Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

It's more that I don't know how to reconcile that with your insistence that every parent engages in "indoctrination", which - as I pointed out earlier - entails presenting things as unquestionably true on the basis of the authority of the source.

A light bulb just went on in my head: I think we've been operating from different definitions of "indoctrination". I gave mine earlier, and the fact that you didn't dispute it made me think you agreed with it. However, your posts since then (especially with LuisDantas) make me think that this may not be the case.

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.

Again: to me, "indoctrination" implies teaching that the thing shouldn't be questioned, but instead accepted as fact based on nothing more than the authority of the source.

I'm getting the impression now that this is not the definition of "indoctrination" that you were working from... especially after seeing your reply to LuisDantas where you agreed with him about teaching kids not to question - i.e. indoctrination, as I understand the term - is dangerous.

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.

I felt likewise, but now I think that we might just have a miscommunication here.

 

[metis]

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.

I definitely think as individuals we may, but history has shown us that religion is so much apart of the human character because every single society that we're aware of has had typically most of it's members being religious. Could this change in the future? I honestly don't know.

Personally, even though I am far closer to your position that with religious Jews, I don't see religion as being harmful any more than just driving a car is harmful, but both religion and a car can certainly be used in harmful ways, no doubt. Plus, I have always been opposed to what commonly is called "blind faith". When I see posts that start out with words like "God is...", I slap my head to the point where my face is now totally flat. OTOH, I have far less difficulty when one starts out with "I believe God...".

 

[metis]

It's more that I don't know how to reconcile that with your insistence that every parent engages in "indoctrination", which - as I pointed out earlier - entails presenting things as unquestionably true on the basis of the authority of the source.

A light bulb just went on in my head: I think we've been operating from different definitions of "indoctrination". I gave mine earlier, and the fact that you didn't dispute it made me think you agreed with it. However, your posts since then (especially with LuisDantas) make me think that this may not be the case.


Again: to me, "indoctrination" implies teaching that the thing shouldn't be questioned, but instead accepted as fact based on nothing more than the authority of the source.

I'm getting the impression now that this is not the definition of "indoctrination" that you were working from... especially after seeing your reply to LuisDantas where you agreed with him about teaching kids not to question - i.e. indoctrination, as I understand the term - is dangerous.


I felt likewise, but now I think that we might just have a miscommunication here.

Now that I agree with as being far more likely, so can we still be friends? I'll pay you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now that I agree with as being far more likely, so can we still be friends? I'll pay you.

Sure. No payment required.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I definitely think as individuals we may, but history has shown us that religion is so much apart of the human character because every single society that we're aware of has had typically most of it's members being religious. Could this change in the future? I honestly don't know.

Every single society that we're aware of has also had most of its members being heterosexual... but this doesn't negate the validity of same-sex parented families.

Personally, even though I am far closer to your position that with religious Jews, I don't see religion as being harmful any more than just driving a car is harmful, but both religion and a car can certainly be used in harmful ways, no doubt.

This issue isn't about religion being good or bad; it's about being able to choose one's own path.

I think a good analogy is marriage: not too long ago, it was common for parents to pick spouses for their children. Kids could be babies and "engaged". Over time, some families softened their stance and allowed their "betrothed" children to marry someone else if they seriously objected to the prospective spouse that their children had picked out; IMO, this is analogous to what sojourner suggested: putting kids on one specific religious path and allowing them to leave it if they decide it's not for them.

I think a better way to do things is how we do marriage now: let the child choose a spouse for themselves - or no spouse at all - once they're old enough. Now... while this does make it easier for someone to stay single if that's what they choose, it isn't really an "anti-marriage" position. If anything, it's pro-marriage, since it upholds marriage as something that's important enough that it requires careful reflection and a willing heart.

Plus, I have always been opposed to what commonly is called "blind faith". When I see posts that start out with words like "God is...", I slap my head to the point where my face is now totally flat. OTOH, I have far less difficulty when one starts out with "I believe God...".

When we assign a religion to a young child who doesn't have the mental ability to appreciate theological concepts, what sort of faith can this child have but blind faith?

 

[LuisDantas]

I see where you are coming from, Penguin, but comparisons with marriage can go only so far.

Religion is a matter of genuine concern for those who do not adhere to it (as this thread gives witness). Unlike marriage, people's beliefs have a very real impact on others, and it is legitimate to want to learn and know how to deal with them.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no "the" truth.

Ok ... so, will you teach your children that it is "truth" or merely that it is what you believe to be "truth"? In other words, will you encourage or inhibit their open mind?

 

[metis]

Every single society that we're aware of has also had most of its members being heterosexual... but this doesn't negate the validity of same-sex parented families.


This issue isn't about religion being good or bad; it's about being able to choose one's own path.

I think a good analogy is marriage: not too long ago, it was common for parents to pick spouses for their children. Kids could be babies and "engaged". Over time, some families softened their stance and allowed their "betrothed" children to marry someone else if they seriously objected to the prospective spouse that their children had picked out; IMO, this is analogous to what sojourner suggested: putting kids on one specific religious path and allowing them to leave it if they decide it's not for them.

