Originally posted by lucifershammerI am not certain that it is the right word, but I had in mind cases where people are deliberately taught to believe something (and usually taught not to question those beliefs). I had in mind people like the recent terrorists who commit acts that most members of their religion would frown upon, or communists willing to kill hundreds of innocent people in order to further their ideals. I could of course be totally wrong about either case being indoctrination as I described it.
What do you mean by 'indoctrination'?
Originally posted by gtbiking4life“…and NOT delusional using your words. I am also religious….”
Not exactly sure what you mean here...I am well behaved and NOT delusional using your words. I am also religious.
To answer the question, there are very good people out there who are not religious that are great citizens and help others. By that same token, there are many religious people who are also great citizens who also help others. Does relig ...[text shortened]... Science, History, etc. We attend Church every Sunday for 3 hours to learn about the scriptures.
If I existed before the age of science and reason, I may have accepted that as perfectly possible.
But in this age of science and reason, this statement is virtually a logical contradiction –and, if you are a creationist (not saying you are) then that statement IS a logical contradiction.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn discussions where the term gets used, I'm not sure it means much more than the person supposed to have been 'indoctrinated' holds views that the author finds objectionable. It is not clear how the process of 'indoctrination' is any different from ordinary persuasion or pedagogy.
I am not certain that it is the right word, but I had in mind cases where people are deliberately taught to believe something (and usually taught not to question those beliefs). I had in mind people like the recent terrorists who commit acts that most members of their religion would frown upon, or communists willing to kill hundreds of innocent people in ...[text shortened]... ls. I could of course be totally wrong about either case being indoctrination as I described it.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerIndoctrination? How about showing school children the movie "Inconvienient Truth" by Al Gore? You know, the movie that was declared propoganda by a UK court. How about reading school children about a child who has two mommies? Just so long as God is left out of the discussion its all good.
In discussions where the term gets used, I'm not sure it means much more than the person supposed to have been 'indoctrinated' holds views that the author finds objectionable. It is not clear how the process of 'indoctrination' is any different from ordinary persuasion or pedagogy.
Originally posted by whodeyGod can be discussed in a religious education lesson, along with the plethora of other Gods and religious fairytales mankind has accumulated over the millenia.
Indoctrination? How about showing school children the movie "Inconvienient Truth" by Al Gore? You know, the movie that was declared propoganda by a UK court. How about reading school children about a child who has two mommies? Just so long as God is left out of the discussion its all good.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow is it virtually a logical contradiction? You may want to explain yourself better then. I love Science and I am also a reasonable person. You can have faith and love Science as well as be reasonable. It is not a logical contradiction at all.
“…and NOT delusional using your words. I am also religious….”
If I existed before the age of science and reason, I may have accepted that as perfectly possible.
But in this age of science and reason, this statement is virtually a logical contradiction –and, if you are a creationist (not saying you are) then that statement IS a logical contradiction.
What is your definition of a Creationist?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI believe that our Father in Heaven (God) wants us to learn and grow. One of the ways we do that is by going to school and learning about these sugjects. By that token it is part of my faith.
Do you see Maths, English, Science, History as something apart or independent of your faith?
On the other hand, it does not matter to me who is doing the teaching in school. I only want my son to have a good teacher and is taught well. It doesn't matter to me what that teacher believes.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe last time I checked this was not the case. In fact, just wearing a cross in school is playing with fire.
God can be discussed in a religious education lesson, along with the plethora of other Gods and religious fairytales mankind has accumulated over the millenia.
Originally posted by whodeyWell - the teacher should teach what he/she is hired for. I believe this falls into the 'teaching my son well' category. 😛
😲
Ok then, the next time his teacher is a pagan and wishes to dance around a fire naked in front of the class to welcome the next summer solstace then remember these words. 😛
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell I certainly didn't mean that. I was most interested in cases where people are deliberately and systematically taught things that the teachers do no believe to be true.
In discussions where the term gets used, I'm not sure it means much more than the person supposed to have been 'indoctrinated' holds views that the author finds objectionable.
This is actually very common practice with children with everything from religion, to good behavior. (The devil is sitting on your shoulder whispering in your ear, eating the crusts will make your hair grow longer, Santaclaus doesn't give presents to bad little children)
But I was more thinking of cases where this practice turns violent. I may be incorrect that this practice is used amongst extremist Muslims, but I believe Communists are famous for their propaganda machines.
I am not sure about the crusades, where there was strong propaganda about some religious cause when the true motivations tended to be more political.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOr the US invasion of Iraq. Or the presentation of early Church history in The Da Vinci Code.
Well I certainly didn't mean that. I was most interested in cases where people are deliberately and systematically taught things that the teachers do no believe to be true.
This is actually very common practice with children with everything from religion, to good behavior. (The devil is sitting on your shoulder whispering in your ear, eating the crusts w ...[text shortened]... g propaganda about some religious cause when the true motivations tended to be more political.
As you say, it's quite common (even necessary) in pedagogy of children. It would be difficult for a junior-high science teacher to teach physics, for instance, if she had to keep adding caveats for modern theories.
Your question of violence is very good - but how and when does a pedagogic practice become violence?
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelNot if the atheist in question is Richard Dawkins. Or Christopher Hitchens (pre-cancer). The visceral hatred they have expressed for religious believers is no different from the hate speech in extremist mosques.
From reading the above posts it has become apparent that the teachers role becomes crucial. The teacher has to leave their own opinions out of teaching the curriculum. As a parent I would rather an athiest teach my kids than a theist. Less emotion.