Analogy

[JetLeg]

A person with whom I talked made the following analogy :

I have the right to forbid my children to read anti-religious literature. I know it will harm them. Just as someone would forbid his child to go to a dangerous place, and would be right in that, I have the right to forbid my child to do what I think to be dangerous.


Any comments?

[Tricky]

A parent does have the right to determine what reading materials to have in the home. Of course, the child is not always at home. In order to control the child completely, they would have to make sure the child is never out without them. This too is legal, but, IMO unhealthy for the child.

The same is true of anything that the parent thought was "dangerous". They might think electricity is dangerous, but unless they keep the child sequestered, they are going to have to live with the fact that most of society thinks that the danger in minimal compared to the benefits.

This is an unfortunate conundrum of child-raising. At the formative ages when children learn many of the assumptions that they will carry for most of their lives, the person most influential in their lives will do the teaching. Some parents are bad at this, but some social institutions are guilty of indoctrination as well. I don't see any reasonable alternative (except in extreme cases) other than to let the parent teach what they will and hope that the child will be able to learn to think critically as they grow up and leave the realm of parental control. Places like the JREF can help with this part.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I don't think they offered a particularly good analogy. Comparing education/opposing points of view with going to a "dangerous place" (where a child might be subject to physical harm) just doesn't stack up. BTW, does this person also consider the library to be a "dangerous place" since it if full of different ideas? I agree that this person has the ultimate authority as to what is allowed in their own home, but they are going to have to realize that they do not have the ultimate authority as to what their children actually think.

It sounds like someone is just grasping at straws in order to justify their desire to control what their child thinks or, more to the point, doesn't think. What weak ideology they must have if it can't stand up to any opposing thought. Smothering your child -- isolating them from the world until adulthood -- is one of the worst things a parent can do in regards to their child's intellectual and emotional development. After meeting their basic needs, our most important responsibilities as parents is to educate our children (bearing in mind their maturity level) and guide them in their journey to adulthood. We owe it to them to help them develop the tools they'll need to be well-adjusted, productive, mature adults who can think for themselves. For example, when my son asks about gods and religion, I don't shackle his inquisitiveness. Instead, I answer him with factual and unbiased information that he, being only seven, can understand. I, for one, want my son to be able to think for himself, retain his curiousity, and not just tolerate, but actually critically evaluate differing opinions and ideas. That's not the same as leaving him in a dark alley, now, is it?

Children are not robots. They are not carbon copies of us. They are not drones. They are human individuals that rely on us for not just their physical needs, but their emotional and intellectual needs as well. To me, stifling a young mind is an abhorrent and selfish act.

[I Ratant]

You must explain to the child WHY such and such thing are dangerous, not just a blanket prohibition.
And it has to be in language the child can comprehend, so they aren't left with the idea that such and such is dangerous AND could be fun to do!
A proper explanation gives them a feeling of right and wrong, and confidence in the person doing the instruction.
"Just because I say so!" isn't proper instruction!

[Myriad]

A person with whom I talked made the following analogy :

I have the right to forbid my children to read anti-religious literature. I know it will harm them. Just as someone would forbid his child to go to a dangerous place, and would be right in that, I have the right to forbid my child to do what I think to be dangerous.

Any comments?


Suggest to him that he give his children a large room full of all kinds of toys, to be theirs and theirs alone for ever and ever. Except, right in the middle of the room, he should put a tall shelf of all the books he doesn't want them to read. Books about evolution, anthropology, geology, critical thinking, history of religion, Biblical criticism, anatomy, atheism, the Koran, Harry Potter, AD&D, Penthouse, the Necronomicon, whatever. Then he should tell the kids that those books contain the answers to everything they ever wanted to know, and reading them will turn them into adults like him, but if they love him they won't ever read any of them, and if they ever do read any of them they'll have to move out of the house and get jobs.

(You might then ask him whether he thinks his children would obey. Then you might ask him whether he wants his children to eventually grow up and move out of the house and get jobs -- and what that implies.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Beerina]

A person with whom I talked made the following analogy :

I have the right to forbid my children to read anti-religious literature. I know it will harm them. Just as someone would forbid his child to go to a dangerous place, and would be right in that, I have the right to forbid my child to do what I think to be dangerous.


Any comments?


The alternative is to let angry people with guns behind them tell you how you may raise your children. Historically, this is far worse then people merely raising their children to be idiots.


This attitude gets far too little respect around here, especially on the politics board, replete with subgeniuses who know, just know, how other people should interact, and are ready to enforce it instead of just leaving people alone, the way they do with religion, bigfoot, medicine, opera, sexual activities, and the like.

