It's no secret that religion indocrinates its worshipers at a young age because of their gullibility and willingness to believe elders/parents. Dawkins speculated (I agree) that without indocrination of children, religion wouldn't be able to spread and would probably die out. I use probably because I don't have his book handy, so I'm hedging. I think it would certainly die out as we know it.
So is it acceptable to let religious leaders indocrinate children even with the parent's blessing, or does that violate their rights?
Indoctrinating religion as opposed to other beliefs and values?
And even if we are to accept that some parents indoctrinate their children (after agreeing as to what indoctrination means), what is the alternative? Who has the better claim as to what a child should be exposed to?
I don't agree at all. I've noticed that people have a tendency to question their beliefs especially if their parents raised them with a certain set of values. Its not child abuse though that's just sensationalism.
Children believe in Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. There's an evolutionary reason why they believe what they're told without question. It would be hard to convince adults of a tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny, though (harder). There's a reason why the religious want to get to the children, and it's not just so male virgins in robes can have sex. [okay, low blow but not untrue]
[DELETED]
Calm down.
Razerfish, please address my two questions:
What makes teaching a child religious beliefs and customs different than teaching a child non-religious beliefs and customs (e.g. it is proper to respect first-come-first-serve when a queue forms)? Is there something inherently wrong with religious belief and tradition, other than the fact that you personally refute them, and is it wrong enough that teaching it to children should be considered abuse?
And who has a better claim as to what doctrines a child should and should not be exposed to than the parents? You? The community? Richard Dawkins?
(I'll throw in an extra question, which is why should it be our aim to see religion die out?)
EDIT: I should say that, yes, even in an anarchist society, it is possible that those doctrines considered harmful to society (preaches that murder is good, God demands us to set things on fire, property should not be respected...etc.) may be 'outlawed', with violent or non-violent action. I don't think the liberal/libertarian can condone outlawing it violently, however.
Well, first off I didn't read anywhere where Razerfish said he supported the idea, he was just asking a question. Secondly, I think parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they want. Doesn't mean I have to approve of their message. While Dawkins is a raging liberal, I don't believe he supports the view you are saying. Dawkins is trying to raise consciousness about the dangers of religious fundamental indoctrination. It's like giving a kid too many Snickers bars; it may be irresponsible, but not worthy of the government to extract the child from the living area.
It depends on how bad the indoctrination is. If it's like those Mormon cults in Texas, the children are being violated and there's no question about it.
When did razer ever propose introducing the state to (fix) the issue? His concern seems to be solely over whether its consistent with libertarian principles to indoctrinate children, to which I think Green gave a suitable answer to. Ideally we'd wish to avoid indoctrinating children over anything, but in the practical aspect of things we're bound to indoctrinate children over certain things. The three r's of learning for the most part fall into this category. Two plus two is four. Why this is doesn't need to be explored too deeply with a child. Violence isn't the solution to our problems. ect. ect. If indoctrination is acceptable here, then I can't find a libertarian reason to oppose it (although I am sure it might be inconsistent with other lifestyle choices).
I would say that its perfectly acceptable to allow children be indoctrinated into religion, or libertarianism for those hasty about using religion as an example, by their parents or their parents consent; so long as the children themselves are not physically forced to adopt a certain view of things under the threat of maltreatment (e.g. "..finish reading Human Action or no dinner!").
What's religion and/or religious leaders?
People can teach other people any sort of stupid nonsense they want, which would include their children.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Exactly what "right" is being violated? If teaching your children your own beliefs is a violation of some unknown civil right, then who among us is qualified to judge what qualifies as indoctrination? You tread extremely dangerous ground, since the only obvious answer-- and I am VERY sure Dawkins would agree with this-- is to have the state make the teaching of religion illegal in one's own household. Of all the religious nuts out there, none are more dangerous than an evangelical atheist!
Questioning where we came from and what if anything lies beyond death is part of being human. What made early man so unlike us was not simply the size of his brain and shape of his skull, it was his lack of an imagination-- and part of that is imagining an afterlife. The evidence can be found in observing the species of primitive humans that buried their dead. A certain degree of spirituality is what makes us human. Even if one judges a religion, or even all religion, to be false, that conclusion was brought about after considering all possibilities in one's own mind, and two rational people will never come to the exact same conclusion-- that is, unless the state forces its own uniformity of thought on everyone.
Just because someone might have a grudge against their Creator, or against organized religion (or just an unshakeable belief in their own self- righteousness) does not give anyone the right to police another person's lawful activity in his own house. The belief that there can be only one set of values and that all others are wrong or sinful is why many are driven away from religion in the first place. In the interest of freedom, it is far better to have competing ideas, religions, and values for the individual to choose from, and to raise their children without any interference from Dr. Dawkins.
