In a different thread, I found a quote that came from our friend James Earl very interesting, but discussing his point didn't pertain to that thread, so I thought I would start a new one.



I don't want this thread to be about religion alone, but the point of indoctrinating your own child. This can pertain to religion, politics, or any other belief system.

This thread is not intended to single James Earl out, simply a chance to discuss his statement in an appropriate thread. His thoughts may be valid, and they are valid to him and I do respect that.


[b]Questions for debate:

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "incodrinate" your children?

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?
Yes, how else can the process be described? Children don't magically become adults, and just happen to, a lot more often than not, share the belief system of their parents.
This of course reaches far beyond religious belief systems, but of course some belief system stress the importance of non-indoctrination, mitigating some of the effect, but far from all.

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "indoctrinate" your children?
Morally and ethically it is in many regards highly inappropriate, I would say. Legally it may also be in inappropriate, but mostly in instances where the children are indoctrinated to commit actual crimes, or to become willing victims of crimes committed by others.

It's hard to draw the line for when teaching your children about life become morally and ethically inappropriate, and that is why it in most cases actually is legal to indoctrinate children, even when it's to the disadvantage of the child. I certainly believe it is morally wrong to indoctrinate your child to believe in god or gods, but it should be legal, because there is no alternative and there will never be one, unless we commit to a "1984" style society, which I am not about to.

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?
Some more than others. Nothing inherently harmful in religion really, but a lot of religions or factions within them teach hate to some degree, whether it be towards non-believers, gays, jews, liberals etc... that is certainly harmful to society and especially to the child in question.

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?

I've answered these in reverse order when I typed them. My initial response to this was going to be "Yes, obviously", but after answering the other two questions below, I think it is more likely to be - "sometimes, it depends".

i.e. it depends on what the belief systems are.

Literally, indoctrinating someone is to give them, or force them into, doctrine. And doctrine is not so much the basic beliefs of a religious system (e.g. there is or is not a god or gods; Jesus died for our sins) or even the literal words of a particular holy book (be that the Bible or "The God Delusion"). To my mind, doctrine is more the interpreted meaning of a belief system as it applies to the real world we live in.

I don't know if this is a real division, but in my head there is a difference between the basic core beliefs or theology of a particular religion, and the doctrines of that religion.

So teaching children about the theology of a faith - I will use Christianity as an example here as it's the one I'm most familiar with - such as "there is a God, He loves you, He has a Son called Jesus who died so that everyone might be able to go to Heaven. We should kill or steal or hurt one another deliberately or for no reason, because Jesus told us to love God more than anything and to love everyone else as much as we love ourselves. And we shouldn't judge other people because that's God's job." - the real broad-brush strokes that all denominations of Christianity would agree about. That's fine. At worst, it's harmless (at best - the bits I've picked - probably quite a good thing), because it doesn't teach them to hate or fear anyone else whose beliefs or lifestyles might be different from theirs.

Doctrine, on the other hand, is more problematic, because to my mind it's doctrines, and this faith or denomination's claims to be more doctrinally pure and "right" than other faiths or denominations, that lead to all the bad aspects of relgion - the divisiveness, the hate, the bloodshed. I'm good because I have the right doctrines; you're bad because you don't. Or - worse, IMO - you're bad because my doctrine says you are or that the things you do are bad.

BTW I have no real problem with "you're doing things and you should because my doctrine says they're bad" and no problem at all with properly-constituted democratically-passed laws that outlaw this or that behaviour. Man's laws important too, and those ones we should - by and large, indoctrinate. "Don't murder people, or you'll go to jail" carries more weight in my mind than "Don't murder people or you'll go to hell". (But that's my mind.)

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "incodrinate" your children?

"Incodrinate"? I'm sure that the child welfare people would have something to say about inserting large deep sea coldwater fishes into your children. (Sorry for the typo humour )

In the USA and all of the EU I know about, there is no law against "indoctrinating" children in a particlar belief system. So (occasionally regrettably) it is not legally inappropriate to do so.

Morally and ethically? Well, it's a quality control issue, and the best way to deal with poor doctrine is to argue it out. Kids should have the opportunity to discuss their beliefs in school, and the other kids (and the teachers) should have the opportunity to quiz them about it. And, if necessary, rip their stupid ideas to shreds*. If mom and dad don't like that, they can always either teach their kids to think more rigorously or learn to do it themselves.

* And it's the stupid ideas that should be examined and, if needs be, ripped to shreds, not the kids themselves, their parents, family or friends, either literally or figuratively. Very smart people can (and often do) believe in very stupid things, and it's only a culture of intellectual challenge that will keep everyone on their toes. This is sadly lacking almost everywhere today, in the pressure to only learn stuff that either is useful for future employers (as in schools) or superficially funny or entertaining (as in most of the media). (Kudos to for having the idea of thrashing out ideas as the main reason for existing.)

Or, there's always the back door of "faith schools" or even home skule-ing. Not meaining to be too pejorative there - not all home-schooled people are badly taught, but I would go out on a limb and say that most of the really bigoted, stupid or ignorant attitudes extant today are not taught in schools but in homes and churches (of all shapes and sizes).

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?

They can be. Even if it isn't you doing the harming - ask a Holocaust survivor.

