NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*
I think that a good parent Can balance showing children different faiths without having to do the "This is the only god!!!11!!!" thing like my parents did

No, No and NO just for good measure. Don't indoctrinate the poor bastards into religion, or science for that matter. Let them make up their own minds without slamming propaganda into them from an early age.

I think parents should provide a balanced view of things; teach them about religions, certainly, but don't confine it to one religion, and bring in scientific thought too. Then leave it to the children to decide what it is they wish to believe, or not believe.

I think that a good parent Can balance showing children different faiths without having to do the "This is the only god!!!11!!!" thing like my parents did

I agree.

Too many parents find it imperative that their child believe in their God, rather than finding it imperative that their child forms their own beliefs and hope that it is their God.

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*

Of course not. If they've got time to spare from the political brainwashing then you're doing something wrong as a parent.

Sorry, but I'll teach my children my religion and if they don't like it then that's their problem. They can relinquish their beliefs in later life, but not whilst they live under my roof.

Seriously, no, it's not OK. But I voted "Only if they include Nintendo."

Your using of the word indoctinate automatically shows that you are against it; and, based on the number of atheists on this board compared to religious in general, i'm not suprised there are so many "No!" votes

Indoctrinate: To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.

No. Children should be given access to information about different religions (including something as simple as asking a question about one to you, the parent) but they should NOT have their parents' beliefs forced on them. I feel much more comfortable in my own worship because my parents didn't tell me "This is our way, this is the only way, anyone who says different is wrong, end of story," but allowed me to explore my own spirituality. I will do the same for my children as my parents did for me, so that they will grow up to be as confident, self-assured, tolerant, and considerate as possible.

Indoctrinate: To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.

Such as...murder is wrong?

I agree.

Too many parents find it imperative that their child believe in their God, rather than finding it imperative that their child forms their own beliefs and hope that it is their God.
Agreed, It is only right that a parent should show what they believe is right to their child. What is not right is things like my parents did by punishing you if you decided to not believe in the same thing they did (when I stopped going to church they kicked me out, almost had to drop out of school)

I think that children should be allowed to make there own choses in life when it comes to religion, however I do agree with Baptism when they are Infants (family tradition).

Seriously, no, it's not OK. But I voted "Only if they include Nintendo."
How could you possibly resist

Such as...murder is wrong?
I was countering the claim that the word "indoctrinate" is inappropriate.

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*
Depends on which beliefs. I'll indoctrinate my kid with most of my beliefs, especially the belief in Basic Human Rights.

*ends sermon*

Indoctrinate? Hell no. That's just stupid. What does a kid understand?

Give the basics and let them decide for themselves? Sure, why not? It's important to raise your kids with a sense of ethics. Some things are best not left up to the mind of the 5 year old to decide.

especially the belief in Basic Human Rights.


You monster! I'm callin' CPS!

:p

I'm going to answer a slightly different question by removing the word "religious" from the title, to "Is it OK to indoctrinate your children with your beliefs?" I think that all parents when bringing up their children are going to impose some of their beliefs on them, and while parents may give other information and viewpoints about issues to their children sometimes, the parents view and bias is still going to affect the child. So I don't see it as really being any more wrong influencing children with religious beliefs than it is with many other beliefs that parents have and will influence their children with.

Indoctrinate? Hell no. That's just stupid. What does a kid understand?

Give the basics and let them decide for themselves? Sure, why not? It's important to raise your kids with a sense of ethics. Some things are best not left up to the mind of the 5 year old to decide.
How can you outfit the 5 year old with ethics except by indoctrination?

Such as teaching your child that it is wrong to steal and so on. To my mind, that is just as much indoctrination as teaching your child to be, say, a Roman Catholic.

You monster! I'm callin' CPS!

:p
:eek: OMG not mr. Bauer!

Expose: yes
Indoctrinate: no

In fact, I think indoctrination of ideas into a person that will naturally reject it is extremely detrimental.

How can you outfit the 5 year old with ethics except by indoctrination?

Explanation and reasoning. Yes, it is possible to reason with a 5 year old. I've gone through 4 of them now and have some experience in the matter.

I see indoctrination as "Love Jesus or I will lock you in the sin closet for 3 days!" A sort of forced action rather than a teaching process. The child grows up believing the way of the parents out of fear, rather than out of conscious decision.

That's sort of the point of having chidren, isn't it?

It's your job to decide how your kids are raised, and it's my job to decide how my kids are raised.

But I'm allowed to try to explain to your kid why your religious beliefs are wrong. And so are you, but my kids can totally pwn you in a debate.

Explanation and reasoning. Yes, it is possible to reason with a 5 year old. I've gone through 4 of them now and have some experience in the matter.

I see indoctrination as "Love Jesus or I will lock you in the sin closet for 3 days!" A sort of forced action rather than a teaching process. The child grows up believing the way of the parents out of fear, rather than out of conscious decision.
I see indoctrination as uncritical teaching. Doesn't necessarily include sin closets:p . Depends on what school of training you adhere to. I like Monty Roberts'.

I'm a Satanist, and my wifes a Christian. Our children will be tought about all the religions we can and then allowed to make their own choices.

To prevent a parent from teaching his/her chosen religion to the offspring would be a massive intrusion of government into family life. Let the parents teach their religion, but let's encourage them not to teach hatred of other points of view and hopefully the kids will become atheists when they're old enough to think critically.

If not for the indoctrination of young minds Christianity and indeed most religions would of died out years ago. Get 'em while they're young and still stupid enough to believe everything their parents tell them.

I'm a Satanist, and my wifes a Christian. Our children will be tought about all the religions we can and then allowed to make their own choices.
Care to take a wild guess at what that'll be?

I'm a Satanist, and my wifes a Christian. Our children will be tought about all the religions we can and then allowed to make their own choices.

Oh dear...you're in for the long haul.

Oh dear...you're in for the long haul.

That is what being a parent implies. Always.

Why wouldnt parents instill their values in their children?

Who should indoctrinate children if not parents?

Nobody better to choose than parents.

For those of you who think that letting kids decide what is right and wrong for them, consider this. Would you have gone to school or would you have played nintendo if you were given the choice? Everyone here has been indoctrinated into reading despite their wishes.

Yet some still want anarchy and hate the institution of school because it brainwashes or our youth or some bull crap. Even true anarchists can overcome indoctrination by schools and parents and form opininions. Kids raised with religion by their parents can do the same. It isnt permanent. It is a choice

Let the parents indoctrinate away at will. This method is way better than outside folk telling parents how to raise children no matter how well meaning or altruistic the outsiders are.

A better poll might be "should people who cant mind their own business be telling parents how to raise their kids?"

Why wouldnt parents instill their values in their children?
The question was about religion, not values in general. I do not think that anyone would argue that parents should not teach the basics of right and wrong to their children.

Who should indoctrinate children if not parents?
No one.

Nobody better to choose than parents. Except the person themself. Remember that children are people.

For those of you who think that letting kids decide what is right and wrong for them, consider this. Would you have gone to school or would you have played nintendo if you were given the choice? Everyone here has been indoctrinated into reading despite their wishes.
No one is arguing against education. If you read through this thread you will see that the majority that say they would not indoctrinate their kids into a religions say that they would teach them about religion. There is a difference between being obliged to learn and being obliged to believe. What belief is involved in reading? Can it be that this reading system is not the one that best suits your charcter and personality?

Yet some still want anarchy and hate the institution of school because it brainwashes or our youth or some bull crap. Even true anarchists can overcome indoctrination by schools and parents and form opininions. Kids raised with religion by their parents can do the same. It isnt permanent. It is a choice
Unfortunately it often is not temporary. Some people are independent spitrited enough to break free from inculcated belief systems, but only some. The majority cannot even try to do this.

Let the parents indoctrinate away at will. This method is way better than outside folk telling parents how to raise children no matter how well meaning or altruistic the outsiders are. WHo is telling anyone how to raise their kids. The question I understood as being a personal one. How would you raise your kids? I can nhave an opinion on what is right and wrong in this respect, but my holding and expressing such an opinion does not mean that I am instructing others on how to behave. I am simply expressing my view.

A better poll might be "should people who cant mind their own business be telling parents how to raise their kids?"
See above.

I plan to tell my children about all cultures beliefs equally. It is important to know what people believe, and how these beliefs originated. And I will of course also teach them the facts about the world, such as we know them.

In a sense, I feel it may be okay to "indoctrinate" kids with my religious beliefs; since, as it turns out, the closest thing I have to a religious belief is "Question Everything, but Eliminate Nothing".

I will certainly not prevent them from having any ideas contrary to my own, but I will always encourage them to keep such ideas tested for consistency and reason, and to take the same approach with those around them.

snip

For those of you who think that letting kids decide what is right and wrong for them, consider this. Would you have gone to school or would you have played nintendo if you were given the choice? Everyone here has been indoctrinated into reading despite their wishes.

snip
As much of a gamer as I am I would much rather read then play nintendo, I have sense I have had the ability to read

Weird thread.

I wasn't really raised to be a Christian or anything, I just sort of wound up gravitating towards it on my own as a teen. If and when I have kids, I'll certainly teach them about and expose them to my religious beliefs. Really young kids don't exactly have the capacity to grasp complex theological concepts (not everyone grows out of this, unfortunately), so at first it'll probably just be really simple Bible stories and other things that most people on this site probably consider unfair indoctrination. As they get older, I'll make sure their understanding of the faith increases and that they learn about other religions and stuff like that. My concern isn't that my kids won't be Christians so much as it is that they'll wind up with a shallow, uninformed faith.

I think that religious indocrination of children accounts for well of 90% of total adherents to religion. For every christian, muslim, hindu...that has come to their decision after a lengthy spiritual journey of philosophical contemplation there are 100 adherents to that religion which were 'born into it'. Consequently nothing shits me more than religious brainwashing of children. It is taking advantage of the supple state of their mind, and misshaping it to advance your own insecure beleifs. These children have huge problems trying to discern between BS religious conditioning and common sense later in life.

However, I think that while it is a despicable thing to do, parents cannot be censored (practically, and reasonably). What I would suggest is complete removal of 'Religious Education' from primary schools (or the Old ladies Christian society, as it is less frequently recognised as).

I find it interesting that so many people are advocating an exposure to a balance between various religions of the world and science. Science is not a religion. Science is not BS metaphysical conjecture. It is a discipline of study based upon the findings of empirical evidence, and is constantly open to challenge from new perspectives. I beleive that children should either be taught every single religion that has ever existed, or none. Science, however, should be encouraged from a very young age to boost the developement of critical, inquisitive, intelligent minds.

As much as I would like to indoctrinate my Atheism into my child, I think I should give them the credit of the simple logical choice themselves. I would probably not bother teaching them about every single religion ever. Rather, I would wait until the question came up and give them a defintion with a few examples. Something like:

"Religion? Well. A very long time ago, people wanted to explain why things they didn't understand happened. So they created gods for everything they didn't understand. The stars, fire, the sun, the seasons, night time, luck, and everything else. As time went by, our knowledge in science grew and showed why these things were untrue, and gave real explanations for the various phenonema that exist. Now, Religions still exist all over the world, different people believe in their own special gods. However, due to the advanced state of science these days, they now exist on what little science hasn't already explained or cannot yet prove/disprove. Most religious people these days are clever, and keep their beleifs out of the way of (or in line with) science. Sometimes, though, there are some silly people who challenge the validity of science with the word of their special god. Are they wrong? Not neccesarily, but yes. They are just like the Greeks who thought the sun was a flaming chariot, and the catholics who though the world was flat and earth was in the centre of the universe/solar system. Maybe they are right, just like the greeks and the catholics could have been right. I'll leave it up to you...

Basically, Indoctrinating a child with religion is a vile breach of their freedom to choose later, but your right if you feel so insecure in your beleifs that you think you have to. However, indoctrinating a child in atheism or agnosticism does not cross this line, because you are not actually indoctrinating them, you are de-doctrinating them. Personally, though, I feel a secular childhood would be the best, followed by a free choice.

Please don't tell your kid that the primary purpose of religion is "explaining stuff".

I have after many years of study decided that I tend to lean agnostic to atheist and yet feel that I am a very spiritual person. I find beauty every day and love life to it’s fullest.
I was raised to choose my own religion; my mother did not think that it was a choice that should be made lightly or by anyone else including her.
I have studied and practiced many of the mainstream religions and their sects. I have come to realize that organized religion tends to spread conflict and ignorance more often than not. (I want to clarify organized religion as the churches themselves, not the religious premise they preach.) I have found that many of the preachers ect, pick and choose what they want their religion will say and ignore the rest, they also seem to be very uninformed about the other religions that they denounce.
I have found organized religion tends to close people off from each other. All religions have basic principles of peace and love but are used to hate. If anything I think that spirituality should be a very personal quite thing.

I voted yes, but I dislike the word "indoctrinate."
I'd certainly educate them about my faith... but I'd make sure they knew about other faiths, too.

I think brainwashing young children with religious beliefs is horrible. I wont try to push my atheist beliefs on my kids. People need to let children decide for themselves. Damn anyone to hell who fill their kids heads with religious bullshit.

My children? I didn't know I had any. :confused:

"Damn you to the hell I don't believe in!"

;)

I think brainwashing young children with religious beliefs is horrible. I wont try to push my atheist beliefs on my kids. People need to let children decide for themselves. Damn anyone to hell who fill their kids heads with religious bullshit.
Nice Scarcasm
Most reasonable people were including athiestic bliefs under the catagory of what to "not indoctronate" your kids into

You seemed to have missed that

and, based on the number of atheists on this board compared to religious in general
You say that like it's a bad thing. :p

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*
Do I believe it should be legal for people to indoctrinate children into superstitious beliefs? Yes.

Do I believe that indoctrinating a child into religious superstitions is reprehensible? Hell yes.

In my eyes, people who indoctrinate their children into religious beliefs are no different than people who indoctrinate their children into racist beliefs, Flat Earth beliefs, or belief that substance abuse is a good thing. I believe what they are doing to their children is dangerous, irresponsible, and wrong.

Sorry, but I'll teach my children my religion and if they don't like it then that's their problem. They can relinquish their beliefs in later life, but not whilst they live under my roof.

Okay, they're gunna be your kids and all. . .but that's still kinda fucked up. You pretty much said that you don't want your kids to have their own independent thought when it comes to theology.

"if they don't like it then that's their problem."

thats the kicker. If your kids don't like it, you're going to have one hell of a time when they get to their teens. My parents raised me presbyterian, thought that nothing else was right, the whole "this is the only religion spiel". As a result I gave my parents living hell while I was in high school. I smoked, I did drugs, I stopped going to church (and they tried to force me but it didn't work). Now that I am away from home to worst I do is get into religious debates with them. And the occasional fight about freedom. But, the end theory that I cam up with was this: don't ever force your kids to believe as you do or they will eventually hate you for it.

That being said, I plan to let my kids develope their own thoughts. My girlfriend wants to raise her kids in a Unitarian Universalist church. Thats fine with me because anyone can be a UU. But I still want them to explore every possiblity they are interested in before making a choice. And I definatly don't want it to be my choice.

I am always disturbed by how little people seem to know of their own religious beliefs. If you are going to teach your kids you need to be informed yourself first.

Please don't tell your kid that the primary purpose of religion is "explaining stuff".
Yeah, sorry. Explaining stuff, and manipulating people.

Nice Scarcasm
Most reasonable people were including athiestic bliefs under the catagory of what to "not indoctronate" your kids into

You seemed to have missed that
I didnt realize I was being scarcastic but, yeah....Thanks for let me know I was :)

I didnt realize I was being scarcastic but, yeah....Thanks for let me know I was :)
From your point of view thus far expressed on the forum I was making what I thought was a sound assumption

Was I wrong?

Yeah, sorry. Explaining stuff, and manipulating people.
What does religion explain that cannot be explained without religion?

From what I've seen, religious "explainations" are just guesses that some dudes wrote down a really really long time ago, most of which don't actually seem that plausible any more. The rest of the "explainations" don't actually answer any question, they just are a polite way of saying "shut up and quit asking me stuff."

Yeah, sorry. Explaining stuff, and manipulating people.

It's always weird to be informed that in practicing the faith that I chose for myself, in accordance with principles that I sincerely believe to be true, I am somehow being manipulated or brainwashed.

Or am I putting words in your mouth?

It's always weird to be informed that in practicing the faith that I chose for myself, in accordance with principles that I sincerely believe to be true, I am somehow being manipulated or brainwashed.

Or am I putting words in your mouth?
If your faith included an organized religion there is always the chance that said organization can manipulate. In fact organized religion seems to be about as ideal as can be for manipulating people.

Having real people act as a mouthpiece (or interpreter) for an un contactable un accountable source (god) is ideal.

Parents indoctrinate their children with their morals, their values, their social behaviors as well as rules, why not Religion or even a lack of Religion.

As long as parents can shape their children's minds and behavoirs, they can instill what ever beliefs they wish. and it will be up to the child (as they grow) to determine which they will keep or which they will discard.

we have as much right to tell parents what to teach their children as the Government has to tell us how to live.

Okay, I'll agree with that, UT.

Okay, I'll agree with that, UT.
Yeah I not saying all faith does, but thoes that have humans in the loop somewhere deffinatly have that possiblity

Of course it is. It is the job of a parent to teach their children what they believe is right. I see no reason to confuse a five-year old with the merits of every single religion there is. I think it is important for parents to pass down their own traditions and beliefs while teaching their children to be tolerant of other people's religion.

Care to take a wild guess at what that'll be?

Knowing our luck, they'll rebel against both of us and join some even wierder cult.

you have the right to raise your children as you wish, but you don't have a right to tell them how they must think.

Of course it is. It is the job of a parent to teach their children what they believe is right. I see no reason to confuse a five-year old with the merits of every single religion there is. I think it is important for parents to pass down their own traditions and beliefs while teaching their children to be tolerant of other people's religion.
Because brainwashing is teh good.


Why not just tell them the truth about things? Is it really too much for them to know?

Absolutely not. Infact lets ban regious schools.

Because brainwashing is teh good.


Why not just tell them the truth about things? Is it really too much for them to know?

This might be too obvious to merit mentioning, but if you adhere to a certain religion, you probably consider the tenets of that religion to be true.

This might be too obvious to merit mentioning, but if you adhere to a certain religion, you probably consider the tenets of that religion to be true.
Sigh. Naturally I forgot that not everyone is a sceptical, educated, and reasonable atheist like me. >.<

Some are skeptical, educated, reasonable theists?

...the catholics who though the world was flat...