I think a better way to do things is how we do marriage now: let the child choose a spouse for themselves - or no spouse at all - once they're old enough. Now... while this does make it easier for someone to stay single if that's what they choose, it isn't really an "anti-marriage" position. If anything, it's pro-marriage, since it upholds marriage as something that's important enough that it requires careful reflection and a willing heart.


When we assign a religion to a young child who doesn't have the mental ability to appreciate theological concepts, what sort of faith can this child have but blind faith?

For some reason you keep missing the points I've mentioned and then adding other conditions that we were not even talking about, so I'll now bow out of this with you.

 

[sojourner]

Ok ... so, will you teach your children that it is "truth" or merely that it is what you believe to be "truth"? In other words, will you encourage or inhibit their open mind?

I can only teach them my truth, which includes helping them to discern their own truth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can only teach them my truth, which includes helping them to discern their own truth.

I notice that you didn't actually answer the question.

 

[sojourner]

So your praise of a religious upbringing doesn't apply to the world's largest Protestant denomination.

No, my support o religious upbringing doesn't apply to indoctrination.

I'm acknowledging that if something is true in general, it's true for specific cases within that general case. You praised "religious upbringing" in general. Unless you're going to qualify what you meant by "religious", any religion is fair game.

No. You don't get to make specific cases general.

I've never said that the Southern Baptists - or any other particular group - represent the entirety of Christianity; I've said repeatedly that they don't.

Yet, you take that group and attempt to make it generally representative of religion. Which you know it isn't.

Can you give us some examples of religious upbringings you find "draconian"?

Upbringings that are intimidating, violent or disrespectful.

I'm not sure which is more disgusting: the prejudice in this statement or the way you've tried to exempt yourself for any justification whatsoever for your prejudice.

I'm not sure which is more disgusting: the prejudice in your statement or the way you've tried to pawn your prejudice off on others.

 

[sojourner]

The first step would be defining what "spirituality" is. There are lots of definitions floating around that range from vague to false.

There are also definitions that aren't "vague" or "false." You've managed to completely ignore those.

One test for indoctrination: if the parents say that our child has a religion or is being brought up to be a member of a religion, some degree of indoctrination is happening.

No it isn't. Not unless they're using punishment, intimidation, or other violence to enforce something.

So... these things didn't happen?

That's not cogent to my statement.

 

[sojourner]

"Indoctrination" just means "imparting doctrine"

No, I'm afraid it means more than that. "Doctrine" =/= "indoctrination."

Any belief system with doctrine has indoctrination.

No. It doesn't. And not all belief systems even have doctrine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not cogent to my statement.

Are you saying that those things didn't happen, or that those children aren't "being included in the religion of their parents"?

 

[sojourner]

I notice that you didn't actually answer the question.

I notice that the question uses a philosophical meaning of truth that I don't buy into. I answered the question as best I could, given the parameters in which I prefer to work. There is no "the truth." Therefore, any question wanting to know whether I teach my children "the truth" will garner any kind of an answer that fits that definition.

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying that those things didn't happen, or that those children aren't "being included in the religion of their parents"?

I'm saying that those things aren't the major reason why this thread exists.

 

[Curious George]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

Does it rise to the level of abuse? Can you prove abuse? No? Then it's the parents choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, my support o religious upbringing doesn't apply to indoctrination.

So then to what extent does it apply to religious upbringing at all? Could you give a ballpark percentage of how often religious upbringing includes "indoctrination"? 10% of the time? 50%? 90%?

If your arguments for a "religious upbringing" don't actually apply to most religious upbringings, what good are they?

No. You don't get to make specific cases general.

I'm not. I'm saying that if a general statement is true, then it'll be generally true for specific cases. If you're going to say that religious upbringings are generally positive, then when we consider whether it's true that an (insert religion here) upbringing is positive, the answer should be "yes" the vast majority of the time.

Yet, you take that group and attempt to make it generally representative of religion. Which you know it isn't.

Southern Baptists aren't representative of all religion, but they're very much part of the spectrum, and aren't even at the extreme end of that spectrum (at least in North America).

Upbringings that are intimidating, violent or disrespectful.

Labelling a child with a religion that he or she has not intellectually assented to and freely chosen is disrespectful.

Teaching a child that Hell is the punishment for disbelief is intimidating.

Neither of these are universal to all religious upbringings, but both are common enough that they can't be reasonably ignored.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm saying that those things aren't the major reason why this thread exists.

So you don't dispute that these events are part of "what's going on when parents include their children in religion", but choose not to address this. So be it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I'm afraid it means more than that. "Doctrine" =/= "indoctrination."

Any teaching of doctrine is indoctrination:

the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view

Indoctrination | Define Indoctrination at Dictionary.com

No. It doesn't. And not all belief systems even have doctrine.

Are you now only arguing for upbringing in doctrine-free religions?