Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I tell my son or daughter not to beat up other kids, is that not "indoctrination"?

Depends how it's presented. What makes doctrine doctrine is that it's presented as unquestionably true on the basis of the authority of the source.

So...

- "Don't hit people because I said so" - maybe "doctrine".

-"Think about how you feel when someone hits you - you don't like that, do you?" - not "doctrine".

In any case, you're making an unfair comparison. It seems like the sort of "doctrine" you're describing (to the extent that it's doctrine at all) is also the sort of "doctrine" that religious parents also teach their kids. The religious parents just often layer lots of doctrine - actual doctrine - on top. It also seems like you're trying to draw a false equivalency between things where it's demonstrably vital that a child knows them (e.g. "don't touch a hot stove"-type instruction) with stuff that isn't demonstrably necessary at all. It's like equating braces with tattoos on the grounds that they're both "body modification".

 

[metis]

Depends how it's presented. What makes doctrine doctrine is that it's presented as unquestionably true on the basis of the authority of the source.

So...

- "Don't hit people because I said so" - maybe "doctrine".

-"Think about how you feel when someone hits you - you don't like that, do you?" - not "doctrine".

In any case, you're making an unfair comparison. It seems like the sort of "doctrine" you're describing (to the extent that it's doctrine at all) is also the sort of "doctrine" that religious parents also teach their kids. The religious parents just often layer lots of doctrine - actual doctrine - on top. It also seems like you're trying to draw a false equivalency between things where it's demonstrably vital that a child knows them (e.g. "don't touch a hot stove"-type instruction) with stuff that isn't demonstrably necessary at all. It's like equating braces with tattoos on the grounds that they're both "body modification".

As parents, we trend to work from some particular paradigms based on morality that may come from a religious and/or secular source, and then we "indoctrinate" that morality into our children ("enculturation"). Even secular morality is often influenced by especially the dominant religion in that society. The only thing that's different is that religion-based morality is believed to have come from a deity/deities. But secular or religious, the moral paradigm is not uniform from one society to another, and yet each society uses "indoctrination", as do the parents who live within it.

Your examples above actually confirm that this is where you also are coming from even though you don't seem to recognize it. Even if there were no religions involve, directly or indirectly, the moral paradigms would not be uniform from society to society or patent to parent, but yet they would still be "indoctrinated" into the children.

Therefore, the real issue that you're having problems with is not "indoctrination" but actually is religion. "Indoctrination" is going to used by both the state and the parent one way or the other, so it's really the attitudes towards religion that is the only real difference.

 

[LuisDantas]

But doncha think that "indoctrination" can be found with practitioners of all religions, including Buddhism? All parents, I do believe, "indoctrinate" their children one way or another, including with secular values.

Thanks for asking. This is indeed important to clarify.

Children will indeed learn of their parents' values, and there should be openness on that regard.

That in no way justifies the excesses. And as it turns out, secularism is hardly anywhere as likely to suit itself to abuse as theism, particularly Christian and Muslim.

Sure, it doesn't always happen. But it can be very difficult to counter and heal in some communities, because even when the abusers are few and far between they are rarely challenged. The mystique of religion protects them, often quite undeservedly.

 

[LuisDantas]

If I tell my son or daughter not to beat up other kids, is that not "indoctrination"?

I don't think so.

If you tell them to be afraid of god's anger if they do, then it would qualify.

 

[metis]

Thanks for asking. This is indeed important to clarify.

Children will indeed learn of their parents' values, and there should be openness on that regard.

That in no way justifies the excesses. And as it turns out, secularism is hardly anywhere as likely to suit itself to abuse as theism, particularly Christian and Muslim.

Sure, it doesn't always happen. But it can be very difficult to counter and heal in some communities, because even when the abusers are few and far between they are rarely challenged. The mystique of religion protects them, often quite undeservedly.

Generally speaking, I agree with you here, but let me put it another way, namely that the main problem is one of "abuse" versus "openness", and I would suggest that you hit the bull's eye with that. Therefore, to me, "abuse" or "openness" could be the results of any kind of enculturation process, and religion is only one area whereas this could happen.

 

[metis]

I don't think so.

Why not? Am I not "indoctrinating" a certain value on to my child if I'm telling them not to beat up other children? Ain't I pretty much telling them that the life and well-being or other children is important, therefore a type of "indoctrination"?

Again, the only real difference is where the source of the "indoctrination" supposedly comes from.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As parents, we trend to work from some particular paradigms based on morality that may come from a religious and/or secular source, and then we "indoctrinate" that morality into our children ("enculturation"). Even secular morality is often influenced by especially the dominant religion in that society. The only thing that's different is that religion-based morality is believed to have come from a deity/deities. But secular or religious, the moral paradigm is not uniform from one society to another, and yet each society uses "indoctrination", as do the parents who live within it.

Your examples above actually confirm that this is where you also are coming from even though you don't seem to recognize it. Even if there were no religions involve, directly or indirectly, the moral paradigms would not be uniform from society to society or patent to parent, but yet they would still be "indoctrinated" into the children.

