Atheist advert shows Christian children shock! horror!

[Rrose Selavy]

This article's really so misses the point -

Quote:

Public faces of Richard Dawkins' atheism campaign were ... devout Christian children



The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’ latest assault on God could not look more free of the misery with which he associates religious baggage.
With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself”, the two children, their hair flying and with broad grins, seem to be the perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.
Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of Britain’s most devout Christian families.

More here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6925781.ece

[thull]

Thanks for the chuckle

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

This article's really so misses the point -





More here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6925781.ece

While I am sure they hadn't been chosen for that reason it would have been very good (in terms of Dawkin's campaign) to have chosen them for that reason!

[Alan]

I thought that website featured chapters from The Greatest Show on Earth before the book was released. It's disappointing that this was later published on it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't the point of the ad campaign to address kids in Christian homes? Why would kids in non-fundy or just non-theist families need such an ad. The point of the ad is saying these kids are doomed to indoctrination. They will not really have much free choice in the matter.

And where in the ad does it say the kids' happiness depends on it? NOWHERE. Yet the fundy reply is:

Quote:

“It is quite funny because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

Of course the kids in the ad would be "happy and free" until they end up indoctrinated beyond help. Then they may or may not be happy. But they would be less likely to be free.


In fact, this is exactly what the ad sponsors themselves noted:

Quote:

The British Humanist Association said that it did not matter whether the children in the posters were Christians. “That’s one of the points of our campaign,” the association’s education director, Andrew Copson, said.

“People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy or that no child should have any contact with religion or learn anything about it should take the time to read the adverts and think about their message rather than rely on their own assumptions.

“The message of the posters is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘Humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children and that young people have the right to choose for themselves in line with their developing capacities as they grow.”

[psychictv]

Oh FFS. I guess they didn't see the enormous pink text!? What idiots.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through. “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different. So they judged that they were happy and free without knowing that they are Christians. That is quite a compliment. I reckon it shows we have brought up our children in a good way and that they are happy.”



Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, which Mr Mason and his family used to attend before they moved to Dorset, said: “I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the atheist poster are in fact Christian.”

The whooshing sound they heard that day was the point of the ad campaign flying over their heads.

[Third Eye Open]

WHOOOOOOOSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!~~~~~~~~~ <----- The point.













o_? <------ The Times.

[phantomb]

Campaign: We need to stop labeling children with the beliefs of their parents. There are no Catholic children or Muslim children, nor are there humanist children or atheist children.

The Times: Ha ha, the kids in your picture are evangelical Christians! Try finding some atheist kids next time you want to attack God.

Campaign: . . .

[Beth]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Isn't the point of the ad campaign to address kids in Christian homes? Why would kids in non-fundy or just non-theist families need such an ad. The point of the ad is saying these kids are doomed to indoctrination. They will not really have much free choice in the matter.

You make the indoctrination sound like an avoidable fate. It isn't. The question is what answers to the ultimately unknowable questions will they be indoctrinated with, not whether they will be indoctrinated by the adults they are surrounded by. Another issue is how they will be indoctrinated to treat people who do not share their beliefs.

Quote:

And where in the ad does it say the kids' happiness depends on it? NOWHERE. Yet the fundy reply is:

Quote:

“It is quite funny because obviously they were searching for images of children that looked happy and free. They happened to choose children who are Christian. It is ironic. The humanists obviously did not know the background of these children.”

Of course the kids in the ad would be "happy and free" until they end up indoctrinated beyond help. Then they may or may not be happy. But they would be less likely to be free.

Actually, I take the criticism the same way I take criticism of formula ads using breast fed babies. I see their point but I don't feel it is particularly meaningful in the way they seem to.

Quote:

In fact, this is exactly what the ad sponsors themselves noted:

Quote:

The British Humanist Association said that it did not matter whether the children in the posters were Christians. “That’s one of the points of our campaign,” the association’s education director, Andrew Copson, said.

“People who criticise us for saying that children raised in religious families won’t be happy or that no child should have any contact with religion or learn anything about it should take the time to read the adverts and think about their message rather than rely on their own assumptions.

“The message of the posters is that the labelling of children by their parents’ religion fails to respect the rights of the child and their autonomy. We are saying that religions and philosophies — and ‘Humanist’ is one of the labels we use on our poster — should not be foisted on or assumed of young children and that young people have the right to choose for themselves in line with their developing capacities as they grow.”

