Parental Indoctrination: A Crime

[Rome]

When I use a the term "Parental Indoctrination," I use it to mean "the indoctrination of a child by one or both parents through the use of force." The doctrine ingrained in the child could involve anything, and in most cases, I'd say it is a religion that is forced upon the child. Baptist parents will raise Baptist children, Jewish parents Jewish children, Hindus beget Hindus, and so on.

Now you might start by thinking, this is what's natural or normal. What else would these parents raise them to be? Just because the parents have their own agendas, spiritual or not, however, that does not entitle them to commit what is perhaps the greatest form of human dignity, control of one's mind and free will through lies and fear.

Admittedly, most parents probably have benign intentions at heart when giving their children a religious upbringing, but to do so is still a violation of the rights that their child has as a human being, to be able to choose what to believe and what to think as they themselves see fit. Parents do not have a natural right to control the free will of their children to suit their own ideological agendas. Parents have the responsibility to raise their children into happy, socially capable people who can freely make their own decisions in life. The rights of the parents end where the rights of the child begin.

So when a child is forced to go to church every Sunday under the unfounded threat that he or she will burn in hell forever if he or she does not, remember that this is a form of intolerable torture, that could very easily sabotage the child's ability to learn properly and lead an independent life as a freethinking adult. It is our duty to challenge this tradition that is currently considered acceptable and to show it for what it really is, an abomination of mankind.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

If you know anything about indoctrination, "force" only happens in extreme cases.

Habit, "the expected norm" and routine are what reinforces indoctrination.

[Rome]

Actually, force may be used in the most basic and common cases. It's only overlooked because it does not take much force to subdue an ignorant, needy child. The mere fact that the submission of a children can be so easily accomplished and so commonly is shows what an injustice this form of indoctrination is.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Actually, force may be used in the most basic and common cases. It's only overlooked because it does not take much force to subdue an ignorant, needy child. The mere fact that the submission of a children can be so easily accomplished and so commonly is shows what an injustice this form of indoctrination is.

An "ignorant needy child" can be subdued with an ice cream. That is hardly force.

[Rome]

It's intentionally deceptive, and deception cannot serve as a foundation of a civilized society. It's unquestionably wrong to do to others in daily life. This standard does not change with one's children. It's an evil thing to do to control and limit another person's ability to think.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

It's intentionally deceptive, and deception cannot serve as a foundation of a civilized society. It's unquestionably wrong to do to others in daily life. This standard does not change with one's children. It's an evil thing to do to control and limit another person's ability to think.

With the greatest of respect, when I see/hear a 19 year old year old using non-quantitative absolutes, like "unquestionably wrong", and "it is an evil thing to do", I get to thinking they need more life experience. Indeed, it points to them having been indoctrinated themselves.

[Rome]

When I see someone jump straight to an ad hominem-based response, rather than a fair critique of the merits of my argument, I get to thinking that they need more basic wisdom, and that I say with the greatest respect that I can afford to such a person.

If you can develop a rationally fortified response, let's hear it, but if you're going to tell a kid to shut up, that does nothing to make you look all the wiser. Facts will serve you better than assumptions.

[trendkill]

I don't know about the use of the word "force" in this thread; it seems to be drawing attention away from the main point, which I see as being this: it is difficult to overstate the immorality of tying belief in ideological propositions to the threat of the worst thing conceivable (i.e. eternal punishment) in the mind of an impressionable child. In a civilized, rational society, such behavior would indeed be regarded as criminal.

[DanB]

The indoctrination can only be criminal where, the principles or beliefs in question are criminal. Laws already exist regarding the corruption of minors.

[neilstone40]

it is difficult to overstate the immorality of tying belief in ideological propositions to the threat of the worst thing conceivable (i.e. eternal punishment) in the mind of an impressionable child. In a civilized, rational society, such behavior would indeed be regarded as criminal.

This is very much the issue at the heart of particularly religious indoctrination.

If a parent were to force their child to attend a place of worship or to accept their beliefs by directly threatening them (e.g. If you don't go to church, I'll beat the crap out of you) there is a clear case for police/social services to intervene. Such threats are clearly both unlawful and abusive.

However, if you 'sub-contract' the punishment to another individual (e.g God/Satan), defer the punishment (i.e. at the end of life) and make it both cruel and without remission (i.e. burning in hell for eternity) it's somehow acceptable?

God is often used as the 'bogey man' to illicit particular behaviours in children. Santa is called upon in a superficially similar manner to ensure good behaviour, tidy bedrooms and consumption of vegetables.

But God, as we know, is darker and much more prone to judgement and appalling acts of cruelty. He will punish you for simply not believing in him, or for a number of other seemingly petty crimes.

Cases where physical force and parental chastisement aside, the parent may be issuing the threat of punishment but seemingly escapes judgement or sanction simply because they will not be carrying out the punishment.

Imagine for a moment rather than God, the parent advises their child that if they do not adhere to a particular set of rules, a guy called 'Mad Frank'' will break their legs with a baseball bat. 'Mad Frank' may also be a figment of the parent's twisted imagination too but is the threat any less real to an impressionable child?

A parent could be prosecuted and/or sanctioned for using 'Mad Frank as a threat but somehow using 'Mad God' is in some way exempt and often acceptable?

Forced belief, particularly when it comes to religion, is often more subtle, insidious and deeply psychological than simply using physical force.

It's important to remember that religions have been designed from their conception to encourage belief by threat/coercion, discourage dissent and alternative thinking. They've also had a long, long time to get the formula just right...

[Full Tilt Boogie]

When I see someone jump straight to an ad hominem-based response, rather than a fair critique of the merits of my argument, I get to thinking that they need more basic wisdom, and that I say with the greatest respect that I can afford to such a person.

If you can develop a rationally fortified response, let's hear it, but if you're going to tell a kid to shut up, that does nothing to make you look all the wiser. Facts will serve you better than assumptions.

Sorry, the above is the written equivalent of sticking your tongue out and going ner-ner-ner-ner-ner. I'll just refer you to my previous post.

[Rodney Dobson]

Do you think we could cut the cackle about this?

Are we talking about "indoctrination by (any form of) force" or are we talking about "religious indoctrination by force"? And where do you draw the line on "force"?

If you restrain a child who wants to touch that nice pretty red glowing thing is that force? Yes of course it is but is it wrong? I realise there is a school of thought that would argue you can only learn by experience and maybe a small burn would indeed teach all but the foolish: but it would also probably result in the parents being prosecuted and, anyway, there are more dangerous things than fire.

A private soldier is expected to obey his officers immediately and without question. This could include learning the right way to keep his weapons in order or jumping out of that trench with guns ablaze. Disobedience is punished and in wartime the consequences could be fatal not just for the private but for the rest of his company. One could argue the toss about war being the ultimate foolishness but not if you're a member of a volunteer army.

The same thing applies to education. You don't try to teach a seven year old about quantum theory: teachers have developed a system over the years of "telling lies to children" - they have to gain at least an elementary skill in algebra before tackling the "real world" and mutatis mutandi the same principle applies with other subjects and, often, even at "sophomore" level.
Is this "indoctrination" and/or "deception" and enforced with threats (shot at dawn - fail your exams - look immature)?

The whole - only - point about logic is that if an argument is valid it remains valid irrespective of the subject matter (provided only that the latter is "true" as opposed to "opinion").
It is opinion, probably valid, that religious indoctrination of a child using force is wrong: certainly you won't get many doubters on this forum. But generalising that opinion to a general moral imperative is probably invalid.

[Jobar]

The problem here is that what some would call education, others would call indoctrination. Is there a good way to tell the difference? The amount of applied force, and of explicit and implicit threats, is a good place to look; but how much of each is required before we draw any lines?

[Rome]

The indoctrination can only be criminal where, the principles or beliefs in question are criminal. Laws already exist regarding the corruption of minors.
I'm talking about crimes in a philosophical sense.

Do you think we could cut the cackle about this?

Are we talking about "indoctrination by (any form of) force" or are we talking about "religious indoctrination by force"? And where do you draw the line on "force"?

If you restrain a child who wants to touch that nice pretty red glowing thing is that force? Yes of course it is but is it wrong? I realise there is a school of thought that would argue you can only learn by experience and maybe a small burn would indeed teach all but the foolish: but it would also probably result in the parents being prosecuted and, anyway, there are more dangerous things than fire.