The Church did not teach that the world was flat. The Ancient Greeks knew that it was rounded, people in the Mediaeval Ages knew that it was rounded. They even tried to prove it through their observations. So don't say that the Roman Catholic Church was at fault. Scientists used to believe in phlogiston but they don't anymore so they're just as bad.

Sigh. Naturally I forgot that not everyone is a sceptical, educated, and reasonable atheist like me. >.<
well, if we all were like you... where would the fun be in that?

all these threads would be filled with nothing but "I agree with Czardas" and that would get boring really fast. :p

Some are skeptical, educated, reasonable theists?
I've seen very few of those.

Absolutely not. Infact lets ban regious schools.

Let's ban atheist schools as well. Hell, let's go the whole hog and scrap the NHS while we're at it (complete waste of money) and the minimum wage!

well, if we all were like you... where would the fun be in that?

all these threads would be filled with nothing but "I agree with Czardas" and that would get boring really fast. :p
Actually, that would be fun. I could get everyone to worship me. Or wait though, if everyone was like me they too would demand worship, and we'd have a surplus of Overlords.... It helps that I consider most of them inferior though anyway.... but ... BRAIN OVERLOAD!!! /implodes

No, you shouldn't push yoru views down yoru kisd throat. however, that does not mean you can't share and introduce them to your ideas.

if I ever become a parent, I'll be sure to show my kids different religions, political ideas, etc. Even if they become a radical right winger, much unlike myself, at least they can say I gave them the choice.

It's about giving them a rounded education. Teach them your religions ideals, but also fairly and fully educate them in opposing beliefs, than they can make an informed decision. This also will help them understand their own choices and worldview much better.

It certainly isn’t OK. Civilization would do well to live religion in the dust. However, I am not comfortable with the government (presumably) telling people what ideologies to pass on to their children. Any law would be nearly unenforceable anyway.

Actually, that would be fun. I could get everyone to worship me. Or wait though, if everyone was like me they too would demand worship, and we'd have a surplus of Overlords.... It helps that I consider most of them inferior though anyway.... but ... BRAIN OVERLOAD!!! /implodes

Aha! Your brain imploded! The world is MINE! *maniacal laughter*

Of course not. If they've got time to spare from the political brainwashing then you're doing something wrong as a parent.

Just what I would have said.

Parents have the right and the obligation to teach their children values. It makes no difference whether the values are faith-based or not.

My caveat on this would be that the parents need to be informed about their own beliefs first - none of this "because the Bible/minister/God/I say so" nonsense. Children will grow up and will require reasons - if you can't give them solid, logical reasons, you'll lose them.

Parents have the right and the obligation to teach their children values. It makes no difference whether the values are faith-based or not.

Teaching != Indoctrination

My caveat on this would be that the parents need to be informed about their own beliefs first - none of this "because the Bible/minister/God/I say so" nonsense. Children will grow up and will require reasons - if you can't give them solid, logical reasons, you'll lose them.

If you have to give them reasons, that means you are teaching them to think for themselves. You are telling them what you believe, but not forcing it upon them. In other words, you are teaching, rather than indoctrinating.

Okay, they're gunna be your kids and all. . .but that's still kinda fucked up. You pretty much said that you don't want your kids to have their own independent thought when it comes to theology.

...which, in my mind, basically says, "I don't want my children to actually have faith." If a child is not taught to question religious belief, they will never truly have faith. Parents that attempt to indoctrinate their children are generally, in fact, damning them to Hell by their own doctrine - by keeping their children from ever actually having faith in God.

The question was about religion, not values in general. I do not think that anyone would argue that parents should not teach the basics of right and wrong to their children.

.
I fully understood the question.

If a person is religious then the religion and the value system are intertwined.

You cant easily teach one without the other.

The rest of your answer to my post went off at a tangent assuming that this is possible.

Science is not BS metaphysical conjecture. It is a discipline of study based upon the findings of empirical evidence, and is constantly open to challenge from new perspectives. I beleive that children should either be taught every single religion that has ever existed, or none. Science, however, should be encouraged from a very young age to boost the developement of critical, inquisitive, intelligent minds.

'

In a perfect world science is all that. Plus a great deal of healthy skepticism to keep the players in the game double blind honest.
Today however the work being done under the guise of science is as often as not driven by policy ego and in some disciplines social ladderclimbing. It is far too seldom a critical inquest into truth which is dedicated to broadening the knowlege of mankind. This is why we had Sagen crying nuclear winter, why second hand smoke is said to kill millions a year, why we have estimates of Chernobyl killing 200,000 and dare I say it....why the Kyoto agreement came into being.


OK rant over.

Back on track.

Ummmm.....Parents who dont put in the time or effort to instill their children with their values, religious or not, usually end up raising more trouble than good.

They're their kids. They created them, they support their material existence, and they can teach them whatever they please.

Futhermore, if you present an "enlightened" range of options to the little darlings and let them choose, odds are they'll choose something that involves degradation of authority (or perhaps the religion-cum-ideology of Communist Candy Distribution).

What does religion explain that cannot be explained without religion?

From what I've seen, religious "explainations" are just guesses that some dudes wrote down a really really long time ago, most of which don't actually seem that plausible any more. The rest of the "explainations" don't actually answer any question, they just are a polite way of saying "shut up and quit asking me stuff."
Um. how about how did it all begin? What happens after we die (i.e. I can't handle the finality of death, and would like a security blanket please)? When/how will it all end? Is everything a product of chaos and chance, or is there some pattern/system/thing behind it all? What is the nature of the universe and beyond? Why do I have to suffer? ...

It's always weird to be informed that in practicing the faith that I chose for myself, in accordance with principles that I sincerely believe to be true, I am somehow being manipulated or brainwashed.

Or am I putting words in your mouth?
I meant that one of the purposes of religion existing is to manipulate others, not that all religious adherents are manipulated. However, the vast majority are. It is the rare few like yourself that I can condone, mainly because you give half decent arguements on the religion topic. I still think the choice-theists are wrong, but not neccesarily stupid/ignorant/manipulated.

Of course it is. It is the job of a parent to teach their children what they believe is right. I see no reason to confuse a five-year old with the merits of every single religion there is. I think it is important for parents to pass down their own traditions and beliefs while teaching their children to be tolerant of other people's religion.
This is why I would say just don't teach them religion at all, until you think they are responsible enough to make a judgement on their own, free from conditioning and pressure, based on their own research. Otherwise you end up confusing the child, or outright deceiving them.

I've seen very few of those.
They're like ninjas. They do exist, in small numbers, and they are all around, probably watching you RIGHT NOW. But you'll probably never meet one.

Ninjas and fairies...



..and unicorns

It certainly isn’t OK. Civilization would do well to live religion in the dust. However, I am not comfortable with the government (presumably) telling people what ideologies to pass on to their children. Any law would be nearly unenforceable anyway.
Yes! This is a much less offensve way of expressing how I feel.

In a perfect world science is all that. Plus a great deal of healthy skepticism to keep the players in the game double blind honest.
Today however the work being done under the guise of science is as often as not driven by policy ego and in some disciplines social ladderclimbing. It is far too seldom a critical inquest into truth which is dedicated to broadening the knowlege of mankind. This is why we had Sagen crying nuclear winter, why second hand smoke is said to kill millions a year, why we have estimates of Chernobyl killing 200,000 and dare I say it....why the Kyoto agreement came into being.
Uh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Sagan only explored what would happen if nuclear war erupted, IIRC. Second-hand smoke doesn't kill millions (Care to give a source that says it does?) but it does kill between 30 000 and 70 000 adult non-smokers in the US every year, and I believe that number rises every year thanks to the increasing number of years that so many people have been exposed to it. Chernobyl estimates weren't 200 000 people (Again, care to give a source?), but it could eventually attribute to the deaths of up to 4000. Kyoto came into being because the world needs it, not because of some ego-trip. The world REALLY has to look at how much we're releasing into the environment and the detrimental effects of it.

And try to make sure your sources are somewhat reputable ones, not some conspiracy websites or anything.

People are born athiests and should remain athiests. If someone wants to believe any of those archaic superstitions they must make that decision themselves, without the brainwashing done by their parents.

If there was no religion, there would be peace on Earth, or at least, we'd be very close to peace.

If there was no religion, there would be peace on Earth, or at least, we'd be very close to peace.

Talk about your archaic superstitions. Religion doesn't cause wars, people use religion as an excuse for war. In the absence of religion, we'd find another excuse...like "stopping the spread of communism," "stopping the reign of facism," "spreading democracy," oil, "ending the pointless bloodshed," etc.

There have been wars fought in the name of peace. If peace can be passed off as an excuse for war, what can't?

"Is it OK to indoctrinate your children with your religious beliefs?"

Yes, as long as you also give them permission to think.

I suppose it would depend on what yours are...
;)

Thank you all for posting.

The correct answer was of course "Only if they include Nintendo".

Everyone who guessed correctly please have a yummy Kirby cookie. :)

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3872/kirby14bg.jpg

Uh.. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Sagan only explored what would happen if nuclear war erupted, IIRC. Second-hand smoke doesn't kill millions (Care to give a source that says it does?) but it does kill between 30 000 and 70 000 adult non-smokers in the US every year, and I believe that number rises every year thanks to the increasing number of years that so many people have been exposed to it. Chernobyl estimates weren't 200 000 people (Again, care to give a source?), but it could eventually attribute to the deaths of up to 4000. Kyoto came into being because the world needs it, not because of some ego-trip. The world REALLY has to look at how much we're releasing into the environment and the detrimental effects of it.

And try to make sure your sources are somewhat reputable ones, not some conspiracy websites or anything.

But, but, but.....science is only good when it comes to conclusions we like!

"Is it OK to indoctrinate your children with your religious beliefs?"

Yes, as long as you also give them permission to think.

Those two things are essentially incompatible.

SNIP.



Those two things are essentially incompatible.


And why would that be?
We're indoctrinated to check before crossing the road.
Doesn't stop us from thinking.

Maybe you need to restate what you mean by either thinking or indoctrination? Possibly both.

I truly think kids shoudl be exposed to as many different religions as is possible, and allowed to make up their own minds as to what path they wish to follow.

This is not to say that you shouldn't teach your children the difference between right and wrong, just that you shouldn't base that interpretation on your own specific religion, but more on a sense of decency. Most religions share a sense of do unto others... That should be tought.

And why would that be?

Indoctrination doesn't allow room to think about something or question it. You are just supposed to do/believe it.

We're indoctrinated to check before crossing the road.

No, we are taught to do so. Most people realize its a good idea and keep doing it.

Of course, its hardly a good comparison, since "check before crossing the road" isn't exactly a philosophy. One might as well say "We are indoctrinated into putting underwear on in the morning."

Indoctrination doesn't allow room to think about something or question it. You are just supposed to do/believe it.



No, we are taught to do so. Most people realize its a good idea and keep doing it.

Of course, its hardly a good comparison, since "check before crossing the road" isn't exactly a philosophy. One might as well say "We are indoctrinated into putting underwear on in the morning."


So, perhaps you should restate under what you mean by indoctrination
Let me put it like this: 'we are indoctrinated into putting underwear on in the morning'.
What's wrong about indoctrinating people, making them suppose, making them believe, to put underwear on in the morning?

For Ivia:

Second-hand smoke only kills people with asthma.

The people you hear about dying from 2nd hand smoke died from lung cancer. Lung cancer was the correct answer, kids.

If we're going to trace indirect causes to how many deaths they cause, I have to ask how many deaths rap music causes every year.

It's harmful, yes, but let's not pretend it's something that it's not. You don't suffocate to death on second-hand smoke under any kind of regular circumstances. It merely increases the risk of getting cancer. You know, the way they proved that french fries increase the risk of cancer, asbestos increases the risk of cancer, cell phones increase the risk of cancer...I could go on and on and on.

For Ivia:

Second-hand smoke only kills people with asthma.

The people you hear about dying from 2nd hand smoke died from lung cancer. Lung cancer was the correct answer, kids.

If we're going to trace indirect causes to how many deaths they cause, I have to ask how many deaths rap music causes every year.

It's harmful, yes, but let's not pretend it's something that it's not. You don't suffocate to death on second-hand smoke under any kind of regular circumstances. It merely increases the risk of getting cancer. You know, the way they proved that french fries increase the risk of cancer, asbestos increases the risk of cancer, cell phones increase the risk of cancer...I could go on and on and on.
No, second-hand smoke kills people with asthma, it gives people lung cancer, and it aggravates milder heart disease into fatality. Why don't you go read some of the many studies that have been done on the subject with a somewhat more open mind than you're giving my statements, and then see what you think, hmm? Then again, you won't believe them anyway because you refuse to believe that you might be wrong.

So, perhaps you should restate under what you mean by indoctrination

Maybe I don't have to, as I have made it clear what I mean by indoctrination. There are two common definitions, and one of them means the same thing as "teach". Since I have been very clear that I am not using that one....

No, second-hand smoke kills people with asthma, it gives people lung cancer, and it aggravates milder heart disease into fatality. Why don't you go read some of the many studies that have been done on the subject with a somewhat more open mind than you're giving my statements, and then see what you think, hmm? Then again, you won't believe them anyway because you refuse to believe that you might be wrong.

One might have very good reasons to doubt those studies.

If you look at the reports the NHS has been giving out on the perils of drinking and passive smoking, one comes to the conclusion that the total slice of the pie of people dying in the UK due to nicotine and alcohol exceeds 100% of all casulaties in the UK.

Maybe I don't have to, as I have made it clear what I mean by indoctrination. There are two common definitions, and one of them means the same thing as "teach". Since I have been very clear that I am not using that one....

Oh no, you haven't!

But please: tell me, what could possibly be wrong with making each and every inhabitant of the UK believe that the creed of the CofE ( never mind that I don't believe in that one myself ) is the one and only way to go?

The UK would be a better place if everyone of us was a staunch, unflinching, devoted, commited CofE-member.

One might have very good reasons to doubt those studies.

If you look at the reports the NHS has been giving out on the perils of drinking and passive smoking, one comes to the conclusion that the total slice of the pie of people dying in the UK due to nicotine and alcohol exceeds 100% of all casulaties in the UK.
Not talking about drinking or smoking first-hand. I'm talking about second-hand smoke. Just because you can't fully understand a study or report doesn't mean the danger is any less.

Not talking about drinking or smoking first-hand. I'm talking about second-hand smoke. Just because you can't fully understand a study or report doesn't mean the danger is any less.

*grin* you can't have it both ways.

Just because you can't fully understand a study or report doesn't mean the danger is completely as stated either.

Oh no, you haven't!

But please: tell me, what could possibly be wrong with making each and every inhabitant of the UK believe that the creed of the CofE ( never mind that I don't believe in that one myself ) is the one and only way to go?

The UK would be a better place if everyone of us was a staunch, unflinching, devoted, commited CofE-member.

I will tell you - forcing religion upon people breeds intolerance of all other religions.

We have a shitty enough international reputation as it is, if we then claimed every other religion was stupid, then anyone of any other faith would doubtless be disgusted, as would atheists and agnostics.

The UK would be a far, far worse place if there was one state place. I think that it's great that the UK's always been a place where people of various faiths and ethnicities have lived in relative harmony, and I wouldn't ever want that changed.

In my opinion, children should be taught about all of the world's various religions and also the various customs of the worlds' people, but they should always be allowed to make their own minds up about what's right for them.

Indoctrinate is definately a poor choice for words. I am a devote christian, and have been since I was about 14, when I started walking to church if my parents weren't going that week. I am not the sort of christian that closes my mind to anything, even science. Lutherans like me DO NOT dispute evolution.

I will raise my eventual children in the faith, but NO "sin closet" (people like that are simply not followers of Christ) type stuff, I will discuss why it is important to me, and why (and how) I came to choose what I did. I will also talk about the doctrines and principles of other faiths (and that weekend 5 summers ago when I read the Q'ran and the bible straight through and back to back)

I guess what I see myself doing fits the definition of indoctrination, but definately not the connotation of it.

*grin* you can't have it both ways.

Just because you can't fully understand a study or report doesn't mean the danger is completely as stated either.
I never said that it was that bad. I already gave the figures for second-hand smoke, between 30k and 70k adult non-smokers in the US every year. It could even be higher, in cases where people had previously existing serious conditions but they would have been under control except for second-hand smoke.

It doesn't sound like much, but there are dangers to second-hand smoke, and it's ridiculous to imply that there are none.

I will tell you - forcing religion upon people breeds intolerance of all other religions.

We have a shitty enough international reputation as it is, if we then claimed every other religion was stupid, then anyone of any other faith would doubtless be disgusted, as would atheists and agnostics.

The UK would be a far, far worse place if there was one state place. I think that it's great that the UK's always been a place where people of various faiths and ethnicities have lived in relative harmony, and I wouldn't ever want that changed.

In my opinion, children should be taught about all of the world's various religions and also the various customs of the worlds' people, but they should always be allowed to make their own minds up about what's right for them.

I'm going to play the bad Advocate a bit more here - although certainly not without sincerity.

Neither the tolerance nor the repute issue would be very important - because we would have nothing to do with non-CofE members inside the UK ( there would be none ) , and we could simply remain aloof from any non-necessary interaction with countries that we would deem as children of a lesser God. ( note: I'm not a CofE-member. )

We would not proclaim other opinions as stupid - we could simply refuse to have any conversation with them.

If people want to live here, it is their burden to become as UK-ish as they can make themselves. ( my personal opinion )

I really don't buy your diversity-argument, since I really don't believe in producing mixed bag of nuts. The UK is mostly a fine place, warts and all, but diversity attracts me as much as an i-pod ( I don't like electronical music one bit! ).

in summary: I see nothing wrong with having all noses pointing the same way.

I never said that it was that bad. I already gave the figures for second-hand smoke, between 30k and 70k adult non-smokers in the US every year. It could even be higher, in cases where people had previously existing serious conditions but they would have been under control except for second-hand smoke.

It doesn't sound like much, but there are dangers to second-hand smoke, and it's ridiculous to imply that there are none.

Have I said there was no danger?
*shrug*
What I'm saying is that I think the dangers and studies as overdone.
There is no such thing as an objective study - unless you are firmly convinced of the righteousness of the objective

I'm going to play the bad Advocate a bit more here - although certainly not without sincerity.

Neither the tolerance nor the repute issue would be very important - because we would have nothing to do with non-CofE members inside the UK ( there would be none ) , and we could simply remain aloof from any non-necessary interaction with countries that we would deem as children of a lesser God. ( note: I'm not a CofE-member. )

We would not proclaim other opinions as stupid - we could simply refuse to have any conversation with them.

And exceptionally poor idea. Isolationism is foolish, especially when it's isolationism on religious grounds. What comes after not talking to other people?