This is really the crux of the matter. While I agree that adults have the right to choose for themselves, I don't agree that labeling them with their parents faith until they are adult and may choose for themselves is, in any way, detrimental to the goal of allowing people to choose for themselves.

While people are young, their parents can take them to their religious ceremonies and educate them in the beliefs of their own faith. After all, they are taking part in the religious observances of their parents faith (holidays, etc.), I think it reasonable to label them as being of that faith. If their parents change faith (and many do), it's reasonable to assume the children's faith changes as well. I see it as being like accepting that when the parents move to another address, the children will move with them and share the new address. Why I should think this is somehow so 'bad' that I should be concerned and change my opinion remains beyond me though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

@Beth:

I don't happen to think the ad's message has any hope of being effective. Like you said, religious beliefs involve tradition and certainly a religious parent is unlikely to avoid instilling that belief/tradition in their children so the child could choose for his/herself what to believe as an adult.

To me it is still indoctrination, but I don't expect anyone immersed in religious beliefs to see it that way.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Quote:

Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of Britain’s most devout Christian families.

Give it some time...





I mean,

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by phantomb

Campaign: We need to stop labeling children with the beliefs of their parents. There are no Catholic children or Muslim children, nor are there humanist children or atheist children.

The Times: Ha ha, the kids in your picture are evangelical Christians! Try finding some atheist kids next time you want to attack God.

Campaign: . . .

I think this comment sums it up nicely.

[Lothian]

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Atheist advert shows children of Christians shock! horror!"

[volatile]

I really do despair at what passes for "journalism" in this country...

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

@Beth:

I don't happen to think the ad's message has any hope of being effective. Like you said, religious beliefs involve tradition and certainly a religious parent is unlikely to avoid instilling that belief/tradition in their children so the child could choose for his/herself what to believe as an adult.

To me it is still indoctrination, but I don't expect anyone immersed in religious beliefs to see it that way.

I'm with Beth on this one. It seems that you are saying that the only way an adult could choose for themselves is if they are not given a religious education as a child. This is clearly false. Look at any of the "how did you become an athiest" threads on this forum and you will see stories from lots of people who were brought up in a religious tradition and then chose athiesm for themselves.

All adults choose what to believe for themselves. Each one will come from a different background, but all will be facing the same questions regarding religious belief. Teaching my kids what I believe about God provides them with the base of what I believe to be true. Not teaching kids about God, or instead, teaching them that God doesn't exist, would give them a different base.

[Rrose Selavy]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Shouldn't this thread be titled "Atheist advert shows children of Christians shock! horror!"

That was taken form the original headline (with my obvious addition) but now it says:

Quote:

Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals

Which illustrates again the point of the campaign but the Times can't see it either.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

That was taken form the original headline (with my obvious addition)

I did wonder but only saw the revised one.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Thanz

I'm with Beth on this one. It seems that you are saying that the only way an adult could choose for themselves is if they are not given a religious education as a child. This is clearly false. Look at any of the "how did you become an athiest" threads on this forum and you will see stories from lots of people who were brought up in a religious tradition and then chose athiesm for themselves.

I think this advert is part of a much bigger campaign than whether kids are labelled by their parents faith.

In many areas of the country you have no choice but to send children to a religious primary school. The government heavily subsidises and gives tax breaks to religious institutions. This is despite the general reduction in the percentage of believers in the UK over the decades.

These adverts are I think the first step in raising awareness that where we are today might have been OK for the religious demographics of our parents but is not likely to be suitable for the religious demographics of our children. At least I hope that is what it is all about.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Thanz

I'm with Beth on this one. It seems that you are saying that the only way an adult could choose for themselves is if they are not given a religious education as a child. This is clearly false. Look at any of the "how did you become an athiest" threads on this forum and you will see stories from lots of people who were brought up in a religious tradition and then chose athiesm for themselves.

All adults choose what to believe for themselves. Each one will come from a different background, but all will be facing the same questions regarding religious belief. Teaching my kids what I believe about God provides them with the base of what I believe to be true. Not teaching kids about God, or instead, teaching them that God doesn't exist, would give them a different base.

