Indoctrination education

If I wish to teach my children that the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, can or should there be any intervention to allow my children to grow into that belief?
If I wish to teach my children to hate all those with (say) ginger hair, can or should there be any moderation applied by my peers? At what point, or indeed should children be protected from their parents beliefs?

In the US, you may home school your children, and teach them any bleepin' thing you want, provided that you meet the state minimun curiculum requirements(math, english, etc...)

Originally posted by duecer
In the US, you may home school your children, and teach them any bleepin' thing you want, provided that you meet the state minimun curiculum requirements(math, english, etc...)

It strikes me that children are very vulnerable; they have to absorb lots of survival lessons, yet when I read some of the opinions and ideas (mine included!) here it shocks me that there is very little moderation other than peer influence.
A home schooled child could be totally indoctrinated and where is the protection for that child?

P.S. and spelling?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
It strikes me that children are very vulnerable; they have to absorb lots of survival lessons, yet when I read some of the opinions and ideas (mine included!) here it shocks me that there is very little moderation other than peer influence.
A home schooled child could be totally indoctrinated and where is the protection for that child?

P.S. and spelling?

most states send regulators in to monitor a childs education. as far as spelling, I don't think it much matters where they're schooled, I was public schooled in good schools, and I can't spell for $*it.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
If I wish to teach my children that the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, can or should there be any intervention to allow my children to grow into that belief?
If I wish to teach my children to hate all those with (say) ginger hair, can or should there be any moderation applied by my peers? At what point, or indeed should children be protected from their parents beliefs?

We've already been introduced to the idiocy suggested by Dawkins and his ilk. Thanks for playing, though.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
We've already been introduced to the idiocy suggested by Dawkins and his ilk. Thanks for playing, though.

what idiocy is that?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
what idiocy is that?

That which is espoused by inferrence in your first post of this thread; namely, that teaching a child one's religious beliefs is tantamount to child abuse. An absolutely idiotic suggestion (usually) from the rabid lips of fundamental/fanatic atheists.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That which is espoused by inferrence in your first post of this thread; namely, that teaching a child one's religious beliefs is tantamount to child abuse. An absolutely idiotic suggestion (usually) from the rabid lips of fundamental/fanatic atheists.

Oh I see. Did Dawkins suggest that?

I suppose I wouldn't go that far. When you see a child dressed as a suicide bomber you just wonder at the child's positive chances in life, and whether or not society should take some action in cases like that. I suppose you support parents having the ability to do thing like that? Or where do you draw the line?

Oh and by the way I do not recognise the description; chapped lips maybe..
😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That which is espoused by inferrence in your first post of this thread; namely, that teaching a child one's religious beliefs is tantamount to child abuse. An absolutely idiotic suggestion (usually) from the rabid lips of fundamental/fanatic atheists.

Teaching a child a religious belief without any other view point is tantamount to child abuse.
State should prevent that. Middle age has passed some centuries ago.

Religious beliefs are free for those who want to embrace them. Forcing a defenseless, choiceless child to indoctrination without other viewpoints is limiting her. We have enough fundamentalists already.

“If you want your children to be bright, read them Fairy Tales. If you want them to be brilliant, read them even more Fairy Tales.”

—Albert Einstein

When I was a child, I believed there was a Santa Claus; my parents were very convincing. Maybe the unconscious roots of skepticism—by which I mean, not a particular philosophical stance (like, say, the Pyrrhonists), but just doubt in search of evidence—go back to the discovery that it warn’t so. But I was still young, and one myth was easily replaced by another called Christianity: a myth with more room to grow, ultimately leading to study of some of the big theological thinkers. I have since spent some time studying other mythologies.

I have no grudge against fairy tales or myth: myth represents some of the highest art produced by humanity in its search for existential meaning. Mythic symbolism, from various cultures, can be rich in such meaning—Pueblo Indian creation myths no less so than the Biblical creation story, for example. Despite the fact that when one myth becomes “literalized” its adherents tend to scoff at the others; in forgetting how to read their own mythology, it seems they have forgotten how to read any of it.

Myth may embody historical events; but it is not history. Myth may articulate, in symbolic/allegorical and story form, sound philosophical propositions; but it is not philosophy. Myth may even tell of natural discoveries; but it is not science.

For my part, I say: let the children learn fairy tales and myth. As they grow, let them learn science, philosophy and the art of critical thinking. It is not teaching children fairy tales or myth—or religion—that stunts their intellectual development. It is conditioning them never to think outside a particular box; and I am convinced from my own experience (not with regard to Santa Claus) that some conditioning/programming during early childhood development can act later in much the same way as post-hypnotic suggestion, creating a block against critical thinking and exploration in certain areas.