Do our laws start to essentially be those of the Bible's?

Is a text written in several countries, by several people, a long time ago, a good way to make laws?

Does it also make the Queen the de facto head of state, with sweeping powers (as she'd be much like the Pope, just for the UK)

If people want to live here, it is their burden to become as UK-ish as they can make themselves. ( my personal opinion )

Which bit of the UK-ish?

The culture and lifestyle of a Glasgow council estate is vastly different from that of a Windsor suburb. That's why I'm completely against the "citizenship tests" with multiple choice questions along the lines of : "You are in a pub, and you spill somebody's pint. Do you -

A. Apologise and buy them a new pint.
B. Do nothing, and hope that they don't notice
C. Take them to the car park and have a fight with them."

Really, in different parts of the UK, any of those could be appropriate, or at least expected. In Oxfordshire, you'd probably buy them a new pint. In Devon, you might say nothing. In some of, say, London, it might be expected that you have a fight.

But that's by the by, really.

I really don't buy your diversity-argument, since I really don't believe in producing mixed bag of nuts. The UK is mostly a fine place, warts and all, but diversity attracts me as much as an i-pod ( I don't like electronical music one bit! ).

Why is diversity a bad thing? Having many ethnicities, cultures and religions allows people to view things from another perspective, and that's always a good thing, especially with the world as it is at the moment.

Oh and slightly off the point, should we all go back to our lutes and harps, then, around the campfire?

in summary: I see nothing wrong with having all noses pointing the same way.

I see pretty much everything wrong with having all noses pointing the same way. People need to make their own choices, or they're led to make stupid ones by the people that have been leading them for years.

See the Hitler Youth at the end of World War two.

And exceptionally poor idea. Isolationism is foolish, especially when it's isolationism on religious grounds. What comes after not talking to other people?

Do our laws start to essentially be those of the Bible's?

Is a text written in several countries, by several people, a long time ago, a good way to make laws?

Does it also make the Queen the de facto head of state, with sweeping powers (as she'd be much like the Pope, just for the UK)



Which bit of the UK-ish?

The culture and lifestyle of a Glasgow council estate is vastly different from that of a Windsor suburb. That's why I'm completely against the "citizenship tests" with multiple choice questions along the lines of : "You are in a pub, and you spill somebody's pint. Do you -

A. Apologise and buy them a new pint.
B. Do nothing, and hope that they don't notice
C. Take them to the car park and have a fight with them."

Really, in different parts of the UK, any of those could be appropriate, or at least expected. In Oxfordshire, you'd probably buy them a new pint. In Devon, you might say nothing. In some of, say, London, it might be expected that you have a fight.

But that's by the by, really.



Why is diversity a bad thing? Having many ethnicities, cultures and religions allows people to view things from another perspective, and that's always a good thing, especially with the world as it is at the moment.

Oh and slightly off the point, should we all go back to our lutes and harps, then, around the campfire?



I see pretty much everything wrong with having all noses pointing the same way. People need to make their own choices, or they're led to make stupid ones by the people that have been leading them for years.

See the Hitler Youth at the end of World War two.


I'm going to be brief, for I must leave this building at 16:45.

I'm staying with my original post in this thread: it depends on which ideas you indoctrinate folks with...
( short exxplanation: I consider the current emphasis on diversity as indoctrination as well )


Give me a nudge next time we get online, for I rather like the way this argument is developing, for once!

1. And exceptionally poor idea. Isolationism is foolish, especially when it's isolationism on religious grounds. What comes after not talking to other people?

2. Do our laws start to essentially be those of the Bible's?

3. Is a text written in several countries, by several people, a long time ago, a good way to make laws?

4. Does it also make the Queen the de facto head of state, with sweeping powers (as she'd be much like the Pope, just for the UK)



5. Which bit of the UK-ish?

The culture and lifestyle of a Glasgow council estate is vastly different from that of a Windsor suburb. That's why I'm completely against the "citizenship tests" with multiple choice questions along the lines of : "You are in a pub, and you spill somebody's pint. Do you -

6. A. Apologise and buy them a new pint.
B. Do nothing, and hope that they don't notice
C. Take them to the car park and have a fight with them."

7. Really, in different parts of the UK, any of those could be appropriate, or at least expected. In Oxfordshire, you'd probably buy them a new pint. In Devon, you might say nothing. In some of, say, London, it might be expected that you have a fight.

But that's by the by, really.



8. Why is diversity a bad thing? Having many ethnicities, cultures and religions allows people to view things from another perspective, and that's always a good thing, especially with the world as it is at the moment.

Oh and slightly off the point, should we all go back to our lutes and harps, then, around the campfire?



I see pretty much everything wrong with having all noses pointing the same way. People need to make their own choices, or they're led to make stupid ones by the people that have been leading them for years.

See the Hitler Youth at the end of World War two.
1. Not having wars with 'em ( see Douglas Adams: the babblefish mostly STARTED wars where there were owt before ).

2. Perish the thought! And I would really doubt it! British would pretty much remain as they are now.

3. Meh. I doubt it. As if what the CofE believes if fixed over time.

4. *shrug* do you see the CofE canvassing for that?

5. *head askew* M'Bro England. What else? D'uh?

6. A.

7. OK. Oxford. ( Which captain Cook built! )

8. What's good about it? I don't enjoy cognitive dissonance. No more than I enjoy raucous music. De gustibus non disputandum est. That applies to us both!

In answer to the thread: No, it's not OK.

Freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of thought. Not: Choose this, say this and think this.

Indoctrination is always good. Better freedom from choice than freedom of choice.

Disunity, destruction, democracy? You can keep it. If I wanted to live in a schizophrenic society I'd be in Broadmoor by now. Yeah, lets talk about moral relativism and infringement of human rights! Goddamn, if you believe it is right and proper to kill people, you should have total freedom to follow your heart, trust in your emotions and stick knives in peoples skulls.

Right? Obviously right.

This whole socialisation thing is terrible. We're indoctrinating people to believe there are certain transcendent moral values! How arrogant of us to say that it's wrong to steal, kill or rape. How terrible of us to say that all mankind shoud be united regardless of race, gender or nation. Damn, that religion thing is terrible, huh? Secularism kicks it, with it's whole "do as thou wilt shall be the only law". I'm going to go out right now and take inappropriate pictures of children! I can't help it... I was born this way, so it must be okay for me to do it and society can crumble like a wet cookie for all I care!


Eesh, irony mode disengaged. Religions don't kill people (in fact, they rather strictly legislate against it) people kill people. Personally I'd rather my kids and all the kids they met believed in one God, One Race, One World than all this pluralist bullshit wherein anything can be justified.

1. Not having wars with 'em ( see Douglas Adams: the babblefish mostly STARTED wars where there were owt before ).

Worked beautifully for the USA in the 20's, didn't it?

Right up until the end, anyway. Which led to several horrible governments getting into power.

Interference and backing out of politics outside of your own country are different. I'm a strong advocate of stronger links to the EU, but I'm completely against our ridiculous interfering along with our government's chums over the pond.

2. Perish the thought! And I would really doubt it! British would pretty much remain as they are now.

Apart from that it would be law to be in the CofE. Hence abide by their laws. Hence live your life mostly according to the Bible. Sounds great, right?

3. Meh. I doubt it. As if what the CofE believes if fixed over time.

Yet another reason why ruling with a religion is a fairly shitty idea.

4. *shrug* do you see the CofE canvassing for that?

They don't really have much choice, the supreme leader of the CofE is essentially the Queen.

5. *head askew* M'Bro England. What else? D'uh?

You may or may not be aware that the UK encompasses Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, amongst several more islands such as the Orkney Isles. All of those countries have different customs, cultures and even different languages (Northern Ireland less so, I suppose).

6. A.

7. OK. Oxford. ( Which captain Cook built! )

Try it in one of the rougher areas of Northern Ireland.

8. What's good about it? I don't enjoy cognitive dissonance. No more than I enjoy raucous music. De gustibus non disputandum est. That applies to us both!

I don't speak any Latin, being a product of state schooling, sorry.

But to adress the main point, I'll restate my previous views on the matter - Having various ethnicities, cultures and religions allows people to see things from another perspective. Open-mindedness is a wonderful thing. Closed-mindedness is stupidity.

Oh no, you haven't!

But please: tell me, what could possibly be wrong with making each and every inhabitant of the UK believe that the creed of the CofE ( never mind that I don't believe in that one myself ) is the one and only way to go?

The UK would be a better place if everyone of us was a staunch, unflinching, devoted, commited CofE-member.

A person who was indoctrinated into belief might be staunch and may seem devoted to the church, but they do not believe anything. And those who are indoctrinated are never unflinching. Any question of their "beliefs" scares them, as they have always been taught not to question them at all.

Religion must be a personal thing - a personal decision. Otherwise, it isn't faith at all, not in God anyways.


I guess what I see myself doing fits the definition of indoctrination, but definately not the connotation of it.

It fits a definition of indoctrination, but not the most commonly used or useful one. I don't think a word that means the exact same thing as another is really very useful, as there is no reason to choose one over the other. Thus, I will go with disparate definitions when deciding which word to use.

Maybe I don't have to, as I have made it clear what I mean by indoctrination. There are two common definitions, and one of them means the same thing as "teach". Since I have been very clear that I am not using that one....

Please choose from the following so that there is no more confusion:

indoctrinate v.t. Imbue with learning, with doctrine, idea, etc. ; instruct in. indoctrination n.

I'm with East Brittania on this one. Indoctrinate means imbue with doctrine.

Please choose from the following so that there is no more confusion:

indoctrinate v.t. Imbue with learning, with doctrine, idea, etc. ; instruct in. indoctrination n.

"Imbue with doctrine."

Such suggests that the person being so imbued has no chance to question or think about it. They simply are told what to think.

I'm with East Brittania on this one. Indoctrinate means imbue with doctrine.

You are not with me, I have merely listed the possible definitions of the word "indoctrinate". I have not expressed any preference, you have selected one of the definitions. It's something that I notice a lot and it annoys me when people do not specify which definition they are using on delicate issues such as this.

"Imbue with doctrine."

Such suggests that the person being so imbued has no chance to question or think about it. They simply are told what to think.

Not necesssarily. To imbue can be interpreted as inspiring somebody or something.

Not necesssarily. To imbue can be interpreted as inspiring somebody or something.

Maybe, but it generally isn't, and the definition of the word certainly doesn't lean that way.

We can talk about the leakiness of language all day long, and how different people use different words. However, like I said, I tend to try not to make the words I use useless. There is a reason that I choose one word over another.

Maybe, but it generally isn't, and the definition of the word certainly doesn't lean that way.

We can talk about the leakiness of language all day long, and how different people use different words. However, like I said, I tend to try not to make the words I use useless. There is a reason that I choose one word over another.

What about to imbue with learning? Or beauty? Seems to lean in a very positive light to me.

If it is okay for a parent to teach children about what values are important to them, then religion is a part of that. When the children get older, they can choose what to espouse based on any new information they have.

What about to imbue with learning?

You can't "imbue" someone with learning. If they are going to learn, the drive and the effort has to come from within.

Or beauty?

This you might be able to do. Of course, it still implies an outside source placing something there. I might imbue a painting with beauty because I am placing beauty on the cavas.

Seems to lean in a very positive light to me.

Imbue can be positive. It can be negative. It depends on what is being imbued and what the implications of that are.

I voted yes, but it depends on what you mean by indoctrinate.

I don't believe it's okay to brainwash your children or beat them if they don't say their prayers or something like that.

But it is required (at least of Christians) to teach your children about God and to hold them to the requirements of the Law as long as they are under your roof. One can do that lovingly, but most would consider this indoctrination.

The problem I have is that some parents and indoctrination centers (church preschools) tell children that the outlooks of the religion is FACT.

If have seen first hand where they tell children the origin of the universe and man is they way that the certain religion believes it to be. Unprovable opinion (in my opinion) is presented as unquestioned fact. Why can't they just stick to things that can be proven until children reach an age that they can critically examine beliefs for themselves?

My family did not really discuss it. When it did come up we talked about who believed what and why. We did not discuss whether anyone was right or wrong. When we were grown we were allowed to choose what we wanted to believe.

In my teenage years I went to a Lutheran Church, a Baptist Church, a Presbeterian Church. I read about Buhdism and Hinduism. I even read Nietzsche, first out of curiosity then because I liked him. I did not seriously consider Islam as I did not agree with their views on what people are allowed to do. The stonings and stuff kind of turned me off.

I came out Atheist. My brother came out Christian.

That's sort of the point of having chidren, isn't it?.

WRONG. I always thought the point of having children was to enrich our lives with the love of family and to nurture them and raise them to be productive, idependent adults.


It's your job to decide how your kids are raised, and it's my job to decide how my kids are raised..

True but whats your point?


But I'm allowed to try to explain to your kid why your religious beliefs are wrong. And so are you, but my kids can totally pwn you in a debate.

This is where you are a bad parent. Teaching your children that YOUR beliefs are the only ones that are correct, and that everyone else that thinks differently is wrong, evil, or a sinner is basically instilling bigotry and intolerance, and a bloated sense of moral superiority. You are a BAD parent. I feel pity for your twisted children...

What an intense first post.

What an intense first post.

And inspired by me, no less.

The fun part is that I'm teaching my kids that reason is paramount, implication doesn't exist, and religion is dumb.

I dont mind if they end up predjudiced against religion in general.

Of course not. If they've got time to spare from the political brainwashing then you're doing something wrong as a parent.
I don't have a problem with parents passing on their religious beliefs to their children. It's usually harmless.

Sorry, but I'll teach my children my religion and if they don't like it then that's their problem. They can relinquish their beliefs in later life, but not whilst they live under my roof.
How does it harm you if your children openly believe something different from you? You also can't force true belief. If you threaten to take away material benefits for their lack of faith, it won't make their beliefs align with yours. It will only cause them to be more secretive about their beliefs and resentful towards yours.

Worked beautifully for the USA in the 20's, didn't it?

Right up until the end, anyway. Which led to several horrible governments getting into power.

Interference and backing out of politics outside of your own country are different. I'm a strong advocate of stronger links to the EU, but I'm completely against our ridiculous interfering along with our government's chums over the pond.



Apart from that it would be law to be in the CofE. Hence abide by their laws. Hence live your life mostly according to the Bible. Sounds great, right?



Yet another reason why ruling with a religion is a fairly shitty idea.



They don't really have much choice, the supreme leader of the CofE is essentially the Queen.



You may or may not be aware that the UK encompasses Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, amongst several more islands such as the Orkney Isles. All of those countries have different customs, cultures and even different languages (Northern Ireland less so, I suppose).



Try it in one of the rougher areas of Northern Ireland.



I don't speak any Latin, being a product of state schooling, sorry.

But to adress the main point, I'll restate my previous views on the matter - Having various ethnicities, cultures and religions allows people to see things from another perspective. Open-mindedness is a wonderful thing. Closed-mindedness is stupidity.

1. No. The sillies were faking it. The 'well, only sometimes' approach.

2. Get a grip! We're talking the Vicar of Dibley here, not Ian Paisley.

3 or 4. ( numbers get lost ). Again, you're missing the essence of CofE-ishness. You're looking at an organisation that believes in enforcing Justice and all that, provided no one gets hurt. They do lawnbowling, not rugby and all that. They don't drink blood - they get a nice cuppa.

5.6. I'm picking the Oxford version of the UK. The others have the drawback that they involve punching the crap out of people.

7 or 8. It's the whole thing, innit? Openmindedness does not actually assure understanding. Nor does openmindedness assure good results. ( I was saying: of tastes there can be no ( worthwhile ) dispute ). ANY halfway decent society does do indoctrination.

One good example of that is the indoctrinated belief that all races are equal. A most questionable assessment. Plain bollocks. Yet it is a myth that is simply necessary in order to have a decent society. So we put up with it.
In fact, no reasonable person allows other folks to punch too many holes into that collective myth.

I'm standing with my original assessment: before I endorse indoctrination, I want to know what kind of ideas. And I don't oppose indoctrination on principle.

Imbue can be positive. It can be negative. It depends on what is being imbued and what the implications of that are.

Therefore, imbue is a neutral word and the statement that was made that it tended towards the unsavoury was unfounded and in downright error.

And inspired by me, no less.

The fun part is that I'm teaching my kids that reason is paramount, implication doesn't exist, and religion is dumb.

I dont mind if they end up predjudiced against religion in general.

And if they turn out to be, say, devout Roman Catholics, what then? Quite frankly, you too are attempting to indoctrinate your children with your religious views.

How does it harm you if your children openly believe something different from you? You also can't force true belief. If you threaten to take away material benefits for their lack of faith, it won't make their beliefs align with yours. It will only cause them to be more secretive about their beliefs and resentful towards yours.

I hold a somewhat "Edwardian" attitude towards society and what have you, in which my family will do as I say until they no longer rely upon me. I am sorry if this is in contradiction of your own, but hard cheese.

I don't speak any Latin, being a product of state schooling, sorry.

That's no excuse. Most state schools of my acquaintance teach Classics and Classical Languages. Perhaps you should learn to speak Latin and impress your friends.

That's no excuse. Most state schools of my acquaintance teach Classics and Classical Languages. Perhaps you should learn to speak Latin and impress your friends.


*feels insulted in a devious way*
*thwacks*
Cedo Nulli!

Most of the parents in my church have a sensable policy on this. They bring up their child in the church from an early age but when they aproch their early teens they ask them if they want to continue to go, and that they don't have to if they dont want to.

*feels insulted in a devious way*
*thwacks*
Cedo Nulli!

Sorry, whom are you "thwacking"?

I don't care.

That's my opinion.

Most of the parents in my church have a sensable policy on this. They bring up their child in the church from an early age but when they aproch their early teens they ask them if they want to continue to go, and that they don't have to if they dont want to.

Which is after much of the indoctrination has been done. Do they teach you other options up to that point? Are the views of the church towards other religions fair, unbiased and informed?

Therefore, imbue is a neutral word and the statement that was made that it tended towards the unsavoury was unfounded and in downright error.

Good thing I never made a statement that the word itself tended towards unsavory.

However, in a particular use - the idea of "imbuing" with a religion or ideology or political viewpoint, it is unsavory. Why? Because to imbue with something is to implant it there. If you implant religion or ideology, etc. in a child, you are overriding their right to learn and make their own decisions on these things. In fact, the only way to "imbue" them with these things is to force it upon them, and to do all you can to make sure they never question it.

Sorry, but I'll teach my children my religion and if they don't like it then that's their problem. They can relinquish their beliefs in later life, but not whilst they live under my roof.
Do you make orphans?

