Should indoctrination of a religion be (il)legal?

[jonatas]

Now you're just using personal connotations....

Only the second suggests what you're saying. Although indoctrination can imply what you say, you're missing my point.

pb2000 i swear to god i knew you would quote the dictionary, really!! too predictable.... i know how to speak the English language and i know what connotations i was referring to... actually, i'm not missing your point, i expanded upon your comment which i felt was incomplete.... i simply don't agree with you

I will fully admit that people normally use "indoctrination" with negative connotations and "education" with positive connotations. This simple fact is meaningless, however, as whether it is one or the other is perspectiuve; no more, no less. For some, teaching their children to believe in God, etc., is education. Others would say that they are indoctrinatining.

i have the suspicion that your claims are not as all encompassing as you might think... you are from the beginning defining the terms of the argument and i do not agree with your basic definition of the problem... the dictionary definitions of the words are not that important and extended conversation over them can become merely weak rhetoric... i was simply pointing out that the way you seem to be describing the problem is not the way i would describe it..... i don't care if there are exactly 100 million possible different beliefs or ideas on education, i believe they can be classified and qualified, and i will choose some over others because i believe they are better... i am not concerned if someone in particular disagrees with me, i am saying one option can be better than another

Now you're simply imposing your own value system.

as are you... the problem is yours does not satisfy me

This is no different than a parent who teaches their child to follow their religion. Like it or not, you have faith of one kind or another. Faith in Science, faith in your senses, faith in your memory, what have you. Just because Science is the widely accepted doctrine of the modern Western world doesn't make it more real/truthful than Christianity was when it was the widely accepted doctrine of the Western world.

now you are missing the point... it's obvious that humans, living in society, by nature must have a code of behaviour... there are probably overarching and fundamental "beliefs" or standards which can apply to everyone in our society, ie. you shouldn't commit incest or abuse minors, and then going from these we can diversify into greater and further variations, some of which are not necessarily prescribed in law, but can be prescribed by a religion... ultimately i am of the opinion that the state is more important than religion in certain matters.... which i believe can be qualified

quite frankly someone can be of the opinion that they can murder anyone they want just for sadistic pleasure, that may be what someone comes to believe or decide.. this is an extreme example but obviously there are limits to human behaviour within society... as i mentioned earlier in this thread, i don't have a problem with religions which are fully integrated within society... the problem arises with extremism... i am aware that religious fanatics or cult members can violently disagree and claim i am intolerant, but quite frankly, i will be intolerant of intolerance and extremism... to give a more relevant example, if some crazy cult wants to keep their children from going to school and interacting with the outside world, therefore home schooling them, and practices mind control and brain washing techniques, which do indeed exist, and seriously harm the children psychologically for example, and manipulate them, then i say such a cult is unhealthy and the parents imposing such control over a child are out of line... i don't care if they disagree with me... that is my opinion, and the fact that i have an opinion or believe something, which classifies the diverse world around me, has never been a problem for me.... i am not a zen buddhist or a taoist, and am not concerned with leaving off from condemning something i strongly disagree with... and i would be careful of assuming that your definition of freedom and the right to it, or anything else for that matter, is the same as mine and that the two can be easily compared

to quote Jabba the Hut, "your jedi mind tricks won't work on me"

 

[punkbass2000]

pb2000 i swear to god i knew you would quote the dictionary, really!! too predictable.... i know how to speak the English language and i know what connotations i was referring to... actually, i'm not missing your point, i expanded upon your comment which i felt was incomplete.... i simply don't agree with you

Well, whether or not "education" and "indoctrination" isn't too important anyway. I'll drop the point.

i have the suspicion that your claims are not as all encompassing as you might think... you are from the beginning defining the terms of the argument and i do not agree with your basic definition of the problem... the dictionary definitions of the words are not that important and extended conversation over them can become merely weak rhetoric... i was simply pointing out that the way you seem to be describing the problem is not the way i would describe it..... i don't care if there are exactly 100 million possible different beliefs or ideas on education, i believe they can be classified and qualified, and i will choose some over others because i believe they are better... i am not concerned if someone in particular disagrees with me, i am saying one option can be better than another