Therefore, the real issue that you're having problems with is not "indoctrination" but actually is religion. "Indoctrination" is going to used by both the state and the parent one way or the other, so it's really the attitudes towards religion that is the only real difference.

It seems like you didn't read anything in my last post. This is the sort of equivocation that I just pointed out doesn't work.

 

[LuisDantas]

As parents, we trend to work from some particular paradigms based on morality that may come from a religious and/or secular source, and then we "indoctrinate" that morality into our children ("enculturation"). Even secular morality is often influenced by especially the dominant religion in that society. The only thing that's different is that religion-based morality is believed to have come from a deity/deities.

It may also follow (hopefully not) for a "fear of god" or something comparably unhealthy to be taught along with the package.

Secular morality is inherently more resilient against such dangers.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that theistic religion is often neglectful and unchecked in its indoctrination, a danger that is far less of a concern for secular values.

Theistic education is not wrong, and should not necessarily be avoided. But the mentality that it should not be questioned is very dangerous.

But secular or religious, the moral paradigm is not uniform from one society to another, and yet each society uses "indoctrination", as do the parents who live within it.

Your examples above actually confirm that this is where you also are coming from even though you don't seem to recognize it. Even if there were no religions involve, directly or indirectly, the moral paradigms would not be uniform from society to society or patent to parent, but yet they would still be "indoctrinated" into the children.

Moral references change from one person to the next, let alone between families or whole societies.

Therefore, the real issue that you're having problems with is not "indoctrination" but actually is religion. "Indoctrination" is going to used by both the state and the parent one way or the other, so it's really the attitudes towards religion that is the only real difference.

It seems to me that it is rather the common yet undesirable deficiency of many religious movements in attaining basic accountability and moral responsibility for their teachings.

And of the societies that they are a part of in calling then to task when needed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why not? Am I not "indoctrinating" a certain value on to my child if I'm telling them not to beat up other children? Ain't I pretty much telling them that the life and well-being or other children is important, therefore a type of "indoctrination"?

Again, the only real difference is where the source of the "indoctrination" supposedly comes from.

A single value (non-violence) does not strike me as a doctrine, personally.

Maybe I would agree if you gave me a set of, say, three or four moral principles presented consistently.

 

[metis]

It seems like you didn't read anything in my last post. This is the sort of equivocation that I just pointed out doesn't work.

I just reread your post again (I read it twice before issuing my previous response), and again you seem to miss the point. I'm not stating nor implying that the source of religious morality is exactly the same as it may be from secular morality, but that the process is the same as far as "indoctrination" is concerned. Nor am I saying or implying that religious morality is either good or bad as I believe it could be either. But then me even saying that is from my moral paradigm which has been shaped by multiple factors, both secular and religious.

So, has your own morality been shaped by any religious influences? Did you "indoctrinate" your own children to follow the morality you feel was and is important?

 

[metis]

Theistic education is not wrong, and should not necessarily be avoided. But the mentality that it should not be questioned is very dangerous.

I do agree with your entire post, but let me just post what you say above to point out that I especially feel that this is very important.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not? Am I not "indoctrinating" a certain value on to my child if I'm telling them not to beat up other children?

Not necessarily.

Ain't I pretty much telling them that the life and well-being or other children is important, therefore a type of "indoctrination"?

Not necessarily.

Again, the only real difference is where the source of the "indoctrination" supposedly comes from.

No, that's not the only difference. Even with your straw man version of a secular parent who teaches by edict:

- there's a difference in amount. "Don't hit other kids", even if delivered in a doctrinary way, is less indoctrination than "don't hit other kids... and believe this basketful of religious claims."

- there's a difference in type of indoctrination. Basic ideas like "don't hit other kids" or "don't touch a hot stove" are necessary things to learn regardless of what sort of choices the child makes when he or she is old enough. Steering a child toward a particular religion isn't like this; it's more akin to choosing a career or a spouse - choices that can wait until the child is old enough to choose for himself or herself.

 

[metis]

A single value (non-violence) does not strike me as a doctrine, personally.

Maybe I would agree if you gave me a set of, say, three or four moral principles presented consistently.

What is the basis for non-violence? It is not intrinsic within the human species, nor is it likely to be stand-alone. With the dharma of dependence rising, it's gonna be wrapped up in a much larger package, correct?

But is that "package" the "correct" one?

 

[metis]

Not necessarily.


Not necessarily.


No, that's not the only difference. Even with your straw man version of a secular parent who teaches by edict:

- there's a difference in amount. "Don't hit other kids", even if delivered in a doctrinary way, is less indoctrination than "don't hit other kids... and believe this basketful of religious claims."

- there's a difference in type of indoctrination. Basic ideas like "don't hit other kids" or "don't touch a hot stove" are necessary things to learn regardless of what sort of choices the child makes when he or she is old enough. Steering a child toward a particular religion isn't like this; it's more akin to choosing a career or a spouse - choices that can wait until the child is old enough to choose for himself or herself.

You keep missing the point that any moral paradigm has multiple sources, even if we're not aware of them. We are born with very little that is intrinsic in this area, so we gotta pick it up somewhere, right? Very often what we call "secular" actually has a religious source, and one can also view it the other way around as well.

