It’s no secret that religion indocrinates its worshipers at a young age because of their gullibility and willingness to believe elders/parents. Dawkins speculated (I agree) that without indocrination of children, religion wouldn’t be able to spread and would probably die out. I use probably because I don’t have his book handy, so I’m hedging. I think it would certainly die out as we know it.
So is it acceptable to let religious leaders indocrinate children even with the parent’s blessing, or does that violate their rights?
Indoctrinating religion as opposed to other beliefs and values?
And even if we are to accept that some parents indoctrinate their children (after agreeing as to what indoctrination means), what is the alternative? Who has the better claim as to what a child should be exposed to?
I don’t agree at all. I’ve noticed that people have a tendency to question their beliefs especially if their parents raised them with a certain set of values. Its not child abuse though that’s just sensationalism.
Children believe in Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc. There’s an evolutionary reason why they believe what they’re told without question. It would be hard to convince adults of a tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny, though (harder). There’s a reason why the religious want to get to the children, and it’s not just so male virgins in robes can have sex. [okay, low blow but not untrue]
What makes teaching a child religious beliefs and customs different than teaching a child non-religious beliefs and customs (e.g. it is proper to respect first-come-first-serve when a queue forms)? Is there something inherently wrong with religious belief and tradition, other than the fact that you personally refute them, and is it wrong enough that teaching it to children should be considered abuse?
And who has a better claim as to what doctrines a child should and should not be exposed to than the parents? You? The community? Richard Dawkins?
(I’ll throw in an extra question, which is why should it be our aim to see religion die out?)
EDIT: I should say that, yes, even in an anarchist society, it is possible that those doctrines considered harmful to society (preaches that murder is good, God demands us to set things on fire, property should not be respected…etc.) may be ‘outlawed’, with violent or non-violent action. I don’t think the liberal/libertarian can condone outlawing it violently, however.
Well, first off I didn’t read anywhere where Razerfish said he supported the idea, he was just asking a question. Secondly, I think parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they want. Doesn’t mean I have to approve of their message. While Dawkins is a raging liberal, I don’t believe he supports the view you are saying. Dawkins is trying to raise consciousness about the dangers of religious fundamental indoctrination. It’s like giving a kid too many Snickers bars; it may be irresponsible, but not worthy of the government to extract the child from the living area.
It depends on how bad the indoctrination is. If it’s like those Mormon cults in Texas, the children are being violated and there’s no question about it.
When did razer ever propose introducing the state to (fix) the issue? His concern seems to be solely over whether its consistent with libertarian principles to indoctrinate children, to which I think Green gave a suitable answer to. Ideally we’d wish to avoid indoctrinating children over anything, but in the practical aspect of things we’re bound to indoctrinate children over certain things. The three r’s of learning for the most part fall into this category. Two plus two is four. Why this is doesn’t need to be explored too deeply with a child. Violence isn’t the solution to our problems. ect. ect. If indoctrination is acceptable here, then I can’t find a libertarian reason to oppose it (although I am sure it might be inconsistent with other lifestyle choices).
I would say that its perfectly acceptable to allow children be indoctrinated into religion, or libertarianism for those hasty about using religion as an example, by their parents or their parents consent; so long as the children themselves are not physically forced to adopt a certain view of things under the threat of maltreatment (e.g. “..finish reading Human Action or no dinner!”).
Exactly what “right” is being violated? If teaching your children your own beliefs is a violation of some unknown civil right, then who among us is qualified to judge what qualifies as indoctrination? You tread extremely dangerous ground, since the only obvious answer-- and I am VERY sure Dawkins would agree with this-- is to have the state make the teaching of religion illegal in one’s own household. Of all the religious nuts out there, none are more dangerous than an evangelical atheist!
