Thread: Purgatory: Religious Indoctrination of Children Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000790
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
[I originally wrote this as an OP for one-on-one discussion in MAAN, so I apologise for its great length. I'm not sure it will work here in Purgatory, but I have been told it's the only place for it. I remain interested in reaching some understanding of the opposing viewpoints on the issues. Please note: the original UBB text formatting (italics and bold type) is not imported, so the original OP may perhaps make better sense.]
Firstly, on definitions of terms. The word ‘indoctrination’ has obviously negative connotations. If you’d prefer me not to use the term, I respectfully request a suitable substitute. By ‘religious indoctrination’, I mean the inculcation or imbuement of religious doctrine and ideas with the deliberate intention that the child shall come to share the beliefs. This deliberate intent is critical to my challenge. By ‘child’ I mean a person who is, because of their immaturity, incapable of critical examination and questioning of what they have learned, and who is therefore incapable of the proper and adequate understanding necessary to make in any reasonable sense a valid and meaningful acceptance (or rejection) of that doctrine as a basis for authentic religious belief.
I should draw the distinction here between ‘indoctrination’ as I’ve described it, and ‘indoctrination’ as in the teaching or education of religious doctrine. In the former, the goal is to inculcate an acceptance of the religious beliefs in question. In the latter, the primary intention is to inform the child about the doctrine, without deliberately influencing them to believe in it. Clearly, it’s possible to teach children about Christianity and other religions without any deliberate intention of influencing them to become Christians, as we generally see in schools for example; that is not the sort of ‘indoctrination’ I am talking about here. In fact, most Christian parents surely do both, but it is strictly exclusively the element of intentding to inculcate an acceptance of belief that I’m questioning.
In order to discuss the issue I shall need to make certain generalisations, chief amongst which is that Christian parents very much want their children become lifelong Christians, and that it’s their determined intention to ensure they do. Their motives may be good- indeed believing that their child’s eternal soul depends on it. This, however, does not pertain to the issue: in and of itself, the indoctrination is either morally correct or not, regardless of motive, and even regardless of whether it later turns out that it was in the child’s best interest to be indoctrinated. I realise what an academic argument this is, and agree that we’re talking here about fairly abstract philosophical principle, rather than real-life practicality. However, I feel very strongly that this abstract principle is incredibly important. It is, for me, the single most burning issue in the vast forest fire of religion and morality- hence my sincere and great concern.
It’s safe to assume that parental indoctrination of children into religion is both commonly widespread and also highly effective in terms of outcome. The demographic distribution of world religions demonstrates this very graphically. A child born in Israel is likely to become a Jew, and one born half a mile away in Gaza is likely to become a Moslem. Indeed, take a newborn baby from his mother in Israel and give him to a Moslem couple in Gaza, and he shall almost certainly become a Moslem man. Conversely, take a newborn baby from his mother in Gaza and give him to a Jewish couple in Israel, and he'll become a Jewish man. What is the mechanism by which this happens? Evidently, it is a mixture of socio-cultural influence and parenting.
The fact that children are extensively socialised in all kinds of ways outside of their families is not relevant to the question here. The socio-cultural influence of their wider environment will certainly play an important part in the formation of their worldview, influencing their choices in their adoption of religion, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I believe parental influence is overwhelmingly primary. In the Middle East (where the broader socio-cultural religious influence is surely much stronger than it is in the West), there are Christian families in Palestine, albeit not very many, which exception to the rule indicates how much parental influence is stronger than the broader socialisation. In any case, it cannot be doubted that our family upbringing strongly tends to determine our religion, despite the significant number of individual exceptions and apostasy, and so on.
The intention of parents to ensure their children develop according to their own wishes inevitably informs every aspect of the way they teach and influence their children as they bring them up, and they use this power to further that cause both knowingly and unconsciously. This is, quite rightly, the natural order of things, and in itself it is absolutely not the question here. I’m solely concerned with their deliberate intentional use of that influence to inculcate religious belief, and my challenge is whether this is morally correct. Thus, the fact that parents may have precisely the same intention to use their influence to indoctrinate their children in any other respect is of no relevance to this discussion.
Also, it is no defence of the immorality of intentional indoctrination that it just so happens to be extremely difficult for parents not to inculcate their worldviews in their children unintentionally. The fact that parents may unwittingly indoctrinate their children is irrelevant. Again, I'm only questioning the intention, regardless of the fact that it occurs very commonly, and regardless of how hard it is not to indoctrinate one’s beliefs unintentionally. As I have pointed out, it is actually possible to teach children about religion without indoctrinating them into believing it.
The fact that atheists may also indoctrinate their children into believing their worldview is no defence in the question of the immorality of theists doing so. In my opinion, it is equally immoral if, say, Richard Dawkins through his parental influence deliberately indoctrinates his young children into accepting his version of atheism. (Likewise, with any other religion, and even other non-religious ‘worldviews’, like politics, vegetarianism, football fanaticism and so on. That's all irrelevant, and does not speak to the issue here.)
This moral question centres on the issue of freedom of choice. I believe all human beings should have the absolute right to choose their religion (or atheism) freely for themselves. I therefore feel it is an immoral breach of that right for a parent to influence their child in such a way that they're deprived of the complete freedom to choose their religious belief before they develop sufficient maturity to make this decision freely, because, once the child is indoctrinated, their complete freedom to make that choice is drastically compromised.
[Incidentally, according to my very limited understanding of theology, I believe it is a basic tenet of Christianity itself that people must willingly choose, compos mentis, to become Christian, and that this must be an decision informed by personal understanding. Even by Christianity’s own morals, nobody must be influenced against their entirely free will to become Christian. This would hypothetically apply to persons unable to exercise their choice through any limitation to their capacity for willing and informed consent- for example, mental illness, intoxication, brainwashing, hypnotism, and so on. I believe a young child- by virtue of their immaturity- is similarly incapable of making such a decision with anything approaching informed consent, however willing they may be in all their innocence.]
Children under the age of, perhaps, eight years, are extremely susceptible to influence by their parents. They’re very impressionable and credulous, and therefore prone to believe anything they’re told by an adult they trust, and even their peers. Furthermore, there are other factors that augment a parent’s natural influence- from the interrelational obligations of love and loyalty, to total material dependency. For these and other reasons, young children are extremely vulnerable to indoctrination by their parents. Of course, this vulnerability diminishes as the child matures and develops their own independence and the capacity to think critically, in parallel with the natural diminution of parental influence in general terms. I’d guess the period of greatest vulnerability to indoctrination is very approximately from the age of two or three, to about six or seven.
Because these very young children are so vulnerable to indoctrination, because they are incapable of informed consent, because informed consent is a prerequisite of free choice, because completely free choice and informed consent depends on authentic personal knowledge and understanding based on critical thought, I submit that it is immoral intentionally to indoctrinate them into accepting religious beliefs.
[ 10. November 2014, 18:45: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
'Give me achild until he's 7 and I will show you the man'..is a statement attributed the Jesuits.
But surely children need something solid to start building or questioning on.
For example History at school is taught 'your country' were the good guys, but fails to mention when they were bad.
This comes later on when you study the subject in depth.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
OK. I'll bite.
Why single out religious beliefs? What makes them a category on their own? It is only if religious beliefs are somehow a unique category of belief that it is appropriate to bracket out of the discussion quote:
the fact that parents may have precisely the same intention to use their influence to indoctrinate their children in any other respect
Incidentally, if you are looking for a non-loaded synonym for 'indoctrinate' you might try "inculcate" or "imbue".
Posted by Reuben (# 11361) on
:
A great topic!
I find it interesting that amongst Christian families I know there is a higher degree of non-belief amongst children in those families than in Jewish, Muslim or Sikh families I know.
Christianity would argue that it is not a religion that generationally 'enslaves' each subsequent generation of families, like some other world faiths but like, as you say, that there is a freedom of choice and an individual decision to follow Christ or not.
Is this perhaps the difference between a religion which is a cultural and familial expectation and a religion (or personal faith) that is indeed a personal decision.
So maybe Christianity for all its faults can claim to be less immoral as it does less family indoctrination (just my personal observation on this point anyway).
As a separate but related question, it is very hard to sit there as an impartial parent and observe your 5 year old child and not wish to inculcate your own values and beliefs into him.
As Malcolm Knox, an avowed atheist stated in this recent newspaper article:
quote:
There is no such thing as no decision. In matters of belief, there is no halfway. Like Dawkins, I don't buy agnosticism. If you're unsure whether there's a God or not, it means either you are not living with belief in God, which means you are an atheist, or that you fear that there might be a God and want to leave that option open, in which case what you really are is a believer. There's no neutral position.
In his 1995 open letter to his 10-year-old daughter Juliet, Dawkins counselled her against belief based on ''tradition, authority or revelation''. Because children, he writes, are ''suckers for traditional information, they are likely to believe anything the grown-ups tell them''. If this is true, surely it applies to atheism as much as to belief. To keep my children out of church would be to impose my unbelief upon them by the exact mechanism that Dawkins warns against. The real question, then, is what should be the default position that better allows children to develop their own spiritual thinking? Church or no church?
Knox goes onto argue for some education from each of the main faith (and non-faith) positions so that his kids have equal opportunity to experience all value sets.
But for me? As a Christian who wants to see my kids experience life to the full in this world and the next, I feel I have no choice but to tell them about the great God I have personal faith in so they too can experience this joy. If I thought my faith was just one path of many to God or if I thought that my faith was a nice little hobby then I probably wouldn't be so bold in expressing it.
But to NOT communicate the truth as you believe and know to be true, is not that immoral?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
Most parents "indoctrinate" their children with their entire value system, politics and historical world view as well as religion. And no matter how well they do the job, there is no guarantee the adult child will believe as the parents do politically, religiously or in any other respect once they become an adult. Beginning in puberty, said children begin to think for themselves, much to the chagrin of many parents. If the parents have done their job properly, they aren't threatened by the fact the maturing child can think for themselves - no matter whether the adult child shares their religion or world view or not. I'm a good example of this - I don't share the politics my parents had and raised us with, had a brief period of agnosticism, then moved to a branch of Christianity they didn't approve of at first. My father would be spinning in his grave if he weren't cremated. (maybe having a dust storm??)
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
BroJames and Niteowl2, I think I addressed your questions in the OP.
quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:
But to NOT communicate the truth as you believe and know to be true, is not that immoral?
I think it is immoral if your intention in communicating that ‘truth’ is to influence them in such a way that they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose whether or not to believe it.
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Indoctrination sounds a bit like brainwashing, so I'm not sure it is a helpful term. Being sold time-share is brainwashing, you're not let out until you buy. Christianity requires assent, and, eventually, most will question whether that should be given.
In spite of what you say about other forms of value passing being irrelevant, I would say that they are. Indoctrination in the sense that you describe is passing on values. We want our children to share them, or to surpass them or whatever. That's what bringing up children is about. Whether a special case should be made for religion may well depend on whether or not you think it's harmful/wrong or whatever.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
I 'indoctrinated' some children this morning in the belief that 'Gossip is sharp as a sword, but wise words heal' from Proverbs in the Bible. I'll try not to feel too 'immoral' about that.
With regard to explicit indoctrination - I grew up in a church-going family, attended an evangelical Sunday School from the age of 3 to about 12; and went to the Scripture Union clubs in both primary and secondary schools; both schools espousing a generally if not at times very Christian ethos.
Nevertheless, I found it irresistable when I reached my teens until my early twenties to go off on several spiritual and secular explorations of my own which had nothing to do with Christianity - a religion I genuinelly despised for many years as a young person.
Pre-programmed to believe? Pre-programmed to a knowledge of a particular faith perhaps, but not to believe. I was 21 when I made a (tentative) decision to have a go at adult Christian belief. I was perfectly able to reject my indoctrination as a kid; in fact I did.
Nevertheless, when one watches certain reports on extremist or cultist style indoctrination I can understand why the word is a hot button and used almost without exception perjoratively. I see it as giving young, forming minds options and a basis on which to make their own decisions.
BTW, good topic, Yorick. Very interesting.
[ 17. November 2010, 11:22: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Indoctrination sounds a bit like brainwashing, so I'm not sure it is a helpful term. ...
That is precisely why Yorick uses it - on this thread and all of the other threads where he has raised this same issue.
Failing to teach your children your faith, with the intention that they understand fully the wonder that is belief in a risen Lord, is not only immoral and irresponsible, but, I would argue, it is impossible, if Jesus is really central to your life.
However, to expect Yorick to understand this would be like expecting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
Indoctrination sounds a bit like brainwashing, so I'm not sure it is a helpful term. Being sold time-share is brainwashing, you're not let out until you buy. Christianity requires assent, and, eventually, most will question whether that should be given.
In spite of what you say about other forms of value passing being irrelevant, I would say that they are. Indoctrination in the sense that you describe is passing on values. We want our children to share them, or to surpass them or whatever. That's what bringing up children is about. Whether a special case should be made for religion may well depend on whether or not you think it's harmful/wrong or whatever.
It's a shame the term idoctrination is so emotive, since it's the best descriptive tool for the job. I'm happy to call it 'inculcation' if that spares any unnecessary antagonism of peoples' sensibilities.
When I say other forms of inculcation are irrelevant, I simply mean that they're no mitigation in the inculcation of religious belief in the terms I've described it in the OP, and they have no immediate bearing on the issue. A thousand wrongs do not make a single right.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Failing to teach your children your faith, with the intention that they understand fully the wonder that is belief in a risen Lord, is not only immoral and irresponsible, but, I would argue, it is impossible, if Jesus is really central to your life.
However, to expect Yorick to understand this would be like expecting a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
Rubbish. I understand it alright. I even sympathise with it to a great degree.
I am simply asking whether it is morally correct.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
BroJames and Niteowl2, I think I addressed your questions in the OP.
Well we shall clearly have to agree to disagree about that. My question quote:
Why single out religious beliefs? What makes them a category on their own? It is only if religious beliefs are somehow a unique category of belief that it is appropriate to bracket out of the discussion.
was posed having read the OP. If I thought the OP addressed the question I wouldn't have asked it. If I have missed something perhaps you can point me to the part of the OP which addresses my question.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
BroJames:
quote:
The intention of parents to ensure their children develop according to their own wishes inevitably informs every aspect of the way they teach and influence their children as they bring them up, and they use this power to further that cause both knowingly and unconsciously. This is, quite rightly, the natural order of things, and in itself it is absolutely not the question here. I’m solely concerned with their deliberate intentional use of that influence to inculcate religious belief, and my challenge is whether this is morally correct. Thus, the fact that parents may have precisely the same intention to use their influence to indoctrinate their children in any other respect is of no relevance to this discussion.
Also, it is no defence of the immorality of intentional indoctrination that it just so happens to be extremely difficult for parents not to inculcate their worldviews in their children unintentionally. The fact that parents may unwittingly indoctrinate their children is irrelevant. Again, I'm only questioning the intention, regardless of the fact that it occurs very commonly, and regardless of how hard it is not to indoctrinate one’s beliefs unintentionally. As I have pointed out, it is actually possible to teach children about religion without indoctrinating them into believing it.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think it is immoral if your intention in communicating that ‘truth’ is to influence them in such a way that they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose whether or not to believe it.
Would you have the same moral objection to a staunch Marxist who inculcated their children in such a way that they were deprived of the complete freedom to choose to follow a religion? Or what about a devout Capitalist who raised their children in such a way that they were incapable of freely choosing to be Socialists?
I'm struggling to see why the question has to be so limited to religion, though I think you may be on to something regarding the way people do/don't allow other people to make their own decisions.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
That's what parents do, if they are on the job. We indoctrinate our children.
Do you not indoctrinate your children in agnostic/atheistic thought? I rather think that you do. Is that more moral than the rest of us? I think not.
What any parent does, I hope, is to show his/her child what is out there in the world and to give them the tools with which to make informed decisions, as they grow older.
Most of the time, they'll retain the content we give them, but toss out the framework. That's life.
{This was in response to Yorick's question as to whether it is morally correct... Obviously crossposted]
[ 17. November 2010, 11:45: Message edited by: PeteC ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I'm struggling to see why the question has to be so limited to religion, though I think you may be on to something regarding the way people do/don't allow other people to make their own decisions.
I’m not interested in discussing the indoctrination of children into the belief that Manchester United Football Club is the greatest. I’m not interested in discussing the indoctrination of children into the belief that eating meat is wrong. I’m not interested in discussing the indoctrination of children into the belief that Conservative politics are evil. I’m solely interested in this business of religion, and I’m asking the question here because someone once sent me a Secret PM to tell me this is a Christian website.
They know who they are.
[BTW, yes, of course, I believe all those other indoctrinations are also, equally wrong, as I said in the OP about atheism/Dawkins in particular.)
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
BroJames and Niteowl2, I think I addressed your questions in the OP.
Not really. As for me, I was just posting that "indoctrination" is not limited to religion and that it isn't the slam dunk guarantee that you seem to think it is that the child will follow the parent's beliefs because of the way things may or may not have been presented. In short, your prejudice against religion shows and your premise that "indoctrination" of religion means the child has no choice in the matter - which is patently false.
BTW, ever hear of PK's? Preacher's kids who turn out to be rebellious, anything but Christians?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
That's what parents do, if they are on the job. We indoctrinate our children.
Do you not indoctrinate your children in agnostic/atheistic thought? I rather think that you do. Is that more moral than the rest of us? I think not.
Ah, yes, they may very well do it, but should they, strictly morally? THAT is the question.
Incidentally, I would refute the accusation that everyone is as 'bad' as each other about this. I know it's possible to teach children about religion without indoctrinating them into it (or out of it), because that is what I have done. It's hard, but possible.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
Simples really.
Yes - all parents indoctrinate their children, so Christians will.
No - it is not morally wrong, it is the nature of things.
(to be more long-winded: if you are convinced that your belief system contains at least some truth (which I assume you would, otherwise why bother?) then you should be confident enough to inculcate it to your children whilst also showing them the wider world, that other people believe different things, and that we respect that).
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m asking the question here because someone once sent me a Secret PM to tell me this is a Christian website.
I think the traditional response to such a claim is ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and then get on with your life, but YMMV.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
"indoctrination" is not limited to religion and that it isn't the slam dunk guarantee that you seem to think it is that the child will follow the parent's beliefs
Agreed.
So what?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
That's what parents do, if they are on the job. We indoctrinate our children.
Do you not indoctrinate your children in agnostic/atheistic thought? I rather think that you do. Is that more moral than the rest of us? I think not.
Ah, yes, they may very well do it, but should they, strictly morally? THAT is the question.
Incidentally, I would refute the accusation that everyone is as 'bad' as each other about this. I know it's possible to teach children about religion without indoctrinating them into it (or out of it), because that is what I have done. It's hard, but possible.
Yes, they should. It's their job and it is moral. If I truly believe my religion is truth, I'm going to teach it to them as truth as well as live it - anything less makes my faith a mockery. Parents also have the responsibility as the child gets older to teach critical thinking skills so the child knows why he/she believes what they do and can make alterations in their beliefs if necessary.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Yorick, you are not responding to my question. I asked why religious belief is in a category of its own such that the inculcation of religious belief should be treated differently from the inculcation of any other belief. Your reply simply reasserts the position of your OP that religious belief can somehow be treated as a separate class of belief without offering any evidence or justification for so treating it. If religious belief is not different in kind from other beliefs that parents impart to their children, then parents who impart religious beliefs to their children are no more (or less) immoral in imparting religious beliefs than they are in imparting any other kind of belief.
Of course "indoctrinating" any belief might be immoral because, of the overriding of the individual human will that the term "indoctrination" connotes. However good the belief, indoctrination is an immoral means of inculcating it, so one could argue that all indoctrination is immoral.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
"indoctrination" is not limited to religion and that it isn't the slam dunk guarantee that you seem to think it is that the child will follow the parent's beliefs
Agreed.
So what?
So what makes "indoctrinating" religion so horrible over any of the others? You've just agreed it isn't a slam dunk that the child will follow that religion when they become of age. Do we not teach our children anything as being true?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Yes - all parents indoctrinate their children, so Christians will.
No - it is not morally wrong, it is the nature of things.
It's not so simple, actually.
What about their freedom of choice? Do you think they should have a basic right to choose religion for themselves, ideally? Is it not an important Christian principle that people should make that choice freely and authentically for themselves?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Okay, please be patient with me. I'm having four overlapping conversations here now. I'll try to get to each of your points, but it'll take a while and it may be a bit disjointed. Especially since I'm supposed to be doing something else for the next couple of hours.
(Hmm. If only there were some way of dealing with this 'swamping' problem).
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Yes - all parents indoctrinate their children, so Christians will.
No - it is not morally wrong, it is the nature of things.
It's not so simple, actually.
What about their freedom of choice? Do you think they should have a basic right to choose religion for themselves, ideally? Is it not an important Christian principle that people should make that choice freely and authentically for themselves?
What makes teaching children religion so horrific? Don't children have freedom of choice once they come of age to make that decision for themselves? You've admitted yourself that it's not a slam dunk that they will follow the parent's beleifs. What is about religion that so yanks your chain? One would think parents were teaching their children serial murder 101.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
(Hmm. If only there were some way of dealing with this 'swamping' problem).
Here's something I've learned - if you start a thread, don't sit there waiting for responses and answer them as they come. Go away for a while, hours even days, come back, mull over what's been said, and then respond to the most interesting/intriguing/challenging thing. Don't try and answer everyone - you'll just get yourself stgressed and find yourself stuck on the internet for 3 hours, talking in 5 directions at once, to no-one's benefit.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Yes - all parents indoctrinate their children, so Christians will.
No - it is not morally wrong, it is the nature of things.
It's not so simple, actually.
What about their freedom of choice? Do you think they should have a basic right to choose religion for themselves, ideally? Is it not an important Christian principle that people should make that choice freely and authentically for themselves?
Yes - of course. Of course they have the right to choose. But the idea you can create a 'neutral' ground upon which to teach kids is a secularist fantasy that I have never seen. Have you?
If you believe something to be true (materialism, the Trinity, Flying Spaghetti Monster) you are going to tell your children it is true. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. If you equip them with the skills of reasoning then when they hit their teens they will question it. If it is true, they will return. If they find it to be false you have done your job as a parent.
Trust me, I know. My daughter is right there.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
What makes teaching children religion so horrific? Don't children have freedom of choice once they come of age to make that decision for themselves? You've admitted yourself that it's not a slam dunk that they will follow the parent's beleifs. What is about religion that so yanks your chain? One would think parents were teaching their children serial murder 101.
1. Nothing. It's just that I'm especially interested in that subject here.
2. Yes, they can reject the indoctrination, and many do. But the overall effect is that they will probably adopt whatever religion their parents inculcate them to believe.
3. Religion is a particular interest of mine. So what?
4. I never said religion is wrong (that's quite another matter). I said indoctrinating it in children is morally incorrect. I'm keeping my personal views about the rights and wrongs of religion in itself out of this, and request you do the same so that we can concentrate on this particular issue.
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm keeping my personal views about the rights and wrongs of religion in itself out of this, and request you do the same so that we can concentrate on this particular issue.
Handy tip #2: don't be so controlling. Pisses people off no end.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think it is immoral if your intention in communicating that ‘truth’ is to influence them in such a way that they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose whether or not to believe it.
It may be that I'm missing some subtlety, but I'm not convinced that "the complete freedom to choose" as you appear to be defining it actually exists, in any context.
As you point out at some length, all parents will indoctrincate/inculcate beliefs they hold to be true and of value in their offspring. You can't really avoid doing it (and you'd probably be quite odd if you did, and produce some fairly odd proto-adults).
There also seems to be an undercurrent of equating "indoctrinate" (in the 'pure' form you're seeking to sress) with "brainwash", at least in terms of outcome and inappropriateness, which I don't believe is justified in a general discussion about abstract concepts, rather than specific situations. Although again, that may be a mis-reading on my part (or scars from too many similar discussions in Other Places).
ISTM that the critical issue isn't so much that parents pass on (actively or passively) their beliefs, understanding and worldview to their children, but in how those same parents allow for and handle questions and (potential) rejections of those views as the children grow and develop. I know a great many people who were brought up in a 'Christian' (whatever that means) and/or church setting who have freely chosen not to accept it as truth - and from varying ages. Their parental and Sunday School education in no way blocked them off from questioning, probing, researching, and making up their own minds, but it's equally indisputable that their parents brought them up in the hope and desire that they would come to faith for themselves, and were open about the way they believe the world works.
Or is it that you're talking about something different here? Are you particularly looking at the individuals/sects/cults/religious variants that simply don't brook argument, debate, or rejection, who therefore fall closer to the 'brainwash' or at least high walled scenario? And are those of us with a faith responding to a proposition which isn't as broad as it appears, because we're assuming that you're talking about anyone ever telling a child point-blank that "Jesus is Lord" as a matter of fact?
I used to have this debate long and hard with one of my best friends and erstwhile business parter (now-departed). His position used to be that you shouldn't be allowed to take kids to church, Sunday School, or talk to them about religion until they were in their teens and could make their own minds up, because otherwise you were unduly and irresponsibly influencing them. He couldn't see my argument, that by deliberately denying all of that you'd be influencing them just as strongly in the other direction, and thus tainting and corrupting the freedom of choice he was allegedly seeking to preserve (which actually amounted to "all kids should be brought up in accordance with my world view, which is Clearly Right, not yours, which is Clearly Misguided".
Unless you can hermetically seal kids against any kind of influence, they can't have pure freedom of choice. If you succeed in sealing them, they won't have any information, or any tools, with which to make a choice.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Yes - of course. Of course they have the right to choose. But the idea you can create a 'neutral' ground upon which to teach kids is a secularist fantasy that I have never seen. Have you?
If you believe something to be true (materialism, the Trinity, Flying Spaghetti Monster) you are going to tell your children it is true. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. If you equip them with the skills of reasoning then when they hit their teens they will question it. If it is true, they will return. If they find it to be false you have done your job as a parent.
Trust me, I know. My daughter is right there.
I'm talking about intention, Ian.
I deteminedly intended to bring up my daughter without indoctrinating her into my atheism. She is now a good Christian, to my great pride. But whether or not she became an evil slavering Dawkinsist atheist or a good Christian, it would still have been my intention not to indoctrinate her in any direction, and thereby deprive her of free choice.
What was your intention?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
What makes teaching children religion so horrific? Don't children have freedom of choice once they come of age to make that decision for themselves? You've admitted yourself that it's not a slam dunk that they will follow the parent's beleifs. What is about religion that so yanks your chain? One would think parents were teaching their children serial murder 101.
1. Nothing. It's just that I'm especially interested in that subject here.
2. Yes, they can reject the indoctrination, and many do. But the overall effect is that they will probably adopt whatever religion their parents inculcate them to believe.
3. Religion is a particular interest of mine. So what?
4. I never said religion is wrong (that's quite another matter). I said indoctrinating it in children is morally incorrect. I'm keeping my personal views about the rights and wrongs of religion in itself out of this, and request you do the same so that we can concentrate on this particular issue.
So can we assume that you feel the same way about "indoctrination" of atheism or political viewpoints or views on history or any other topic that others might not agree with?
Parents are supposed to impart values and beliefs to children that they believe will best equip them for adulthood. Religion for many is part of that equipping. And as you admitted, the child still has free choice and is not necessarily pre-disposed to retaining the "indoctrinated" beliefs, no matter what they are. So why does it matter so much to you? Your personal opinion does indeed have a bearing on the discussion.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Handy tip #2: don't be so controlling. Pisses people off no end.
I'm sure, but it's jolly hard to keep this thing on song, singlehandedly.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
I should have added to my last post that I am not being flippant. If I understand where your angst on this issue came from, it would make for a better discussion.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
So can we assume that you feel the same way about "indoctrination" of atheism or political viewpoints or views on history or any other topic that others might not agree with?
Parents are supposed to impart values and beliefs to children that they believe will best equip them for adulthood. Religion for many is part of that equipping. And as you admitted, the child still has free choice and is not necessarily pre-disposed to retaining the "indoctrinated" beliefs, no matter what they are. So why does it matter so much to you? Your personal opinion does indeed have a bearing on the discussion.
If you can show me why the reason this matters to me has any direct objective relevance to the question in hand, I will try to be be forthcoming. I just don't think it matters- I'm not being evasive.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I should have added to my last post that I am not being flippant. If I understand where your angst on this issue came from, it would make for a better discussion.
It's not angst. Really, honestly. It's the principle.
But even if it were angst, and I was just reacting to my parents fucking my head up as a PK or something, well, what difference would that make? Would you then be able to say, 'Oh, well that explains it! It was never a proper question about morality at all, just experiential neurosis.' The question stands regardless.
Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
Yes - all parents indoctrinate their children, so Christians will.
No - it is not morally wrong, it is the nature of things.
Many things in our nature are morally wrong. For example my persistent and overwhelming desire to punch my colleague in the head for being an insufferable ass.
It's an interesting question, and one which I am struggling with at the moment, since I have managed to acquire a toddler (God knows how).
I was brought up by a nominally atheist humanist father, and a Christian mother. As such, I suspect I was taught rather more of a free-thinking attitude than many kids. However, in my teens I found a personal relationship with God, which is the moment I became, as I am now, Christian.
Now to me Christian means "in a personal relationship with Christ", and there is a lot about the religion of christianity which man has created that I dislike and disagree with.
Unfortunately, for a number of rational reasons and some wholely irrational ones, I do believe a God in some form exists, and moreover that Christ was approximately what Paul, and later the gospel writers, said He said he was. It is therefore behooven on me to live my life as a Christian.
I desperately want my kid to grow up to be a free-thinker. And I'd far rather he made a positive decision to be an atheist than a passive one to be a Christian. However I so firmly believe in Christ, that I can't not tell my kid about him. That creates a dichotomy which I don't know how to solve.
Now as to all the accoutrements of religion, well when we're reading Noah's Ark, or the creation myth I tell him that there are some issues that we'll fix up as we go along. When we're reading his kids' bible I give a commentary on how likely things are to be literally true, or the product of poetic licence, or the product of chinese whispers, or of wishful thinking.
My hope is that he grows up to critically examine his faith (whatever it is in).
So, short answer: it would be hypocritical for me not to teach my child something I believe to be true. However it would be amoral of me not to equip my child with the ability to critically think for himself.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
To me, values and beliefs are two different things.
My husband and I are both Christians and my sons are both atheists.
But we all have the same values. We are all pacifist, left wing in politics, animal lovers, green and keen that people treat each other with respect and kindness. I find myself really pleased that they have grown up into (what I call) fine young men.
These values are, imo, far more important than the particular beliefs we have - which change over time anyway.
<oh - and we are not low in self esteem or slow to show off either! lol>
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm talking about intention, Ian[/qoute]
Ah, that x-posted with mine. That sort of helps, although I suspect there's a whole big fat mess of issues over how you define intention, and who gets to define it.
I would expect that most good parents basically intend for their kids to grow up as nice, well-adjusted, well-rounded adults, and may hope that they'll adopt a similar belief-set (if belief is a matter of importance to them). Otherwise, "intention" seems to be able to carry different weights for different contexts, verging on being an irregular verb.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Bugger, if someone can correct the finger trouble I'd be grateful, missed the edit window.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What about their freedom of choice?
I'm having difficulty seeing where you're coming from, because you seem to be simultaneously saying:
a.) children have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion is wrong;
b.) children don't have the faculty of freedom of choice, therefore they are susceptible to indoctrination.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I should have added to my last post that I am not being flippant. If I understand where your angst on this issue came from, it would make for a better discussion.
It's not angst. Really, honestly. It's the principle.
But even if it were angst, and I was just reacting to my parents fucking my head up as a PK or something, well, what difference would that make? Would you then be able to say, 'Oh, well that explains it! It was never a proper question about morality at all, just experiential neurosis.' The question stands regardless.