Thus I see the danger, not so much in terms of the content of early education, but in terms of how the content is presented. I certainly don’t expect a religious believer to present their religious beliefs to their children as fairy tales or myth. I would only hope that they do not present it in such a way as to stunt or pre-empt later critical thinking. I know highly intelligent and reasonable people who, in applying their reasoning skills, conclude to one or another of the religious worldviews (maybe the one they grew up with, if any; maybe not). Generally, they are the kind of folks who are willing to continually examine and re-examine their beliefs. One does not have to be unreasonable to be religious, per se; on the other hand, even otherwise reasonable people cling to unreasonable beliefs.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That which is espoused by inferrence in your first post of this thread; namely, that teaching a child one's religious beliefs is tantamount to child abuse. An absolutely idiotic suggestion (usually) from the rabid lips of fundamental/fanatic atheists.

I'm with you here Freaky. Dawkins and his ilk are as bad as the fundamentalist religious types.

Originally posted by vistesd
“If you want your children to be bright, read them Fairy Tales. If you want them to be brilliant, read them even more Fairy Tales.”

—Albert Einstein

When I was a child, I believed there was a Santa Claus; my parents were very convincing. Maybe the unconscious roots of skepticism—by which I mean, not a particular philosophical stance (like, say, the ...[text shortened]... ous, per se; on the other hand, even otherwise reasonable people cling to unreasonable beliefs.

If the child is taught to revere suicide bombers from very early on is that acceptable?

I heard two Christian parents recently talking about the 'breakdown' (their words) of one of their children, and how pleased they were that the child (12/13 I guess) has 'come then to accept the Lord' into their life.

I suppose if I was a shrink I would have been able to explain what was going on, but isn't this the sort of thing that happens to adults in 'cults'? They 'resist' for a while and then 'break down'?

Surely there is a difference between fairy stories and a lifestyle (adopted to varying degrees)?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Oh I see. Did Dawkins suggest that?

I suppose I wouldn't go that far. When you see a child dressed as a suicide bomber you just wonder at the child's positive chances in life, and whether or not society should take some action in cases like that. I suppose you support parents having the ability to do thing like that? Or where do you draw the line?

Oh and by the way I do not recognise the description; chapped lips maybe..
😉

Oh I see. Did Dawkins suggest that?
Did and does. Quite rabid, he.

When you see a child dressed as a suicide bomber you just wonder at the child's positive chances in life...
In just a situation, there are a few positive things in the child's life: a positive red wire and a positively brutal end to an otherwise joyless life.

... and whether or not society should take some action in cases like that.
Yes: either shoot him at a distance or run.

I suppose you support parents having the ability to do thing like that?
Depending upon the outcome, at least procreation is minimized.

Or where do you draw the line?
Regardless the level of sophistication, I am hard-pressed to think of any group of people which takes kindly to forced exposure to new ideas.

Oh and by the way I do not recognise the description; chapped lips maybe..
😉
That was more directed to the fervent believers such as Dawkins, Penn and Teller, etc. These wackos actually believe that repression of ideas belongs in a democratic society. The level of lunacy to which some will crawl in order to protect their fragile thinking systems is astounding.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
If the child is taught to revere suicide bombers from very early on is that acceptable?

I heard two Christian parents recently talking about the 'breakdown' (their words) of one of their children, and how pleased they were that the child (12/13 I guess) has 'come then to accept the Lord' into their life.

I suppose if I was a shrink I would have ...[text shortened]... e is a difference between fairy stories and a lifestyle (adopted to varying degrees)?

who are you to decide what is acceptable for another persons child?

Originally posted by serigado
Teaching a child a religious belief without any other view point is tantamount to child abuse.
State should prevent that. Middle age has passed some centuries ago.

Religious beliefs are free for those who want to embrace them. Forcing a defenseless, choiceless child to indoctrination without other viewpoints is limiting her. We have enough fundamentalists already.

Teaching a child a religious belief without any other view point is tantamount to child abuse.
Perhaps you would like to decide which two view points every parent must teach their children? Shall it resemble a menu such is found at any number of Chinese restaurants: for your pleasure thinking, choose please one indoctrinating influence from column each A and B?

State should prevent that. Middle age has passed some centuries ago.
No time like the present to revive the past, eh? Sure, let's bring back the all-powerful state (king), and get rid of those pesky concepts such as free thinking and the autonomous self.

We have enough fundamentalists already.
... as you join the fray...