Questioning where we came from and what if anything lies beyond death is part of being human. What made early man so unlike us was not simply the size of his brain and shape of his skull, it was his lack of an imagination-- and part of that is imagining an afterlife. The evidence can be found in observing the species of primitive humans that buried their dead. A certain degree of spirituality is what makes us human. Even if one judges a religion, or even all religion, to be false, that conclusion was brought about after considering all possibilities in one’s own mind, and two rational people will never come to the exact same conclusion-- that is, unless the state forces its own uniformity of thought on everyone.
Just because someone might have a grudge against their Creator, or against organized religion (or just an unshakeable belief in their own self- righteousness) does not give anyone the right to police another person’s lawful activity in his own house. The belief that there can be only one set of values and that all others are wrong or sinful is why many are driven away from religion in the first place. In the interest of freedom, it is far better to have competing ideas, religions, and values for the individual to choose from, and to raise their children without any interference from Dr. Dawkins.
Religious indoctrination is nowhere near as deadly as statist indoctrination. It’s just an unfortunate fact that the Church has been so “corporatized” over the years that statist inclinations have inflitrated religious teachings.
There is no such right to the “truth only” or “no indoctrination”, so children’s rights are not violated (unless someone proves me wrong). But. Of course, indoctrination in general is considered bad. I personally see State’s indoctrination much worse than religious one, even though they are not very mutually exclusive.
But then again, no one’s rights are violated, so the only solution is by raising awareness of such acts and teaching people the methodology of critical thinking.
Probably without religious indoctrination religion would die out… but the same could be said about statism. If there were no public schools and various State granted monopolies, the belief in the necessity of the State would also die out.
Parents don’t have rights. The concept of rights is nonsense. It’s a statist scheme.
The only way people have rights is if a state can enforce it. For instance, if a parent was quadriplegic – could the parent use someone else’s help (like a policeman) to force a child to get to the church/mosque/temple? If the answer is no, then the parent doesn’t have the right.
I think it can be child abuse in that within certain ceremonies there are things which in some other context would be child abuse. For instance, Opus Dei self-beating, or the Coptic church’s cutting women’s genitals off, or pentacostals handling snakes, or Rabbis who suck the blood out a freshly cut penis and give the child hepatitis. In many parts of the world, children are forced into political things through the religion, too. For instance, to hate Jews or to strap bombs to their chests.
I think Christian rock music, for children and adults, is a form of noise pollution.
As for indoctrination… I’m not sure I understand why parents tell their children about tooth fairies, santa, or any of that stuff. It seems to be a mindfuck. But if those things are comparable to religion, why don’t parents eventually tell the children the truth about religion, too?
Teaching your children your religion/spirituality isn’t indoctrination, it’s carrying on a set of values, beliefs, and cultural aspects. Most religions have a family/community aspect to them, so it would make sense to raise your child in it. I don’t see a child’s rights being violated by carrying on a tradition. (On that note; I was raised Christian, and rid myself of it, when I have my children I plan on teaching them about Norse heathenry.)
Parents don’t have rights. The concept of rights is nonsense. It’s a statist scheme.
Correct, they have might. And the very nature of a parent child relation is the fact that parents have might over the child. Being that every action is an act of force, anything could be seen as child abuse, as the child is rather helpless in the situation (by definiton).
Fortunatly we have context, perspective, and custom tied to one’s decision making process in the environment they deal with; it is when you start talking about theororetical people and situations, or people you have little or nothing to do with, or have little power over other than some form of the intellectual (that is the ability to state an idea without bearing a significant amount of the responsability for said idea) a revolutionary attitude takes place and there is nothing but greif from people who do have to bear the world of one’s somewhat whimsical thoughts.
If a suicide bomer is trying to bomb you or something within your actual realm of power (that which you do bear a significant amount of accountability on), simply and 100% for no other reason than because of his God, or if you really honestly have to calculate that option in your day to day affairs, worry about it; than it becomes real.
As for indoctrination…I don’t know why political theorists tell their followers about boogey men, dragons to slay, suicide bombers, and religion. It seems to be a mindfuck.