Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!alb
From: alb@alice.UUCP (Adam L. Buchsbaum)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: Rights and Rosen
Message-ID: <2956@alice.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Aug-84 12:34:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.2956
Posted: Wed Aug 15 12:34:13 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Aug-84 01:37:45 EDT
References: <3434@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

I think what Rich and I have said has been read in the extreme,
when we never meant it so.  Case in point (from Paul's fine
arguments):  If the parents are of a certain religion, then
naturally the child will grow up in that atmosphere.  That is
natural, and it has been happening for thousands of years.
There is nothing 'wrong' (sorry) with that, so long as the
parents allow the child to realize that there ARE other, viable
religions, and that their beliefs are not everyones.  However,
if the parents do not allow the child to come to this understanding,
then they are unfairly biasing their child.  To those who say,
''Well, I have the right to tell my child what religion to be in
the name of religious purity and continuation,'' I say you are
wrong.  Religion does not give you the right to impose it on
your children.  I am not saying that it is unfair to the child
to have one religion practiced in the house, UNLESS that child
is prevented from understanding other faiths.

To generalize:  There is no way to prevent the views and beliefs
of the parents from rubbing off on the child; indeed, no one is
saying there should be, for that is how society continues.  What
is wrong is preventing the child (or any person) from exploring
other beliefs, other ideas, other facets of life.  Nobody has
the right to impose the future, and for a person to determine
his own future, he must be able to think objectively.