I'll preface this by saying that my knee-jerk hesitation for making claims based in or on my faith has nothing at all to do with you and everything to do with my experiences or perceived experiences with others where any mention of faith reduced an argument to the the level of mere opinion.
But, much as I'd prefer my child to grow up to be an atheist, I'd rather she honestly went out and became a Catholic, or a Wiccan, than hate and fear religion because I'd drummed into her head.
You and I agree here entirely, I think. I'd much rather my children honestly chose this, that, or no religion rather than grow up the be the sort of intolerant, close-minded Catholics who give my faith a bad name. Perhaps the trouble here is a different interpretation of Dangerous or, possibly, something of a knee-jerk over-reaction on my part.
As to the first, it is my belief that Pullman's work (should it become an issue, as it is for parents now but may not be when I have my own kids), as with any other alternate perspective, should be handled as a 'managed encounter,' as you say. I guess the trick here is HOW managed that encounter should be -- when and how (and even if) to defer the encounter, and how to approach it when it comes. I also agree with you that the most reasonable presentation of beliefs is, "this is what we believe to be so, and we stand by that belief, but questions and learning are encouraged." I think questions and learning are paramount to becoming a rational adult (and tyhus staving off most of the extremism floating around).
At the same time, I hesitate with how reasonable one ought to be with children, and at what levels a child is able to manage more. You wouldn't (necessarily) ask a 2 year old what she thinks her bedtime should be, you wouldn't (I hope) let a 6 year old play GTA, and you probably ought not let a 15 year old handle firearms unsupervised (I'm pretty sure). I think Pullman's work is 'dangerous' in the way GTA is dangerous for one who's not equipped or prepared to process it -- though at the same time the whole thing could be completely lost on a child, too. I confess that *I* didn't catch the whole gist of the books when I read them, and though I'd excuse myself by saying I wasn't really looking at them from a religious/theological perspective, most kids probably wouldn't, either.
I've run out of steam, so I'm moving on. Truthfully, I can't think of very much that I had a problem with in Locke's philosophy -- I really just mentioned him so that I wasn't casting stones at Mill alone (who I am pretty sure I dislike strongly). I'd have to re-read Locke again (I've wanted to), but I think I had a few little problems with the details and implications of some of what he had to say.
That being said, I have a few problems with Libertarianism, too, probably with roots in my problems with Locke.
no subject
But, much as I'd prefer my child to grow up to be an atheist, I'd rather she honestly went out and became a Catholic, or a Wiccan, than hate and fear religion because I'd drummed into her head.
You and I agree here entirely, I think. I'd much rather my children honestly chose this, that, or no religion rather than grow up the be the sort of intolerant, close-minded Catholics who give my faith a bad name. Perhaps the trouble here is a different interpretation of Dangerous or, possibly, something of a knee-jerk over-reaction on my part.
As to the first, it is my belief that Pullman's work (should it become an issue, as it is for parents now but may not be when I have my own kids), as with any other alternate perspective, should be handled as a 'managed encounter,' as you say. I guess the trick here is HOW managed that encounter should be -- when and how (and even if) to defer the encounter, and how to approach it when it comes. I also agree with you that the most reasonable presentation of beliefs is, "this is what we believe to be so, and we stand by that belief, but questions and learning are encouraged." I think questions and learning are paramount to becoming a rational adult (and tyhus staving off most of the extremism floating around).
At the same time, I hesitate with how reasonable one ought to be with children, and at what levels a child is able to manage more. You wouldn't (necessarily) ask a 2 year old what she thinks her bedtime should be, you wouldn't (I hope) let a 6 year old play GTA, and you probably ought not let a 15 year old handle firearms unsupervised (I'm pretty sure). I think Pullman's work is 'dangerous' in the way GTA is dangerous for one who's not equipped or prepared to process it -- though at the same time the whole thing could be completely lost on a child, too. I confess that *I* didn't catch the whole gist of the books when I read them, and though I'd excuse myself by saying I wasn't really looking at them from a religious/theological perspective, most kids probably wouldn't, either.
I've run out of steam, so I'm moving on. Truthfully, I can't think of very much that I had a problem with in Locke's philosophy -- I really just mentioned him so that I wasn't casting stones at Mill alone (who I am pretty sure I dislike strongly). I'd have to re-read Locke again (I've wanted to), but I think I had a few little problems with the details and implications of some of what he had to say.
That being said, I have a few problems with Libertarianism, too, probably with roots in my problems with Locke.