A private soldier is expected to obey his officers immediately and without question. This could include learning the right way to keep his weapons in order or jumping out of that trench with guns ablaze. Disobedience is punished and in wartime the consequences could be fatal not just for the private but for the rest of his company. One could argue the toss about war being the ultimate foolishness but not if you're a member of a volunteer army.

The same thing applies to education. You don't try to teach a seven year old about quantum theory: teachers have developed a system over the years of "telling lies to children" - they have to gain at least an elementary skill in algebra before tackling the "real world" and mutatis mutandi the same principle applies with other subjects and, often, even at "sophomore" level.
Is this "indoctrination" and/or "deception" and enforced with threats (shot at dawn - fail your exams - look immature)?

The whole - only - point about logic is that if an argument is valid it remains valid irrespective of the subject matter (provided only that the latter is "true" as opposed to "opinion").
It is opinion, probably valid, that religious indoctrination of a child using force is wrong: certainly you won't get many doubters on this forum. But generalising that opinion to a general moral imperative is probably invalid.
It's not specifically about religious indoctrination by force; however, I hold that religious indoctrination is the most common case with this issue.

I think you're delving into the issue to the extent that you've overlooked the point, and I'll try and explain it to you in my response to Jobar alone.


The problem here is that what some would call education, others would call indoctrination. Is there a good way to tell the difference? The amount of applied force, and of explicit and implicit threats, is a good place to look; but how much of each is required before we draw any lines?
It's pretty obvious what the difference is. Education is about teaching what we know to be true and has no ideological agenda at heart. It's the neutral diffusion of ideas and facts. Indoctrination is not concerned with truth or neutrality. It is the biased diffusion of ideas (some true, some false).

What we have to remember is that children are born with a completely empty understanding of the world, so it does not take much in the way of force to indoctrinate them, which only objectifies children as tools for the agenda of the doctrine.

[Rodney Dobson]

The problem here is that what some would call education, others would call indoctrination. Is there a good way to tell the difference? The amount of applied force, and of explicit and implicit threats, is a good place to look; but how much of each is required before we draw any lines?


It's pretty obvious what the difference is. Education is about teaching what we know to be true and has no ideological agenda at heart. It's the neutral diffusion of ideas and facts. Indoctrination is not concerned with truth or neutrality. It is the biased diffusion of ideas (some true, some false).

What we have to remember is that children are born with a completely empty understanding of the world, so it does not take much in the way of force to indoctrinate them, which only objectifies children as tools for the agenda of the doctrine.

Hmm! There is a thread elsewhere trying to define a "militant" atheist. It is not quite true to say that every contributor meant something different by the word but they were clearly in Humpty-Dumpty territory.

As we are here. So, when in doubt go to the dictionary.

1. Indoctrination is the teaching of a certain point of view: the subject matter is not defined not is the methodology but there is one crucial word in every definition - teach to accept the viewpoint uncritically

2. Education is simply defined as preparing the young for life: there are overtones of "working life in the real world" but the wording differs.

Personally I would label education in that sense as "training" and suggest that "education" should consist of teaching a student to think for him/herself: critically if you like. I am not sure if one CAN "teach what we know to be true with no ideological agenda" and certainly a statement like "it's pretty obvious what the difference is" does not sound terribly open minded: though on second thought, maybe "terribly" is the correct word.
Phrases like "it is a truth universally acknowledged" are spoken by politicians, novelists and, probably, those with a doctrinaire agenda. I'm not even certain that the tabula rasa concept is believed by everybody.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

The problem here is that what some would call education, others would call indoctrination. Is there a good way to tell the difference? The amount of applied force, and of explicit and implicit threats, is a good place to look; but how much of each is required before we draw any lines?

Yes: going to school to learn maths, English, physics, geography and other educative subjects is education - whereas standing with your hand over your heart and pledging allegiance by rote each morning in your classroom is indoctrination.

Learning any of the subjects named above never lead anyone to a wing-nut sense of "patriotism" - the latter, by contrast, does, and to what is termed "American exceptionalism", which exists only in the minds of the people who've been indoctrinated in it.

[Barefoot Bree]

As we are here. So, when in doubt go to the dictionary.

1. Indoctrination is the teaching of a certain point of view: the subject matter is not defined not is the methodology but there is one crucial word in every definition - teach to accept the viewpoint uncritically

2. Education is simply defined as preparing the young for life: there are overtones of "working life in the real world" but the wording differs.

Personally I would label education in that sense as "training" and suggest that "education" should consist of teaching a student to think for him/herself: critically if you like. I am not sure if one CAN "teach what we know to be true with no ideological agenda" and certainly a statement like "it's pretty obvious what the difference is" does not sound terribly open minded: though on second thought, maybe "terribly" is the correct word.
Phrases like "it is a truth universally acknowledged" are spoken by politicians, novelists and, probably, those with a doctrinaire agenda. I'm not even certain that the tabula rasa concept is believed by everybody.
Those are good definitions, I think.

One problem I have with universally condemning indoctrination the question of the degree to which those conducting the indoctrination believe it themselves. Especially when it comes to parents and religion, my feeling is that most really, really do - especially the real fire-and-brimstone adherents. Therefore, in their minds, they're imparting the most important knowledge in life to their kids - and I have a hard time judging them as harshly for it. (How often do you see all three instances of there/their/they're in one sentence?)

Now, if the parents don't really believe it, then it's cynical manipulation, as well as indoctrination, and that, I do condemn.

[Rome]

Rodney, the truth is that we are born completely bereft of knowledge of the world around us. The tabula rasa concept is reality. It's how we all started, and by the virtue of being individuals, we should be the ones to chisel our own slates. It's a grim offense for people to do that for us. That's the difference between indoctrination and education. Indoctrination limits our abilities to choose, it sabotages our ability to be free.

As we are here. So, when in doubt go to the dictionary.

1. Indoctrination is the teaching of a certain point of view: the subject matter is not defined not is the methodology but there is one crucial word in every definition - teach to accept the viewpoint uncritically

2. Education is simply defined as preparing the young for life: there are overtones of "working life in the real world" but the wording differs.

Personally I would label education in that sense as "training" and suggest that "education" should consist of teaching a student to think for him/herself: critically if you like. I am not sure if one CAN "teach what we know to be true with no ideological agenda" and certainly a statement like "it's pretty obvious what the difference is" does not sound terribly open minded: though on second thought, maybe "terribly" is the correct word.
Phrases like "it is a truth universally acknowledged" are spoken by politicians, novelists and, probably, those with a doctrinaire agenda. I'm not even certain that the tabula rasa concept is believed by everybody.
Those are good definitions, I think.

One problem I have with universally condemning indoctrination the question of the degree to which those conducting the indoctrination believe it themselves. Especially when it comes to parents and religion, my feeling is that most really, really do - especially the real fire-and-brimstone adherents. Therefore, in their minds, they're imparting the most important knowledge in life to their kids - and I have a hard time judging them as harshly for it. (How often do you see all three instances of there/their/they're in one sentence?)

Now, if the parents don't really believe it, then it's cynical manipulation, as well as indoctrination, and that, I do condemn.


You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.

[Rodney Dobson]

Rodney, the truth is that ....
The .... concept is reality.


Would you now care to define "dogma" and "ex cathedra"?


Indoctrination limits our abilities to choose, it sabotages our ability to be free.


So does the law of the land (any land).
So does volunteering to join the army reserve.
So does the law of gravity.
So does.........(the list is almost endless)

I really do wish life was as simple as you seem to believe it is. Nobody should attempt to deny you your right to believe as you will. But nobody can promise you the right to be correct all the time. If you can think of any material issue in which you are completely free of any form of restraint then I would be happy to hear of it.

And finally:

You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.

No comment.

[cnorman18]

Rodney, the truth is that we are born completely bereft of knowledge of the world around us. The tabula rasa concept is reality. It's how we all started, and by the virtue of being individuals, we should be the ones to chisel our own slates. It's a grim offense for people to do that for us. That's the difference between indoctrination and education. Indoctrination limits our abilities to choose, it sabotages our ability to be free....

Oh, stop it. By those standards, we should raise children with no concept of morality or ethics whatever; after all, they might CHOOSE to become totally amoral hedonists when they grow up -- if that can be called "growing up."