And, obviously enough, belief systems (all kinds) can be twisted to allow them to justify terrible things. You can have a pacifist atheist like, say, Bertrand Russell, and another like Chairman Mao who's responsible for millions of murders (I chose those two because I'm a functional atheist myself and I didn't want any believers to think I was getting at their particular belief system, however crazy or dangerous I might privately think it was).

People criticise activist Christians as being right-wing social authoritarians, and that MIGHT just be true of the noisiest activist Christians in the USA. But Desmond Tutu is an activist Christian on anyone's definition, and is about as far away from the first type as you can get, not only in politics but in religious beliefs too, while remaining a member of the same religion.

The Dalai Lama is everyone's favourite poster-boy for Buddhism, and most Westerners I've spoken too elevate him - and Hindu gurus too - to saintly status (perhaps rightly for the Dalai Lama, he does come across as a very good and moral man) while conveniently forgetting that the chaos of bloodshed and the invention of suicide bombings comes from an essentially Hindu vs Buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka.

Morons and murderers are evenly distributed through all belief systems (including systems of non-belief like atheism).

Ultimately I'd like to live in a world where kids are educated - by families, by schools, by the media, and by society as a whole - to think for themselves, and to take very little on faith alone. They should certainly learn about religion - about the good and bad points of all the major faiths. It certainly shouldn't be kept off-limits as a topic.

I think the best thing would be if religion were treated like sex in terms of child development.

Not talking about it at all is stupid, because kids will come up with their own ideas from playground gossip and, possibly, some shady characters. And introducing the subject in too much detail too young is, frankly, a bit creepy, if not outright abusive.

But, it's obviously a very human subject and - for most people - it's an essential part of their daily lives. It's absolutely critical for how we came to be here (in the sense of how our society came to be the way it is, rather than how we came into being at all - I don't want to derail this into an argument about creationism). And it's a very important subject for discussion, education and debate.

But it's one that is, at root, a private matter of individual conscience, where unless anybody gets involuntarily hurt and everybody consents, pretty much anything goes.

First, I don't view the word indoctrinate as a negative word. I view it as a big word for teach. According to dictionary.com, one of the definitions is


Doesn't everyone think that by simply properly raising children, the parents are "indoctrinating" them to follow their set of opinions, beliefs, etc.? For those that are parents, do you teach your children values and beliefs that you don't value and believe in? That simply doesn't make sense to me!

My parents didn't indoctrinate.

When I was 10, a friend of mine and I sneaked off and went to a minor league baseball game. We told my father and mother that we were going with my friend’s mother. We then went to my friend’s mother and told her that we were going with my father. We rode the city bus across town to the game. We would have gotten away with it, except that we stopped at a restaurant and had root beer floats. We missed a couple of buses. The game was over at 10:30 p.m. and we got home about 1:00 a.m. The parents called each other and went through the "I thought they were with you" routine. My companion’s mother whipped him, but my father - over my mother's objections - took a different approach. He told me "If you can do it once, you can do it again. Do anything you're big enough to do. I don't care what you do as long as you don't get in trouble." Several of the kids in my pack had been picked up by the police for minor infractions. To this day, I have never been arrested. You had to decode my father. What he was really saying was, "If out get out and get thrown in jail, I don't have the money to get you out." What my father did was grant me liberty, with no restrictions except stay out of trouble. I was a bright kid, somewhat rebellious and my father taught - didn't indoctrinate. If he gave nothing to rebel against, I wouldn't rebel, and I was smart enough to stay out of trouble - that was my responsibility.

At about age 13, I started attending the largest Baptist church in Fort Worth. He had a blue 1953 Plymouth sedan. One Sunday night he let me out at the church door. He said, "I don't mind bringing you down here, but I think there will be a day when you will see through this.” What he (and some other parents) didn't know, is that along with many of my associates, I cut out of church immediately and went to a nearby drugstore soda fountain. We drank cherry Coke and played pinball until our parents came to the church collect us.

My father was right. Over the years I have become almost completely estrangement from organized religion. I have "seen through" but he didn't encourage me to do so.

My father left choices up to me. He didn't indoctrinate. I do not think parents should rear children to be clones of themselves. Mine didn’t. If I had had kids, other than those I taught for 30+ years, I wouldn’t have either.

Was this the beginning of a dreaded liberal?

So what you are saying is that your father taught you to stay out of trouble and to take responsibility for your actions? Another way of saying that is that he indoctrinated you into a lifestyle of self responsibility. He also seemed to assume you attended church, but would "see through it" into his way of believing from what you shared with us. You are telling me that him not attending church with you had zero influence on your rebellion against organized religion? He never once discussed with you any issues pertaining to religion?

While the words are synonyms, we need some nuance here. Judging from the reaction of many conservatives to John Kerry, I get the impression that they prefer non-nuance. Throwing synonyms around indiscriminately is bad. Al Gore said he worked to “create” the internet (meaning working in the Senate for funding, etc). Some right-wing pundit changed this to “invent.” Why hell, “create” and “invent” synonyms, so go with it.



http://archive.salon.com/tech/col/rose/200.../gore_internet/

The moral here is that we should be more careful how we throw words around. Synonyms are similar, but not necessarily interchangeable.

