Disgusting Example of Indoctrination

[Jackalope]

How would society, now, view someone who had indoctrinated their kids to think that Lord of the Rings is real, and to base their real life decisions on that text and the characters?

I'm pretty sure in such a case, child services is going to make sure the children aren't being abused or neglected, and the parents will be judged fit or not.

The question is this: who decides, in this new secular orthodoxy?

Personally, I'm unwilling to cede that kind of parental decision making to the state. That necessarily means that I have to tolerate other people doing things I don't agree with, including teaching their children what I consider to be weapons grade bullshit.

[robvalue]

I have no idea who decides

I'm not proposing trying to make it happen, I'm just speculating about what future societies might be like. In a very, very long time.

I'm imagining a society where it's virtually unheard of to ever indoctrinate your child. So if a child turns up at school and starts talking about demons, ghosts, human sacrifices, eternal damnation and so on... it would become very clear that their parents would have been filling their head with it. This could warrant investigation. In such a hypothetical society, doing this would mean the parents were either insane, or extremely ignorant of the well-known harm caused by such indoctrination.

We just currently treat religion as if it's not insane, as a matter of policy, when it clearly is.

Again, this is all just my imaginary future. All I actually propose is trying to promote education and rational thought; and to let society do the rest, and to move in what are hopefully good directions.

[Pat Mustard]

There may come a time in the future when it does become illegal, but only because society has moved on enough to realize how damaging it is. I agree it would never work to just announce it to be illegal. It has to be a learning process by everyone.

It was only recently that "marital rape" became a thing.

So... who gets to decide what religions are acceptable to be taught, or the ways in which they are to be taught, to children, if not... their parents? A government panel? Any such suggestion strikes me as beyond creepy, in an Orwellian sort of way.

You should look up the Irish education system some day, of the eight years children have at primary level, nearly two (half an hour every school day, and at least a month each before first communion and confirmation. Not to mention all the preparation for christmas and easter every year) are taken up with religious instruction, by the fact that a) all schools have to have a religious ethos, b) over 97% of primary schools have a religious patron (mostly the rcc bishop) who, despite not having put a penny into the construction nor maintenance nor salary costs, gets exclusive say on how that religious ethos is carried out, and c) department of education guidelines mandating the half hour a day religious instruction (not education where students get a general idea of all religions, but instruction where they are taught about why one religion is right and everything else is wrong). The situation is not quite as bad at secondary level, but you still get at least two hours a week religious instruction over five/six (depending on if you do transition year or repeat the leaving) years of your teens.

Having gone through the Irish education system, trust me, schools should be the last place religion is allowed into. If people are worried about moral formation, then a civics class is more than adequate and far more adequate than a religion class. If parents want their children brought up religious, let them teach the children about religion themselves outside school hours or petition their priest/imam/pastor/rabbi for some form of Sunday school when religious observances happen.

[abaris]

I'm imagining a society where it's virtually unheard of to ever indoctrinate your child. So if a child turns up at school and starts talking about demons, ghosts, human sacrifices, eternal damnation and so on... it would become very clear that their parents would have been filling their head with it. This could warrant investigation. In such a hypothetical society, doing this would mean the parents were either insane, or extremely ignorant of the well-known harm caused by such indoctrination.

Everyone indoctrinates their children in one way or the other. It's called upbringing. You can't help teaching what you consider to be values to your offspring. I was lucky enough to be taught secular values, but it's probably as hard for me to deviate from that as it is for a religious person to deviate from their faith.

[robvalue]

I don't agree. Indoctrinating is teaching uncritically. What is everyone taught uncritically? What do you think I would teach to a child, for example, without welcoming questions and providing suitable justification?

Of course, there's the "danger rules" that need to be taught in advance for practical reasons. But they can be explained later.

If you're taking about moral values, then sure, you are appealing to empathy most of the time. That's how morality works. You're encouraging people to think, essentially. Indoctrination is encouraging people not to think, and just plying people with "facts".

[robvalue]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm genuinely interested in what I might unwittingly indoctrinate a child with. I'm using indoctrinate to mean teach uncritically; if someone thinks it is no different from teaching critically, then we're not talking about the same thing.