One of the most important aspects of this thing called "raising a child" is teaching them -- or "indoctrinating them into," if you like -- SOCIAL VALUES and ETHICS; children are not only born knowing nothing, but they are born totally selfish. Unless you think that should not be interfered with -- allow the six-year-old to slap his three-year-old brother and take his candy without intervening, e.g. -- you are talking sheer nonsense. Is it "indoctrination" to go beyond teaching children not to pursue their desires through violence, and to teach them to actually SHARE when they don't have to? Isn't that some sort of ethical/religious value that ought not be "indoctrinated"? If not, why not? And where do you draw the line?

You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.

Whose feelings SHOULD matter? "Only the child's" is, of course, nonsense as demonstrated above. If parents are not to raise their own children, who should? Do you expect parents to raise their children like automatons, pretending that they have no beliefs or values of their own in order to let the child "choose"? What should they say when their children ask, as they will, what THEY believe and think?

Parents are going to share their OWN values with their children; whose values would you suggest that they share? Some abstract list of moral lessons and concepts prescribed by the State, perhaps? When parents share their values, their ethics, their understanding of what "compassion" and "unselfishness" mean, as well as their religious convictions and perceptions which are integral to those understandings, they are sharing themselves, which is what "parenting" means. That not only ought not be stopped, it will NEVER be stopped, barring confiscation and institutionalization of all children at birth.

Would you outlaw "indoctrination" into ideas about ethics and other philosophical concepts, or only religion? How about political ideas, including your own?

[Barefoot Bree]

Rodney, the truth is that we are born completely bereft of knowledge of the world around us. The tabula rasa concept is reality. It's how we all started, and by the virtue of being individuals, we should be the ones to chisel our own slates. It's a grim offense for people to do that for us. That's the difference between indoctrination and education. Indoctrination limits our abilities to choose, it sabotages our ability to be free.

As we are here. So, when in doubt go to the dictionary.

1. Indoctrination is the teaching of a certain point of view: the subject matter is not defined not is the methodology but there is one crucial word in every definition - teach to accept the viewpoint uncritically

2. Education is simply defined as preparing the young for life: there are overtones of "working life in the real world" but the wording differs.

Personally I would label education in that sense as "training" and suggest that "education" should consist of teaching a student to think for him/herself: critically if you like. I am not sure if one CAN "teach what we know to be true with no ideological agenda" and certainly a statement like "it's pretty obvious what the difference is" does not sound terribly open minded: though on second thought, maybe "terribly" is the correct word.
Phrases like "it is a truth universally acknowledged" are spoken by politicians, novelists and, probably, those with a doctrinaire agenda. I'm not even certain that the tabula rasa concept is believed by everybody.
Those are good definitions, I think.

One problem I have with universally condemning indoctrination the question of the degree to which those conducting the indoctrination believe it themselves. Especially when it comes to parents and religion, my feeling is that most really, really do - especially the real fire-and-brimstone adherents. Therefore, in their minds, they're imparting the most important knowledge in life to their kids - and I have a hard time judging them as harshly for it. (How often do you see all three instances of there/their/they're in one sentence?)

Now, if the parents don't really believe it, then it's cynical manipulation, as well as indoctrination, and that, I do condemn.


You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.
Uh, yeah, they do. As much as the precious child whose feelings and rights you are so awfully concerned about.

As Rodney points out, there is NO such thing as an absolutely unfettered life. Just living within a society - any society - puts bounds on a person's actions, feelings, ways of looking at things, what kinds of jobs or education is open to them, etc etc etc. Narrowing it down (there's that phrase again), just the necessary instillation of the society's agreed moral and legal code does the same thing that you describe as so heinous in religion: using the fear of punishment to instill the desired behavior. Even though in a great many cases, that punishment doesn't get applied, and so can be described as fairly imaginary, too. (A matter of degree, yes - but you're still using the thread of punishment.)

[Politesse]

So what should a believing parent do? Lie to their children for 18 years, then at the end go "Oh, by the way, we're Southern Baptists and we think you're going to Hell because we raised you as an atheist"?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

So what should a believing parent do? Lie to their children for 18 years, then at the end go "Oh, by the way, we're Southern Baptists and we think you're going to Hell because we raised you as an atheist"?

There is philosophical merit in this reasoning.

Just as you don't expect a child who's never learnt the language to one day miraculously to speak French, without having had any instruction in the language whatsoever. The same could be said of any subject or moral code.

[Politesse]

My real point is that the difference between instruction and indoctrination is your opinion of the content, for the most part. Saying "but think of the children!", whether in the case of indoctrination or homosexuality or the president's affairs is a way to shore up your side of the argument by mapping it to the seemingly most innocent and vulnerable. It's not by definition a persuasive argument, since whether one agrees with it largely depends on one's opinion on the topic before the argument is ever made. It's just a way of deepening one's trenches. And though I do believe children should be raised with as much religious freedom as possible, I don't expect anything other than for children to be raised more or less in the parent's faith. It is inevitable, in fact, if the parent really holds whatever beliefs are in question. I've known many atheists and fewer Christians who passionately believed they never influenced their children's beliefs, that the little guys came to it on their own. But what they are proposing is an impossibility. Your children live with you most of the time, and you are, for them, the primary if not sole source of information about the outside world for the first few years at least. How could they possibly avoid soaking up your opinions? As for church, well, I don't see how going is "forcing" them to go any more than staying at home would be forcing them not to. Presumably the parents themselves intend to go. Are they supposed to hire a sitter every Sunday, just so as not to be caught forcing their children to believe?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Although, Rome, I wonder whether you've yet mused on the irony of indoctrination, when you're about to train to be an officer in UNC's AROTC program in the North Carolina National Guard?

Any military training is designed to break-down and remove "self", and mould you into a cohesive unit, so that when orders are given, you don't just stand there arguing the toss as to 'why?' - you just do it.

[trendkill]

You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.

And again, people are going to dismiss this statement because of its bellicose attitude, but those of you who find mitigation in the fact that "they really believe it"--think about whether you would be more inclined to excuse other types of abuse in cases where the parent seemed to believe that what they were doing was in the child's best interests.

If you're like me, in cases where the parent is violent under the auspices of "spare the rod and spoil the child", for instance, you will not see a whole lot of mitigation in the fact that they sincerely believe they're doing the right thing. In fact, you'll probably still find a disregard for the child's well-being in a suspicion that nobody can really beat a child unless, on some level, they wish to harm that child. Likewise, in cases of hardcore religious indoctrination, I think there's an element of disregard for the child's well-being. People know how powerful the effect of threats like hellfire can be when introduced into a child's psyche--that's why they use them as tools. There's really no obvious reason why a child shouldn't be shielded from such (putative) "realities", as disturbing as they are. This behavior is cruel and grossly manipulative, and on some level, I suspect most if not all parents who do so are aware of that.

If there's any mitigating factor, I think the lack of societal condemnation would be it (morality is a social phenomenon, and people get many of their cues on morality from society). And that comes back to the seemingly disparate issue of the unwarranted/unearned respect that religious beliefs tend to get simply because they are religious.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.

You do realise that this where you lost 99% of your audience?

[neilstone40]

And again, people are going to dismiss this statement because of its bellicose attitude, but those of you who find mitigation in the fact that "they really believe it"--think about whether you would condone other types of abuse on similar grounds.

Yep & yep...

Simply sincerely believing in what you're advocating doesn't negate the fact it can still be indoctrination and, at some extremes, abusive.

I was raised in my parent's beliefs. I 'grew out of them' as the answers to my questions simply weren't there (there were a lot of questions). I was forced to attend and worship. Forced in the physical sense (dragged to the car or along the street) threatened with violence (which was happily meted out should I refuse/fail to attend) and threatened with eternal damnation. Even as an adult, they continued to nag until I got to the stage of completely cutting off contact with them for several years.

When I became a parent, I decided my kids should have access to their grandparents. When I discovered they were doing their best to convert my kids, we again had periods of no contact when they refused to 'cease and desist'. I gave them plenty warning but they continued regardless.

Now I realise my parents believed myself and my kids are facing hellfire. I'm sure the thought terrified them and they genuinely thought they were saving us from eternal torment. In their minds, it would be no different to seeing a speeding car bearing down on a loved one and trying to suppress your natural instinct to save them.