[Pup]

Suggest to him that he give his children a large room full of all kinds of toys, to be theirs and theirs alone for ever and ever. Except, right in the middle of the room, he should put a tall shelf of all the books he doesn't want them to read... (snip)

(You might then ask him whether he thinks his children would obey. Then you might ask him whether he wants his children to eventually grow up and move out of the house and get jobs -- and what that implies.

I was going to answer the original post, but now I can't get the image out of my head, of God sitting in the garden of Eden in a recliner watching TV, thinking, "Finally the kids are out of the house!"

But anyway, what I was going to say...

Seems to me that the "harm" in reading anti-religious literature is like the "harm" of getting sore muscles or blisters from exercise. You can prevent it by avoiding all exercise, but the greater harm comes from the weakness that results. If you want to brainwa--I mean teach a child not to be affected by anti-religious literature, better to expose the child to it a little at a time and explain why it's wrong and how to counteract it, so when the child grows up and is out of your control, he'll already be strong enough to ignore it or counteract it on his own.

[RandFan]

A person with whom I talked made the following analogy :

I have the right to forbid my children to read anti-religious literature. I know it will harm them. Just as someone would forbid his child to go to a dangerous place, and would be right in that, I have the right to forbid my child to do what I think to be dangerous.


Any comments? Forbidding children to ride on a plane because of a belief that planes are harmful is rational behavior. The belief is not.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm surprised the person didn't make the analogy to porn rather than something physically harmful.

[MG1962]

A parent does have the right to determine what reading materials to have in the home. Of course, the child is not always at home. In order to control the child completely, they would have to make sure the child is never out without them. This too is legal, but, IMO unhealthy for the child.

The same is true of anything that the parent thought was "dangerous". They might think electricity is dangerous, but unless they keep the child sequestered, they are going to have to live with the fact that most of society thinks that the danger in minimal compared to the benefits.

This is an unfortunate conundrum of child-raising. At the formative ages when children learn many of the assumptions that they will carry for most of their lives, the person most influential in their lives will do the teaching. Some parents are bad at this, but some social institutions are guilty of indoctrination as well. I don't see any reasonable alternative (except in extreme cases) other than to let the parent teach what they will and hope that the child will be able to learn to think critically as they grow up and leave the realm of parental control. Places like the JREF can help with this part.

I suppose we should be happy a parent cares enough to try and build a moral code with their child (Even if we disagree with the content of that code)

The one thing we can not teach children is wisdom. They have to earn that stripe by themselves. So arming a child with a moral code or values at least shows them such things exist. I know from my own passage to adulthood, I ultimately rejected some elements, and embraced others. But I was always grateful they took the time

When it came time to raise my children, I taught them my version of a moral code and values. I can see within them the same pocess occuring, they will reject some of the things I hold dear, and reject others. But ultimately they will understand the concept is an important element of child raising.

[wexer9]

I'm surprised the person didn't make the analogy to porn rather than something physically harmful.
It would have made slightly more sense.

Then again, porn still isn't educational or an opposing viewpoint.

[RandFan]

Then again, porn still isn't educational...Says who?

[six7s]

Says who?Oh, do pay attention, Wadsworth!

mTMlZSKEu-Y

[arthwollipot]

One small point:

I don't think they offered a particularly good analogy. Comparing education/opposing points of view with going to a "dangerous place" (where a child might be subject to physical harm) just doesn't stack up. BTW, does this person also consider the library to be a "dangerous place" since it if full of different ideas?Yes, to someone who is concerned for their child's "spiritual" wellbeing, this is in fact more dangerous than something that merely puts the physical body in danger. They're risking their child to an eternity in hell, and no self-respecting Christian parent would accept that.

Listen to me. I'm sounding like Kurious_Kathy. Ugh, I think I need a shower.

The fact is, what this particular parent is doing is restricting their child's access to knowledge. Restricting their ability to make a free and informed choice about their life. Dawkins and Hitchens call this child abuse. While I'm not inclined to agree to these particularly strong words, I think that it is immoral to restrict a child's intellectual development.

[Cavemonster]

One small point:

Yes, to someone who is concerned for their child's "spiritual" wellbeing, this is in fact more dangerous than something that merely puts the physical body in danger. They're risking their child to an eternity in hell, and no self-respecting Christian parent would accept that.

Listen to me. I'm sounding like Kurious_Kathy. Ugh, I think I need a shower.

The fact is, what this particular parent is doing is restricting their child's access to knowledge. Restricting their ability to make a free and informed choice about their life. Dawkins and Hitchens call this child abuse. While I'm not inclined to agree to these particularly strong words, I think that it is immoral to restrict a child's intellectual development.

It's true, but I think most of us would agree that it's prudent to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't want my 10yo reading the Marquis de Sade. And while technically, that would be restricting their access to knowledge, most people are comfortable with parents placing limits.