Meh.

I hold a somewhat "Edwardian" attitude towards society and what have you, in which my family will do as I say until they no longer rely upon me. I am sorry if this is in contradiction of your own, but hard cheese.
Your attitude is outdated and does not make sense.

I hold a somewhat "Edwardian" attitude towards society and what have you, in which my family will do as I say until they no longer rely upon me. I am sorry if this is in contradiction of your own, but hard cheese.
Your attitude is outdated and does not make sense.

Not generally, no.

Hmm...

Parents should make the case for their religious beliefs but not try to close the child's mind to other possible beliefs.

But, do I think parents should have the right to teach any beliefs they want? Absolutely, so long as those beliefs don't involve committing harmful acts toward others.

I hold a somewhat "Edwardian" attitude towards society and what have you, in which my family will do as I say until they no longer rely upon me. I am sorry if this is in contradiction of your own, but hard cheese.

'Doing as you say' is one thing.

'Believing as you say' is completely another. And if your child 'agrees' with you only because you threatened to punish him/her? That isn't really believing as you say. It's believing whatever s/he wants, and putting up the act of believing what you say.

I am teaching my children that my beliefs are truth. I don't understand why anyone would do otherwise, especially someone who claims to be a Christian. According to my belief system, if my children choose another faith then they will spend eternity in hell. Why would present all other possibilities as equally valid if I really thought they led to eternal damnation? Yes, they will eventually have to make their own choice. That doesn't mean that I should present all choices as equal. We are not talking about which kind of ice cream they want, we are talking about the shape of their entire future. I cannot separate my values from my beliefs, the one is based on the other. If you teach your children that all belief systems are equally valid, then clearly you can't really believe in your own. Part of the point of teaching anything, is so that the learner will not have to learn it on their own. Leaving my child to figure out the truth about God on their own, would be worse even than leaving them to discover Algebra by themselves, which most people would consider pretty dumb. If we have already figured something out, then why should someone have to start from scratch? Yes, they will have to make their own final choice. Yes, they will ask questions about other's beliefs. I answer those questions to the best of my ability with what and why they believe. We cover the forming of major religions in our history lessons. We also discuss why we think they are wrong and we are right. My children are given an understand of what we believe and why. It is expected that they will take those beliefs for their own. I would expect others to teach their children the same way. I shudder to think of this most basic of parental rights/responsibilities being taken away, even from those that disagree with me.

I am teaching my children that my beliefs are truth. I don't understand why anyone would do otherwise, especially someone who claims to be a Christian. According to my belief system, if my children choose another faith then they will spend eternity in hell. Why would present all other possibilities as equally valid if I really thought they led to eternal damnation? Yes, they will eventually have to make their own choice. That doesn't mean that I should present all choices as equal. We are not talking about which kind of ice cream they want, we are talking about the shape of their entire future. I cannot separate my values from my beliefs, the one is based on the other. If you teach your children that all belief systems are equally valid, then clearly you can't really believe in your own. Part of the point of teaching anything, is so that the learner will not have to learn it on their own. Leaving my child to figure out the truth about God on their own, would be worse even than leaving them to discover Algebra by themselves, which most people would consider pretty dumb. If we have already figured something out, then why should someone have to start from scratch? Yes, they will have to make their own final choice. Yes, they will ask questions about other's beliefs. I answer those questions to the best of my ability with what and why they believe. We cover the forming of major religions in our history lessons. We also discuss why we think they are wrong and we are right. My children are given an understand of what we believe and why. It is expected that they will take those beliefs for their own. I would expect others to teach their children the same way. I shudder to think of this most basic of parental rights/responsibilities being taken away, even from those that disagree with me.

Keeping future generations in check thru fear for almost 2000 years. Why not at least teach them the basic teachings of other religions so that they can understand other cultures and ideas. If your faith is so strong and your argument fair they will probably follow your example, or are you worried you might be wrong? I have kids my self, and I agree that others should not decide what we teach our kids, but feel it is my responsibility to give them a well-rounded education in all things. I am an atheist, but will teach her about all religions in a fair balanced manner and let her make her own choice.

I'm not sure what is meant by "indoctrinate", but I find any introduction to religion, regardless of theism, is good parenting simply because of the HUGE role religion plays in history and politics.

So I share my pantheistic beliefs with the kids, my sister-in-law shares her catholism with them, and my husband shares his atheism. Its just all good.

I answered the question "yes" for these reasons, but let it be known that my kids will make their own decisions regarding religion and none of them will be "wrong", as far as I am concerned. Having said that, I will say that if either of them became fundementalist anything I would be shocked, because we have definately steered them away from that, in all its forms. Open mind good. Closed mind bad.

Sorry, but I'll teach my children my religion and if they don't like it then that's their problem. They can relinquish their beliefs in later life, but not whilst they live under my roof.

You said, "whilst".

heh heh heh heh he he heh

I'm a Satanist, and my wifes a Christian. Our children will be tought about all the religions we can and then allowed to make their own choices.

Man! I want to come to a BBQ at YOUR HOUSE! :p

A better poll might be "should people who cant mind their own business be telling parents how to raise their kids?"

LOL I agree!

But from the minute you pop that little bubble-head out, there is SOMEONE waiting to tell you how to raise it. Best to learn to politely ignore the unwelcome advise and get on with your relationship with your child.

I plan on educating my child/ren on what I believe and why. I'll be happy if they agree with me through adulthood, and I'll be happier if we learn something from eachother and find a ground together regardless.

If my child feels he should become Jewish, I'll ask him why. I'll ask him what he finds superior to that set of beliefs as opposed to any other, and I'll do the same to every other religion, should he/she choose them instead.

I am teaching my children that my beliefs are truth. I don't understand why anyone would do otherwise, especially someone who claims to be a Christian. According to my belief system, if my children choose another faith then they will spend eternity in hell. Why would present all other possibilities as equally valid if I really thought they led to eternal damnation? Yes, they will eventually have to make their own choice. That doesn't mean that I should present all choices as equal. We are not talking about which kind of ice cream they want, we are talking about the shape of their entire future. I cannot separate my values from my beliefs, the one is based on the other. If you teach your children that all belief systems are equally valid, then clearly you can't really believe in your own. Part of the point of teaching anything, is so that the learner will not have to learn it on their own. Leaving my child to figure out the truth about God on their own, would be worse even than leaving them to discover Algebra by themselves, which most people would consider pretty dumb. If we have already figured something out, then why should someone have to start from scratch? Yes, they will have to make their own final choice. Yes, they will ask questions about other's beliefs. I answer those questions to the best of my ability with what and why they believe. We cover the forming of major religions in our history lessons. We also discuss why we think they are wrong and we are right. My children are given an understand of what we believe and why. It is expected that they will take those beliefs for their own. I would expect others to teach their children the same way. I shudder to think of this most basic of parental rights/responsibilities being taken away, even from those that disagree with me.

Well, surely if let alone, your God would lead them the right way, no?

No, no, no, and for the record: NO. Religion is bad. Really bad. Science all the way.

That said, of course I'd teach my kids to be open-minded. I've got nothing against them being Christians or anything else they might want to be.

I am teaching my children that my beliefs are truth. I don't understand why anyone would do otherwise, especially someone who claims to be a Christian. According to my belief system, if my children choose another faith then they will spend eternity in hell. Why would present all other possibilities as equally valid if I really thought they led to eternal damnation? Yes, they will eventually have to make their own choice. That doesn't mean that I should present all choices as equal. We are not talking about which kind of ice cream they want, we are talking about the shape of their entire future. I cannot separate my values from my beliefs, the one is based on the other. If you teach your children that all belief systems are equally valid, then clearly you can't really believe in your own. Part of the point of teaching anything, is so that the learner will not have to learn it on their own. Leaving my child to figure out the truth about God on their own, would be worse even than leaving them to discover Algebra by themselves, which most people would consider pretty dumb. If we have already figured something out, then why should someone have to start from scratch? Yes, they will have to make their own final choice. Yes, they will ask questions about other's beliefs. I answer those questions to the best of my ability with what and why they believe. We cover the forming of major religions in our history lessons. We also discuss why we think they are wrong and we are right. My children are given an understand of what we believe and why. It is expected that they will take those beliefs for their own. I would expect others to teach their children the same way. I shudder to think of this most basic of parental rights/responsibilities being taken away, even from those that disagree with me.

I detect from your post that you home school. Would it be fair to say you made that choice out of fear that you might not be able to control what they are taught in public school? How long do you think you can shelter them from the world? Do you think as adults they will appreciate the blinders you are forcing them to wear through these years? Or do you think they will go ape-shit in rebellion against your control?

Look here moms and dads. If your spiritual point-of-view kicks ass, surely you don't need to indoctrinate the kiddies. If it's everything you make it out to be, wait 'til your kids are old enough to make up their own minds that they agree with you.

Anything else is stacking the deck in your favour. Tut-tut.

I detect from your post that you home school. Would it be fair to say you made that choice out of fear that you might not be able to control what they are taught in public school? How long do you think you can shelter them from the world? Do you think as adults they will appreciate the blinders you are forcing them to wear through these years? Or do you think they will go ape-shit in rebellion against your control?



We do homeschool, for lots of reasons. A large one being that we wanted to be the ones deciding on the content of the lessons. My children do not wear blinders. When my son reads a book that contains beliefs we disagree with he brings it to me and asks about it. I explain what is stated and why we disagree. I don't want them to be ignorant of the ideas of others, but, yes, I do want the decked stacked in favor of our choices. You seem to assume that we would censor all objectionable content until they are beyond our control. That would be counter productive. The point is not to hide the world from them, but to ready them for it. I am not afraid of the ideas of the world, I just want to be there as they are discovering these things, on my terms. As they get older, there will be more discussion, as necessary. No one tells a five year old all the details of where baby's come from, it is the same concept. By the time they have left our home, they will have a firm understanding of what we believe and why. And, be able to defend that against others. We also homeschool for academic reasons, and social reasons, and convenience reasons.

By the way, I don't think religion should be taught in public schools. I think that there should be no government-run-taxpayer-funded schools. If all schools were privately run and privately funded then we would no longer need to waste time with debates over curriculum content, library books, etc.

We do homeschool, for lots of reasons. A large one being that we wanted to be the ones deciding on the content of the lessons. My children do not wear blinders. When my son reads a book that contains beliefs we disagree with he brings it to me and asks about it. I explain what is stated and why we disagree. I don't want them to be ignorant of the ideas of others, but, yes, I do want the decked stacked in favor of our choices. You seem to assume that we would censor all objectionable content until they are beyond our control. That would be counter productive. The point is not to hide the world from them, but to ready them for it. I am not afraid of the ideas of the world, I just want to be there as they are discovering these things, on my terms. As they get older, there will be more discussion, as necessary. No one tells a five year old all the details of where baby's come from, it is the same concept. By the time they have left our home, they will have a firm understanding of what we believe and why. And, be able to defend that against others. We also homeschool for academic reasons, and social reasons, and convenience reasons.

By the way, I don't think religion should be taught in public schools. I think that there should be no government-run-taxpayer-funded schools. If all schools were privately run and privately funded then we would no longer need to waste time with debates over curriculum content, library books, etc.

And than what happens to people who cant afford school?

i was only bourt up to christan but was not shoved down my throat, and is a shopping cart but i will tech my kid all of them including my own

i was only bourt up to christan but was not shoved down my throat, and is a shopping cart but i will tech my kid all of them including my own

What? Shopping cart?

And than what happens to people who cant afford school?


That would be less of an issue than you might think. With government out of the school business the market would take over. First, it would eliminate school taxes. Then, education would cost only what could be afforded by the consumer. Of course, there would still be fancy expensive schools, but there would also be countless other opportunities. With parents making the final decisions regarding there own children's education you would see small schools that cater to particular needs. And even a return for many to private tutors. The choices are limitless. No, not everyone would get the same education. That is the point. With more choices, more people would get a more suitable education, for them. Beyond the basic building blocks - reading, writing, arithmetic - there is no reason for everyone to have the same education. Instead, people could be taught what they need for there own situation, and more importantly taught how to learn whatever they might need in the future. On size fits all schooling is not effective and government run monopoly schooling is a failure. Wouldn't you rather your children love to learn and have the tools to find out anything they need, than that they learn what some person you don't even know considers important? Often at the expense of their joy in the process. (I mean their joy in the process of learning, but it is late and I think I am wording it wrong.) And certainly, you would find that there would be those running schools similar to what you find today, if that is what you wanted. Lack of money would not stop someone who wanted to give their children an education, or stop a child who wanted to get one. Especially, once taxpayer funding and compulsory attendance were eliminated.

Try this http://sepschool.org/

Nice loaded question.

That would be less of an issue than you might think. With government out of the school business the market would take over. First, it would eliminate school taxes. Then, education would cost only what could be afforded by the consumer. Of course, there would still be fancy expensive schools, but there would also be countless other opportunities. With parents making the final decisions regarding there own children's education you would see small schools that cater to particular needs. And even a return for many to private tutors. The choices are limitless. No, not everyone would get the same education. That is the point. With more choices, more people would get a more suitable education, for them. Beyond the basic building blocks - reading, writing, arithmetic - there is no reason for everyone to have the same education. Instead, people could be taught what they need for there own situation, and more importantly taught how to learn whatever they might need in the future. On size fits all schooling is not effective and government run monopoly schooling is a failure. Wouldn't you rather your children love to learn and have the tools to find out anything they need, than that they learn what some person you don't even know considers important? Often at the expense of their joy in the process. (I mean their joy in the process of learning, but it is late and I think I am wording it wrong.) And certainly, you would find that there would be those running schools similar to what you find today, if that is what you wanted. Lack of money would not stop someone who wanted to give their children an education, or stop a child who wanted to get one. Especially, once taxpayer funding and compulsory attendance were eliminated.

Try this http://sepschool.org/


It would compound the already difficult issue of poorer areas having poorer schools. You would have whole groups of the population that would get sub-average schooling, and the more money you have the better the education, this would not work. Look at health care we have MILLIONS of American citizens who go without the simplest care due to the cost, would schools be the same way? If any thing we need to spend more money on education.

It would compound the already difficult issue of poorer areas having poorer schools. You would have whole groups of the population that would get sub-average schooling, and the more money you have the better the education, this would not work. Look at health care we have MILLIONS of American citizens who go without the simplest care due to the cost, would schools be the same way? If any thing we need to spend more money on education.


Wrong. We've tried the more money thing, it doesn't work. The problem is not the budget, it is the one size fits all program. The reason healthcare is so outrageous is because it is not driven by the market, either. The price of medical care is not determined by a contract between the patient and the doctor. Instead, it is determined by a third party go-between (often the government). And, the cost of malpractice suits in our sue-happy society doesn't help either. The two issues have similar problems and an even more similar solution - cut out the middle man.

Wrong. We've tried the more money thing, it doesn't work.

Really? How much was it, and where did it go?

Really? How much was it, and where did it go?


You haven't notices that school budgets continue to get bigger? That the government spends more on education every year? Don't be fooled by screams of budget cuts. It is a grossly misleading idea. The budget continues to grow, just not as fast as the education establishment would like. They spend thousands of dollars per student in our schools. The schools continue to get worse. (This is a generalized statement, there will always be exceptions. But, schools that are not getting worse are not necessarily getting better.)


As an aside, I fear we may have strayed from the stated topic. I am new here, does anyone have a suggestion as to how to proceed?

You haven't notices that school budgets continue to get bigger? That the government spends more on education every year? Don't be fooled by screams of budget cuts. It is a grossly misleading idea. The budget continues to grow, just not as fast as the education establishment would like. They spend thousands of dollars per student in our schools. The schools continue to get worse. (This is a generalized statement, there will always be exceptions. But, schools that are not getting worse are not necessarily getting better.)

Yeah...thousands...I remeber it as usually 6,000, but I think it's 9,000 round here...Is that coming anywhere near the 35,000 we spend to keep someone in prison? and how about teachers? Are they getting raises? Hiring more?

P.S. This is page 9, we've been long over-due for straying.

If I had kids, I'd try and teach them about religion in a reasonable way.

It's funny, though. When I was at primary school, we had Bible studies on Fridays, and now I'm an agnostic. (Although I do go to church on special occasions, such as Christingle). :D

You haven't notices that school budgets continue to get bigger? That the government spends more on education every year? Don't be fooled by screams of budget cuts. It is a grossly misleading idea. The budget continues to grow, just not as fast as the education establishment would like. They spend thousands of dollars per student in our schools. The schools continue to get worse. (This is a generalized statement, there will always be exceptions. But, schools that are not getting worse are not necessarily getting better.)


As an aside, I fear we may have strayed from the stated topic. I am new here, does anyone have a suggestion as to how to proceed?

I have been raising three kids now for seven years, five of those years they have been in school. EVERY year, there have been significant cuts all around. The budget may grow due to inflation, but not with it, I am planning on becoming a teacher, and have started college, name me another profession where it takes 5+ years of school to start earning a mere 40,000 a year? So if we are spending too much on public schools, I ask you to visit inner city schools or rural schools where they barley scrape up enough to keep a new roof on the building let alone the newest text books.

It depends, the parents should give the children a wide range of religions and let them find their beliefs, not force them to believe in one thing.

Out of the many people who said they would not "indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs," I am curious to know how many have strong religious convictions or beliefs. It seems to me that a strongly religious person would have a difficult time completely eliminating his religious influence from affecting his children.

And from what I've seen and heard empirically many times people who are raised in a religion come to hate it because their parents forced it upon them - I don't think forced religion accounts for any great number of religious adults.

Out of the many people who said they would not "indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs," I am curious to know how many have strong religious convictions or beliefs. It seems to me that a strongly religious person would have a difficult time completely eliminating his religious influence from affecting his children.

And from what I've seen and heard empirically many times people who are raised in a religion come to hate it because their parents forced it upon them - I don't think forced religion accounts for any great number of religious adults.

I don’t think the argument is not letting your religious beliefs influence your children, as much as giving them a well-rounded education to make their choice on later.

Indoctrination is always good. Better freedom from choice than freedom of choice.

Disunity, destruction, democracy? You can keep it. If I wanted to live in a schizophrenic society I'd be in Broadmoor by now. Yeah, lets talk about moral relativism and infringement of human rights! Goddamn, if you believe it is right and proper to kill people, you should have total freedom to follow your heart, trust in your emotions and stick knives in peoples skulls.

Right? Obviously right.