Well, it's not that I don't think you shouldn't have opinions, etc. It's just that I'm not sure how you can believe that your feelings on the subject and your ranking system is the best. IF you feel that way, then I should think you'd want to be able to teach your children whatever you want, regardless of what the state teaches. Perhaps it is lucky that you agree with modern society?

as are you... the problem is yours does not satisfy me

Mine is not aimed to satisfy myself or anyone else. It is to demonstrate that we cannot disallow parents from teaching their children what they believe and nor can we advocate an educational system designed to sway children from that belief.

now you are missing the point... it's obvious that humans, living in society, by nature must have a code of behaviour... there are probably overarching and fundamental "beliefs" or standards which can apply to everyone in our society, ie. you shouldn't commit incest or abuse minors, and then going from these we can diversify into greater and further variations, some of which are not necessarily prescribed in law, but can be prescribed by a religion... ultimately i am of the opinion that the state is more important than religion in certain matters.... which i believe can be qualified

Well yes, but now you're discussing another matter altogether. We can have a codified set of beliefs for our society, that could be construed as part of Hobbes' social contract. However, I believe this should include a parent's right to teach their children what they believe and to not have to worry that the education system is going to try to instill the current fads into them.

quite frankly someone can be of the opinion that they can murder anyone they want just for sadistic pleasure, that may be what someone comes to believe or decide.. this is an extreme example but obviously there are limits to human behaviour within society... as i mentioned earlier in this thread, i don't have a problem with religions which are fully integrated within society... the problem arises with extremism... i am aware that religious fanatics or cult members can violently disagree and claim i am intolerant, but quite frankly, i will be intolerant of intolerance and extremism... to give a more relevant example, if some crazy cult wants to keep their children from going to school and interacting with the outside world, therefore home schooling them, and practices mind control and brain washing techniques, which do indeed exist, and seriously harm the children psychologically for example, and manipulate them, then i say such a cult is unhealthy and the parents imposing such control over a child are out of line... i don't care if they disagree with me... that is my opinion, and the fact that i have an opinion or believe something, which classifies the diverse world around me, has never been a problem for me.... i am not a zen buddhist or a taoist, and am not concerned with leaving off from condemning something i strongly disagree with... and i would be careful of assuming that your definition of freedom and the right to it, or anything else for that matter, is the same as mine and that the two can be easily compared

But how do you define "brainwashing"? Again, I think you're simply using negative terms for the same thing. What you call "brainwashing" might be legitimate to another. What you consider to be "legitimate education" may well be "brainwashing" to another. And what is harm? How do you define and quantify who is being harmed? Humanity has never seen such emotional and psychological pandemics as it has in the most recent centuries. Suicides, depressions, random violent crimes that were never before seen on such a grand scale, and barely even known. Tibet, for example, knew nothing of crime, suicide and drugs fifty years ago, when Tenzin Gyatso was growing up. Today, though occurrences are rare, they are beginning to crop as its society becomes "modernized". Just because we believe things are great, by and large" in the Western world using quantified statistics of qualititive things? Is it better to live 80 years today, or 30 years in primitive times? Who can say? Not you or I, I don't believe.

to quote Jabba the Hut, "your jedi mind tricks won't work on me"

I am not trying to deceive. There is nothing to see here. Agree with me and let us pass

*waves hand in a myriad of incomprehensible ways

 

[plarq]

good argument,but parents influence(on religion or society values) on children is unstoppable,I'm afraid.But better if parents give children free decision on their minds.

 

[Yom]

People want to raise their children well by teaching them how not to make the mistakes the parents made. Although some few crazy people might teach their children falsehoods and might manipulate them, these people are a minority. Moreover, mandatory education through secondary school is a requirement to mitigate the effects of such crazy people. Children spend more time at school than they do with their parents (or at most an equal amount), usually, so we can teach children the right thing.