Like others have said, this is a reasonable conclusion from an unreasonable premise.

[arthwollipot]

It's true, but I think most of us would agree that it's prudent to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't want my 10yo reading the Marquis de Sade. And while technically, that would be restricting their access to knowledge, most people are comfortable with parents placing limits.Actually, yes. I agree with this.

[six7s]

...I have the right to forbid my child to do what I think to be dangerousAnd in many countries around the world, that 'right' is enshrined in law

However, few kids read law

[Cavemonster]

And in many countries around the world, that 'right' is enshrined in law

However, few kids read law

I would never let mine ;)

[six7s]

Of course, you could just burn them

The anti-religulous books, I mean

Not the disobedient kids...

[JetLeg]

It's true, but I think most of us would agree that it's prudent to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't want my 10yo reading the Marquis de Sade. And while technically, that would be restricting their access to knowledge, most people are comfortable with parents placing limits.

Like others have said, this is a reasonable conclusion from an unreasonable premise.

I didn't understand why you claim that restricting Marquis de Sade is so different from anti-religious literature. In the mind of the religious parent, anti-religious literature is even more dangerous.

[arthwollipot]

I didn't understand why you claim that restricting Marquis de Sade is so different from anti-religious literature. In the mind of the religious parent, anti-religious literature is even more dangerous.It all depends on the parent. Until they were 12, my kids weren't allowed to watch The Simpsons. (Don't ask - not my decision).

[Cavemonster]

I didn't understand why you claim that restricting Marquis de Sade is so different from anti-religious literature. In the mind of the religious parent, anti-religious literature is even more dangerous.

You misunderstand, I'm saying that the act of restriction is no different. My point was that it is reasonable to shield children from information in some cases.

It is that higher level where they make the mistake, assuming there is a God and that questioning that fact is harmful, it's in that premise that they make their mistake. If they were correct in that, then censoring their child's reading might be perfectly reasonable.

[Lothian]

It makes Dawkins point that these are not X children but children of X parents.

[JetLeg]

You misunderstand, I'm saying that the act of restriction is no different. My point was that it is reasonable to shield children from information in some cases.

It is that higher level where they make the mistake, assuming there is a God and that questioning that fact is harmful, it's in that premise that they make their mistake. If they were correct in that, then censoring their child's reading might be perfectly reasonable.

Do other people agree with Cavemonster???


-------

I have a suspicion this is a bad analogy, because one cannot make an analogy between faith and knowledge. It is _reasonable_ to shield children from information in some cases if there is a _reason_ for it. If you are shielding children based on your _dogma_, it is never reasonable.

I realize that it is hard for a public policy to make decisions that are based on the question if people hold a view rationally, or not. But it doesn't change the actual situation.


Hm... I would say that if one is not allowed to read about a certain topic, because questioning the commonly held opinion on this topic is harmful, then the authority that disallows the reading has an obligation to discuss why and whether questioning is indeed harmful. A parent that doesn't allow his children to watch certain movies has an ethical obligation to have an ethical discussion with his kid whether these movies indeed are harmful.

[Cavemonster]

What do public policy or discussions have to do with whether or not parents have the right to decide what their children can't read?

[UndercoverElephant]

A person with whom I talked made the following analogy :

I have the right to forbid my children to read anti-religious literature. I know it will harm them. Just as someone would forbid his child to go to a dangerous place, and would be right in that, I have the right to forbid my child to do what I think to be dangerous.


Any comments?

Understanding something and knowing why it is dangerous is a lot less dangerous than not understanding it. It's like refusing to educate your children about sexually transmitted diseases in case it gives them ideas about going out and having sex.

[JetLeg]

What do public policy or discussions have to do with whether or not parents have the right to decide what their children can't read?

If a parent forbids his child to read something, he has an ethical obligation to have a discussion with his child why he forbade it, and whether it is a good thing.

[PrincessIneffabelle]

One small point:

Yes, to someone who is concerned for their child's "spiritual" wellbeing, this is in fact more dangerous than something that merely puts the physical body in danger. They're risking their child to an eternity in hell, and no self-respecting Christian parent would accept that.

Listen to me. I'm sounding like Kurious_Kathy. Ugh, I think I need a shower.

The fact is, what this particular parent is doing is restricting their child's access to knowledge. Restricting their ability to make a free and informed choice about their life. Dawkins and Hitchens call this child abuse. While I'm not inclined to agree to these particularly strong words, I think that it is immoral to restrict a child's intellectual development.

I see what you mean about the "spiritual well-being" obsession. I agree with what you posted earlier: that if they are that concerned about their child's ticket to heaven, then they're going to have to lock them away and completely insulate them from any stray thought or idea that isn't approved of by their religion ... forever. Even the freakin' Amish don't do that!