This whole socialisation thing is terrible. We're indoctrinating people to believe there are certain transcendent moral values! How arrogant of us to say that it's wrong to steal, kill or rape. How terrible of us to say that all mankind shoud be united regardless of race, gender or nation. Damn, that religion thing is terrible, huh? Secularism kicks it, with it's whole "do as thou wilt shall be the only law". I'm going to go out right now and take inappropriate pictures of children! I can't help it... I was born this way, so it must be okay for me to do it and society can crumble like a wet cookie for all I care!


Eesh, irony mode disengaged. Religions don't kill people (in fact, they rather strictly legislate against it) people kill people. Personally I'd rather my kids and all the kids they met believed in one God, One Race, One World than all this pluralist bullshit wherein anything can be justified.

Good Job, for being the longest running unattacked user in a religous thread.And thanks for mking an intelligent defense not "OMG YOU DON"T BELIVE IN GOD!" or "OYG (Oh your god) GOD IS JUST A STUPID MADE UP THING THAT , I BELIVE THAT WE SHOULD JUST THROW AWAY OUR BELIEFS AND ALL THE MORALS THEY GIVE US!"

A while back somebody said we shouldn't let religion be taught in school (I think he meant the kind that says "Muhhamad was a man who was a merchant, but later talked to god" etc.
Well wouldn't that be effectively teaching atheism? And you say we are unfair...

I am teaching my children that my beliefs are truth.

Then you have already lost faith.

I don't understand why anyone would do otherwise, especially someone who claims to be a Christian.

Someone who claims to be a Christian should realize that a person must voluntarily accept Christ - and can only do so if they have been able to question and come to that decision. Keeping them from questioning and thinking about it will only ensure that they will never have faith in God.

According to my belief system, if my children choose another faith then they will spend eternity in hell.

And if you do not teach them to question their faith, they will never have it. Thus, they will have faith in nothing and, most likely, by your belief system, will spend eternity in hell.

Yes, they will eventually have to make their own choice.

Which they can only do if they are able to question.

If you teach your children that all belief systems are equally valid, then clearly you can't really believe in your own.

On the contrary. If you teach your children that your belief is absolutely true - that there is no chance you are wrong - then you have demonstrated a profound lack of faith. If you are able to admit that you might be wrong, but present your beliefs as what you think is true - then you actually have faith, and are strong in that faith.

If we have already figured something out, then why should someone have to start from scratch?

Do you really think that you are infallble and have figured it all out?

We also discuss why we think they are wrong and we are right.

You mean you will discuss why YOU think they are wrong and YOU are right. If your children have not come to their beliefs on their own, then they believe nothing - and can be neither wrong nor right. They can only choose to have faith in you, or to think that you are wrong.

My children are given an understand of what we believe and why.

You can't "give" an understanding. Understanding comes from within, and can only be reached through questioning.

Nice argument..

Out of the many people who said they would not "indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs," I am curious to know how many have strong religious convictions or beliefs. It seems to me that a strongly religious person would have a difficult time completely eliminating his religious influence from affecting his children.

And from what I've seen and heard empirically many times people who are raised in a religion come to hate it because their parents forced it upon them - I don't think forced religion accounts for any great number of religious adults.
Sometimes it pushes people away ... sometimes strong parental religious influances draw twards

Fuck if you want emperical evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi77koTk8mc&search=phelps

Yes, as long as you also include an "escape clause" when you think they're ready to decide on their own. (12, 16, 18, etc.)

The rought part is, my Roman Catholic parents didn't. It hit them pretty hard when I left the church.

We do homeschool, for lots of reasons. A large one being that we wanted to be the ones deciding on the content of the lessons.

Yeah, keep out any ideas that might make your children question and come to their own terms.

My children do not wear blinders. When my son reads a book that contains beliefs we disagree with he brings it to me and asks about it. I explain what is stated and why we disagree.

You mean why YOU disagree. You cannot tell your son why he disagrees, or even if he disagrees. That is his own choice.

You seem to assume that we would censor all objectionable content until they are beyond our control.

That seems rather inherent in "we wanted to be the ones deciding on the content of the lessons".

No one tells a five year old all the details of where baby's come from, it is the same concept.

Some do. Some people answer the questions their child asks - and don't make up stupid stories.

No, not everyone would get the same education. That is the point. With more choices, more people would get a more suitable education, for them.

You mean the poor people would get a good education for the "poor-people jobs" and the rich people would get whatever education they wanted - thus ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.


You haven't notices that school budgets continue to get bigger? That the government spends more on education every year?

The government spends more and more on administration each year. Very little, if any, of most budget increases actually go to education.

Out of the many people who said they would not "indoctrinate their children with their religious beliefs," I am curious to know how many have strong religious convictions or beliefs.

*Raises hand*

It seems to me that a strongly religious person would have a difficult time completely eliminating his religious influence from affecting his children.

No one has suggested that a parent's religious influence should be completely eliminated. Simply that a parent should not indoctrinate their children. I will explain my faith to my children. I will explain to them to the best of my ability why I believe what I believe. And I will encourage them to study and seek out their own spiritual path. I certainly hope that it will be similar to mine, but their relationship with God (or lack thereof) is not something I can control - and trying to do so would only ensure that no such relationship would exist.

A while back somebody said we shouldn't let religion be taught in school (I think he meant the kind that says "Muhhamad was a man who was a merchant, but later talked to god" etc.
Well wouldn't that be effectively teaching atheism? And you say we are unfair...

No, it wouldn't. The only way to teach atheism would be to say, "Hey kids. There is no God. There is nothing other than the universe in which we live. Everyone who has a religion is wrong."

Of course, the schools aren't allowed to teach that any more than they are allowed to teach, "Christ was the Son of God, come to save us from our sins...."

Yes, as long as you also include an "escape clause" when you think they're ready to decide on their own. (12, 16, 18, etc.)

There is no "escape clause" with indoctrination, as it pretty much relies upon conditioning your children never to question the doctrine you have pushed upon them.

If you teach your children that all belief systems are equally valid, then clearly you can't really believe in your own.
Aside from the fact that the two halves of your statement don't always go together, not everyone believes that their religion is the only one. I believe that all religions, even the lack of one, are equal. I see one God with a different face for every religion. There's a quote in a book that explains why I believe this better than I can explain it myself:
Like all people in my country I had been brought up Catholic, but since then on my travels had come across many other religions: Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedanism. It seemed there was more than one road to God. A clever God would understand that just as different countries, different climates, different cultures produced different ideas, so He could tailor these to men's beliefs so that their worship was comfortable to them.
When I read that the first time, it explained a lot about opinions I'd had for a long time but never been able to vocalize. I may not agree with everything that all religions do, and I may think that some religious people should stop being hypocrites, but I do believe that all religions are equal before God, and that as long as you follow the truths in which your religion believes, God will take you into heaven/nirvana/oblivion/whatever you wish to name it/wherever you wish to go in the end.

I'll certainly explain what and why I believe, but I won't ask my children to believe the same thing, because it would go against my beliefs, if that makes sense.

Yeah, keep out any ideas that might make your children question and come to their own terms.

More like keep out ideas I don't think they are developmentally ready to handle. You don't teach Algebra before a child has learned to add. That concept can be applied to spiritual ideas as well.


You mean why YOU disagree. You cannot tell your son why he disagrees, or even if he disagrees. That is his own choice.

All the "we" comments you take exception to in this thread and others were meant to describe my husband and me.



That seems rather inherent in "we wanted to be the ones deciding on the content of the lessons".

No, just because I don't think a six year old is ready for something doesn't mean he won't be ready for it when he is twelve. It is not about complete exclusion, it is about personal readiness.



Some do. Some people answer the questions their child asks - and don't make up stupid stories.

Who said anything about stupid stories. I have never once told a child that the storks brings babies or anything of the sort. It is a matter of degree. A small child rarely needs or wants to know the intimate details. The fact that the baby comes form Mommy's belly is enough.



You mean the poor people would get a good education for the "poor-people jobs" and the rich people would get whatever education they wanted - thus ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.


You're not listening. It does not take thousands of dollars to educate a child for a year. Schooling is not education. By freeing families from the government's restrictive definition of education, they will be able to find creative ways to accomplish the teaching of their children. The current school system is failing the poor. Why should we continue to force them to patronize such a system.



The government spends more and more on administration each year. Very little, if any, of most budget increases actually go to education.


That is true. Another point toward abolishing the system. It is a bloated bureaucracy that is failing to fulfill its stated objective.




No one has suggested that a parent's religious influence should be completely eliminated. Simply that a parent should not indoctrinate their children. I will explain my faith to my children. I will explain to them to the best of my ability why I believe what I believe. And I will encourage them to study and seek out their own spiritual path. I certainly hope that it will be similar to mine, but their relationship with God (or lack thereof) is not something I can control - and trying to do so would only ensure that no such relationship would exist.


Your are right that leaving out the vital information that other people believe differently would almost certainly backfire. I said more than once that we discuss these things as they come up. I am not trying to hide my children from the world, I am just trying to keep the flood to manageable proportions. We don't really seem to disagree much on the actual process of this. I think you mostly object to the word indoctrinate. It does have rather extreme connotations. I will stand by the fact that parents do have a right to indoctrinate, whether or not that is a good idea using all definitions. As a parent it is your job to raise your child the way you think is best. A huge part of that is the passing on of your values, ideals, and beliefs. Especially if you believe the Bible when it says to do just that.



No, it wouldn't. The only way to teach atheism would be to say, "Hey kids. There is no God. There is nothing other than the universe in which we live. Everyone who has a religion is wrong."

Of course, the schools aren't allowed to teach that any more than they are allowed to teach, "Christ was the Son of God, come to save us from our sins...."

But they do. It is made very clear that religion is a silly myth and you dare not mention such things in these hallowed halls of truth.





Then you have already lost faith.

I don't understand this.



Someone who claims to be a Christian should realize that a person must voluntarily accept Christ - and can only do so if they have been able to question and come to that decision. Keeping them from questioning and thinking about it will only ensure that they will never have faith in God.


Yes, they must come to Christ voluntarily. But, why would I hamper their decision making process by pretending that I think all religions are equal? Just because I share my claim that this is truth with them doesn't mean I don't allow them room to question me. If I can't defend what I believe in to my own children then I am a pretty pathetic believer. Why does passing on your spiritual truths always seem to be taken to mean not allowing for discussion and thought?


And if you do not teach them to question their faith, they will never have it. Thus, they will have faith in nothing and, most likely, by your belief system, will spend eternity in hell.

I disagree that they need to question their faith, per se, but that may just be semantics. They do need to have a full understanding of what and why. Simply telling a child "Believe this." is not going to stick, your absolutely right.



On the contrary. If you teach your children that your belief is absolutely true - that there is no chance you are wrong - then you have demonstrated a profound lack of faith. If you are able to admit that you might be wrong, but present your beliefs as what you think is true - then you actually have faith, and are strong in that faith.

Again, I don't understand this. Strong faith in what? That you might be right?



Do you really think that you are infallble and have figured it all out?

No. What I meant was that there is no need for a child to start from scratch on the issue of "finding his spiritual path" when there are plenty of resources to help. It was along the lines of making a child figure out how to add without giving him the benefit of humanity's years of wisdom on the subject. (I think I wrote that at about 3 am and may have taken a bit of a tangent. Thus proving that I am indeed, not infallible.)


You can't "give" an understanding. Understanding comes from within, and can only be reached through questioning.?

I suppose then, technically, they will be given an explanation, probably many, of what we believe and why. The "we" again referring to my husband and me.

This'll be the second or third time I've posted on this thread. Parents, do your children a big favour and consider this:

Faith is the mother of all cop-outs. It is the total abdication of responsibility in one's mission in Life - to better understand God through understanding the underpinnings of God's Creation.

Your children would be far, far better served if you encourage a healthy sense of Doubt rather than one of Faith. Doubt, and satisfying Doubt, leads to a better understanding of the world in which we all live - whereas too many people choose to live lives spent in willful ignorance which they in turn defend as virtuous - because they were taught at a young and impressionable age that God applauds a cop-out.

I happen to be an atheist, but I think ultimately children decide if religion is correct on their own, and will believe in whatever they want. I see no problem with parents raising their children religiously, just as long as they don't force anything.

I chose my religion at a young age, doubted it as a teenager, and now feel my faith is stronger as I question everything, and in my own interesting way (that only me and God understand) have worked out what I wanted/needed to know.

My daughter will not be baptised unless she wants to be. I will teach her about my faith, and also about the other faiths I know about (unfortunately that knowledge is rather limited, but I'm quite prepared to go look it up if I need to). I am Christian, my partner is agnostic. I've been taking my daughter to Church up to now, but will soon limit it to the special festivals that we celebrate (Easter, Christmas and such).

I voted other in the poll. Although I do not believe in indoctrinating religious beliefs in a child, I do believe they should be exposed to religion, and be able to ask questions and discover what they believe for themselves.

Yeah...thousands...I remeber it as usually 6,000, but I think it's 9,000 round here...Is that coming anywhere near the 35,000 we spend to keep someone in prison? and how about teachers? Are they getting raises? Hiring more?

P.S. This is page 9, we've been long over-due for straying.


I have been raising three kids now for seven years, five of those years they have been in school. EVERY year, there have been significant cuts all around. The budget may grow due to inflation, but not with it, I am planning on becoming a teacher, and have started college, name me another profession where it takes 5+ years of school to start earning a mere 40,000 a year? So if we are spending too much on public schools, I ask you to visit inner city schools or rural schools where they barley scrape up enough to keep a new roof on the building let alone the newest text books.


What I am saying is that more money won't solve the problem. The problem isn't lack of funding, the problem is a flawed system. It is an artificial environment that breeds negative socialization, undermines parental authority, offers virtually no accountability to either the parents or the taxpayers funding it, and it is failing in its stated purpose - to educate. We are doing the poor a bigger disservice now by locking them into a system that is inherently flawed. The idea that the poor would be left out in the cold is nonsense. Given the freedom to do so, the possibilities would flourish. A determined parent, regardless of income, will find a way to do right by their child. I spend less than $300.00 a year to teach my oldest, some of which I would have to spend anyway if he went to public school, and I could probably spend less. Money does not guarantee a good education and lack of money does not guarantee a bad one.

What I am saying is that more money won't solve the problem. The problem isn't lack of funding, the problem is a flawed system. It is an artificial environment that breeds negative socialization, undermines parental authority, offers virtually no accountability to either the parents or the taxpayers funding it, and it is failing in its stated purpose - to educate. We are doing the poor a bigger disservice now by locking them into a system that is inherently flawed. The idea that the poor would be left out in the cold is nonsense. Given the freedom to do so, the possibilities would flourish. A determined parent, regardless of income, will find a way to do right by their child. I spend less than $300.00 a year to teach my oldest, some of which I would have to spend anyway if he went to public school, and I could probably spend less. Money does not guarantee a good education and lack of money does not guarantee a bad one.

*shrug* Feh...I'll see what the results of money in the right place would be before I condem education.

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*

i would have to say yes,as they are your children.

i was "indoctrinated" by my parents into their religion,and as an adult i chose to not follow it.

the whole phrasing is suspect if i may add,it implies brainwashing,when a better term could have been exsposed or taught their religous beliefs.

i was taught by my parents,their beliefs,and as i got older i chose not to agree.

if i was indoctrinated as you imply,i would not have a choice as i would have basically been in a closed cult with no other input to make decisions.

it is almost like saying,that since my father was from italy,and cooked italian food and liked gaudy furniture,i was indoctrinated into being an italian.
religion is no different then ones cultural influences.

i would have to say yes,as they are your children.

i was "indoctrinated" by my parents into their religion,and as an adult i chose to not follow it.

the whole phrasing is suspect if i may add,it implies brainwashing,when a better term could have been exsposed or taught their religous beliefs.

i was taught by my parents,their beliefs,and as i got older i chose not to agree.

if i was indoctrinated as you imply,i would not have a choice as i would have basically been in a closed cult with no other input to make decisions.

it is almost like saying,that since my father was from italy,and cooked italian food and liked gaudy furniture,i was indoctrinated into being an italian.
religion is no different then ones cultural influences.

...Wait...

i was "indoctrinated" by my parents into their religion

if i was indoctrinated as you imply,i would not have a choice as i would have basically been in a closed cult with no other input to make decisions.

Basically...you were indoctrinated, but not indoctrinated?

*shrug* Feh...I'll see what the results of money in the right place would be before I condem education.


I never condemned education. I condemned government run publicly funded school. Big, Big difference.

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*

indoctination's a strong word. i think it's too much to tell parents that they should educate their children in the possible 'truth' of other religions from their own. that's the job of schools. personally, if i was ever to have kids i'd obviously let them know that i am an atheist and that atheism was where i believed the 'truth' lay in the whole spirituality kit and kaboodle and i would want them to believe the same. this is ok, i think, only as long as you don't forsake them when they find out about the alternatives and renounce your faith.

First off I'd just like to point out a few things that are really confusing me.

1. For those of you who are religious, isn't the reason you adopt a religion because you believe its the truth? So in effect when you're teaching your kids about all religions being "equal", doesn't that mean you're lieing to them? I mean, There ARE religions that contridict yours. Thats an undenyable fact.

2. It's funny how science and religion are always portrayed as mortal enemies, I personally find the more we discover about the world the more it points to some kind of intellegent design (take the golden ratio - a ratio which pretty much defines beauty, constants (e, Pi, ect) that pop up everywhere).
Also so many people have such faith in science. You believe what your told if it comes from a scientst. The Earth may not be the center of the universe, but I doubt anyone who's ever said that to me could show me the math to prove it. - just something to think about.
A side point here about evolution, its hardly a science. It pretty amazing how detailed a description of an "early man" you can pull out of your ass, from a fragment of shin bone.

3. To shoo flee
I find your ideas on schooling interesting ideally, but I really can't see how it could possibly work in the real world. I mean for one, with out the curiculum there is no way to compare students across the board which could make university (/college) selection difficult. Though, if you propose to remove tertery education institutions too. Then how can we get acreditted workers, whats stopping any hobo buying a lab coat and calling himself a doctor? It will make employment a lot more difficult in terms of finding employees that are qualified for positions. It's true that the current education systems aren't uber fantastic, but they do give everyone reasonably equal opertunities to do become anything they want. A poor kid from a low socio-ecconomic backgrond can excel and become a world elite (Ben Carson, possibly the worlds top neurosurgeon, for example).
With the privatisation of education the poor would have a much less chance of getting a decent education. Sure they "could" do like you are and homeschool their kids for less than $300 a year, but honestly most probably don't have the time. A single parent working 2 jobs just to put food on the table doesn't have the time to spend teaching thier kids how to read, and nowhere near enough money to send their kids to a private school (which will focus more on profits than education). They'll probably end up stuck in minimum wage jobs, and those that get into trades, will only because their parents were in it. (starting to sound a bit like the middle ages, bakers might have to start changing last names to baker again :p).

