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.