No, wouldn't have explained it completely, but it would have provided perhaps a glimpse into the basis of your viewpoint - after all if you've experience damage or seen a child damaged by religion you'd want to prevent it from happening to others. Most parents - and I think we all agree there are huge screw ups as well - seek to raise their children up to be productive members of society who are able to deftly navigate life's challenges as well. It is the moral responsibility of parents to do this. For true believers of any religion this includes raising up your child in your faith along with your other values and world view. Parents should also be teaching critical thinking skills as well along the way or their child is going to have troubles of one sort or another. In the end the child is free to retain whatever the parents have taught or reject it all wholesale as they make their own way in the world. Honestly, I don't see an issue with parents being able to teach their children religion or politics or whatever their values may be as they try to prepare their child to live on their own in society. Morally - it's what's required of parents and has been from day one.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
There's another side to this - 'religious expectation'.
I know a really fine young man who is hardworking and loyal, with a lovely young family. He's a real credit to his Mum.
She is constantly disappointed in him, and says so to all and sundry.
Why? Because he's not married and, in her eyes, 'living in sin'. I really feel for him and his family.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What about their freedom of choice?
I'm having difficulty seeing where you're coming from, because you seem to be simultaneously saying:
a.) children have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion is wrong;
b.) children don't have the faculty of freedom of choice, therefore they are susceptible to indoctrination.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it.
No, that’s not quite what I’m trying to say, which is that, people have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion in very young children is wrong because they don't have the faculty of freedom of choice and they’re very susceptible to indoctrination.
I don't know if that's having and eating cake.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm talking about intention, Ian.
I deteminedly intended to bring up my daughter without indoctrinating her into my atheism. She is now a good Christian, to my great pride. But whether or not she became an evil slavering Dawkinsist atheist or a good Christian, it would still have been my intention not to indoctrinate her in any direction, and thereby deprive her of free choice.
What was your intention?
My intention is my children to grow up Christians. Why? Because I believe it to be true. If I believed it to be true and didn't intend that then I would not be wanting the best for my child. However, I want them to grow up with the ability to make that decision for themselves and I fully respect that - but I would be lying if I said that I didn't want them to believe what I am sure is true. My son made a profession of faith and was given permission by the Bishop to take communion at 9.. My daughter is 13 and does not yet know what she believes. I am fine with that - but want to to come to a faith in Christ at some point on her own.
Are you saying that you are proud that (according to your view) your child is believing in made-up stuff? Surely as a good parent you wouldn't her to be so delusional?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, that’s not quite what I’m trying to say, which is that, people have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion in very young children is wrong because they don't have the faculty of freedom of choice and they’re very susceptible to indoctrination.
I don't know if that's having and eating cake.
Children don't have a lot of choice about anything when they're young. Their parents are entrusted with making those choices for them and hopefully equipping them to make choices for themselves when they reach an age when they can do so. It's what parenting is all about. Not to mention, children are exposed to other beliefs, opinions, lifestyles either in school or through media. Parents should then be equipping their children with critical thinking skills.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, that’s not quite what I’m trying to say, which is that, people have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion in very young children is wrong because they don't have the faculty of freedom of choice and they’re very susceptible to indoctrination.
I don't know if that's having and eating cake.
Indoctrination - as in the older influential people in authority exercising formative control over young unformed minds - is inevitable. If the indoctrination they receive, whether secular or sacred, ensures their safety and a reasonable moral and psychological development, it's not a bad thing.
I myself don't believe that religious belief is of itself a sign of a faulty psychology, so I can't see that the religious guidance and leading children might receive from parents, and others, leads automatically to harm or retardation of the person.
Children grow into older children and teenagers who - I believe - are still as capable as they were in my day of rejecting the mores of the older set, and finding their own. From there on making decisions for themselves as to what they will believe in either secular or religious terms seems to follow pretty well.
IMO, parents who include religious guidance as part of the 'indoctrination' of their children, along with the good social behaviour etc, are doing no worse than parents who impart no religious belief with their indoctrination. That is, of course, by itself a powerful 'indoctrinizing' statement of belief. But I like the idea that parents of no religion are free to indoctrinate their children in their belief, as religious parents are.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, that’s not quite what I’m trying to say, which is that, people have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion in very young children is wrong because they don't have the faculty of freedom of choice and they’re very susceptible to indoctrination.
But I don't see how you can meaningfully have the right to freedom of choice if you don't have the faculty of freedom of choice. It's like saying I should have the right to walk through walls, unless I'm misreading you.
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
If religion is something you 'do' - relationship with Jesus and all that - it should inform how you live your life. That being so, it's difficult to disentangle it from the way you bring up children, or from other issues of value-passing. As IanMatt says, indoctrination is inevitable; the hoped for outcome is not.
Disinterestedly teaching your children about a religion you believe in seems rather problematic to me. I think the idea of that approach appeals to some as it's considered more likely to turn out people who view religion as an anthropological curiosity.
In the UK, there are plenty of other influences to counteract parental ones (for good or ill). In some other societies, I wonder if your objection is better targeted at a more general lack of religious freedom.
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on
:
I brought my sons up to believe in Christianity, and I insisted that they came to church whilst they were still young enough to take such instruction.
It was my intention to enable them to fully appreciate the merits of the Christian faith, because I believe that faith to be true and right.
Being a bit of an intellectual, I also hoped that having a good grounding in a credible moral and religious viewpoint would equip them to understand and critique all moral and religious viewpoints. In my experience, children brought up in households with no particular religious views (the majority of households in the UK, which is pretty irreligious generally) have no such equipment. They genuinely cannot discuss moral and religious matters, and tend to take an ill-thought-out and vague situational ethics stance on most matters.
Allowing your child to grow up in a moral and spiritual vacuum, with no tools to consider and evaluate ethical arguments is downright irresponsible.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
My intention is my children to grow up Christians. Why?
Actually, it doesn’t especially matter why (I don’t doubt the goodness of your will for a second). I can understand your justification for trying to inculcate your religious beliefs in your children. I agree that, strictly from your perspective, you believe it’s the right thing for you to do, and that’s all a man can do.
However, from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here, do you suppose it’s right deliberately to deprive them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves? Because that’s what you’re talking about here, let’s be clear. Is it right that you should decide what your children believe when they’re adults if it means they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose for themselves?
quote:
Are you saying that you are proud that (according to your view) your child is believing in made-up stuff? Surely as a good parent you wouldn't her to be so delusional?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Whatever I may personally feel about their adult beliefs, I want my children to reach adulthood having made their own informed decisions about what to believe without being indoctrinated into believing what I believe or want them to believe. Even if they ended up believing in worse things than Christianity, I think it would be morally more correct if they came to those beliefs by their own free will and with properly informed critical understanding, rather than that they were indoctrinated into believing something I happened to want them to believe.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
However, from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here, do you suppose it’s right deliberately to deprive them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves? Because that’s what you’re talking about here, let’s be clear. Is it right that you should decide what your children believe when they’re adults if it means they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose for themselves?
The stupidity of this notion is truly breath-taking. If you believe that total freedom of the individual is some great virtue to be striven for, I presume you will have your children raised by wolves if the event ever arises.
The hard thing for an educated person to determine is what, if anything, an individual thinks or feels that is not a product of his/her social context. We like to imagine that there are such things, and the fact that new ideas and products come into existence seems to suggest that there is a place for innovation -- even though history is replete with examples of simultaneous independent innovation that call even this idea into question.
In any case, the one thing that is problematic is the very thing that you assume to be the bedrock of human existence. The fundamental problem with your argument is that your premise is so far removed from the reality of human experience that it is risible.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No, that’s not quite what I’m trying to say, which is that, people have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion in very young children is wrong because they don't have the faculty of freedom of choice and they’re very susceptible to indoctrination.
But I don't see how you can meaningfully have the right to freedom of choice if you don't have the faculty of freedom of choice. It's like saying I should have the right to walk through walls, unless I'm misreading you.
I’m not talking about young children having the right to choose religion (which I think is a meaningless proposition in itself. What does ‘Christian Baby’ mean?). I’m talking about people who already have the faculty of freedom of choice, which, as you correctly suggest, young children don’t. It’s only when they’ve reached sufficient maturity to have the faculty for exercising their choice does the issue of freedom of choice become pertinent (and I’d guess this would typically be mid-teens, though it would obviously vary very greatly). That’s the whole point, since the trouble is that this faculty comes too late if they’ve already been indoctrinated as a very young child.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The stupidity of this notion is truly breath-taking. ...The fundamental problem with your argument is that your premise is so far removed from the reality of human experience that it is risible.
Fine. Ris it.
It matters to me, and that seems to matter to others, who are kind enough to indulge me.
Have a nice day, now.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
However, from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here, do you suppose it’s right deliberately to deprive them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves? Because that’s what you’re talking about here, let’s be clear. Is it right that you should decide what your children believe when they’re adults if it means they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose for themselves?
I think your search for 'complete freedom' is a fallacy. I would argue that there are always influences on children and that there is no such thing. Better a deliberate influence intended for the good of the child than unintended influences filling the vacuum that would be left in the search for neutrality.
quote:
Even if they ended up believing in worse things than Christianity, I think it would be morally more correct if they came to those beliefs by their own free will and with properly informed critical understanding, rather than that they were indoctrinated into believing something I happened to want them to believe.
I think you are confusing freedom and approval. I may give my child the freedom to believe whatever they want, and continue to love them regardless of their decisions and enjoy life with them. But that doesn't mean I need to think them right in their choices.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
My intention is my children to grow up Christians. Why?
Actually, it doesn’t especially matter why (I don’t doubt the goodness of your will for a second). I can understand your justification for trying to inculcate your religious beliefs in your children. I agree that, strictly from your perspective, you believe it’s the right thing for you to do, and that’s all a man can do.
However, from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here, do you suppose it’s right deliberately to deprive them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves? Because that’s what you’re talking about here, let’s be clear. Is it right that you should decide what your children believe when they’re adults if it means they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose for themselves?
Er, what? Who's deciding what their children believe when they're adults? Who's depriving them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves? You could have the makings of an interesting discussion here, but you need to steer clear of ridiculous hyperbole like this and get down to the practicalities (hat-tip to IbP)
You acknowledge that "indoctrination" (a word you've used repeatedly, and which prejudges the issue in a manner that contradicts your claimed openness to discussion) guarantees nothing, but you persist in talking of adults who "decide what [their] children believe when they're adults". You can't have it both ways.
You also need to define your terms better than you have. Some people will unashamedly teach their children a whole load of Godspeak as undeniable truth. Others will talk about it honestly as "what we believe". Still others will attend church on a regular basis, bring the children with them for lack of an alternative, and rarely/never mention religion at home. Which of these are you objecting to?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You acknowledge that "indoctrination" …guarantees nothing, but you persist in talking of adults who "decide what [their] children believe when they're adults". You can't have it both ways.
As I have said many times: although there are exceptions, a child born to Christian parents will tend to become a Christian adult.
If you don’t like the term indoctrination, please suggest an alternative and I’ll try to use it instead (if it means what indoctrination means).
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I have said many times: although there are exceptions, a child born to Christian parents will tend to become a Christian adult
Do you have any actual statistical evidence for that (leaving aside the hideous potential tangent of what makes a Real Christiam(tm)), rather than your own assertion?
I can think of far more instances of children growing up to reject their parents' faith than I can those who claimed it for their own. That's covering the range from "nominal" to "devout", too (as in, some nominal parents have kids who are much more 'in', whereas devout ones have kids who've walked away completely and all combinations inbetween).
If telling children about God, Jesus and Christianity was more or less a guarantee that they'd grow up good little believers, there wouldn't be so many churches concerned about the teenage exodus ...
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I have said many times: although there are exceptions, a child born to Christian parents will tend to become a Christian adult
Do you have any actual statistical evidence for that (leaving aside the hideous potential tangent of what makes a Real Christiam(tm)), rather than your own assertion?
No, but no doubt such data exists on Google somewhere. In my OP, I based my assumption on the demographics of world religions (hence my comment about a newborn child being brought up in Gaza/Israel). It would be astonishing to discover it’s unsafe.
Posted by Lord Clonk (# 13205) on
:
I don't believe it's possible to give a simple answer to your question on the morality of indoctrination because I do not understand morality to be determined by freedom of choice.
My view of morality is that whatever tends towards love is good and whatever tends away from love is bad. I would indoctrinate anyone I could with this principle. I would be happy to manipulate people's beliefs so that they believed something that encouraged them to act more lovingly than they'd otherwise act.
Perhaps you believe that the most reliable way of getting people to subscribe to this view of morality is to provide freedom of choice as much as is possible? I see your question as asking 'Is encouraging and cultivating freedom of choice in children a better way than indoctrination of making them prioritise love?'
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Should I insist that my kids clean their teeth before bedtime or should I let them choose for themselves and make up their own mind when they are old enough to understand the issue?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
I really don't think it's something you can generalise about to that extent. If you want to equate someone growing up in a Moslem (or Israeli) household in Gaza with someone growing up in middle-class suburbia in the UK, I think the whole principle stretches beyond breaking point.
If the heart of your question is "Should children be given the tools to assess what their parents tell them, and ultimately make their own decisions on whether to accept or reject parental belief systems" then I suspect there wouldn't be a huge amount of controversy (at least, not in the context of the board). If you really do just want to focus on 'parental religious indoctrination', treating all possible expressions of that as essentially equal and without reference to culture and context, then I think you need to re-examine your premise, because it seems fatally flawed (or, with a less kindly light, prejudiced).
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
I think I made these points when you started an identical thread a couple of years ago, Yorick.
Your argument doesn't make sense to me. You're saying that the more moral thing to do is either to shield the child from all religion in the broad sense (I believe this to be nonsensical, you would have to teach materialist atheism when questions arose) or to present in as far as possible a value-neutral way, the teachings of the major religions including atheism (with the usual disclaimers) and then let the child choose which way to go when they reach a certain age. You then say that this is moral because anything else is indoctrination which compromises free will.
But... this position only makes sense if soft-atheism (if I can call it that to distinguish from the religions-are-evil militant atheism) is true, or to put it another way that it doesn't matter what religion a person is as long as it doesn't get in the way of the things that are important in life - be they secular humanist values or something less savoury. If you're an atheist and you're happy that your daughter is a Christian, either you don't care about your daughter, or you're insane, or you don't believe that her Christianity is significantly harmful and so it doesn't actually matter. Just for the record I believe the last option about you ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Now, I agree to a limited extent with your idea that teaching something as true compromises choice. But I think there are limits to the application of this. Is there any value in teaching a child that some people think the world is flat, others that it's an oblate spheroid and others still that it's all a dream? Not really, in my opinion. Now, teaching the way the world actually is means that when I talk to my kids about Christianity I often put it in terms of this is what I believe to be true, other people disagree. But still, I teach what I believe to be true and I don't think this compromises freedom. There is after all, a difference between teaching and brainwashing.
I'm fairly convinced that we'll never disagree about this one, because your position is a consequence of your own worldview. There's so much common ground between secular humanists and Christians in general ethics that sometimes we forget we're not on the same wavelength. If Christianity is true and it matters, then it would be morally wrong of me not to teach my children that Christianity is true. You disagree because you don't believe Christianity.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
I think it is immoral if your intention in communicating that ‘truth’ is to influence them in such a way that they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose whether or not to believe it.
And since the actual evidence shows that they are NOT deprived of such freedom except culturally, which is not the parents' fault, your argument fails to obtain. Young children don't have the mental facility to make that kind of choice at all. Once they do, they are free, as can be easily seen from the fact that so many reject their parents' faith when it is culturally possible. In other words in modern 1st world secular culture, where rejecting one's parents' faith is an open option, it is increasingly being opted for. Proving that the indoctrination does not deprive them of the complete freedom to choose.
quote:
But whether or not she became an evil slavering Dawkinsist atheist or a good Christian, it would still have been my intention not to indoctrinate her in any direction, and thereby deprive her of free choice.
But that's just what you have not proven -- that inculcating our children deprives them of free choice. The evidence is against you. In environments where opting out of religion is not an option, then people don't opt out. That's not the parents' fault. In places where opting out is an option, kids opt out of their parents' religion in droves. Showing that the inculcation is not the issue, it's the environment.
quote:
No, that’s not quite what I’m trying to say, which is that, people have the right to freedom of choice, therefore "indoctrination" of religion in very young children is wrong because they don't have the faculty of freedom of choice and they’re very susceptible to indoctrination.
Young children are not capable of that kind of choice, as either you or somebody else has pointed out. As soon as they become capable, most make a choice, either to stick with the faith they were brought up in, or jettison it either in favor of another, or of no faith at all. Environment plays a far bigger roll in that choice than you are admitting.
quote:
However, from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here
There's a strictly external and neutral perspective? Where? Who has it? How did they obtain it? This is a chimera.
quote:
It’s only when they’ve reached sufficient maturity to have the faculty for exercising their choice does the issue of freedom of choice become pertinent (and I’d guess this would typically be mid-teens, though it would obviously vary very greatly).
And the indoctrination itself becomes fairly irrelevant.
quote:
Have a nice day, now.
This appears to be evidence of the sort of attitude that gets one excoriated on the ship. More than once.
quote:
As I have said many times: although there are exceptions, a child born to Christian parents will tend to become a Christian adult.
Said but not shown. As is quite evident by the numbers, if children societally have the option, they are more and more opting out. The indoctrination isn't the thing, it's the surrounding culture.
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on
:
I have brought my 5 children and 2 of the 4 Grandchildren to believe the Church is a 'good thing' and that there is something there for them.
I am worried that sooner or later they are going to meet one of Life's knocks..eg divorce, illness, exam failures, redundancy and they may fall to pieces.
I have seen so many people turn to drugs and alcohol out of their problems. I don't want that to happen to my off-spring and if they can cry out as people do in the Psalms to an unseen God to help them, then that is a much better way.
I also want them to be good citizens and have a moral code. If its only the last 6 of the 10 commandments then so be it.
I hope they develop a personal relationship with their Creator but that bit (their spiritual journey) is up to them.
They are my children, and I do I think is best for them. Luckily my wife and I agree on virtually everything on this issue.
Religion is certainly a subject that we have all argued about at the dinner table. But thats good and shows they are thinking.
Pax et Bonum
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I have said many times: although there are exceptions, a child born to Christian parents will tend to become a Christian adult.
The only two countries I've ever lived in are Britain and Kenya. A century and a half a go perhaps half the British people were churchgoing Christians. Almost no Kenyans were. Now, only about ten percent of the British, but most Kenyans, are.
So going by the evidence, nope.
Posted by Graham J (# 505) on
:
I've said (written) it before and I'll say it again now.
I have seen it as quite natural to let my children get to know my parents,parents in law and other relatives and to spend time with them.
I have seen it as quite natural to let my children get to know my God and Christian brothers and sisters and to spend time with them.
It's much more than a matter of truth and belief - it's all about relationships and faith.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Religion is certainly a subject that we have all argued about at the dinner table. But thats good and shows they are thinking.
Almost every day with us at one stage - love it!
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Whatever I may personally feel about their adult beliefs, I want my children to reach adulthood having made their own informed decisions
And if this information isn't coming from you, by what are they being informed?
quote:
....about what to believe without being indoctrinated into believing what I believe or want them to believe.
Okay, I'm not a parent so I could be very wrong. But it strikes me that the likelihood of an unformed, elastic, quick-learning infant brain not taking on the beliefs, behaviours and inculcations of the adults with whom they spend the most time, and who are their guardians is zilch.
quote:
Even if they ended up believing in worse things than Christianity, I think it would be morally more correct if they came to those beliefs by their own free will and with properly informed critical understanding, rather than that they were indoctrinated into believing something I happened to want them to believe.
Then be reassured. Unless there's something fairly abnormal with the environment you provide for them, or unless they are abnormal teenagers you can be fairly sure they won't want anything to do with what you think is important for at least their teenage years. Having naturally absorbed the family culture as a young kid, natural adolescent maturation will separate them from you and your opinions fairly successfully enabling them to critically apprise whether what you believe is really for them or a crock of shit.
Parents are incredibly important in the formation of their kids in so many ways; but surely it's only in unhealthy parent/child relationships where an adolescent is genuinelly mentally and psychologically disabled from making their own grown up decisions.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
You'd be surprised how early in life children can work things out for themselves. My father entrusted the indoctrination of my sister to the local chapel. After chapel she was sent down to the local bottle-and-jug for a quart of mild.
The chapel exceeded their brief, indoctinating my sister with the belief that alcoholic drink was evil. This message she dutifully passed on to my father.
She still went down to the bottle-and-jug, of course, but with a very sore bum.
After a few weeks of this it became clear that something had to change. She started going for walks in the park during "Sunday School" and Dad got his pint, and my sister got some healthy fresh air.
He was a very moral man, my father, but he knew his limitations. My sister grew into a lovely lady both in spite of and because of attempts to indoctrinate her.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here, do you suppose it’s right deliberately to deprive them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves? Because that’s what you’re talking about here, let’s be clear. Is it right that you should decide what your children believe when they’re adults if it means they’re deprived of the complete freedom to choose for themselves?
I really gainsay the sincerity of a claim on the part of an unbeliever that a "benign" neglect of religious experience for one's children indicates a desire to give them freedom to choose for themselves, unlike those superstitious folk over there who indoctrinate them. If you don't respect the choice of a complete stranger to practice a religion, are you really just going to smile approvingly if any of your own children show signs of a similar interest? Surely you would do something to challenge their illogic or otherwise point out the error of their ways?
There are worse things than parents' passing on what they believe to their children... such as an adult's passing on something that he doesn't honestly believe at all, for reasons best kept to himself. The first is propagation; the second, propaganda.
[ 17. November 2010, 22:12: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
What exactly does Yorick mean by 'complete freedom to make a choice'? For example, if I've grown up speaking English as a first language and not Farsi I am much more likely to read Milton or Herbert than to read Rumi. Have I been deprived of 'complete freedom' to make a choice?
The thing is 'complete freedom' is vacuous. It doesn't mean anything. The only way to be completely free as a human being is to be dead.
'Can' implies 'ought'. If I ought to bring up children with complete freedom then I can. I can't; therefore I don't have that obligation.
Is it moral to bring up a child under the assumption that complete freedom is a supreme value? Surely the child should be left to decide for themselves whether complete freedom is a good according to which they wish to be brought up?
If Yorick believes what he's saying, he doesn't care how children choose a worldview or religion; just so long as their choice is independent of their parents. It can be as critical or superstitious as the child likes. But if you agree that in order to think critically you have to start with something to think critically about - and if you think that learning to reason critically is what is of crucial importance - then Yorick's argument runs actively across the point. It's just not the important thing here.
There are serious questions to be addressed as to how one should simultaneously bring up children with values, ethics, spirituality, culture - which means the values, spirituality, culture of their parents and peers - and also to give them the tools to question that when they grow up. But Yorick's language is thoroughly unhelpful in thinking about the problem.
Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on
:
Two questions.
Firstly for Yorick. There is an element within New Atheism which is calling for it to be made illegal to bring up a child in a particular faith, using your arguments to justify their position. Is this where you stand?
Secondly for anyone. On p328 of Breaking The Spell, Daniel Dennett proposes that:
quote:
as long as parents don't teach their children anything that is likely to close their minds
1. through fear and hatred
2.by disabling them from enquiry (by denying them an education for instance, or keeping them entirely isolated from the world)
then they may teach their children whatever doctrines they like.
Is this a good suggestion? Is it the thin end of the above wedge?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Secondly for anyone. On p328 of Breaking The Spell, Daniel Dennett proposes that:
quote:
as long as parents don't teach their children anything that is likely to close their minds
1. through fear and hatred
2.by disabling them from enquiry (by denying them an education for instance, or keeping them entirely isolated from the world)
then they may teach their children whatever doctrines they like.
Is this a good suggestion? Is it the thin end of the above wedge?
Excellent question.
I think this kind of sums up the debate. I'd be all in favour of this in principle but, as always, the devil is in the details. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
What do you mean by 'fear and hatred'?
My experience is that a kind of 'group think' takes over. In schools and communities where religious belief is the norm it is quite common to turn a blind eye to expressions of fear and hatred towards non-believers. However, I have to say that the reverse is also true. Where I live in Sydney church attendance is about the lowest in NSW. The idea that religion is the root cause of all evil is pretty commonly heard. My kids' Italian teacher (reacting against her RC background I assume) has made comments about 'the bible being full of lies and abuse' publicly to her class on several occasions. I expect she thinks she is simply being honest and also that, in her mind, she is re-dressing the past. Nevertheless she seems unaware of the 'fear and hatred' towards Christianity that my children pick up from her. (And that is without me making any comment to my kids about it.)
I hope we'd all agree with point 2. Point 1 I suspect would simply be abused by which ever group (religious or non-religious) has the majority in our community.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
[Just to let you know, I'm working through this thread and intend to respond to all the excellent posts as soon as possible. Thank you all for your contributions.]
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I'm fairly convinced that we'll never disagree about this one
Agree. Not disagree. Please take what I wrote and translate it into what I mean. Thanks.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
As I have said many times: although there are exceptions, a child born to Christian parents will tend to become a Christian adult
Do you have any actual statistical evidence for that (leaving aside the hideous potential tangent of what makes a Real Christiam(tm)), rather than your own assertion?
No, but no doubt such data exists on Google somewhere. In my OP, I based my assumption on the demographics of world religions (hence my comment about a newborn child being brought up in Gaza/Israel). It would be astonishing to discover it’s unsafe.
Sorry, but you have proven nothing. There are many raised by devoutly religious parents who have taught their children the faith only to have those children choose to reject the faith when they come of age. Every child at some point has the freedom to choose their own beliefs.
You do have a point that in some countries it is not safe to reject the State's religion, however, for the vast majority of Western nations this isn't the case. There is no moral wrong of "indoctrinating" (really it's just teaching) your children in religion. To be perfectly honest, it's just your opinion - shared by those who aren't religious. Atheists have the perfect right to teach their children atheism. Their children may or may not choose to remain atheists when they come of age. No difference whatsoever.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Secondly for anyone. On p328 of Breaking The Spell, Daniel Dennett proposes that:
quote:
as long as parents don't teach their children anything that is likely to close their minds
1. through fear and hatred
2.by disabling them from enquiry (by denying them an education for instance, or keeping them entirely isolated from the world)
then they may teach their children whatever doctrines they like.
Is this a good suggestion? Is it the thin end of the above wedge?
I'd say it should satisfy those on either end of the spectrum. One can teach religion or atheism to one's own children without adding hatred to the mix. It is already illegal to harm one's own child by denying health care or education or keeping them in extreme isolation.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
[In awful haste]
mousethief: Okay, I’ve had a quick (sub five minutes) look through the first few hits on Google of searches on parental influence on uptake of religion. My immediate finding is that the greatest predictor of adopted religion is of course parental religion, as I think is perfectly obvious. TBQH, I’m so unmoved by your assertion otherwise that I don’t want to waste any time refuting it, so with great respect I’d ask you first to provide some evidence for your claims if you want to take this further. I seriously doubt you’ll find it, beyond the trivially anecdotal, but if you do, perhaps we’ll look at it?
ken, your example of the recent rise of Christianity in Kenya and its decline in the UK does not refute the effect of parental influence on the demographics of religion. How are those modern Kenyan children becoming Christian? Like a weed, religion does not grow spontaneously out of the ground but by sexual reproduction.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Kenyans often go to rallies and outreach events and become Christians in the absence of parental conversion. Likewise many middle class Kenyans are giving up on the church despite the wishes of their parents to do otherwise.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I don’t dispute there are many and various ways people become Christian. I don’t dispute that people can and do apostatise. I’m merely suggesting parental influence is a strong determinant of uptake (the strongest, as it happens).
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I suspect that culture is equally strong and synergistic. If parental influence is in the same direction as the prevailing culture it is very powerful indeed. If it opposes the prevailing culture it is weaker.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I think this discussion has very little to do with religion.
My daughter is two on Monday. I expect by the time she's 13 or so, she will be a meat-eating, English-speaking, IpswichTown-supporting Christian.
She'll probably start questioning some of those things at that point, and if by the time she's an adult she's moved to France and become a vegetarian Buddhist who hates football, then that's up to her, and I'll still love her.
This is why indoctrination is an unsuitable word. Everything we do (and plenty of uncontrollable external factors) will influence our children in some ways. If I raise my daughter eating meat, and she later becomes a vegetarian, will she then resent me for indoctrinating her into doing something she now despises? If I raise her eating only vegetables, will she resent me for not having allowed her to eat meat?
Of course we should give our children an element of choice in some things, but the reality remains: they're still children and they're not yet in a place to make sensible choices (the film Big Daddy comes to mind).
So long as we raise our children so that they know they're loved and accepted, whatever decisions they ultimately make in life (even if we disagree with those decisions), we won't be going far wrong, and they'll be far more likely to make sensible decisions and choices anyhow.
ps. Thanks for the OP, Yorick - I wouldn't be too cynical as to how this discussion goes in Purg. Shame it didn't work out in MAAN, but that's the way things sometimes go. Besides, the discussion itself is more important than the format it occurs in.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Ipswich Town-supporting
Sod religion. That kind of indoctrination is just evil.
Especially when her first boy-friend picks her up in his tractor.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Especially when her first boy-friend picks her up in his tractor.
Boyfriends? She won't be allowed any boyfriends! Especially those who intend to pick her up in their own vehicles! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Better a tractor than a white escort with fluffy dice and steamed up windows.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay, I’ve had a quick (sub five minutes) look through the first few hits on Google of searches on parental influence on uptake of religion.
You (and I) appear to have conflated two things:
1. If a person chooses to be religious, which religion do they choose?
2. How likely is a person to become (or remain) religious given that their parents were religious?
Your statistics speak only to #1. My assertion had to do with #2.
quote:
From the source of all knowledge and wisdom:
2001 survey directed by Dr. Ariela Keysar for the City University of New York indicated that, amongst the more than 100 categories of response, "no religious identification" had the greatest increase in population in both absolute and percentage terms. This category included atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, and others with no theistic religious beliefs or practices. Figures are up from 14.3 million in 1990 to 34.2 million in 2008, representing a proportionate increase from 8% of the total in 1990 to 15% in 2008.
In places where it is societally possible, fewer and fewer kids are choosing to remain religious. Some of these, I suppose, will be immigrants. But most of them (I aver) will be people whose parents were religious, and they chose not to be.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
A few quick ideas of mine on the OP.
quote:
I should draw the distinction here between ‘indoctrination’ as I’ve described it, and ‘indoctrination’ as in the teaching or education of religious doctrine. In the former, the goal is to inculcate an acceptance of the religious beliefs in question. In the latter, the primary intention is to inform the child about the doctrine, without deliberately influencing them to believe in it.
I get that point - however, I think it's a false distinction.
I think that a child's ability to make decisions independently of their parents is something that only develops gradually, over a period of time.
The whole premise of the argument seems to be based upon the monotheistic tradition of "conversionism", which, ironically, modern-day atheism appears to have inherited. By conversionism, I mean the belief that you're either a Christian or a pagan (or that you're either a Muslim or an infidel, and so on) - and that there's a moral imperative on you to make a choice.
Basically, I think it's bollocks. I think it makes no more sense to say that a person has to choose between being a Christian and being a pagan, than to say that they have to choose between speaking English and speaking "foreign".
Staying on the theme of the parallels between choice of religion and choice of language:
quote:
It’s safe to assume that parental indoctrination of children into religion is both commonly widespread and also highly effective in terms of outcome. The demographic distribution of world religions demonstrates this very graphically. A child born in Israel is likely to become a Jew, and one born half a mile away in Gaza is likely to become a Moslem. Indeed, take a newborn baby from his mother in Israel and give him to a Moslem couple in Gaza, and he shall almost certainly become a Moslem man. Conversely, take a newborn baby from his mother in Gaza and give him to a Jewish couple in Israel, and he'll become a Jewish man. What is the mechanism by which this happens? Evidently, it is a mixture of socio-cultural influence and parenting.
Yes - but the same thing is true of language.
A child born in UK or USA is likely to learn to speak English. A child born in Spain or Mexico is likely to learn to speak Spanish. Similarly, a child born in the UK but given to a couple in Spain to bring up, is likely to come to speak Spanish as their main language.
Staying on the theme:
quote:
This moral question centres on the issue of freedom of choice. I believe all human beings should have the absolute right to choose their religion (or atheism) freely for themselves.
I believe that too. I also believe that all human beings should have the absolute right to choose their language freely for themselves too.
