well, the problem i see, and kind of what i was trying to get at with my comment, is that i don't see how it's possible to raise children in a vacuum. as someone else noted above (also you did), children absorb everything. the only way to avoid that is to expose them to nothing. and that, in my mind, is completely unfeasible. not only that, but i feel that exposing them to "nothing" could even be irresponsible.dkyros said:Children are impressionable, like little sponges. I was raised catholic and even though I am no longer practicing I will say that the damage is done. I have made a choice, but I have already been ingrained with a set of morals even if I only loosely follow them now. And this isn't just passively being fed to them where they have a choice, this is being fed to them by parents, friends, religious figure heads, the cartoons they watch, books they read. So, I don't see how the argument for censorship applies to this case.Jamboxdotcom said:unfortunately, that same reasoning is often used by people trying to enact censorship. "Children are too young to think for themselves" is a bad viewpoint, no matter how well intentioned.Blaster395 said:But ultimately isn't even a very light system, even if it is not full indoctrination, still going to cause people to lean to something they otherwise would not?
also, i would ask a personal question: do you feel that the "set of morals" you had ingrained in you are a negative thing? don't misunderstand me, i realize that much of what most (if not all) organized religion teaches is bullshit and hatred, but there is also much good there. do you feel your religious upbringing was a net negative? or is it a break-even or even slightly positive?