That's not my point. People can grow up in the most religious of households and manage not to be indoctrinated.

How many kids who are not indoctrinated end up adopting religious beliefs as adults? Very few.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

That's not my point. People can grow up in the most religious of households and manage not to be indoctrinated.

How many kids who are not indoctrinated end up adopting religious beliefs as adults? Very few.

True, but you also need to consider that very few people grow up indoctrinated with atheist or agnostic beliefs rather than the beliefs of a specific religion. Is the percentage of adults who choose a different religious belief lower for those who were raised in atheist or agnostic homes rather than religious ones? I don't think there's any data on that, but it would be interesting to know if you are aware of some.

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

That's not my point. People can grow up in the most religious of households and manage not to be indoctrinated.

How many kids who are not indoctrinated end up adopting religious beliefs as adults? Very few.

You seem to be equating any sort of religious education with indoctrination. I received religious education, but I was not indoctrinated. There is a difference. And, there are lots of believing adults who were not "indoctrinated" as kids, myself included.

[Mister Agenda]

I was pressured to speak in tongues. Pressured to take baptism. I find these to have been indoctrination. I'm not sure mere exposure to my parent's religion rises to that level.

[fls]

There was a study performed by Bruce Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer looking at some of these questions, or at least related questions.

What was really clear was that the extent to which parents had strong religious beliefs indicated the extent to which they would "tell a questioning teen that their [doubts or] beliefs were wrong", "want teen to have their beliefs", "would try to convert teen", "raised children to have same beliefs", or "favour law teaching beliefs in school". About 10 percent of atheists and agnostics agreed with those statements (in particular 8.5 percent "raised children to have same beliefs") compared to 90 to 100 percent of fundamentalists. On the "raised children to have same beliefs" question, 50 percent of moderately active believers, 66 percent of regular church attenders, and 94 percent of very high fundamentalists (i.e. those who scored high on the fundamentalism measure) agreed with the statement.

There is a very clear and large gap as to the extent to which indoctrination of beliefs occurs.

In regards to the ad, the irony of that response is quite delicious. But it is clear that the label tells us about the parents, not the children. What are the chances that the parents of a very devout Christian 7 and 8-year-old are Scientologists or Hindu?

Linda

[Thanz]

Originally Posted by fls

What was really clear was that the extent to which parents had strong religious beliefs indicated the extent to which they would "tell a questioning teen that their [doubts or] beliefs were wrong", "want teen to have their beliefs", "would try to convert teen", "raised children to have same beliefs", or "favour law teaching beliefs in school". About 10 percent of atheists and agnostics agreed with those statements (in particular 8.5 percent "raised children to have same beliefs") compared to 90 to 100 percent of fundamentalists. On the "raised children to have same beliefs" question, 50 percent of moderately active believers, 66 percent of regular church attenders, and 94 percent of very high fundamentalists (i.e. those who scored high on the fundamentalism measure) agreed with the statement.

Like the old Sesame Street song, a couple of these things is not like the others. The two that I have bolded seem to be out of step with the others when it comes to a word like 'indoctrination'. I would have thought that most parents, athiest and religious alike, raise their kids to have the same beliefs that they do if only by osmosis. That's part of what raising your kids is - to teach them what you think is right.

I think that where it crosses the line from education/teaching to indoctrination is when you tell kids that what you say is right, and what anyone else says is wrong, and if you listen to anyone else, you will burn for eternity. That is not how I was raised, and it is not how I will raise my kids.

[longfellow]

Originally Posted by volatile

I really do despair at what passes for "journalism" in this country...

I'm glad I'm not the only person who feels this way.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Thanz

Like the old Sesame Street song, a couple of these things is not like the others. The two that I have bolded seem to be out of step with the others when it comes to a word like 'indoctrination'. I would have thought that most parents, athiest and religious alike, raise their kids to have the same beliefs that they do if only by osmosis.

There should be some way to differentiate between making your beliefs known and raising them to have your beliefs. If indoctrination is the wrong word (I simply used what others had used), then something else can be suggested.

Quote:

That's part of what raising your kids is - to teach them what you think is right.

I think that where it crosses the line from education/teaching to indoctrination is when you tell kids that what you say is right, and what anyone else says is wrong, and if you listen to anyone else, you will burn for eternity. That is not how I was raised, and it is not how I will raise my kids.