However, I recognise that we need to be realistic here. Sure, there are exceptions, but most people speak primarily the language of their parents, and few other languages, if any.
So - what should we do about it? Get public sector organisations to micromanage the way that parents bring up their children? Threaten to put the parents in prison and the kids into care if the parents don't do it properly?
I don't think that would work very well. The reason I think it won't work for religion, is the same as the reason I think it won't work for language.
However, what the government can do is provide decent schools. Schools complement the education that parents give to their children, but it can never replace it. That's because, no matter how good your school education system is, children are still going to be primarily reliant upon their parents to learn their initial language.
So it's really no surprise if a religion happens to be bundled along with that language. I don't believe it's possible to prevent parents indoctrinating their children into a religion, without your enforcement action having the side-effect of preventing parents indoctrinating their children into a language at the same time. If parents are not able to teach their children language skills for whatever reason, then it's very difficult for the school system to make up the difference.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
I have a certain amount of sympathy with Yorick's scruples about indoctrination.
As I see it, there's a difference between telling your child that your religious beliefs are true and telling your child that your religious beliefs make sense to you according to your reasoning and experience. I know that sounds impossibly wordy for a child, but it sums up the attitude I've always taken. Once my daughter had started school and realised, for example, that about 40% of the kids were from Muslim families and some were from non- religious or anti-religious households, what else could I have said? We're right and all the other families are wrong?
I think there is a problem with telling your children that your set of religious beliefs is intrinsically true. It links their beliefs too closely with their relationship with you, so that when they rebel against one they often rebel against the other.
I have told my daughter a lot of what I believe, and a lot about Christianity and the Bible (and a fair bit about other religions and belief systems). Frankly, I would be worried if I thought her beliefs were identical to mine. I hope I have given her a springboard rather than a straitjacket where belief and spirituality are concerned. Time will tell.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The whole premise of the argument seems to be based upon the monotheistic tradition of "conversionism", which, ironically, modern-day atheism appears to have inherited. By conversionism, I mean the belief that you're either a Christian or a pagan (or that you're either a Muslim or an infidel, and so on) - and that there's a moral imperative on you to make a choice.
Basically, I think it's bollocks. I think it makes no more sense to say that a person has to choose between being a Christian and being a pagan, than to say that they have to choose between speaking English and speaking "foreign".
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
So you just want everyone to convert to your point of view?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I think there is a problem with telling your children that your set of religious beliefs is intrinsically true.
But what if your belief is that they are true? Are you saying that religious people should admit to their children that they do not really believe?
I share some of your concerns over indoctrination but, as many others shipmates have said before, what the world needs is more zealous followers of Jesus, not less. So much of this debate seems to be predicated on the assumption that religion is some kind of useful leisure activity which we some times take too seriously.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay, I’ve had a quick (sub five minutes) look through the first few hits on Google of searches on parental influence on uptake of religion.
You (and I) appear to have conflated two things:
1. If a person chooses to be religious, which religion do they choose?
2. How likely is a person to become (or remain) religious given that their parents were religious?
Your statistics speak only to #1. My assertion had to do with #2.
quote:
From the source of all knowledge and wisdom:
2001 survey directed by Dr. Ariela Keysar for the City University of New York indicated that, amongst the more than 100 categories of response, "no religious identification" had the greatest increase in population in both absolute and percentage terms. This category included atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, and others with no theistic religious beliefs or practices. Figures are up from 14.3 million in 1990 to 34.2 million in 2008, representing a proportionate increase from 8% of the total in 1990 to 15% in 2008.
In places where it is societally possible, fewer and fewer kids are choosing to remain religious. Some of these, I suppose, will be immigrants. But most of them (I aver) will be people whose parents were religious, and they chose not to be.
Smith, Tom W., "Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious Preference Since World War II," GSS Social Change Report No. 26, Chicago: NORC, 1988
Survey respondents were specifically asked if they were raised in particular religion and whether they had ever switched to another
denomination or preferred no religion at all. Overall, 35.7% of those who were raised with a particular religion had at some point switched
to another religion or no religion. Stated another way, about 2/3rds stay with the religion in which they were raised.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Say 100% of (reproducing) Americans were Christian in 1900. Let's say just for argument that they reproduce at replacement levels. And let's say they become ready to have more kids in 25 years.
% of reproducing population that's christian:
1900 - 100%
1925 - 66%
1950 - 43%
1975 - 29%
2000 - 19%
2025 - 13%
2050 - 8%
We'd have to adjust this for various factors but 66% retention isn't terribly impressive proof of no free will. Sorry.
ETA: Also, 1988 was a hell of a long time ago as these things go, and I believe the numbers show that the % of people leaving their parents' flock is accelerating.
[ 20. November 2010, 01:00: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
I think there is a problem with telling your children that your set of religious beliefs is intrinsically true.
But what if your belief is that they are true? Are you saying that religious people should admit to their children that they do not really believe?
I share some of your concerns over indoctrination but, as many others shipmates have said before, what the world needs is more zealous followers of Jesus, not less. So much of this debate seems to be predicated on the assumption that religion is some kind of useful leisure activity which we some times take too seriously.
I certainly don't think that that religion is some kind of useful leisure activity which we some times take too seriously.
Surely there is a difference between telling your child that your belief is true (immoral?) and (moral?) telling that child that you think your belief is true and explaining why (and admitting that other people may disagree).
I share Yorick's concerns whilst being a testament to the fact that some who are brought up in an atmosphere where doubting mother's religious views is not tolerated can still break free. I have siblings who remain believers and it's a moot point as to whether religion has harmed them more by their staying, or me by the need to separate. (Assuming PK is shorthand for Preacher's Kid I'm a PK).
I recall aged fourteen suggesting to my mother that the six days of Genesis were not literal and was told that if the Bible said 6 days it meant half-a-dozen consecutive periods of 24 hours - and wait till your father gets in. For what it's worth when he returned it quickly became obvious that Dad didn't agree with Mum's view but felt unable to say so. I never discussed religion with either of them again.
There is a suggestion that there is an evolutionary benefit in children believing what their parents/authority figures tell them. "Keep away from the fire/Don't go near the riverbank/Avoid climbing trees" etc. are instructions which may increase the probability of the dutiful, rather than the rebel, passing on their genes to another generation. In human families there often is a natural tendency for people to try to control the generations that follow them, how else (for the vast majority of human history) to get fed when old and too frail to work? This tendency will probably be passed meme-like to each succeeding generation even once the need for it is gone. Religion can be, and I submit sometimes is, used as a tool to assist achieve this control (Honour thy father and thy mother etc.?).
I recall a TV programme maker asking Cantuar how he knew that God existed - the reply was to the effect that he did not know but had chosen to believe. (100% for honesty/integrity though perhaps less for promotional awareness). An honourable example of how to deal with others?
However Yorick, there will always be those who will insist that they "know" when perhaps "are convinced/sure/certain/have no doubt" etc. seem more accurate. One of the attractions of religion can be certainty, a mirage perhaps but a potent hook to reel in those vulnerable to its charms; and they will see it as their sacred duty to pass on the truth of their conviction without question or care for the consequences. I find it abhorent - but that's how it is and, whilst the subject may change over time, I suspect that the object will be constant for as long a humanity survives.
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Say 100% of (reproducing) Americans were Christian in 1900. Let's say just for argument that they reproduce at replacement levels. And let's say they become ready to have more kids in 25 years.
% of reproducing population that's christian:
1900 - 100%
1925 - 66%
1950 - 43%
1975 - 29%
2000 - 19%
2025 - 13%
2050 - 8%
We'd have to adjust this for various factors but 66% retention isn't terribly impressive proof of no free will. Sorry.
ETA: Also, 1988 was a hell of a long time ago as these things go, and I believe the numbers show that the % of people leaving their parents' flock is accelerating.
I was responding, as a facilitator, to the question about whether the majority of children assume their parents' religious views; not making a point. However, if two thirds of progeny don't reject their parents' superstition it indicates that free will is, for whatever reason(s), substantially ineffective.
I'm no statistician but
Say - you're making an assumption
100% of (reproducing) Americans were Christian in 1900. - they weren't
Let's say just for argument that they reproduce at replacement levels. - US Population increase due 100% to net immigration?
And let's say they become ready to have more kids in 25 years. - probably nearer 20?
The study was conducted through to 1988 - applying those figures to a period before and between two world wars as though nothing had changed (female emancipation, mass production, hire purchase, effective medical care, the depression etc.) is silly - if it were not so the variation between your calculation and actual present day performance would indicate that the retention rate must be substantially higher than 66%.
If you don't like the information (it is old and the methodology may have been suspect) go and find your own - it may be more up-to-date/relevant than that which I found. (but please try to avoid infecting the numbers with your belief).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Why are you appointing yourself a facilitator? SOF threads don't have facilitators.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Yorick, two points.
First, I'm sure that you're aware that not all Christians hold that Christianity is a set of propositions, and that you are a Christian if you decide as an adult to believe them, and you are not a Christian if you don't believe them. This model of the faith, which you seem to think is definitive, is in fact a fairly recent innovation, held by a minority of Christians.
The view that is more typical of Christianity is that it is not a choice but a relationship. Teaching your child that Christ is their God is like teaching your child that this old man is their Grandpa and that old woman is their Grandma. Teaching them what you know about God is like teaching them what you know about their grandparents.
It's not indoctrinating them into a belief. It's building a relationship.
In that context, your whole "let them choose for themselves" idea is simply nonsense. It's not a good thing to keep children from knowing and loving their relations, because they might, as adults, prefer to sever those relationships and cultivate some other relationships. It's your obligation to build, strengthen, and support the child's relationships. If the relationship falls apart later, well, that happens.
(And even if Christianity were simply about whether or not a set of propositions is true (which it is not), it's not a good thing for parents to lie to their children about what they believe to be true. I'm not going to encourage my kids to make up their own mind about whether or not the moon landing is true. It's true, and the people who say otherwise are nutcases. That's what I believe, and that's what I'll tell them. If they later decide to join the Flat Earth Society, and go on cable news to explain how the Trilateral Commission faked the moon landing, I won't be happy. If they get to that point, I'll love them anyway. But I will feel that I failed them in important ways.)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
to Josephine.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Surely there is a difference between telling your child that your belief is true (immoral?) and (moral?) telling that child that you think your belief is true and explaining why (and admitting that other people may disagree).
Only if you accept a secular world view where only empirically observable facts are important.
According to your statement above it is immoral for me to tell my children that it is true that I will always love them (when they ask for reassurance.)
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
[quote]Originally posted by HughWillRidMee
However, if two thirds of progeny don't reject their parents' superstition it indicates that free will is, for whatever reason(s), substantially ineffective./[quote]
You might want to think on that statement a little harder ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Based on pure numbers, you can't possibly know whether someone who continues to identify with (broadly) the same religious beliefs as their parents does so out of:
a) inertia
b) inability to consider any other option due to childhood indoctrination
c) free personal choice, having looked at parental belief/teaching and the wider world, and concluded that it rings true for them also
And, in the interests of balance, you can't necessarily deduce that the 1/3 who take alternate paths did so with "perfect freedom of choice" - I know people who claim to have taken a long time to 'shake off' perceived fetters of a specific upbringing (not necessarily Christian), and to have actively struggled to do so.
Posted by NJA (# 13022) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
...
There is a suggestion that there is an evolutionary benefit in children believing what their parents/authority figures tell them. "Keep away from the fire/Don't go near the riverbank/Avoid climbing trees" etc. are instructions which may increase the probability of the dutiful, rather than the rebel, passing on their genes to another generation. ...
So some people are genetically programmed to be rebellious or dutiful?
Isn't such attitude taught and learned rather than inherited?
On the subject of evolution, isn't this a prime example of the indoctrination of undeveloped minds using psychological techniques like bad religion does - presenting mysteries that only a few enlightened people supposedly understand and treating any doubters as foolish?
Posted by morningstar (# 15860) on
:
It looks like you're making the argument from autonomy when you say that indoctrination is either morally correct or not, regardless of motive.
I might agree that indoctrination of an autonomous human being is in principle unacceptable. But why in that case jib at religious indoctrination but not also at the inculcation of any moral or philosophical doctrines at all?
I know you want to push the idea that none of this is of any relevance to the discussion; fine, except that you would make it hellishly difficult to socialise a child without introducing moral rules of some sort but hey, never mind that as long as you feel you're being morally sound!
And anyway, when does a child become an autonomous HB for the purposes of philosophical understanding?
Maybe occasionally it is necessary to find the courage to acknowledge that applying straight morality is unsatisfactory and learn to live with yourself for having to bend your (one's) precious principles.
Oh gosh, I think I've just described fallability. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
In reply to Johnny S: no, I don't mean that "religious people should admit to their children that they don't really believe". I mean that religious people should explain their beliefs to their children, and give them opportunities to share these beliefs and practices (and at times that will involve saying "sorry, even if you don't want to come to church today you'll have to, because it's important to me to go, and you're not old enough yet to stay home on your own").
BUT I also believe that it is honest, reasonable, and less problematic to admit that there are people you know, like, and respect - teachers, friends, other family members - who do not share your religious beliefs.
Probably where I differ from some shipmates is that some Christians would then want to add "and we really hope that these people will come to discover the truth of our Christian faith" whereas, for various reasons, I wouldn't. But that's another debate.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
In reply to Johnny S: no, I don't mean that "religious people should admit to their children that they don't really believe". I mean that religious people should explain their beliefs to their children, and give them opportunities to share these beliefs and practices (and at times that will involve saying "sorry, even if you don't want to come to church today you'll have to, because it's important to me to go, and you're not old enough yet to stay home on your own").
BUT I also believe that it is honest, reasonable, and less problematic to admit that there are people you know, like, and respect - teachers, friends, other family members - who do not share your religious beliefs.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
Probably where I differ from some shipmates is that some Christians would then want to add "and we really hope that these people will come to discover the truth of our Christian faith" whereas, for various reasons, I wouldn't. But that's another debate.
I really don't get that. If someone really believes that following Christ is the best way to live why wouldn't they want everyone else to become a Christian? (Notice that I'm talking about desire here and not about coercion or indoctrination.)
Again your comment (ISTM) makes it sound as if Christianity is not really that important. I don't see how anyone could believe that the Christian faith was the most important thing in the world and then not want everyone else to discover Christ for themselves.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Aravis:
BUT I also believe that it is honest, reasonable, and less problematic to admit that there are people you know, like, and respect - teachers, friends, other family members - who do not share your religious beliefs.
I don't see anyone disagreeing with that.
Indeed, how can you not "admit" that? They will see it every day, unless you homeschool and only ever allow them to hang with other realityphobes.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Two questions.
Firstly for Yorick. There is an element within New Atheism which is calling for it to be made illegal to bring up a child in a particular faith, using your arguments to justify their position. Is this where you stand?
Really? Surely only on the lunatic fringe - which is probably best ignored.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Actually, it doesn’t especially matter why (I don’t doubt the goodness of your will for a second). I can understand your justification for trying to inculcate your religious beliefs in your children. I agree that, strictly from your perspective, you believe it’s the right thing for you to do, and that’s all a man can do.
However, from a strictly external and neutral perspective of the academic question of the morality here, do you suppose it’s right deliberately to deprive them of the complete freedom to choose for themselves?
Yorick, the problem here is your assumption that there is a "neutral and external perspective." There is none. What you're actually proposing is that children be indoctrinated into agnosticism, and then when they reach the age of reason (whatever you decide that is--I assume 14 or so) be offered the opportunity to change their mind. The underlying assumption is that religion is a Bad Thing which impressionable children should be protected from. There is nothing neutral about this. Nor is there any neutral position available, in practice or principle.
This is in part because children are not passive blank slates--they are active investigators of the world, coming up with theories and testing them all the time, including trying to figure their parents out. So if (for example) the parents go to church every Sunday, leaving the kids with a sitter (who would, in your scheme, be a devout agnostic, or at least a thoroughgoing apathist), do you think the kids will not notice what's going on? Do you think they won't ask their parents "Why shouldn't I take Jimmy's toys if I want them?" or "What happens when people die?" There is no "neutral" response.
I do think that kids should learn that different people have different ideas about the nature of the world. I think one of the most important things we need to learn is that things that seem self-evident to us seem like utter lunacy to others (and vice versa). But children need to have a strong sense of who their parents are and how their parents see the world--without that, there's no possibility of a secure relationship--how can you trust someone who hides from you?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I’m sorry I’ve been unable to contribute to this thread for a few days, and thank you for all your patience in continuing to address your comments to me. I’ll try to respond as best I can but it’ll probably be a bit higgledy-piggledy, so please bear with me if I seem to have ignored your post, and if I don’t get round to any burningly urgent point please flag it for my priority.
There seems to be a general feeling that no parent can possibly be neutral in teaching their children about religion, whatever their religious beliefs may be. This is wrong. Although it may be true that religious parents cannot be neutral, agnostics and atheists can in all integrity bring up their children without trying to persuade them to adopt their beliefs. I myself have strong personal opinions about religion, but I’ve managed successfully to bring up my daughter without indoctrinating her to share them too.
I’m now willing to accept it’s realistically impossible for practicing, sincerely religious parents to avoid inculcating their beliefs in their children- whatever their intentions may be in that regard. It’s inevitable, and therefore any moral questions about their intentions are so unrealistic as to be practically meaningless. I feel this is profoundly unsatisfactory because there’s a principle point here about the effect this indoctrination variably has on people having the complete freedom to choose their own religious beliefs for themselves, which I believe should be their inviolable right. But, there it is, the ugliness of religion.
For the sake of argument, then, I’m also willing to accept that, internally at least, it may be immoral for parents not to try their very hardest deliberately to inculcate their beliefs in their children.
So it now comes down to a straight moral conflict.
Which of the following is the greater moral imperative to a religious parent?
a) to respect a person’s right to freedom of (or from) religious belief; or,
b) to respect your self-referring moral imperative to inculcate your own religious beliefs in your children.
In either case, there must be a sacrifice of principle, presenting the religious parent with a peculiar moral dilemma that, as an atheist, I have no need to worry about. Smug, moi?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve managed successfully to bring up my daughter without indoctrinating her to share them too.
Is she an evangelical Christian then? Even if she is, it hardly proves the point.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Yes, she is. And, yes, I think it does, doesn't it?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
You're still acting on a faulty premise, though.
You use your daughter's faith as evidence that you, as an atheist, were able to bring up your child without "indoctrinating" her into your atheism (although you presumably also spoke to her about your beliefs/views on other beliefs etc. in the process).
Yet you also deny any evidential value to the vast number of atheist, agnostic, or otherly-religioned children of Christians.
So either you're getting exercised over a problem that doesn't actually exist; or you're framing the nature of "intention" differently depending on which group are in focus at the time; or you're mis-framing the problem, and the real issue is that children should be educated enough to think critically on issues, and know that they can ultimately make their own choices, which is a far wider societal/cultural issue than just parental input.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Oh, I think the problem does exist if the demographics of the uptake of religion are anything to go by (and I think they say it all), since, apostasy notwithstanding, Children of Christian parents DO strongly tend to become Christians, in significant part I presume because those parents (as they admit) are so determined to use their every influence to ensure their child is (effectively) deprived of the complete freedom of choice not to be a Christian (because it would be an abrogation of their Christian responsibility not to do so).
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Maybe she's an evangelical Christian as a provocative, rebellious gesture and it is entirely because of your attempt at indoctrination she's done so? I certainly know of atheists who view their apostasy against their parent's wishes in a similar way.
But it seems this is inconsistent. There is a bias in favour of Christianity among the children of Christian parents. Another way of saying that is that there is a bias in favour of atheisms among the children of atheists.
If that is evidence of indoctrination by Christian parents, it is equal evidence of indoctrination by atheists. On the other hand, if one anecdote (an atheist who claims to have not indoctrinated has a child who converts) can prove it is not so, then equally one anecdote (A christian parent who claims not to have indoctrinated their child who has apostasized) also proves it is not so.
Personally I think we have very great influence on our children when we least expect it, and least influence where we most expect it. They may be partially indoctrinated, but most retain freedom of choice, and after they start school and leave home the prevailing culture around them begins to exert a very strong influence.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
The parental bias is the problem. It’s wrong for any parent to indoctrinate their child into religion when this means their freedom to choose is compromised. This principle is as applicable to atheism as it is to theism, but atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
I feel I’m in the pleasantly superior moral position that my daughter is an admirable young theist, whose Christianity is categorically more authentic than if she’d just been indoctrinated by religious parents and it happened to ‘stick’ because it’s very sticky.
Fine. Let’s take a look at my daughter for an example, then. I assure you, she certainly isn’t rebelling against my atheism by being a Christian, but you’ll have to take my word for that. I know Christians are highly fond of comparing whose faith is Truest™, so which is more authentic, would you say? My daughter’s neutrally informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ, or your child’s familial hereditary indoctrinated denominationally-biased received default belief?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The parental bias is the problem. It’s wrong for any parent to indoctrinate their child into religion when this means their freedom to choose is compromised. This principle is as applicable to atheism as it is to theism, but atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
I feel I’m in the pleasantly superior moral position that my daughter is an admirable young theist, whose Christianity is categorically more authentic than if she’d just been indoctrinated by religious parents and it happened to ‘stick’ because it’s very sticky.
Fine. Let’s take a look at my daughter for an example, then. I assure you, she certainly isn’t rebelling against my atheism by being a Christian, but you’ll have to take my word for that. I know Christians are highly fond of comparing whose faith is Truest™, so which is more authentic, would you say? My daughter’s neutrally informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ, or your child’s familial hereditary indoctrinated denominationally-biased received default belief?
You are quite mistaken in believing that you are in the superior moral position. You apparently only see those who are religious as being biased. You are just as biased. If one is to be consistent with your viewpoint is it also morally wrong to indoctrinate your children with respect to atheism or agnosticism as that deprives them of the same choice you claim those who indoctrinate their children with specific religious beliefs do. Not to mention, while religious parents may pray for their children who choose not to be religious, they are ok with their children's right to make their own choices once they come of age. Are there parents who reject their children if they become atheists? Yes, just as there are atheist parents who reject their children if they become Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
You have failed utterly to prove your point, IMO.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
Even if they were to lack a moral imperative to do so, that doesn't guarantee that they won't. They may well do, simply as a result of being parents and therefore a strong influence on their children's lives.
Secondly many atheists do feel a moral imperative to protect their children from the wrongs of religion. If you think Christianity is wrong, the least you could do is to stop your child wasting their Sunday mornings, the most is to protect them from a mistaken belief system that will lead them to rather dubious sexual ethics and some baggage that modern living could do without.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My daughter’s neutrally informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ, or your child’s familial hereditary indoctrinated denominationally-biased received default belief?
Depends what they believe and how they justify it surely? I agree if my son, on being asked why he believes, adopts a robotic monotone and says "father says so" then one might be concerned. But if he justifies his belief in similarly genuine terms to your daughter's, why shouldn't we take that at face value?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You are just as biased. If one is to be consistent with your viewpoint is it also morally wrong to indoctrinate your children with respect to atheism or agnosticism as that deprives them of the same choice you claim those who indoctrinate their children with specific religious beliefs do.
Er. Hello? If you actually read what I wrote, you'd find that's exactly what I said.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Do please read the following:
For anyone who has astoundingly failed to realise this (being as I've said it again and again and again), I'm attacking atheists who indoctrinate their children as much as theists.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
And, if you've failed to realise this, I'm disagreeing with your view of how prevalent that practice is among athiests (albeit unintentional).
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Do please read the following:
For anyone who has astoundingly failed to realise this (being as I've said it again and again and again), I'm attacking atheists who indoctrinate their children as much as theists.
Got that Yorick. I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I agree if my son, on being asked why he believes, adopts a robotic monotone and says "father says so" then one might be concerned. But if he justifies his belief in similarly genuine terms to your daughter's, why shouldn't we take that at face value?
(Pertinent question). I think because it is so incredibly unlikely.
I think your son could only justify his belief in those terms if, having been deliberately indoctrinated by you as a young child, he subsequently rehabilitated into an un-indoctrinated state and then came to hold those beliefs by that un-indoctrinated process. It’s impossible, isn’t it?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm disagreeing with your view of how prevalent that practice is among athiests (albeit unintentional).
Hey, I'm not saying it's prevalent at all. In fact, I'm the ONLY person I know who's taken this approach to parenthood (though I do not doubt there are others who have).
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I still disagree with your view about how prevalent it is.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
It's not a fantasy: it's real. I've done it.
It's hard, but at least possible, for me as an atheist to do it, but I think it's practically impossible for theists to do it because of that moral conflict dilemma.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think your son could only justify his belief in those terms if, having been deliberately indoctrinated by you as a young child, he subsequently rehabilitated into an un-indoctrinated state and then came to hold those beliefs by that un-indoctrinated process. It’s impossible, isn’t it?
So even if, to all external appearances and discussion, you found his expression of belief indistinguishable to your daughter's, you would disregard that because of an a priori view that this was an impossible outcome?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You are just as biased. If one is to be consistent with your viewpoint is it also morally wrong to indoctrinate your children with respect to atheism or agnosticism as that deprives them of the same choice you claim those who indoctrinate their children with specific religious beliefs do.
Er. Hello? If you actually read what I wrote, you'd find that's exactly what I said.
Umm, not when you state the following: "Although it may be true that religious parents cannot be neutral, agnostics and atheists can in all integrity bring up their children without trying to persuade them to adopt their beliefs." It plainly shows bias on your part. Parents who are either religious or atheist "indoctrinate" their children with their own particular viewpoint partly to equip them as best they can in their opinion to make their way in the world as adults and partly with hopes that their children will remain true to that viewpoint. Both can be happy if their children choose different paths or unhappy with that outcome. You try to claim you raising your child the way you see fit is superior to that of religious parents. It is not.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Well, I would not dispute his indoctrinated faith could be 'informed and educated, well-reasoned, mature, critically thought, personally revealed and experienced faith in Jesus Christ', but that this would be despite his indoctrination, not because of it. Does that make sense? I fear we're talking past each other on this.
[CP. This was for mdijon]
[ 22. November 2010, 12:45: Message edited by: Yorick ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It does make sense. It's just that earlier you seemed to be suggesting one could a priori take a view that his faith would be less genuine.
My view is that a) indoctrination of some sort is inevitable when parents bring up their children and b) it very often doesn't work very well, or has surprising results.
What my parents did to me would be viewed as indoctrination by you. Nevertheless, here I am justifying Christian views with (I hope) clear evidence that they are my own and rationally held despite indoctrination. I suspect the same could be said for most adult Christians in the UK.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I find that hard to swallow. But anyway. If you and most Christians come to their own and rationally held faith despite parental indoctrination, how on Earth can that indoctrination be justified?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Because what you call indoctrination we call teaching them about our faith, and believe it helps them to take an informed view about whether they want it or not when they grow older.
How many Christians have you encountered who gave you the impression their faith was the product of an indoctrination process rather than their own volition?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Because what you call indoctrination we call teaching them about our faith, and believe it helps them to take an informed view about whether they want it or not when they grow older.
There’s an important distinction between teaching about faith and teaching faith with the intention of inculcating belief. I’m talking about the latter here. Are you talking about the former? If not, you seem rather shockingly to be claiming the intention to inculcate the beliefs not only makes no practical difference, but that most Christians arrive at their faith despite the intentions of their parents to inculcate them. Is that right?
quote:
How many Christians have you encountered who gave you the impression their faith was the product of an indoctrination process rather than their own volition?
It is my assumption that it generally tends to happen. Otherwise, how do you account for the demographics?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
There’s an important distinction between teaching about faith and teaching faith with the intention of inculcating belief. I’m talking about the latter here. Are you talking about the former?
The problem is that those are value judgements. What I call the former you might call the latter. Nevertheless, I do think that most attempts at either fail to indoctrinate, in the sense that individuals retain free will and critical faculties despite efforts to the contrary
quote:
Originally asked by me:
How many Christians have you encountered who gave you the impression their faith was the product of an indoctrination process rather than their own volition?
quote:
Originally responded by Yorick:
It is my assumption that it generally tends to happen.
Leave aside your assumptions and tell me what your observations are. Do you encounter many people who seem unable to critique their faith and appear to have suffered some sort of indoctrination at birth that they cannot evaluate?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
There’s an important distinction between teaching about faith and teaching faith with the intention of inculcating belief.
The problem is that those are value judgements. What I call the former you might call the latter.
What I call the deliberate inculcation of beliefs is indoctrination. If you call it ‘teaching about faith’, then our discussion is stuffed.
quote:
Leave aside your assumptions and tell me what your observations are. Do you encounter many people who seem unable to critique their faith and appear to have suffered some sort of indoctrination at birth that they cannot evaluate?
No.
I think I can see what you’re getting at here, but I’ll be interested to see how you deal with the demographic issue, and also my challenge about justifying intentional inculcation when it has the reverse effect on uptake. Allegedly.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What I call the deliberate inculcation of beliefs is indoctrination. If you call it ‘teaching about faith’, then our discussion is stuffed.
I call the deliberate inculcation of beliefs the deliberate inculcation of beliefs and I call teaching about faith teaching about faith.
The difficulty comes when a practical example is assessed. What you interpret to be deliberate inculcation of beliefs I interpret to be teaching about faith. There will be some extreme examples we could both agree on category for, but much inbetween that is grey.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No. I think I can see what you’re getting at here, but I’ll be interested to see how you deal with the demographic issue
What I'm getting at is a scientific method. Observed demographic issue => interpretation. We then make another observation. This doesn't square with that interpretation. What now? Either we are very poorly equipped to detect the results of indoctrination, or the previous observation may have more than one interpretation.
My interpretation is that the categorisation of indoctrination vs open-minded teaching about is too simplistic. There is a lot of grey inbetween and people are complicated. This ties in with my response to your first point.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I agree if my son, on being asked why he believes, adopts a robotic monotone and says "father says so" then one might be concerned. But if he justifies his belief in similarly genuine terms to your daughter's, why shouldn't we take that at face value?
(Pertinent question). I think because it is so incredibly unlikely.
There's an argument. YOU think it's unlikely therefore it doesn't happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
It's not a fantasy: it's real. I've done it.
Yeah, you're the best judge of your own neutrality. Is this a koan?
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
atheist parents do not share the theistic imperative to ensure their children adopt their worldview, so, for us, there is no moral problem in deliberately not indoctrinating them (which crucial problem these little tangents fail to answer).
Bullcrap. I accept the antecedent but the consequent is bullshit and doesn't follow from it. Show me 100 atheists who don't indoctrinate their children into their atheism, in part because they feel it a moral imperative. I can show you reams of websites with a "wipe out all religion" theme. These people think that their kids freely choosing religion is a good thing? Your "for us" may work for a subset of atheists. But you do not speak for the whole, and thus your consequent is false when predicated of atheists as a whole. Many of them DO, in fact, feel such an imperative. Hence your moral high ground is no such thing.
quote:
I feel I’m in the pleasantly superior moral position that my daughter is an admirable young theist, whose Christianity is categorically more authentic than if she’d just been indoctrinated by religious parents and it happened to ‘stick’ because it’s very sticky.
Yeah yeah. And I'm just as stuck up because my son is an admirable young atheist whose atheism is categorically more authentic than if he'd just been indoctrinated by atheist parents and it happened to 'stick' because it's very sticky. I'd be willing to bet that there are far more atheist children of Christian parents than Christian children of atheist parents, even on a per capita basis, in the first world.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
A counter-anecdote:
I raised my daughter as a Quaker (liberal but explicitly Christian variety). She was very interested in religion from an early age, and I encouraged her to learn about all religions, while being clear about what I believe, and taking her to meeting most Sundays. She's now an atheist, though she finds herself defending Christians to her atheist friends (explaining that you don't have to be an antifeminist, homophobic, climate-change-denying right winger to be one). Her commitment to social justice and charity puts me to shame, and her capacity for critical thinking and argument is awe-inspiring. The one thing she has never been is a passive recipient of anyone else's indoctrination--which I consider my finest achievement as a parent.
If you think you can be "unbiased" and present information to your children without them figuring out what you really think... all it really proves is that you lack self-awareness.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I still think your idea of a neutral upbringing is a fantasy though.
It's not a fantasy: it's real. I've done it.
