Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: UK: campagna per l'ateismo con bimbi felici

I due bambini scelti per la pubblicità promossa dall'associazione 
umanistica di Richard Dawkins, con lo slogan “Please don’t label me. Let 
me grow up and choose for myself”, che mostra due bambini sorridenti, 
che esprimerebbero la felicità di un'educazione senza condizionamenti 
religiosi, provengono in realtà da una famiglia evangelica religiosissima.
"Credo che sia divertente che i bambini felici ed emancipati sul 
cartellone siano in realtà cristiani", ha dichiarato il leader del 
Pioneer network of churches....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece
The two children chosen to front Richard Dawkins’s latest assault on God 
could not look more free of the misery he associates with religious 
baggage. With the slogan “Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and 
choose for myself”, the youngsters with broad grins seem to be the 
perfect advertisement for the new atheism being promoted by Professor 
Dawkins and the British Humanist Association.
Except that they are about as far from atheism as it is possible to be. 
The Times can reveal that Charlotte, 8, and Ollie, 7, are from one of 
the country’s most devout Christian families.
....
Gerald Coates, the leader of the Pioneer network of churches, which Mr 
Mason and his family used to attend before they moved to Dorset, said: 
“I think it is hilarious that the happy and liberated children on the 
atheist poster are in fact Christian.” ...

 me grow up and choose for myself”,
Tutto ciò è splendido, il poster dice "Per favore non mi etichettate" e 
i soliti rispondono "Aha! Questi sono etichettatissimi, marchiati a 
fuoco addirittura, e vi garantiamo che sono felici di esserlo!".
Per qualche motivo avere un amico immaginario che ti parla dentro la 
testa sembra distruggere, oltre alla razionalità, anche il senso del 
ridicolo.
-- 
http://inminoranza.blogspot.com

 emancipati sul cartellone siano in realt� cristiani",
La cosa pi� divertente, veramente, � che si possano considerare "cristiani" 
dei bambini di 7 e 8 anni.
Namib 

 dei bambini di 7 e 8 anni.
E perchï¿œ?
Io, piï¿œ ancora dei soggetti scelti, trovo divertente che questa campagna 
non si renda assolutamente conto di essere a sua volta una (legittima, 
per caritï¿œ) campagna profondamente denominazionalista.
Quando la autonominata "libertï¿œ di pensiero" non pensa raggiunge effetti 
davvero simpatici.
Tb (bieco illuminista)
-- 
"A vote is like a rifle, it's usefulness depends upon the character of
the user."
~ Theodore Roosevelt

 fuoco addirittura, e vi garantiamo che sono felici di esserlo!".
Spero sia una campagna facoltativa, che ammette l'esistenza di chi la 
pensa in maniera molto diversa. Se no, che libertà di pensiero è?
La cosa buffa è che per mostrare i felici risultati della propria 
filosofia si scelgano foto di persone che appartengono, con la stessa 
felicità, alla controparte oscurantista.


 felicità, alla controparte oscurantista.
nel frattempo segnaliamo che la associazione umanistica di Richard 
Dawkins paga lo stipendio a dei cappellani, che hanno il compito di 
assicurare funerali (con cremazione) in cui non si nomina Dio, e che 
forniscono assistenza ai malati terminali.
in altre parole, si tratta di una (legittima) chiesa atea.

 the country’s most devout Christian families.
Che c'è Trew? Paura di un po' di sana concorrenza? E' il libero
mercato, bellezza...

Federico Antola ha scritto:

