| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2011 05:41:17 PM · #1351 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The point of being a Christian is having a relationship with Jesus Christ. The only thing that is "in it" for Christians is that relationship. |
So if you died and didn't get into heaven, would you be disappointed? - Or if you arrived at the pearly gates and there was mohammed asking you why you never opened your heart to him, how would you feel? (After all, you fulfilled your destiny as a Christian by having a relationship with Jesus, that's all you wanted, right?) |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 06:03:48 PM · #1352 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for the sake of argument, I'd venture the thesis that the "truest believer" is one who has examined his beliefs critically and found them sufficient. Johnny's version of the True Believer, one who never questions, is, to my way of thinking, a simpleton. Something jesus assuredly was not, for HE questioned the established beliefs at length, did He not?
R. |
I agree. You don't become a true believer without "counting the cost" as the Bible says. Every true believer was a skeptic/doubter at one point. I'm not trying to argue that a true believer is one who never sought answers to their questions, or even that a true believer is one who never has the occasional question now. I'm arguing that someone who doubts their faith to the point of turning from it completely is not a true believer.
Everyone should examine his/her beliefs critically. But if you do so and conclude that you're beliefs are sufficient only to turn from them later on, then I guess they weren't sufficient after all. How can you call yourself a true believer if you question the sufficiency of your beliefs? If you conclude that your beliefs really are sufficient, then you shouldn't feel the need to question them anymore.
You don't jump into marriage and then question whether that spouse was right for you after tying the knot. If you do, then you'll spend your whole life questioning if that spouse really is sufficient for you. Instead, you should ask all the questions before you get married so that you can enter into the marriage fully convinced that your spouse is the right one for you.
Do the same with your faith. I'm not suggesting that you never ask any questions at all. I'm suggesting that if you play it smart you should have most of your questions answered before you make your commitment. Then, the questions that come up later will refine your beliefs rather than cause you to doubt whether your initial decision was the right one. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 06:37:18 PM · #1353 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just for the sake of argument, I'd venture the thesis that the "truest believer" is one who has examined his beliefs critically and found them sufficient. Johnny's version of the True Believer, one who never questions, is, to my way of thinking, a simpleton. Something jesus assuredly was not, for HE questioned the established beliefs at length, did He not?
R. |
I agree. You don't become a true believer without "counting the cost" as the Bible says. |
You know, Johnny, it's interesting: a lot of the time you come up with these statements that seem outrageously absolute and unreasoned, but when we probe a little deeper it becomes clear your position isn't as extreme as it sounds.
I wish you could manage to convey that at the outset, instead of making folks jump all over you and try to shout you down :-)
In the present instance, we've established a middle ground that at least makes reasonable sense in a religious context, and i thank you for that.
R. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 06:52:09 PM · #1354 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm suggesting that if you play it smart you should have most of your questions answered before you make your commitment. Then, the questions that come up later will refine your beliefs rather than cause you to doubt whether your initial decision was the right one. |
In the case of religion, the opposite takes place. Churches rely upon early indoctrination so the commitment is made before people are really capable of questioning irrational premises. If honest examination was encouraged or even allowed, churches would instead target university students capable of critical thought. However the strong negative correlation between education level and religious belief suggests that approach would be a losing proposition... |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 07:21:33 PM · #1355 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You know, Johnny, it's interesting: a lot of the time you come up with these statements that seem outrageously absolute and unreasoned, but when we probe a little deeper it becomes clear your position isn't as extreme as it sounds.
I wish you could manage to convey that at the outset, instead of making folks jump all over you and try to shout you down :-)
In the present instance, we've established a middle ground that at least makes reasonable sense in a religious context, and i thank you for that.
R. |
Well Bear, I'm glad that some of you folks are willing to give me the benefit of the doubt and probe my beliefs a little bit before throwing me out to the curb (which some here seem to enjoy doing quite often). I think that part of the problem is that I'm an evangelical Christian and, let's face it, there a lot of presuppositions about evangelical Christianity. I probably use a lot of familiar sounding evangelical "lingo" that brings some of these presuppositions to mind. Unfortunately, a lot of the presuppositions that are out there are the sorts of things that are portrayed in the media. I'll admit that I have many presuppositions about all sorts of things that probably just aren't true simply because the media has influenced me to think that way. Most evangelical Christians are "reasonable" people, it's just that the reasonable ones aren't interesting enough to be seen/heard on the radio, TV, or in the newspapers. Please don't take this as me being judgmental of all critics of Christianity. There are a lot of critics that have reasonable criticisms. Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks out there who criticism reasonable Christians just because they hear them say something that sounds awfully familiar to something "extreme" that they heard in the media. I think that we're all guilty of that to some extent in this country simply due to the nature of the media.
The other part of it, as you said, is my failure at times to convey my thoughts/positions clearly.