Regardless of what you want to call it, I was simply reporting that there is a difference in the degree to which it happens.

Linda

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Isn't the point of the ad campaign to address kids in Christian homes? Why would kids in non-fundy or just non-theist families need such an ad. The point of the ad is saying these kids are doomed to indoctrination. They will not really have much free choice in the matter.

Uhhhh, speaking of point missing -

Non-theist families? Isn't it wrong to label kids that are from families where the parents happen to be non-theist?

[P.J. Denyer]

I never saw it as being about the childrens home environment, or even about the children being taken to church, temple, mosque or whatever by their parents.

I think the point (which isn't articulated at all by this ad IMHO) is that the law and government of this country catigorise the children according to religion as is clearly seen in education. Worship is manditory in schools, religious schools receive state funding but are able to select pupils and free transport is avaliable to someone going to an out of area faith school which would not be avaliable to someone travelling to a school for different (many would say better) reasons. Such as excelling in an achademic field in which the school is particually strong.

Unfortunately, since these points don't come across it's being portrayed in the media as 'militant atheists want to tell you how to raise your child and ban christianity!!'

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Uhhhh, speaking of point missing -

Non-theist families? Isn't it wrong to label kids that are from families where the parents happen to be non-theist?

It depends on the circumstances, I'd say a family where the parents make (or try to make) the children say christian prayers before meals and go to church is a 'Christian Family' just as I would say a school where all the pupils stop to say prayers toward Mecca during school hours is a Muslim School.

A wooley 'we don't go to church or pray or actually believe in god or anything' type 'Christian Family' is meaningless, but if it is an accurate description of the family environment then I think the phrase is accurate and doesn't have to reflect the beliefs of all those included in the group.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

It depends on the circumstances, I'd say a family where the parents make (or try to make) the children say christian prayers before meals and go to church is a 'Christian Family' just as I would say a school where all the pupils stop to say prayers toward Mecca during school hours is a Muslim School.

And if that's all that's meant, then ok. A famiy where the parents have a particular attitude/practice/belief toward religion is an "X" family, where X describes the parents' beliefs.

However, one of Dawkins' objections, that this ad particularly addresses, is that people label children as being of a particular religion when they obviously are too young to have made that decision for themselves. i.e. He gets uptight about calling a four year old a "Christian child".

However, if I say that the Smiths are a "Christian family", is that any better? It seems to suggest that all members of the family are Christians, and then we are back to the problem of labelling children. And if it is wrong to label a child as a Christian, then it is wrong to label a child as a non-theist.

Of course, you could be specific and call someone a "child whose parents are Christian," but that's a bit of a mouthful.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the labels, although that might be influenced by my American status. Here in America, there's no legal significance, so if you choose to call my kid a "Jewish child", that's ok with me, because it makes no difference legally, and it doesn't change his beliefs.

(And, as an aside, some forumites have read in years past about the indocrination of my child. He goes to a Jewish school where they ram Judaism down his throat morning, noon, and once in a while evening. The place reeks of Judaism, and by any reasonable definition of "indoctrination", that's what they are doing at his school. He is currently in the fifth grade, and, this month at least, he's an atheist. At ten years old, it's really too difficult to say exactly what he believes, much less what he "is".)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Thanz

You seem to be equating any sort of religious education with indoctrination. I received religious education, but I was not indoctrinated. There is a difference. And, there are lots of believing adults who were not "indoctrinated" as kids, myself included.

I fail to see how one is "educated" in a religion. Perhaps you could enlighten us. How were you educated? Were you told god does exist or that god might exist, here are the pros and cons for the conclusion?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

I was pressured to speak in tongues. Pressured to take baptism. I find these to have been indoctrination. I'm not sure mere exposure to my parent's religion rises to that level.

And for the record, I am not claiming all levels of exposure to religious traditions rise the the level of indoctrination.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Uhhhh, speaking of point missing -

Non-theist families? Isn't it wrong to label kids that are from families where the parents happen to be non-theist?

What are they being labeled? Unindoctrinated?


It is a problem when one views religious beliefs as arising out of exposure (as a mild form of indoctrination) or actual indoctrination and never arising out of education.


I fail to see how one can find god through rational education. It takes exposure or indoctrination.