io, sinceramente, no.
pero' invito a leggere questo articolo di Stephen Wang, ripreso anche 
dal Times
Religious education is not brainwashing
Thinking children can make choices about religion without moral guidance 
is simply naive
Fr Stephen Wang
Is religious education a form of brainwashing? Should children be free 
to make their own decisions about fundamental matters of faith? These 
questions are provoked by the new poster sponsored by the British 
Humanist Association. Two gloriously happy children hold their hands in 
the air as if they are about to do a cartwheel. The main text reads: 
“Please don’t label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself.” And 
floating in the background are the various labels under attack: 
“Buddhist child. Agnostic child. Protestant child. Humanist child. 
Catholic child. Atheist child...” The call to liberate children is 
superficially appealing but fundamentally naïve. Here are four reasons why:
First: The exercise of freedom requires some prior foundation. Children 
have to learn how to make choices: how to weigh things up, how to judge 
what is best, how to take responsibility. Any child psychologist knows 
this. Freedom doesn’t just happen. And an essential part of learning to 
choose is having some sense of the meaning of the world we inhabit, of 
the value of our actions, and of the significance of their consequences. 
In other words, freedom can’t be learnt outside a context of meaning and 
values.
Religious faith can help establish this context; so can a robust 
humanism. But to think that freedom can be learnt in a vacuum, without 
the sharing of any moral or philosophical convictions, is simply naïve. 
Children who are brought up without inherited values of any kind are 
actually less able to exercise their freedom and choose for themselves. 
Just as children who are brought up without boundaries will never be 
able to learn the significance of crossing them.
Second: If you believe something important to be true, then you 
shouldn’t pretend it is an open question. This goes for secular 
humanists as much as for religious believers. If, for example, you are a 
convinced atheist, and you think that belief in God is false at an 
intellectual level and damaging through its distorting effects on 
morality, then of course you would want to share this conviction with 
your children. It would be unjust to keep it from them. Similarly, if 
you believe in God, and you believe that this faith is not just a 
lifestyle choice or a cultural imperative but an objective truth with 
profound implications for human existence, how could you not share this 
conviction with your children? Yes, you want to nurture their freedom 
and you hope they will discover things for themselves. But if it is a 
question of truth – whether scientific or moral or spiritual – then you 
will inevitably want to guide your children along a certain path, 
knowing full well that they may one day choose to veer off in another 
direction.
Third: It’s a fantasy to imagine that children can be raised in a 
philosophically neutral environment without some dominant world-view. 
Theism – as much as atheism, materialism, or secular humanism (these 
terms are not synonomous) – provides a particular understanding of the 
meaning of the world and of human life, which will help structure a 
child’s understanding and values. But if you try to bring your children 
up in an environment which is indifferent to questions of ultimate 
meaning, then your purported neutrality will already have been lost. If, 
in effect, you say to your children, “I don’t care enough about these 
values or convictions to share them with you”, or “they are important to 
me but not important in themselves”, then you are presenting them with a 
very particular world-view. In this view, religious questions and all 
questions of ultimate meaning are relativised, and indifference is taken 
to be the predominant value.
To say to a child, “I don’t mind – you choose!” is to give the child the 
strongest possible impression that the available options are all equally 
significant, which is to say that none is uniquely significant. So this 
apparently ‘soft’ form of neutrality suggested in the poster is actually 
a ‘hard’ form of relativism which relegates religious and philosophical 
questions to the periphery of human interest.
Fourth: A strong notion of autonomy, which is essential to an 
individual’s freedom, requires an appreciation of one’s human dignity. 
Children need to know not just that they are loved but that their life 
has meaning and is valuable in itself. If this is not communicated in 
some way, then the love of the parents, however profound, will become 
distorted, because the children will see themselves as valuable to their 
parents but not valuable as persons in their own right. It doesn’t 
matter how this innate value is framed (‘human dignity’, ‘the sanctity 
of life’, etc.) as long as it is articulated somehow.
Human autonomy, rightly cherished by secular humanists, needs some 
notion of intrinsic human dignity to support it - otherwise it has no 
foundation and no meaning. So, paradoxically, in order to liberate 
children from the limited vision of their parents and culture, you have 
to imbue them with a strong sense of their own worth, of their dignity, 
of their significance in a framework of meaning. The humanism of the 
early Enlightenment held on to a strong notion of human dignity and 
human uniqueness, even as it became more secular. But as secular 
humanists have become more and more materialist in their outlook, and as 
materialism has failed to offer any satisfying accounts of human 
dignity, it has become almost impossible to avoid describing human 
nature in reductivist terms.
Contemporary secular humanists are largely unable to explain to children 
why their freedom and autonomy have any significance, why their life has 
any meaning – and this is why the exaltation of freedom proposed in this 
poster feels a bit hollow. If you really want your children to be free, 
you need to tell them why their freedom matters, and help them 
appreciate some of the values they might pursue. And to do that, you 
need to use at least a few labels.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6928151.ece?print=yes&randnum=1260111797459

 (legittima, per carit�) campagna profondamente denominazionalista.
Anche questo � vero.
Namib 

נחום ha scritto:

Appunto. Molto denominazionalista. Un po' come quella associazione di 
atei italiani che vuole finanziati i suoi ministri di culto.


 fuoco addirittura, e vi garantiamo che sono felici di esserlo!".
Il presupposto di Dawkins e della sua associazione è che le religioni 
facciano il lavaggio del cervello ai bambini e che pertanto questi 
diventano tristi. Il fatto che i bambini dall'aria felice selezionati 
per la campagna abbiano avuto una rigorosa educazione religiosa è una 
piccola confutazione di questo pregiudizio.

 mercato, bellezza...
Per niente. Io penso che potenzialmente il libero mercato possa dare 
grandi opportunitï¿½ alla Chiesa.

 grandi opportunità alla Chiesa.
speriamo quindi che decida di liberarsi del legame con lo Stato.

נחום ha scritto:

Quella è una rendita di posizione. Perché disfarsene?

 confutazione di questo pregiudizio.
Beh, ammesso e non concesso che la religione renda tristi i bambini, non li 
rattrister� certo in ogni istante della loro infanzia: la fotografia della 
loro transeunte felicit� aveva fini pubblicitari, dunque non descrittivi, 
ergo non confuta (n� prova) un accidente.
Namib 

 diventano tristi.
Mentre tutti sanno che
a) i bambini degli orfanotrofi cattolici irlandesi ridevano tutto il
tempo
b) le fiamme eterne dell'infermo come ausilio educativo sono
notoriamente foriere di buonumore

 notoriamente foriere di buonumore
Probabilmente se i pedofili avessero avuto un maggior timore 
dell'inferno non avrebbero fatto quel che hanno fatto.

 ergo non confuta (nï¿œ prova) un accidente.
Hai ragione, ma si trattava di dare un po' addosso ai palloni gonfiati 
della versione inglese dell'Uaar...

 dell'inferno
quindi bisogna terrorizzare i bambini ancora di più. ROTFL

 della versione inglese dell'Uaar...
quanto rodete a sapere che sarete sempre di meno e noi sempre di più?