Dear George.

You wrote: "So I agree that a particular worldview should not be taught as something all students should follow, but why not make such a subject available, like a foreign language, it there is sufficient parental interest?"

Public schools have no business using class time for indoctrination even if parents want the schools to indoctrinate. If parents want their child indoctrinated into some belief system they should send their child to a school dedicated for that purpose, teach them themselves or send them to classes devoted to that subject.

You keep making false equations. Teaching a foreign language is a legitimate subject for a public school. Learning Spanish does not bring with it a belief system. It is a very poor analogy to compare learning a foreign language to religious indoctrination. It is a better analogy to compare indoctrination in Marxism, Nazism or astrology to religious indoctrination. Regardless of parental demand none of the types of indoctrination mentioned in the previous sentence have any place in a public school.

Dear david f,

>>Public schools have no business using class time for indoctrination even if parents want the schools to indoctrinate. <<

You are right, this is a tautology: If you describe a subject pejoratively then of course you would not want the school to offer it. Some people assign all sort of pejorative terms to some forms of sexual education and then naturally demand that (their or even all) children be not exposed to them.

This is certainly not the case in Germany as I mentioned before. It is not (mainly) Muslim parents who demand that Islam be taught also at schools to counterbalance what they are getting at some Mosques but some politicians (e.g. the Greens), mostly atheists themselves.

You are right, we have to differ on this, so we better leave it at that.

AJ Philips,

You are right “anti-theism” was my invention to satisfy those on this OLO who were unhappy about how the Communists used the word “atheism”.

“Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold. … Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism [in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. CUP, 2007”] entirely in terms of belief. For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God.” (https://archive.is/E7cAe).

So Martin calls positive/negative what you call strong/weak. Probably I should have used “positive (or strong) atheism” instead of "ani-theism” to describe the "asserted disbelief in God" presented to us by the teachers.

Dear George,

It is not pejorative to describe teaching religion as something one must follow as indoctrination. it is an accurate designation, and there is nothing pejorative about it. It is defensive to call something pejorative when it is not pejorative.

Dear david f,

I do not know of a teacher - of RE or other subject - who would describe his teaching as indoctrination. Hence my reference to pejorative when applied to ALL forms of RE.

Indoctrination in my dictionary is “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically”. Indeed, there are many things that a child has to be taught into by accepting it first uncritically (English or foreign language grammar, history, classics of literature, even some parts of science) until it develops the skill to evaluate critically (where necessary) the knowledge he/she acquired as a child. Some people never do, and so uncritically accept (or “critically” reject} things they learned as children but failed to understand at a level appropriate to an adult age and education. However, in practice the term “indoctrination” is usually not applied to other subjects only to RE by those who disapprove of any form of it. Sorry, I am repeating myself.

>>It is defensive to call something pejorative when it is not pejorative.<<

Maybe so. Since your English is better than mine you know better than I whether or not a word is meant to be pejorative. However, it is equally defensive to reserve the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself.

I think whether we like it or not, we (at least here in Europe) are advancing (also thanks to the impact of Islam) into what the atheist philosopher Jürgen Habermas (http://www.signandsight.com/features/1714.html) calls “post-secular society”. Away from a society that accepts only one worldview orientation - be it Christian (as in Europe’s Christendom stages) or non-religion/secularist (as gradually developed after 1968) - alternative orientations mostly tolerated as being of lesser value for the society.

Dear George,

You wrote: "Maybe so. Since your English is better than mine you know better than I whether or not a word is meant to be pejorative. However, it is equally defensive to reserve the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself."

Who reserved the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself."

I certainly didn't reserve the words “indoctrination” and “uncritical” to an introduction of children ONLY to a worldview (shared e.g. by a number of scientists) that one cannot identify with oneself."

Please don't put words in my mouth and then argue with something I haven't said. I called putting forth religious views that one is supposed to accept indoctrination. I never maintained there are not other forms of indoctrination. That was you putting words in my mouth and even capitalising the 'only' that I didn't say. Whether parents want it or not or whether it is done in Germany or not putting forth religious views that one is supposed to accept is indoctrination. It is not the ONLY form of indoctrination.

Dear George,

I should like to repeat my post of Wednesday, 27 July 2016 9:05:11 AM.

I see no difference between a Marxist state pushing atheism on students in a school and Queensland public schools having classes in which students are told they should believe in a particular religion.

I have no objection to students being told about the belief systems, history and actions concerning a religion or being told about those who have rejected religion without advocating either course.

The first paragraph describes indoctrination. The second describes education.

A school should educate not indoctrinate.

Is that clear? I am against indoctrination by the public schools of any worldview - yours, mine or that of someone else.