|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious Indoctrination of Children
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Writchey:
May I continue?
Oh please don't. Gross misrepresentations are so dull. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
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
Posts: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Curses. Missed edit window. Should have said "by 'religious parents'"
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
@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.
Posts: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Agree with mousethief: best post Barnabas62, stating it far better than I ever could.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Writchey
Apprentice
# 16020
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 15 | From: Glendale, AZ | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jackanapes
Shipmate
# 12374
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 468 | From: The bottom of my heart | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
By the way, your whole approach is coddling my prejudice extremely well.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Bear in mind that my prejudice doesn't actually need the help either.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max_Power
Shipmate
# 13547
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 58 | From: Aylmer, QC | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Writchey just placed the video "on the table" as it were.
Did anyone watch it, I wonder?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I did watch it, as I said, and found some things within it with which I agreed.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