It's hard, but at least possible, for me as an atheist to do it, but I think it's practically impossible for theists to do it because of that moral conflict dilemma.
Here's the problem. A rationalist upbringing is still a biased upbringing. It assumes the particular worldview is somehow neutral, when it also argues some things are not acceptable such as non-rationalism, transcendentalism as a decision-making process etc. (Of course - this doesn't take into account non-parental influences that are also going to be as biased).
There is no such thing as a neutral world-vew.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
x100
I really DO understand it’s impossible to avoid inculcating your beliefs in your children (to a degree), and that it’s quite impossible not to be biased (to some extent), and that you cannot be (perfectly) neutral. I’ve said so myself, many times, but no matter how many times one keeps on saying it, this completely and utterly fails to address the frigging question that I’ve been trying to ask here.
Here it is again:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yeah, you're the best judge of your own neutrality. Is this a koan?
You think you're a better judge of my neutrality?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Put your wife back on. She's cleverer.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
I get that. But I don't think that adequately summarizes your position on this thread, and I think my post above still stands. In that vein, I think you are still being too binary about this. There are some people who very deliberately set out to do everything in their power, fair or foul, to ensure their children take certain decisions in later life. There are some who set out to be scrupulously even-handed.
Most people will be somewhere on the continuum between, and will have varying degrees of self-deception about their motives. To add to the scatter of final outcomes, parents will realise these ideals to varying degrees.
In practice, some people who accept that they are conflicted and will be very happy if their child is a christian might do better than others who claim to simply be interested in fairness.
It's a complex picture, and I think you're guilty of simplifying it too much.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I find that hard to swallow. But anyway. If you and most Christians come to their own and rationally held faith despite parental indoctrination, how on Earth can that indoctrination be justified?
Thinking of my own experience in youth groups and church, people I grew up with and other young people I see who have grown up in church fall into 3 broad categories.
1. Around 5-10% become hard-line militant atheists. Often they're the ones that were the most enthusiastic evangelistic Christians in their early teens. My guess is that they wanted to look like they had all the answers when they were growing up, but never quite got it, and have continued that trend into their atheism.
2. Of the rest, around half become agnostic / nominal Christians. Happy to go to church at Christmas, and grateful that they had church/youth group to make some friends / have their social circle when they were younger.
3. The final half of the rest retain their Christianity into adulthood. And there's one unifying factor in their testimony: At some point, they had to stop having their parents' faith, and discover their own faith for themselves. Seriously, Yorick, I don't think I've ever met an adult Christian (who has grown up in Church) whose testimony doesn't contain something like that in it, myself included.
To suggest that most, or even some adults maintain their Christianity because it was indoctrinated from youth to me doesn't resonate, because I don't think it's sustainable. Unless that faith becomes something that person claims for themselves, they'll either rebel (category 1), or more likely, drift away (category 2) once they become adults and are able to make their own decisions.
As for your general question as to the morality of indoctrinating children, I do broadly agree with you. It's why my daughter's not Christened. Not so much for the theology of infant baptism, but because we want it to be her choice ultimately. But, as I said before, parents can't help influencing their kids on all sorts of matters, and I'd love to hear your response (when you've got time!) to some of the points raised earlier in the thread. Is there a difference in this matter between religion and say: vegetarianism, the language you speak, or supporting a football team?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Put your wife back on. She's cleverer.
You said before you were concerned this debate wouldn't be possible in purgatory. I must say I think it's been working well up to now and it would be a shame if it stopped working.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
I have pondered this issue and spent over a year talking to parents on an Amazon.com forum that grew to over 5000 posts and over 400 participants. We covered a lot of ground and I used what I learned as fodder for several blog posts on my End Hereditary Religion blog.
There is a lot of hypocrisy around the issue of indoctrinating young children in religion. Surprised? Religious parents know they are taking advantage of their children and they work valiantly to find justification for their actions.
Here is how a famous Quaker leader defined the purpose of indoctrination back in 1954:
quote:
It is the general policy in each religious faith to endeavor to teach children the essentials of the faith and to surround them with such a climate of indoctrination that they will have no inclination and almost no capacity to question it or to depart from it. This is such an old, deep rooted tradition in nearly all religions that we accept it as natural, and we do not realize how it may perpetuate error and maintain barriers between peoples. This purpose of indoctrination commonly is furthered by the influences of parents and of the religious community, and in many cases by the prevailing social atmosphere. Where such influences are fairly cumulative, a natural result is that a very strong sense of inner assurance is developed concerning whatever faith is involved. It often is immune to any contrary influence.
Most people abhor the tactics used by cults to indoctrinate people and I think this abhorrence arises from the fact that we don't approve of one group of people taking advantage of another group of people to further their own goals. Ethically, this just does not pass the smell test because it turns people into instruments and is dehumanizing. The situation with institutionalized methods of indoctrinating children is not so very different. Children are being used as instruments in a scheme to propagate religion down through the generations.
quote:
Parents that consign their children to a belief in God argue that their children can choose not to believe in God or Jesus or to believe in a different god when they reach maturity, usually meaning 18 years of age. They argue that secular humanists teach their children not to believe in god so how is it wrong for Christians to teach children to believe? In the first place this is a tu quoque fallacy that totally misses the point. The issue is insisting a child subscribe to a specific supernatural belief system with the intent to determine their belief system for life. Religious parent's arguments are fallacious because the time, techniques and sustained effort they go to, have no corollaries in the secular world. Furthermore, secularists favor guiding their children to think for themselves and derive their own answers to what constitutes truth or beauty. -- Parents are hypocrites
[URL= http://www.endhereditaryreligion.com/2009/02/parents-are-hypocrites/
There is no possibility that parents can avoid influencing their children, nor should that be a goal. However, there is a tremendous difference between influencing a child and indoctrinating them. If it were the case that children can easily slip their bonds that would be one thing, but the fact is leaving a religion or even changing a religion can be a terrible experience for some people and can take years.
Dale McGowan has produced a video on this topic that contains many insights for parents to ponder.
Dale McGowan video
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Here it is again:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
There is a difference of intent but not a difference of result. If the outcome of the intent is impossible, then surely it is foolish, and possibly damaging to the child if the unintended influence has a greater sway, to continue to pursue that intent.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Here it is again:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
And we keep telling you that every parent passes on their bias - and you have a prejudice that seems to believe that all religious parents are deliberately passing on that bias while non religious parents such as yourself are better able at keeping that bias out of their teaching of their children - which is pure balderdash. Many of us also disagree with your assertion that it is immoral to teach children specific religious beliefs. Get over it.
You are blinded to your own bias and how you passed that on to your own children, perhaps as all parents are. The results are the same for the children of all religious and non religious parents so I don't think it matters one way or the other.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Put your wife back on. She's cleverer.
You said before you were concerned this debate wouldn't be possible in purgatory. I must say I think it's been working well up to now and it would be a shame if it stopped working.
Fair point, and I'm sorry. I really shouldn't let mousethief's invective annoy me.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
If you and most Christians come to their own and rationally held faith despite parental indoctrination, how on Earth can that indoctrination be justified?
Every person has to become a Christian on their own, not through their parents' faith. That is why so many who were raised in a Christian home and taught the faith become agnostics or atheists. I am one of those who for the first part of their adult life was somewhere between an agnostic and an atheist. I became a Christian through my own study and then experience of God. Strong enough I spent 5 years as a missionary in countries where that could result in imprisonment. About half the kids I grew up with who were raised as Christians are either agnostics or atheists and a very few became members of another religion entirely.
Parents teach their children the faith as a way of passing on morals and other life skills that will help their children be good citizens and make their way in adult life successfully, whether they are Christians or not. Christian parents also recognize that at some point during their children's childhood they will be exposed to other faiths and those who don't believe in God at all and will challenge what their parents taught them as they become independent. It's not a done deal as you suggest. Again I ask, why is it such a huge problem for you? How on earth can you justify your position?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's a complex picture, and I think you're guilty of simplifying it too much.
Of course we’re dealing with a certain band of the spectrum here, and (as always) there are inherent problems with translating a hypothetical discussion about principles to the real world complexities of individual lives.
Nevertheless.
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they do everything in their means to ensure they do? Although there may not be all that many at the black or white extremes, they surely occupy a very big grey band on this spectrum.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We’re not talking about the fact that nobody can be neutral. We’re talking about the fact that some people deliberately intend NOT to be neutral.
Do you even see that there’s a categorical difference here?
There is a difference of intent but not a difference of result.
And?
I’ve been trying to discuss the principle issues around the morality of the intent here, not the result (though we don’t seem to have progressed that far yet, because so many people seem determined to avoid the actual question by repeatedly asserting that atheists are just as bad, that nobody can help it, that religion is lovely, that it's not about intent but results, etc., etc.).
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they do everything in their means to ensure they do?
No and yes. (i.e. I am denying the last part. Most people have some limits on what they'll do.)
I'd like to return to the issue about indoctrination and how we determine its presence. I and others have pointed out that individuals who appear, on discussion, to have suffered indoctrination are rare. I don't think I've ever met one. My way of squaring that with your observation on demographics was by appealing to the complexity of the situation (i.e. the continuum - that choice is influenced to some degree but without inducing a state one could readily categorize as "indoctrination").
I would think that if you want to use this theoretical division into indoctrinated/not indoctrinated you need to show how that classification can deal with these discrepant observations about the people around us.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
I have pondered this issue
Welcome to the Ship of Fools, Writchey.
And thank you very much for your interesting post.
[edit code error]
[ 23. November 2010, 10:04: Message edited by: Yorick ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
There is a difference of intent but not a difference of result.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
And?
I’ve been trying to discuss the principle issues around the morality of the intent here, not the result
I think the "and" is that the discussion about the morality of intent takes on a rather anaemic, theoretical quality if we agree that the results are not much different. It's a bit like a campaign against parking outside a property where there's no practical possibility of parking in the first place. "Ah, but the intent is there - they're still trying to park - can't you see them driving up and down looking for a space?"
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I didn’t agree anything about the results, though I’m sure that would make an interesting thread in its own right.
I feel we should be able to have a perfectly full-blooded discussion about the principles around the immorality of parental indoctrination, despite the fact that certain assumptions must be made in order to do so. I’m very much looking forward to it starting, once we’ve dealt with all these tangential matters.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they do everything in their means to ensure they do? Although there may not be all that many at the black or white extremes, they surely occupy a very big grey band on this spectrum.
If a Christian parent does everything in their means to ensure their children become Christians, are they at the black extreme or not? What is the black extreme if doing everything in their means isn't the black extreme?
Does everything include intimidation, corporal punishment, etc or does it not? If it does not, why not? If it does, then surely even you admit that most Christians do not use everything in their means.
And no, we have not been discussing tangential matters. We have been discussing your assumptions. Your assumptions do not make sense. If your assumptions do not make sense, that is not tangential, however much you might like it to be.
[ 23. November 2010, 12:15: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Come, come, Dafyd. I'm sure you know I didn’t literally mean everything in their means. But, yes, it was careless of me to phrase it thus. How about this, then:
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they use their influence to ensure they do? Although there may not be all that many at the black or white extremes, they surely occupy a very big grey band on this spectrum.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your assumptions do not make sense.
Oh, really?
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd like to return to the issue about indoctrination and how we determine its presence. I and others have pointed out that individuals who appear, on discussion, to have suffered indoctrination are rare. I don't think I've ever met one. My way of squaring that with your observation on demographics was by appealing to the complexity of the situation (i.e. the continuum - that choice is influenced to some degree but without inducing a state one could readily categorize as "indoctrination").
I would think that if you want to use this theoretical division into indoctrinated/not indoctrinated you need to show how that classification can deal with these discrepant observations about the people around us.
Thank you for a very compelling challenge.
I reckon the principal reason it might be very difficult to identify those who’ve been indoctrinated into their religious faith is that they don’t often self-identify as indoctrinated. So how would you be able to tell? If you take a hundred random people from your local St.George’s on a Sunday morning (I know, I know, it’s ridiculously implausible that so many people would be there, but let’s pretend it’s Christmas or Easter every week, or something), and interviewed them about how they became Christian, how many do you think would identify as having been indoctrinated? Probably none.
The very problem with indoctrination, the moral question that this thread is all about, is that the indoctrinated person doesn’t realise their freedom of choice has been compromised.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Put your wife back on. She's cleverer.
You said before you were concerned this debate wouldn't be possible in purgatory. I must say I think it's been working well up to now and it would be a shame if it stopped working.
Fair point, and I'm sorry. I really shouldn't let mousethief's invective annoy me.
No, you're not sorry, "I'm sorry that he was annoying me" isn't an apology, and dragging someone's spouse into an argument is so low that I'm surprised to see it, even from you.
But since you chose to drag me into it, I thought I'd let you know that I've come to the conclusion that it's not possible to engage in a rational discussion of this topic with you. It appears to me that you are not trying to have a discussion. It appears that you are simply wanting a bunch of theists to confirm you in your general feeling of smug superiority over theists. I don't have the time or the inclination to play along.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Fine.
I re-read mousethief's post, in calmer mood, and I can honestly say it annoyed the fuck out of me again. I am sorry for the cheap shot, whether you believe me or not. That's your business, as is your view of my motives and your inclination to take part in this discussion. (Oh, except that you politicised it and made it everyone else's business too, didn't you?)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
If you take a hundred random people from your local St.George’s on a Sunday morning... how many do you think would identify as having been indoctrinated? Probably none.
I wasn't thinking of anything so credulous. I was thinking more in terms of asking things like "So why do you come here on a Sunday... what do you believe... why?".
I suspect that if you get someone who has been "indoctrinated" talking about their faith you would be able to spot there was something a bit wrong. They would come across a bit brain-washed and unable to critique themselves. Their accounts of their motivation wouldn't quite add up.
If you can't spot it on chatting, then what does this indoctrination mean? That they have a rational, personally held conviction that is their own but nevertheless represents an imposition on them? That doesn't seem credible to me. There ought to be some definable characteristic that distinguishes the product of indoctrination from the genuine article. Otherwise what does this state mean?
By the way, for the record may I comment that it's rather disingenuous to accuse Josephine of making her non-participation "everyone's business" when you were the one who first referred to her on this thread. I'd prefer to have a purgatorial discussion, but it feels odd doing that with the snarling going on in the background.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By the way, for the record may I comment that it's rather disingenuous to accuse Josephine of making her non-participation "everyone's business" when you were the one who first referred to her on this thread. I'd prefer to have a purgatorial discussion, but it feels odd doing that with the snarling going on in the background.
We have history.
But look, I'm sorry for lowering myself like that, but my bringing Josephine into it was aimed squarely at mouethief as an annoyed response to his highly objectionable post upthread, not Josephine. Although I appreciate that to do one is to do the other.
Anyway, I'm sorry and I promise to stop it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We have history.
As do we. Who doesn't?
I'm not sure what to make of your apology. Is it directed at me? I wasn't asking for one, and don't really feel personally wronged by anything on the thread so far. If you want my advice, the apology still reads as if it's overly qualified, but it's of course up to you where you send it and in what form.
But back to my discussion point - how will you identify the "indoctrinated" on a Sunday morning?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
If you take a hundred random people from your local St.George’s on a Sunday morning (I know, I know, it’s ridiculously implausible that so many people would be there, but let’s pretend it’s Christmas or Easter every week, or something), and interviewed them about how they became Christian, how many do you think would identify as having been indoctrinated? Probably none.
I kind of touched on this on my last post. I agree with mdijon that you can 'spot' if something's a bit wrong, and unless you're talking about proper cultish brainwashing, then by the time someone's grown up, they have to transition into having their own faith, or it's not sustainable.
I've met people, still in their early 20's, who I would say are still 'indoctrinated' Christians. Their faith is still the faith that their parents had. When you challenge them on theology, the response is either 'it says in the bible somewhere...' or 'my parents always said'. You can spot them a mile off, and what happens is that at some point they reach a crisis, and either have to discover faith for themselves, or when one little piece collapses, the whole structure falls down and they lose faith altogether (maybe to rediscover it later for themselves).
But these people are few and far between. Usually that transition happens earlier, and is far less dramatic.
I think the problem here is that you're assuming quite a lot about a 'religious' person's mindset and experience, and I think some of those assumptions are false. There are plenty here who can give you a more accurate picture of what it is like growing up in a Christian household / church environment.
Do you have any responses to some of the questions I asked earlier, Yorick? I think there have been a few interesting points from others about the language people speak and so on compared to religion. Have you got any thoughts on them?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Absolutely. I'm working on them, and other peoples' earlier contributions, but I'm afraid I really put the 'tit' in multitasking. Please stand by.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Speaking as a parent and grandparent, I figure that some element of heat is probably unavoidable in discussing this issue. With the occasional exception, this thread has generally remained suitably Purgatorial and I don't want to get in the way of that.
So I'm drawing a veil over the exceptions on this occasion. For the future, please remember the guidelines on personal attack.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Absolutely. I'm working on them, and other peoples' earlier contributions, but I'm afraid I really put the 'tit' in multitasking. Please stand by.
Thanks dude, know how it can be
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
I don't agree with Yorick's assumptions about the parental indoctrination of religion, but I think the language question is a complete red herring. I assert there is absolutely no moral duty to ensure that one's child is free in the choice of what language they speak with native fluency as an adult, and every moral duty to ensure that the child is able to function in the society in which they find themself. That means teaching them the prevailing language (or languages).
On Yorick's main point, I think it could be argued it's morally irresponsible to prevent a child from forming childhood connections to a faith community, and to the experience or understanding of God mediated thereby, if you as a parent believe that your faith community is a valuable or true place. That's because Josephine's description of it as a relationship rings true for me. This also doesn't negate the questioning and reaffirming or changing that an adult goes through with respect to their childhood faith. I don't agree that there is moral right to choose your religion free of past influences.
[ 23. November 2010, 16:07: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
That wasn't very clear in a way, was it? Since you'd assume that one like me who doesn't see a problem with childhood inculcation of one thing (e.g. religion) wouldn't see a problem with childhood inculcation of another thing (e.g. language). What I was trying to express, was that I was thinking that the reasons for opposing or supporting the inculcation were different enough that the language question wasn't in any way comparable to the religion question, and hence the language question was a red herring. But on reflection I suppose anything can be compared to something else, and maybe it would elucidate something about Yorick's position on religion if he explained in what way he sees it as different (if he does) from the case about language.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You think you're a better judge of my neutrality?
Um, no. I didn't say that. Or anything near it. Or anything in the same county. I'm saying no-one is an impartial judge of their own impartiality, including you. Just because you think you were impartial is no indication that you were. Who, trying to be impartial, is going to realize that they're not? Well, maybe some. But self-delusion in this area is all but unavoidable.
So why not answer the question I posed: do you suppose there are more atheist children of Christians, or Christian children of atheists? What does this say about the effectiveness of "indoctrination" and indeed who has the intent?
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve been trying to discuss the principle issues around the morality of the intent here, not the result
Yet your "evidence" is based entirely on result. You directly infer intent from result to make your point, but then want to cut off discussion of result and redirect it to intent.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I think the language question is important from the child's point of view, and you're kind of looking at it from the parents' view. From the child's point of view, they've had no say in the language they speak, so it seems they've been "indoctrinated" into speaking that language. However, once they reach a certain age, they have every freedom to learn whatever language they want. As you say, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with this.
Same goes for a whole host of other things: vegetarianism, sporting affiliations and so on. The question is: what puts religion in a different category to all these things?
As a Christian, I think it maybe should be in a different category, because Jesus is the reason for our existence. For yorick as an atheist, I'm not sure why he's treating it differently (which is what I'm hoping to find out from him when he gets a chance!)
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
As I understand it Yorick is asserting it is immoral not to have full freedom of choice of metaphysical belief system. That parents deliberately, as opposed to unintentially, trying to pass on their metaphysical belief system to their children are acting in an immoral way because it will shape their psyche in such away as to make fully free choice impossible once they reach the age of rationality. He asserts it is possible, at least for an atheist / agnostic, to bring up a child without intentially promoting any metaphysical system.
Lots of folk doubt that last sentence is true.
Personally, I don't accept it is morally wrong to try to pass on your metaphysical belief system to your children - but I suppose I accept limits to that. I accept that beliefs that are extreme enough to attract legal sanction should not be inculcated in children - for example, I would consider conditioning your children that sex with adult family members and the human sacrifice of unbelievers was necessary to the salvation of your soul to be child abuse. (No matter how sincerely the parent held such views). So my tolerance is culturally bound.
But leaving aside those rare extremes, I don't accept that trying to get your children to share your belief system is wrong.
It is part of the transmition of family culture and identity, which is part of what makes us human. Trying not to transmit our value systems to our children is intellectually and emotionally dishonest, and the futility of the exercise also makes it pointless. This is as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for people with religious faith.
On what basis Yorick do you assert that it is immoral not to have a free choice ?
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your assumptions do not make sense.
Oh, really?
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
They all make sense but I am not sure that d) is accurate. My experience chimes with the anecdotal evidence presented by others on this thread that children of Christians are more likely to be agnostic/atheist than Christian. Given that the plural of anecdote is NOT data, can you provide some data to back up d)?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Come, come, Dafyd. I'm sure you know I didn’t literally mean everything in their means. But, yes, it was careless of me to phrase it thus. How about this, then:
Are you trying to deny that most Christian parents want their children to become Christians, and that they use their influence to ensure they do? Although there may not be all that many at the black or white extremes, they surely occupy a very big grey band on this spectrum.
Not much better. Ensure? How does a parent ensure anything?
It seems odd to describe parents' relation to their children as 'influence'. As if there was a way in which the child might develop without the parents' influence. How would the child develop if the parent didn't influence them?
Your phrasing keeps implying that there's no essential difference between taking children to Sunday school on the one hand and on the other hand locking children in cupboards for asking questions. You withdraw the implications when you're called on it, and then let the implications creep back in once the call has stopped.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
Don't you assume at least one other thing: that "indoctrination" (or whatever word one cares to use) is morally wrong and your way is morally correct?
[ 23. November 2010, 22:27: Message edited by: Squibs ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your assumptions do not make sense.
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
B does not make sense. The parent's relation to the child is a lot stronger than just influence on the child.
You, along with other atheists, seem to think that if it weren't for the influence of nasty adult Christians human beings would just spring into being as fully formed adult atheists reciting the collected works of Richard Dawkins.
Anyway, here are some other assumptions you're making.
f) There is such a thing as complete freedom.
g) It is an unquestionable good.
h) Bringing up children to think for themselves isn't using parental influence to 'ensure' that children share their values. It isn't using parental influence to 'ensure' that children value thinking for themselves.
i) Bringing children up to be moral and/or rational can be treated as irrelevant to this discussion.
j) There is no essential difference between all the ways in which parents can bring up children in a worldview or religion or set of values. It can all be described as indoctrination.
Anyway:
f) There is no such thing.
g) And even if there were, it's not obvious that we'd like it if we had it.
h) 'Thinking for oneself' is a value just as anything else is a value. If you object to all 'indoctrination' in values, you should equally object to bringing up children to value thinking for themselves. That would be incoherent. If your position leads to an incoherent result, your position is incoherent.
i) You presumably taught your children to behave morally: not to selfishly snatch, to share toys that they weren't playing with, not to pull other children's hair or bully other children. etc. etc. Now, you've been challenged on this point in passing in this thread. Your responses have been either to dismiss this as irrelevant, implying as you did so that you think all bringing up children to hold certain values is wrong. But I'm pretty sure that you don't actually believe that, because I'm pretty sure that you did bring up your children not to be selfish.
j) This seems highly questionable. Talking to a child about God and teaching him or her to say prayers is not at all the same as hitting them if they ask difficult questions or throwing them out of the house if they announce their intention to become a fundamentalist Flying Spaghetti Monsterist. Simply saying that there's a spectrum of white to black doesn't address this. For one thing, the ideal point on a spectrum might be in the middle e.g. between overeating and not eating at all. But even that is begging a question. Hitting someone for asking questions is not an extreme form of teaching them how to pray.
Here's an analogy: having books in the house and teaching a child to read for pleasure.
1) is this influencing the child?
2) if not, why not?
3) do you think that there's a relevant difference between bringing up children to read for pleasure and bringing them up to practice a religion? If you do, what do you think the relevant difference is?
4) you could maintain that bringing up children to read for pleasure is depriving them of complete freedom and therefore wrong. Do you really want to maintain that?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Christian parents tend to want their children to become Christians
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Christian parents tend to try to influence their children to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Christians if their parents are Christian
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Christianity
I can say that as a Christian parent, a) and c) are absolutely true in my case, and I hope b), d) and e) are true. Obviously if I think Christianity is true I am going to make every effort to teach it to my children in a way that is attractive and compelling enough that I hope they will choose it for themselves when they are adults.
Having spent my entire working life with teenagers, in and out of Christian settings, I know there are numerous other factors that influence whether or not a young person will become (and remain) a practicing Christian in adult life. Parental influence is just one factor -- a powerful one, but far from the only one and probably not the most powerful. Why would I not do my utmost to ensure that the one factor that is at least partially within my control, works in favour of my children accepting what I believe to be true?
I can't imagine why anyone would feel the least bit apologetic about that. I do understand that there are Christian parents who might place a higher value on raising their children to be open to many views and might attempt NOT to influence them as strongly, but I suspect the vast majority of Christian parents would be happy if their children accepted their views. Why is this even controversial?
[ 23. November 2010, 22:54: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
Posted by Wisewilliam (# 15474) on
:
Primary anthropology teaches us the unavoidable fact that values are transmmited over three generations.It is a parent's duty to provide their children with a sound cultural heritage. Studies of aboriginal people's difficulties in stabilizing their cultural heritage in a a society that has suddenly become alien vividly demonstrates that embedded cultural values are essential to a development of a sound mature adult.
We edit and adapt the values of of our parents and grandparents according to changes in the society in which we live and our personal life experiences To try to bring children up without embedding a sound basis for moral and societal judgements is a form of neglect. Religion is part of many societies and individual's value system.
Young adults have no problem discarding the values they find useless. They have great difficulty establishing an underpnning of useful and usable values' something that has been denied them in the family that believes indoctrination to be evil. They are going to be indoctrinated whether it is with religion, atheism or in some kind value-free utopia.
Adaptation is difficult. Don't make it impossible. Inculcate values you know can be relied upon while keeping open their options to adapt.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
It is part of the transmition of family culture and identity, which is part of what makes us human.
I think there's another point that you raise - morality is bound up with our belief system (religious or not). Our decision to be moral people is every bit as arbitrary as our choice of religion.
I can't imagine anyone thinking it's a good idea to give children a free choice in deciding whether they want to act morally or not. It's considered a duty of parenthood to inculcate moral values. Our children will revise those, sometimes for the better sometimes not, and in a few disasterous instances children grow up to be people who act immorally. But failure to start them off on a moral road would surely be negligent.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I can't imagine anyone thinking it's a good idea to give children a free choice in deciding whether they want to act morally or not. It's considered a duty of parenthood to inculcate moral values. Our children will revise those, sometimes for the better sometimes not, and in a few disasterous instances children grow up to be people who act immorally. But failure to start them off on a moral road would surely be negligent.
Exactly. If I may add a single thought to reinforce this? A crucial part of parenting is the letting go, allowing one's children to fly or flop as they leave childhood behind and set off on the maturity road. In order for them to do that, it is essential for them to find for themselves their own minds, their own take on personal responsibility, their own take on values, their own take on community. They learn how to fly, we learn how to let go. Neither path is easy.
It is a tricky business, this parenting.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Amen to that.
I will never forget the mixture of feelings when we dropped our youngest off at university for the first time. Immense pride at his independence and immense sadness as we let him go.
Teaching children is interesting, sometimes you meet children who have been taught completely different moral values - then there is a fine and difficult line to tread. For example, for some Muslims, drawing or depicting animal or human forms is immoral - try teaching 7 year olds without using pictures!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
They learn how to fly, we learn how to let go. Neither path is easy.
This suggests another description of the demographic link between parent and child.
Like learning how to be moral, being a Christian is a skill and an ability as much as a rationally held set of beliefs. It includes a way of life and an attitude to self, the world and God. It includes a relationship to a community. One has to learn how to do it, not simply assent to a set of propositions.
In fact, I've come across some adult converts who describe their envy for those brought up in the faith, as they feel they have to put in substantial effort as adults to develop the necessary habits and way of living.
Hence, in acquiring the skill to independently sustain oneself as a christian (or in the parrallel above as a moral person, not that these are equivalent) one is given a headstart by parental example. And therefore there's a demographic link.
[ 24. November 2010, 08:55: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Thanks all for your continued patience with me. I appreciate your questions and challenges, and I apologise if my failure to deal directly with them is pissing you off, as I’m sure it would me. This is a bone I won’t let go, so you can be confident I’ll get round to answering your points in due course. The problem is, of course, that further layers are building up on the older ones, and I’m getting a bit snowed under. I’m grateful, therefore, that some of you have tried to answer certain points for me, and this has kept the conversation from stalling.
I’m cherry-picking the following because I haven’t much time this morning, and I hope it will address some of the other questions posed. Apologies again if it seems I’m ignoring posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
… I don't accept that trying to get your children to share your belief system is wrong.
It is part of the transmition of family culture and identity, which is part of what makes us human. Trying not to transmit our value systems to our children is intellectually and emotionally dishonest, and the futility of the exercise also makes it pointless. This is as true for atheists and agnostics as it is for people with religious faith.
On what basis Yorick do you assert that it is immoral not to have a free choice ?
Special pleading, I suppose.
Thank you for framing this critical question so well, btw.
Disclaimer: Please remember, we’re talking academically here about ideal principles, rather than messy reality. I happily admit that such a discussion may be so arcane as to be almost meaningless, but I feel important stuff may be learned from serious contemplation of the issues here.
I think it’s particularly important for human beings to have as much freedom as possible in their choice in adopting religious beliefs, partly because those particular sorts of beliefs tend to have a profound effect on their lives (that’s the whole point, I’m sure you’d agree). Football clubs, and partiality to Marmite, not so much (extreme fanaticism notwithstanding). Religion matters (or at least, it can). From my perspective, it’s really to do with the massively extent to which it can affect the lives of individuals and communities and innocent bystanders, and even neighbouring countries, and therefore the whole planet. From yours, I suppose it’s a rather important question of eternal salvation. In any case, the nature of religious belief is such that freedom to adopt it and practice it can therefore be especially morally important. [I’m aware this is only an unsubstantiated assertion, and I hope you’ll forgive it for the sake of uncluttering the argument, but if you are dissatisfied I can expand on this if required.] Furthermore, I understand there are internal theological reasons why freedom of choice in religion is a particular moral prerequisite (and I note that nobody has refuted my earlier claim about this), but that’s your department.
Ideally, then, all human beings should have the right to freedom to adopt and practice religion (or not). This moral and ethical ideal is absolutely primary in my concerns here.
From that primary ideal, my position regarding parental indoctrination is as follows.
Our religion is not something we’re born with (as I think someone bizarrely implied, above): it is acquired. (Yes, I know, this is in itself a matter of complicated debate, but please don’t let’s go there at this juncture. I fear we’ll never get to the issue here if we go down that path). Parental influence must be the major determinant in that acquisition process, and I seriously doubt any truth in the above disputes to the contrary (I’ll try and research data that supports my assertion about this. I reckon it’ll be easy enough to find it, when I get ten minutes. Meanwhile, I apologise, and make a Special Plea that you indulge me).
I feel we should ideally be as free from external influences as possible in our adoption of religion. This works in both directions. I feel it’s exactly equally wrong to indoctrinate someone NOT to become a Christian as it is to indoctrinate them to become one. Ideally, it should be every person’s choice to be a Christian or not, as freely as possible from coercion, persuasion, adulteration, corruption, indoctrination, brainwashing, hypnotism, and so on.
Look, I really do understand that, in the real world, our ‘choices’ are massively influenced by a plethora of all kinds of things, much of which we are completely unaware of. Only the other day, I was influenced subliminally to dream I was eating a pillow, and in the morning my giant marshmallow had gone. All our choices, from which toothpaste to buy, to whether to martyr ourselves as a living bomb, are inevitably massively externally influenced. Again, accepting this is true, I’d like to look at one particular sort of influence in academic isolation of all the others.
There are certain things about the about parental indoctrination of religion in children that categorically set it apart from the way our choices are influenced by other things. I hope this gets to the issue of why I think religious indoctrination is immoral.
I think we all agree that children are highly vulnerable to parental influence (for good and for bad), including and especially religious indoctrination; therefore it is an especially important issue.
I think we all agree that religious parents, especially, tend to believe there is a particular imperative that their children come to share their beliefs- much more so than for atheist parents (the reasons for which include that there’s no atheistic concern for the sake of their child’s immortal soul, for example). So, I hope we can agree that religious belief stands above all as a matter for particular concern regarding the influence that parents have over their child’s freedom of choice.
We do not have free choice in religion. That is a fact. However, this does not speak to the philosophical, ethical, moral principle that we should, ideally. I feel that any external influence that deliberately compromises our freedom to choose our religious belief, especially, is in principle immoral. When the state indoctrinates religion, we clearly see that as an abuse of our rights to freedom of choice. Why should parents be different, in principle?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I appreciate your questions and challenges, and I apologise if my failure to deal directly with them is pissing you off, as I’m sure it would me.
Perhaps if you spent less time writing unctuous apologies you'd spend more time addressing people's points?
quote:
I’m cherry-picking the following because I haven’t much time this morning, and I hope it will address some of the other questions posed. Apologies again if it seems I’m ignoring posts.
The problem isn't that you're ignoring the posts you don't reply. It's that you're ignoring the post that you do reply to. I can't see anything in your post that responds or even refers to Think²'s arguments. All you're doing is rephrasing your original post. Well, you're also adding your apologies for being ever so 'umble.
quote:
Our religion is not something we’re born with (as I think someone bizarrely implied, above): it is acquired. (Yes, I know, this is in itself a matter of complicated debate, but please don’t let’s go there at this juncture. I fear we’ll never get to the issue here if we go down that path).
We have already got to that issue. You got to it in your opening post. We don't need to get to that issue again. When someone offers an argument against your point, you cannot refute that argument by saying 'don't let's go there at this juncture' and then repeating the point. That's not a refutation; that's a blatant evasion.
quote:
I feel we should ideally be as free from external influences as possible in our adoption of religion.
Parents are not external influences on children.
Not even in an ideal world.
quote:
(Dafyd's italics)Ideally, it should be every person’s choice to be a Christian or not, as freely as possible from coercion, persuasion, adulteration, corruption, indoctrination, brainwashing, hypnotism, and so on.
One of those is not like the others.
You are here trying to persuade us not to indoctrinate our children. That's morally fine (or it would be if you weren't using dodgy rhetoric). It would not be fine for you to coerce us or brainwash us or hypnotise us or corrupt us. Persuasion and coercion are morally different.
(What does 'adulteration' mean here? To adulterate something is to make it impure by addition. The underlying metaphor implies that there's some pure belief or opinion already in existence that is then mixed with something foreign? I seem to need to emphasise just how wrong-headed it is to think of the relation of parent to child in that way?)
quote:
I think we all agree that children are highly vulnerable to parental influence (for good and for bad), including and especially religious indoctrination; therefore it is an especially important issue.
Children are vulnerable to parental influence? You might as well say that plants are 'highly vulnerable' to sunlight and water and soil.
'Vulnerable'? Parental influence, good or bad, is a wound?
quote:
However, this does not speak to the philosophical, ethical, moral principle that we should, ideally.
We should ideally be able to fly. Obviously, in messy reality we can't, but still there is a philosophical, ethical, and moral principle that we should and so, as far as possible, architects should build skyscrapers without floors.
We should ideally be able to survive without food, water or air. Obviously, in messy reality, we can't, but still there is a philosophical ethical and moral principle that we should and so we should feed our children as little as possible.
Ideal principles are only valid when reality can approximate to them. Ideal principles to which reality does not approximate and cannot approximate are not principles: they're ideological delusions.
quote:
When the state indoctrinates religion, we clearly see that as an abuse of our rights to freedom of choice. Why should parents be different, in principle?
Oh, where to start...
I participate in the state either as an adult or as having an adult speak for me. The state is, notionally, the creation of the people of which I am a part. If we collectively chose to recreate it we could. A child is not an adult; a child is developing towards being an adult. The issue for a child isn't whether we interfere with what the child thinks; it's how we influence how the child develops.
Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on
:
I think 'indoctrinate' sounds pretty wierd for what parents who have a real faith in God do to their children... some bloke (with a dog-collar on) used that term on me last week when I was talking about stained glass windows -my child (under two) pointed and said 'Jesus' thereby accurately identifying the artistic representation in the medium of glass... the man in the dog-collar said snippily 'ah yes, indoctrinate them young'
I thought >you t*sser -it was a picture of Jesus and she got it in one -she also subsequently identified the mammals surrounding Jesus in the same window as 'sheepies' was that also 'indoctrination'?
Give children a bit of credit -they can smell hypocrisy and it will out, sooner or later... you have to share what you really believe to be true, knowing that the point will come when they are able to test that for themselves. Not to share just means they'll have to start learning a bit later -which is fine, providing they never say 'but if this was so important to you and so central to your life, and so wonderful -why did you hide it from me??'
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
… I don't accept that trying to get your children to share your belief system is wrong.
*explanation sniped for brevity*
On what basis Yorick do you assert that it is immoral not to have a free choice ?
Special pleading, I suppose.
That's no really a justification of your premise, is it ? And it is a key point in your argument, I really think you need an explanation for its primacy. If you are not deriving your moral judgements from a religious framework, I guess that you would see your moral values as a result of logical analysis ? If so what is that analysis, if not - where does this value judgement come from ?
quote:
I think it’s particularly important for human beings to have as much freedom as possible in their choice in adopting religious beliefs,
I am going to call you on this, you are not just talking about religious beliefs - you are talking about all metaphysical beliefs and to a certain extent you are incorporating epistemiological assumptions (ie what you consider a valid way to make a truth claim).
quote:
partly because those particular sorts of beliefs tend to have a profound effect on their lives *snip* From my perspective, it’s really to do with the massively extent to which it can affect the lives of individuals and communities and innocent bystanders, and even neighbouring countries, and therefore the whole planet. From yours, I suppose it’s a rather important question of eternal salvation.
Atheism and agnosticism also have the potential to have consequences on this scale.
quote:
In any case, the nature of religious belief is such that freedom to adopt it and practice it can therefore be especially morally important. I’m aware this is only an unsubstantiated assertion
It is one of the key planks of your argument and therefore I don't think that it can stand as an unsubstantiated assertion. Also you are conflating several things in this statement.
Your primary argument is about children being brought to religion by their parents. The right to freedom of religion is a codification of protection for adults, against persecution by the state, when they are in a religious minority. You appear to be relying, by implication, on the UN declaration of human rights. If this is your source, you should probably be looking at the UN declaration of the Rights of the Child. You should bear in mind the fact that either of these declarations exist is largely related to metaphysical beliefs, and that much mention is made in the declaration to culture and the importance of the role of the parents.
You effectively claim poor outcomes for religious belief - "innocent bystanders" etc. But you do not show better outcomes for competing metaphysical belief systems, including atheism. If you wish to uniquely disenfranchise parents from passing on the faith-based part of their culture to their children on purpose, you need to show its uniquely worse for the children.
quote:
I understand there are internal theological reasons why freedom of choice in religion is a particular moral prerequisite
I believe Josephine questioned this earlier, but it is certainly not the case that all faith traditions would accept this assertation. But it has broader implications, by this logic attempting to convert adults would be immoral on the grounds that persuasion effected their freedom of choice - and almost all faith traditions contain a clear imperative to try and persuade others in some way.
quote:
Ideally, then, all human beings should have the right to freedom to adopt and practice religion (or not). This moral and ethical ideal is absolutely primary in my concerns here.
If someone of 98 who has been a methodist all their life gets dementia - should their carers continue to take them to church every Sunday or do we do nothing in case they might have changed their mind ? Or present them with an array of options they can not comprehend in case they should wish to change their mind ? Both at the begining and end of life our needs and capabilities change rapidly.
You are mistaken to ignore the developmental aspect of this. We know that for children to thrive and develop well, they need stability, boundaries care givers, opportunity to play - giving total freedom of choice to a chld of three would be physical and emotional neglect. It would stunt and damage the growth of their mind, their body, and their personality - we know this because it has been observed to happen. So therefore we do not give a child total freedom. This objectively demonstrates, that total freedom for a child is not necessarilly in all circumstances an unmitigated good.
You are mistaken to reify freedom of choice. If we give total freedom to adults, we regress to a hobbesian dog eat dog world - which we see in parts of the world where the state has broken down. So therefore we do not give an adult total freedom. This objectively demonstrates, that total freedom for an adult is not necessarilly in all circumstances an unmitigated good.
To carry your argument you need to show the value of the freedom you assert the child needs.
quote:
I feel we should ideally be as free from external influences as possible in our adoption of religion. This works in both directions. I feel it’s exactly equally wrong to indoctrinate someone NOT to become a Christian as it is to indoctrinate them to become one.
It really isn't just about Christianity - to be meaningful it has to be about *all* metaphysical belief systems.
Moreover, you "feel" this - that is not really a debating position, unless you accept gut instinct as a valid premise. In which case, the parent's gut instinct to inculcate their faith in their child is equally valid.
quote:
There are certain things about the about parental indoctrination of religion in children that categorically set it apart from the way our choices are influenced by other things. I hope this gets to the issue of why I think religious indoctrination is immoral.
It really doesn't, because that statement rest on a several things you have asked us to accept as a special plea or an unsubstantiated assertion.
quote:
I think we all agree that children are highly vulnerable to parental influence (for good and for bad), including and especially religious indoctrination; therefore it is an especially important issue.
Your word choices, "vulnerable", indocrintation", "religious" (as opposed to metaphysical) do display a huge amount of a priori assumption. You are not presenting issues - that you *assert* are matters of fact - neutrally.
quote:
I think we all agree that religious parents, especially, tend to believe there is a particular imperative that their children come to share their beliefs- much more so than for atheist parents
I don't accept this, atheists frequently have very strong views about not wanting their children to become theists. Dawkins is an extreme example of this but he is far from alone.
quote:
So, I hope we can agree that religious belief stands above all as a matter for particular concern regarding the influence that parents have over their child’s freedom of choice.
I don't accept this, but I am willing for us to focus on the question of metaphysical beliefs.
quote:
When the state indoctrinates religion, we clearly see that as an abuse of our rights to freedom of choice. Why should parents be different, in principle?
Well, for starters, the state is intended to be the servant of the people - in this case the parents.
Secondly, if you are using "indoctrinate" to speak of the state's action in the same way as of the parents actions, many people don't see that as an abuse of our rights of freedom of choice. There really isn't a massive campaign to disestablish the Church of England, or demand the end of prayers in the House of Commons, or remove the duty of our public broadcaster to provide religious programming, or to make state recognised marriage only available from secular officers, or remove the religous elements from rememberance day etc etc. There are a small number of people who feel strongly about it but most are tolerant of our continuing to be an explicitly Christian state. Even our minority communities of different faith traditions tend to prefer theism to secularism.
If you are using "indoctrination" to speak of a state's actions persecuting a religious or atheist minority - you would need to be drawing a comparison with child abuse in the service of religious "indoctrination".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
An article in Christianity Today.
Some highlights:
First 2 from the American Religious Identification Survey (link on page linked to above):
quote:
The percentage of Americans claiming "no religion" almost doubled in about two decades, climbing from 8.1 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2008.
quote:
The Nones were most numerous among the young: a whopping 22 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds claimed no religion, up from 11 percent in 1990.
This from the 2009 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:
quote:
They reported that "young Americans are dropping out of religion at an alarming rate of five to six times the historic rate (30 to 40 percent have no religion today, versus 5 to 10 percent a generation ago)."
This not from any study, but the opinion of the author:
quote:
Third, a tectonic shift has occurred in the broader culture. Past generations may have rebelled for a season, but they still inhabited a predominantly Judeo-Christian culture. For those reared in pluralistic, post-Christian America, the cultural gravity that has pulled previous generations back to the faith has weakened or dissipated altogether.
"De-churching" -- people who grow up in the church and then leave it -- is accelerating in the US (which has a much larger base of church-goers than the UK). It's not static. As atheism grows more and more respectable in the larger culture, I predict it will probably accelerate even more. As I said above, 20-year-old data is too old. Much has changed in the last 20 years as far as children leaving their parents' faith is concerned.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
Yorick writes:
quote:
I reckon the principal reason it might be very difficult to identify those who’ve been indoctrinated into their religious faith is that they don’t often self-identify as indoctrinated.
I invite you to google: "Leaving <insert religion>"
There are countless, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of personal narratives apostates or prospective apostates post to web sites established to lend mutual support to people de-converting. They pour their heart out seeking validation and many find the act of documenting their journey (many think in these terms) is liberating and helps them cope. Apostates are my best allies in my quest to foment an international effort to end hereditary religion.
Perhaps the most poignant narratives come from people swept up as children by the insular sects like JWs, pentacostals, mormons, Catholics and the like.
In my conversation with parents on the Amazon.com forum, I found I could always quiet down the most vociferous posters by playing back some of the posts apostates contributed to a self help web site. The amazing thing is the disconnect between active believers and apostates and the reason I believe this exists is the fact that active believers are deliberately conditioned to treat apostates as lepers. It is part of the memeplex protecting religion. A careful search of sacred texts reveals many exhortations to shun apostates and avoid non-believers. Life time friends edge away and eventually disappear. No surprise here.
Once people are exposed to the hurt religion inflicts on the psyches and family relationships of some people, they might begin to question whether consigning their innocent toddlers to the mind control program of religion is such a noble idea.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I can see what you are saying Writchey, but it's not my experience.
My lovely Methodist Church is more than understanding. We have many non-chistians involved in our activities.
I am positively proud that both my sons grew up Atheist - I take it as proof we didn't indoctrinate them.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Apostates are my best allies in my quest to foment an international effort to end hereditary religion.
Writchey
See Commandment 8
Given that you haven't posted all that often you may have missed this. Many of us are involved in campaigns, quests if you like, of various kinds (I am) but this space hasn't been created to be used in the overt pursuit of any specific agenda.
quote:
Perhaps the most poignant narratives come from people swept up as children by the insular sects like JWs, pentacostals, mormons, Catholics and the like.
Again, this is advice to an Apprentice. We have Shipmates who belong to all of those "insular sects" and who, quite rightly, aren't going to take kindly to such crude generalisations. And crude generalisations like those hardly do your credibility any good. Keep on expressing your opinions in this way and you are very likely to be called to account in Hell (the Board that is).
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 26. November 2010, 00:16: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call two posts crusading.
There have been many comments on this thread suggesting there can be nothing immoral in parents deliberately influencing their children to become religious. One of the dangers, however, is that the child may decide, when they become capable of making an informed decision, to abandon the religion. Clearly, this can be a very painful experience for them (and others), as Writchey points out.
This is a striking example of the risks of influencing children to adopt a religion before they develop the maturity to make that choice freely for themselves. When they do, many will remain religious by their (pseudo-)choice, but, for those who choose to leave the flock, the separation process can clearly be harmful.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
...
There is a suggestion that there is an evolutionary benefit in children believing what their parents/authority figures tell them. "Keep away from the fire/Don't go near the riverbank/Avoid climbing trees" etc. are instructions which may increase the probability of the dutiful, rather than the rebel, passing on their genes to another generation. ...
So some people are genetically programmed to be rebellious or dutiful?
Isn't such attitude taught and learned rather than inherited?
On the subject of evolution, isn't this a prime example of the indoctrination of undeveloped minds using psychological techniques like bad religion does - presenting mysteries that only a few enlightened people supposedly understand and treating any doubters as foolish?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To suggest that most, or even some adults maintain their Christianity because it was indoctrinated from youth to me doesn't resonate, because I don't think it's sustainable. Unless that faith becomes something that person claims for themselves, they'll either rebel (category 1), or more likely, drift away (category 2) once they become adults and are able to make their own decisions.
… Is there a difference in this matter between religion and say: vegetarianism, the language you speak, or supporting a football team?
Sorry for the delay.
Your three ‘types’ make very interesting characterisations. Although I do wonder if your experiences are statistically representative, I’ve no doubt your observations are very perceptive.
Evidence of childhood indoctrination is very difficult to identify, as discussed upthread. If the person themselves doesn’t even know it, I’m sure it’s hard for others to do so. Some say indoctrinees give off a certain smell, but this does not sound like a reliable method for determining the extent to which a person’s upbringing has influenced their adoption of religious belief. A great deal of parental influence is not consciously felt, and of course the very young child is in no position to make a critical judgement of whether they’re being taught about belief or being taught to believe. Which is kind of the whole point, really.
It’s practically impossible, therefore, when looking at any individual adult Christian who was deliberately influenced to adopt religion by his parents, to determine the extent to which his later ‘free’ choices are conditioned or otherwise affected by his early indoctrination. He may feel he’s making his own free decisions, and ‘claiming his faith for himself’, but perhaps his choices are the result of deeper unconscious processes resulting from his juvenile indoctrination.
That’s the really nasty thing about indoctrination. It deprives people of choice, even if they think it doesn’t.
I’ll get back to your football/vegetarian/language point a.s.a.p.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call two posts crusading.
Take it to the Styx, if you want, Yorick. But not here.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Sorry for the delay..
Not at all!
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It’s practically impossible, therefore, when looking at any individual adult Christian who was deliberately influenced to adopt religion by his parents, to determine the extent to which his later ‘free’ choices are conditioned or otherwise affected by his early indoctrination. He may feel he’s making his own free decisions, and ‘claiming his faith for himself’, but perhaps his choices are the result of deeper unconscious processes resulting from his juvenile indoctrination.
I think that's a good point, and I think again it goes wider than religion. Watching someone like Derren Brown at work makes you wonder how many of our 'free' choices are really free. And that goes even deeper than indoctrination, and is more about all kinds of conditioning. Many of the choices we make are due to subconscious factors that we're not really aware of. But I still think that there us always, underneath it all, free will. Thinking of Derren brown, there was an episode where he used many external factors to influence each of a group of people to rob a bank van (with a fake gun). All but one of the succumbed, and the one that didn't afterwards said he had this incredible urge to do it, but made the conscious decision not to give in to those urges.
I understand where you're coming from in terms of the objective morality of raising children, but as others have said, if there's no practical outworking then it's a futile exercise. I think the most important thing in terms of my own daughter is that she knows she's loved and accepted both by mummy and daddy, and by God. As she grows up, as long as she knows that love is unconditional, I hope that she'll free to make any choices she wants and know that doesn't change that love. Of course I'll influence her towards being a Christian - we pray with her before bedtime and she comes to church. But I still don't think that's indoctrination, because she's still a child. If when she's 18, we're still 'making' her come to church and pray, then something will be wrong there. However, I hope she will be doing those things out of her own choice.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I understand where you're coming from in terms of the objective morality of raising children, but as others have said, if there's no practical outworking then it's a futile exercise.
I don’t think we should so readily dismiss it as futile. It was very difficult for me to avoid inculcating my daughter with my atheistic worldview, and I’m all too aware of how easy it would have been to serve my own agenda in persuading her of the ‘truth’ of my opinions before she was mature enough to question them critically. Each one of us, as a Christian parent or an atheist, has a degree of choice in how we present our beliefs to our children. Yes, we can easily indoctrinate them, both deliberately and also accidentally, but if we are very determined and careful, we can minimise this.
Boogie knows what I’m talking about.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I don’t think we should so readily dismiss it as futile. It was very difficult for me to avoid inculcating my daughter with my atheistic worldview, and I’m all too aware of how easy it would have been to serve my own agenda in persuading her of the ‘truth’ of my opinions before she was mature enough to question them critically. Each one of us, as a Christian parent or an atheist, has a degree of choice in how we present our beliefs to our children. Yes, we can easily indoctrinate them, both deliberately and also accidentally, but if we are very determined and careful, we can minimise this.
Boogie knows what I’m talking about.
Many children when they hit a certain age begin to think their parents are, if not the most clueless beings on the planet, then perhaps just wrong or behind the times on most issues and question everything their parents ever taught them. This is part of the process of becoming independent and forming their own beliefs and opinions. Regardless, it is the moral imperative of the parent to instill/teach whatever values and beliefs they think are necessary to best equip the child for adult life - no matter whether the child adopts the same values, religious, political or any other belief system or opinions. Children are not programmable robots as you seem to believe when it comes to religion. Unless there is physical harm done to a child - as a few of both atheist and "religious" seem prone to - there is absolutely no reason, except prejudice, to attempt to prohibit the teaching of a specific religion or even atheism if that is what the parent deems best for their child. You have overwhelming failed to prove your case and have also side stepped most points made by others that disagree with you.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It was very difficult for me to avoid inculcating my daughter with my atheistic worldview, and I’m all too aware of how easy it would have been to serve my own agenda in persuading her of the ‘truth’ of my opinions before she was mature enough to question them
Ok, I think it would be helpful to understand the practical outworking of this in your own experience. How did you practice these principles? If she asked you a question, how did you answer? Did you take her to church? Or a mosque or temple, so she could see things firsthand and decide for herself?
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
Barnabas writes:
quote:
We have Shipmates who belong to all of those "insular sects" and who, quite rightly, aren't going to take kindly to such crude generalisations.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind and isn't one person's crude generalization another's honest expression? There was no malicious intent behind what I said so from where I stand your post is simply an attempt to silence my voice. Is this what honest dialog is about -- silencing critics?
I wanted to be upfront with people and state that I have a considered view of childhood religious indoctrination and that I am actively working to end the practice. Did you see any language inviting people to join me?
What about item 5 in your list. Religious people, it seems to me, are quick to take offense. I could be wrong, but this really is a commonplace so far as I can see.
After carefully reading many contributions of people to this topic the bottom line comes down to the question of ethics and how parents abuse the power they have over their children, based on no better reason than nobody stops them and the practice of indoctrination is supported by religious institutions. They must support childhood indoctrination because they fear for their continued existence if they had to depend upon converting adults with full critical mental faculties. Can anyone honestly refute this assertion?
The institutions are so bold today that their leaders shamelessly pitch their indoctrination programs in these terms. Shall I cite examples for you? We need not go all the way back to Ignatius Loyola, we can start with Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict if you like. Franklin Graham, son of Billy, wanted to create evangelists in the public school system. His goal was one trained child evangelist in every classroom in our country. Rather stunning is it not?
May I continue?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Evidence of childhood indoctrination is very difficult to identify, as discussed upthread. If the person themselves doesn’t even know it, I’m sure it’s hard for others to do so. Some say indoctrinees give off a certain smell, but this does not sound like a reliable method...
I'm not done with this point. What does indoctrination mean in terms of end result? If I have a rational, mature, well considered faith that I have the tools to critique and discard if changing circumstance and evidence demand it of me, what does it mean to say that was the result of indoctrination? If this state is really undetectable then does it even exist?
It almost seems like an article of faith for you. We can't see it, we can't detect it by observation, we can't prove it is there, yet you are sure it exists.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
May I continue?
Oh please don't. Gross misrepresentations are so dull. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Barnabas writes:
quote:
We have Shipmates who belong to all of those "insular sects" and who, quite rightly, aren't going to take kindly to such crude generalisations.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind and isn't one person's crude generalization another's honest expression? There was no malicious intent behind what I said so from where I stand your post is simply an attempt to silence my voice. Is this what honest dialog is about -- silencing critics?
No, it's about challenging poor thinking. It doesn't matter how honestly you are expressing your thoughts if those thoughts are philosophically and intellectually inadequate.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Writchey
Here's the deal.
1. When you became a member here, you agreed to abide by the 10 Commandments governing posts, plus the guidelines for each Board.
2. If any Host judges that any post breaches any of the Commandments, they will warn you, quoting the offending post.
3. You are free to query any ruling in the Styx, but not on the thread, meanwhile the ruling remains in force. If you ignore the warning you get reported to Admin and (probably) suspended for a breach of Commandment 6.
4. The present position is that I have not warned you about any breach of rules, simply reminded you of a particular Commandment in view of your own "quest" and given you some advice (as an Apprentice) about the consequences of expressing yourself in certain ways. Both of those were intended to be helpful steers, not formal warnings. You are free to ignore my advice.
5. I'm giving some of the comments in your latest post some more detailed consideration, meanwhile you are free to continue.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 26. November 2010, 00:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
The institutions are so bold today that their leaders shamelessly pitch their indoctrination programs in these terms. Shall I cite examples for you? We need not go all the way back to Ignatius Loyola, we can start with Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict if you like. Franklin Graham, son of Billy, wanted to create evangelists in the public school system. His goal was one trained child evangelist in every classroom in our country. Rather stunning is it not?
May I continue?
Writchey, if you want to rant about what you see as the inexcusable behaviour of real people, the general guideline here is that you rant in Hell. Why? Because Hell is the Board for the pissed-off. You won't be bound by the Purg guidelines which are designed to foster serious debate.
You can try your hand at engaging other Shipmates in serious debate about your views on the people you mention. After the "quality" of your openers, I don't much fancy your chances, but you're free to try. Provided you observe the Commandments and guidelines.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 26. November 2010, 00:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
I've been catching up on this thread and have just started watching an episode of DS9 on Channel 1 (called In the hands of the prophets and the theme of this one is whether teaching the facts about the wormhole (and its aliens) is blasphemy against the Bejoran religion (who view said aliens as prophets).
The teacher said she wasn't teaching philosophy but science but Major Kira responded that science without spirituality is a philosophy. I probably wouldn't phrase it like that, but it does strike me that the dispute with Yorick here centres around this problem.
He tries to draw a distinction between religion and other aspects of worldviews (eg values, morals, principles) and holds that it is possible to be neutral about religion, but that position in itself takes a position on religion and its importance.
I think the language analogy is a good one -- we have to learn a language to be able to learn others when we are older. Similarly we have to acquire a worldview (which will include views on the existence or otherwise of God(s) as well as values (e.g. the importance of freedom)*) in order to be able to act in the world but we will modify and adapt that worldview as we grow up.
I also want to say that threatening children with horrors if (or when) they reject the parents faith/worldview is wrong.
Carys
*which Yorick values to a very high degree while others might not value it in competition to other things.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
quote:
The underlying assumption is that religion is a Bad Thing which impressionable children should be protected from.
On the contrary, this is not the underlying assumption. You can take the position that indoctrination is wrong ethically without holding any views on the goodness or badness of religion. The ethical issue is choice and who the choice should rightly go to. In the advanced democracies we follow the philosophical doctrine that the person who a decision will impact is the final arbiter. The person who has to live with a decision is the one who rightly should make the choice. For cultural reasons that are rooted in patriarchy, a glaring exception exists in the case of childhood religious indoctrination which we have allowed to get entangled with first amendment religious practice rights of parents. No three year old toddler is capable of making a choice so the argument is advanced that parents must make a choice, in fact they assert it is their right and duty to do so. This argument fails because no temporal reason exists for a three year old to need a religion, which they can neither understand nor practice, outside of religious dogma, which has no legal standing in a court of law. Misguided temporal law is what gives parents legal standing to force religion on their children.
Law professor James Dryer at William and Mary asserts that our family laws in the USA are parent-centric, not-child centric. In a seminal paper, Dr Dryer challenged the very basis of muddled parental rights legal theory in the United States and pointed to the trend in Europe, which is to acknowledge that children are persons with separable rights that may in fact conflict with their parents rights. His paper concludes:
quote:
CONCLUSION
Consideration of judicial interpretations of rights in numerous contexts has revealed that the notion of parental rights is inconsistent with well-established legal principles. Rights protect only a right-holder's own person and property. No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.
Children are persons, intimately bound up with but nevertheless distinct from their parents. Supposed justification for parents' rights based on the interest of children, on the interests of parents, or on the interests of society simply do not withstand scrutiny.
These findings compel the conclusion that parental child-rearing rights are illegitimate. A better regime would simply grant parents a legal privilege to care for and make decisions on behalf of their children in ways that are not contrary to the children's temporal interests. Children themselves should possess whatever rights are necessary to protect their fundamental interest in an intimate, continuous relationship with their parents. This includes the right to be insulated from any state interference that is not in the children's interests.
Courts should acknowledge the illegitimacy of the parents' rights doctrine and decline to recognize claims of parental rights in the future. The evolution of our social attitudes toward, and legal treatment of, children in recent decades would afford the Supreme Court an adequate rationale for departing from the rule of stare decisis302 and for overruling Yoder and Pierce to abolish parental child-rearing rights.
Subsequently, courts would decide cases involving disputes between parents and the State over child-rearing practices based on the interests and rights of the children involved. This approach would encourage a more appropriate social and legal understanding of parenthood as a privilege conditioned on a parent's willingness to operate within limits defined by temporal well-being of her children. It would also foster recognition that children are distinct persons deserving of respect equal to that accorded adults, and not merely means to the fulfillment of parents' life-purposes.
You do not have to be a legal scholar to follow the arguments in Professor Dwyer's paper which you can find a condensed version of here:
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/dwyer2/ Dwyer paper excerpt
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
No three year old toddler is capable of making a choice so the argument is advanced that parents must make a choice, in fact they assert it is their right and duty to do so. This argument fails because no temporal reason exists for a three year old to need a religion, which they can neither understand nor practice, outside of religious dogma, which has no legal standing in a court of law.
This is pure nonsense on so many levels I don't know where to start.
Adults are free to choose to eat whatever food they like. Parents choose what their children eat. By choosing the foods, the parents influence what choices their children will make regarding foods as adults. Children do not need any foods made from gluten-containing grains. In fact, they don't need any grains. And some children are harmed by foods made from wheat, oats, rye, or barley. Even if you don't see the harm while they're children, nevertheless the harm is being done. Most of the harm is probably reversible, but perhaps not all of it. And if you never give a child a slice of cake or a piece of home-made bread fresh out of the oven, they'll neither want it or miss it. The child should be able to choose, when they're an adult, whether they want to take the chance with these grains or not.
So let's just make it illegal for parents to feed their children anything made from grains. After all, it's just the patriarchy that makes it okay for parents to decide what their children eat. Us enlightened people, we know better, so we'll make the decisions for them.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
...You do not have to be a legal scholar to follow the arguments in Professor Dwyer's paper ...
It is easy to follow, but you'd have to be a fruitcake to believe it.
The only possible conclusion from his line of reasoning (according to the part you quoted, anyway, as I have no intention wasting my time reading the stuff you linked to) is that the state (or perhaps, the Supreme Court itself) should take control of all children immediately after birth so that the arents won't make "wrong" decisions for them.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks Writchey. IMO that's a serious argument, worth consideration - which I'm giving it.
It will take me a little while to get thoughts in order, and we've visitors this evening. I'll post tomorrow, or later tonight.
[interesting cross posts!]
[ 26. November 2010, 16:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I'm not sure what it means in practice to say that children should not have religion "forced" on them. Does it mean that it would be illegal to take them to church with you? Or illegal to talk about Jesus in their hearing? Or that it would be illegal to deny them life-saving medical treatment on the basis of a religious belief.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
I'm sorry Josephine, but your post is a total non sequitur. Food choices have absolutely nothing to do with religious choices that I can see.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Josephine made the parallel clear in her post. Parents make a choice for the child which may leave them with a habit for certain foods that will be harmful in later life.
Isn't that the argument you are using for religion?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
In the part of Professor Dwyer's paper which is accessible on the internet, it is not clear how, if at all, it would apply, in most cases, to parents educating their children in their religion and bringing them up within its practices.
What he clearly does have in view is the question whether e.g. parents can refuse surgery or blood transfusions for their children. These are situations where there is clearly identifiable physical harm. I guess the case would also apply for psychological or emotional harm. It's hard to see though how it would apply to the generality of religious belief, unless you believe a priori that such belief is harmful or that the holding of such belief is an indication that you have been harmed.
It would be interesting to see how his argument would play out if the child her/himself refused such treatment, given his emphasis on the child as a person in their own right.
[ 26. November 2010, 16:38: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
mdijon
I posted a link to Dale McGowan's video that gives the best explanation to your questions I have found in my research. He has the most sensible and sane approach for parents who wish to be fair to their children. In case you overlooked it here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YgM-A8A1ck Dale McGowan on secular parenting
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I didn't click on it. I'd really prefer to have a discussion rather than be directed to 10min youtube clips. My question didn't come from a desire to be instructed, it was a way of testing what you were saying in the context of a discussion.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
I'm sorry Josephine, but your post is a total non sequitur. Food choices have absolutely nothing to do with religious choices that I can see.
We're talking about choices that parents make on behalf of their children. Some of those choices have to do with religion. Some have to do with food. Some have to do with exercise, sleep, clothing, medical care, and all manner of other things.
If parents shouldn't be allowed to make decisions regarding their children's religious practices, in order to preserve the child's free choice years later when the child is grown, then why should parents be allowed to make decisions regarding their child's dietary practices, or exercise, or anything else?
If my children, when they are grown, are more likely to buy the brand of toothpaste that I bought for them when they were children, then by buying toothpaste, I'm constraining their later choices. It follows, then, that I shouldn't be allowed to buy toothpaste for them. Of course, if I don't buy them toothpaste, then they'll probably brush their teeth with baking soda when they're grown. Or just plain water. Or whatever I taught them to brush their teeth with. Oh, dear. I suppose I'll have to avoid teaching them about toothbrushing, so as to avoid imposing my choices on them. But that means they won't brush their teeth, having never been taught to do so.
But at least it will have been their choice!
Oh, wait. What's that I hear? By choosing not to teach them to brush their teeth when they're young, I'm still imposing my choices on them? Really?
Gosh, who ever would have thought such a thing as that?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
mdijon
I posted a link to Dale McGowan's video that gives the best explanation to your questions I have found in my research. He has the most sensible and sane approach for parents who wish to be fair to their children. In case you overlooked it here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YgM-A8A1ck Dale McGowan on secular parenting
I sense an irregular verb coming on: I influence, you indoctrinate, he brainwashes.
That aside as a 'religious' parent I find nothing to object to in what Dale McGowan advocates in this clip, nor anything that differs from my own experience of having been brought up as a 'religious parent'.
This brings us back to the question others have asked on this thread. How do you assess whether someone has been (or is being) indoctrinated as opposed to influenced?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Curses. Missed edit window. Should have said "by 'religious parents'"
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I sense an irregular verb coming on: I influence, you indoctrinate, he brainwashes.
From my dictionary/thesaurus:
indoctrinate:
definition: implant beliefs in the mind of
synonyms: brainwash, drill, ground, imbue, initiate, instruct, school, teach, train.
We have therefore a word that can be used to refer to teaching or instruction, and can be used to mean brainwashing.
If you don't recognise an ethical difference between teaching a subject (religion, politics, vegetarianism) and brainwashing then using the word 'indoctrinate' allows you to refer to teaching with the force of condemnation that properly belongs to brainwashing. However, most people would think that teaching and brainwashing are ethically different. Teaching is a good; brainwashing is an evil.
The real question is not do we bring up children to be religious or not. The real question is how do we bring up children so that they grow up to be self-aware and self-critical about their own beliefs and respectful of people with different beliefs (though not uncritically so).
Unless someone can show that bringing up children with some religion or other is inevitably a hindrance to that - and so far in so far as that position has been asserted it has been merely assumed and not argued - bringing up a child in a religion is not as such a failure as a parent.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
mdijon
I posted a link to Dale McGowan's video that gives the best explanation to your questions I have found in my research. He has the most sensible and sane approach for parents who wish to be fair to their children. In case you overlooked it here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YgM-A8A1ck Dale McGowan on secular parenting
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
mdijon
I posted a link to Dale McGowan's video that gives the best explanation to your questions I have found in my research. He has the most sensible and sane approach for parents who wish to be fair to their children. In case you overlooked it here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YgM-A8A1ck Dale McGowan on secular parenting
Golly you must have missed it when mdijon said,
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I didn't click on it. I'd really prefer to have a discussion rather than be directed to 10min youtube clips. My question didn't come from a desire to be instructed, it was a way of testing what you were saying in the context of a discussion.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
@Dafyd
You write:
quote:
The real question is not do we bring up children to be religious or not. The real question is how do we bring up children so that they grow up to be self-aware and self-critical about their own beliefs and respectful of people with different beliefs (though not uncritically so).
Unless someone can show that bringing up children with some religion or other is inevitably a hindrance to that - and so far in so far as that position has been asserted it has been merely assumed and not argued - bringing up a child in a religion is not as such a failure as a parent.
The argument is not that religious parents cannot raise children who are broad minded and respectful of other's beliefs. Although to be sure there is no guarantee and a lingering suspicion that religious parents, because of the admonitions in their texts to "raise up a child..." are not mindful of the duty they have to guard a child's future options.
Are parents that instill their particular brand of religion in a vulnerable child acting ethically or not? As I wrote in another post, the issue is who makes the choice? The fair way to go about this is to encourage the child from the outset that the choice is theirs and to reinforce that point of view each and every time the subject of religion is broached. Again, I refer you to the McGowan video.
Children should be raised to be religiously literate. They should know the important role religion plays in some peoples lives. They should also understand the history of myths and religions and the downside of religion as well. Do religious parents stress the downsides as well as the upside? You go to buy a car or a home and the principle of informed consent is evident from the get go. You go to buy a religion, maybe not so much.
The concern is that through custom and convention there are no safeguards to insure a child is prepared to make an informed choice when they are mature enough to make a decision. Parents and the institutions have their thumb on the scale so to speak.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
The fair way to go about this is to encourage the child from the outset that the choice is theirs and to reinforce that point of view each and every time the subject of religion is broached.
How far does this principal extend?
Do we need "to encourage the child from the outset that the choice is theirs and to reinforce that point of view each and every time the subject of" vegetables is broached? What about visiting elderly relatives in the nursing home? Or doing homework? What about speaking kindly to the person serving you at a store or restaurant? All of those are things that the child might choose not to do once they're an adult.
If I want my child to take a daily bath, do I need to be sure to tell him that in some cultures, people don't bathe daily? That he may eventually choose to bathe less frequently? That it's his choice right now whether to bathe or not? Do I need to do this each and every time I want him to bathe?
You don't have any children, do you?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
But how do atheists give children the information to make an informed choice?
My daughter was brought up going to church until she didn't want to go any more. And although that meant I didn't go either, because she was too young to be left alone, I accepted it. This is partly because I had bad experiences of being forced to church as a child and teenager.
At some point children will reject their parents' faith and all we can do is as parents is step back and allow them to work their way through it. The problem we still had to deal with was others, a teacher and a Sunday school teacher, being really into indoctrination and brainwashing.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Writchey, I havn't got time for a full reply yet, but the obvious question which arises from the video is why focus on choices of religious belief? Any good process of parenting teaches and encourages children to develop their ability both to understand, and make choices based on what they understand. After they leave us they are going to have to do that anyway.
Here are some personal thoughts.
I have two sons aged around 40 now, so what we did in detail is all a bit of a blur. The picture I have is of giving them, progressively and experimentally, areas of choice and freedom in harmony with their increasing ability to manage choices and freedoms. Plus a heck of a lot of explaining along the way, in terms which were based on what we thought they could understand. Explanations start with simple things like "don't touch - hot, oven on" - and after some repetition and further explanation kids learn that ovens aren't always hot and can be touched safely. So you can trust them to choose wisely, encourage them when they get it right. Not a straight line process either - sometimes two steps forward, one step backwards. And we made mistakes, both underestimating and over-estimating what they were able to cope with in learning how to choose for themselves.
Learning how to make more abstract choices - over huge issues like coherent values and world views - surely requires some development of the understanding and choice "muscles" on the nursery slopes of life. In the mobile and increasingly global society, it is very likely that our kids will go, probably end up living a long way away from us. We know we do them no favours if we haven't helped them to the point where they can embark, with some confidence, on independent living. They've been learning how to become independent from an early age.
So teaching them how to evaluate and choose for themselves is just normal, responsible parenting. I don't think we ever doubted that our children would choose for themselves whether they embraced in adulthood the faith by which we lived. It was a consequence of our parenting, our helping them prepare, that they would be aware that they were free to choose that, as they were free to choose anything else.
So what was specifically Christian about our approach? I think our standard for parental love came from 1 Corinthians 13, which I suppose is one of the best known passages in the New Testament.
"Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast. It is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres".
One of the NT words for love (agape) which is being spelled out here is often described as the characteristic word of Christianity. None of us, of course, lives up, all the time, to those standards of selflessness. There is much joy in parenting, but it certainly requires a willing selflessness, sometimes on a sacrificial scale. We both felt that we grew up with our children, learned an amazing amount about ourselves (some of that painful) and we learned an amazing amount from them. We learned to say sorry to them when we goofed. We laughed with them, we cried with them. We were as real as we could be.
Anyway, if it was Christian indoctrination to try to live that way, with those kinds of agape standards in mind, while practising parenting, I plead guilty.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
Agree with mousethief: best post Barnabas62, stating it far better than I ever could.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
The argument is not that religious parents cannot raise children who are broad minded and respectful of other's beliefs. Although to be sure there is no guarantee and a lingering suspicion that religious parents, because of the admonitions in their texts to "raise up a child..." are not mindful of the duty they have to guard a child's future options.
You appear to be implying that for non-religious parents there is a guarantee.
What do you mean by a child's future options? I have the option to go and join a far-right political party - nobody else is stopping me. However, I'm not going to; it would be against my principles. My parents are generally centre-left and weren't shy about expressing political opinions in front of their children. Does that mean that they removed my option to be far-right? No. I'm perfectly in control of my faculties, and they aren't physically restraining me or coercing me in any way.
quote:
Are parents that instill their particular brand of religion in a vulnerable child acting ethically or not? As I wrote in another post, the issue is who makes the choice?
1) You keep saying 'vulnerable children'. Are there invulnerable children? Or are you saying that it is a pity that we don't all spring into life as adults?
2) 'Who makes the choice?' Here's a question: what do you believe about free will? Are you a determinist, compatibilist or libertarian? A determinist would say that there's no such thing as choice; a compatibilist would say that so long as you're not coerced or subject to external constraint and you're in your right mind it's you making the choice, regardless of parental or any other influence in the past. So only a libertarian could be arguing that parental influence restricts choice. But if parental influence in religion restricts choice, then it equally restricts choice in other areas; therefore, libertarianism becomes a merely theoretical position. (Besides, there are problems for someone restricting themselves to the 'temporal' being a libertarian.)
3) Do you equally have a problem with parents bringing up their children with humanist values (especially where those values are at tension with some religious values)? If not, why isn't your argument merely special pleading? If you do, how do you justify depriving children of some of those values?
4) There are quite considerable problems with the ideal of choice anyway (over and above the metaphysical argument above). The dominance of the concept of choice in political discourse, especially right-wing economically libertarian discourse, has distorting effects upon the way policy happens and is carried out. (Inner-city families may have the choice to send their children to any school that they can afford, but that's hardly meaningful if they can't afford the schools; and then does the school have the choice to refuse them?) Talking about the value of choice in politics reduces all matters of value to the selection of a brand of cereal from the supermarket shelf. I see no reason to suppose that talking about choice as a supreme value in religion is any less ideological or delusive.
quote:
Again, I refer you to the McGowan video.
Like mdijon, I am not interested in a video to which I cannot respond. If you are confident in your understanding of the arguments, you can put them forward for yourself.
quote:
Do religious parents stress the downsides as well as the upside? You go to buy a car or a home and the principle of informed consent is evident from the get go. You go to buy a religion, maybe not so much.
A religion, it seems to me, is much more like a political opinion that it is like a house or car. Your model just doesn't make sense to me as applied to a political opinion, or even a political party.
By the way, who gets to decide what the downsides of religion are or how much stress should be put on them? The religious? Or those hostile to religion?
Throughout your post you appear to be insinuating that features of religion mean that religious parents can't avoid indoctrinating their children or will find it hard to do so while still being true to their religious beliefs. (This is actually a contradictory position to the position that all parents ought to avoid indoctrination; the moral principle 'ought implies can' means that if religious parents can't avoid it, they are obliged to avoid it.)
Anyway, what sanctions would you advocate against parents bringing up children with a religious education?
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
To those who complain they will not view a substantiating piece of information in the form of a brief video you should not be upset if I refuse to try to coddle your prejudice. How is referencing a video any different than quoting scripture is or referencing an article is to make a point?
The Dale McGowan video is unique because it presents a sane perspective on the crucial issue of indoctrinating versus influencing children. If you refuse to view it, then this is your loss.
As far as labels, I don't subscribe to any except freethinking secular humanist. And, after thought, admirer of Charles Darwin.
To come back to how it is possible to know a child has been indoctrinated I would suggest that you need to look in the right place and ask the right people, apostates.
quote:
“Dad, I’m an atheist.”
Posted by Susan Gail on April 23rd, 2008
I’m a teenager so of course I live with my parents. I have been raised in a very conservative Christian family. I was taught from the age of four that Christianity is the Way and the only Way, Christians go to heaven and non-Christians go to hell, the works. I didn’t see any other way nor did I know any other way.
The bulk of my indoctrination has come from my father. He is very hardcore. I’ve tried all my life to be good enough for him. I went on a mission trip and to various Christian camps because I wanted to be his perfect daughter. But there is no pleasing my dad. No matter what I did, I wasn’t good enough.
I was always one to ask questions. If there was a word said that I didn’t understand, I would ask what it meant. Growing up, there were so many times I wanted to question the teachings of my Sunday school class or my father’s after-dinner devotions. I held my tongue because I knew I wasn’t supposed to question the church and my dad most certainly wouldn’t approve. But some things just didn’t make sense to me. The Bible seemed to contradict itself so many times. I couldn’t stand it.
Continue reading here:
Dad I'm an Atheist
There are 114 comments to this post and I venture they will enlighten open minded defenders of childhood indoctrination. The presumption historically was that the kids are all OK with what was done to them in the name of "teaching" them a faith. After all they would tell their parents if this was not the case would they not? Besides, according to liberal enlightenment philosophy no one had any right to challenge what their neighbors might be doing to their kids as long as no bruises appeared on the children's bodies. It was considered unseemly to pry and this was all very parent-centric thinking. Parents are the important consideration.
The reality is very different. So much so that a child's situation can approach a condition very much akin to the Stockholm syndrome. Not in every family, certainly but where is the cutoff? If you concede that abusive tactics may be used when does it become important enough to object? One thousand cases per year, ten thousand, one hundred thousand?
Yet, no participant on this thread has ever indicated they went in search of possible harm their actions were visiting on kids. Certainly no one on this thread has volunteered such information. Parents obviously don't seek out venues where kids talk between themselves. If anyone has done this, I would be very interested in hearing the details. Why did you go looking? If your institution has a youth pastor has anyone gone to them to see if they know what children are feeling and saying and if they feel trapped?
Children are not fools. They know opposing their parents is not the smart thing to do when remaining silent keeps the approval, clothes, spending money and necessities coming and avoids harsh lectures.
Children deserve unconditional love. If you can only bring yourself to show love to a child who obeys your every command, what kind of relationship do you have?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Children deserve unconditional love. If you can only bring yourself to show love to a child who obeys your every command, what kind of relationship do you have?
A crap one, but if you're suggesting that that's what we all do then you're talking shit.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Oh, and I read the link to "dad I'm an atheist". What I saw was an example of crap parenting. Sweet FA to do with religion. You get crap parents in all walks of life.
Posted by jackanapes (# 12374) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
If you concede that abusive tactics may be used when does it become important enough to object? One thousand cases per year, ten thousand, one hundred thousand?
I would have thought one case of abuse would give rise to objections.
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Children deserve unconditional love. If you can only bring yourself to show love to a child who obeys your every command, what kind of relationship do you have?
A very poor one. You've gone and got us all agreeing with you again!
I'm not sure that anyone here would disagree that it is possible for a parent to indoctrinate a child, or to put their own needs ahead of those of their kids. You seem to be saying that because some religious parents have difficulty in loving their children unconditionally, that all communication with children regarding a parent's faith is wrong.
I think it's the leap from the premise to the conclusion that needs more careful explanation.
[Cross-posted with goperryrevs who said it all more succintly]
[ 27. November 2010, 23:29: Message edited by: jackanapes ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yes the leap from "here is a fucked-up religious parent trying to inculcate religion in his daughter" to "all religious parents who try to inculcate religion in their daughters are fucked up" is an impressive leap of illogic. All that that example proves is that there are fucked-up parents trying to inculcate religion in their daughters. This does not prove that one cannot raise a child in the faith in a non-fucked-up way.
In other words, this example proves NOTHING and is therefore totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
quote:
“Dad, I’m an atheist.”
Posted by Susan Gail on April 23rd, 2008
I’m a teenager so of course I live with my parents. I have been raised in a very conservative Christian family. I was taught from the age of four that Christianity is the Way and the only Way, Christians go to heaven and non-Christians go to hell, the works. I didn’t see any other way nor did I know any other way.
The bulk of my indoctrination has come from my father. He is very hardcore. I’ve tried all my life to be good enough for him. I went on a mission trip and to various Christian camps because I wanted to be his perfect daughter. But there is no pleasing my dad. No matter what I did, I wasn’t good enough.
I was always one to ask questions. If there was a word said that I didn’t understand, I would ask what it meant. Growing up, there were so many times I wanted to question the teachings of my Sunday school class or my father’s after-dinner devotions. I held my tongue because I knew I wasn’t supposed to question the church and my dad most certainly wouldn’t approve. But some things just didn’t make sense to me. The Bible seemed to contradict itself so many times. I couldn’t stand it.
Continue reading here:
Dad I'm an Atheist
The obvious sign this girl wasn't a Christian from the git go is that all of her effort was to to please her Dad, not God, nor to seek after the love of God. IMO Dad was a failure as a parent who also failed to teach/indoctrinate real Christianity, not just his religion. As mousethief said you've just given one screwed up parent who failed to even pass on what Christianity really is. I've also seen atheist screw up parents, but I don't use them as an example. The daughter still made her own decision despite said screw up. She may make other choices as she continues on her path to adulthood. I think you've disproven your point.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Writchey
Nobody with any sense of the best interests of children can possibly object to criticisms of bad parenting, whether it manifests neglect or over-control. A failure to encourage the development of abilities to evaluate and make choices is I think a form of neglect, and an authoritarian "do this because I say so" represents over-control.
There is of course evidence that such neglect and over-control is to be found in the experiences of children who have religious parents. But surely the target should be the neglect and over-control, wherever it arises?
There are central values within Christianity for example (I gave the example of the selflessness and sacrificial nature of agape love) which can act perfectly well as a guard against, and a correction of, both neglect and over-control of children. There is a good deal more sense in pointing out to religious folks these central tenets of their faith which they are ignoring than to argue that it is the faith itself which is the problem.
That strikes me as a moral argument which is perfectly compatible with freethinking secular humanism you use as self-description. I think it's a heck of a lot more effective than any form of blanket "a plague on all your houses" type of argumentation.
But you seem to see things differently? Why? It's hardly a good example of free-thinking if your own take on it demonstrates such obvious category errors, coupled with (as it seems to me) a kind of blinkered evangelical zeal. Your thinking doesn't strike me as all that free.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Yes, sadly there are control freak parents in all walks of life, religious and secular. A friend of mine lied in order to go to Sunday School as a child because her dad would have made her life a misery if he'd known (This was a long time ago, but she tells the story often)
On the other hand, I do wonder if some sects encourage control freaks to join? Their view of God as a controlling and punishing God being the pull?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Reminds me of a speaker at Spring Harvest who observed that he had indeed spent time in a church where it seemed that everything was forbidden unless it was compulsory.
The nonco world I inhabit doesn't really take kindly to that type of enforced unity. Noncos are very often argumentative dissenters. It's what we do best, which is why we are so good at splitting. No false unity here, thank you very much! Get your hands off my Christian freedom!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
To those who complain they will not view a substantiating piece of information in the form of a brief video you should not be upset if I refuse to try to coddle your prejudice. How is referencing a video any different than quoting scripture is or referencing an article is to make a point?
You weren't making a point - the link was your whole point. That's not how discussion works. By the way, your whole approach is coddling my prejudice extremely well.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By the way, your whole approach is coddling my prejudice extremely well.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Bear in mind that my prejudice doesn't actually need the help either.
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
As far as labels, I don't subscribe to any except freethinking secular humanist. And, after thought, admirer of Charles Darwin.
To come back to how it is possible to know a child has been indoctrinated I would suggest that you need to look in the right place and ask the right people, apostates.
If I might be so bold as to reply as an apostate, then.
My parents were/are the sort of wishy-washy atheist secular humanists that one can probably find all across the Western world; today they'd probably be called Dawkin-Hitchenists, but back in the '60s and '70s they were merely hippies. As I grew up, they did their level best to indoctrinate me into their religious world-view. I recall rather well them telling me that life was only the here and now, and that we (humans) were nothing but a chance result of a massive explosion at the beginning of the universe. They also taught me that people who believed in a non-existent 'God' were both delusional and to be feared. Catholics, above all, were to be the most feared and reviled for all sorts of reasons which I shan't go into now.
I can say, in all honesty, that their attempts to indoctrinate/inculcate/brainwash me in to their metaphysical beliefs were leading me down a dangerous path until I grew out of the mythologies that they attempted to pass on to me, and in my early twenties I realised that there was more to life than nothing.
Although it nigh on broke my father's heart when I admitted that I had been baptised as a Roman Catholic, and that I embraced Christ as my Saviour, he is beginning to come to terms with it, although I do still have to forgive him for anti-Catholic rants every once in a while.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
How is referencing a video any different than quoting scripture is or referencing an article is to make a point?
Has anybody been quoting scripture on this thread to make a point?
I have close family members who had churchgoing backgrounds and don't go to church any longer, or who are atheists. We're all still friends. We're all talking to each other. (By the way, the word 'apostate' is perjorative to my mind. If you want to try to reclaim it, good for you, but I would consider it insulting and wouldn't use it.)
There is it seems to me a gap between taking children to Sunday school and teaching them to say prayers on the one hand and forbidding them to question the church or their parents and having them obey their every command. The one does not entail the other. Forbidding children to question or requiring them to obey every command are certainly abusive; but that doesn't prove anything about religious instruction of children as such.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Has anybody been quoting scripture on this thread to make a point?
To be fair, I did. Though referencing 1 Cor 13 as a prime source of Christian understanding about the meaning and nature of selfless sacrificial love was hardly a disputatious point. What I suppose may be arguable (if one lacks background) is my assertion that it is a central tenet, a central value. I guess you have to have a basic grasp of the faith to recognise the truth and the significance of that. It's just not a controversial point between Christians across the the denominations. Folks outside the faith might not understand that truth and its significance.
I suppose the difference is that merely linking to a video with some kind of general exhortation is, as mdijon points out, hardly a way of aiding discussion. Whereas I placed the scripture in a precise position in an argument about parental love and behaviour, Writchey just placed the video "on the table" as it were.
Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Writchey just placed the video "on the table" as it were.
Did anyone watch it, I wonder?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I did watch it, as I said, and found some things within it with which I agreed.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Max_Power:
(I)n my early twenties I realised that there was more to life than nothing.
As soon as flood control allows me, this goes in the Quotes file.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I did watch it, as I said, and found some things within it with which I agreed.
So did I, and likewise.
Its main premise that you should encourage your children, as they grow up, to test/question the beliefs/world views they encounter, including your own. There was nothing earth shattering about it, and no point that it made that couldn't have been stated (IMHO) in a sentence or two as part of a discussion.
I only really watched it as a displacement activity, and because I felt that in all honesty I couldn't comment on it without watching it. It spent rather a long time in getting its point across for something that was part of a discussion, though to be fair it was probably fine as an instructional video, which is what its author intended it for, I think.
As someone who also tends to question (and encourage my own children to do so) I did wonder what the unexamined presuppositions were. My guess is that the idea taken as axiomatic is that it is good/right to question beliefs. I agree, but on reflection I also wonder if there is a down side to that.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I agree, but on reflection I also wonder if there is a down side to that.
The downside was brought home to me forcibly on Friday.
I was helping to take part in a 'Scripture' lesson at an inner-city state high school in Sydney. (For those outside of Australia this was a termly seminar run by volunteers from local churches open to all kids for which parents had to opt out if they didn't want their kid to attend. This meant that each year group comprised about 100 kids some of which came from Christian families but most of whom had parents / guardians who couldn't be bothered to return the opt out note.)
Throughout the seminar we kept on stressing (rightly IMO) that it was up to them to decide and that we weren't trying to indoctrinate them at all but rather encourage them to make their own mind up about it. Most of the time was spent in discussion groups listening to their questions.
However, after one group in particular I reflected on the whole 'you just make your own mind up about it' thing. For most of the kids in my group that wasn't actually what they needed to hear. They assume that already. At the vast age of 14 they assume they know everything. Not just on religious matters but on all subjects my experience and education counted for nothing. For example it is mildly amusing to be lectured on science by a 14 year old when one has a Chemistry degree.
Surely there is a balance here? Yes we need to equip children to make their own decisions but also we should teach them that the best way to learn is to listen to those who know more than we do. Isn't that the down side of which BroJames speaks?
[ 29. November 2010, 11:51: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example it is mildly amusing to be lectured on science by a 14 year old when one has a Chemistry degree.
Surely there is a balance here?
I think the best way of dealing with this is to challenge them on what they say - demonstrate that you know what you're talking about and can deal with their objections without directly appealing to your authority. I think they'll be more likely to respond to that than assertions of authority in any case, even if you could make them.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, after one group in particular I reflected on the whole 'you just make your own mind up about it' thing. For most of the kids in my group that wasn't actually what they needed to hear. They assume that already.
I think the point of saying it isn't to let them know that. The point is to let them know that you know that.
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
To those who complain they will not view a substantiating piece of information in the form of a brief video you should not be upset if I refuse to try to coddle your prejudice. How is referencing a video any different than quoting scripture is or referencing an article is to make a point?
The problem is that with an article one to skim read it quickly if necessary and if you're reading this discussion and it's online then you'll be able to read it. A 10 minute video takes 10 minutes and can't be skim read and requires more technology than this site. I don't follow links to videos because the computer I'm using generally doesn't have working sound so there's not a lot of point trying to watch a video with a soundtrack!
quote:
Children deserve unconditional love. If you can only bring yourself to show love to a child who obeys your every command, what kind of relationship do you have?
Agree completely and unconditional love is what Christianity is about. Unfortunately us sinful humans ain't very good at it a lot of the time!
Carys
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I agree. One of the most salutary lessons any of us ever learns is to take our own ignorance and fallibility seriously. Ignorance and arrogance are close bedfellows. Hard to get across in any culture given over to self-fulfillment and "you're worth it".
I think I've said this before on the Ship. A Christian of my acquaintance working at a College of Further Education was marking a student's essay (on a matter of philosophy and ethics) which was laced with comments about the virtue of self-fulfilment. He put a sidenote against one of the comments which asked "What about self-denial?" Got his head in his hands in the subsequent tutorial! All kinds of stuff about antique morality, masochistic tendencies etc! Observed to me afterwards, with a grin. "Just wait til she has children!"
(xpost page turn! Agreeing with Johnny S and BroJames)
[ 29. November 2010, 14:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
It is hard for me to fathom anyone using a computer on line today that cannot play streaming video. If you lack that capability, you are missing so much of the on-line experience.
Currently the trend here in the US is to blend television and the internet in such a way that you can view streamed videos from internet libraries with your television/broadband apparatus: YouTube in you living room, that sort of thing. Depending on your system, you can receive full high definition picture and sound. The very latest television technology is 3D.
A well equipped Lenova (formerly IBM) notebook computer is selling now for $299 US dollars. Besides the capacity to hook into streaming video it has a built in web camera.
Don't you think it might be time for an upgrade? It is the season to shop. Go buy yourself a new computer. To hell with austerity. You deserve a new computer. Sell some gold you've been hoarding.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
It is hard for me to fathom anyone using a computer on line today that cannot play streaming video. If you lack that capability, you are missing so much of the on-line experience.
Talking of on-line experience, there's discussion as well.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
It is hard for me to fathom anyone using a computer on line today that cannot play streaming video. If you lack that capability, you are missing so much of the on-line experience.
Currently the trend here in the US is to blend television and the internet in such a way that you can view streamed videos from internet libraries with your television/broadband apparatus: YouTube in you living room, that sort of thing. Depending on your system, you can receive full high definition picture and sound. The very latest television technology is 3D.
A well equipped Lenova (formerly IBM) notebook computer is selling now for $299 US dollars. Besides the capacity to hook into streaming video it has a built in web camera.
Don't you think it might be time for an upgrade? It is the season to shop. Go buy yourself a new computer. To hell with austerity. You deserve a new computer. Sell some gold you've been hoarding.
If you're trying to make a point in a discussion, it's good manners to just make that point. Rather, you'd have us take 10 minutes to watch a video that can apparently be summed up in two sentences. I'm glad I didn't watch the video - not from having an incapable machine, but because it would have wasted my time.
It's not great manners to tell somebody they're behind the times when they are participating on a discussion forum which is purposely behind the times (i.e. text only).
I'm sorry if these things weren't obvious when you joined here.
[ 29. November 2010, 15:01: Message edited by: pjkirk ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
OK, everyone. Enough talk about talking. Back to the topic or take it to Hell.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
I'm a little bit surprised that nobody has mentioned confirmation/adult baptism/rumspringa in this thread (at least not first or last 3 pages which I've read).
These seem to me to be at least a nod to what Yorick is so concerned about - an implicit recognition that these decisions of church membership should be made as somebody with more advanced mental faculties.*
Am I off the mark here?
*Though I do find it laughable that, from my understanding, the RCC thinks this is acheived at 7 years old.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
It is hard for me to fathom anyone using a computer on line today that cannot play streaming video. If you lack that capability, you are missing so much of the on-line experience.
You are assuming that everyone has the money and interest to update their computer every so often.
Many use computers for word processing and e mails only.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
I'm a little bit surprised that nobody has mentioned confirmation/adult baptism/rumspringa in this thread (at least not first or last 3 pages which I've read).
These seem to me to be at least a nod to what Yorick is so concerned about - an implicit recognition that these decisions of church membership should be made as somebody with more advanced mental faculties.*
Am I off the mark here?
*Though I do find it laughable that, from my understanding, the RCC thinks this is acheived at 7 years old.
I was confirmed at age 12 after a year-long course in my United Methodist church that included studying and visiting worship services of other denominations and religions.
I stood up in front of the church in a little blue and white dress, and with a group of eight of my peers swore I believed in God the Father, Jesus Christ his only Son, and the Holy Spirit.
(Just that, btw. We didn't do the whole Nicene Creed.)
I was lying through my braces when I swore that, because at that moment in time, I did not believe in God. It wasn't my parents, though, who were pressuring me. They offered me the option to quit frequently, even the night before.
Nope, it was my 12 and 13 year old peers who were pressuring me.
So the moral of the story is it's not just parents who influence such decisions, it can also be cultural and influenced by the thought of a party and cake and gifts.
I became a believer a year or two later, and I'm glad now I am a member of a church that gives you several opportunities throughout the year to renew the Baptismal Covenant. It's a check-in, in my mind, so that I can test it out and say, "Yep, I still believe this and I'm still going to do my best to live like this."
[ 29. November 2010, 20:46: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
When I was a social worker I worked with lots and lots of children that were brought up by parents that made no effort to impart values like what's right and wrong, important or unimportant, true or false to their children.
Let's just say they didn't look at the world with the clarity of impartial judgment that Yorick proposes.
Zach
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
I'm a little bit surprised that nobody has mentioned confirmation/adult baptism/rumspringa in this thread (at least not first or last 3 pages which I've read).
Well spotted.
RC, Orthodox and C of E all indoctrinate but Baptists have got it right.
Was that what you were after?
(As easy as a double century at the Gabba.)
More seriously. Freedom of religion is one central tenet of non-conformity.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Johnny S
Well, as a card-carrying Anabaptist, who am I to argue with that? But of course being a nonconformist I will!
Johnny S, in theory you are right. Dissenters, nonconformists, all spring from the same root of freedom of conscience in the face of a religious authority with which they disagreed. Some died by proclaiming that. We should never forget that.
But of course we do forget. Or at least some of us. But not me, sir. And certainly not when bringing up my children. "A man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still".