Kind of late into the thread, but I remeber a guy saying in the "Should I run?" thread that the fact that the girls parents supported her, cared for her, and put a roof over her head but she didn't share their religious beliefs made her an ingrate. Who agrees with me to disagree with this guy?

I believe that all the revealed religions are from the same source. That some of these religions seem to contradict each other is not because the source of the religion is confused or opposed the different religions, but because the followers to the religions have become confused about the true purpose of religion.


"True religion is the source of love and agreement amongst men, the cause of the development of praiseworthy qualities; but the people are holding to the counterfeit and imitation, negligent of the reality which unifies; so they are bereft and deprived of the radiance of religion. They follow superstitions inherited from their fathers and ancestors. To such an extent has this prevailed that they have taken away the heavenly light of divine truth and sit in the darkness of imitations and imaginations. That which was meant to be conducive to life has become the cause of death; that which should have been an evidence of knowledge is now a proof of ignorance; that which was a factor in the sublimity of human nature has proved to be its degradation. Therefore the realm of the religionist has gradually narrowed and darkened and the sphere of the materialist has widened and advanced; for the religionist has held to imitation and counterfeit, neglecting and discarding holiness and the sacred reality of religion. When the sun sets it is the time for bats to fly. They come forth because they are creatures of the night. When the lights of religion become darkened the materialists appear. They are the bats of night. The decline of religion is their time of activity; they seek the shadows when the world is darkened and clouds have spread over it."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 237)

I voted Nintendo. But I don't think indoctrination of religion is a problem. Unless your one of those parents who homeschool your kids and control who they associate with untill they are 35 (those kind of kids seem to rebel anyways). Most of the religious nuts I've known for a long time were brought up religion-neutral, then "saw the light."

All the "we" comments you take exception to in this thread and others were meant to describe my husband and me.

Ah, I see. Sorry about that.

No, just because I don't think a six year old is ready for something doesn't mean he won't be ready for it when he is twelve. It is not about complete exclusion, it is about personal readiness.

If he asks you about it when he is six, then he is ready for some sort of answer on it.

Who said anything about stupid stories. I have never once told a child that the storks brings babies or anything of the sort. It is a matter of degree. A small child rarely needs or wants to know the intimate details. The fact that the baby comes form Mommy's belly is enough.

And if the child asks for more details? What do you say then? Your choices are either to make something up, simply not answer the questions (not an option, as far as I am concerned), or explain it in detail in a way that you think they will understand.

You're not listening. It does not take thousands of dollars to educate a child for a year.

It does in every private school worth a damn out there.

By freeing families from the government's restrictive definition of education, they will be able to find creative ways to accomplish the teaching of their children.

Because working parents have soooooo much time to do these things on their own. No, I'm afraid that those struggling to even put food on the table will either have to pay someone to educate their children, or will have to leave education out altogether. At least, as it is, there is a free option.

That is true. Another point toward abolishing the system. It is a bloated bureaucracy that is failing to fulfill its stated objective.

Whatever happened to, "If it is broken, fix it." I don't know about you, but when something is broken, my first choice isn't to throw it out. I try to fix it....

Your are right that leaving out the vital information that other people believe differently would almost certainly backfire. I said more than once that we discuss these things as they come up. I am not trying to hide my children from the world, I am just trying to keep the flood to manageable proportions. We don't really seem to disagree much on the actual process of this. I think you mostly object to the word indoctrinate. It does have rather extreme connotations.

I object to actual indoctrination. Saying, "This is what I believe and therefore it is right," is indoctrination - and that sounds like it is exactly what you are doing. A child should be encouraged to question everything - even the beliefs of their own parents.


I will stand by the fact that parents do have a right to indoctrinate, whether or not that is a good idea using all definitions.

A parent can raise their child as they wish to - but that doesn't make it right. A parent has the "right" to teach their children that members of other ethnicities are dirty pigs who deserve scorn - does that mean it is right for them to do so?

As a parent it is your job to raise your child the way you think is best. A huge part of that is the passing on of your values, ideals, and beliefs. Especially if you believe the Bible when it says to do just that.

Passing on your values , ideas, and beliefs does not equate to forcing them upon others.
In fact, if you don't encourage your children to question them and come to their own path, you have actually failed at passing on your faith - because your children will never have faith in anything but you.

But they do. It is made very clear that religion is a silly myth and you dare not mention such things in these hallowed halls of truth.

No, they don't. You are making things up at this point. I have been through quite a bit of schooling, and have yet to hear any teacher or school adminstrator even begin to suggest that.

The only thing that is said is that a teacher cannot teach religion in the classroom. Would you prefer that the government adopt a religion and teach it to the students?

I don't understand this.

The moment you stop questioning your faith, you have lost all faith in God. Instead, you have faith in yourself - in your own beliefs - and their infallibility. The only way you could teach that your beliefs were completely correct, is if you believed that to be so - which would mean that you have no faith.

Yes, they must come to Christ voluntarily. But, why would I hamper their decision making process by pretending that I think all religions are equal?

Who suggested that you should pretend that you think all religions are equal? I simply said that you must inform them that these are your beliefs - and that you are a fallible human being, and can thus be wrong.

It is in teaching that your beliefs are fact, while all others are wrong that you hamper the process of your children coming to Christ. If you, instead, taught that this is what you believe, that you believe you are right, while still allowing your children to explore other ideas (and "explore" does not mean "read about and then have me tell them why those ideas are wrong"), then you would be helping them. Have a little bit of confidence in your children. If you truly are right, then their explorations will lead them to your belief system.

Just because I share my claim that this is truth with them doesn't mean I don't allow them room to question me. If I can't defend what I believe in to my own children then I am a pretty pathetic believer.

Defending to children is easy. You just have to say, "This is the way it is." I've seen how people "defend" their beliefs to children - and even to uneducated adults. They just make it sound complicated, and then it goes over with the children.

Why does passing on your spiritual truths always seem to be taken to mean not allowing for discussion and thought?

You mean your beliefs? Part of it is the fact that you claim them to be "spiritual truths" rather than what you believe to be true. The rest has to do with the fact that this is a thread on indoctrination - which does mean not allowing for discussion and thought.

I disagree that they need to question their faith, per se, but that may just be semantics. They do need to have a full understanding of what and why. Simply telling a child "Believe this." is not going to stick, your absolutely right.

No human being has a full understanding of what and why. If you think you do, you have no faith.

Again, I don't understand this. Strong faith in what? That you might be right?

Strong faith in God, and the guidance of God - both for you and your children.

What I am saying is that more money won't solve the problem. The problem isn't lack of funding, the problem is a flawed system. It is an artificial environment that breeds negative socialization, undermines parental authority, offers virtually no accountability to either the parents or the taxpayers funding it, and it is failing in its stated purpose - to educate. We are doing the poor a bigger disservice now by locking them into a system that is inherently flawed. The idea that the poor would be left out in the cold is nonsense. Given the freedom to do so, the possibilities would flourish. A determined parent, regardless of income, will find a way to do right by their child. I spend less than $300.00 a year to teach my oldest, some of which I would have to spend anyway if he went to public school, and I could probably spend less. Money does not guarantee a good education and lack of money does not guarantee a bad one.

You say it breeds negative socialization and undermines parental authority, is this from your Christian view? I have always worked very closely with the schools, I volunteer in the classrooms when I can and even sub on occasion (as a teachers assistant) and have never seen them undermine the parents. The accountability to parents and tax payers works both ways, lets start voting in the levy’s to improve the schools instead of worrying about a tiny bump in taxes, we get what we pay for. Home education only works when the parent is educated well enough them selves, and has the time and money to make it work. There are many Americans that could not handle this burden. I have to work 2 jobs to keep my family and I fed, housed, and clothed. I am going to school to improve myself and hopefully, my financial situation (but since I am going to be a teacher, probably not much). I think that you get out of school what you put into it, I choose to supplement my child’s schooling by helping with their homework and teaching them anything I think the school misses or under covers, but I could not do it all alone nor would I want to. What if a parent is an immigrant or illiterate, in your system, these children would have much lees chance of success. Your proposed system has no balance, oversight, or social responsibility. It would breed more miscommunication, hatred, and uphold a class-based society. I have seen both systems fail, I will grant you that there are flaws in public schools that need fixing, but I have seen children that come from home school and are two or three years behind their classmates. Your system also does not take into account divorced couples ect, which parent has the responsibility to teach, would a dad who only has their kids on the weekends have little or no say in education.

Why do you want to change the system so much anyway, you already have the right to home school your kids and do. Why do you feel you need to change it for everyone? Do you not like the taxes? Are you that upset that they cant teach religion in school? Or do you just want a class system? Explain your stance please? I'm not trying to attack you or your stance, I just want to understand your reasoning behind your statements and those of the web site you linked us to earlier.

Also so many people have such faith in science. You believe what your told if it comes from a scientst. The Earth may not be the center of the universe, but I doubt anyone who's ever said that to me could show me the math to prove it. - just something to think about.

Actually if a scientist told me the sun moves around the earth I wouldnt believe him.

The one thing that proved it is parallax. Stars that were further away seemed to move differently than stars that were closer. That accompanied with retrograde motion (look it up) pretty much proves the earth moves. For the most part its just simple observation, the only math involved is calculating the stars' distance.

Science isnt based on faith, its based on observation and experimentation. Logic, which is the basis for science, is the opposite of faith. This faith you think we have in science isnt faith, its truth because it has been proven.

If he asks you about it when he is six, then he is ready for some sort of answer on it. And if the child asks for more details? What do you say then? Your choices are either to make something up, simply not answer the questions (not an option, as far as I am concerned), or explain it in detail in a way that you think they will understand.

I never said I wouldn't answer his question. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I would. If he wants details, he'll get details. I just don't want someone giving him ideas before he is ready. I don't want any discussion forced on my by an outsider's timetable.


Because working parents have soooooo much time to do these things on their own. No, I'm afraid that those struggling to even put food on the table will either have to pay someone to educate their children, or will have to leave education out altogether. At least, as it is, there is a free option.


Most people would not choose to homeschool, probably. There would be other options. Without the high property taxes and government control, people would be able to offer affordable school options to others, while still allowing parents to make the final choice. Besides what good is a free option if it's lousy.


Whatever happened to, "If it is broken, fix it." I don't know about you, but when something is broken, my first choice isn't to throw it out. I try to fix it.....

We've been trying to fix it for decades. The only solution offered is more money. How long would you go before you replaced an oven that burned everything you put in it?


Who suggested that you should pretend that you think all religions are equal? I simply said that you must inform them that these are your beliefs - and that you are a fallible human being, and can thus be wrong.

I'm pretty sure they already know this.


No human being has a full understanding of what and why.

I'm not God. I know I don't know it all. I was speaking of that which is understandable within our human limitations and with the understanding that even this process takes a lifetime.

I still don't understand why believing that what God teaches in the Bible is true shows a lack of faith. My faith is not in me, but in God and His teachings. You can't say "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life" and then follow it with "maybe" and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Actually if a scientist told me the sun moves around the earth I wouldnt believe him.

Good.

Science isnt based on faith, its based on observation and experimentation.

This is true. However, I don't think that the person you are replying to meant that scientists have faith in science, but that laymen often do. This is pretty true. Most laymen will talk about the discoveries of science without ever investigating the actual research for themselves.

Logic, which is the basis for science, is the opposite of faith.

Incorrect. The opposite of logic would be illogic. The opposite of faith would be disbelief. The two are not opposed.

This faith you think we have in science isnt faith, its truth because it has been proven.

Nothing in science has "been proven". That isn't how the method works. The scientific method can do one of two things - (a) disprove a hypothesis or (b) support a hypothesis (by not disproving it). There is no way to prove something using science. This is why a theory may stand for a century - so that people start looking at it as "proven" only to be disproven by new investigations.

I never said I wouldn't answer his question. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said I would. If he wants details, he'll get details. I just don't want someone giving him ideas before he is ready. I don't want any discussion forced on my by an outsider's timetable.

This it the kind of thing I have a problem with hearing from parents though: "until he is ready." The only reason that a child would not be "ready" for an idea is if he was completely incapable of understanding it. This is the same bullshit you hear from people who are afraid to inform their children that, yes, some people are gay. They always say, "My child isn't ready to hear about that" or people who rant and rave that their little girl "isn't ready" to know the proper names for her anatomy. And so on...

The parents who use "isn't ready" generally are shielding their children from things they are perfectly ready for. It is the parent who isn't ready to explain it.

Meanwhile, your child will have to deal with the rest of the world, ie. the "outsiders". Keeping your child from outside influence is a pretty awful thing to do as well.

Most people would not choose to homeschool, probably.

Which would leave many with no other option.

There would be other options.

That's a lovely belief. But there was a time before public school. Guess what? There weren't "other options", not for those who couldn't afford them. There are those out there who aren't going to get an education unless it is free.

Without the high property taxes and government control, people would be able to offer affordable school options to others, while still allowing parents to make the final choice. Besides what good is a free option if it's lousy.

Yes, because property taxes are the reasons that private schools charge so much.... :rolleyes:

We've been trying to fix it for decades. The only solution offered is more money.

No, that is the one the government keeps implementing because it pacifies the public. If the people would stand up and start trying to make real changes....

I'm pretty sure they already know this.

Not if you don't tell them - at least at a young age. Children idolize their parents. If you are telling them that your personal beliefs are absolutely right, they will believe you - for the most part.

I'm not God. I know I don't know it all. I was speaking of that which is understandable within our human limitations and with the understanding that even this process takes a lifetime.

I don't think we'll ever know all that is "understandable within our human limitations." We strive for understanding, but to suggest that any of us have truly reached it is ludicrous.

I still don't understand why believing that what God teaches in the Bible is true shows a lack of faith.

"Believing what God teaches in the Bible" is a rather vague way of putting it. You have specific interpretations about what is taught in the Bible. You are working out of flawed translations of possibly miscopied texts. The people who wrote the texts in the first place were fallible human beings.

What God teaches in the Bible is true. Do you think you have a full understanding of it? We must continually question to move closer to Truth.

My faith is not in me, but in God and His teachings.

If that is true, then you would continually question your faith by looking to the guidance of God, not claim that your current beliefs are absolute truth.

You can't say "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life" and then follow it with "maybe" and expect anyone to take you seriously.

It isn't "maybe." It is, "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life." This is what I believe we are supposed to do to follow it, but I am a fallible human being. If you think I am wrong, please tell me.

You aren't going to get anyone who doesn't already agree with you on every point to convert by saying, "I'm right and you're wrong. This is the way it is."

Many families histories are laced with religion docterine and traditions. Of course you should teach your children these things, how would they ever know anything about their own history? At the same time you should teach your children to think for themselves and to question openly any thought they want to, no reprisals and no reprimands for posing a question or thought that doesn't agree with yours as a parent. My father was Catholic and my mother Baptist, they decided when they started having kids they would expose us to all of it and the decisions were ours. With aunts and uncles that were everything from Methodist to Lutherans we got some of all of it. I can't think of a better way myself, because as adults we each believe what we do based on what was right for each of us individually and can genuinely respect the rest.

Nothing in science has "been proven". That isn't how the method works. The scientific method can do one of two things - (a) disprove a hypothesis or (b) support a hypothesis (by not disproving it). There is no way to prove something using science. This is why a theory may stand for a century - so that people start looking at it as "proven" only to be disproven by new investigations.

Soo...it hasnt been proven that the heart circulates blood? It hasnt been proven that the earth moves? It hasnt been proven that sound is a compression/decompression of particles? It hasnt been proven that an integrals calculate the area under a curve?

Soo...it hasnt been proven that the heart circulates blood?

Not using the scientific method, no. Observation would certainly suggest it to be a fact, however.

It hasnt been proven that the earth moves?

Not using the scientific method, no. Observation would certainly suggest it to be a fact, however.

It hasnt been proven that sound is a compression/decompression of particles?

No. Although it has been supported to the point that it might as well be.

It hasnt been proven that an integrals calculate the area under a curve?

That is mathematics, my dear. Things in mathematics can be proven. Of course, mathematics is a different set of logic.

So, I observe letters appear on the screen as I type them. That doesnt prove that I am controlling what is being typed?

Mathematics is science by the way. And physics is based on integrals.

So, I observe letters appear on the screen as I type them. That doesnt prove that I am controlling what is being typed?

No, it doesn't. It demonstrates a correlation - a very strong one.

Mathematics is science by the way.

No, it isn't. It does not follow the scientific method. Thus, it is not science, except in that "all types of learning are science" type definition - and that definition would include theology as science as well.

And physics is based on integrals.

Wrong. Physics is based upon observation and testing. That testing has led to the conclusion that motion follows certain mathematical formulas found in calculus. If physics were "based on integrals", we would have simply put together a field of study with integrals, and the physical world wouldn't need to have anything to do with it.

No, it isn't. It does not follow the scientific method. Thus, it is not science, except in that "all types of learning are science" type definition - and that definition would include theology as science as well.

Apparently youve never done a mathematical proof. In fact, I am gonna go ahead and guess youve never had a single math class based on what you are saying.

Wrong. Physics is based upon observation and testing. That testing has led to the conclusion that motion follows certain mathematical formulas found in calculus. If physics were "based on integrals", we would have simply put together a field of study with integrals, and the physical world wouldn't need to have anything to do with it.

The mathematics behind physics is calculus, which is made up of limits, derivatives, integrals, and series.

Apparently youve never done a mathematical proof. In fact, I am gonna go ahead and guess youve never had a single math class based on what you are saying.

I've had many math classes - more than I care to count - and I've done many mathematical proofs.

Not a single one ever followed the scientfic method, nor did it have to. Mathematics is a set of logic in and of itself.

Edit: Your attempt at being patronizing is cute, and says a bit about you. I could just as easily say that I would "guess you've never had a proper science class based on what you are saying", as you don't even have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science.

The mathematics behind physics is calculus, which is made up of limits, derivatives, integrals, and series.

Yes, I said that. But what is "behind" physics is not the mathematics - but the observation and testing. Mathematics is used as as a tool in explaining the phenomena.

Remember that the study of physics existed before calculus.

Why do you want to change the system so much anyway, you already have the right to home school your kids and do. Why do you feel you need to change it for everyone? Do you not like the taxes? Are you that upset that they cant teach religion in school? Or do you just want a class system? Explain your stance please? I'm not trying to attack you or your stance, I just want to understand your reasoning behind your statements and those of the web site you linked us to earlier.


