The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Childhood — a time of innocence and indoctrination > Comments

Childhood — a time of innocence and indoctrination : Comments

By Glen Coulton, published 23/4/2010

Is requiring children to adopt the religious beliefs of their parents not akin to child abuse?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. All
Well there's religious indoctrination. And then there's religious indoctrination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tlFL8r9n4Y

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58434
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 23 April 2010 12:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is trying to pull a swifty.

There is no such thing as a 'neutral' belief to teach. Who gets to decide what is an 'acceptable' belief?

Arguing that the state has a right to decide what religious beliefs are taught instead of the parents is no different to a theocracy.

Of course, the author tries to appeal to science and gravity in drawing a contrast, yet research has consistently shown that regular attendance, worship and prayer at Christian churches (and I say Christian only because I am aware of the studies for Christian attendance, and not aware of studies for other religions) adds 2 to 10 years to a persons lifespan, and improves their quality of life.
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2651_128/ai_55500404/)

(and not just for the practitioners themselves, but for the surrounding communities http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-07/lsu-por070308.php)

The author instead is promoting the idea that we take this benefit away from children...perhaps it is he that is advocating child abuse.
Posted by Grey, Friday, 23 April 2010 1:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i would support the 5 practical proposals. Proselytizing for particular religions has no place in the public education of children.

As fof children at home, whether or not parents consciously indoctrinate their children, the latter will be enculturated by their significant others as religion is a core value for religious people. Core values are embodied in the very language spoken in the home, family occasions, and everyday customs and behaviours and the way people conceive of them. As anthropologist Edmund Leach wrote, 'All culture communicates'. The example of parents and peers is more powerful than what they say, which is why many children are not successfully indoctrinated. Children do not simply mimic parents. They are not blank slates (innocents) but construct their own beliefs and behaviour in complex ways in response to the influences around them in the home and increasingly of the influence of their peers in the wider social environment as they grow up.

In countries like Astralia, the influence of peers and experience in the worlds of work, social networks and more advanced education is more powerful for the majority of people and even for those of those people who attended religious primary and secondary schools.
Posted by tonyf, Friday, 23 April 2010 1:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Several people have already noted that children can indeed follow in the same steps, religion-wise, as their parents. Indeed, not EVERY child is being 'forced' by their parents to adpot their religion. That is obvious. I also believe that was not the point of the article.

I believe the point was specifically relating to the use of the school for the purposes of prosetlysation. The comments section does not provide me with enough room to give a full justification as to why I feel that a state should remain divorced from social engineering where possible (although I'm more than happy to run people through it on other mediums), but to at least prevent the favouring of one religion over another, I believe the state should remain completely secular, so religious studies that indoctrinate (as opposed a secular study of religion as part of anthropology) should not be funded by the state.

Of course, schooling (unless things have changed since my time) only occupies the hours of 9am - 3pm 5 days a week. I have absolutely nothing wrong with religious organisations prosetylsing to children in any of the remaining 18 hours of the day (plus the whole weekend!) I understand that a school environment is the best place to connect with large numbers of children, considering that all children pretty much by law (with some exceptions of course) HAVE to be there, with large-ish numbers of them in the same spot at the same times, so why not let them hire school facilities to do so, should they desire? That the schools I have seen, indeed, do just that.

Let's face it, would an athiest, a buddhist, an islamic or hey, even a catholic taxpayer want their money to fund the preaching of an Anglican to children, as one example? I say happy for you to teach the children - just do it in your own time, not in school hours.
Posted by BenT, Friday, 23 April 2010 2:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If two Vietnamese people have a child in Vietnam, the child is Vietnamese. If two Vietnamese people have a child in Australia, the child is Australian. He or she will have an Australian accent, and grow up as an Australian. Vietnamese quickly become Australianised more than any other group.

Strike one against whatever follows from this author.

Strike two concerns the supposed indoctrination of modern kids, using a long-gone Ireland to demonstrate such nonsense. Religion no longer holds the sway it once did in Ireland or anywhere else in the world. Even Muslims are individuals, with many of them no different from lapsed Catholics or Protestants in a modern world.

“We don’t have pre-pubescent liberals, conservative, monetarists or anarchists”?
Bullswool! I had Left-wing ALP doctrine shoved down my throat by my father. It wasn’t until I was 30 that I realised that I was fighting on the wrong side and changed my views.

I was also sent to a Presbyterian church for religious instruction (my parents were also of the Presbyterian persuasion) and church services until I was 16 and decided that religion was not for me. My parents did not object, and I have had no religious affiliations since.

However, the Left-wing political indoctrination continued, and it took marriage and in-laws who weren’t as dogmatic for me to see that I could take up different ways.

This Left-wing garbage against religion (a sure sign of a fear of one of the few institutions that stands up against socialist dogma) is part and parcel of the Red onslaught against old traditions which the Left wants to replace with its own tyrannical, totalitarian beliefs.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 23 April 2010 2:47:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I almost found myself agreeing with Grey here.

Almost.

The author is indeed trying to pull what Grey calls a "swifty".

It's the sort of article one writes when one considers one's own work to be at the centre of the known universe. The clarity with which he sees the problem - parents cruelly poisoning the minds of the kiddies - while he and his colleagues in academe are having to deal with the consequences, sad, broken lives, full of despa...

Sorry, got a bit carried away there.

O, Mr Teacher sir: children tend to live with their parents for the first few years of their lives. Deal with it.

Only fanatical religious folk will embark upon the journey of indoctrination. The rest of us set examples, set boundaries, and generally encourage good behaviour. If that involves going to church, so be it - the rebellious teen years will sort out that little issue.

Of course, if you happen to be in a war zone, where tribal loyalties are linked to religion - such as Northern Ireland in the seventies and eighties - the chances are you will be a Mick or a Proddy Dog just like your old man.

But that's hardlty a fair sample, for the accusations the author is making.

Talking of samples, Grey, I was amused by your reference to the "Churchgoers live longer" study. The sample was taken from an old folks' home - sorry, "community-dwelling adults" - in Marin County, California. It occurred to me while glancing through the tables that the one variable they didn't take into account was how much fun the old geezers had had in their lives. And let's face it, California was a pretty fun place in the fifties and sixties. Know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink.

What clinched it for me was that one of the other variables indicative of a longer lifespan, apart from attending church once a week, was "attending museums or art galleries".

So I'd be betting that the early departees were the ones with that slightly spaced-out, nostalgic smile on their face...
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 23 April 2010 3:07:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 19
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy