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?

---

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?

---

Posted                      

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                       

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                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
J We have far from a perfect track record, sunshine.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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.

---

Posted                      

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?

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Which of these fail(s) to make sense to you?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                          

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                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for the average church, "small," "financially struggling," and "terminally disorganized" are the words that come to mind.

---

Posted                       

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.

---

quote:

---

Maybe parents are not so concerned about their children as we like to think. Do they even closely examine their motives?

---

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.

---

---

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".

---

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                      

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?

---

Posted                       

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.

---

Posted                       

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

---

Posted                          

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.

--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Irrelevant. Parental influence and education in other things is not the same as religious indoctrination.

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                       

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?

---

Posted                      

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.

---