Since my father died, my relationship with my mother has improved. We talk about what happened and the stance I've taken. She was surprised to hear that my daughter asked for a bible last year and I happily bought her one. When I asked if "The God Delusion" or "God is not Great" had been around when I was a kid, would she have bought them for me? The answer was an unsurprising no.

I don't think for a minute that my beliefs haven't influenced my kids beliefs to some extent. I was very careful always to prefix "some people believe" when talking to my kids about religions/atheism/etc. I try to be balanced (as much as is possible) but the big difference is I have always told my kids they can (and should) form their own beliefs. They know what my beliefs are, that I used to believe in God and some of the reasons why I no longer believe. The rest is their own choice.

My kids don't attend communal worship at school but this is completely their choice. At varying times they have attended worship then decided they wished to opt out. It has caused problems because their school is happy for me to decide for them but doesn't allow them to decline by themselves. In practice, it tends to involve several letters to the school during the course of each term explaining "child X has decided they no longer wish to/now wish to participate in acts of worship and I, as their parent, support their decision"

I agree that children do require a fair bit of guidance and reinforcement of what society should expect of them. It doesn't need to be shrouded in religious instruction though, otherwise we continue to feed the myth that only the religious can lead moral or ethical lives.

My kids have the freedom of choice that I didn't and are encouraged to think for themselves, not to be afraid to ask questions and knowing that 'being good' is about more than just religion.

[Rodney Dobson]

My kids don't attend communal worship at school but this is completely their choice. At varying times they have attended worship then decided they wished to opt out. It has caused problems because their school is happy for me to decide for them but doesn't allow them to decline by themselves. In practice, it tends to involve several letters to the school during the course of each term explaining "child X has decided they no longer wish to/now wish to participate in acts of worship and I, as their parent, support their decision"


(My added emphasis)

If it's not too intrusive a question, how old are said children and is it a "faith school"? I was under the impression that "compulsory" attendance was not allowed any more: and not allowing children to think/decide for themselves is a bit dodgy.
By all means let the teachers question them carefully to establish that their position is genuine - even argue about it a bit if it could be done carefully. But if the school knows that you are quite happy for them to decide things for themselves I am surprised they do not accept it. Incidentally, does the school have any Jewish children?
Of course, the same position does not apply to Physics or Greek.

The difficulty with all of this is that not all - not many? - parents take such a civilised stand as you do. And how one should approach parents who genuinely believe that their offspring will finish up in Dante's hell I really don't know: I imagine such believers are not susceptible to reason and that aspect needs a bit of thought.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

My kids don't attend communal worship at school but this is completely their choice. At varying times they have attended worship then decided they wished to opt out. It has caused problems because their school is happy for me to decide for them but doesn't allow them to decline by themselves. In practice, it tends to involve several letters to the school during the course of each term explaining "child X has decided they no longer wish to/now wish to participate in acts of worship and I, as their parent, support their decision"


(My added emphasis)

If it's not too intrusive a question, how old are said children and is it a "faith school"? I was under the impression that "compulsory" attendance was not allowed any more: and not allowing children to think/decide for themselves is a bit dodgy.
By all means let the teachers question them carefully to establish that their position is genuine - even argue about it a bit if it could be done carefully. But if the school knows that you are quite happy for them to decide things for themselves I am surprised they do not accept it. Incidentally, does the school have any Jewish children?
Of course, the same position does not apply to Physics or Greek.

The difficulty with all of this is that not all - not many? - parents take such a civilised stand as you do. And how one should approach parents who genuinely believe that their offspring will finish up in Dante's hell I really don't know: I imagine such believers are not susceptible to reason and that aspect needs a bit of thought.

It's more simple than that. Teachers (at least in the UK) are required by law to act in loco parentis (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/in+loco+parentis), and therefore they are legally obliged to get the required signatures and permissions of the parents to allow their children to opt out of any form of school curricula - whether that's PE, history, religion, home economics or needlework.

Added to which, under current educational stipulation, and prior to any core curriculum changes, there are only two subjects which UK school children are obliged to attend: PE and religion. I'm willing to be corrected on this, as it's been a couple of years since I sat down with my sisters and brothers (who are all teachers) and discussed the matter.

[Angra Mainyu]

So what should a believing parent do? Lie to their children for 18 years, then at the end go "Oh, by the way, we're Southern Baptists and we think you're going to Hell because we raised you as an atheist"?
That's a good question.

A possible answer is that they should stop believing that an entity that tortures people for eternity for failing to believe in his existence is morally perfect, or even morally good, instead of telling their children that said entity is morally perfect, or even morally good.

Moreover, they should stop believing that those who do not believe in the existence of said entity are sent to Hell, since there is no good reason to believe so.

Let me ask you a some questions too:

If the parents believe that people who fail to believe in the existence of the Christian god will be tortured for eternity in Hell, and actually deserve to be tortured for eternity in Hell, should they teach that to their children?

Or should they change their minds? (or something else).

What if the parents believe that, say, men who have sex with other men, and those who apostatize from Islam, deserve to be executed, and furthermore, that it is morally obligatory to support leaders who would execute them - and to execute them if one is in a position of leadership.

Should they tell that to their children? Should they stop believing that? Something else?

[Barefoot Bree]

Of course, the ugly, extreme beliefs, those with horrific consequences, can and should be criticized (and hopefully, one day, stamped out).

But you can't just label only those beliefs as "indoctrination" and then criticize just the indoctrination. That's not only an unsupportable definition of indoctrination, it changes the focus of the criticism away from where it should be: the beliefs themselves. Not the method of their spread to the next generation.

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course, the ugly, extreme beliefs, those with horrific consequences, can and should be criticized (and hopefully, one day, stamped out).

But you can't just label only those beliefs as "indoctrination" and then criticize just the indoctrination. That's not only an unsupportable definition of indoctrination, it changes the focus of the criticism away from where it should be: the beliefs themselves. Not the method of their spread to the next generation.
Well, one can criticize both the beliefs and the action of spreading it by some means or another, for instance.

However, I don't see any problem in focusing on some negative aspects of some religions (e.g., the indoctrination of children) in some threads, but not on all of them at once. It's one of many possible debate tactics.

In any case, one does not need to use the word "indoctrination" (though I'm not sure what the problem is, but leaving that aside), but simply discuss the question raised by Politesse: what should those parents do?

I presented a suggestion and raised a couple of related questions here (http://www.secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=248468&postcount=31), in case Politesse or another poster is interested in discussing them.

[Politesse]

So what should a believing parent do? Lie to their children for 18 years, then at the end go "Oh, by the way, we're Southern Baptists and we think you're going to Hell because we raised you as an atheist"?
That's a good question.

A possible answer is that they should stop believing that an entity that tortures people for eternity for failing to believe in his existence is morally perfect, or even morally good, instead of telling their children that said entity is morally perfect, or even morally good.

Moreover, they should stop believing that those who do not believe in the existence of said entity are sent to Hell, since there is no good reason to believe so.

Let me ask you a some questions too:

If the parents believe that people who fail to believe in the existence of the Christian god will be tortured for eternity in Hell, and actually deserve to be tortured for eternity in Hell, should they teach that to their children?

Or should they change their minds? (or something else).

What if the parents believe that, say, men who have sex with other men, and those who apostatize from Islam, deserve to be executed, and furthermore, that it is morally obligatory to support leaders who would execute them - and to execute them if one is in a position of leadership.

Should they tell that to their children? Should they stop believing that? Something else?

Of course they should stop believing those things, they are horrible. But trying to pretend the issue at play is "indoctrination", rather than the beliefs themselves, is disingenuous. And trying to win an argument by stealing someone's children is at least as nasty as threatening someone with hellfire. Hell isn't real. CPS is. So I'd watch where I throw around terms like child abuse, as a few in this thread have done.

[Angra Mainyu]

So what should a believing parent do? Lie to their children for 18 years, then at the end go "Oh, by the way, we're Southern Baptists and we think you're going to Hell because we raised you as an atheist"?
That's a good question.

A possible answer is that they should stop believing that an entity that tortures people for eternity for failing to believe in his existence is morally perfect, or even morally good, instead of telling their children that said entity is morally perfect, or even morally good.

Moreover, they should stop believing that those who do not believe in the existence of said entity are sent to Hell, since there is no good reason to believe so.