The church that I referred to earlier, where the experience of the Spring Harvest speaker (as a young convert) was that "everything was forbidden, unless compulsory" was by denominational stamp impeccably nonconformist, and practised believers' baptism. We have far from a perfect track record, sunshine.
[But the cricket reference was good! O Yes!]
[ 29. November 2010, 21:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
J We have far from a perfect track record, sunshine.
Too true.
I thought that the smilie showed that my last comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek - i.e. (as you said) it is true that Baptists are supposed to stand for this, but it doesn't mean they always do.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
And speaking of far from perfect track records ...
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
It is hard for me to fathom anyone using a computer on line today that cannot play streaming video. If you lack that capability, you are missing so much of the on-line experience.
Currently the trend here in the US is to blend television and the internet in such a way that you can view streamed videos from internet libraries with your television/broadband apparatus: YouTube in you living room, that sort of thing. Depending on your system, you can receive full high definition picture and sound. The very latest television technology is 3D.
A well equipped Lenova (formerly IBM) notebook computer is selling now for $299 US dollars. Besides the capacity to hook into streaming video it has a built in web camera.
Don't you think it might be time for an upgrade? It is the season to shop. Go buy yourself a new computer. To hell with austerity. You deserve a new computer. Sell some gold you've been hoarding.
Following tclune's general Hostly steer back onto issues, we've had a further discussion about this post and want to make a more specific point.
Writchey
This kind of gratuitous, heavy handed and condescending advice to any Shipmate about RL matters contravenes our normal standards for Commandment 3 and Purgatory guideline 3. Unless they specifically seek advice (more likely on All Saints) Shipmates Real Life choices, including Finances and IT choices, are their own business. Carys was giving you information, not inviting such advice.
We make due allowance for your inexperience in not giving you a full formal warning, but you are skating on very thin ice. Watch it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
The concept of universal child rights is of recent origin. Because of the overwhelming historical influence of male chauvinism and patriarchal privilege, children were never considered as persons imbued with natural rights. Children have seperable rights from their parents and there is a clear conflict between children's rights and parents rights in US law. What is the situation in the UK? Are there any serious efforts at disestablishment and how would that change the status of children.
Here is the concluding paragraph of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This is a landmark legal document that became the basis of our first amendment free exercise and establishment clauses.
quote:
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
At the time this was authored children were considered the property of their parents to do with what they wished. There are still parents stuck in the 18th century that regard their children as their personal property. But the rest of us have moved on because we can see where proprietary parents step all over the rights of their children when they "compel [them] to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever..."
What if Jefferson and Madison had realized that children have the same natural rights as their parents, regardless of whether they have the understanding and power to exercise such rights? The statue would have read:
"No man or child shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship....,"
A natural right is one that nobody can mess with. Such rights are enumerated in human rights documents and they are set in stone. They apply to everyone.
Furthermore there is no such thing as an equivalent parent's natural right, extremist religionists to the contrary. Does anyone know differently?
If it is wrong to compel adults to worship a certain religion, why is it OK to compel a child?
Virginia statue
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
...
If it is wrong to compel adults to worship a certain religion, why is it OK to compel a child?
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
quote:
Article 14
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
This clearly gives parents the right to "inculcate".
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Paraphrasing Yorick:
My basic assumptions are as follows:
a) Atheist parents tend to want their children to become Atheists
b) All parents can influence their children to adopt their worldview
c) Atheist parents tend to try to influence their children not to adopt Christianity
d) People are more likely to be Atheists if their parents are Atheist.
e) There is a causal link between deliberate parental influence and uptake of Atheism.
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
I don't doubt your sincerity in thinking that the world would be a better place without the church, which you believe to the extent of trying to talk people you have never even met out of their faith. It is therefore inconceivable to me that you do not, or would not, take certain steps to prevent the "uptake of Christianity" in one of your own children.
As far as ethical and responsible parenthood is concerned, I have no problem with that at all. It would be more suspicious if you failed to do so, like the proverbial cobbler whose children are left to go barefoot.
[ 30. November 2010, 18:50: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?
What doesn't make sense to me is why atheists are so much better at their indoctrination than we are...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
[QB] The concept of universal child rights is of recent origin. Because of the overwhelming historical influence of male chauvinism and patriarchal privilege, children were never considered as persons imbued with natural rights.
What's it got to do with "male chauvinism and patriarchal privilage"? Were there thousands of women clamouring for better children's rights? Also it seems a big exaggeration to say that children were considered their parents' property to do with as they chose, as you said. Do you really think if a parent in the 18th Century murdered their child everyone would have thought it normal because the child was their property? Do you really think love of children was only invented (presumably by women) recently?
Your quotation from Jefferon and Madison is irrelevant, people until recently used the term "man" just to mean "human being".
Having said that it is true children's rights are generally more explicitly acknowledged and more universally respected, which is a good thing.
[ 30. November 2010, 20:45: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Well for a start it doesn't require you to get up on a Sunday morning, sing music you don't like, give over half your spare time you could have been spending with you friends or carrying out your hobbies, and has less public instances of blatant hypocrisy.
[crosspost]
[ 30. November 2010, 20:44: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
T
If it is wrong to compel adults to worship a certain religion, why is it OK to compel a child?
Don't forget that childhood lasts quite along time. There is a big difference between a very young child and a teenager. A young child does not know what is good for them and it is entirely the parents responsibility to socialize them. With older children have less responsibility and obviously more freedom for the child should naturally go hand in hand with that. A baby is very much a part of it's mother before it is born. After it is born attachment theory suggests that the baby needs to remain securely attached to it's parents. In our individualistic society we tend to see each body as independent but according to attachment theory this is incorrect. Even adults need secure attachment but the difference is that they can choose who they are attached to. A child is not in a position to make that choice and so it is both right and appropriate that a securely attached child learns to understand the world from it's parents point of view.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Children have seperable rights from their parents and there is a clear conflict between children's rights and parents rights in US law. What is the situation in the UK? Are there any serious efforts at disestablishment and how would that change the status of children.
I am not going to attempt the first question but I am not aware of any serious efforts at disestablishment and, even if there were, given that this govt seems to be as keen on faith schools as the previous, I do not think it would change the status of children at all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's wrong for me to force an adult to eat certain foods. To prevent an adult from going wherever they want whenever they want. To insist that an adult go to a certain educational institution of my choosing even though I am not directly paying for their education. To limit which friends they are allowed to see, and for how long.
Children are not adults. I should have thought that was obvious.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
A natural right is one that nobody can mess with. Such rights are enumerated in human rights documents and they are set in stone. They apply to everyone.
Two comments.
1) Not everyone believes in natural rights. Some of us believe that the only rights are positive rights - rights granted by a real existing law. ('Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts' - Jeremy Bentham, an atheist.) If a law says 'all men have rights' then it doesn't say 'all men and children'. If it's not written down in a legal document, it's not valid in law and it confers no right - certainly so if you don't believe in God.
Obviously, if there aren't any natural rights (or even if there are?) believers in natural rights shouldn't impose their beliefs on people who recognise them for the confused nonsense that they are.
2) The parents' right (in positive law) to educate their child is a right they hold against the State, churches, and their neighbours. It is not a right they hold against their child. The right is granted on the assumption that parents are better placed than anyone else - certainly better placed than the state - to speak on behalf of their child. Or else, that the child may be presumed to wish to be raised in the religious opinions of his or her parents until the child decides otherwise. To claim that children ought to be presumed to wish to be raised with no religious or humanist values until they decide otherwise is not I think obvious to neutral unbiased observers.
The problem with the concept of right here is that a right is something one claims against something else. By talking about parents' rights and childrens' rights one has already slipped in the idea that they are in conflict. The talk of rights here is mere rhetoric: the conclusion has already been hidden within the premise.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
Well said, Dafyd. Very well said.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I would suggest yet another interpretation of "natural rights"--one can believe that rights are "natural" (in some sense of that much-abused word) without believing that they inhere in individuals. I would suggest that rights are a property of relationships, and the rights children have in relation to their parents are very different from the rights adult citizens have in relation to the state. Children's rights are primarily the right to be loved and nurtured--and nurturing includes teaching them how to live. That means that parents have a duty to teach their children, to the best of their ability, how to live in the world as they understand it. To teach children that they should have no opinions about metaphysical matters until they are 14? 21? is to teach them that such things are not really important (it's not as if you could keep them in a box where they would never learn that religion exists--though that would amount to the same thing). There is NO SUCH THING AS NEUTRAL. The closest you can come is to say "This is what I believe--other people have different beliefs."
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
You need not make any presumptions about what a child would wish for their future to see that their right to an open future is seriously abrogated by what happens to them in the context of current indoctrination practice. Parents simply consign their children and afterwords often play only a subsidiary role in the indoctrination process. It is easy to find religious authorities on record who complain that parents are too lax in this regard. I have case histories of people whose parents did not even attend church services, yet they submitted their children thinking it was the noble and correct thing expected of them. An example of parent centric thinking and hereditary religion in action.
Let us try to envision the process from the vantage point of a three year old toddler, the age that serious efforts of indoctrination typically begin. Your parents, who you implicitly trust, lead you through the imposing doors of a towering building. In time you will meet scores of members of the congregation; the cleric in charge, the choir master, ushers, bus drivers, youth pastors or counselors, Sunday school teachers, camp counselors, and other children. All the people you meet are privy to the indoctrination program and most have probably been through the mill. They are all friendly and comforting and many will profess their love for you though they barely know you. The auditorium where you are taken is equipped with a state of the art sound and light system. There is a choir and an organist or other musicians and the entire experience is meant to impress, even overwhelm the people in the auditorium. No doubt you will witness adults around yourself waving their hands, perhaps weeping and showing great emotion at the proceedings. In many churches, the children are invited to come to the alter for some special attention by the head cleric in charge. They are fawned and fussed over and made to feel special. You learn that you are being watched over by supernatural beings 24/7. Some are protective, but others have a malicious intent. Pretty strong treatment for a child with no intellectual defenses and a poor grasp on reality.
At all times the child is surrounded by a member of the indoctrination team. Questions or resistance are quickly and firmly dealt with. It is not the case that just the parents are in conflict with the child's right to an open future. The entire institutional apparatus is in conflict with the child. There is no escape and no respite for some until they reach their majority. I know this from having studied hundreds of personal narratives.
Maybe parents are not so concerned about their children as we like to think. Do they even closely examine their motives? There is this presumption that parents must push their kids into church to obtain a moral education. Where does that come from, why is it so strong, and should we not question such assumptions? (Religions get their morality from culture, and supposed supernatural direction simply adds an added layer of complexity.)
Family Law professor James Dwyer writes:
quote:
"But in any case, to see the parents as simply misguided about the child's true interests is, I think, to put too generous a construction on it. For it is not at all clear that parents when
they take control of their children's spiritual and intellectual lives really do believe they are acting in the child's best interests rather than their own. Abraham when he was commanded by God on the mountain to kill his son, Isaac, and dutifully went ahead with the preparation, was surely not thinking of what was best for Isaac – he was thinking of his own relationship with God. And so on down the ages. Parents have used and still use their children to bring themselves spiritual or social benefits: dressing them up, educating them, baptizing them, bringing them to confirmation or Bah Mitzvah in order to maintain their own social and religious standing.
Consider again the analogy with circumcision. No one should make the mistake of supposing that female circumcision, in those places where it's practiced, is done to benefit the
girl. Rather, it is done for the honour of the family, to demonstrate the parents' commitment to a tradition, to save them from dishonour. Although I would not push the analogy too far, I think the motivation of the parents is not so different at many other levels of parental manipulation – even when it comes to such apparently unselfish acts as deciding what a child should or should not learn in school.
A Christian Fundamentalist mother, for example, forbids her child from attending classes on evolution: though she may claim she is doing it for the child and not of course
herself, she is very likely motivated primarily by a desire to make a display of her own purity. Doesn't she just know that God is mighty proud of her for conforming to His will? . . The chief mullah of Saudi Arabia proclaims that the Earth is flat and that anyone who teaches otherwise is a friend of Satan : won't he himself be thrice blessed by Allah for making this courageous stand? A group of rabbis in Jerusalem try to ban the showing of the film Jurassic Park on the grounds that it may give children the idea that there were dinosaurs living on earth sixty million years ago, when the scriptures state that in fact the world is just six thousand years old are they not making a wonderful public demonstration of their own piety? What we are seeing, as often as not, is pure self interest. In which case, we should not even allow a mitigating plea of good intentions on the part of the parent or other responsible adult. They are looking after none other than themselves.
Yet, as I said, in the end it hardly matters what the parents' intentions are. Because even the best of intentions would not be sufficient to buy them "parental rights" over their children. Indeed the very idea that parents or any other adults have "rights" over children is morally insupportable.
No human being, in any other circumstances, is credited with having rights over any one else. No one is entitled, as of right, to control, use or direct the life-course of another
person – even for objectively good ends. It's true that in the past slave-owners had such legal rights over their slaves. And it's true too that, until comparatively recently, the anomaly
persisted of husbands having certain such rights over their wives – the right to have sex with them, for instance. But neither of these exceptions provides a good model for regulating
parent-child relationships.
Children, to repeat, have to be considered as having interests independent of their parents. They cannot be subsumed as if they were part of the same person. At least so it
should be. Unless, that is, we make the extraordinary mistake that the US Supreme Court apparently did when it ruled, in relation to the Amish, that while the Amish way of life may be considered "odd or even erratic" it "interferes with no rights or interests of others" (my italics). As if the children of the Amish are not even to be counted as potentially "others".
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
A strange article, Writchey, that somewhat undermines your argument for neutrality.
Take this example:-
quote:
though she may claim she is doing it for the child and not of course
herself, she is very likely motivated primarily by a desire to make a display of her own purity. Doesn't she just know that God is mighty proud of her for conforming to His will?
He presumes to know the (self-interested) motive of the mother and then draws a conclusion from it. I guess he could argue that it is his hypothetical scenario and hence the assumption is accurate, but then it just becomes a construction of little significance.
This example is a legal nonsense. To argue on the basis of motivation you are required to provide some evidence regarding the thoughts and opinions of the agents involved. This he does not do, merely supposing that her understanding is a child-like pat on the head for being a good girl and suggests it is likely. Are we on balance of probabilities here - in which case, I think it is more likely that mothers act out of maternal love.
The Prof must then either: a> assert that all parental action in matter religious is out of self interest and his analysis has this bias; or b> accept that his scenario does not cover all cases and that child centred religious instruction is possible.
Option a> leaves you no further forward. Option b> completely undermines your case. - What do you want?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
What is quite amusing about this line of argument in the UK context is the way it doesn't stack up statistically. I was hoping to get some online access to stats from Peter Brierley's "The Tide is Running Out" but had to settle for this link. [I'm not that bothered about the associated argumentation in this link BTW.]
The link does contain the following comment which I think is well borne out in Peter Brierley's detailed analysis.
quote:
The order in which each age group declines in attendance suggests that the steep increase in the percentage of people 65 and over is caused by a steep fall in attendance of the <15, 16-19, and 20-29 age groups.
If actions by churches and Christian parents were generally coercive, then how is this pattern of declining attendance by young people to be explained? Maybe from some POV they "saw the light" i.e. that the church is antique and irrelevant to their lives, peddling wishful thinking as truth? But even if so, there does not appear to have been too much "in the way" of them "seeing the light". Their abilities to choose for themselves (the nub of the argument against indoctrination) do not seem to have been generally impaired. And as that is the heart of your argument, Writchey, this evidence hardly suggests a general risk.
Of course I agree that there are indeed folks of religious persuasion who succeed in brainwashing their children by coercive strategies and tactics. But if the stats in the UK are anything to go by, you are simply looking at exceptional evidence and asserting it represents commonplace practice and a commonplace danger to children, indeed a danger which would justify a legislative change. That is a stupid argument.
Put another way, if indeed there is over-controlling indoctrination going on generally, it is either very ineffective or remarkably counter-productive - at least in the UK. Young people are making their own choices and many are voting with their feet. And to judge from a recent thread in Purg started by Josephine, in the US as well.
[ 01. December 2010, 10:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Let us try to envision the process from the vantage point of a three year old toddler, the age that serious efforts of indoctrination typically begin. Your parents, who you implicitly trust, lead you through the imposing doors of a towering building. In time you will meet scores of members of the congregation; the cleric in charge, the choir master, ushers, bus drivers, youth pastors or counselors, Sunday school teachers, camp counselors, and other children. All the people you meet are privy to the indoctrination program and most have probably been through the mill. They are all friendly and comforting and many will profess their love for you though they barely know you. The auditorium where you are taken is equipped with a state of the art sound and light system. There is a choir and an organist or other musicians and the entire experience is meant to impress, even overwhelm the people in the auditorium. No doubt you will witness adults around yourself waving their hands, perhaps weeping and showing great emotion at the proceedings. In many churches, the children are invited to come to the alter for some special attention by the head cleric in charge. They are fawned and fussed over and made to feel special. You learn that you are being watched over by supernatural beings 24/7. Some are protective, but others have a malicious intent. Pretty strong treatment for a child with no intellectual defenses and a poor grasp on reality.
At all times the child is surrounded by a member of the indoctrination team. Questions or resistance are quickly and firmly dealt with.
The point of view from which you describe an experience inevitably colours the description of it. Although your description is ostensibly from the POV of a three year old child, it is very strongly coloured by your adult perception of the experience of church-going as one of being subjected to indoctrination. Also there are, I suspect, pond difference issues which mean that, even allowing for your particular perspective, parts of your description simply do not correlate to my own UK experience.
Let us change the colour of the lens through which we view the process. I have had a go at the same exercise from my own perspective. I'm not claiming that it is any more unbiased than yours.
quote:
By the time you're three you're already familiar with the building you walk into. It may well be the first large space in which a year or two back you exercised a new-found ability to walk. You encounter a mixed group of adults and children. Many of them are people you are familiar with and address by name – perhaps even their first name.
They are friendly and concerned for your well being. You will hear a lot about a God who loves you deeply, about Jesus who also loves you, and who knows what it is like to go through the same kind of experiences you go through.
If you have questions about what goes on people do their best to answer them.
The adults around you sit or stand or kneel for worship. They sing, they pray together. Some may raise their hands while singing others do not. Your parents encourage you to join in and take part. Disruption or loud talking during worship is discouraged, but if you have questions afterwards then your parents try to answer them.
The only question I want to ask is on what grounds do we argue that your account is true and mine is distorted, or vice versa.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Writchey, you goof. What kind of church have you encountered, that has scores of people in the leadership alone, including bus drivers and camp counselors; a state of the art sound and light system; and shows of great emotion every Sunday?
All I can say is such a church would be in the extreme minority. As for the average church, "small," "financially struggling," and "terminally disorganized" are the words that come to mind. Our strength, wealth, and love are all in the God that we have; from a human standpoint, we all should have failed centuries ago.
If you should happen to be U.S. based, drop me a line and you can come visit us. We meet in a basement classroom on folding chairs. (We do have state-of-the-art incandescent bulbs, though. )
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
LC, I'm really encouraged by your post. I'm sure there are pond differences but your church sounds like ours. (Our bulbs are state of the art low energy though)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for the average church, "small," "financially struggling," and "terminally disorganized" are the words that come to mind.
Ain't that the truth ..
I read that, chuckled. It so reminded me of the loveable, loving, scruffy, kindly, lot I associate with. Mind you, state of the art incandescent lightbulbs sounds a bit questionable. Are they eco-friendly long-life?
[xposted with BroJames who is not my sockpuppet, nor am I his!]
[ 01. December 2010, 11:37: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
You need not make any presumptions about what a child would wish for their future to see that their right to an open future is seriously abrogated by what happens to them in the context of current indoctrination practice.
Sorry - you have not established that this 'right to an open future' exists. Such a putative right would be interfered with equally by bringing up the child in any determinate culture at all. Since you do not object to bringing up children in any determinate culture - and you couldn't intelligibly do so - you cannot believe that such a right exists.
There's a moral obligation on parents to bring up children in such a way that they are open-minded and self-critical as adults. But that doesn't establish a right, as can be seen (below) from considering what would be required to enforce such a right. Furthermore, you have not established that religious upbringing as such interferes with such a right. You have so far only considered the case of extreme fundamentalist religions, and of them you have cited the case histories of people who have left those religions. Everyone of your case history is of someone whose powers of independent judgement were not in the end compromised.
quote:
Maybe parents are not so concerned about their children as we like to think. Do they even closely examine their motives?
If it comes to that, are we supposed to believe that the atheist campaigners against 'indoctrination' are so concerned about other people's children as they would like us to think? That the atheist campaigners aren't rather motivated by the desire to see themselves as valiant crusaders against the religious evil? by vicarious revenge on their parents? by the desire to prove to themselves that only people who have been 'indoctrinated' fail to see their rightness?
If we're going to drop the general presumption of good faith, it won't be the parents who get hurt hardest.
Now I personally would rather children not be brought up in fundamentalist religions. The thing is, do I see that as a social evil that outweighs the inconvenience of outlawing it? And outlawing it is certainly the greater evil. Firstly, it could not be enforced without taking children from parents on a scale beyond the ability of any imaginable social service to cope. Secondly, it could not be enforced without a degree of intrusion into private life that is not acceptable. Thirdly, first they came for the communists' children, but I was not a communist so I did not speak out. If you grant the government the ability to determine what a parent may and may not teach, you grant the government far too much power.
Children do break away from fundamentalist religions. Totalitarian governments are harder to shift.
quote:
quote:
No human being, in any other circumstances, is credited with having rights over any one else. No one is entitled, as of right, to control, use or direct the life-course of another person – even for objectively good ends.
Is the professor claiming that vegetarian parents cannot bring up their children as vegetarians? Or that meat-eating parents cannot feed their children meat? That parents cannot bring their children up in their parents culture? Or instruct their children in politics? That the parents cannot choose which school to send their children to?
The professor is certainly engaged in special pleading here.
quote:
quote:
Unless, that is, we make the extraordinary mistake that the US Supreme Court apparently did when it ruled, in relation to the Amish, that while the Amish way of life may be considered "odd or even erratic" it "interferes with no rights or interests of others" (my italics). As if the children of the Amish are not even to be counted as potentially "others".
'Others' here surely means people outside the Amish way of life. And what the professor is complaining about is the children are not outside the Amish way of life.
But this does raise another question. Is it more of an interference in a child's upbringing to bring them up as an Amish, or to bring them up exposed to modern advertising? to modern ideas about warfare and military honour? to the persistent assumption in our media and culture that the measure of human worth is how much we earn and the measure of happiness is how much we consume? You complained in your post about the emotional effects of a conservative evangelical mega-church; but you seem quite complacent about the much more expensive and more insidious effects of modern advertising?
[ 01. December 2010, 11:22: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Many religionists appear to feel threatened by the inexorable and rapidly accelerating rise of secularism in the developed world. Fair enough, I suppose. As a result, I think, I’ve noticed an unmistakeable smell of self-interested defensiveness in their approach to any question (however academic) of the moral principles of indoctrinating children into religion, doubtless because they’re so frightened of the risks of ensuring children actually do have true freedom of choice- i.e., that they will choose not to follow the religion. Truth is, despite their parents’ best efforts to indoctrinate them, more and more young people are finding their broader socio-cultural freedoms permit them to defy and reject that indoctrination. It’s a sick joke that some here have offered this as a defence of the practice, submitting it as refutation of the effectiveness or even existence of parental indoctrination by claiming it doesn’t work anyway.
I’ve come to the heart-sickened opinion that honest and open grown-up discussion with religionists about the moral principles of intentional indoctrination is practically impossible because of this odorous militancy, which is a pity. Happily enough, though, I think their morbid fears about the eventual demise of the influence of religions on peoples freedoms are well enough founded, so ultimately it shouldn’t matter all that much.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Will we be required here to let our children decide for themselves if lying, stealing, and malice are right or wrong?
Zach
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Irrelevant. Parental influence and education in other things is not the same as religious indoctrination. But it’s okay- I understand why you don’t want to answer the question.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It’s a sick joke that some here have offered this as a defence of the practice, submitting it as refutation of the effectiveness or even existence of parental indoctrination by claiming it doesn’t work anyway.
Wow, Yorick! You appear to have lost the ability to scan. AFAICT, it wasn't "some", sunshine, that was me. [And of course that wasn't exactly what I said, was it? But that's another matter]
Have you ever heard of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"? Tell me, what must I do to be saved from this tendency to pernicious practice which you perceive and about which you are so concerned? Which particular scales do you see in my posts which are obscuring my vision?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Will we be required here to let our children decide for themselves if lying, stealing, and malice are right or wrong?
Absolutely - of course they have to decide for themselves. They can't just take your word for it.
And they do. I meet children every day who try out lying, stealing and malice - they then discover the consequences of such.
We learn far more by experience than simply being told what's what.
Interestingly I find it's the children with the most rigid, controlling parents find life the hardest when it comes to living and learning at school.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve come to the heart-sickened opinion that honest and open grown-up discussion with religionists about the moral principles of intentional indoctrination is practically impossible because of this odorous militancy, which is a pity.
Are you sure you're not just smelling your own arse?
--Tom Clune
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve come to the heart-sickened opinion that honest and open grown-up discussion with religionists about the moral principles of intentional indoctrination is practically impossible because of this odorous militancy, which is a pity.
Are you sure you're not just smelling your own arse?
--Tom Clune
There has been much intelligent conversation on both sides in this thread, but the OP has sidestepped many of the questions posted to him and instead now states the other side is immature and brainwashed. Perhaps he should re-read the thread and do a little introspection instead of being unhappy that not everyone agrees with him.
[ 01. December 2010, 12:45: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’ve come to the heart-sickened opinion that honest and open grown-up discussion with religionists about the moral principles of intentional indoctrination is practically impossible because of this odorous militancy, which is a pity
Interestingly enough, over the years I've come to a similar conclusion, but in the other direction (that any atheist who starts in on this debate has already pre-judged everything, has a set of pet axioms which aren't open to challenge, and won't engage in actual discussion or debate as to why their axioms ain't necessarily so). This thread initially appeared to be a little more productive, but seems to have levelled out around the usual position.
Interestingly, AFAICS in this thread there's been a lot of unreserved agreement with the position that "indoctrination" (brainwashing, coercion, restriction of questioning, etc.) is immoral/bad, not least because it is not an expression of loving, responsible, 'whole' parenting. However, in other areas it comes back to what mdijon (I think) said: at some points on the continuum, one man's "indoctrination (brainwashing)" is another man's "indoctrination (teaching and education)". Fundamentally, it seems that you're not prepared to acknowledge that - OK, it gets a bit of lip service now and again, but then shortly appears to get discarded with a reversion to the more extreme position.
Maybe it's just one of those things that everyone's too close to, and it's too tied up in worldview, so one simply can't really see the basis on which "the other" operates, and it becomes a head-meet-desk exercise for all parties. Maybe that's why it often seems to degenerate into a bunch of straw men/parody/charicature arguments; blind supposition and assumption asserted as axioms; hard cases making bad law; and a feeling that it's not so much a dialogue as a series of faintly bemused and occasionally frustrated monologues
I guess the root cause of the impasse is that whilst we may share a number of values (love=good, murder=bad etc.) the core of the worldview is fundamentally different (God, no god) and there's only so far most people can go at suspending their own worldview in analysing alternatives, let alone accommodating them.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tell me, what must I do to be saved from this tendency to pernicious practice which you perceive and about which you are so concerned?
I wasn’t referring specifically to you, btw, but since you ask, I have a question. Do you dispute that parents can avoid deliberately intending to indoctrinate their children in their (religious) worldview?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tell me, what must I do to be saved from this tendency to pernicious practice which you perceive and about which you are so concerned?
I wasn’t referring specifically to you, btw, but since you ask, I have a question. Do you dispute that parents can avoid deliberately intending to indoctrinate their children in their (religious) worldview?
No - and yes. I agree that any parent can and should avoid telling a child that "my beliefs" are the only ones which exist. I also agree that there is much to be said for providing children with information of, and experience of, the beliefs of others.
But the one thing that no-one can avoid is being themselves. World views are pervasive, affecting thoughts, speech and actions. And each of has, with varying levels of worked-outness, a world view which conditions us. I said earlier that a central value for me which I believe in completely and seek to both proclaim and live out is selfless love (the characteristic "agape" of Christianity) and I claim that it is precisely that value which has acted, and continues to act, as a guard against me "insisting on my own way" in the rearing of children. So my kids could not help "catching" at least some of that in the way my wife and I acted and talked. That is a matter of indoctrination and example and I freely admit to it.
Using that as an example, however, you get to a specific point which is worth making clear. Yes, it is a central Christian value but I have never claimed that only Christians are capable of expressing unselfish love, or that Christians express it with perfect consistency. To say either of those things would be a denial of the truth of things, both as I understand my faith, and as I have experienced life. My deepest desire remains the same however. That more people would live that way more consistently.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Irrelevant. Parental influence and education in other things is not the same as religious indoctrination.
Why not? Seriously -- why is it different? How does teaching a child to be religious constrain their future choices any more or less than teaching a child to be vegetarian?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
B62, with respect, you haven’t answered the question.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Irrelevant. Parental influence and education in other things is not the same as religious indoctrination.
Why not? Seriously -- why is it different? How does teaching a child to be religious constrain their future choices any more or less than teaching a child to be vegetarian?
This is one question Yorick has avoided answering from the beginning. I'd also like to see his answer.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
How does teaching a child to be religious constrain their future choices any more or less than teaching a child to be vegetarian?
I’m not the least bit interested in the parental inculcation of vegetarianism, or party politics, or football club fanhood. That's not what we're talking about here. Why don't we talk about the parental inculcation of religion?
Oh, I know.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Many religionists appear to feel threatened by the inexorable and rapidly accelerating rise of secularism in the developed world. Fair enough, I suppose. As a result, I think, I’ve noticed an unmistakeable smell of self-interested defensiveness in their approach to any question (however academic) of the moral principles of indoctrinating children into religion, doubtless because they’re so frightened of the risks of ensuring children actually do have true freedom of choice- i.e., that they will choose not to follow the religion. Truth is, despite their parents’ best efforts to indoctrinate them, more and more young people are finding their broader socio-cultural freedoms permit them to defy and reject that indoctrination.
If you disagree with Yorick, it's not because you have thought the matter out. It's because you are acting out of a knee-jerk fear of the rising tide of secularism.
Every single fucking time any kind of discussion like this comes up, this is what it devolves into -- name-calling and smug atheist self-righteousness.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yorick, you've not answered many questions yourself recently.
You're not answering Joesphine's question - you might say that's not what you want to talk about, but it strikes me as a relevant parrallel. If you argue a similar indoctrination exists in all these other instances, then at least that is consistent, if a slightly paranoid view. If not, it seems inconsistent. It's a reasonable challenge.
Underlying all this, it seems to me, is an inability to pin down what indoctrination is. You can't reliably detect it by examining or talking to someone however thoroughly, they can't identify it themselves, and we can;t define it precisely. There is a demographic finding that can be explained in terms of a more complex series of outcomes than simply indoctrination/ not indoctrinated and that's it in terms of evidence.
Is this an act of faith on your part?
By the way, as an aside, I wonder what your daughter thinks of the whole debate we're having here. Does she think Christian parents inevitably indoctrinate their children?
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
How does teaching a child to be religious constrain their future choices any more or less than teaching a child to be vegetarian?
I’m not the least bit interested in the parental inculcation of vegetarianism, or party politics, or football club fanhood. That's not what we're talking about here. Why don't we talk about the parental inculcation of religion?
Why are religious beliefs any different from any other beliefs? Why should they be treated differently?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Irrelevant. Parental influence and education in other things is not the same as religious indoctrination.
Why not? Seriously -- why is it different? How does teaching a child to be religious constrain their future choices any more or less than teaching a child to be vegetarian?
This is one question Yorick has avoided answering from the beginning. I'd also like to see his answer.
Okay, fine. I think the parental indoctrination of vegetarianism is morally wrong. So the fuck what? Does it make the parental indoctrination of religion right? No, it doesn’t, does it? It doesn’t speak to the parental indoctrination of religion at all, because it’s irrelevant, and the only reason it's brought into the discussion is to sidestep the actual issue at hand. (Or that's how it looks, anyway).
