Indoctrination education

Originally posted by serigado
Again, the machiavelic argument: The ends justify the means.
I can teach them the good things religion defends without making them religious. I do not defend the contrary of religion.

And I don't want them to have "only" a positive life. I want to them have the best possible life, thinking for themselves and without kneeing before anyone.

but what is the 'best possible' life? How can you judge in advance? It might be better that they are submissive and survive than be aggressive and encounter problems?

Originally posted by serigado
I would want my children to reach whatever position they wanted to independent of me. I won't say religion is good or bad, right or wrong. The same for everything else.
But you think you have a duty to teach your children from the very beginning your beliefs. You might be biasing their free-thinking from the beginning, depending on how that teaching is made.
Teaching a specific religion to a young child is very reducing, you must admit.

I have a friend who relentlessly roots for his hometeam, the Blackpool Tangerine. Still other friends here stateside are adamant in their support for their hometeam, the Cleveland Browns. Are either of these groups ever likely to see their hopes and dreams fulfilled? Generation after generation, however, their progeny fill the stadium seats, inspired by their fathers (and their fathers' fathers) in their rabid support for losing efforts.

That, my friend, is child abuse.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
but what is the 'best possible' life? How can you judge in advance? It might be better that they are submissive and survive than be aggressive and encounter problems?

Submissive children? Dogs are submissive, not humans. Humans are curious, have desire to evolve and be something more.
Children should be raised to be better then is parents. To bring something new to the new generations, to mankind. They can find problems, but they will be intelligent enough to surpass them, I hope.

As to what the best possible life is, I don't know, But for sure it's not standing still and being afraid of what might happen if I go by that or another road.
And children won't go anywhere with a religious education. It's just too much reducing. Although they can be safer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I have a friend who relentlessly roots for his hometeam, the Blackpool Tangerine. Still other friends here stateside are adamant in their support for their hometeam, the Cleveland Browns. Are either of these groups ever likely to see their hopes and dreams fulfilled? Generation after generation, however, their progeny fill the stadium seats, inspired by fathers) in their rabid support for losing efforts.

That, my friend, is child abuse.

Didn't quite understand:
1 - When did I mention abuse
2 - Where is the abuse in the example you provided

Originally posted by serigado
I won't go against your Christianity.
You had your studies, saw different points of view, and freely chose the philosophy that best suited yourself. You are a lucky one. That's free thinking and I encourage your position, because at least you had a choice. (although i don't agree with it)
What I am against is parents preventing their children from the edu ...[text shortened]... ence is, what people think, different points of view, and then choose for yourselves".

an interesting point, but what of the reverse? What about a xouple who refuse to let their children have ANY contact with any church? No discussions about God, no celebrating religious holidays, nothing. I know about this first hand and it proves to me that the so-called free-thinkers I know are just as restrictive as the organized religions they claim to abhor.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
an interesting point, but what of the reverse? What about a xouple who refuse to let their children have ANY contact with any church? No discussions about God, no celebrating religious holidays, nothing. I know about this first hand and it proves to me that the so-called free-thinkers I know are just as restrictive as the organized religions they claim to abhor.

It's wrong too. So you can't call them free-thinkers. Protecting / hiding children from one of the major viewpoints in the world (religion) is not educative.
You can call them anti-religious, but don't put them in the same bag as free-thinkers, as if a free-thinker is a bad thing.