Let me ask you a some questions too:

If the parents believe that people who fail to believe in the existence of the Christian god will be tortured for eternity in Hell, and actually deserve to be tortured for eternity in Hell, should they teach that to their children?

Or should they change their minds? (or something else).

What if the parents believe that, say, men who have sex with other men, and those who apostatize from Islam, deserve to be executed, and furthermore, that it is morally obligatory to support leaders who would execute them - and to execute them if one is in a position of leadership.

Should they tell that to their children? Should they stop believing that? Something else?

Of course they should stop believing those things, they are horrible. But trying to pretend the issue at play is "indoctrination", rather than the beliefs themselves, is disingenuous. And trying to win an argument by stealing someone's children is at least as nasty as threatening someone with hellfire. Hell isn't real. CPS is. So I'd watch where I throw around terms like child abuse, as a few in this thread have done.
First, there are several issues at play.

That they have those beliefs is one of them, but that they spread them to their children is another one.

Second, I don't see any attempt to pretend the (only) issue is indoctrination; if someone here is saying that that's the only issue (but who?), they would most likely be mistaken, rather than pretending that that is so.

Third, no one is talking about “stealing” someone's children as far as I can tell.

If you're talking about a hypothetical ban on certain kinds of indoctrination, addressing the matter would require considering the social and political structure in which the ban is proposed, as well as the effects of the indoctrination itself, so as to weigh the pros and cons, as is usually the case with legal restrictions to the way parents raise their children (restrictions that do exist, of course).

I don't think there is any remote chance of a general ban on Hell indoctrination of children in the US.

Any attempt at that would be at best a waste of time, but it could also make those spreading such beliefs by indoctrinating their children look to some other people as if they were being persecuted.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with publicly asserting that those teaching their children that those who fail to believe that the biblical god exist (or who fail to meet whatever condition is required by their particular religion) deserve to and will be tortured forever, are acting immorally.

Fourth, your question was “what should a believing parent do?”, and you suggested an answer that appeared absurd to you.

But the answer that you provide now – i.e., that they should stop believing those things – is perfectly compatible with the answer that they should not teach that to their children.

In fact, it seems now that you too believe those believing parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children – only you also believe they should stop believing too.

I have no problem with your reply that they should stop believing, of course, but when making moral arguments, I don't see why one shouldn't target some of the actions one intends to stop, rather than all of them all the time.

For that matter, I would argue that the biblical god is not morally good on account of the commands he gives (see OT), or some of his actions towards innocent people, like inflicting torture on a child to punish his father (see OT).

That does not mean I don't find other actions by the biblical god, like the infinite torture of people in Hell (see NT) to be even better examples showing that he's not morally good; but there is no problem with using the others as well.

Fifth, regarding child abuse, I'd be careful as well, since indoctrination is usually not experienced as such by children.

However, some of us don't just dismiss Hell as something that happens to others, so it can be terrifying for a good number of children (even if a minority) as well.

On that note, I think the Catholic Hell, even if watered down (i.e., changed to "not literal fire", or whatever) is potentially more devastating for children than the Hell that's "only" for non-believers, since at least they (i.e., the indoctrinated children) are much less likely to believe they're going to Hell.

On the other hand, it may be worse for others, since those children will probably believe that everyone else deserves infinite torture (not always the case in the Catholic case).

[Politesse]

I think it is irrational to expect or demand that parents not teach their children what they believe to be true, and that it is not a crime nor should be to do so. That I think people would be better off without certain beliefs is beside the point. I'm not going to slog around terms like "indoctrination" and "abuse" because I happen to disagree with what in particular someone believes. It's not my job to tell people they must believe this or that, or be guilty of a "crime" that is actually perfectly normal and unavoidable human behavior. No, thinking that Hell is an evil dogma is not the same thing as thinking that parents are abusing their children by teaching it to them, any more than believing that Atlantis does not exist is the same thing is thinking that a New Ager is "indoctrinating" their child if they teach them that it does.

[neilstone40]

If it's not too intrusive a question, how old are said children and is it a "faith school"? I was under the impression that "compulsory" attendance was not allowed any more: and not allowing children to think/decide for themselves is a bit dodgy.

9, 11 & 13. Not a faith school but non denominational. In Scotland, state schools are either RC or ND. Some erroneously refer to Scottish ND schools as "Protestant schools".

It is a requirement, even in ND schools, that schools have "communal acts of worship" which are "broadly Christian in nature" (direct quotes from the Education (Scotland) Act).

Children can be opted out but this requires the parent/guardian to inform the school in writing. It also creates additional difficulties which I'll cover later.

By all means let the teachers question them carefully to establish that their position is genuine - even argue about it a bit if it could be done carefully. But if the school knows that you are quite happy for them to decide things for themselves I am surprised they do not accept it. Incidentally, does the school have any Jewish children?
Of course, the same position does not apply to Physics or Greek.

The difficulty is that teachers do question them about it, even when my kid's view are known (and backed up by me in writing). There is an inequality here as children of 'other faiths' aren't questioned by the teachers, especially when there's a visual suggestion of their faith (e.g. muslim girls wearing hijabs, sikh boys wearing a kara, etc).

My kids have been repeatedly and regularly questioned extensively and quite aggressively about "the validity of their beliefs" (a direct quote from a head teacher who looked at her feet when asked if she would do the same for children of 'other faiths')

There are a few Jewish kids at the school, some Muslims, Sikhs, couple of Ba'hai and a few atheists (I would normally have said kids of Jewish parents, etc but thought it could result in a potentially pedantic offshoot)

I know a few of the parents whose kids are self-identified atheists and they receive a similar level of interrogation while kids of 'other faiths' get a 'free opt out pass' without question.

From my perspective, this is discriminatory and could be viewed as inferring that atheism is in some way a less valid belief.

The difficulty with all of this is that not all - not many? - parents take such a civilised stand as you do. And how one should approach parents who genuinely believe that their offspring will finish up in Dante's hell I really don't know: I imagine such believers are not susceptible to reason and that aspect needs a bit of thought.

I have tried to allow some flexibility for my kids for two main reasons.

One is that I simply don't want to decide for them and want to reinforce to the school my kids will choose their own belief rather than mine or the school staff's beliefs.

Secondly the "communal acts of worship" which are "broadly Christian in nature" predominantly take place at school assemblies. Assemblies are also the time when school news/events are discussed, prizes and such are given out and various other non-worship events take place. If my kids are 'opted out', it's not just the worship element they miss, but the whole event. My kids don't find out what's happening in the school, when they win prizes they get handed to them in the corridor after the assembly, if they've done something of note it's announced to the school but they're sitting in the school office completely unaware.

I've tried various attempts to resolve the issues. I've tried suggesting that my kids attend the assembly but don't sing, pray or do bible readings (unless they wish to) but instead stand/sit quietly and respectfully. This didn't work and they've had teachers shouting at them to sing, removing them for a telling off or even giving them a punishment exercise for not singing. I wasn't amused (this is an understatement but not sure a suitably descriptive word exists yet).

I've suggested that my kids remain outside for the 'worship' bit then come into the assembly. The school isn't willing to play ball on this and the assembly is also liberally sprinkled with 'god'n'stuff' all the way through.

It's taken over 9 years of discussions and, although it's no closer to resultion, the HT is slightly more switched on to my thought process and what I'm trying to achieve. This year, 2 of my kids will be in secondary school and I've already had to have plenty many conversations and exchanges of letters to start the explanation process all over again.

The solution to me is simple. Leave worship out of education. If parents wish to indoctrinate pass their beliefs onto their children then they've got plenty of opportunity and resources outside school.

[DMB]

First of all, the legal situation in Britain. Compulsory daily worship in schools was first laid down by the Education Act of 1944. The same Act gave parents the right to ask for their children to be withdrawn from these acts of worship and from the lessons in religion (which were always in the early years after the Act solely about indoctrination in Christianity -- more or less CofE -- in the state schools). Since children in those days didn't come of age until 21, there was no question of giving children a say in the matter.

In those early years, the children withdrawn were mainly Catholics and Jews (Britain being neither multi-racial nor multi-cultural at that time). I left school aged 17 in 1957 when all this was still in force. When I was 14 I decided I was an atheist. I was the only person in a school of 800 who admitted to being an atheist. I stopped praying or singing hymns and I had the temerity to ask difficult questions in Religion lessons. For this I got hauled up by the Head who said it had come to her notice that I wasn't "cooperating" and it would be a good idea for my father to write to the school to withdraw me from assemblies and Religion lessons. I went home and he said he'd sign such a letter if I wrote it. So I typed a letter and he signed it. (Note, BTW, that there was no question of asking my mother; it had to be my father as a matter of course, since he was "the head of the family".)