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Why are religious beliefs any different from any other beliefs? Why should they be treated differently?
They're being treated seperately.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
How does teaching a child to be religious constrain their future choices any more or less than teaching a child to be vegetarian?
I’m not the least bit interested in the parental inculcation of vegetarianism, or party politics, or football club fanhood. That's not what we're talking about here. Why don't we talk about the parental inculcation of religion?
Oh, I know.
I asked this question in good faith at the beginning of the thread - and you dodged answering it. Here we are at the end and you continue to dodge it. Many of us have engaged in intelligent discussion on this issue - including valid reasons for moral/religious instruction and guidelines so children are taught to reason/think for themselves and given evidence that children do make their own decisions in the end, but you have made it plain that you have no intention of even considering anything but excluding religious instruction for children. I took your word for it that this thread wasn't based in an anti-religous bias, but since you dodge any questions and have sunk to name calling because we don't sink to your obviously superior opinion, I can only come to the conclusion that is is based in prejudice.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
the only reason it's brought into the discussion is to sidestep the actual issue at hand. (Or that's how it looks, anyway).
This only shows your ignorance of how debate works.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think the parental indoctrination of vegetarianism is morally wrong. So the fuck what?
Does that mean that every child must be fed meat to avoid indoctrinating them into vegetarianism? Or that parents must teach children clearly that eating meat is an option that they're being currently denied? Or what?
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Why are religious beliefs any different from any other beliefs? Why should they be treated differently?
They're being treated seperately.
No, Yorick. They're not being treated separately. If someone were to say, "You can't plant trees here, because the soil has been poisoned, and no plants will grow here," pointing out that there is a lush garden that includes many woody perennials would not be an attempt to change the subject. It would, rather, be evidence against the initial statement that you can't plant trees there. Saying, "We're not talking about gardens, we're talking about trees!" would just be absurd.
It's the same thing here, Yorick.You say that parents shouldn't teach religion because doing so constrains the child's choices, and constraining a child's choices is immoral.
If that's true, then anything that constrains a child's choices is immoral.
By demonstrating that constraining a child's choices is not only not immoral, but it's necessary and in some cases even good, that is evidence in the discussion, that goes to show that your notion -- that teaching children about religion is bad -- is quite simply wrong.
I understand why you don't want to examine the evidence. But you're not doing yourself any favors by refusing to do so.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Will someone kindly explain to me how the parental indoctrination of vegetarianism has any bearing on the morality of parental indoctrination of religion?
(Bear in mind I accept the inevitability of parental influence over their children, for good and bad, in a myriad of different ways).
Instead of accusing me of avoiding questions about eating meat, why don't you stop avoiding the question of indoctrinating religion?
[crosspost]
[ 01. December 2010, 14:26: Message edited by: Yorick ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
a) I think I and Josephine have done our best to explain why we think it's relevant
b) It's quite unfair to say we've been avoiding discussing religious indoctrination. Cast back over the last few pages and see.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
quote:
The only question I want to ask is on what grounds do we argue that your account is true and mine is distorted, or vice versa.
I went to the children and "asked" them by reading their personal narratives on the web. Hundreds of them. You can satisfy yourself if you want to by doing the same thing.
Just google "leaving <whatever>" or "recovering from <whatever>".
Be prepared to read about the mental anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and family destruction that institutionalized religion can wreak on susceptible people and insecure families. You don't encounter the victims because they are no longer in your midst. Furthermore, you own holy book admonishes you not to have anything to do with non-believers or apostates. Apostasy is a crime punishable by stoning to death in many Islamic countries. Once dead, you won't encounter those victims either. Understand that I am writing about a universal condition of children and perhaps hundreds of faith practices.
If what I assert is not true, why on earth are there hundreds of mutual help organizations with web sites offering solace, advice, and understanding to people who self identify as wounded by religion? Anybody?
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child took 10 years to cobble together. International law experts, religious leaders, child development experts and diplomats did consider children's religious freedom rights. Nonetheless we must recognize that what came out of their effort is at this point an "aspirational" document. It will be honed and shaped for decades, but there may be a day when the decision of whether to follow a supernatural faith practice is well and truly in the hands of the individual and no one else. As a matter of law. This need not mean that religion disappears from the face of the earth, but the remaining organizations will undergo wrenching change and reformation. Adults must always enjoy freedom of conscience, but they will no longer be able to force their faith on children.
Most of the advanced secular democracies are well on the way to achieving full accession, but because every UN signer has the right to opt out of any provision it is a fact that all the Islamic countries have done so with respect to the articles that apply to children's religious freedom rights.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It doesn’t speak to the parental indoctrination of religion at all, because it’s irrelevant, and the only reason it's brought into the discussion is to sidestep the actual issue at hand. (Or that's how it looks, anyway).
Dude, it's really not, for the reasons that Josephine said. It's central to the discussion.
Either parental indoctrination of religion is wrong because there's something different about religion that makes it separate to all those other things, or they're all morally wrong.
So either a) tell us what that thing is that makes religion fall into its own special category, or b) address the issue that the morality you're putting forward affects all those other issues too.
You'll have a problem with b) however, because if I raise my child drinking pepsi, then I've prevented them from enjoying the loveliness of coke, and if they're brought up on coke, I've stolen their chance for pepsi. Every decision a parent makes is going to be 'indoctrination'.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
[ 01. December 2010, 14:33: Message edited by: Leaf ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Writchey,
The statement "all cats are animals" does not conversely mean "all animals are cats".
That is something you've SPECTACULARLY failed to grasp.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You'll have a problem with b) however, because if I raise my child drinking pepsi, then I've prevented them from enjoying the loveliness of coke, and if they're brought up on coke, I've stolen their chance for pepsi. Every decision a parent makes is going to be 'indoctrination'.
This is all part of having such a flaky definition of indoctrination. We didn't get this straight at the start of the thread and it precludes sensible engagement now. My problem is that I think Yorick's view of it is almost a faith-based position to start with. And that challenge definitely has been side-stepped to present.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You'll have a problem with b) however, because if I raise my child drinking pepsi, then I've prevented them from enjoying the loveliness of coke, and if they're brought up on coke, I've stolen their chance for pepsi. Every decision a parent makes is going to be 'indoctrination'.
This is all part of having such a flaky definition of indoctrination. We didn't get this straight at the start of the thread and it precludes sensible engagement now. My problem is that I think Yorick's view of it is almost a faith-based position to start with. And that challenge definitely has been side-stepped to present.
Quite. And I think a reasonable definition of indoctrination means that you end up with the reasonable point of view regarding parental influence.
Some parents DO indoctrinate their kids, yes, and they're shit parents. Their religion (or lack of it) has nothing to do with it; it's just a scapegoat.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
ISTM this is about two competing goods - freedom and commitment - and differences in where we draw the lines of relative importance.
As a parent, I try to get my child to commit to certain things: respect for others, personal cleanliness, good nutrition, worship attendance, regular home reading, physical fitness, community participation, etc. I teach and model these things because I believe they have benefitted me and will benefit him too. As he grows up he may reject one, some, or all of those things. This would grieve me, as I don't believe it would be best for his abundant life to reject those things.
For me, the more interesting questions are these: When and how do you teach a child the freedom to reject your beliefs? What beliefs are reject-able? How "elastic" is your relationship with your child - how far can they reject your core values before your relationship breaks?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
mdijon, and others who are saying I'm deliberately ignoring posts, I am not- I'm typing as fast as I can, scrabbling to get to one or two points, in the few consecutive minutes I get...
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You say that parents shouldn't teach religion because doing so constrains the child's choices, and constraining a child's choices is immoral.
If that's true, then anything that constrains a child's choices is immoral.
By demonstrating that constraining a child's choices is not only not immoral, but it's necessary and in some cases even good, that is evidence in the discussion, that goes to show that your notion -- that teaching children about religion is bad -- is quite simply wrong.
Why are you misrepresenting my argument?
I do not say it’s immoral for parents teach their children about religion. I am asking whether it is immoral for parents to intend deliberately to indoctrinate their children into their religion when this deprives them of free choice. Can you see the difference? I’m not saying it is wrong to constrain a child’s choices. I don’t agree with your suggestion that rightly limiting their choices in one way makes it right to limit their choices in every other way, nor the implication that it's wrong in all because it’s wrong in some.
Why don’t you deal with my argument, rather than some silly strawman?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Why are religious beliefs any different from any other beliefs? Why should they be treated differently?
They're being treated seperately.
Why do you want/need to treat them separately?
Is the fundamental question not "Is parental indoctrination of children morally wrong"?
If it isn't, if the fundamental question relates specifically to religion/faith then it's not unreasonable to ask what it is that makes us need to consider this in isolation from the broader principle. Otherwise the whole thing is at best a bit odd, and at worst, highly disingenuous.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Why are you misrepresenting my argument?
Maybe because you haven't presented it clearly enough for anyone to know what your argument is?
quote:
I do not say it’s immoral for parents teach their children about religion. I am asking whether it is immoral for parents to intend deliberately to indoctrinate their children into their religion when this deprives them of free choice. Can you see the difference?
Okay, I was careless in saying "about religion." Delete the "about." Then please explain what you mean by deliberate indoctrination into religion, how it is different from teaching the beliefs and engaging in the practices of a religion, and whether religion is a special case or whether the same principles would apply to other beliefs and practices.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
please explain what you mean by deliberate indoctrination into religion, how it is different from teaching , and whether religion is a special case or whether the same principles would apply to other beliefs and practices.
I hope I've dealt clearly enough with the first part. As for the rest, I will respond more fully when I get more time, but, briefly, for now, it comes to this matter of intention. You can teach the beliefs and engage in the practices of a religion without intending to indoctrinate those beliefs. I did. You're not. There's a difference.
No, religion is NOT a special case. It is simply the case I'm trying my fuckedest to discuss here.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
B62, with respect, you haven’t answered the question.
Yes I did. I just didn't answer it with a simple yes or no because I don't think it is capable of such an answer without distortion of truth. So I did the best I could.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yorick, I only accused you of not answering questions because it struck me you were in a bit of a glass house.
Personally, I think you're floundering with the definition of indoctrination. It seems also to narrow on "deliberate" indoctrination. My recommendation would be to take a step back at this time and let's try and redefine exactly what you mean by this.
But I don't mind waiting until this current flurry of exchanges dies down a bit.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
... Furthermore, you own holy book admonishes you not to have anything to do with non-believers or apostates. Apostasy is a crime punishable by stoning to death in many Islamic countries. ...
Then perhaps you should direct your vitriol against Islam and Muslims. The Bible does no such thing. I also know of no Christian Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox organization which teaches such a thing. There are some cults, which may claim to be Christian who do so, but agian, please direct your hatred at them.
You have made the mistake of assuming all religions are the same.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You can teach the beliefs and engage in the practices of a religion without intending to indoctrinate those beliefs. I did. You're not. There's a difference.
And the difference is... commitment! And the relative importance a parent attaches to the area under discussion.
It depends on how important the topic is, and surprise, Parental Measures May Vary. Yorick and Josephine as parents have no doubt taught and modelled commitment to what they believe is important. The categories of "What is important" may vary, and so may the categories of what challenges/breaks relationship.
I remember asking my parents (at around age 10), "Is there anything I could do and you wouldn't love me anymore?" They answered, "Yes. If you killed someone, we wouldn't love you anymore." Even for my nearly-unconditional-loving parents there was an area so important it would break relationship.
For some parents it might be a child's atheism, but frankly on a largely liberal-Christian board, I doubt you'd find many who would believe that, and fewer who'd admit to it.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
... Furthermore, you own holy book admonishes you not to have anything to do with non-believers or apostates. Apostasy is a crime punishable by stoning to death in many Islamic countries. ...
Then perhaps you should direct your vitriol against Islam and Muslims.
And to take it a step further, you should direct it only to those countries and those Muslims to which this applies, because this stand, while unfortunately rather widely held is certainly not universally held by all Islamic theologians nor is it a rule in most predominantly Muslim countries.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Be prepared to read about the mental anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and family destruction that institutionalized religion can wreak on susceptible people and insecure families.
Nobody is denying that these things CAN happen. You have no idea how skewed your sample is or is not. I imagine, however, that people with bad experiences are far more likely to whinge about them on the net than people with positive experiences are likely to write dispassionately about them. Nobody is likely to want to read a blog that goes, "My parents brought me up to be a Christian, but were always open to me making my own decisions, which is what I eventually did, and they didn't hammer me about it at all." Although they might if this were the rare minority of cases. People are more interested in things that are unusual or rare than in things which are commonplace. Few newspapers (outside The Onion) run headlines like, "Sun Rises As Always."
quote:
If what I assert is not true, why on earth are there hundreds of mutual help organizations with web sites offering solace, advice, and understanding to people who self identify as wounded by religion? Anybody?
Because there are such people. Which nobody here has denied. You're flogging a straw horse. Or something.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I want to offer an alternative approach to this discussion.
I would like to suggest that it is entirely appropriate for parents to inculcate in their children beliefs which they believe to be good, and wrong for them to seek not to do so. (If you believe something to be good why would you withhold it from your child?) This includes moral beliefs, and religious beliefs.
From my (Christian) perspective, I would also like to suggest that parents need to help their children into making their own adult decisions about these beliefs. I recognise that other parents with other perspectives would also share that view.
I do not believe that there is some special class of belief (religious, ethical, or political) where it is wrong for parents to seek to inculcate their children with values/beliefs which the parents believe to be good. I think there is a very difficult area where the beliefs are held to be good by some and bad by others. Such problems exist in all the areas of belief I have mentioned above, and are not unique to religious belief.
The fact that some parents do seek to indoctrinate (with all the connotative baggage that that word usually carries) is a bad thing. Indoctrination, as the word is normally understood, is an attempt to remove a person's freedom to choose. My (Christian) perspective is that adherence to a belief which is not truly chosen by the adherent is unlikely to be valuable, and is likely to be very unstable. (This means that I am not at all surprised that the web abounds with stories of those who have escaped from this kind of situation. With approximately 2 billion adherents to Christianity it is not a surprise that there are hundreds of cases where parents have quite simply got it wrong.) I accept that others from other perspectives also share the view that indoctrination is wrong - it is not a uniquely Christian view.
[ 01. December 2010, 16:47: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
It's like when they have a phone in on the radio about how the nhs has improved or whatever, and someone phones in and tells us how they've had a bad experience, and then smugly think that they've 'proved' that the nhs hasn't improved after all.
Even if you can show us hundreds of case studies, writchey, that's still the tiniest percentage of millions of people who are raised in different religions. To prove what you're asserting, you're going to have to present some real research, rather than just pointing us to those cases that back up your prior point of view.
(cross post with brojames)
[ 01. December 2010, 16:52: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
You can satisfy yourself if you want to by doing the same thing.
Just google "leaving <whatever>" or "recovering from <whatever>".
Be prepared to read about the mental anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, and family destruction that institutionalized religion can wreak on susceptible people and insecure families.
OK: "Recovering from" Anglicanism -- page after page of false drops.
"Recovering Anglican" Some five entries down we can hear from a "recovering Anglican" who has become Eastern Orthodox. A little further down, a self-identification of someone as a "recovering Anglican" in the mailing list of an Anglican diocese. Then a gay man who has found refuge in the Metropolitan Community Church (touchay, but it ain't my fault. American and Canadian Anglicans these days are rather taking the heat worldwide for what others deem excessive hospitality to gays already.) We could also find a "recovering Anglican" who is also a recovering atheist, having been persuaded of reincarnation due to experiences with psychics, and another who contributes to a Puritan blog. Etc.
If you think any of the above will help your argument, you're welcome to them. One can get the general impression that these very cases use the phrase "recovering Anglican" tongue-in-cheek.
Although I share your concern about brainwashing (with or without the euphemism "heavy shepherding") in some sects, pondering the contrasting record of Anglicanism tempts me to commit the deadly sin of pride. If you wish to convince the world that the likes of John Polkinghorne, nuclear scientist and principal of Queen's College, was brainwashed as a child or is brainwashed today, I daresay you'll have an uphill fight beyond the Dawkins Forum diaspora. Perhaps one religion is so different from another in this respect that an attempt to subsume them under a single word is meaningless. You wouldn't want to be suspected of believing in the Platonic forms, now, would you?
And what's with the adjective "institutionalized?" Are you (in some contrast, evidently, to Yorick), focusing your suspicion only on institutionalized religion (whatever that means) and suggesting that some spiritually pure, disembodied (gnostic?) system might be innocent? If so, you should know that one of the most trenchant and eloquent analysts of the evil inherent in institutions was William Stringfellow, whom I admire greatly. But he was and remained a devout Episcopalian; and his writings, studied by agnostic law students though they were, wouldn't have gotten to first base without the Bible. He didn't exempt religious institutions from his criticism, either (which made him understandably very unpopular with powerful clerics in his lifetime). You might want to make his acquaintance if you haven't done so already. But be warned that he was in touch enough with reality to realize that, although institutions are demonic, often we're stuck with using them and need to deal with that fact.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m not the least bit interested in the parental inculcation of vegetarianism, or party politics, or football club fanhood. That's not what we're talking about here. Why don't we talk about the parental inculcation of religion?
Oh, I know.
Dear Yorick,
a basic introduction to logic.
Someone proposes that: Doctor Mengele was a Nazi, therefore all doctors are Nazis.
How do we check whether this argument is valid?
We compare it with a different argument with the same form. e.g. This cat is black, therefore all cats are black. And therefore we see that the form of the argument is not valid. This is how people worked out what forms of argument were logical and what forms of argument were not logical.
So here is another worked example.
Someone call him Y proposes that introducing children to religious practice is wrong because it is indoctrination and it deprives children of a future choice.
How do we see if this argument is logically sound? We compare it with arguments of the same form:
for example: a) introducing children to the practice of vegetarianism is wrong because it is indoctrination and it deprives children of a future choice;
or else: b) introducing children to the practice of meat-eating is wrong because it is indoctrination and it deprives children of a future choice.
Now certainly Y can't accept the conclusions of both a) and b). Y has to agree that one of them is false (since Y can't both avoid indoctrinating children into vegetarianism by feeding them meat and also avoid indoctrinating children into meat-eating by not feeding them meat). So if Y is logical then Y has to admit that the logical form is unsound.
Now... behold THE POWER OF LOGIC. (drum roll)
If either a) or b) are unsound, then Y's original argument is unsound because it depends on the same logical form. And we have found that the logical form is unsound. So if Y cares about logic, Y has to admit that his original argument is unsound. His argument does not work. Y has provided no sound reason for anyone to agree with his conclusions. What Y cannot do, if Y cares about logic, is claim that he wasn't talking about vegetarianism but was talking about religion. Logic is indifferent to subject matter.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Davyd: your post is a keeper.
Several days apart, I contributed two posts asking essentially the same question: if one of his own children were to show signs of converting to a Christian faith, wouldn't he try to dissuade him or her? Given his conviction of the follies of religious belief, and the zeal with which he warns cyberspace at large of them, wouldn't it be downright irresponsible of him as a parent to just look the other way if is own child headed in that direction?
No reply. I thought it was just I whom he was ignoring. It's some comfort to know that others are encountering the same.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
To be fair, Yorick did mention that his daughter became a Christian, so he did address it a bit.
Dafyd's post was brilliant. Nothing that hadn't been said already a number of times, just put a lot better.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
In haste, in transit.
I'm NOT ignoring anyone. I haven't got enough time to respond. It's frustrating for me too, being unable to reply to you all, but when I read people saying that I'm deliberately ignoring posts it really drives me mad.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I’m not the least bit interested in the parental inculcation of vegetarianism, or party politics, or football club fanhood. That's not what we're talking about here. Why don't we talk about the parental inculcation of religion?
If this was about the right of tender children to make their own decisions, then all kinds of indoctrination are bad, about anything. Including right and wrong, true and false, which sports teams to prefer and the rest.
So the fact that only religion raises your ire shows your hand. It has nothing to do with the children, and has everything to do with your hatred of religion.
Zach
Posted by Wisewilliam (# 15474) on
:
I say again it is the duty of all parents to give their child a well-found sense of cultural identity. Religion is a powerful element of culture. Value systems are the foundation of cultural identity. Anyone who disregards this is heading for a bitter disillusionment.
A study of the adoption of Canadian Indian children into caucasian Canadian households showed that 82% of such adoptions were classified as failures. Alcolism, lawlessness, mental disorders and many other forms of social dislocation were the commonest result of trying to force adaptation to an utterly alien culture on a distinct temperment .
A solidly based cultural heritage is a birthright. It is widely shown that immigrant adaptation is smoothly spread over three generations the result is healthy well based society.
Religion (including atheism) is one the basic values. Respect it.
Indocrination of religious beliefs or of athiesm is a parent's duty.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I am asking whether it is immoral for parents to intend deliberately to indoctrinate their children into their religion when this deprives them of free choice.
If you really mean this in more or less the sense of the word "indoctrinate" that BroJames assumes, "attempt to remove a person's freedom to choose," then I would agree that it would be immoral. What some of us suspect is what you really mean by the word is any influence or assumption whatsoever by a parent that a child will, for the time being, share in the practice of their faith.
A 7-year-old boy in Utah became a Youtube celebrity about a year ago for so objecting to going into Mormon worship with his parents one Sunday morning, as to jump in behind the wheel of the family car and attempt to drive it back home. He made it, too, although police were in pursuit before reaching his destination (hence the availability of a video). Many viewers cheered the kid on gleefully. Presumably you would. I think I did, too (I mean, yech, the Mormons aren't even Christian, and their use of the word "culture" is rather an oxymoron: apparently the little guy's got taste ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
). But admittedly it's probably a borderline case. I didn't always want to go to church myself at that age. Neither did I always want to practice the piano; but if my parents had ever carried out their threat to stop the music lessons, I would have been crestfallen. Children are not reliable self-starters. Sometimes parents' prodding is needed to make them persevere in a dream.
At lunch today, I encountered again the always- gracious and obliging server on the other side of a counter who wanted to be sure he gave me exactly what I wanted. I couldn't get food without trying to understand several questions, and making and expressing the respective choices, in a noisy environment. Articulating a choice in such circumstances can be a bit of a bother. Sometimes just making one represents considerable mental effort and energy (even for a computer).
I've just discovered the comfort of wearing a knit-wool cap at home when it's chilly. Boy, does it make a difference. There are reasons why the human brain must be so well served by the circulatory system, as well as reasons why most organisms have evolved in other ways than by increasing the size of their brains.
At a meeting of Benedictine abbots, one guest abbot noticed that at his host's monastery, there was a choice of several breakfast cereals. He gently questioned whether this was a good idea. Some are clearly more expensive than others without being more nutritious. Are these justifiable for people under vows of poverty? And isn't the very facing of this choice a frivolous distraction? You might react that this abbot must have been a grim, blue-nosed figure; but his position is completely rational, and I daresay that if instead of having to choose every day between fruit loops and cocoa crispies, the monks just had corn flakes put in front of them, they would eat them without another care in the world.
I even once witnessed the near-meltdown of a boy about six years old, who had just been asked yet again by his ever solicitous mother whether he wanted something this way or that way. He burst into tears, stamped his feet, and whined, apparently in some discomfort, about "too many choices!" To expect complete autonomy from a child of that age, even in minor matters, is probably poor psychology.
We apotheosize our freedom to choose so habitually as to overlook circumstances in which it serves no good purpose and might be mainly a nuisance.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
One problem with only instructing children about faith, rather than actually raising them in a faith, is that what they learn and connect to is different. And that changes the kinds of adult choices they make, and not always in favour of "only instructed about." If I had not been raised in the Episcopal church, but rather taken to a variety of religious institutions and told that it didn't matter which one I chose, but if I wanted I could choose one when I was an adult -- well, then neither the Episcopal church, nor any other religious institution, would have been able to serve as home at a time when I was grown up and needed a familiar place where I knew how it worked.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for the average church, "small," "financially struggling," and "terminally disorganized" are the words that come to mind.
Ain't that the truth ..
I read that, chuckled. It so reminded me of the loveable, loving, scruffy, kindly, lot I associate with. Mind you, state of the art incandescent lightbulbs sounds a bit questionable. Are they eco-friendly long-life?
They ought to be, but we're too poor to be ecologically correct.
I suspect that the next time they die our bleeding heart pastor's wife will make a stealthy substitution and take it out of the grocery money. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Many religionists appear to feel threatened by the inexorable and rapidly accelerating rise of secularism in the developed world. Fair enough, I suppose.
I'm actually cheering it on. Makes it so much easier to do evangelism when people have never been inoculated against the Gospel, ya know?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
In haste, in transit.
I'm NOT ignoring anyone. I haven't got enough time to respond. It's frustrating for me too, being unable to reply to you all, but when I read people saying that I'm deliberately ignoring posts it really drives me mad.
dyfrig from p1
dyfrig again from p1
Maybe you've just ignored these two? Or at least discounted them? Pretty good advice I thought. Pretty well demonstrated to be so by this thread.
Try this for a summary.
1. Is Religious Indoctrination (your OP definition) harmful to children? Sometimes.
2. Is Religious Indoctrination immoral? Sometimes.
3. Does Religious Indoctrination impair a growing child's freedom to choose. Sometimes.
The devil is in the detail, Yorick. There is no blanket answer to these questions. But it is possible that dyfrig has produced a good warning for any would-be indoctrinator.
quote:
Handy tip #2: don't be so controlling. Pisses people off no end.
Slightly pithier than "love does not insist on its own way" but a similarly effective guideline.
Posted by Max_Power (# 13547) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Just google "leaving <whatever>" or "recovering from <whatever>".
I took you up on your offer, and inserted your religion, 'atheism', into the above phrasing, and came up with some 800K hits. Stories of people who were happy and relieved to have left atheism.
The point is that atheism, or secular humanism, or whatever flavour you propose, is just another religion; a metaphysical construct to explain (or not) why we are here. As such, were you to have children (if you don't already) would you be able to scrupulously avoid 'inclulcating' them into your religion? Honestly?
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Tell me, what must I do to be saved from this tendency to pernicious practice which you perceive and about which you are so concerned?
I wasn’t referring specifically to you, btw, but since you ask, I have a question. Do you dispute that parents can avoid deliberately intending to indoctrinate their children in their (religious) worldview?
Do you think it's possible for anyone of any age to not have a worldview? You seem to be suggesting that no one should be allowed to have one until they have achieved a level of cognitive development that would enable them to evaluate all possible worldviews from a perfectly neutral and objective, logical perspective. Everything we know about human cognitive development tells us that this is utterly incoherent.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Timothy, I guess that is a focal point of the thread. Compare and contrast with this quote from Yorick's OP
quote:
This moral question centres on the issue of freedom of choice. I believe all human beings should have the absolute right to choose their religion (or atheism) freely for themselves. I therefore feel it is an immoral breach of that right for a parent to influence their child in such a way that they're deprived of the complete freedom to choose their religious belief before they develop sufficient maturity to make this decision freely, because, once the child is indoctrinated, their complete freedom to make that choice is drastically compromised.
While Yorick is taking his time (very reasonably) I thought active participants in this long thread might want to reflect, compare and contrast your latest post with this quote from the OP.
I'm thinking it over myself, will probably post again tomorrow.
Posted by Writchey (# 16020) on
:
Snags writes:
quote:
I guess the root cause of the impasse is that whilst we may share a number of values (love=good, murder=bad etc.) the core of the worldview is fundamentally different (God, no god) and there's only so far most people can go at suspending their own worldview in analysing alternatives, let alone accommodating them.
Believers lead a restrained existence. They are trained from infancy to embrace a dogmatic approach to life questions because free inquiry is too risky, too difficult to contain. Who knows what people might get up to if given free reign and intellectual autonomy.
The freethinker is not burdened with such handicaps. Intellectual freedom, coincidentally, is why atheists are over represented in science. They can fearlessly go where the facts or their fancy takes them and never have to reconcile their results to some dusty tome that contradicts their findings.
Either life stance should result from conscious mature investigation and deliberation and not be the result of determined efforts to bias the decision by taking advantage of the vulnerability of small children. Who it would be hoped can be left to simply bask in the carefree joy of being a child and maybe ponder nothing more weighty than how best to fly a kite or score at soccer.
I believe I have learned all that I am going to learn from the members of this forum so I'll be departing now for other pastures. Before I wear out my welcome, which I am beginning to suspect may not be long in coming. Thanks for at least trying to appreciate some of what I offered.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Writchey, I'm sure if I was a better person I'd have a better response, but you really are so full of crap.
There's been more dogma, bald assertion, and unwillingness to examine issues or think freely in your posts than any of the others on the thread.
Your welcome's not worn out in this quarter, by the way.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
All the best to you, Writchey. I think your confidence that freethinkers are less burdened than people of faith, and that people of faith cannot be freethinkers, is misplaced. It is just another generalisation, no doubt true of some but way off the mark for others. Perhaps your quest will show you that things are not so simple?
But I think that at the heart of that quest is a desire to save the vulnerable from harm - or further harm. If that is so, it is an aim we share. That end may be agreed, even if we disagree sharply about appropriate means.
[Edited to add:
1. This is pretty much where my overnight reflections on this thread had taken me to.
2. Crossposted with Snags, not a response to that post]
[ 03. December 2010, 09:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Believers lead a restrained existence. They are trained from infancy to embrace a dogmatic approach to life questions because free inquiry is too risky, too difficult to contain. Who knows what people might get up to if given free reign and intellectual autonomy.
The freethinker is not burdened with such handicaps. Intellectual freedom, coincidentally, is why atheists are over represented in science. They can fearlessly go where the facts or their fancy takes them and never have to reconcile their results to some dusty tome that contradicts their findings.
This reads like some of the statements that used to be issued by governments behind the iron curtain contrasting the joys of living in a socialist state with the horrors of capitalism. While one can recognise some points of contact between the statements and experience, the impression given by them is a long way away from lived reality.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Believers lead a restrained existence. They are trained from infancy to embrace a dogmatic approach to life questions because free inquiry is too risky, too difficult to contain. Who knows what people might get up to if given free reign and intellectual autonomy.
The freethinker is not burdened with such handicaps. Intellectual freedom, coincidentally, is why atheists are over represented in science. They can fearlessly go where the facts or their fancy takes them and never have to reconcile their results to some dusty tome that contradicts their findings.
Ummh. Can I spot a certain irony between what you say here and how you finish off your post, here ... ?
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
I believe I have learned all that I am going to learn from the members of this forum so I'll be departing now for other pastures. Before I wear out my welcome, which I am beginning to suspect may not be long in coming. Thanks for at least trying to appreciate some of what I offered.
Sounds very much like you find the SOF too risky and want to return to your restrained existence?
[ 03. December 2010, 11:46: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
Believers lead a restrained existence. They are trained from infancy to embrace a dogmatic approach to life questions because free inquiry is too risky, too difficult to contain. Who knows what people might get up to if given free reign and intellectual autonomy.
Sigh. Have you even considered the fact that some people become believers later in life, without having been trained from infancy in any way? So obviously, that's a hefty chunk of believers for whom this simply ain't true. Who knows, there might be more than just them!
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
I believe I have learned all that I am going to learn from the members of this forum so I'll be departing now for other pastures. Before I wear out my welcome, which I am beginning to suspect may not be long in coming. Thanks for at least trying to appreciate some of what I offered.
Here's the difference between you and Yorick. I disagree with you, and I disagree with Yorick on this issue. But I have a lot of respect for Yorick. He's been here a while, made a few mistakes, but tries to engage with arguments, and has had some of his preconceptions altered by hanging around here, despite not changing his underlying opinions. He's challenged my preconceptions and made me think in return too.
However, you've ignored arguments people have made against your assertions, and 'preached' without listening back from the start.
So I challenge you: stick around, and learn from people like Yorick, even if you don't learn from the rest of us non-freethinking theists.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
2. Crossposted with Snags, not a response to that post]
Maybe it should have been, though - yours was more appropriate, and mine born of on- and off-board frustrations :/
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
I believe I have learned all that I am going to learn from the members of this forum
This is the first thing you've said with which I fully and unreservedly agree. And it was true before you ever posted.
[ 03. December 2010, 15:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0