Of course, some answers will be, "That is the convention". There's no good reason we use the letters and numbers we do, it's just useful that we all use the same. But I can be honest about this being arbitrary, and it happens to be the one prevalent in our area. They are free to learn about other ones, and to use them if they want, but I'll explain it's easiest to use what everyone else does most of the time.

As for morality, I would try and help them develop it themselves. Of course, anti-social behaviour needs stopping. But I'll be fully explaining why that behaviour is inappropriate. If they somehow don't have a sense of empathy to appeal to, I'd get specialist help with raising them. If they are being stubborn about any particular point, I'd have to simply explain the consequences of their actions and why I am doing them. Ultimately, I'd be explaining the pragmatic approach to behaviour in lieu of empathy, if theirs hasn't properly developed at that point. But I'd always welcome questions. I'd like to think I'd never just say, "Because I said so", about anything. Of course, while I'm responsible for their care, I will be making certain decisions on their behalf, even if they disagree with them. That is for their protection as a child, for reasons they will come to understand later even if they don't at the time.

I'd share my opinion about morality, and encourage them to find theirs. I wouldn't simply tell them I am right. I'd encourage them to check for themselves, where possible and practical, anything I am teaching them.

I'd encourage them to think. That's the most important part. I'd help them work out how to tell the difference between reality and fantasy. If religious parents do this at all, it would have to be after the religious indoctrination has finished, and isn't retroactively applied to it.

[Mudhammam]

You should look up the Irish education system some day, of the eight years children have at primary level, nearly two (half an hour every school day, and at least a month each before first communion and confirmation. Not to mention all the preparation for christmas and easter every year) are taken up with religious instruction, by the fact that a) all schools have to have a religious ethos, b) over 97% of primary schools have a religious patron (mostly the rcc bishop) who, despite not having put a penny into the construction nor maintenance nor salary costs, gets exclusive say on how that religious ethos is carried out, and c) department of education guidelines mandating the half hour a day religious instruction (not education where students get a general idea of all religions, but instruction where they are taught about why one religion is right and everything else is wrong). The situation is not quite as bad at secondary level, but you still get at least two hours a week religious instruction over five/six (depending on if you do transition year or repeat the leaving) years of your teens.

Having gone through the Irish education system, trust me, schools should be the last place religion is allowed into. If people are worried about moral formation, then a civics class is more than adequate and far more adequate than a religion class. If parents want their children brought up religious, let them teach the children about religion themselves outside school hours or petition their priest/imam/pastor/rabbi for some form of Sunday school when religious observances happen.

I wasn't raised Irish, but I was indoctrinated in all of the ways that rob shows concern over, and I sympathize with those concerns. A LOT of the people I went to Christian school with are fucked up in my view, when it comes to thinking critically about their own religion, including to some extent my brother, but the funny thing is, they wouldn't see it that way, and many of them are probably extremely happy to have been brought up in that bubble. And at the same time, in terms of thinking critically, I'm not so sure most people who come out of our public school system are on average more introspective. Perhaps thinking critically and being indoctrinated are not mutually exclusive.

[Pat Mustard]

Perhaps thinking critically and being indoctrinated are not mutually exclusive.

They are. Indoctrination is simply the process of eliminating inquisitive, critical thought in order that an extremely unlikely and badly formed ideology can be imbibed by the subject without being rejected as being too implausible or flat out contradictory to reality. It would not be indoctrination otherwise.

[drfuzzy]

I was raised to believe every word that guys Ken Ham say.  It took education and some big life changes to break the indoctrination, and it took way too long.  It's a form of child abuse.

[robvalue]

I was raised to believe every word that guys Ken Ham say.  It took education and some big life changes to break the indoctrination, and it took way too long.  It's a form of child abuse.

I agree, although some people object to the term "abuse" if it wasn't the intent.

I'd say it can easily be as harmful as things we would consider child abuse, even if there was no ill intent. It's through ignorance that people don't know the damage they are causing. This is of course little consolation to those who have been through it. I hope for a world, one day, where this ignorance is greatly reduced.

So again, education is the key. The world is probably not ready for people to stand up and say "religious indoctrination can be harmful" to parents. The reaction would be hysterical, at least in some countries. Hopefully one day it will be ready.