| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep misreading this as a protest of the religious indoctrination of CHICKEN. Let them cross the road if they so wish, they have the right.
That said the first seven years thing with respect to religion can lead to a lot of fanatic crazy. It can also lead to a lot of good things. I will not sit in judgment anymore than be judged.
I'm a better parent of my children than the government. The vast majority of parents are. And where I live my children have a better chance of going to college if they attend religious schools than if they attended public paid for school.
Because religious schools expel the problem children and don't take nearly the % of special needs kids. Its a lot easier to do well if you can select people for your game than if you have to let everyone play.
|
Omitting an aspect of any field of knowledge in education can be a means of indoctrination as it will change the perspective of the recipient [of that education] as strongly as emphasizing an aspect. Classic forms of indoctrination are usually comprised of emphasizement, omittment and bias, but any of those three aspect can certainly work alone.
Of course not teaching children about religion would fall under your law also.Not teaching children something is indoctrination?
That makes no sense at all.
Actually, it make a hell of a lot of sense. Re-read 1984. Half of the indoctrination is not in what they teach, but in what they deliberately avoid mentioning, which prevents people from realizing that there are alternative viewpoints or even a matter for discussion.
That's one of the reasons that "consciousness raising" is such a key factor in any protest movement, because many times the majority of people aren't even aware that the subject in question is even an issue. Gay marriage, for example, literally wasn't even on people's radar until roughly 1968 (according to the Google Books corpus).
Of course not teaching children about religion would fall under your law also.Not teaching children something is indoctrination?
That makes no sense at all.
Certainly, if there is no education of the subject, you are indoctrinating the child into believing that the subject doesn't exist. If, for example, no education of Creationism* were taught, then the idea isn't part of the child's experience. How can someone make a choice without the option?
*Note that Creationism is a valid option for the story of the origin of the Universe. A God, could have created tje world to include the fossil record as a test of faith or a joke. Actually, can you prove that a God didn't create the world five minutes ago, by creating everyone with intact memories? (When I proposed this theory to a very Religious, but poorly educated, friend he got very upset and nearl violent.)
Your definition of indoctrination is too broad to be of any use.
To you, not telling them that a purple polka-dotted dragon is waiting in their closet to eat their succulent flesh is indoctrination against dragons.
It's beyond absurd.
Only 99,998 to go...good luck with that.
If only we could have a petition to stop stupid petitions, then the circle of stupidity would be complete.
-MD
It appears it still is at 99,999.
Interesting idea though. I don't think many kids actually receive religious indoctrination in the West to tell the truth. HOWEVER, I suppose that depends on your definition of religious indoctrination.
As far as this definition goes
teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
I would probably also be against religious indoctrination of children...but not enough to really sign a petition.
Your definition of indoctrination is too broad to be of any use.
To you, not telling them that a purple polka-dotted dragon is waiting in their closet to eat their succulent flesh is indoctrination against dragons.It's beyond absurd.
Where does education end and indoctrination begin?
Remember that there are Athiests that want the presence of the Bible forbidden in public schools. Meaning that a student could not bring their own copy to read in their free time.
And there are people of faith that want the teaching of evolution banned from schools.
For these people, it is all indoctrination.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose, at least provisionally, I would define religious indoctrination as the purposeful teaching of a single religion and its tenets, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, in a way that specifically demonizes or prohibits the act of doubting or challenging the beliefs.
I went to catholic school, but even in religion class we were encouraged to ask questions and make up our own mind (though we were also told we should keep attending mass and taking communion, just in case...) and if the teacher couldn't answer we could ask a priest or a nun.
Some other friends of mine, who went to other religious schools, were taught that questioning the teachings was itself an offense to god. Stamping out critical thinking at a young age is what I'm most worried about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that there are Athiests that want the presence of the Bible forbidden in public schools. Meaning that a student could not bring their own copy to read in their free time.
Citation?
I'd say most atheists, myself included, want the teaching of the Bible as fact forbidden in public schools. Many want the Bible banned from science classes. None that I know or have ever encountered or heard of, myself included, have any issue whatsoever with the Bible as literature, or in comparative religions studies, or just being in the library or in someone's possession.
I wish I'd had my Anthropology of Religion class in high school. It has helped me make sense of religious thought and practice in so many ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why stop at religion? Lets go for it all we should outlaw the indoctrination of political issues as well. Also sports teams...taking side of the great coke vs pepsi debate. Think of the children!!!
Where does education end and indoctrination begin?Your definition of indoctrination is too broad to be of any use.
To you, not telling them that a purple polka-dotted dragon is waiting in their closet to eat their succulent flesh is indoctrination against dragons.It's beyond absurd.
Education is empirically grounded and covers as much of the relevant evidence as possible. Indoctrination makes stuff up, and selectively edits to airbrush away inconvenient opinions, including those that are empirically grounded.
Remember that there are Athiests that want the presence of the Bible forbidden in public schools. Meaning that a student could not bring their own copy to read in their free time.
I don't think there are any, actually.
And there are people of faith that want the teaching of evolution banned from schools.For these people, it is all indoctrination.