I am looking at my The Random House Thesaurus, 1987

Indoctrinate: synonyms for:, page 375



Teach: synonyms for: page 714.



I have highlighted the words for both “indoctrinate” and “teach” that do not appear on the Random House lists.
Educate is a softer word with synonyms such as “enlighten,” and “edify.”

Indoctrination is a harder word with synonyms “brainwash”(think Jim Jones or Rush Limbaugh’s dittoheads), and “propagandize.”

My father had little to do with my rejection of organized religion. It did have to do with things I saw in churches. That’s a long story. I tried three and was in my 30s when I gave up. I don’t wish to get into that here, but I've shared some of it with selected members.

So when raising a child, what is it that the parents are doing? Are they teaching them about the beliefs and values that they think are in the best interest of the child and furthermore society? What is that called? Why is it wrong? Is it what many here lable as indoctrination? Would I be indoctrinating my children if I take them to church with me each week, have them baptised, put them through Sunday School? Am I indoctrinating them by teaching them what I think are important values and political beliefs? Or am I just teaching them what I think it is to be important values for them to have?

Also, why is it that you elude that only conservatives "prefer non-nuance", also implying that liberals don't?

Scubaim you are going to have to decide how to rear your children. In your teaching or indoctrination - whatever you prefer to call it - do you leave room for and encourage independent thinking? Do you give them a choice or are your values absolutely right?

One of the knocks on John Kerry during the last election is that he was more nuanced than Bush. Some people preferred Bush because they thought he had clearly defined beliefs. Kerry's nuance cost him. I personally like a person who mesures their words. Too bad Kerry didn't win.

The attacks, raising questions about Kerry's strength on military matters, seemed designed to exploit what Republican strategists believe is Kerry's biggest weakness — a nuanced position on the war in Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0813-03.htm

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to use a word, with spurious connotations, like “indoctrinate” rather than softer, less rigid, words like “teach” or "educate."

Are you the “autocrat of the breakfast table,” to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Senior?

I started this thread for a few reasons, but mainly because of how the word indoctrinate gets thrown around boards like this as an insult, when in actuality, it doesn't have to be. I have seen many words be thrown around as insults. Take the words such as libs, dems, neocon. Are these words used as insults, or slight undercuts in debates, when in actuality they are not insulting at all? I think it is because they have percieved emotional connotations. I don't care if you think I am indoctrinating my kids, teaching my kids, or if I am just teaching them. It is all the same to me. When it comes to whether or not my values are absolutly right-in my eye, they are. I won't disown my kids if they choose to believe something else, but they will be raised under my beliefs. Judge me if you will, but that is the way it is.

I will return to this debate later on, but would just want to include my opinion on some small areas.

To start with, i use the word 'indoctrination' as a negative negative form. As in 'accept doctrines uncritically'.


An extreme example of this would be:
X parents tell their children that Z is 'bad' because their family has always believed in Y.

In this example, and in always in reality, the familj consider themselves to be "right" even when reality is that they are wrong. Such as Religious Conservatives claiming 'liberal opinion' are wrong (a liberal is osmeone who cares for its fellow man and freedom for the individual), compared ot their 'morals', even when the 'liberal' is on the right in any objective view. This, is harmful behaviour. Because the children grows up to be racist bigoted people who seriously believe that they are right evne when the wind is against them.


And i cant possible see anyone debating this, as this is just facts of life. Agreed?

I don't even know what you just said. Are you saying that a liberal is someone that cares for its fellow man and conservatives are racist bigots that don't?

No, that is what liberal means.

A Conservative is a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas (and talking United States here), and someone who is religious. Religions such as Christianity demands racism and bigotry, if you had any knowledge of the religion, you would know this. But, most Christians have never read their bible, so no worries there.


Anyone calling themselves liberal and do not support Freedom, progress and so forth, would not be a liberal. Whiles a Conservative that would hold does claims, would then become liberal. Thats what we have language and words for, definition.

Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach their children certain belief systems?
Yes.

Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "indoctrinate" your children?
It can be.

Are belief systems such as religion harmful?
They can be.

I dunno what's the big deal. It's obvious indoctrination is offensive to some people like mercenary is offensive to others. If the shoe fits don't kick it off.

Just because you're raised a certain way doesn't mean you'll end up believing in what you were taught as a child. Just because you went to church three times a week (Sunday worship and youth groups complete with anti-abortion videos) doesn't mean you're not going to grow up thinking some aspects of your dogma are embarrassing and backwards. Just because an entire society exerts pressure on individuals to accept the group's morality doesn't mean there won't be individuals who form their own morality.

Everything we expose our children to, from Sunday night football to celebrating Thanksgiving in school, is indoctrination. It's no big deal. I'm a hopeful existentialist.

Okay, darn, now you are going to make me go out on a limb here and defend conservatism in the US

I rail against the CURRENT type of self proclaimed conservative- mostly because they are inconsistant in thier applications of thier "morals"- for instance- your typical American republican/conservative of the 90s and 2000s, absolutely HATE Bill Clinton, and believe things like Jerry Falwells "Klinton Kronicles" to the letter- but, absent of GW actually fornicating wiht a baby on TV, he gets a "pass"- however- you still have plenty of consistant, old guard conservatives that are respectable poeple in the US- I would say, someone like DaytonRocker is actually MORE typical than the Ted or Blackstone neo-con in the US- and that is why the republicans, and the neo-cons, appear to be losing power quickly.