Roll on a few decades and, after a very determined campaign by the NSS, pupils over 16 were given the right to opt out, even if that was against the wishes of their parents. The NSS is still campaigning to extend that right to all secondary pupils.

Now all that is by way of a side note.

There is very little decent protection for children and their human rights. The traditional POV in the west and many other parts of the world was that children belonged to their fathers, who might even have power of life and death over them and could certainly decide matters like education and even marriage. If the fathers were dead then either the mothers or other male relatives had similar control. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child), ratified by all the nations of the world except the USA and Somalia, does spell out some basic rights, but it is a bit toothless. Some relevant clauses:

3.2 States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

5. States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.

12.1 States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

13 1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

14. 1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

28. 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
1. Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;
2. Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;
3. Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;
4. Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;
5. Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child's human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.
3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

29. 1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
1. The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;
2. The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;
4. The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;
5. The development of respect for the natural environment.
2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.

30.n those States in of his or her group, to enjoy his or , to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.

[DMB]

As a parent,and, indeed grandparent, I recognise that any good parent will feel a duty of care towards his or her child. We give our children many informal lessons about how to avoid obvious danger, how do acquire necessary skills and how to behave in human society.

It seems pretty obvious that children are no more a tabula rasa than young chimps, bonobos, gorillas or orang utans are. In fact, young humans share a great deal in common with other primates in some of their basic instincts, such as fairness and empathy. But human values are much more complex than that and we have a lot to teach our children.

As atheist parents most of us agree that one of our primary duties is to teach our children to be critical thinkers. Most atheist parents that I know don't teach atheism directly to their children, hoping that they will be able to make a fully informed choice when they are adult. In fact most such parents teach their children something about the multiplicity of human beliefs, both contemporary and historical.

But I think that we have to understand that religious parents may even deplore the critical thinking part of the package, in that it may lead children to premature doubts at an age when they are not really intellectually equipped to deal with them. And obviously, if a parent sincerely believes in hellfire for homosexuals, say, then he or she will be (in his or her own mind) acting in the very best interests of the children by indoctrinating them heavily in the faith that is the only way of avoiding this terrible fate.

Obviously, I wish that there were some way of avoiding passing the contagion of religion from generation to generation, but unless children are to be taken away from their parents and indoctrinated by the state, I don't see what we can do. And I happen to think that early separation from parents is usually bad for children.

I think the best we can hope for would be an end to "faith" schools. Let parents indoctrinate their children in their own time, but children should receive a neutral education where they learn about various religious beliefs and the role religions have played in politics throughout history.

[Angra Mainyu]

I think it is irrational to expect or demand that parents not teach their children what they believe to be true, and that it is not a crime nor should be to do so.
The first part is unclear.
What about demanding that the parents refrain from teaching their children what they believe to be true, by changing what they believe to be true first?
In any case, sometimes they won't change their minds, so the question is how to deal with that.
For instance, should it always be allowed for parents to teach their male children that it's morally acceptable, or even morally obligatory. to engage in “honor killings” if their sister happens to, say, have consensual extramarital sex with someone not from their group (say, a Westerner)?
Kill and/or beat up apostates? Black people? Gay people?

That I think people would be better off without certain beliefs is beside the point. I'm not going to slog around terms like "indoctrination" and "abuse" because I happen to disagree with what in particular someone believes.
I would call it “indoctrination” when it is so. Religious indoctrination is, well, indoctrination.
Whether sometimes is abused depends on the case, and has to be decided on a case by case basis.

It's not my job to tell people they must believe this or that, or be guilty of a "crime" that is actually perfectly normal and unavoidable human behavior.
You already told some people they should believe this or that – i.e., that they ought not to believe that those who fail to believe in the Christian god deserve to and will be tortured for eternity.

So, maybe you'd tell them they should, but not that they must?
I'm not sure what distinction you're making.


No, thinking that Hell is an evil dogma is not the same thing as thinking that parents are abusing their children by teaching it to them, any more than believing that Atlantis does not exist is the same thing is thinking that a New Ager is "indoctrinating" their child if they teach them that it does.
Of course it's not the same. Those are different beliefs.
And of course the fact that those are different beliefs has nothing to do with whether indoctrinating children with Hell beliefs is or is not child abuse.
That depends on issues such as how much suffering they can expect to cause (which should be adjusted on each cased based on the observed suffering that they are indeed inflicting), how much suffering the children would undergo without said indoctrination (in reality, not in the fantasy world in which there is Hell), etc.

Also, different Hell beliefs probably have different changes of inflicting suffering on those who believe so, etc., as I explained in my previous post.

[sohy]

I was raised by Xian fundamentalists that converted when I was about five. To this day, I have never considered their indoctrination to be child abuse, although I sometimes resent having had to give up all of my Sundays to church activities. We didn't simply attend church, we were in church most of the day. While that was annoying, I would hardly equate it with torture, as is claimed in the OP. In fact, I'm sure I learned things like having patience and self discipline as a result of spending so many hours in a church environment.

I have two sisters and only one of us considers herself a Xian. I am a strong atheist, and my other sister is probably best described as mildly anti-Xian and otherwise totally apathetic about religion. The Xian sister believes in a much milder version of Xianity, although she told me a couple of years ago that she is uncertain about whether or not an actual hell exists. Being indoctrinated as a child, doesn't mean that when a child reaches early adulthood, they won't be able to question and think about what they have been taught. My own parents were raised in irreligious homes, yet they both converted to a rather harsh version of Xianity when they were in their late twenties. People are often attracted to beliefs that make them feel good, or special. Humans are probably more emotional than they are rational.

My father used to beat us with a leather belt when we were little girls. He did this before and after becoming a fundamentalist Xian. I consider that child abuse and even at the age of 62, I still sometimes resent him for that.

While it would be ideal if everyone raised their children like I did, :D we can't force or even expect that everyone will. I never even told my son I was an atheist until he was in his teens. He came to his own conclusions.

I personally think that there are many much more hurtful things that parents do other than teaching and encouraging their children to believe what they believe. Parents all make mistakes and sometimes we don't recognize them until long after our children are adults. I am well aware of some of my own mistakes in raising my son, but in spite of my own shortcomings, he still became a responsible, happy, and successful individual. I've had a very happy, successful life in spite of my parent's beliefs. I think providing children with their basic needs and security, teaching them moral values, which can be done with or without a religious element, and making sure children know they are loved are among the most important things to include when one is raising a child. I'm not even convinced that teaching a child they should accept the beliefs of a particular religion is harmful, if the child is also exposed to people outside of that faith, is taught to be tolerant of those from other faiths, and the religion is not used as an excuse to use harsh punishments.

[trendkill]

So what should a believing parent do? Lie to their children for 18 years, then at the end go "Oh, by the way, we're Southern Baptists and we think you're going to Hell because we raised you as an atheist"?
That's a good question. I think a good analogy is sex education. People have a right to know the whole truth about sex. That doesn't mean you sit them down with a porno at age 10. Common sense could and should be used. Just because you believe in Hell doesn't mean you have to use it as a psychological tool.


I don't think there is any remote chance of a general ban on Hell indoctrination of children in the US. Of course not, at least not as things stand now. It would take a cultural shift first. Then common sense would take over, and the the law would only have to be applied in cases of particularly egregious cults, like the recent Warren Jeffs case.

[Rome]

Having looked over this thread and people's posts, I can see that there are some who see the bigger picture here: the rights of human beings. Others see it simply as an issue of the rights of parents over their children, which is to say that children aren't human beings or that they ignore basic human rights. There is also some acceptance of the status quo simply because they cannot imagine asking people to do the right thing.