Religious indoctrination is nowhere near as deadly as statist indoctrination. It's just an unfortunate fact that the Church has been so "corporatized" over the years that statist inclinations have inflitrated religious teachings.
Eric080: It depends on how bad the indoctrination is. If it's like those Mormon cults in Texas, the children are being violated and there's no question about it.
Michelangelo: I would say that its perfectly acceptable to allow children be indoctrinated into religion, or libertarianism for those hasty about using religion as an example, by their parents or their parents consent; so long as the children themselves are not physically forced to adopt a certain view of things under the threat of maltreatment (e.g. "..finish reading Human Action or no dinner!").
What is wrong with 'finish reading HA or no dinner' ? Whose house is it? Whose food?
There is no such right to the "truth only" or "no indoctrination", so children's rights are not violated (unless someone proves me wrong). But. Of course, indoctrination in general is considered bad. I personally see State's indoctrination much worse than religious one, even though they are not very mutually exclusive.
But then again, no one's rights are violated, so the only solution is by raising awareness of such acts and teaching people the methodology of critical thinking.
Probably without religious indoctrination religion would die out... but the same could be said about statism. If there were no public schools and various State granted monopolies, the belief in the necessity of the State would also die out.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Parents don't have rights. The concept of rights is nonsense. It's a statist scheme.
The only way people have rights is if a state can enforce it. For instance, if a parent was quadriplegic -- could the parent use someone else's help (like a policeman) to force a child to get to the church/mosque/temple? If the answer is no, then the parent doesn't have the right.
I think it can be child abuse in that within certain ceremonies there are things which in some other context would be child abuse. For instance, Opus Dei self-beating, or the Coptic church's cutting women's genitals off, or pentacostals handling snakes, or Rabbis who suck the blood out a freshly cut penis and give the child hepatitis. In many parts of the world, children are forced into political things through the religion, too. For instance, to hate Jews or to strap bombs to their chests.
I think Christian rock music, for children and adults, is a form of noise pollution.
As for indoctrination... I'm not sure I understand why parents tell their children about tooth fairies, santa, or any of that stuff. It seems to be a mindfuck. But if those things are comparable to religion, why don't parents eventually tell the children the truth about religion, too?
"What is wrong with 'finish reading HA or no dinner' ? Whose house is it? Whose food?"
Whose penis went into whose vagina and made a choice to bring a helpless being into the house?
the child isn't just passing by to have a bite to eat.
Teaching your children your religion/spirituality isn't indoctrination, it's carrying on a set of values, beliefs, and cultural aspects. Most religions have a family/community aspect to them, so it would make sense to raise your child in it. I don't see a child's rights being violated by carrying on a tradition. (On that note; I was raised Christian, and rid myself of it, when I have my children I plan on teaching them about Norse heathenry.)
Correct, they have might. And the very nature of a parent child relation is the fact that parents have might over the child. Being that every action is an act of force, anything could be seen as child abuse, as the child is rather helpless in the situation (by definiton).
Fortunatly we have context, perspective, and custom tied to one's decision making process in the environment they deal with; it is when you start talking about theororetical people and situations, or people you have little or nothing to do with, or have little power over other than some form of the intellectual (that is the ability to state an idea without bearing a significant amount of the responsability for said idea) a revolutionary attitude takes place and there is nothing but greif from people who do have to bear the world of one's somewhat whimsical thoughts.
If a suicide bomer is trying to bomb you or something within your actual realm of power (that which you do bear a significant amount of accountability on), simply and 100% for no other reason than because of his God, or if you really honestly have to calculate that option in your day to day affairs, worry about it; than it becomes real.
As for indoctrination...I don't know why political theorists tell their followers about boogey men, dragons to slay, suicide bombers, and religion. It seems to be a mindfuck.
You want them indoctrinated in rationalism instead?
Parents don't have rights. The concept of rights is nonsense.
Right, but they do have legitimate influence on children. It's more like parents have negotiation power. They pay the bill, it's up to the parents and the child to find an agreement on what the child has to do for said support. Kids doesn't like it? Run to charity, find new parents, or pay your own way.
There is a real big difference between different types of force.
For instance, rape and defending against rape. Or murder and self-defense. Theft and retrieving property from a thief. The ones who do not grant universal morality are the ones in the wrong, because then they are in a different type of moral act. They say I can rape, you can't. I can shoot at you, you can't back at me. I can steal, you can't. Etc.
There are also differences between different indoctrinations. Usually 'boogeymen', if you mean foreigners or whatever, at the very least are things known to exist or could possibly exist.. It could be wrong, but it is in a higher level of wrong than santa or Jesus. That's why the Santa is taught to kids, while boogeymen is to adults. Adults at the very least can judge logical consistency to some degree and are not just credulous.
Even if we meant space aliens are coming to get us, it would be in a higher level. Since space aliens at the very least can take a material form to give anal probes or whatever. And are not believed to be everywhere at once giving presents, or immaterial in everyone's hearts, or whatever else can be told to kids.