Conservatism has been defined and re-defined in the US- and, back in the 60s and early 70s, those were our "rocket scientists"- the Milton Friedmans, with black horn rimmed glasses and a pragmatic approach to world policy- and, they were also in the forefront of civil rights- that changed with Reagan, when he sold the sould of the party to the religious right.

We have had a terrible 27 years since, and, conservatives have lost thier way- when the idea of "less goverment" became "less goverment for big business, more goverment money to churches and tons of money to combat "sin"-

And, that 27 years of public policy being so heavily influenced by religious forces may make you think that "conservative" means "religious" - well, that isn't neccesarily so, in any way really. I believe our resident lame one liner (I keed, I keed) BA- relates to being "conservative" yet hating religion- and that is not so rare as you think.

I do think, however, BOF has offered the real difference between "indoctrination"- having the connotation of "blind faith produced by brainwashing " (to boil it down further) and "teaching" in being an avenue to facilitate growth by learning from all sources- instead of the "I said so, so you should accept that"

I myself come from the right wing indoctrination camp- hard core man- you think you may know- but you don't EVEN know- I had to go right wing brainwashing schools, wear right wing brainwashing uniforms, have my hair cut just like all the other indoctrine-ees. I am not really even joking- that is the really funny part

I had to learn to think for myself in the relatively calm and quite of Army boot camp- not even CLOSE to the indoctrination and discipline I had to deal with as a kid- seriously. It was eithe that- or Bob Jones University:

http://www.bju.edu/

Hey- now THAT is indoctrination bub- most Americans, even those that go to church regularly- like every sunday- come close.

In fact, I allow my kids to go to church with my wife- I don't try to convince them otherwise or anything- Mormon, protestant, catholic and jewish. I have some of each in my family- I said- what the heck, probably won't take anyway

But the indoctrination that I had to go through? Ya, I would say it is very wrong. I was whipped once after chior practise for "jazzin' up the gospel"- and, I was whipped once for wearing blue jeans. No foolin'. Okay- THAT would be indoctrination, and THAT would be wrong.

Instilling your personal values, teaching them how to learn for themselves, without a strict "doctrine" to go by, however, with "discipline" as well- from the latin "discipl�ina, "instruction"- so, there could be some discipline to the learning, and, there is some spoon feeding at first- you can't help it- all babies need it-

I worry on this constantly actually in raising my own kids- "Am I teaching them critical thinking, am I teaching them logic, will they be able to adapt to thier enviroment changes throughout life based on them being able to make critical, but correct decisions, not based on some "by wrote" teaching they came across, but because I thought them to go a bit further than "doctrine"

I DO NOT want to indoctrinate my kids- I simply want to "teach" them to think, in a rational manner, to think for themselves, not without boundries, but with some self-discipline as well as free-thinking. I don't want hippies- I want rocket scientists! I don't want missionaries, I want personal achievement and ambition for something other than "the gawds"

It's almost impossible to be completely neutral when you are raising kids. You can't help but pass on your own values - if you think that liberal thought is the way to go, then you would consciously be doing your child a disservice (in your own judgment, anyway) teaching him anything different.

But religion is a different animal. In my opinion, raising children to be religious is more of an indoctrination than avoiding church altogether. Growing up attending church is like growing up learning English - it's there at the foundation of your thought process, and everything else gets filtered through it. If you have a close call driving, God comes to mind. Think about a higher power, and you picture an old white man with a beard. If you consider sinning, you probably picture a fiery hell, too. That Christian filter will be there for the rest of that child's life, for good or bad. But a child raised on a virtual island (or in a different religion) would see things through a completely different filter.

But what if the Bible is correct? And the child isn't baptized! And no confession, etc. Well, if you are sure about your religion, absolutely sure that you are correct about these things, you would be amiss not steering your child down the same road, right? Well, I've never met a person with a working brain that didn't have at least a few doubts about their religion. And if your religion turns out to be the right path, shouldn't someone seeking religious answers as an adult come to the same conclusion, and find themselves on that same path?

So in that respect, I believe it's better to keep my kids away from religion until they have developed a critical eye. If they reach adulthood and then want to add some sort of Supreme Being into their personal belief system, they are free to do so. But until that time, I think religion only muddies the water.

We are indoctrinated from birth; it is our human bondage. Our faults are thus so ingrained as to be part of our human nature. In this, we repeat the same mistakes not because we fail to learn from them, but because we have not changed our ways. Still, we persist in the same pattern - from father to son, mother to daughter, generation on generation - over and over again, in an endless cycle. To understand this is to understand the nature and tragedy of our lives.

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?

It depends.

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "incodrinate" your children?

It depends.

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?

Not usually, but it depends....Are the parents advocating something harmful and/or illegal? If not, I think religion is beneficial rather than harmful. Alternately, is lack of religion harmful? It can be, and atheism can be a form of indoctrination as well.

Indoctrinate=something the person doesn't agree with.

Teach=something the person does agree with.