One person said something to the effect of "Should Southern Baptist parents say tell their eighteen-year-old they think they are going to hell because they raised them atheist?" Such is a suggestion is missing the point entirely. It's not about teaching children to be religious or irreligious. It's about respecting one of our most basic rights as human beings, to think and believe as suits us individually. When a parent raises a child with a unilateral point of view, as is common with religious parents, this does a great deal of harm to the child because the child is in a circumstance where it physically and mentally vulnerable in so many ways. Taking advantage of one's weaknesses might be considered strategic in issues of war and politics, but when it's over how individuals live their lives freely, it's an assault on our basic humanity. It's basically saying that children lack the individual worth to see the world for themselves, that others may control them by controlling their understanding of the world. If any government were to do this to a population, this would be considered tyrannical. Why then is this acceptable in terms of parenting?

Children are human beings, human beings with the misfortune to be born into this world without experience and knowledge, a misfortune inherent to all of us at our beginning, and a decent parent should acknowledge that it is their duty to ensure that their child lives both happily and freely, that they take on this duty when having a child. Children are not personal vents through which people exercise a need to control. This is not acceptable in any other area. No one would let me try to control the freethinking of my neighbor. I ask that the same standard be held to our children.

[Rome]

Although, Rome, I wonder whether you've yet mused on the irony of indoctrination, when you're about to train to be an officer in UNC's AROTC program in the North Carolina National Guard?

Any military training is designed to break-down and remove "self", and mould you into a cohesive unit, so that when orders are given, you don't just stand there arguing the toss as to 'why?' - you just do it.
My commitment to the military was a voluntary one, made by my own free will and free thought, and everything I do for the Republic will be done similarly.

No, I've mused no irony, as there is none. The Army teaches values and codes without the kind of force that parents have over their children. How much people swallow it up really falls on them.

[Rome]

Rodney, the truth is that we are born completely bereft of knowledge of the world around us. The tabula rasa concept is reality. It's how we all started, and by the virtue of being individuals, we should be the ones to chisel our own slates. It's a grim offense for people to do that for us. That's the difference between indoctrination and education. Indoctrination limits our abilities to choose, it sabotages our ability to be free....

Oh, stop it. By those standards, we should raise children with no concept of morality or ethics whatever; after all, they might CHOOSE to become totally amoral hedonists when they grow up -- if that can be called "growing up."

One of the most important aspects of this thing called "raising a child" is teaching them -- or "indoctrinating them into," if you like -- SOCIAL VALUES and ETHICS; children are not only born knowing nothing, but they are born totally selfish. Unless you think that should not be interfered with -- allow the six-year-old to slap his three-year-old brother and take his candy without intervening, e.g. -- you are talking sheer nonsense. Is it "indoctrination" to go beyond teaching children not to pursue their desires through violence, and to teach them to actually SHARE when they don't have to? Isn't that some sort of ethical/religious value that ought not be "indoctrinated"? If not, why not? And where do you draw the line?

You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.

Whose feelings SHOULD matter? "Only the child's" is, of course, nonsense as demonstrated above. If parents are not to raise their own children, who should? Do you expect parents to raise their children like automatons, pretending that they have no beliefs or values of their own in order to let the child "choose"? What should they say when their children ask, as they will, what THEY believe and think?

Parents are going to share their OWN values with their children; whose values would you suggest that they share? Some abstract list of moral lessons and concepts prescribed by the State, perhaps? When parents share their values, their ethics, their understanding of what "compassion" and "unselfishness" mean, as well as their religious convictions and perceptions which are integral to those understandings, they are sharing themselves, which is what "parenting" means. That not only ought not be stopped, it will NEVER be stopped, barring confiscation and institutionalization of all children at birth.

Would you outlaw "indoctrination" into ideas about ethics and other philosophical concepts, or only religion? How about political ideas, including your own?
You assumed a lot about me, rather than respond to what I said. I suppose it's sufficient to say that we have no argument, if you're not even arguing against my case.

[cnorman18]

Rodney, the truth is that we are born completely bereft of knowledge of the world around us. The tabula rasa concept is reality. It's how we all started, and by the virtue of being individuals, we should be the ones to chisel our own slates. It's a grim offense for people to do that for us. That's the difference between indoctrination and education. Indoctrination limits our abilities to choose, it sabotages our ability to be free....

Oh, stop it. By those standards, we should raise children with no concept of morality or ethics whatever; after all, they might CHOOSE to become totally amoral hedonists when they grow up -- if that can be called "growing up."

One of the most important aspects of this thing called "raising a child" is teaching them -- or "indoctrinating them into," if you like -- SOCIAL VALUES and ETHICS; children are not only born knowing nothing, but they are born totally selfish. Unless you think that should not be interfered with -- allow the six-year-old to slap his three-year-old brother and take his candy without intervening, e.g. -- you are talking sheer nonsense. Is it "indoctrination" to go beyond teaching children not to pursue their desires through violence, and to teach them to actually SHARE when they don't have to? Isn't that some sort of ethical/religious value that ought not be "indoctrinated"? If not, why not? And where do you draw the line?

You might have a point, if the parents' feelings mattered at all.

Whose feelings SHOULD matter? "Only the child's" is, of course, nonsense as demonstrated above. If parents are not to raise their own children, who should? Do you expect parents to raise their children like automatons, pretending that they have no beliefs or values of their own in order to let the child "choose"? What should they say when their children ask, as they will, what THEY believe and think?

Parents are going to share their OWN values with their children; whose values would you suggest that they share? Some abstract list of moral lessons and concepts prescribed by the State, perhaps? When parents share their values, their ethics, their understanding of what "compassion" and "unselfishness" mean, as well as their religious convictions and perceptions which are integral to those understandings, they are sharing themselves, which is what "parenting" means. That not only ought not be stopped, it will NEVER be stopped, barring confiscation and institutionalization of all children at birth.

Would you outlaw "indoctrination" into ideas about ethics and other philosophical concepts, or only religion? How about political ideas, including your own?
You assumed a lot about me, rather than respond to what I said. I suppose it's sufficient to say that we have no argument, if you're not even arguing against my case.

I assume nothing, and it is my intention, at least, to respond to what you say. Perhaps you could clarify, which seems to me most easily done by answering my questions: Where do you draw the line between civilizing a child, which every parent is obligated to do, and "indoctrination"? Who gets to decide what may and may not, or should and should not, be taught to children? Is being taught basic ethics not "sabotaging our ability to be free"? If not, why not?

[Rome]

Is it really that hard? Does a line really need to be drawn between good parenting and abridging a child's freedom? All you have to do is make the child behave like an responsible adult, and how a parent goes about doing that is going to depend on all the circumstances in which the child grows up.

I can't say specifically how one might do that because what may successfully teach one child may have no affect on another. It is in these cases that we should leave it to the discretion of the parent because it's the parent's responsibility to figure that out. My point is, I've crossed no line in saying that children can be made into good citizens without having their right to free thought attacked.

A problem arises when certain parents may try to make their child into a Baptist, a Communist, a nihilist, what have you. Philosophy, political ideology, and religion are all personal matters that the children, by the virtue of being persons, should form or not form according to their own free will, but when parents try to mold their child to think a certain way, they steal that basic freedom from their child and may even sabotage their ability to think freely into adulthood. Instructing a child in how to behave and coexist with other human beings is not a violation of freedom. On the contrary, our ability to live freely is dependent on our ability to coexist with others.

And yes, you did make assumptions. To ask if I would outlaw anything assumes that I think any type of law on the matter should be passed. It's not a direct statement, but I could read between the lines there.

[Politesse]

And yes, you did make assumptions. To ask if I would outlaw anything assumes that I think any type of law on the matter should be passed. It's not a direct statement, but I could read between the lines there.Generally speaking that is the definition of a crime: something in breach of a law, punishable by conviction. Were you engaging in hyperbole? Personally I wouldn't have objected as much to your OP had it not implied, by its wording, legal actions against the parent.

[Rome]

It's a crime against an individual much like tearing up Shakespeare is a crime against literature.

[cnorman18]

Is it really that hard? Does a line really need to be drawn between good parenting and abridging a child's freedom? All you have to do is make the child behave like an responsible adult, and how a parent goes about doing that is going to depend on all the circumstances in which the child grows up.

I can't say specifically how one might do that because what may successfully teach one child may have no affect on another. It is in these cases that we should leave it to the discretion of the parent because it's the parent's responsibility to figure that out. My point is, I've crossed no line in saying that children can be made into good citizens without having their right to free thought attacked.



Okay, this far, I'm with you.