 

[jonatas]

Well, it's not that I don't think you shouldn't have opinions, etc. It's just that I'm not sure how you can believe that your feelings on the subject and your ranking system is the best. IF you feel that way, then I should think you'd want to be able to teach your children whatever you want, regardless of what the state teaches.

why would it be logical to assume that i would then want to teach my children whatever i want, regardless of what the state teaches? also, there's a problem with your characterization of my opinion as being "mine", which will i point out below.... regardless, the dichotomy and possible conflict between state and religion only comes into play in extreme cases... as i have said all along, a healthy, fully adjusted religion is fine and will not conflict with the state in the same way an extreme religious group would... furthermore, it would be somewhat inaccurate to assume that it's all about the parents choice, especially, as always, in extreme cases which i have to cite to illustrate my point since you seem to not acknowledge any limits on anything in your statements... if a parent decides to sell their child as a prostitute, they will go to jail.... clearly parents have responsibility and are not Gods with unlimited power and choice to do whatever they want... more on this in a bit

Perhaps it is lucky that you agree with modern society?

as opposed to what? perhaps you don't fully understand my position.... i confess to finding the above statement rather cryptic... if anything, i would suspect you of cultural relativism, for assuming that the definition of freedom you seem to be implying is monolithic and the basis of modern society, when in fact there are more than one definition and i would associate the one you're using with the anglo-concept of freedom, as opposed to the french which probably describes mine better... more on this in a bit

just that I'm not sure how you can believe that your feelings on the subject and your ranking system is the best."

then....

Mine is not aimed to satisfy myself or anyone else. It is to demonstrate that we cannot disallow parents from teaching their children what they believe

nor can we advocate an educational system designed to sway children from that belief.

but you are clearly advocating your own ranking system, which you seem to be implying is then better and more profound... so stop trying to naively take the high road and i think you missed the sense of what i was saying when i said it doesn't satisfy me.... whether you intend to satisfy or not is irrelevant..... again you are conflating education with religion as if they are two words with exactly the same meaning.... i have to start from the beginning again to get at what i mean... "we" can indeed disallow parents from children in obvious cases of abuse... parents, legally speaking, cannot murder or abuse their children without paying for it... the problem with your statement is that you are not admitting that parents can do any wrong

nor can we advocate an educational system designed to sway children from that belief.

this is a distortion of what i am saying... the principle i am advocating is not some evil bogeyman to take away your children in the night... i could counter by saying, what if we are talking about an extreme religion or cult which prevents children by definition from going to public school, because that religion believes contact with non members is evil and that science is the devil's work? furthermore, we are talking about the state, religion and parenting... religions form social groups which can define the beliefs of members much like society as a whole can, so all those negative things society as a whole can do, religion can too.... for example, what if some crazy cult with a guru like figure isolates its members from their friends and families and takes their money and wants them to committ suicide... what if its members are parents, who then begin to "indoctrinate" their children.... it's the same principle, extreme forms of isolation and ideology can become dangerous

Well yes, but now you're discussing another matter altogether. We can have a codified set of beliefs for our society, that could be construed as part of Hobbes' social contract.

actually, i'm getting at the heart of the matter, which you seem to have missed at the beginning by implying i wasn't aware that humans by nature in society need to have a general belief system

However, I believe this should include a parent's right to teach their children what they believe and to not have to worry that the education system is going to try to instill the current fads into them.

and i believe that it should include the child's right not to be coerced by their parents or religious group, if it is an extreme one which actively isolates from society at large and limits the child's right to become a healthy member of society and choose their own destiny

i have said this before in these forums, but i will repeat it again.... the American and anglo concept of freedom fundamentally protects the rights of groups.... French laicism protects the rights of individuals from groups

as far as i can tell, your general statements on rights and freedom seem to conform with the anglo concept, although you focus on the rights of parenting, whereas the concept itself focuses on the rights of religious groups..... however french laicism emphasizes the rights of children over the rights of a religious group which would prevent the child, through indoctrination, from fully assimilating into society

But how do you define "brainwashing"? Again, I think you're simply using negative terms for the same thing.

but this is ironic, because you seem to be interpreting my statements in a generally negative, skeptical manner... which btw is a good thing... why is it good to use "positive" terms if they are inaccurate and do not describe what i am getting at?

What you call "brainwashing" might be legitimate to another. What you consider to be "legitimate education" may well be "brainwashing" to another. And what is harm? How do you define and quantify who is being harmed?

as i have said all along, this is to be defined by the nature of the social group the religion creates... if we are taking about crazy extremists, who isolate themselves in a little bubble world from society and even their own family, perhaps severely manipulate the finances of their members, practice quack medicine, center in around cult leaders who sexually abuse/manipulate their members or generally promote actions which are indeed "illegal" as defined by law, want them to committ suicided, then it is easy.... there are also grey areas which are admittedly harder to classify, but which involve social coercion and psychological abuse/control and isolation of members....

