-grins- A point well-made. And I'd generally agree with you on the bits about Pullman, religion, and Taoism.
As to why I think it's dangerous... It presents ideas and perspectives which I feel children are not adequately prepared to handle directly, though that sounds a lot more-heavy handed than I mean -- and especially coming from me, as I generally believe kids have the ability to understand and process a lot more than society gives them credit for.
To understand what I mean I'm afraid you have to concede for a moment that all pretense aside I am Catholic and thoroughly believe "we're right," for lack of a more-gentle phrasing. I don't plan on sheltering my kids, per se, but I'm also not going to have them reading, say, Locke and Mill, either. I think it's important to teach children a consistent world view as they learn and grow, with the goal being to prepare them to think and reason on their own once my role as parents 'completes' (in a sense) when they turn 18. After I've had my time to raise them and they go off to tackle things intellectually on their own, they're free as anyone else to come to their own conclusions.
It's dangerous, I think, because it undermines that whole "consistent world view" I speak of. In the same way that I don't think it's fair or healthy to expose children to, say, the real truth of arguments between their parents or the reality of finances and other facts about life they aren't ready to deal with, I think it's dangerous to present them with a series which speaks fairly directly against what I hold as true and right -- in this case religion.
I'm not sure I'm being very clear. Point of fact, I deal with morally ambiguous subjects regularly. But I am not a child. Does this make sense?
no subject
-grins- A point well-made. And I'd generally agree with you on the bits about Pullman, religion, and Taoism.
As to why I think it's dangerous... It presents ideas and perspectives which I feel children are not adequately prepared to handle directly, though that sounds a lot more-heavy handed than I mean -- and especially coming from me, as I generally believe kids have the ability to understand and process a lot more than society gives them credit for.
To understand what I mean I'm afraid you have to concede for a moment that all pretense aside I am Catholic and thoroughly believe "we're right," for lack of a more-gentle phrasing. I don't plan on sheltering my kids, per se, but I'm also not going to have them reading, say, Locke and Mill, either. I think it's important to teach children a consistent world view as they learn and grow, with the goal being to prepare them to think and reason on their own once my role as parents 'completes' (in a sense) when they turn 18. After I've had my time to raise them and they go off to tackle things intellectually on their own, they're free as anyone else to come to their own conclusions.
It's dangerous, I think, because it undermines that whole "consistent world view" I speak of. In the same way that I don't think it's fair or healthy to expose children to, say, the real truth of arguments between their parents or the reality of finances and other facts about life they aren't ready to deal with, I think it's dangerous to present them with a series which speaks fairly directly against what I hold as true and right -- in this case religion.
I'm not sure I'm being very clear. Point of fact, I deal with morally ambiguous subjects regularly. But I am not a child. Does this make sense?