A problem arises when certain parents may try to make their child into a Baptist, a Communist, a nihilist, what have you. Philosophy, political ideology, and religion are all personal matters that the children, by the virtue of being persons, should form or not form according to their own free will, but when parents try to mold their child to think a certain way, they steal that basic freedom from their child and may even sabotage their ability to think freely into adulthood. Instructing a child in how to behave and coexist with other human beings is not a violation of freedom. On the contrary, our ability to live freely is dependent on our ability to coexist with others.



And here you lose me. As I said: "When parents share their values, their ethics, their understanding of what "compassion" and "unselfishness" mean, as well as their religious convictions and perceptions which are integral to those understandings, they are sharing themselves, which is what "parenting" means. That not only ought not be stopped, it will NEVER be stopped, barring confiscation and institutionalization of all children at birth."

Whether or not that "sharing" is to be considered "molding" or "indoctrination," I would think, would very much depend on nothing more than whether or not the person judging agreed with what was being shared. In any case, it's moot; it can't be stopped, shouldn't be stopped, and without a doubt, won't be stopped.



And yes, you did make assumptions. To ask if I would outlaw anything assumes that I think any type of law on the matter should be passed. It's not a direct statement, but I could read between the lines there.

With the clarification you gave after this, I would agree; but it was not a matter of my making assumptions, but of your clear implications, whether intended or not. Whatever; I withdraw the objection.

[Rome]

I am beginning to feel that I've been a little undeservingly hostile toward you, so I apologize.


Furthermore, it's true that parents raising their children under a certain ideology is normal, but it isn't natural by any means. There's nothing natural about Communism, but there's a lot of nature to making your child functional in a species that is naturally social, so we can reasonably conclude that ideology and a sound upbringing are mutually exclusive.

While the the parent might place a great deal of value in their own personal ideology, it's still not fair to the child to limit and control their understanding of reality, through only that lens. A parent needs to allow the child to explore the means of finding their own way, even if it might lead the Communist parents' child down the road of anarcho-capitalism or the Baptist parents' child down the road of godlessness because this is the right of the child as a human being. The parents' feeling don't matter, and if brainwashing them with ideology is the only way the parent knows to make them a functioning member of society, then I think I offend no one in saying that the person is not suited to be a parent.

[Rie]

I disagree with the 'tabula rasa' idea any way as I was conscious of the very different natures of my children at the moment of their birth.

Let them be I say. If the household is that of a couple who love each other and who laugh and enjoy life then already you have a child with a set of values, good values that will help distinguish the false 'indoctrination' of religion when they encounter it.

I once formed some friendships with members of the Baptist church but was shown the door when I questioned the origins and validity of Christianity. So much for 'do unto others' thought I as I left them behind,

[Rome]

At best, the reality behind tabula rasa is that no slate starts out perfectly clean, that genetics dictate a few words to be on the slate from the start, but that still leaves plenty of empty space.

[DMB]

Having brought up my own children I can testify how very hard it is not to produce carbon copies of oneself. I consciously always tried not to indoctrinate my children with atheism, but the trouble is that even without direct indoctrination, children pick up a huge amount by example.

<As a side note, there is nothing necessarily pejorative in the word "indoctrination". All education involves some indoctrination.>

So I might tell a child that Christians believed so-and-so or Muslims such-and-such, but it was clear that I believed neither. I also deliberately exposed them to a considerable amount of different mythologies. I left it to them to decide whether there were important differences among mythologies. Most young children show touching loyalty to their parents and will parrot their beliefs and ideas. It's normally only as they grow older that the parents slip off their plinths and are seen as flawed human beings who might be wrong.

[Rome]

Well, then you did the right thing in not exploiting your advantage over your children. Let's face it, if your children reach the same conclusion as you on the basis of logic and evidence, that's a tad different than:

"Where the dinosaurs real?"

"No, fossils are meant to test your faith."

"Why did God put the fossils there?"

"He works in mysterious ways; now stop asking questions. You're going to anger God."

The above scenario is essentially what happens when children are religiously indoctrinated.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Although, Rome, I wonder whether you've yet mused on the irony of indoctrination, when you're about to train to be an officer in UNC's AROTC program in the North Carolina National Guard?

Any military training is designed to break-down and remove "self", and mould you into a cohesive unit, so that when orders are given, you don't just stand there arguing the toss as to 'why?' - you just do it.

My commitment to the military was a voluntary one, made by my own free will and free thought, and everything I do for the Republic will be done similarly.

No one's doubting your commitment to it, but that's not point. If you think you'll be allowed free will within its auspices, you're mistaken.

No, I've mused no irony, as there is none. The Army teaches values and codes without the kind of force that parents have over their children. How much people swallow it up really falls on them.

After you with rose tinted spectacles.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Is it really that hard? Does a line really need to be drawn between good parenting and abridging a child's freedom?

No, it's not hard at all - it's only you attempting to make it so.

The problem you have is that you have a proscriptive and absolute sense of what you believe to be "abridging a child's freedom". What you're missing is that it's only your opinion - and opinions vary. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here; never has been and never will be.

[Rodney Dobson]

Furthermore, it's true that parents raising their children under a certain ideology is normal, but it isn't natural by any means. There's nothing natural about Communism, but there's a lot of nature to making your child functional in a species that is naturally social, so we can reasonably conclude that ideology and a sound upbringing are mutually exclusive.


1. Pass "nothing natural about communism" although many would argue that it is a codifying of something that is natural: not I so let's not argue about it

2. ...."there's a lot of nature.....naturally social"? There are many who would argue that that is simply untrue. If it were true that the species was naturally social then would you need a National/State Guard? Or an army at all?

3. "so we can reasonably conclude...mutually exclusive" Would you care to prove that (Venn Diagrams are an acceptable method of proof)?


While the the parent might place a great deal of value in their own personal ideology, it's still not fair to the child to limit and control their understanding of reality, through only that lens. A parent needs to allow the child to explore the means of finding their own way, even if it might lead the Communist parents' child down the road of anarcho-capitalism or the Baptist parents' child down the road of godlessness because this is the right of the child as a human being.

This thread started by discussing means of forcing a child to conform and I doubt if anybody here feels that to be acceptable. So granting that you do not force a child then how do you stop them exploring other ideas than your own.
I imagine you are not yet a parent but, thinking ahead, are you absolutely sure that you would not try to influence your children if they seemed to believe in communism? Would you have done the same in the US of sixty years ago? Suppose they wish to join what you "know" to be a criminal gang? Can you honestly say you would not interfere in any way? Not even, in the latter case, report them to the police (thus making yourself a criminal)?



The parents' feeling don't matter, and if brainwashing them with ideology is the only way the parent knows to make them a functioning member of society, then I think I offend no one in saying that the person is not suited to be a parent. - my emphasis

Both the emphasised words are "loaded" and not conducive of cool dispassionate discourse. At the most fundamental level what is ideology? "I pledge allegiance to the flag" etc. sounds like ideology to one who has not been brainwashed by being obliged to recite it daily. Is it ideology to believe "thou shalt not kill"?

And what about parents who get married in church - promising to bring their children up in fear of the lord (wording not checked but you know what I mean). Are we also to ban church weddings? Church attendance perhaps?

Maybe it would be better if parents should just hand their children to machines as soon as they're born - but then who would program the machines?

[Wizofoz]

Having brought up my own children I can testify how very hard it is not to produce carbon copies of oneself. I consciously always tried not to indoctrinate my children with atheism, but the trouble is that even without direct indoctrination, children pick up a huge amount by example.

<As a side note, there is nothing necessarily pejorative in the word "indoctrination". All education involves some indoctrination.>

So I might tell a child that Christians believed so-and-so or Muslims such-and-such, but it was clear that I believed neither. I also deliberately exposed them to a considerable amount of different mythologies. I left it to them to decide whether there were important differences among mythologies. Most young children show touching loyalty to their parents and will parrot their beliefs and ideas. It's normally only as they grow older that the parents slip off their plinths and are seen as flawed human beings who might be wrong.


If it helps, DMB, my children have been brought up with a foot in both camps. An Atheist Father and a Theist Mother(Plus, a reasonable, intelligent, loving, devoted theist Mother)

I don't see that you can be indoctrinated in two opposing world views, so I think my kids got as near to a "Balanced" look at life as any could (though any formal instruction was in Christianity through Church- all they got from me was honest answers if they asked the questions.)

They both worked out Religion was a crock.