Humanity has never seen such emotional and psychological pandemics as it has in the most recent centuries. Suicides, depressions, random violent crimes that were never before seen on such a grand scale, and barely even known. Tibet, for example, knew nothing of crime, suicide and drugs fifty years ago, when Tenzin Gyatso was growing up. Today, though occurrences are rare, they are beginning to crop as its society becomes "modernized". Just because we believe things are great, by and large" in the Western world using quantified statistics of qualititive things? Is it better to live 80 years today, or 30 years in primitive times? Who can say? Not you or I, I don't believe.

sorry, but you're not going to catch me agreeing to some romantic revisionism human nature is to always decry the present state of things and modernization can indeed bring problems... but this doesn't really apply to the points i have set out... and you do seem to be trying to say something by asking a rhetorical question

 

[jonatas]

Although some few crazy people might teach their children falsehoods and might manipulate them, these people are a minority. Moreover, mandatory education through secondary school is a requirement to mitigate the effects of such crazy people.

this is the point i have been making....

 

[punkbass2000]

why would it be logical to assume that i would then want to teach my children whatever i want, regardless of what the state teaches? also, there's a problem with your characterization of my opinion as being "mine", which will i point out below.... regardless, the dichotomy and possible conflict between state and religion only comes into play in extreme cases... as i have said all along, a healthy, fully adjusted religion is fine and will not conflict with the state in the same way an extreme religious group would... furthermore, it would be somewhat inaccurate to assume that it's all about the parents choice, especially, as always, in extreme cases which i have to cite to illustrate my point since you seem to not acknowledge any limits on anything in your statements... if a parent decides to sell their child as a prostitute, they will go to jail.... clearly parents have responsibility and are not Gods with unlimited power and choice to do whatever they want... more on this in a bit

The real conflict here is how we go about deciding which religions are "healthy" and "full adjusted". And I'm not saying that parents can do whatever they want with children, that's something else completely. A more appropriate analogy would be to teach your children that prositution is not immoral.

as opposed to what? perhaps you don't fully understand my position.... i confess to finding the above statement rather cryptic... if anything, i would suspect you of cultural relativism, for assuming that the definition of freedom you seem to be implying is monolithic and the basis of modern society, when in fact there are more than one definition and i would associate the one you're using with the anglo-concept of freedom, as opposed to the french which probably describes mine better... more on this in a bit

I don't really believe in freedom at all, and my concepts of rights are relative at best.

then....


but you are clearly advocating your own ranking system, which you seem to be implying is then better and more profound...

Ah, I think here is where some of discord appears. That I do not advocate one thing does not necessitate that I advocate its opposite. I don't believe my way is better nor more profound.

so stop trying to naively take the high road and i think you missed the sense of what i was saying when i said it doesn't satisfy me.... whether you intend to satisfy or not is irrelevant..... again you are conflating education with religion as if they are two words with exactly the same meaning.... i have to start from the beginning again to get at what i mean... "we" can indeed disallow parents from children in obvious cases of abuse... parents, legally speaking, cannot murder or abuse their children without paying for it... the problem with your statement is that you are not admitting that parents can do any wrong

Again, you're bringing physical acts into the picture. Also, I think what we're discussing is generally more abstract than what you make it out to be. As I said, we can agree to a codified set of behaviour that is deemed as appropriate for our society. Currently our liberties primarily stem rom 1st generation rights. We cannot prevent parents from teaching their children what they believe, and to circumvent them by having schools teach them not to believe their parent (even if that only includes not believing their parents necessarily) is underhanded.

this is a distortion of what i am saying... the principle i am advocating is not some evil bogeyman to take away your children in the night... i could counter by saying, what if we are talking about an extreme religion or cult which prevents children by definition from going to public school, because that religion believes contact with non members is evil and that science is the devil's work? furthermore, we are talking about the state, religion and parenting... religions form social groups which can define the beliefs of members much like society as a whole can, so all those negative things society as a whole can do, religion can too.... for example, what if some crazy cult with a guru like figure isolates its members from their friends and families and takes their money and wants them to committ suicide... what if its members are parents, who then begin to "indoctrinate" their children.... it's the same principle, extreme forms of isolation and ideology can become dangerous