Kind of like the difference between 'fragrance' and 'odor'. Indoctrinate is obviously a pejorative. And yes, it 'has to be' an insult. I don't agree with altering the meanings of things and pretending the word 'indoctrinate' in this context isn't intended to be offensive like some try to pretend an expletive is just another word for a strong and confident woman. I mean, come on.

So, we'll likely all disagree on precisely what indoctrination is because we'll all disagree on precisely the best way to raise a child (assuming we're speaking of entirely legal actions, as we are here). But we all know (or think we know) indoctrination when we see it.


BTW, I did find JamesEarl's depiction of Conservatives amusing. My parents are atheists and conservative. I wonder where they fit into his world. And liberals can't be bigots? What do you call bunching everyone who lives in one area/thinks differently than you do into one category of gross ignorance? Oh, liberals can be the greatest of bigots, just like everyone else. Their prejudices are simply different than the prejudices of conservative bigots.

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?

I consider the word indoctrinate to have a negative connotation, while the word teach has a positive connotation. I do not see them as meaning the exact same thing. Indoctrination brings up the image of a strident adult pounding a table and yelling a lot about the right way to be, then going off and doing the very things the adult has condemned. This from a viewpoint of a kid, as I remember it. Judge them by what they do, not what they say. People are very good at fooling themselves, especially adults.

The image I get of teaching is, primarily, of an adult telling, showing then letting me do. My father taught me that way. He'd say something like, "You need to treat people with respect and kindness." Then he'd demonstrate that behavior in his own life. So I'd start doing it to. For another example, he told me how to fix the brakes in my car. He showed me how to do it on one wheel, then I did it on the other three.

Another method of teaching is by pure example. That seems to be what kids see the most and pick up.

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "incodrinate" your children?

I'll give it a thumbs down on the first two counts, but the legality of indoctrination is a fact of life. Parents are legally allowed to indoctrinate their children. Whether this technique actually works is another issue and subject for debate, but I don't see this working at all. Kids are smarter than that.

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?

They can be either harmful or helpful. A third possibility is that they can be wholly meaningless. I've not found much value in organized religion but have found the publication of scripture in a language I can understand to be very helpful.

My experience with the Roman Catholic Church made me a young atheist, the indoctrination was so disgusting and wrong. But had the Church and the priests not munged it so badly, I'd probably still be an active member. But hey, thanks for the baptism all the same. Confirmation didn't really count (lied in confession, a big no-no) and the Church can keep the rest of its sacraments. Oh, and thanks for the immortal soul. That was pretty cool. They got some things right, but most of it was not.

Anyway, that's just an illustration on how indoctrination does not work, which is not the subject of this debate. My thinking is that parents do their children a big favor in the tell-show-do model along with teaching by example. Live a good life and your children will probably live a good life too, but there are always exceptions. Charlie Manson's mother knew he was insane all along. She could do nothing about it. There is such a thing as a bad seed.

There's also a big world in childhood that parents never know about or can visit. So, all the control is not in the parents' hands, just some percentage that keeps moving about. I do know this: Parents become smarter as children grow older, to the children. Most children figure this out in their tensed-up twenties. Some continually blame their parents for their own problems. One of my brothers was like that all through his life. Sad, but not the fault of his parents.

I would have to agree with the bigot thang too Mrs P- liberal patronizing of "inferior" races is just as racist and bigoted as the guy with the KKK hand outs- I have met a couple of those as well.

But I have to split hairs a bit with indoctrinate meaning "not something they agree with"- indoctrination of kids- well, they don't know whether they agree with it or not- they have to accept it by "doctrine"- for instance- we were taught in "christian school" that evolution is wrong, and, in fact, it was a conspiracy by anti-christian athiestic scientists bent on persecuting good, wholesome christians (no foolin'- same as Bob Jones U teaches to this day)- I also heard Jerry Falwell say, with my own ears, that "gays would just soon kill you as look at you"- it is not that I agreed/disagreed, I just was expected to have faith that this was true- because it was "God's Will" (actual quote there)

Indoctrination is more brainwashing, I can't think of a better word to use than that- it is brainwashing.

Your interpretation of the word doesn't mean that it is neccessarily correct. Here is a list of references regarding the definition of the word 'indoctrinate':
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/indoctrinate
http://www.answers.com/topic/indoctrinate
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/thesa...indoctrinate%20
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...=indoctrination
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...ry/indoctrinate
http://www.yourdictionary.com/indoctrinate

The point isn't what we percieve the word as, as much as the actual meaning of the word. The common theme in these definitions is that it relates to the teaching of a set of beliefs. As a parent, are you not teaching your child what you believe to be a good set of beliefs?

Furthermore, the point of this thread is whether or not it is right to 'indoctrinate' (or teach) your own children your set of beliefs? Those that disagree with me seem to think that because people teach their children beliefs that are different, then it is wrong.

I probably didn't explain that very well. I didn't mean the person being instructed/indoctrinated doesn't agree...I meant the person using the term 'indoctrinated' doesn't agree with it. The phrase "I was indoctrinated into being a decent human being" doesn't make much sense, regardless of the 'style' of the instruction.

My father told me: “Would you know the truth, look for it yourself; for it will take longer to find someone to tell it to you, and longer still to be convinced of it.” After many years - and more hard experience - I have found that what he told me was true.

It depends on the belief system and parents teach their children about their religion.