I have not created any "straw-man", so I actually do consider it rather insulting that you have thrown that out here. I'm not really playing games with this nor making up fables, and it seems bizarre to me that you think I am. Nor am I going to the extreme of denying that there's some things that are intrinsic to being human, even if not all humans buy into them.

Whether you want to accept it or not, we do "indoctrinate" our children, as does society in general, although what we teach and the techniques we may use and the degrees that we may go can vary widely. If you cannot accept that, then there's imply nothing else I can say.

 

[LuisDantas]

What is the basis for non-violence? It is not intrinsic within the human species, nor is it likely to be stand-alone. With the dharma of dependence rising, it's gonna be wrapped up in a much larger package, correct?

But is that "package" the "correct" one?

Non-violence can and should be justified on entirely secular means. That it is also part of most Dharmas is entirely secondary, if predictable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You keep missing the point that any moral paradigm has multiple sources, even if we're not aware of them. We are born with very little that is intrinsic in this area, so we gotta pick it up somewhere, right? Very often what we call "secular" actually has a religious source, and one can also view it the other way around as well.

It isn't that I don't get your point; it's that I reject it as irrelevant. It isn't about the original source of an idea; it's about how it's presented. It's the difference between "some people believe X; how do you think we could try to figure out whether it's true?" and "we believe X as a 'mystery of faith'."

I have not created any "straw-man", so I actually do consider it rather insulting that you have thrown that out here.

You most certainly have. Your depiction of secular parenting assumes a sort of "parenting by edict" in order to argue that secular parents "indoctrinate" their children.

I'm not really playing games with this nor making up fables, and it seems bizarre to me that you think I am. Nor am I going to the extreme of denying that there's some things that are intrinsic to being human, even if not all humans buy into them.

Whether you want to accept it or not, we do "indoctrinate" our children, as does society in general, although what we teach and the techniques we may use and the degrees that we may go can vary widely. If you cannot accept that, then there's imply nothing else I can say.

Could it just be that you indoctrinated your children, you see it as normal, and can't understand how a parent could avoid indoctrinating their kids? If so, then all I can say is that this isn't as universal as you think it is.

 

[metis]

It may also follow (hopefully not) for a "fear of god" or something comparably unhealthy to be taught along with the package.

Secular morality is inherently more resilient against such dangers.

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that theistic religion is often neglectful and unchecked in its indoctrination, a danger that is far less of a concern for secular values.

Theistic education is not wrong, and should not necessarily be avoided. But the mentality that it should not be questioned is very dangerous.



Moral references change from one person to the next, let alone between families or whole societies.




It seems to me that it is rather the common yet undesirable deficiency of many religious movements in attaining basic accountability and moral responsibility for their teachings.

And of the societies that they are a part of in calling then to task when needed.

Again, there's nothing above that I disagree with.

 

[metis]

It isn't that I don't get your point; it's that I reject it as irrelevant. It isn't about the original source of an idea; it's about how it's presented. It's the difference between "some people believe X; how do you think we could try to figure out whether it's true?" and "we believe X as a 'mystery of faith'."


You most certainly have. Your depiction of secular parenting assumes a sort of "parenting by edict" in order to argue that secular parents "indoctrinate" their children.


Could it just be that you indoctrinated your children, you see it as normal, and can't understand how a parent could avoid indoctrinating their kids? If so, then all I can say is that this isn't as universal as you think it is.

I have already pointed out how I raised my children in terms of exposing them to different points of view, and either you just don't remember what I've posted or you have just chosen to ignore what I've posted. Either way, there's no need for this discussion with you to move forward as I find your posts to be accusatory and terribly biased to the point of your own blindness. It seems that you really do not understand the concept of "enculturation" and how it works on both the subconscious and conscious mind when it comes to the issue of morality and many other issues. You can't acknowledge the basic fact that parents will "indoctrinate" their children, typically called "teaching", and if you have had any children then I can very well assume that you have indeed "indoctrinated" them.

Because your approach, I simply have no desire to move forward as you have attributed or insinuated motives to me I simply do not have, and trying to clarify this with you has proven to be fruitless.

 

[metis]

Non-violence can and should be justified on entirely secular means. That it is also part of most Dharmas is entirely secondary, if predictable.

Non-violence is typically based on religious or philosophical paradigms, and it is not an antithesis even within Buddhism. So, yes, it can be based on secular opinions, typically justified along philosophical lines. However, it is certainly not intrinsic to the human species, so the justification has to come from some general teaching one has come to accept.

 

[LuisDantas]

Non-violence is typically based on religious or philosophical paradigms, and it is not an antithesis even within Buddhism. So, yes, it can be based on secular opinions, typically justified along philosophical lines. However, it is certainly not intrinsic to the human species, so the justification has to come from some general teaching one has come to accept.

I'm not so sure myself. But then again, I suspect that line of questioning will lead us to ask whether it is even possible for human beings to lack some form of religion. And to that there is no non-arbitrary answer IMO.