The real issue is not that they only want strict control concerning what comes into their house, but that they also seek to exercise absolute control over how and about what their children (don't) think. Eventually, all normal kids are going to be exposed to the world and start thinking for themselves and having opinions and ideas independent from (and perhaps contrary to) those of their parents. These ignorant, mind-control-seeking parents will not only have intellectually and emotionally crippled their children, but they will likely have permanently damaged their relationship with them, as well ... and all for a faith so weak that it can't stand any differing opinions.

[Cavemonster]

If a parent forbids his child to read something, he has an ethical obligation to have a discussion with his child why he forbade it, and whether it is a good thing.

It depends on the age of the child.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by wexer9 View Post
Then again, porn still isn't educational...

Says who?
.
Family planning how-to-do-its!

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's still a judgment call whether or not something is appropriate for one's children be it porn, The Simpson's or something one is afraid is heresy.

OTOH, there is society's judgment call as well. When it comes to teaching evolution, for example, we require certain basic educational standards, in this culture anyway. And in the opposite direction, society makes a judgment about children's accessibility to porn, and some adult accessibility as well but that's a bit more complicated.

If a parent thinks society has no say, they are simply wrong.

[arthwollipot]

Eventually, all normal kids are going to be exposed to the world and start thinking for themselves and having opinions and ideas independent from (and perhaps contrary to) those of their parents. These ignorant, mind-control-seeking parents will not only have intellectually and emotionally crippled their children, but they will likely have permanently damaged their relationship with them, as well ... and all for a faith so weak that it can't stand any differing opinions.It is my firm opinion that sheltered children will not be able to cope with life's harsh realities as well as children who are given every opportunity to learn and grow in the house.

It is the responsibility of parents to decide (not control) what children are exposed to at an early age. For us, it was Blue's Clues and There Goes A Fire Truck! For fundie homeschoolers it's My First Bible and Passion of the Christ.

Personally I think Blue's Clues is much better preparation for life than Passion of the Christ. Call me crazy, but there you go.

[Lothian]

It is my firm opinion that sheltered children will not be able to cope with life's harsh realities as well as children who are given every opportunity to learn and grow in the house.

It is the responsibility of parents to decide (not control) what children are exposed to at an early age. For us, it was Blue's Clues and There Goes A Fire Truck! For fundie homeschoolers it's My First Bible and Passion of the Christ.

Personally I think Blue's Clues is much better preparation for life than Passion of the Christ. Call me crazy, but there you go.I want to shelter my children from the effects of mind altering drugs and halucigenic substances so I banned the “Teletubbies” and “In the night garden”

[Mashuna]

I want to shelter my children from the effects of mind altering drugs and halucigenic substances so I banned the “Teletubbies” and “In the night garden”

Quite right. Stick with Bill and Ben, and The Magic Roundabout.

[Lothian]

Quite right. Stick with Bill and Ben, and The Magic Roundabout.Exactly, as I said to my wife last night, “Flobalobalobalob.”





I am never at my best after drinking special brew.

[Third Eye Open]

Suggest to him that he give his children a large room full of all kinds of toys, to be theirs and theirs alone for ever and ever. Except, right in the middle of the room, he should put a tall shelf of all the books he doesn't want them to read. Books about evolution, anthropology, geology, critical thinking, history of religion, Biblical criticism, anatomy, atheism, the Koran, Harry Potter, AD&D, Penthouse, the Necronomicon, whatever. Then he should tell the kids that those books contain the answers to everything they ever wanted to know, and reading them will turn them into adults like him, but if they love him they won't ever read any of them, and if they ever do read any of them they'll have to move out of the house and get jobs.

(You might then ask him whether he thinks his children would obey. Then you might ask him whether he wants his children to eventually grow up and move out of the house and get jobs -- and what that implies.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nominated.

[Robin]

I'm surprised the person didn't make the analogy to porn rather than something physically harmful.
They probably didn't go there because they would have had to consider how effective a parental ban is with respect to porn.

[Cavemonster]

They probably didn't go there because they would have had to consider how effective a parental ban is with respect to porn.

I think that goes right to the heart of the matter. With older kids, teenagers, they're going to actively seek out what they want to, and if you could stop them, it wouldn't be very healthy to shelter them like that from anything.

But we don't parent on a blanket policy from infancy to 18, the rules change, and the level of protection should be graduated, not absolute. I wouldn't want my 7 year old watching hours of extreme bondage scat porn on the internet. I don't think blocking it would make her sheltered. Just like we control what they eat and can't eat, but less and less as they grow. That's how kids learn, by being given freedom and responsibility progressively.

Any blanket statement about the amount of freedom "children" as an incredibly broad group should have, misses the mark.