should we reconsider early indoctrination?

[fkizz]

Indoctrination since children time is hardly only a religious exclusive area. It keeps happening today, and will keep happening in the future.

[Inhuman One]

Sadly it is, unless we start castrating the ignorant who refuse to show any respect to any viewpoint thats not their own.
These people have kids, and they raise them ignorant, thus the cycle continues.

The good news is that with all the media around, I do think that the number of ignorant idiots is declining over the years because information is easily found on any topic, allowing even kids of ignorant people to open up more and see there is more to the world than the opinions of their parents.

Just look at the progress that has been made already in this century. Even the USA has legalised gay marriage, has a black president now, and a woman currently has a strong chance to become president. That was all quite unthinkable 20 years ago.

[Muizer]

Indoctrination since children time is hardly only a religious exclusive area. It keeps happening today, and will keep happening in the future.

That's no reason not to try to mitigate its effects. If indoctrination is setting people up to become a source of conflict for themselves and/or others, then IMHO it is fair to denounce it as immoral behaviour.

[bigdaddy1204]

I think this is a simple question that can be answered simply: it depends on what the kid is being indoctrinated with. If they're being taught to love each other, do acts of kindness, work hard and speak the truth, then that's great. If they're being taught to smoke, fight, drink, take drugs, form dysfunctional relationships, bully and abuse others, then obviously that's not good.

I think parenting is hugely important, and it's the one area where there are no standards, no requirements, no regulations. This is clearly madness. Some parents are clearly unfit to bring up children. No doubt we've all seen them. Mothers smoking over their own children, dragging them down the street, swearing and shouting, ignoring the child or else screaming at the top of their lungs. This is no way to behave. These people should not be in charge of a young person's life. How do you think that 3 year old child is going to turn out, with a scabby mother smoking over him and shouting "in hell move" and pulling violently at the child's arm while the child cries? It's a disgrace. It shouldn't be allowed.

[snuggans]

hmm, a couple of replies in this thread are conflating religion with morality or parenting. my OP was strictly referring to religion in the theological sense as well as the involvement of the child in religious rites, rites which of course have been part of religious tradition for ages and some could be part of scripture itself, which really serves to bring up complications when trying to reduce the practice of early indoctrination since it could inherently be a characteristic that is promoted by the religion, so in some ways early indoctrination is baked into the religion

i believe this would be one of the key areas that would be subject to reform, when it comes to modernization and secularization of religion overall

you will see that parents withholding medical treatment for their child has at various times clashed with modern law, parents have used religion as a legal defense in the courts

[fkizz]

That's no reason not to try to mitigate its effects. If indoctrination is setting people up to become a source of conflict for themselves and/or others, then IMHO it is fair to denounce it as immoral behaviour.

Then you would risk losing Secularism. It only exists because you and several other generations were indoctrinated into Secularism being the greatest (or more tolerant/progressive/whatever word that is interpreted as good) form of society. Replace secularism with X or Y, and re-read the sentence.

Then see the deja vus.

hmm, a couple of replies in this thread are conflating religion with morality or parenting. my OP was strictly referring to religion in the theological sense as well as the involvement of the child in religious rites, rites which of course have been part of religious tradition for ages and some could be part of scripture itself, which really serves to bring up complications when trying to reduce the practice of early indoctrination since it could inherently be a characteristic that is promoted by the religion, so in some ways early indoctrination is baked into the religion

That would require Big Government intervention in separating bonds of parents from their children, and encouraging mistrust between them.
Recurrent danger sign, historically.

[snuggans]

That would require Big Government intervention in separating bonds of parents from their children, and encouraging mistrust between them.

what would?

[fkizz]

what would?

What other outside party would have power to separate religious or parents with "wrong ideology" from teaching their children their beliefs? Government.

Happened a lot in the XX century.

[StarDreamer]

Indoctrinating children is abuse, but I wouldn't deny parents the right. I would however stop religious institutions from indoctrinating children.

[Muizer]

Then you would risk losing Secularism. It only exists because you and several other generations were indoctrinated into Secularism being the greatest (or more tolerant/progressive/whatever word that is interpreted as good) form of society. Replace secularism with X or Y, and re-read the sentence.

You'd have to be a nihilist to think that argument has merit. I know I'm not one.

[sumskilz]

You'd have to be a nihilist to think that argument has merit. I know I'm not one.

Nihilists! me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

[chriscase]

Isn't it every parents dream for their child to become a doctor?

[fkizz]

Isn't it every parents dream for their child to become a doctor?

This. We need to get a lesson from message of movie "Society of Dead Poets" and ban all parents who demand good grades from their kids, such indoctrinating bigots. How dare they indoctrinate their kids into being very studious people.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

sarcasm obviously

You'd have to be a nihilist to think that argument has merit. I know I'm not one.

Following Sumskilz post, there's nothing nihilistic in what I said. I just made it more abstract by making notice you could replace the word secularism with anything else while keeping structure of sentence.

