agree on that point what do you see as the point in tackling labelling - how would it succeed enough to bring down the schools with similar label? How would it avoid making the children want more of what they are being told they shouldn't have? How would it actually convince children they are too young to decide for themselves - and if that was achievable wouldn't it put these children (now convinced they must trust adults as they cannot think well enough) in an even more vulnerable and under confident position?

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm not recommending opposing labelling of children OR teaching them reasoning skills. Do both.

I repeat, you can only have CofE, Catholic, Muslim schools because society acquiesces to the labelling of children.

Ok - the state has at least the potential to alter the status of faith schools, it has none to alter what a mother calls her child. I'd happily see a campaign to challenge faith schools - no question about it.

The state has the potential but not the will. Tony Blair explicitly wanted MORE religious meddling in schools and the present administration is no different. Look at the row over creationism being taught in State academies.

So as we agree on that point what do you see as the point in tackling labelling - how would it succeed enough to bring down the schools with similar label? How would it avoid making the children want more of what they are being told they shouldn't have? How would it actually convince children they are too young to decide for themselves - and if that was achievable wouldn't it put these children (now convinced they must trust adults as they cannot think well enough) in an even more vulnerable and under confident position?

De-labelling is part of a strategy, not the whole. I think there are a lot of assumptions in teh argument you are making. Children may want more of what they can't have. This may apply to sweets or video games, not sure it applies to religion. De-labelling won't bring faith schools down on its own, it will change the topic of debate, it's another tool in the argument against cult schools.

[floppit]

The state has the potential but not the will. Tony Blair explicitly wanted MORE religious meddling in schools and the present administration is no different. Look at the row over creationism being taught in State academies.

Agreed - fully, and THIS is worth campaigning over. Moreover, the very practice of picking pupils coupled with league tables entrenches inequalities, it's the practice of picking by more than just chance which needs addressing as it does a continuing harm to children's education.

De-labelling is part of a strategy, not the whole. I think there are a lot of assumptions in teh argument you are making. Children may want more of what they can't have. This may apply to sweets or video games, not sure it applies to religion. De-labelling won't bring faith schools down on its own, it will change the topic of debate, it's another tool in the argument against cult schools.

To some extent, as we are discussing what has not actually occurred there is by necessity an element of assumption on both sides, therefore what counts is which is most likely to be correct, rather than observing what has actually happened. My argument is based on the assumption that children are human and that humans don't find recognising their own bias's at all easy - the universality of this is fairly compelling to me, although I'm very open to having it challenged. What the campaign asks is that children accept they are not yet old enough to make a decision about what they think, which unlike what they eat or watch there is no physical means of enforcing by any adult - of course one could resort to the same level of indoctrination to push the process along but surely this, over and above religion, is what we are supposed to be fighting against?

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?

[Animavore]

Label the little bastards with a slap.

[floppit]

Label the little bastards with a slap.

I care about this or I would have posted in the Pub. Maybe it was meant as a serious reply in which case forgive me and explain.

[Animavore]

Of course it wasn't serious.

If you want my serious opinion I'm against most of the crap these secular groups do whether its posting atheist signs beside nativity models, telling people they can't wear crucifixes in the public sector or wearing silly 'A' t-shirts and badges.
I even only joined atheist Ireland to meet like minded people not because i agree with their policies (except the one against the stupid blasphemy law Dermot Ahern enacted a couple of months ago).

[floppit]

Blah - sorry Ani, I didn't think you meant slap the kids but did wonder if you saw labelling the same as violence.

Oh and yeah - I got pissy and typed before it wore off!