I appreciate your comments Bear :) |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 07:31:28 PM · #1356 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
In the case of religion, the opposite takes place. Churches rely upon early indoctrination so the commitment is made before people are really capable of questioning irrational premises. If honest examination was encouraged or even allowed, churches would instead target university students capable of critical thought. However the strong negative correlation between education level and religious belief suggests that approach would be a losing proposition... |
What churches are you talking about? If those are the kinds of churches you've been around then I can understand why you would be turned away from Christianity. All of the churches I've attended/visited stressed the need for personal acceptance of doctrine. Honest examination is encouraged in evangelical churches. In the vast majority of evangelical churches, a person cannot be baptized until they are old enough to understand doctrine and articulate their beliefs, nor can a person become a church member unless they have been baptized and willingly professed their faith publicly. Perhaps you were oblivious to it, but church do target university students capable of critical thought. Have you not heard of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship or Campus Crusade for Christ? Those two organizations are at college campuses all over the United States.
You appear to have no clue what you're talking about. Churches relying on early indoctrination? Really? Maybe the minority of churches. Churches don't target college students? Really? Maybe in Europe, but not in the USA. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 08:39:11 PM · #1357 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Honest examination is encouraged in evangelical churches. |
Riiiight... like your immediate dismissal of Crossan, one of the world's top scholars on the "historical Jesus" appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to study the subject, just because he found that the factual history doesn't match your personal belief.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Perhaps you were oblivious to it, but church do target university students capable of critical thought. |
I'm well aware that they do, and equally aware that targeting people who understand reason and critical thought has always been a losing proposition for religion. "Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between one’s religious belief and intelligence/education level, all but 4 showed an inverse correlation. That is, the higher the education/intelligence level, the less one is likely to be religious or ‘hold’ any beliefs of any kind."
On the other hand, indoctrination works quite well. "Cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner has shown that there is an essential difference between the unschooled mind which picks up certain things without formal training and the mature, schooled mind. The unschooled mind acquires sensorimotor and interpersonal skills, language – and stories. The human mind is naturally inclined to think in anthropomorphic terms. A child is more prone to explain the behaviour of dots on a computer screen through intentions and beliefs than through the workings of a computer program. Hence religions are easily taught from age 3 onwards, [whereas complex theories like classical physics (let alone relativity and quantum physics) and evolutionary theory can only be taught once the mind achieves the ability to abstract thought in adolescence], and it is very difficult for humans to let go of stories that have been inculcated by the authority figures we depend on as children."
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
You appear to have no clue what you're talking about. Churches relying on early indoctrination? Really? Maybe the minority of churches. |
Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist... Rather than just claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, how about you try to name one that doesn't. Good luck. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 09:22:44 PM · #1358 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Honest examination is encouraged in evangelical churches. |
Riiiight... like your immediate dismissal of Crossan, one of the world's top scholars on the "historical Jesus" appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to study the subject, just because he found that the factual history doesn't match your personal belief. |
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. At any rate, I think you're forgetting that there are different schools of biblical studies, much like there are different schools of philosophy, or psychology, or medicine. Crossan is a liberal scholar and just because he had the backing of the Catholic Church does not mean his views represent a large portion of Christianity. The man came up with is own criteria for what constitutes "factual history" and then he removed all parts of the Bible that didn't meet his criteria. How is that good scholarship? I don't reject his views simply because they don't match my views. I reject his views because the vast majority of Christian scholars reject his views.
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm well aware that they do, and equally aware that targeting people who understand reason and critical thought has always been a losing proposition for religion. "Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between one’s religious belief and intelligence/education level, all but 4 showed an inverse correlation. That is, the higher the education/intelligence level, the less one is likely to be religious or ‘hold’ any beliefs of any kind."
