Indoctrination education

Originally posted by duecer
without knowing the particulars of the situation, it seems awfully judgmental of you. Perhaps this was a willful stubborn child, that has caused his family a lot of grief, and accepting Jesus Christ was for him, turning over a new leaf. Of course that is just speculation, but it is certainly as possible a scenario as any other.

I am pretty sure the child was a girl... perhaps an early teenage tantrum, but the reaction of the parent was what struck me as, gleeful almost...

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I am pretty sure the child was a girl... perhaps an early teenage tantrum, but the reaction of the parent was what struck me as, gleeful almost...

while I too disagree with that kind of overbearing approach to teaching a child religion, it might have been just the ticket in this case.

My own children are not forced to go to church after they reach middleschool. The practical part of that, is that is more of an age where they can be left at home alone. We only make them go at Easter and Christmas Eve per family tradition. The upside is, that after a short while of staying home on Sunday morning, they have made the decision on their own to attend church (mostly to see their friends). And for whatever reason, I'm glad that they do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have recently read "The God delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and although he does suggest that forcing religion on a child is wrong, I think you should read it yourself before calling him rabid, as he gives very reasonable arguments for his views.

No offense, but I find anyone who considers thought control a viable means of spreading democracy a crackpot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are a good example of what happens when your right to education has been denied.

I received an excellent education in public schools. I don't know what I said to deserve the insult. You might want to apologize to me so the readers of this thread don't think that you're a jerk

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... utonomous self.

We have enough fundamentalists already.
... as you join the fray...[/b]

There are no two view points. That would be the same of saying "there's the independent and biased point of view, what makes right to choose between one or the other?"
Independent point of view should ALWAYS be the chosen one, obviously. Only then you should show examples of the biased ones. You want to prevent the teaching of the independent point of view to teach the religious one as if it was a simple choice. IT SHOULDN'T !!!
Don't dare compare this. It makes you extremely ridiculous.
Independent thinking IS NOT indoctrination. Science is not indoctrination. Your point of view is.

If you want to say I am a fundamentalist to free thinking, I accept. I join the fray of free thinking.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Generally speaking, a parent can only screw-up their own kids; a secular, government-run,here's-how-to-use-a-condom, you're-just-an-animal public school system can screw-up an entire generation.

That argument changed my mind. Let all parents decide their children education. Public schools are worshipers of the devil.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
What exactly constitutes "forcing religion on a child?" The parents can make the kid read the Bible every day and go to church every Sunday, but eventually the kid will grow up and figure stuff out on his or her own. Is it okay for the public schools to "force" the theory of evolution on their students without also teaching them Intelligent Design arguments?

No one forces evolution, are you stupid or what? It's only a theory.
Your "Intelligent Design" is the forced stuff. You must take religion to accept that. Religion comes on faith. Don't you understand the logic steps?

Originally posted by serigado
[b]No one forces evolution, are you stupid or what?

Thank you so much for elevating the level of discourse on this thread by being polite and showing respect for your fellow posters such as myself.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Thank you so much for elevating the level of discourse on this thread by being polite and showing respect for your fellow posters such as myself.

Respect is earned.
Try to have an intelligent argument if you want people to take your opinion into account.
The question is: why should religious points of view be taught at the same level of free thinking point of view? Let religious points of view be kept for the religious.

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?

I think you will find that as human beings our beliefs/morals are formed by those that we look up to or those in authority over us. This could be the parent, the state, a grandparent or even a peer group, a God you believe in etc etc. Inevitably we will carry away from them, (whoever "them" will be), a better sense of what we should believe and how we should behave. With that we will carry away the good, the bad, and the ugly. There may be good aspects as well as bad aspects to what we learn from those in authority over us.

I guess it all comes down to a power struggle in terms of who should have the right to exert the greatest influence over our youth? Generally speaking, it is usually the parent and with good reason. Usually the parent identifies naturally with their offspring as being a further extention of themselves and, as a result, loves them for the most part. Therefore, because of this love they are more likely than anyone else to do "what is best" for that child at whatever cost to them personally. At the end of the day this is usually what is best for the child.

Having said that, the parent child model does not always work even though, for the most part, it is the best model we have in terms of seeing to it that children are well cared for. However, there are times when society must step in and assume resposibility for a child. I guess it all comes down to whether the parent is "abusing" their children. We then must decide on what how we should define "abuse". Is it teaching them that their is a God? Is it teaching them that there is not a God? Is it teaching them something that contradicts academia in some way such as evolution is a lie?

I once did a term paper on abused children and guess what I found out? What is the worst type of abuse imaginable? Is it hitting your child? Is it molesting your child as I thought before I began my study? No, in fact, statistically the most devistating type of abuse is neglect. At least with the other types of abuse the parent is showing an interest in their child, or a better way of putting it, they are interacting with their child instead of starving them intellectually/emotionally of some type of sensory input. Therefore, I say the worst thing a parent can do is not tell their children what they believe for fear of telling them the "wrong" thing. The worst thing a parent can do is to deny that child what they think is the best way to live and believe etc etc. Odds are that some of what they tell their children is "wrong", however, most of what they tell their children will be right. In saying this I do not mean to diminish the harmful effects of physical/sexual abuse of children and, in fact, I would take probably agree that such children are being abused as well and more than likely should be taken from the parents in some form or another.

Originally posted by serigado
Respect is earned.
Try to have an intelligent argument if you want people to take your opinion into account.
The question is: why should religious points of view be taught at the same level of free thinking point of view? Let religious points of view be kept for the religious.

A decent person will "agree to disagree agreeably." I'll let the other viewers of this thread decide who is being more polite: me or you.

Whatever parents teach their children truth cannot be hidden forever.. thats why the majority of the planet continues to acknowledge God`s existence..

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
A decent person will "agree to disagree agreeably." I'll let the other viewers of this thread decide who is being more polite: me or you.

I'm not in a politeness contest. I'm for the arguments. I'm rude, simple and direct. I don't like to elaborate. When someone presents me an argument I know it's worthless I insult him.
Forgetting about that, the question again is
Why should religious points of view be taught at the same level of free thinking point of view?

Originally posted by whodey
I think you will find that as human beings our beliefs/morals are formed by those that we look up to or those in authority over us. This could be the parent, the state, a grandparent or even a peer group, a God you believe in etc etc. Inevitably we will carry away from them, (whoever "them" will be), a better sense of what we should believe and how we shoul ...[text shortened]... well and more than likely should be taken from the parents in some form or another.

The worst kind of abuse is neglect... that aligns with most of what I have read and know about the subject. That does not mean that we can lower the bar surely in terms of public education.... to allow anything except neglect?

On the other hand can you imagine the furore that would develop if children were not allowed to be taught that the parents choice of belief was the one and only right way to go?

If you think about it, the parents that didn't defend their viewpoint have already acknowledged that it is possible they are wrong, and from what I have seen and read, the blinkers need to be on for the belief to develop! It's like asking a certain person on this forum to acknowledge that faith and evidence are not the same thing.

Originally posted by serigado
I\'m not in a politeness contest. I\'m for the arguments. I\'m rude, simple and direct. I don\'t like to elaborate. When someone presents me an argument I know it\'s worthless I insult him.
Forgetting about that, the question again is
Why should religious points of view be taught at the same level of free thinking point of view?

I love how \'free-thinking\' is only that which comes to the accepted conclusions of other so-called \'free-thinkers\'.