Abstraction =/= Nihilism.

[Muizer]

Following Sumskilz post there's nothing nihilistic in what I said. I just made it more abstract by making notice you could replace the word secularism with anything else while keeping structure of sentence.

Firstly, that doesn't sound like a quote from the Big Lebowski at all. Secondly, rest assured my nihilism comment did not concern your grammar.

[Col. Tartleton]

Clearly what we are discussing is the always important battle between the collective and the individual.

It is easy to imagine an education system where all children are put through the same curriculum and these public schools are mandatory for all children.

It is also easy to imagine an education system where all education is individually crafted at a home school level with no oversight.

All real education systems are a compromise between these two extremes. The compromise between the needs of the state and the needs of the parent to influence the child's development. Both extremes have clear advantages and disadvantages. Therefore we must strive to compromise them so that we maximize advantage and minimize disadvantages. We want the largest number of people positively influenced and the fewest number of people negatively influenced. Centralization offers a possible 100% success rate, but it also offers a 100% fail rate. It will be a linear result somewhere between them, effecting all people involved. Home schooling on the other hand, being anarchic provides are range of results which should reflect a bell curve. Some students are very negatively influenced, some are very positively influenced and most are somewhere in between.

[Frostwulf]

Sadly it is, unless we start castrating the ignorant who refuse to show any respect to any viewpoint thats not their own.
These people have kids, and they raise them ignorant, thus the cycle continues.

The good news is that with all the media around, I do think that the number of ignorant idiots is declining over the years because information is easily found on any topic, allowing even kids of ignorant people to open up more and see there is more to the world than the opinions of their parents.

Yes they are obviously ignorant idiots, because they don't have your viewpoint.

Just look at the progress that has been made already in this century. Even the USA has legalised gay marriage, has a black president now, and a woman currently has a strong chance to become president. That was all quite unthinkable 20 years ago.

Of course it's progress, because it's your viewpoint, not that of the ignorant idiots who don't show any respect to your viewpoint.


I'm not meaning to pick on you Inhuman, but this is the problem with people in general. Same with snuggans who seems like the "multicultural" type, that is if it agrees with his viewpoint. Religion can be dangerous, but so can any mind set in any form of thought. I don't have time to complete this, hopefully at another time.

[DaniCatBurger]

I think it is better to learn skills than solutions.

So, it is all about the individual and the mind needs to be freed, radical without compromise in that intelligible sense.

If one is approaching the question as one of collectives and of a system, one might be willing for whatever reason to suppress the Pink Floyd challenge, yet. Collectives act and they repeat their acts systematically. They do not learn much.

The individual needs to learn, for the learner and the learning won't be substitutable instances.

[DaniCatBurger]

... double post ...
... please delete ...

[Inhuman One]

Yes they are obviously ignorant idiots, because they don't have your viewpoint.
Of course it's progress, because it's your viewpoint, not that of the ignorant idiots who don't show any respect to your viewpoint.


I'm not meaning to pick on you Inhuman, but this is the problem with people in general. Same with snuggans who seems like the "multicultural" type, that is if it agrees with his viewpoint. Religion can be dangerous, but so can any mind set in any form of thought. I don't have time to complete this, hopefully at another time.

Perhaps I didnt make my point clear though, let me explain what I percieve as this ignorance.

It's all about allowing your children to choose. If I had children and they for some reason would want to be christian, I wouldnt agree with it but I'd respect that choice. Forcing your beliefs on someone is never good, but your own children wont have much defence against that.
Of course you want to impart on them what you think is right and wrong, but no matter your viewpoint, it should be up for debate. Let your children know WHY you believe as you do, and then they can decide for themselves if they agree with that or not.
Teach them to think for themselves otherwise they will be likely to end up being just a puppet for their future boss, future spouse, a political leader, a teacher, etc.

[DaniCatBurger]

I need to bring my old argument back that substitutes the word religion (a set of habits and explanations of habits) with the word food (a natural necessity).

Why should a kid decide whether it wants spinach or elephant Ravioli with cream sauce, when there are spinach and fried egg on the table?

Eat your spinach, later you can read that book about raw and cooked food that offers halfway plausible (rational) arguments for why you having been asked to eat spinach as kid by your parents was ok.

And no, this is no contradiction to my later argument, that it was better to learn skills (practical concepts) than solutions (case specific applications).

Compare:

Other examples for necessary forms of "early indoctrination" than your mothers' dining table
- learning the handling of the file during a mechanical apprenticeship
- learning a basic vocabulary of a new language that you intend to use actively
- learning the Didgeridoo

Therefore, this is an argument in favour of the possibility of "early indoctrinations as a condition of, that it was better to learn skills than solutions" depending on the case and the matter. I do not want to deny that it can be better to run away or to reflect on the ability of the Neanderthalian in side us in many other cases but learning is known to be a special case for over 6000 years and studies on chimpanzee and other apes than us seem to support that this has been so even for much longer.