The idea that everyone in this country (I am referring to U.S. here) should pay to support education goes against the basic ideas behind our Constitution. It doesn't matter how "fact based" you try to keep it. At some point someone is paying to teach a view he disagrees with. That was the reason that it was decided not to have a state funded church. It was fundamentally wrong to force someone to pay for the teaching of ideas he disagreed with. At that time, people worried that there would be no financial support for the churches if the government didn't fund them. As you've probably noticed, this is simply not the case. Abolishing government run taxpayer funded schools will not create a class system. Without this government monopoly to get in the way, people will find other ways to educate and be educated. My brother taught himself Calculus from a library book when he was 14. Not everyone will do that, it is just an example. The resources are there and more will become available. What do you think all the current government teachers will do? Many will open their own schools, offering parents a variety of educational choices. These schools will begin to reflect the true cost of education as they will only be able to charge what the market will bear. We currently have wealthy people donating to schools, is there any reason that would have to stop? In fact, they, too, would be able to donate to areas that they felt were most vital. Especially, if they no longer had to pay hefty property taxes. Do private schools pay property taxes? I don't know. That would certainly help explain the high fees, they would be required to support the very system they are in competition with. There is no reason to think that the poor would get an inferior education to what they are receiving now, in fact they are more than likely to get a much better one.

Do I detest the taxes? Yes
Do I object to not teaching religion? Not per se. I object to the teaching of ideas that are contrary to the parent's and the financial supporter's.
Do I want a class system? Absolutely not. I want everyone to have the freedom to reach for their own goals without being hindered by a system that gets worse each year and has no constitutional basis (at least in the U.S.)



Macilent FLage, you asked about higher education. Currently, colleges and universities have curriculum requirements and also usually require a test like the SAT. I don't see any reason for this to change. If you and your child are planning for college, then you would make choices that would fulfull these requirements. You don't need government schools to help you with this. In fact, most community colleges require nothing more than a placement test. Because of the increase in homeschoolers, colleges are changing the way they look at applications. They are already used to the idea of transcripts that do not come from an "accredited" school. I am hard pressed to believe that this would be an actual issue.

I've had many math classes - more than I care to count - and I've done many mathematical proofs.

Not a single one ever followed the scientfic method, nor did it have to. Mathematics is a set of logic in and of itself.

So a mathematical proof does NOT consist of making an assumption, establishing a proof, and testing it?

So a mathematical proof does NOT consist of making an assumption, establishing a proof, and testing it?

There is no empirical testing involved in mathematics at all.

A mathematical proof can be accomplished in a number of ways - all following directly from the logic of mathematics. Assumptions are made (often more than one), theorems are established, and then the logic of mathematics is used to get to a conclusion. The flow of this logic is the proof. It may begin by assuming that something is true, and then looking for contradictions. It may begin by proving that something is true for x=0, for x=1, and for x = n+1, and so on.... A mathematical proof only works within mathematics - in the particular situation set up by the assumptions used. But, because of the logic used, once a proof is completed, unless a flaw in the logic is shown, it stands forever.


The scientific method is the following:
Make observations.
Form a hypothesis to explain them.
Test that hypothesis through experimentation - the test in question must be designed such that a given result will disprove the hypothesis.
Conclusion (either that the hypothesis is disproven or not).

The same hypothesis can (and should) be tested and retested and retested and retested. Every test that does not disprove it is support for the hypothesis. When it has been tested enough - and stood up to that testing, it becomes a theory. It remains theory until it is disproven (and, if never disproven, it will always remain as theory). Assumptions are made, but only if they can also be tested and their inclusion can be backed up.

The only core assumption of science is that a deterministic universe exists - that inductive logic can be used to describe natural processes.

The idea that everyone in this country (I am referring to U.S. here) should pay to support education goes against the basic ideas behind our Constitution. It doesn't matter how "fact based" you try to keep it. At some point someone is paying to teach a view he disagrees with. That was the reason that it was decided not to have a state funded church.

Wrong. The reason not to have a state-funded church is that the Founders believed that freedom of religion was something that must be protected, and they had seen the corruption brought into both the church and the state by merging them.

I see nothing at all wrong with teaching the child of a Flat-Earther that the world is not flat. I see nothing wrong with teaching the child of someone who does not like mathematics how to add. I see nothing wrong with teaching the child of a Holocaust-denier the history of WWII. Those may be "views" that someone disagrees with - but keeping these things from a child just because he has ignorant parents will simply continue the cycle of ignorance.

Abolishing government run taxpayer funded schools will not create a class system. Without this government monopoly to get in the way, people will find other ways to educate and be educated.

You say this, but history would seem to disagree with you. Prior to public schools, education was a thing of the leisure class - and of the leisure class only.

Especially, if they no longer had to pay hefty property taxes.

That's funny. You really think the government would lower taxes just because they had one less expenditure? Another idea completely blown out of the water by history. They would simply find something else to funnel that money into.

Do private schools pay property taxes? I don't know. That would certainly help explain the high fees,

Yes, I'm sure that you can explain thousands of dollars per student by taxes. Or, just maybe, it is because you get what you pay for. You want dedicated teachers? You better pay them well. You want the best students? You better pump money into the system. And so on...

There is no reason to think that the poor would get an inferior education to what they are receiving now, in fact they are more than likely to get a much better one.

Yes, because prior to public schools, the poor got any education at all....

Do I object to not teaching religion? Not per se. I object to the teaching of ideas that are contrary to the parent's and the financial supporter's.

So you really have a problem with a child being taught that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth?

Do I want a class system? Absolutely not. I want everyone to have the freedom to reach for their own goals without being hindered by a system that gets worse each year and has no constitutional basis (at least in the U.S.)

That kind of freedom only truly exists when everyone has the *same* opportunities. This isn't going to happen. As such, to even get close, something must be provided that everyone has equal access to.

to even get close, something must be provided that everyone has equal access to.

It's called a library. It offers resources for whatever your viewpoint is and doesn't require that you subscribe to any of them to participate.

It's called a library. It offers resources for whatever your viewpoint is and doesn't require that you subscribe to any of them to participate.

It offers plenty of resources, if someone has already managed to teach you how to read, how to use them, and how to think critically.

How is the library going to help someone who is not yet an independent learner and has no access to a teacher, because his/her parents can't afford one?

It's called a library. It offers resources for whatever your viewpoint is and doesn't require that you subscribe to any of them to participate.

Unfortunately, not everyone can simply read a book and understand everything in it. Tis one of the things we have teachers for.

Indoctination? If I'm raising them to be underage sex slaves for my pastor and telling them it's the only way, that's indoctrination.

Teaching them the way not to go....

Life skillz.

The idea that everyone in this country (I am referring to U.S. here) should pay to support education goes against the basic ideas behind our Constitution. It doesn't matter how "fact based" you try to keep it. At some point someone is paying to teach a view he disagrees with. That was the reason that it was decided not to have a state funded church. It was fundamentally wrong to force someone to pay for the teaching of ideas he disagreed with. At that time, people worried that there would be no financial support for the churches if the government didn't fund them. As you've probably noticed, this is simply not the case. Abolishing government run taxpayer funded schools will not create a class system. Without this government monopoly to get in the way, people will find other ways to educate and be educated. My brother taught himself Calculus from a library book when he was 14. Not everyone will do that, it is just an example. The resources are there and more will become available. What do you think all the current government teachers will do? Many will open their own schools, offering parents a variety of educational choices. These schools will begin to reflect the true cost of education as they will only be able to charge what the market will bear. We currently have wealthy people donating to schools, is there any reason that would have to stop? In fact, they, too, would be able to donate to areas that they felt were most vital. Especially, if they no longer had to pay hefty property taxes. Do private schools pay property taxes? I don't know. That would certainly help explain the high fees, they would be required to support the very system they are in competition with. There is no reason to think that the poor would get an inferior education to what they are receiving now, in fact they are more than likely to get a much better one.

Do I detest the taxes? Yes
Do I object to not teaching religion? Not per se. I object to the teaching of ideas that are contrary to the parent's and the financial supporter's.
Do I want a class system? Absolutely not. I want everyone to have the freedom to reach for their own goals without being hindered by a system that gets worse each year and has no constitutional basis (at least in the U.S.)



Macilent FLage, you asked about higher education. Currently, colleges and universities have curriculum requirements and also usually require a test like the SAT. I don't see any reason for this to change. If you and your child are planning for college, then you would make choices that would fulfull these requirements. You don't need government schools to help you with this. In fact, most community colleges require nothing more than a placement test. Because of the increase in homeschoolers, colleges are changing the way they look at applications. They are already used to the idea of transcripts that do not come from an "accredited" school. I am hard pressed to believe that this would be an actual issue.

Show me any example of a country or time period where there was no free schools, but a progressive education for the populace, and I might accept some of your arguments. However, I can not find such an example, I can only find times where the rich have well educated children and most others do without.

Again I ask why. if you have the right to homescholl and exercise it, do you want everyone to HAVE to follow your example? I am trying to find the figures of how much of taxes go to scholl as opposed to everything else the government spends them on. Would the small savings make you that happy?

Show me any example of a country or time period where there was no free schools, but a progressive education for the populace, and I might accept some of your arguments. However, I can not find such an example, I can only find times where the rich have well educated children and most others do without.


There are a lot of things about our country that are unique. Where else in history could you find freedom of speech and religion, among others. Why is freedom of education so hard to believe? Would you truly rather wade through this disaster - and force other people to pay for it - than try something that might actually make a difference? If we are that afraid of freedom, then I suppose we deserve to be under the thumb of government.

Again I ask why, if you have the right to home school and exercise it, do you want everyone to HAVE to follow your example? I am trying to find the figures of how much of taxes go to school as opposed to everything else the government spends them on. Would the small savings make you that happy?

Again I ask why, if you have the right to home school and exercise it, do you want everyone to HAVE to follow your example? I am trying to find the figures of how much of taxes go to school as opposed to everything else the government spends them on. Would the small savings make you that happy?


It is not the amount, it is the principle. No, not everyone should have to homeschool, but why should I HAVE to subsidize - even a little bit - your child's education, especially when I disagree with what is being taught? I have expressed several times that this idea would not require all citizens to turn to homeschooling. It would allow for educational choice, whatever that choice might be. There are still states where I as a homeschooling parent would have to prove to the GOVERNMENT that I am doing an effective job. This is completely upside down. Since they are clearly incapable of accomplishing the simple task of making sure that every child they are entrusted with is taught to read, why on earth should we continue to finance them? If your local grocery store gave you such bad service, you'd find another one and never look back. Our society has been conditioned, indoctrinated - if you will - to believe that government knows best when it comes to education. If by education you mean "how to keep kids busy and unproductive for 12 years" then I suppose they do. If by education you mean "capable of supporting themselves and their families in a productive manner" then no. Every kid is different. You said you have several, you probably know this. Why should we then subject them all to exactly the same "eduation"? It's ludicrous and proven ineffective. They have had years and years to prove that they can do it. In that time, behavior problems have gone up and academic standards have gone down. Is this really what you want for the future of our nation?

*snip*

Uh-huh...the system education isn't exactly the meatgrinder you seem to think it is. Course, I guess if everyone who didn't like some science stop paying for it, it'd probably end up like that.

...Wait...




Basically...you were indoctrinated, but not indoctrinated?


i think you mis read my intent...i was saying that i "quote" was "indoctrinated into my parents religion"
not that i was...
if i was,we would not be having this discussion now would we.

and i would not have been out getting tuned and being a basic fool last night..lol

my point was,there is a big diff with being either culturally or even religously exsposed to a certain belief system,but i would argue...most young adults challenge authority out of a basic growing thing..and are not "indocrinated to the point they cnat form their own beliefs..shaded by the upbringing,yes,unable to form their own opinions,nope.
unless your really indocrinated...and that was my point.

This it the kind of thing I have a problem with hearing from parents though: "until he is ready." The only reason that a child would not be "ready" for an idea is if he was completely incapable of understanding it. This is the same bullshit you hear from people who are afraid to inform their children that, yes, some people are gay. They always say, "My child isn't ready to hear about that" or people who rant and rave that their little girl "isn't ready" to know the proper names for her anatomy. And so on...

First, let me make clear; this is not the Shoo Flee to whom you have been "speaking". This is her husband. I've gone through and read many of the posts in this thread including all of the ones involving my wife (as far as I know, I might have missed one somehwere). Now I intend to respond to this one as something of a culmination of the debate thus far, starting with the above.
So, there is no room here for the psychological impact on a child who has gained enough information to ask a question with an answer beyond his comprehension. Let us say, for example, that the child overhears his father, the police officer mention a pedophile he interacted with in the line of duty. You are perfectly willing to discuss, in as much detail as the child is capable of putting to question, the ins and outs of pedophilia?


The parents who use "isn't ready" generally are shielding their children from things they are perfectly ready for. It is the parent who isn't ready to explain it.

Meanwhile, your child will have to deal with the rest of the world, ie. the "outsiders". Keeping your child from outside influence is a pretty awful thing to do as well.

The first half is a blanket statement that I can neither prove nor disprove. It is your opinion that this is the motivation behind the stated action by other parents. Before I can respond to it I would have to say, "Prove it." You have already implied on more than one occasion that human understanding is limited and fallible. Yet, you now use your own limited experience in this arena as proof that anyone trying to shield his child from things for which he considers the child unready is doing so out of some inner shame or feeling of inadequacy.
As for the second half, at no point that I can remember has my wife suggested that we keep our child from outside influence. We do, however, control the nature of that influence. I would be shocked to learn that you do not. Another example; a pusher approaches your child in the park. Are you suggesting you would let the child decide for himself whether or not a cocaine habit is a good idea? Or, perhaps, you would have a healthy debate with the pusher showing the child the pros and cons of drug addiction. I apologize if I sound fascetious. It is a fault of mine, I admit, and not a personal attack on you.



Which would leave many with no other option.

I have not had the time to research this. The facts supporting your statement as well as our view have been few and far between on this point. You say it leaves people with no other option while my wife has said they will have multiple opportunities. Neither of you has supported your suppositions with any logical progression, models or more than the vaguest historical references. Should I return to this debate I will try to bring research with me for this point.


That's a lovely belief. But there was a time before public school. Guess what? There weren't "other options", not for those who couldn't afford them. There are those out there who aren't going to get an education unless it is free.

That's a terrible belief. Actually, once again, I don't have the research at hand. However, we have done research on this one and I will say that the research we have done showed that the U.S. had a much higher literacy rate before public schools.
Also, at this point I would like to address, briefly, the point many have made that working parents cannot take their own children's education in hand. I am no genius. My parents were far from rich. I received mediocre and poor marks beyond grade school. I am employed at a job that does NOT pay high wages and, yet, my wife is able to stay home and school our children. To make a blanket statement of my own, parents who cannot find the time to educate their children have a priority issue, not a money one. Sorry if that sounds harsh.



Yes, because property taxes are the reasons that private schools charge so much.... :rolleyes:

The comment by my wife that prompted this was hardly presented as set-in-stone fact. She made a semi-fascetious statement with a prior admission that she didn't know the facts. Your response seems a little much, considering.



No, that is the one the government keeps implementing because it pacifies the public. If the people would stand up and start trying to make real changes....

Ummm...yeah. Here my wife and I stand trying to make real changes. We have a system that is gigantic and flawed, and fueled by a centralized government that has become so far removed from what it was designed to be that its originators would not recognize it. The system itself is based on a previous system that was designed to pacify and INDOCTRINATE a nation's citizens so as to produce pliable "worker bees". We are suggesting a free enterprise system of education that allows the "consumer" to choose from a wide variety of educational "products" that would naturally be provided as different institutions vied for the buyer's dollar. Of course private schools cost an arm and a leg. There is a "free" option with which they cannot compete (an institution that is funded by taxes is not free, by the way, but since it's extorted money the point still stands). Do the poorer neighborhoods you've seen not have grocery stores or clothing stores or restaurants? I will cut myself off here before I digress into what I think of the idea that folks born with less somehow deserve to be given what they don't have by those with more. I'm not entirely sure, but I think communism failed.

Not if you don't tell them - at least at a young age. Children idolize their parents. If you are telling them that your personal beliefs are absolutely right, they will believe you - for the most part.

Quite true...and contrary to what she implied in her writing, my wife does inform our children concerning her own fallibility, as do I of my own. I have a temper. On more than one occasion I have had to sit one of my children down and explain to him that I was wrong to yell at him. Even had he done something wrong it was not an appropriate response on my part, and it was my allowing my anger to cloud my judgement that caused the wrongdoing. I then apologize, and, if the child has committed a wrong, proceed with whatever punishment is necessary.



I don't think we'll ever know all that is "understandable within our human limitations." We strive for understanding, but to suggest that any of us have truly reached it is ludicrous.

No disagreement here, either. In this case I believe my wife did a decent job of implying, if not outright saying, that we don't know everything and will spend the rest of our mortal lives attempting to learn what we can. If not, let me say now, we've been married long enough for me to know that such is not a concept she would gainsay. That and she's reading over my shoulder and hasn't smacked me.


"Believing what God teaches in the Bible" is a rather vague way of putting it. You have specific interpretations about what is taught in the Bible. You are working out of flawed translations of possibly miscopied texts. The people who wrote the texts in the first place were fallible human beings.

Okay, let's get some clarification on this one. My wife and I believe in a sovereign God who created the universe and gave us purpose. When we foolishly corrupted His creation through sin by disobeying He, in his love for us, provided his divine Son as a sacrifice to atone for the sins for which we could not pay to satisfy the wrath He, by his nature, must surely pour out on us for our transgression. We believe this because of a combination of historical research, logical progression and faith. Having been exposed to many alternatives myself; my father was into both eastern mysticism and Native American spirituality, I found the Christian faith to make the most sense, if you will. Not to mention, I found I had a kernal of belief in an omnipresent power that shook my soul. Since coming to faith a continued study of the Bible, both under the tutelage of learned men and through independent study, has continued to hone my understanding of right and wrong and how I should behave before God. Such studies include the research into greek and hebrew phraseology and context. Yes, the men who wrote the Bible were fallible. The God who directed them is not.


What God teaches in the Bible is true. Do you think you have a full understanding of it? We must continually question to move closer to Truth.