I don't see how I'm distorting what you're saying. You characterization fo my point as being "some evil bogeyman to take away your children in the night" clearly indicates an extreme position of the idea. As to what is and is not "dangerous", well, that again points to a system of absolute right and wrong.

actually, i'm getting at the heart of the matter, which you seem to have missed at the beginning by implying i wasn't aware that humans by nature in society need to have a general belief system

Well, perhaps you're getting to the heart of the matter for you, but do recall that it was you who first began responding to me. In your previous post you took issue with my defining the terms. Since I am the making my point I am free to define the terms as they apply to my case. You may have another point altogether, I'm just not certain that it inherently contradicts what I mean.

and i believe that it should include the child's right not to be coerced by their parents or religious group, if it is an extreme one which actively isolates from society at large and limits the child's right to become a healthy member of society and choose their own destiny

But you admit a child must be influenced by someone. I can't see any reason why you would think someone other than the parent would be the one to have this right. What do you mean "choose their destiny"? How you do you determine when someone has chosen their destiny? Your entire argument appears circular at this point. You're constantly speaking as though there are accurate, absolute ways to determine such things as who is "healthy" and who "chooses their own destiny". What people fall into these categories? I would say anyone chooses their destiny based on their experiences et al. In today's society you might say someone who grows up to be a CEO of a major company "chose their own destiny". But is not true that wealth is advocated as a prime incentive/motivation for youth today? Is there anything to say these motivators are better than those of "extreme" religions? Anything other than yourself and other people, that is?

i have said this before in these forums, but i will repeat it again.... the American and anglo concept of freedom fundamentally protects the rights of groups.... French laicism protects the rights of individuals from groups

as far as i can tell, your general statements on rights and freedom seem to conform with the anglo concept, although you focus on the rights of parenting, whereas the concept itself focuses on the rights of religious groups..... however french laicism emphasizes the rights of children over the rights of a religious group which would prevent the child, through indoctrination, from fully assimilating into society

This presumes that the state knows better, however.

but this is ironic, because you seem to be interpreting my statements in a generally negative, skeptical manner... which btw is a good thing... why is it good to use "positive" terms if they are inaccurate and do not describe what i am getting at? [q/quote]

It's the simple fact that you're using a negative term. It's the fact that you're judging the action. You are approaching the central problems of language. To speak of anything suggests its opposite. When I tell you something is "cold", you must contrast what I'm saying with the term "hot". When we speak of one, however, it seems common for people to act as though the other is disregarded. WE speak of the positive, we leave out the negative. When speak of the negative, we leave out the positive. We cannot speak both at once, so we are forever confined to dance around the issue and only hint as best we can. When you say someone "brainwashed" someone, it is implied that they have forced that person to learn something negative. Yet all children and all people are completely brainwashed. It is unavoidable. WE can only know so much nd our judgement is clouded.

as i have said all along, this is to be defined by the nature of the social group the religion creates... if we are taking about crazy extremists, who isolate themselves in a little bubble world from society and even their own family, perhaps severely manipulate the finances of their members, practice quack medicine, center in around cult leaders who sexually abuse/manipulate their members or generally promote actions which are indeed "illegal" as defined by law, want them to committ suicided, then it is easy.... there are also grey areas which are admittedly harder to classify, but which involve social coercion and psychological abuse/control and isolation of members....

I believe you qualify this situation as "easy" because, for you, these are acts that are absolutely wrong. You must remeber that these are simply contemporary human values that state that such things are clearly wrong. How can you know that suicide will not make your salvation? You simply cannot.

sorry, but you're not going to catch me agreeing to some romantic revisionism human nature is to always decry the present state of things and modernization can indeed bring problems... but this doesn't really apply to the points i have set out... and you do seem to be trying to say something by asking a rhetorical question

I don't believe human nature is always to decry the present state of things. Qutie the opposite. I think it is only recent history that suggests this, and that furthers my point. I think it applies more than you appreciate. You seem to start with the presumption that yours and society's values are "good". There is no particular reason to believe this. I could argue that you've been brainwashed by the spectacle of modern society.