"Kids doesn't like it? Run to charity, find new parents, or pay your own way."
I think the onus is on the parents to find new parents if they don't want to raise the kid. Since the responsibility is on them for having sex to begin with. The same is true for people who want abortions: fine, but pay for it yourself. A charity or other parents can't be forced to take the kid; but the parents can be, since having sex and birthing a child morally obligates them towards the child's well-being. In my opinion, if they make the kid pay their own way it is the same as starving them to death. They might find someone else and thus the original parents wouldn't be responsible anymore, but what if not?
lol, it has worked well so far...
http://nhsboyshistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/reign-of-terror.jpg
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -Albert Einstein
P.S. anything and everything could be seen or not seen as indoctrination. It is a gibberish word.
If it's like those Mormon cults in Texas, the children are being violated and there's no question about it.
Not likely. Specifically, read this.
Clayton -
Indoctrination is synonymous with teaching and encompasses everything. In the case of religion what makes it "abuse" is that the child is immediately terrorized with delusions of eternal torment in hell if x is done or not done. It's also abuse of adults vulnerable to its seduction. What could be psychological abuse if not that? If an age 40 man took a little girl in his van and told her she had to play with his dingaling or something terrible would happen, let's say... she would go to hell, one can hardly imagine any disagreement in a room full of a cross section of the population that it is abuse. Yet, what part of that constitutes the abuse: the lude act or the threat?
define 'indoctrination'
It's patently absurd to expect parents to not discuss their beliefs with their children, or to not try and teach their kids values that they think are important
Indoctrination is synonymous with teaching and encompasses everything. In the case of [meaningless] what makes it "abuse" is that the [legal term] is [meaningless] [meaningless] with [meaningless] of [incorrect universal assumption/meaningless] if x is done or not done. It's also [legal term] of [legal term] [meaningless] to its [meaningless].
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Are you saying that (1) teaching religion is not abuse, (2) teaching paedophilia is not abuse or (3) teaching anything is not abuse?
@Joe
When I made the quip about it being abuse for parents to enforce the reading of HA or no dinner I took it for granted that the parents entered (albeit not explicit) contract with the child to act as their caretakers, including giving meals, by virtue of having created the children. If the parents did not wish to raise the child, be it because they learn he's a Keynesian or whatever, then they are still obligated to announce that the role of caretaker is available for the child. One thing is for them to drop the kid off at an orphanage, another is to throw them into the basement and refuse wishful-caretakers the ability to retrieve the child.
All of the above.
I am saying that which one can not speak, one must remain silent.
Are you an abuse nihilist or exclude such deception from your definition of that particular word? Would you like a different word to describe 1 and 2?
English?
William: P.S. anything and everything could be seen or not seen as indoctrination. It is a gibberish word.
above statement is gibberish.
scineram: You want them indoctrinated in rationalism instead?
more like, when christians whine that atheists "indoctrinate" their children that there is no god? Hm... let me look in a real world and find a unicorn... nope, there is none. So telling people there is no unicorns is not an "indoctrination" per se. You just trying invoke a straw man and take extreme cases.
A young child is indoctrinated by his/her Objectivist parents. What is the community to do?
Outside of religion, if a child is homeschooled, couldn't one claim the indoctrination of the child by their parents revisionist outlook on history, or their philosophy that wouldn't align with a public school's? It could just as well be the other way around as many claim.
since the only obvious answer-- and I am VERY sure Dawkins would agree with this-- is to have the state make the teaching of religion illegal in one's own household.
How can you be very sure about something in which you have no evidence? Oh wait, God.... Either way, please provide evidence that Dawkins wants to force people not to believe in religion. He may be an arrogant buffon, but I have seen nothing that says he would outlaw religion.
Just because someone might have a grudge against their Creator, or against organized religion (or just an unshakeable belief in their own self- righteousness)
You certainly have an un-biased view on athiests.... No, it has nothing to do w the God paradox, or the idea that any kind of creator/actor god is logically impossible, and mentally incoherent. No, it is in their "unshakeable belief in their own self-righteousness." HAHA, get over the indoctrination friend, most athiests have no problem with the religous other than that they think its silly. You're basing your view off the loud athiests, which is like basing religion off the loud religous (all religous people want to blow up other religions, and dont believe in evolution would be a stupid argument).
to raise their children without any interference from Dr. Dawkins
Would you use the state to stop him from teaching your kids about rationality?
Either way, no. Teaching your kids your beliefs is natural. The only time I have a problem is when teach them that your beliefs are the only valid ones. Even then, I only have a problem with it, it is not child abuse.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
If you can't teach your child your beliefs, you can't teach them anything. Besides everyone knows plenty of people who have embraced or rejected their parents religions. Even if it was "abuse", how are you going to regulate it? This thread's pointless.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.