It is morally, ethically and legally inappropriate to dictate a persons religion in the United States, I can't speak for the rest of the world

Some are and some are not, religion itself is what you make of it. A belief in God or a religion is not dangerous, it is the height of bigotry to think it is.

Choosing the right religion can be a tricky business; for history records many - from the lowly to the high and mighty - that have come to bad ends over it.

"Right" or "wrong" in this case can only refer to the degree to which you teach your child your own beliefs. There is no avoiding passing on your basic values (nor should this be avoided!). But teaching your child to dislike Democrats/Republicans/Clinton/Bush before they are equipped to form their own opinions goes too far, and probably interferes with their intellectual growth to some degree. It's like taking your child to church from an early age - they will be looking at things through whatever political/religious filters you outfit them with, for better or worse.

George Bernard Shaw was once asked what he thought of Christianity. He paused to consider for a moment, and then, with a sly smile, answered: "I don't know; it might work if anyone ever tried it.”

How does that relate to anything we are discussing here?

1) Without the negative connotation that "indoctrinate" suggests, I believe that it is important for parents to teach children the differences between right and wrong as best they understand them. Their belief systems serve to provide the "why" for what they see is right or wrong.

2) Not necessarily. In Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries it is against the law to proselytize people into belief in the Christian faith or even pray as a Christian--in that case it is unlawful.

3) They can be harmful. They can also be very helpful.

I also believe that children raised believing "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's property (or spouse)," when taken to heart, have stayed out of a lot of trouble as a result.

When are we going to recognize that even though there are racists, perverts and hypocrites who hide behind and twist dogma, there are also people of faith who live loving, caring, honest lives? It is a personal decision for each one of us how to interpret what we have learned, and whether we really want to live a selfish, or violent, or uncaring lifestyle versus a life that is a benefit to others as well as to ourselves.

If our parents love us, they try to instill a system of values that will serve us well. We each live according to our own light. (Some lights are dimmer than others, to be sure.)

And really, it is the kid's decision to follow or not to follow what s/he has been taught.

To teach that hate, prejudice, cheating, lying or stealing is wrong, regardless of whatever form a parent may use to teach the child. Jesus did NOT encourage any of these things, so it falls back on the parents if the child manages to learn these things from them in the context of a Christian belief.

Saying that all religion is bad is like saying that all chicken is bad, regardless of how it is prepared. It is a matter of personal taste that dictates whether we like it or not.

And it is silly to bring in the conservative vs. liberal prejudices into the debate.

I just watched the program “Jesus Camp” on A&E last night. Children were indoctrinated from an early age to “witness” regarding their Christian faith.

Toward the end of the program, a group of kid led by a girl of about ten approaches a black family. She asks, “Do you know where you would go if died tonight?” The man answered, "heaven" and the girl persisted, “are you sure?" As the kids started across the street, the lead girl remarked, “They are probably Muslims.” That’s quite an assumption. I’m sure equating Blacks with Muslims just came off the top of a pre-teen girl’s head? No, it came from the prejudices of adults passed on to the children through indoctrination.

On the other side of the street, they approached a white gentleman, whom they offered some literature. He said, "No, thank you." The girl remarked, “He might already be Christian.”

So, the Black man who said he would go to heaven was Muslim and the White man who declined propaganda was a Christian. It doesn’t seem these kids are being taught to think, but sent out as tools as adults not only to spread a religious message,” but prejudice as well.

As a senior citizen, I find children sent out in this manner distasteful. Yet I don’t blame the kids. As Bill Clinton might have said regarding the economy, “It’s the parents (adults) stupid.”

Jesus Camp Video (Indoctrination in Action)

I too just watched "Jesus Camp" via Netflix. EVERYTHING about that documentary makes me wonder; children speaking in tongues, testifying to a "truth" they could not possibly know first hand. It appeared to me at least that the leader's goal was to cause each child to emerge from the camp experience emotionally unhinged from that day forward, Before I watched the documentary I never realized that such "indoctrination" camps existed within the USA. I recommend this documentary to all ADers. It was chilling to me. I'd be interested in your opinions as well.

So because of this one video, and the results of this one group, all families that educate thier children about God are indoctrinating them to be racists?

Okay, when I go to my Roget's International Thesaurus, a 1979 edition (a physical book well thumbed), here are synonyms for indoctrinate:

brainwash (145.15)
inculcate (562.2)
misteaching (563.2)

and for teach:

teach (562.11)

instruct, educate, school, edify, enlighten, civilize, illumine, show, catechize

Note that teach has its own section while indoctrinate does not. This means that the negative connotation is there for indoctrinate, but it's subtle. It's in the second definition in Webster's Unabridged online:



This indicates to me that my interpretation of the connotations of indoctrinate is accurate. But I knew that, just wanted to make sure.

You are drawing a conclusion. My post was limited to this one video.

I have a question for you. How is it different "educate [one's] children about god" and indoctriante them about god? Where does one stop and the other start?

BTW: Nice dodge to get around the one-liner rule. I'm sure you could write more.