 

[jonatas]

The real conflict here is how we go about deciding which religions are "healthy" and "full adjusted". And I'm not saying that parents can do whatever they want with children, that's something else completely.

i know you're not saying that, but the question of what extent parents have the right to teach or do to their children absolutely anything they want has extreme limits, which are not broached by the majority, but if they were crossed could have negative consequences imo

Ah, I think here is where some of discord appears. That I do not advocate one thing does not necessitate that I advocate its opposite. I don't believe my way is better nor more profound.

but you were expressing an opinion, which apparently differed from mine

Again, you're bringing physical acts into the picture. Also, I think what we're discussing is generally more abstract than what you make it out to be. As I said, we can agree to a codified set of behaviour that is deemed as appropriate for our society. Currently our liberties primarily stem rom 1st generation rights. We cannot prevent parents from teaching their children what they believe, and to circumvent them by having schools teach them not to believe their parent (even if that only includes not believing their parents necessarily) is underhanded.

physical acts and the nature and dynamics of how social groups work have to be brought into the picture imo, otherwise it's not really a relevant question to begin with.... perhaps what is being discussed in general on this thread is more abstract than i what i have focused on, but an attempt to eradicate religion as a whole from society would be absurd anyway and unnecessary, therefore i limit myself to extreme groups where i could imagine damage being done... for that matter, it could be any sort of relationship where someone can coerce someone else

Well, perhaps you're getting to the heart of the matter for you, but do recall that it was you who first began responding to me. In your previous post you took issue with my defining the terms. Since I am the making my point I am free to define the terms as they apply to my case. You may have another point altogether, I'm just not certain that it inherently contradicts what I mean.

well i don't know whether it contradicts what you mean either, because it seems we are talking about different things... i am trying to focus on an area which is less abstract, as you said, from perhaps the general intent of the question

But you admit a child must be influenced by someone. I can't see any reason why you would think someone other than the parent would be the one to have this right. What do you mean "choose their destiny"? How you do you determine when someone has chosen their destiny? Your entire argument appears circular at this point. You're constantly speaking as though there are accurate, absolute ways to determine such things as who is "healthy" and who "chooses their own destiny". What people fall into these categories? I would say anyone chooses their destiny based on their experiences et al. In today's society you might say someone who grows up to be a CEO of a major company "chose their own destiny". But is not true that wealth is advocated as a prime incentive/motivation for youth today? Is there anything to say these motivators are better than those of "extreme" religions? Anything other than yourself and other people, that is?

yes, and to state the obvious, of course parents play the key role in raising their children... i'm not saying parents don't have that right, i'm saying that if you ask should religion be indoctrinated or not in chidren by parents, while on the whole i don't think there's a problem, i could envision a situation where indoctrination of an ideology, religious or otherwise, could have undesirable consequences

This presumes that the state knows better, however.

i think that could be an oversimplification to simply leave it at that... it's a different concept of religion's role in society and the role of the state.. the problem is it keeps getting caught caught up with parenting in this discussion... it would be more relevant perhaps to say the end result of this type of thinking is that religion should be kept out of school completely

It's the simple fact that you're using a negative term. It's the fact that you're judging the action. You are approaching the central problems of language. To speak of anything suggests its opposite. When I tell you something is "cold", you must contrast what I'm saying with the term "hot". When we speak of one, however, it seems common for people to act as though the other is disregarded. WE speak of the positive, we leave out the negative. When speak of the negative, we leave out the positive. We cannot speak both at once, so we are forever confined to dance around the issue and only hint as best we can. When you say someone "brainwashed" someone, it is implied that they have forced that person to learn something negative. Yet all children and all people are completely brainwashed. It is unavoidable. WE can only know so much nd our judgement is clouded.

yes, i am using a negative term because i judge the thing i am talking about to be negative... perhaps "brainwashing" is too offensive/negative or inaccurate of a term to use... however i would argue that there can be various kinds of indoctrination, depending on what attitudes and principles are being indoctrined, because they can lead to different consequences... some of which may be more desirable than others, depending upon perspective