Right. History, logic and biblical reference all point to the divine salvation provided by Christ as truth. After that we start arguing interpretation, and our arguments are certainly colored by our own ignorance.
I think it is here that I would like to state an opinion I have formed based on the previous posts I have read. I believe you and my wife are sitting on opposite sides of a very thin hair, and it has been made to look like a chasm by miscommunication and preconceptions. Just a bit further down you provide the way, truth and life quote as an absolute, at least grammatically. So, I must conclude from this that you do draw the truth line somewhere. There is a place, however generalized, where you say, "Yes, this is the nature of God, this is what He is." Don't you teach this fundamental belief to your children? So you tell them that they should question the nature of His commandments and our relationship to Him, you still tell them there is a Him to which they can relate, yes? Please let me know if I'm wrong. If you are the type of person that tells your children that Taoists could have it just as right as you then I cannot understand how you can call yourself a Christian. The entire Bible is rife with the concept of obedience to the one God. If this fundamental concept is not one to which you hold I just don't know how you can say you believe in the Christian God. Now, disagree on whether or not one should eat pork, sure. What does it mean for the wife to submit to the husband, room to talk. Some things are not open for debate, however, if we follow Christ.

If that is true, then you would continually question your faith by looking to the guidance of God, not claim that your current beliefs are absolute truth.

See above.

It isn't "maybe." It is, "Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life." This is what I believe we are supposed to do to follow it, but I am a fallible human being. If you think I am wrong, please tell me.

You aren't going to get anyone who doesn't already agree with you on every point to convert by saying, "I'm right and you're wrong. This is the way it is."

On this I would hope that the nature of our answers thus far would indicate how we approach teaching our children, about Christ or anything else. Have we been dogmatic and intractable refusing to rebut, or even listen to, your points? Have we, at any point, actually said "I'm right and you're wrong," or anything like it? Assuming your answer to both questions is "no" why would you think we would treat our children, whom we know and love, with less understanding and respect than a stranger (no offense) on a message board?

I will raise my children as I see fit, and no other way. Church on Sundays, no sex until marriage, and if I catch you with Cigs or condoms you are getting spanked behind the woodshed.

That's a terrible belief. Actually, once again, I don't have the research at hand. However, we have done research on this one and I will say that the research we have done showed that the U.S. had a much higher literacy rate before public schools.
Also, at this point I would like to address, briefly, the point many have made that working parents cannot take their own children's education in hand. I am no genius. My parents were far from rich. I received mediocre and poor marks beyond grade school. I am employed at a job that does NOT pay high wages and, yet, my wife is able to stay home and school our children. To make a blanket statement of my own, parents who cannot find the time to educate their children have a priority issue, not a money one. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

Lets both do some more research than, but I want to see what evidence you have that shows a higher literacy rate, or any of the other "facts" that you have bought up in your attack on public schooling. I will also back up my arguments. But I want a good reason why you and a small minority of mostly Christian radicals think that you should close all public schools. There are plenty of options in place, some of which you already implement. Why is that not enough for you?

I am guessing that your lack of response is indicative of your research.

So, there is no room here for the psychological impact on a child who has gained enough information to ask a question with an answer beyond his comprehension. Let us say, for example, that the child overhears his father, the police officer mention a pedophile he interacted with in the line of duty. You are perfectly willing to discuss, in as much detail as the child is capable of putting to question, the ins and outs of pedophilia?

In as much detail as the child can understand, yes. In fact, I would think it would be a prime opportunity to ensure that the child understands what types of behavior of adults towards them is inappropriate, and how to deal with any such occurences.

The first half is a blanket statement that I can neither prove nor disprove. It is your opinion that this is the motivation behind the stated action by other parents.

It wasn't really a blanket statement - I did say "generally". =)


You have already implied on more than one occasion that human understanding is limited and fallible. Yet, you now use your own limited experience in this arena as proof that anyone trying to shield his child from things for which he considers the child unready is doing so out of some inner shame or feeling of inadequacy.

I didn't say "anyone". I said "generally". There are, I am certain, exceptions. In my experience, however, this has seemed to be the rule.

As for the second half, at no point that I can remember has my wife suggested that we keep our child from outside influence. We do, however, control the nature of that influence.

...which is really no different, in the long run. If you control the nature of that influence, then you are still controlling how the child sees that influence. For a child to truly grow into his/her own person, a parent sometimes has to relinquish some control.

I would be shocked to learn that you do not. Another example; a pusher approaches your child in the park. Are you suggesting you would let the child decide for himself whether or not a cocaine habit is a good idea? Or, perhaps, you would have a healthy debate with the pusher showing the child the pros and cons of drug addiction. I apologize if I sound fascetious. It is a fault of mine, I admit, and not a personal attack on you.

The problem with this is that you are using an extreme example of something that any parent would know is dangerous to their child - that we can all agree would be dangerous. I'm not talking about drugs, sex, etc. here. I am talking about conflicting ideas. I am talking about parents who pull their kids out of schools because they don't agree with the discoveries of science, or because somebody might dare say something they don't agree with. I am talking about parents who shield their children from even hearing the proper names of their own genitalia, to "preserve their innocence." I am talking about people who will gladly take a child too young to understand politics to an anti-abortion rally, but wouldn't dare hear of anyone suggesting to their child that their might be another opinion. And so on....

[quoet]I have not had the time to research this. The facts supporting your statement as well as our view have been few and far between on this point. You say it leaves people with no other option while my wife has said they will have multiple opportunities. Neither of you has supported your suppositions with any logical progression, models or more than the vaguest historical references. Should I return to this debate I will try to bring research with me for this point.[/quote]

The fact is: there was a time before public schools. There was a time when education was a priviledge of the rich. I see no reason to believe that this would be any different today. Even with public schools available, those who have the least generally receive an education inferior to that the rich can afford, but at least they get something.

That's a terrible belief. Actually, once again, I don't have the research at hand. However, we have done research on this one and I will say that the research we have done showed that the U.S. had a much higher literacy rate before public schools.

Sure, if you look at white males - most likely all that you can get statistics on, since they were all that mattered.

Also, at this point I would like to address, briefly, the point many have made that working parents cannot take their own children's education in hand. I am no genius. My parents were far from rich. I received mediocre and poor marks beyond grade school. I am employed at a job that does NOT pay high wages and, yet, my wife is able to stay home and school our children. To make a blanket statement of my own, parents who cannot find the time to educate their children have a priority issue, not a money one. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

What about parents who are each working two jobs just to put food on the table? What about single parents working several jobs to keep clothes on their childrens' backs? You are more fortunate than some, my friend.

Ummm...yeah. Here my wife and I stand trying to make real changes.

Abolishment isn't really changing the system - it is doing away with it.

I will cut myself off here before I digress into what I think of the idea that folks born with less somehow deserve to be given what they don't have by those with more. I'm not entirely sure, but I think communism failed.

I hate to point it out, but I seem to remember charity being a large portion of Christ's message. He seemed to think that we have a duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Why don't you?

Quite true...and contrary to what she implied in her writing, my wife does inform our children concerning her own fallibility, as do I of my own. I have a temper. On more than one occasion I have had to sit one of my children down and explain to him that I was wrong to yell at him. Even had he done something wrong it was not an appropriate response on my part, and it was my allowing my anger to cloud my judgement that caused the wrongdoing. I then apologize, and, if the child has committed a wrong, proceed with whatever punishment is necessary.

That doesn't really address my point, however. Saying, "I was wrong to yell at you," doesn't make a blanket statement of, "Anything I tell you might be wrong, because I am fallible." When you teach your children your religious beliefs, do you make a point of reminding them that you, your preacher, etc. are all fallible human beings?

Okay, let's get some clarification on this one. My wife and I believe in a sovereign God who created the universe and gave us purpose. When we foolishly corrupted His creation through sin by disobeying He, in his love for us, provided his divine Son as a sacrifice to atone for the sins for which we could not pay to satisfy the wrath He, by his nature, must surely pour out on us for our transgression. We believe this because of a combination of historical research, logical progression and faith. Having been exposed to many alternatives myself; my father was into both eastern mysticism and Native American spirituality, I found the Christian faith to make the most sense, if you will. Not to mention, I found I had a kernal of belief in an omnipresent power that shook my soul. Since coming to faith a continued study of the Bible, both under the tutelage of learned men and through independent study, has continued to hone my understanding of right and wrong and how I should behave before God.

And this is how someone *should* come to faith - through their own questioning and research - through the rejection of alternatives. Not by someone telling them from birth, "This is what you should believe."

Such studies include the research into greek and hebrew phraseology and context. Yes, the men who wrote the Bible were fallible. The God who directed them is not.

Indeed. But God directs us all - it doesn't make any of us infallible. If the men who wrote the Bible were fallible, then it is not, in and of itself, infallible (unless God made those men infallible - something I do not believe).

I think it is here that I would like to state an opinion I have formed based on the previous posts I have read. I believe you and my wife are sitting on opposite sides of a very thin hair, and it has been made to look like a chasm by miscommunication and preconceptions. Just a bit further down you provide the way, truth and life quote as an absolute, at least grammatically. So, I must conclude from this that you do draw the truth line somewhere.

I believe it to be truth. That does not mean I do not acknowledge the fact that I could be wrong.

There is a place, however generalized, where you say, "Yes, this is the nature of God, this is what He is." Don't you teach this fundamental belief to your children?

When I have children, I intend to teach them what I believe - as what I believe. I will encourage them to seek out their own spiritual path, and to find it.

I don't think you can "teach" a belief to anyone. You can tell someone what you believe. But true belief comes only from within.

If you are the type of person that tells your children that Taoists could have it just as right as you then I cannot understand how you can call yourself a Christian.

I admit my own fallibility. I may be wrong. My faith may be wrong. I do not believe it is, but I know that it could be - because I am fallible.

The entire Bible is rife with the concept of obedience to the one God. If this fundamental concept is not one to which you hold I just don't know how you can say you believe in the Christian God.

Of course I hold to it. I believe that the Bible is correct in its claims of one God that we should obey.

Well, religious values are mostly good values that promote a person to be as moral and good as can be, so I don't think it's wrong for parents to pass on these values. Indoctrinated or not I don't really see a negative effect.

As children get older they are going to start questioning their beleifs and are going to come across different viewpoint and opinions, which they will compare with their own and they will then come to various conclusions as a result, so IMO it doesn't really make a difference.

As children get older they are going to start questioning their beleifs and are going to come across different viewpoint and opinions, which they will compare with their own and they will then come to various conclusions as a result, so IMO it doesn't really make a difference.

Indoctrination generally implies suppressing questioning - teaching children from a young age that questioning is wrong. If you have been trained from a young age not to question, there are really two common results. One is that you simply go on believing everything you have been told and reject out-of-hand anything that contradicts it. The other is that you find that some part of what you were told is untrue, and then reject it all out-of-hand. Very few who are actually indoctrinated end up going through a reasonable process of examining different viewpoints and opinions.

I will raise my children as I see fit, and no other way. Church on Sundays, no sex until marriage, and if I catch you with Cigs or condoms you are getting spanked behind the woodshed.

That is just so wrong. Well except the cigarettes. It strikes me that if your child was responsible enough to carry condoms that would be a good thing. At least they wouldnt get pregnant and diseased. If they were inclined to have sex, then I doubt you could stop them by taking away their condoms, or even worse, scaring them into not having any condoms to begin with. If you try to hard to protect them you end up hurting them. Perhaps if you instill your values in your kids they will decide that pre marital sex is wrong, but if they want to be atheists, or buddhists or something, and think it is fine, what will you do then?

That is just so wrong. Well except the cigarettes. It strikes me that if your child was responsible enough to carry condoms that would be a good thing. At least they wouldnt get pregnant and diseased. If they were inclined to have sex, then I doubt you could stop them by taking away their condoms, or even worse, scaring them into not having any condoms to begin with. If you try to hard to protect them you end up hurting them. Perhaps if you instill your values in your kids they will decide that pre marital sex is wrong, but if they want to be atheists, or buddhists or something, and think it is fine, what will you do then?

Take them out behind the woodshed...........Duh! =)

Take them out behind the woodshed...........Duh! =)

Or he could make then smoke every single one of those cigarettes, and use every single one of those condoms. That would teach them.

Or he could make then smoke every single one of those cigarettes, and use every single one of those condoms. That would teach them.

My mother actually tried that - with cigs - with my brother. Trying to teach him a lesson (like how bad it would make him feel). Problem was that he'd actually been smoking behind her back enough to be a real smoker. After that, he went to dip for a while - and she got him with that one. When she found it, she poured about half of it out, filled the rest up with pepper, and then put it back where she found it. That, at least, seemed to work.

Well, what do you think?

*poll coming*
Hell yes. It's a parent's duty to teach their child about religion.

Hell yes. It's a parent's duty to teach their child about religion.

If the OP were asking if a parent should "teach about" religion, that would probably be what was asked.

If the OP were asking if a parent should "teach about" religion, that would probably be what was asked.
When you're talking about a child in the toddler to first or second grade range, everything a parent says or does is 'gospel'. There isn't much difference between indoctrination and education in that age range. Or so go my thoughts on the matter.

When you're talking about a child in the toddler to first or second grade range, everything a parent says or does is 'gospel'. There isn't much difference between indoctrination and education in that age range. Or so go my thoughts on the matter.

This is mostly true - about everything. But no one suggests that we teach our children nothing. Teaching is always geared towards levels of understanding. My children will know from the moment they are able to understand that Mommy and Daddy hold different beliefs. Do you think they'll take both of our conflicting beliefs as gospel, or will they begin to see from a young age that the determination is theirs to make?

This is mostly true - about everything. But no one suggests that we teach our children nothing. Teaching is always geared towards levels of understanding. My children will know from the moment they are able to understand that Mommy and Daddy hold different beliefs. Do you think they'll take both of our conflicting beliefs as gospel, or will they begin to see from a young age that the determination is theirs to make?
I suspect they'll be very confused, even after you patiently and rationally explain the facts to them. Kids that age don't respond well to logic or facts. They certainly aren't ready for making decisions that are more difficult than playing with this or that toy. As authoritarian as it sounds, "Because I said so", is appropriate.

Here's how you should raise your children. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlcqWQVVuU)

:D

I think parents should provide a balanced view of things; teach them about religions, certainly, but don't confine it to one religion, and bring in scientific thought too. Then leave it to the children to decide what it is they wish to believe, or not believe.


Why rephrase the perfect answer???

I am guessing that your lack of response is indicative of your research.

This is one of the many reasons I don't like this sort of forum for discussion. It is difficult enough to try to have a reasoned debate with someone like Dempublicents1 with a lack of tone of voice and body language to assist me in reading my opponent's meaning, not to mention the long drawn out explanations just to try to get some small point across. Having to respond to every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to bandy about insults to assuage his wounded pride, or whatever, just gets old. I have a busy schedule and a family for which I must care. My lovely wife only just tonight, as I was preparing to go to bed, let me know that there were responses to what I had posted in her name, so to speak.
I actually asked my wife to do a little digging to find some of the facts we had unearthed before to use in the discussion here. She did so because she is a sweet and devoted creature that I do not deserve. I do not intend to post any of said research tonight as it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 12:30am and I have not compiled it into any sort of useful format. I will try to prepare and present the information in a reasonably timely manner, but I'm not working on your timetable. If your little dig was designed to infuriate, congrats, it worked. If it was supposed to be an actual declaration of victory in the face of a somewhat prolonged silence, so sorry, I'm back to let you know that I have not forfieted the field and you will actually have to respond to my arguments before you can smugly gloat over how brilliant you are.
Oh, as long as we're on the subject of research, or the lack thereof, I do believe your suggestion was that we both return with some research to support our views. So, to be truly churlish in my retort, I'll show you mine if you show me yours...

In as much detail as the child can understand, yes. In fact, I would think it would be a prime opportunity to ensure that the child understands what types of behavior of adults towards them is inappropriate, and how to deal with any such occurences.



It wasn't really a blanket statement - I did say "generally". =)




I didn't say "anyone". I said "generally". There are, I am certain, exceptions. In my experience, however, this has seemed to be the rule.



...which is really no different, in the long run. If you control the nature of that influence, then you are still controlling how the child sees that influence. For a child to truly grow into his/her own person, a parent sometimes has to relinquish some control.



The problem with this is that you are using an extreme example of something that any parent would know is dangerous to their child - that we can all agree would be dangerous. I'm not talking about drugs, sex, etc. here. I am talking about conflicting ideas. I am talking about parents who pull their kids out of schools because they don't agree with the discoveries of science, or because somebody might dare say something they don't agree with. I am talking about parents who shield their children from even hearing the proper names of their own genitalia, to "preserve their innocence." I am talking about people who will gladly take a child too young to understand politics to an anti-abortion rally, but wouldn't dare hear of anyone suggesting to their child that their might be another opinion. And so on....

[quoet]I have not had the time to research this. The facts supporting your statement as well as our view have been few and far between on this point. You say it leaves people with no other option while my wife has said they will have multiple opportunities. Neither of you has supported your suppositions with any logical progression, models or more than the vaguest historical references. Should I return to this debate I will try to bring research with me for this point.

The fact is: there was a time before public schools. There was a time when education was a priviledge of the rich. I see no reason to believe that this would be any different today. Even with public schools available, those who have the least generally receive an education inferior to that the rich can afford, but at least they get something.



Sure, if you look at white males - most likely all that you can get statistics on, since they were all that mattered.



What about parents who are each working two jobs just to put food on the table? What about single parents working several jobs to keep clothes on their childrens' backs? You are more fortunate than some, my friend.



Abolishment isn't really changing the system - it is doing away with it.



I hate to point it out, but I seem to remember charity being a large portion of Christ's message. He seemed to think that we have a duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Why don't you?



That doesn't really address my point, however. Saying, "I was wrong to yell at you," doesn't make a blanket statement of, "Anything I tell you might be wrong, because I am fallible." When you teach your children your religious beliefs, do you make a point of reminding them that you, your preacher, etc. are all fallible human beings?



And this is how someone *should* come to faith - through their own questioning and research - through the rejection of alternatives. Not by someone telling them from birth, "This is what you should believe."



Indeed. But God directs us all - it doesn't make any of us infallible. If the men who wrote the Bible were fallible, then it is not, in and of itself, infallible (unless God made those men infallible - something I do not believe).



I believe it to be truth. That does not mean I do not acknowledge the fact that I could be wrong.



When I have children, I intend to teach them what I believe - as what I believe. I will encourage them to seek out their own spiritual path, and to find it.

I don't think you can "teach" a belief to anyone. You can tell someone what you believe. But true belief comes only from within.



I admit my own fallibility. I may be wrong. My faith may be wrong. I do not believe it is, but I know that it could be - because I am fallible.



Of course I hold to it. I believe that the Bible is correct in its claims of one God that we should obey.

I apologize, dear lady. I just don't have the wherewithal to respond in full to everything you've said above at this time. I vow, therefore, to return at another time, when I am fully functional and able to raise my figurative dueling sword against those conclusions of yours with which I disagree. Given the lack of patience I have encountered on other fronts I just didn't want you to assume I was ignoring you.