On the other hand, indoctrination works quite well. "Cognitive psychologist Howard Gardner has shown that there is an essential difference between the unschooled mind which picks up certain things without formal training and the mature, schooled mind. The unschooled mind acquires sensorimotor and interpersonal skills, language – and stories. The human mind is naturally inclined to think in anthropomorphic terms. A child is more prone to explain the behaviour of dots on a computer screen through intentions and beliefs than through the workings of a computer program. Hence religions are easily taught from age 3 onwards, [whereas complex theories like classical physics (let alone relativity and quantum physics) and evolutionary theory can only be taught once the mind achieves the ability to abstract thought in adolescence], and it is very difficult for humans to let go of stories that have been inculcated by the authority figures we depend on as children." |
First of all. You're a plagiarist. Second of all, your first quote explains your second one. Highly educated people are less likely to be religious. Check. Indoctrination at an early age is very effective. Check. Let's put the two together. Hmm... at what age are children taught evolutionary science? Age ten? Twelve? Does the public school system in the United States teach anything about religion? Uh... not much at all. It seems to me that the method of indoctrination that you're criticizing the church for could very well be the reason why so many folks aren't religious. If the public schools are indoctrinating children with a scientific worldview, is it any wonder that those children would reject a religious worldview when they grow up?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist... Rather than just claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, how about you try to name one that doesn't. Good luck. |
Maybe we're not on the same page. Do churches teach doctrine? Yes. Could you call that "indoctrination?" Yes. However, I'm not really aware of any churches that teach church doctrine to children. Most Sunday School programs teach stories from the Bible, and perhaps very simple biblical principles (e.g., "Jesus loves me"). I'm not really aware of any churches that drill their children with church dogmatics and theology. From my experiences growing up in the Methodist, Lutheran, and Baptist churches, and from spending one year in the Presbyterian church, I can honestly say that the level of church doctrine taught to children pales in comparison to the level of science that is taught to children of the same age. The only way that a child growing up in American would receive more indoctrination from a religious worldview than from a scientific worldview would be if that child was enrolled in a religious school rather than a public school, and that is a very small percentage of American children. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 09:28:09 PM · #1359 |
| Wow. No response necessary... you're doing more damage to your arguments than I could ever hope to. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 11:23:16 PM · #1360 |
| I've said it before, I'll say it again: some people aren't even part of worthwhile discourse. There's no point. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 07:03:13 AM · #1361 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Let's put the two together. Hmm... at what age are children taught evolutionary science? Age ten? Twelve? Does the public school system in the United States teach anything about religion? Uh... not much at all. It seems to me that the method of indoctrination that you're criticizing the church for could very well be the reason why so many folks aren't religious. If the public schools are indoctrinating children with a scientific worldview, is it any wonder that those children would reject a religious worldview when they grow up? |
This is quite a fascinating viewpoint.
It is true that schools are usually required to teach scientifically derived truths in factual priority to religious beliefs. Most education systems are designed to make the children productive and successful in life, and are state sponsored for the benefit of the nation as a whole:
o Should future geomorphologists be taught that the creator of mountains and cause of earthquakes is plate tectonics or "god"?
o Should future researchers into genetic medicine be taught that the structure of man is rooted in evolutionary biology or god's whim?
o Should future brain surgeons be versed in chemical biology and neuroscience, or divinity and the nature of the soul?
I think that the answers are pretty clear.
So should we delay teaching these things until a child is old enough fully to appreciate the philosophy of science and the reasons why its objectivity provides compelling (and sometimes counterintuitive) truths? And should we permit the child to be taught an alternative and conflicting set of arbitrary, non-scientific, and self-serving "facts" in the meantime?
I would genuinely be interested in the answers. Indeed, I'd really like to know if you can stand outside and look in to the debate - can you observe these things from a detached and impersonal perspective and come up with a view on what might be best for the children (and society)?
|
|
|
|
02/28/2011 12:27:13 PM · #1362 |
I just wanted to make a few points here. I'm still only following this conversation peripherally.
* The term "indoctrination" on these threads merely gets used to denote the teaching of something the speaker believes to be untrue without offering alternatives. It's one of those pejorative words like "bigot" that mostly reveals the bias of the speaker rather than the subject.
* If we take the definition that is probably meant, "to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically" we understand that such disciples like mathematics and spelling are indoctrination because that's the best way to teach them to young minds. We can also understand that history and social sciences are going to be rife with indoctrination as well at the elementary level (the years we are speaking about) because the teaching is going to be subject to the biases of the teacher and the kids are not at an age that presenting multiple points of view concerning civil rights or the War of Independece is going to be productive.
* When it comes to teaching morals, what are the alternatives? First, we don't expect or want our public schools to teach morality in this country (and by "we" I think I mean everybody). That leaves it up to parents (as it should be). BUT parents can't wait until their kids are at an appropriate age to critically examine moral choices. You teach your child that it isn't ok to take Caitlyn's toy or to hit Peter. That this is appropriate and acceptable parenting seems so obvious as to be beyond question. It only becomes an issue when the topic is one we disagree with. Parents could, for example, teach their children that all races are equal or that their own race is superior with exactly the same methods. Yet, one might be declared "indoctrination" and the other not even labelled because it's what would be expected.
Anyway, I find it difficult to accept the conversation that says a parent is somehow wrong to pass their views and understanding onto their young children. This is universal and just because one doesn't agree with the view it doesn't make the method suspect.