I believe you qualify this situation as "easy" because, for you, these are acts that are absolutely wrong. You must remeber that these are simply contemporary human values that state that such things are clearly wrong. How can you know that suicide will not make your salvation? You simply cannot.

in our society, some acts are considered undesirable and criminal or borderline criminal... i'm only throwing these acts out as examples because they could probably be used as indicators of extremism gone too far by our society's standards, and therefore undesirable... perhaps as you've said, i'm not as interested in some of the more abstract notions of this debate

I don't believe human nature is always to decry the present state of things. Qutie the opposite. I think it is only recent history that suggests this, and that furthers my point.

well, i can understand the point you were making to some extent, but i don't think i can accept it as the whole story

You seem to start with the presumption that yours and society's values are "good". There is no particular reason to believe this. I could argue that you've been brainwashed by the spectacle of modern society.

what would qualify as a "particular reason" for you? you apparently must have an opinion as well..... and yes, i have argued from a standpoint which i favour.. i'm human

 

[punkbass2000]

Well, I don't think we really disagree outside of a much larger issue. Yes, people in a society most conform to the rules of said society. It is, however, IMO, explicitly for the benefit of said society, and not due to anything being wrong per se. Right and wrong are abstract terms with no meaning. We can conclude that society makes its own laws and enforces them. Whether they are inhereently right or wrong in the methodology is for each new generation to decide and change. Sometimes it is peaceful, often it is violent, but regardless humanity's ethics change with the wind. Perhaps this whole debate could have been avoided if I had termed the secular education as "dogmatic" rather than "religious"?

"you apparently must have an opinion as well"

Why?

 

[jonatas]

Well, I don't think we really disagree outside of a much larger issue. Yes, people in a society most conform to the rules of said society. It is, however, IMO, explicitly for the benefit of said society, and not due to anything being wrong per se. Right and wrong are abstract terms with no meaning. We can conclude that society makes its own laws and enforces them. Whether they are inhereently right or wrong in the methodology is for each new generation to decide and change. Sometimes it is peaceful, often it is violent, but regardless humanity's ethics change with the wind.

well, i don't think that contradicts anything i said.... my whole point has been that extremism can have undesirable consequences.. i don't know whether i came off as trying to say those consequences were based on the "absolute" nature of what was being indoctrinated, but i don't think that was my intention... oh and i assumed that you had a differing opinion because apparently we were disagreeing, but that is up for debate now i suppose

 

[Syterion]

This is a false question. You will be indoctrinated with some thing as a child, if its not religion, then it will be some thing non-religious (like atheism, its the religion thats not! acts like a religion, smells like a religion, looks like a religion, but its stated point it to not be a religion, thats just the type of religion its not ) or simply a political viewpoint in place of religion (I.E tolerationism or communism, or whatever)

One way or another short of keeping children out of human contact, there gonna get indoctrinated by something.

If you make laws against "indoctrination" it simply means your making laws against viewpoints you don't like, in favor of veiwpoints you do (or are neutral towards) in the end the child will still be indoctrinated by someone, somewhere.

Children are being indoctrinated right now via the public school system in most nations, thats why any sane religious person will homeschool there children, no reason spend hours a day teaching your children your religion, only to have them go to school and be taught that all religions are equal, or that religion has no bearing on politics or science or similar crap for twice as long.

You know, I really agree with you. Surprising, really.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

blechhhh... i'm not from your country and highly question the the validity of your ever present and rather suspiciously consistent claim to "freedom of religion", also your dichotomy of parents/government is a flawed "canard", and furthermore i think you already know what i think about your ideas

RE the italicized portion of this comment... Huh? You don't believe the US has freedom of religion? Not to put too fine a point on it but, are you stupid or something? Pick up a history book, nimrod, and quit wasting our time. I feel like I've been robbed of five minutes of my life just having to read and respond to this stupidity.Moderator Action: warned, falming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Support the emboldened text.

I know well that you let your opinion of my ideas in other topics affect your perception of me personally, which inspires your frequent ad hominem tirades, and that that perception of me taints your view of anything I say on any topic at all, so yes, I expected little different of you than to turn a jaundiced eye on anything I'd choose to say about anything at all. I comfort myself in the knowledge that a man can have no greater honor than the misapprobation of weak minds.