Priscillian,
So we agree that we had different meanings of “respect” in mind. As mentioned, mine made sense only with reference to the holder of a belief that is part of him/her being what he/she is, not as a religious belief on itself which I can only share or not share, although mostly my agreement or disagreement depends on how one understands (interprets) the symbols that a religious belief is usually based on. Most holders (or deniers) of such beliefs have only a naive understanding of symbols involved, and - if they take these symbols too literally - like to clash them with opposite, mostly equally naive, understandings.

For instance, I agree with the statement “God exists” when it stands for the adherence to a certain world view (or rather a family of world views) but I would not enter into philosophical discussions about the truth or falsehood of it without first clarifying what the terms “God” and “exists” are supposed to mean. A discussion of in what extent Newton or Einstein were right would not have made sense to a medieval thinker, because he would not understand most of the concepts involved. This is why I prefer Anselm’s “faith seeking understanding” (and today one should add “and unfaith” to account also for those who sincerely seek an understanding for their unbelief) to looking for “proofs” of God’s existence or non-existence.

For instance, there are many manifestations of Islam that I do not like, to say the least, but I have to accept that there must be something more to Islam than just these negative things, since it attracted a billion adherents. And that “more” might not be that much different from something that is already part of my world-view. There are non-Christians who think similarly about Christianity. Call it whatever you like, respect or not. This has nothing to do with cultural or any other relativism.

Dan S de Merengue asked:

in the context of a six-year-old, what is the difference between education and indoctrination?

Dear Dan: For any age:

Religious education tells about the beliefs that various religions encompass with no value judgement made or implied as to the validity of those beliefs,

Religious indoctrination tells about the beliefs of one religion as though they are valid.

George wrote:

"I also know many people who have remained “uncontaminated“, have a very naive understanding of what Christians believe, or are monolingual, or have a very modest knowledge of mathematics. But do you know what? I do not envy either of them."

Dear George,

“Uncontaminated“ does not mean ignorant. In the case of the girl I wrote about she accepts no religion but is quite aware of the content of various religious beliefs. One can be aware of the beliefs and claims of various religions and either subscribe or not to those beliefs.

Two of my grandchildren were fluent in three languages at the age of five. Their parents spoke French, English and Brazilian Portuguese to them and had children's books in those three languages read to them. Their ability in languages has been fostered.

In contrast my mother spoke French and Yiddish at the age of five . She only learned English when she entered school in the United States. That was the era when the melting pot was the ideal, and she was taught to look down upon the non-English languages she knew. She lost the ability to use those languages.

In my opinion my grandchildren have had a much better start.

My son, father of the trilingual grandchildren, was an inquisitive child. Somewhere around the age of five he said to me, "Daddy, no matter how high I count there is always a bigger number. Is there a biggest number?" I encouraged his questioning and tried to lead him to answers and learning in that area. Although he is now a professor of anthropology he has a good knowledge and feeling for mathematics.

I do not envy ignorance of religion, languages or mathematics, either.

A bog on Christian-indocrination. It speaks for itself..
http://blogpond.com.au/2007/08/31/christian-indoctrination/

You may have known that there were Christian Buddhists in history –Bushbasher ; you can clearly answer your own question to the reasons why that may be if you have an understanding of Anthropology and demographics.

You would also know that the Protocols of Zion were and are an elaborate fraud and are but propaganda proliferations – No matter how you choose to know and explain it – the negative thoughts of what we know as the Left absolutely despise success ; but draw on such success to fund their own ineptitude; consider it an Irony .
The closes Jewish sect that ever came close to such protocols was in Israel after the Second World War – and collapsed because of Egocentrism. And I cannot recall the name of the sect at the moment; someone may be able to assist.

In good humour it is a laugh , consider that the Christian theologies had be infiltrated by the left , and a great many graduates had been indoctrinated with Leftist philosophies , and in a separate argument it is well known that this in itself had sown the seeds of its own implosion ; We have had more anti Christians dressed in clergy clothes and worshiped the evils of such Idiocies than their own doctrine ; So I consider it an absolute Irony that some still see it as a threat and still continue on the plane of Ignorance , but do not consider that they have already , and are in advanced stages of their own antitheses and intellectual decay ; Causing a mutation in the simple doctrine of Christianity ; You and others do not see that?

Interesting link, Relda.

I can relate to it a lot of that having gone to a Christian high school myself.

Dan,

The difference between 'education' and 'indoctrination' is clear:

- Indoctrination appeals to emotions and exploits naïvety;
- Education appeals to thoughtfulness and reason, and reduces naïvety.

But I know you well enough now to know that your question about the difference between 'education' and 'indoctrination' is a stalking horse for your claim that “evolution is a religion”, or that 'teaching evolution' is no different to 'religious indoctrination'.

Every time you think you've spotted a definition that may provide you with a loophole to prove your argument, you grab it by the horns. Doesn't the fact that you need to rely on such trivial technicalities to attempt to prove your arguments tell you something?

If this is in fact the road you were about to go down, then you will fail this time for the same reason you've failed every other time you try to make evolution sound like a religion – You're position is based on flawed logic.

But perhaps I'm being too presumptuous here.

Tell us why you needed the clarification, Dan?

One additional point I should make (extending on what Davidf said), is that many Theists would view their indoctrinating of children as being consistent with my description of 'education'.

This is not so.

In the context of a six-year-old:

'Religious education' is objectively teaching children what religion is; the different kinds of religions; and their different beliefs. Teaching children about religion is important because religion is a very big part of our world, and so they need to be aware of it and the effects it has/had – both the good effects on societies and individuals, and the devastating.

'Religious indoctrination', on the other hand, is exploiting the naïvety of children and abusing their absolute trust, faith and belief in their parents every word, by telling them that the one religion they just happened to be born into pure chance, is the one and only true religion – even when the parents can't possibly know this. Really, really believing something, is not the same as knowing it – no matter how convinced someone is of their beliefs.

Abusing a child's trust and labeling them with the religion they were born into, before they've even had the chance to make-up their own mind, is wrong. A child is no more a Christian than they are a member of a political party. If someone were to go around describing their child as a "Marxist child", or a "Republican child", we'd look at them as though they were mad. Yet this same mad behaviour is excused when it's done in a religious context. I suspect this is just a leftover from the old-days when religious belief was widely assumed to be the absolute truth – and by 'truth', I mean a fact that has been verified, not this flimsy, tenuousness and adulterated take on truth known as 'Religious Truth'.

There are countless examples of the 'appeal to emotion' in regards to the religious indoctrination of children; the most obvious being the instilling of the idea of eternal consequences.

Religious education for children is sensible and necessary.

Religious indoctrination of children is child abuse.