Excellent post [b]scubatim, and something that has been in the back of my mind for awhile now. I don't believe that it is appropriate to indoctrinate you child into a belief system. As a parent, I'm of the persuasion that you should teach some general, overall values. Things like playing by the rules, waiting in line, apologizing when appropriate, taking the high road in some circumstances, etc. Those are rather universal values that we live by and that are important. Specific ethos indoctrination is what I have a big problem with. It's not just religious as mentioned previously, it can also be according to politics and teaching kids that the other side is "bad." It can also be allowing your child to be indoctrinated in the public school system, which is increasingly impersonal, irrelevant, and irrational. Other than a classical education and a healthy skepticism about life, with a good dash of ethics-anything more constitutes indoctrination, or intellectual abuse/neglect. If a Christian or Muslim parent raises their child in their faith, I don't believe that consitutes abuse, unless of course, they force the child to go after say...the age of 8. Now does that mean you give in to the five year old who doesn't want to go? Obviously not, but a parent should have a good idea when a child begins to form their own views and allow them to gradually exercise their rights to live their life as they see fit, in regards to personal views and beliefs. When you don't allow your child to make independent decisions on their own regarding what they think or believe-then you are no worse than even the worst cult leader. That is related to the third question posted. I believe that teaching religion isn't harmful, it only is to the extent that a parent rigidly controls their child and doesn't want them to leave a given faith should they make that choice. I'm awareof a popular group that treats defections like the person died. Guilt tripping and emotional manipulation by relatives or friends of children who "err" is a big pet peeve of mine.

Well, then, what's the difference between "indoctrinating one's children about God" and "indoctrinating one's children about sports"? I wonder, on a case by case basis, which type of "indoctrination" results in higher likelihood for death and/or injury to the child. Hm. And racism is abundant everywhere, to include sports. It isn't exclusive to religious groups.

How about the "indoctrination" that goes on in door-to-door sales of miscellaneous crap from magazines to cookies for "points" to buy uniforms or whatever? Talk about coercive...the entire public school system nationwide engages in that type of thing. I'd rather no one come to my door uninvited, but given the choice I'd rather someone come to my door with a message they feel is important than to ask for money.

I, for one, think you should indoctrinate your children! You should indoctrinate them against things like polio, scabies, TB, tinnitus, um, tetris, tron, centipede... and boosters, you have to have you children get booster indoctrinations.

I think parents indoctrinate children because they want clones of themselves, not thinking individuals.


It doesn't matter to me. I can slam the door in anyone's face.


Are you intentionally confusing “indoctrination” with “inoculation”?

Yes, the monsters running around this country that force their kids to endure a curfew at age 10 or make their 11 years olds eat vegetables for some indoctrination we call "health" are really getting out of hand!! Heaven forbid that twelve year olds are disallowed from piercing their body parts and thirteen year olds are forbidden tattoos!!

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?

No, I consider it a long lost art once called "parenting". Of course, now the in fashion thing is to let kids make the same mistakes kids have been making for millenia and "going their own way". Sorry, but I thought someone famously said that those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Well kids, learn from the mistakes of your parents already made by listening to them.

I agree with those that say "indoctrination" has a severe negative connotation but is really the same (denotively) as "teaching".
2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "indocrinate" your children?

No, how are they to learn what is right and wrong and why? Of course, it is well within possibilities that children are taught the wrong thing, immoral things, or stupid things. In these cases, it is morally and/or ethically wrong to do so. But teaching your children a value system is not, of itself, immoral or unethical.

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?

No, actually they are what allows society to function. It is not intuitive that people cooperate for what they want. Watch how babies or animals behave: the strongest dominates. Is that how we want society to operate?

Ah there comes the key phrase, 'I think'. And this is all you can do BoF, because you are not a parent and in my opinion you are wrong in your thinking.

I hope my children are not clones of me, plus they will be a lot better looking . I hope they strive more than I did at a young age and achieve in school. All I can do is instill them with values that hard work will be rewarded and to follow the beat of their own drum.

The highlighted portion is not in my opinion indoctrination. Perhaps, this whole thread is about semantics. It may be like we are looking at indoctrination as a Rubik’s Cube and not finding any universal definition that solves the puzzle.

There's a big difference between the meanings of the words instill and indoctrinate. I'd much rather be instilled than indoctrinated. It's more polite and respectful. Drill Instructors indoctrinate. Cult fanatics indoctrinate. Some corporate cultures do that too, and its disgusting. I don't know about other kids but the attempts to indoctrinate me into Roman Catholicism turned me into an atheist from the age of eight until well after college. My take is that indoctrination only works on feeble minds or if you're in a situation where you have to swallow it, such as working for that kind of corporation and jobs are hard to find.

Is it right or wrong to indoctrinate? I don't like it, that's for sure. Sure hope I haven't done that to anyone, but maybe I have unwittingly. I bet I have, and I also bet it didn't work.

No. No. No.

I can't help but think that this thread is something of a trawl. (Or troll.) The questions are worded in a way that seem to be hoping that an Atheist or Agnostic will come flying out of the woodwork to scream RELIGION IS EVIL! or some such so that the OP can say "WHAM! You are SO WRONG!" It may not be, that's just was I am seeing here.

In any event you decide what your kids does until your kid decides you don't anymore. There's no age limit. There's just when it happens. I think I was 12 when I realized my dad wasn't the boss of me - but I laid low until 17! Some "kids" will follow their parents direction, indoctrination, instill, um, ation until their parents die. Some kids will tell their parents off at 5. It simply happens.

Belief system is vague and contextually tricky - again, I can't help but think we're talking religion but the rules and the OP say we're not... but I think we are. However, hating Eskimos could be a "belief system" and that would be pretty wrong of a parent to direct, indoctrinate or instill in a child. So I guess, ultimately, it really depends on what it is we're talking about.

Troll, no, but thanks for jumping to conclusions. I think this thread has had much honest debate, so the trolling point is rediculous. My intent on using the phrasing of belief system was intended to encompass all belief systems. Religion, politics, morals and values. It is the debaters that have focused the discussion on religion. What I don't understand is why teaching your child what you believe to be right and wrong in whatever system that you want to teach your child. The reason that I created this thread is because what I believe to be teaching morals and values, many here call it indoctrinate. I simply used the verbage that was used in a different thread. I think when you teach your child right from wrong, you can classify that as indoctrinating simply because you set the rules of your home and family and if the members of the family don't abide by those rules, there is punishment. These basic family rules usually come from some sort of belief system, many times based on religious teachings, either directly or indirectly. Political belief systems are taught by the system of the children watching and listening to their parents. If they decide to continue the practice those beliefs as they grow older is up to the child, just as everything else.

And so you were hoping that someone would come along and tell you that what you think is wrong so you could debate them; right? You were trawling for opposition.

A more honest debate would be something along the lines of "When does indoctrination begin?"

Your questions are begging for a fight. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with that sort of debate. It is what it is though. When you ask Are belief systems like religion harmful? you're going to get a fight. You might as well go to a NASCAR board and ask Are Chevys better than Fords?

Still the entire debate is focused on what we're talking about. As Mrs. Pigpen (deftly) alluded to indoctrination into sports can be insidious as indoctrination into religion. I have friends who would disown their children if the came home in a Boston Red Sox cap. Let me tell their children are die hard Yankee fans. It seems foreign and weird to those kids that people actually root for other teams. Yet on a sliding scale teaching your kid to like the Yankees is a far cry from having them believe in white supremacy.

When I read the initial post, that is exactly how I took it, which is why I addressed all those points. I don't believe that you were trolling. Religion obviously plays a large role, but others have mentioned politics and sports as well.

1.) In the strictest sense. It is not to say that guidance is not required, because as we know: children are impressionable.

2.) It depends on how parents are indoctrinating. Just as all propaganda is not negative propaganda, not all indocrtination is harmful. Some could argue teaching love, honesty, and respect is a lower form of indocrtination. So, an adjective really is needed to describe the kind of indoctrination before a question like that can be answered.

3.) Possibly. Everything in excess can be harmful.

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?
Well by definition the answer has to be 'Yes'.

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "incodrinate" your children?
I think it is illegal to not teach your children anything at all. Negligence is the word that comes to mind.

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?
A very subjective question that would be difficult to answer since not all religions are alike. Here's a quote that I think would be an appropriate answer,

Questions for debate:

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "incodrinate" your children?

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?

This has got to be one of the dumbest, most asinine sets of questions I have ever heard. Let me respond more specifically:

1) All children are taught a belief system simply by existing. Presumably parents have a belief system that their education, wisdom and experience informs them to be the correct belief system. Failure to teach this system to their children is negligent to the extreme. If parents do not believe such a belief system exists, then they will teach their kids as much, which, is, a belief system. I believe it is called "cultural relativism."

2) It is morally, ethically and legally inappropriate not to teach your children what your education, wisdom and experience tell you is the truth.

3) Everyone who has ever lived, or ever will live, has a religion. Atheism is a religion, a religion being a "cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Websters 9th new Collegiate Dictionary. To believe or not believe in God is always a matter of faith, as the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven using the scientific method, although there is certainly evidence available to support both positions. ( I personally think the evidence overwhelmingly supports God's existence, but I couldn't say it is objectively conclusive.) Also, all religions have certain moral and ethical codes tied to them, even secular, philosophical religions.

In short, this entire series of questions is nonsense. It is like asking if it would be better for a parent to lock his child in an hermetically sealed bag to avoid "indoctrinating" the child.

Questions for debate:

1) Do you consider it indoctrinating children when parents teach thier children certain belief systems?
Yes, given that the "indoctrinate" and "teach" are synonyms. Given the previously mentioned difference in their connotations though, methinks its time to segue into my answer to Q#2 for some "nuance."

2) Is it morally, ethically, or legally inappropriate to "incodrinate" your children?
That depends entirely upon the doctrine being imparted. It is legally, morally and ethically inappropriate to impart to your children the doctrine that cannibalism is a legitimate and highly valued form of interpersonal relationship. It is legally, morally and ethically appropriate to share with your children the doctrine that taking another child's lunch without their permission is wrong.

3) Are belief systems such as religion harmful?
See above. Some belief systems, such as Marxism, would certainly appear to be quite harmful to many people, beneficial to a few. Likewise for cannibalism as a belief system. Harmful for the long pig, beneficial for the gourmand. Other belief systems may be beneficial to many people, harmful to a few. This is simply considering the pragmatic impacts of the belief systems, without venturing into moral and metaphysical aspects, which can likewise be summed up with "it depends..."