Yes, and for those people, they're wrong. Evolution is empirically grounded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real subject that would change the world by omission is probably history. Balkan, Israel, Ireland... grudges carry across generations. And at some point, the actual teaching of history in schools becomes a factor to keep them alive.
Not that I would seriously suggest something that monstrous, of course. It's just something that would change stuff.
I went to catholic school, but even in religion class we were encouraged to ask questions and make up our own mind (though we were also told we should keep attending mass and taking communion, just in case...) and if the teacher couldn't answer we could ask a priest or a nun.Those damned Catholics and their fides quarens intellectum! We can't have them letting people know the religious can be thoughtful and reasonable!
IKR? It's this kind of thing that can give religion a good name, next thing you'll be telling me there's a religion somewhere that doesn't want to violently purge the planet of all unbelievers. Where will it all end?
My heart tells me it is wrong for a child to grow up thinking their parents' religion (or that of the school they attend) is the only correct choice for them due to seeing it in practice so much they just start thinking it's "normal" for everyone.
My brain tells me good luck in finding a way to enforce that which doesn't cause greater issues.
I always recall Isaac the Jew from Ivanhoe.
"If our teachings are false, they will pass away."
Yes, but what if a group's teachings are false but are also politically convenient to those in power?
Wow. I just quoted Krull in a discussion. I win the internet!
And your prize is a cat that asks for cheeseburgers!
As much as I'd like to let kids pick their own religion when they got older, I don't think handing government this much control over someone's life is a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but what if a group's teachings are false but are also politically convenient to those in power?
Oh, no, see, we just have to get the right people in power and that won't happen.
Yeah, cops kicking in your door for being too religious in the privacy of your home.
How could anything bad possibly come from that?
Yes, but what if a group's teachings are false but are also politically convenient to those in power?Oh, no, see, we just have to get the right people in power and that won't happen.
I'm not referring to elected office, I'm referring to unelected power like wealth. You know, the TRUE source of power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why stop at religion? Lets go for it all we should outlaw the indoctrination of political issues as well. Also sports teams...taking side of the great coke vs pepsi debate. Think of the children!!!
I've mentioned this before, but when I was a senior in high school, the Christian Coalition ran a successful sleeper campaign to get elected to my town's School Board. One of the things they did, after instituting "moments of silence" and banning positive depictions of homosexuality, was to cancel the "Four Isms" course and all other classes that discussed socialism and communism.
I'm happy to say that it was too late, I'd already been a commie for a year, and I appeared on the local news speaking in favor of full democratic rights for gays. Wearing a Mao cap.
Vive le Bachuan!
The Christian Coalition was booted off the School Board as soon as the next election rolled around.
Live free or die!
Why stop at religion? Lets go for it all we should outlaw the indoctrination of political issues as well. Also sports teams...taking side of the great coke vs pepsi debate. Think of the children!!!I've mentioned this before, but when I was a senior in high school, the Christian Coalition ran a successful sleeper campaign to get elected to my town's School Board. One of the things they did, after instituting "moments of silence" and banning positive depictions of homosexuality, was to cancel the "Four Isms" course and all other classes that discussed socialism and communism.
I'm happy to say that it was too late, I'd already been a commie for a year, and I appeared on the local news speaking in favor of full democratic rights for gays. Wearing a Mao cap.
Vive le Bachuan!
The Christian Coalition was booted off the School Board as soon as the next election rolled around.
Live free or die!
That is all very good and unimportant to the more pressing issue...which side are you on...Coke? Or Pepsi? And how did your parent control your decision?
Coke, without a doubt. And none of that Diet Coke, Coke Zero, whatever, bullshiznit.
Pepsi is for losers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coke, without a doubt. And none of that Diet Coke, Coke Zero, whatever, bullshiznit.
I'm going to tell you a secret about Vo Giap.
Pepsi is for people with good taste.
Pepsi is for people with good taste.
We're drinking the pop, not the person. Mostly. People are mostly not for drinking. Too many solids.
In theory, the concept of no religious indoctrination for children is good, but the enforcement and implications of the law and enforcement would be troubling.
Children do have rights, it's just that not being an age of majority, there are various people (like parents) or institutions (schools) that stand in as the protectors/caretakers of those rights. If parents aren't deemed capable of protecting a child's right to freedom of religion, government would have to assign someone else to do it. What would be required to enforce that would necessarily have to infringe on the parents same freedom of religion and many other rights.
Also, subject of foreign nationals and rights, they're actually protected by quite a few elements of the Constitution. Most of the political rights, speech, association, religion, etc are granted to "persons" and the Supreme Court has upheld the Equal Protections clause to apply to foreign nationals for well over a century (1886).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If religion was done away with, new religions would spring up to replace them. Some folks are not satisfied to know that there are questions that don't have answers.
Science fails to provide answers to all questions, so someone will always make up answers to these unknown questions. Are they the right answers? No. They are made up.
Still, the made up answers provide comfort to those who want all the questions to have answers. Even if the answer is, you gotta have faith.
[On the derail]Coke? Pepsi? No! Beer![/Off derail]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coke, without a doubt. And none of that Diet Coke, Coke Zero, whatever, bullshiznit.
Pepsi is for losers.
All right we can still be comrades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coke, without a doubt. And none of that Diet Coke, Coke Zero, whatever, bullshiznit.I'm going to tell you a secret about Vo Giap.
** spoiler omitted **
Lies and calumnies! Kung Fu Joe is a paper tiger!
All right we can still be comrades.Coke, without a doubt. And none of that Diet Coke, Coke Zero, whatever, bullshiznit.
Pepsi is for losers.
[Fistbump]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If religion was done away with, new religions would spring up to replace them. Some folks are not satisfied to know that there are questions that don't have answers.
Science fails to provide answers to all questions, so someone will always make up answers to these unknown questions. Are they the right answers? No. They are made up.
Still, the made up answers provide comfort to those who want all the questions to have answers. Even if the answer is, you gotta have faith.[On the derail]Coke? Pepsi? No! Beer![/Off derail]
Nah, if you actually studied religion you'd find that's not at all why religions arise and flourish. At least not initially, though answers to philosophical enquiry is certainly one way they are maintained past the first generation.
Religions, at least organized religions, are born out of a need for community, the basic tribal instinct, to discern "us" from "them". It's like a really weird social club, where "cutting the tip of the penis off a baby" is their "secret handshake" or what have you. In a world where communication and transportation technology connect us all as a world community, I find it difficult to imagine tribalism would arise once again around belief in the supernatural.
Sure, people still have tribal instincts, about sports teams or RPG editions, but those are ephemeral problems compared to the (purported) longevity of a deity or deities.
I'm definitely not of the Orson Scott Card camp that says man will always have religion in some fashion. Unless you define religion so broadly as to be no longer germaine to the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[On the derail]Coke? Pepsi? No! Beer![/Off derail]
Derail? Derail? This is a Yellowdingo thread...there is no such thing.
I did not bring up beer because well that would be unfair to our underage readers....and I did not want to seem to be indocrinating them one way or another before they can leagly form opinions on their own.
But lets be serious here a moment the problem is how do you draw a line between indocrination and raising a child?
[On the derail]Coke? Pepsi? No! Beer![/Off derail]Derail? Derail? This is a Yellowdingo thread...there is no such thing.
I did not bring up beer because well that would be unfair to our underage readers....and I did not want to seem to be indocrinating them one way or another before they can leagly form opinions on their own.
But lets be serious here a moment the problem is how do you draw a line between indocrination and raising a child?
I drank a lot more beer when I was underage than I do now.
Edit: not to condone underage drinking, stay sober kids !
Wow. I just quoted Krull in a discussion. I win the internet!And your prize is a cat that asks for cheeseburgers!
But it's in a box and no one knows if it's dead or alive.
If religion was done away with, new religions would spring up to replace them. Some folks are not satisfied to know that there are questions that don't have answers.
Science fails to provide answers to all questions, so someone will always make up answers to these unknown questions. Are they the right answers? No. They are made up.
Still, the made up answers provide comfort to those who want all the questions to have answers. Even if the answer is, you gotta have faith.[On the derail]Coke? Pepsi? No! Beer![/Off derail]
Nah, if you actually studied religion you'd find that's not at all why religions arise and flourish. At least not initially, though answers to philosophical enquiry is certainly one way they are maintained past the first generation.
Religions, at least organized religions, are born out of a need for community, the basic tribal instinct, to discern "us" from "them". It's like a really weird social club, where "cutting the tip of the penis off a baby" is their "secret handshake" or what have you. In a world where communication and transportation technology connect us all as a world community, I find it difficult to imagine tribalism would arise once again around belief in the supernatural.
Sure, people still have tribal instincts, about sports teams or RPG editions, but those are ephemeral problems compared to the (purported) longevity of a deity or deities.
I'm definitely not of the Orson Scott Card camp that says man will always have religion in some fashion. Unless you define religion so broadly as to be no longer germaine to the discussion.
As I have said in other threads tribalism or the Us vs. Them will always occur even if it doesn't fall along along ethnic or spiritual lines. The great Brotherhood of Man is simply a dream.
But lets be serious here a moment the problem is how do you draw a line between indocrination and raising a child?Easy. Beliefs one agrees with is raising the child, and those one disagrees with are forms of indoctrination.
No, we've already gone over that. To insist on this is to insist that the definition of terms relies solely on subjective input, and to argue that is to argue that the entire complex of human interaction is meaningless.
No, indoctrination involves rational cul-de-sacs in which people are told not to question or doubt the truth of the lessons, lest they will have already betrayed them/sinned and will go to hell/mommy will spank you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love big brother. I want him to tell everyone what to do...except me. Because big brother knows better than everyone...except me. Because I and all people who think exactly like me are very smart and everyone else should think like us. Big brother can force them to be like me. I love diversity and tolerance...except for people who don't think like me. Other people must be tolerant of me and people like me but big brother must force people to agree with me. Snark intended.