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 12:29:07. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 12:59:02 PM · #1363 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
* When it comes to teaching morals, what are the alternatives? |
Apparently, that Jesus Christ is the ruler of the cosmos, that to scream "God is Great" just before death secures your place in heaven, or that gays/blacks/whites/non-Westboros aren't adequate enough human beings to enjoy equal civil rights/the afterlife. I think that's the sort of thing that's being referred to as "indoctrination": that which never survives critical analysis in the uninitiated, and which is thrust on the young to ensure critical analysis never happens. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 01:26:17 PM · #1364 |
| "Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned. As such it is used pejoratively, often in the context of political opinions, theology or religious dogma. Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas, a stance outside any doctrine." As used in these threads, the term is entirely accurate. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 04:57:58 PM · #1365 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
* The term "indoctrination" on these threads merely gets used to denote the teaching of something the speaker believes to be untrue without offering alternatives. It's one of those pejorative words like "bigot" that mostly reveals the bias of the speaker rather than the subject. |
Can't say that I agree with you on this one Doc. Perhaps the meaning of certain terminology has changed over the years but the word you refer to in this instance has no negative connotation for me whatsoever as it simply means what one was taught in their environment.
I seem to recall that you had a similar with the word "Ilk" which you viewed as having a negative connotation also. Perhaps I am showing my age, but to me the word was used to describe a group and most certainly was not meant to cast aspersion on anyone.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 05:11:01 PM · #1366 |
Ya, I remember the "ilk" discussion. I think the part of the definition that might give you the general negative feeling is where it says "esp uncritically". But you are right, spelling is taught in a manner of indoctrination.
Note that Louis backed my point up by giving all examples of things he did not agree with. We use the word in that manner when really what is being taught is separate from how it is being taught. Indoctrination refers to the how and not the what. You can indoctrinate someone to believe all races are equal. You can indoctrinate them to believe sharing is good.
So when it distills down, these arguments merely say, "someone is teaching something I do not agree with and I think that is bad". Which is a perfectly natural feeling, but hardly a convincing argument.
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 17:13:36. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 05:25:35 PM · #1367 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Note that Louis backed my point up by giving all examples of things he did not agree with. We use the word in that manner when really what is being taught is separate from how it is being taught. Indoctrination refers to the how and not the what. You can indoctrinate someone to believe all races are equal. You can indoctrinate them to believe sharing is good.
So when it distills down, these arguments merely say, "someone is teaching something I do not agree with and I think that is bad". Which is a perfectly natural feeling, but hardly a convincing argument. |
erm... "indoctrination" has more than one meaning. It can mean instruction or teaching - but it is more commonly used to refer to the uncritical teaching of idealogical concepts.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2011 06:11:20 PM · #1368 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
erm... "indoctrination" has more than one meaning. It can mean instruction or teaching - but it is more commonly used to refer to the uncritical teaching of idealogical concepts. |
I agree Matthew. My point is this meaning doesn't care what is being taught (except that it would qualify as idealogical). That's all.
Johnny: Daddy, Daquan looks different than me, should I be his friend?
Dad: Yes, Johnny, it doesn't matter what Daquan looks like we should be friends with everybody.
As it stands, I would say such a conversation qualified as "indoctrination". It seems like elements in the conversation feel that only the other side participates in such methods when we all do it as parents. In fact, it's the only manner to successfully teach young children. Their brains are not yet wired for abstract thought. So even if you tried to have a conversation where you laid out the arguments for five-year-old Johnny so that he would reach his own conclusion that he should be friends with Daquan, he would either come away confused or with the message "dad says I should be friends".
I'm reminded of a humorous story from residency. I had a friend in my class who was a bit on the granola side, but his wife was waaay out there. Far beyond anything I think you guys would identify with. Anyway, we were at a restaurant with their two-year-old who was sitting on my friend's lap. The tyke proceeded to grab a salt shaker and dump it on Joe's sandwich. Joe instinctively said, "No! Braiden! Don't do that!" at which point his wife flipped out and yelled at him in front of all of us for telling his son "no". He was, in essence, denying Braiden the experience and that was not right. Are you friggin kidding me? Now the example is a bit extreme, but still, it's quite acceptable to "indoctrinate" your son to respect his father's sandwich without leading him along the path of critical thought. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 07:40:24 PM · #1369 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm reminded of a humorous story from residency. I had a friend in my class who was a bit on the granola side, but his wife was waaay out there. Far beyond anything I think you guys would identify with. Anyway, we were at a restaurant with their two-year-old who was sitting on my friend's lap. The tyke proceeded to grab a salt shaker and dump it on Joe's sandwich. Joe instinctively said, "No! Braiden! Don't do that!" at which point his wife flipped out and yelled at him in front of all of us for telling his son "no". He was, in essence, denying Braiden the experience and that was not right. Are you friggin kidding me? Now the example is a bit extreme, but still, it's quite acceptable to "indoctrinate" your son to respect his father's sandwich without leading him along the path of critical thought. |
I fail to see how this is in any way comparable to religious indoctrination and its impact. I doubt Braiden's critical thinking development was retarded due to a lack of salt experiences...
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 19:40:49. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 08:19:46 PM · #1370 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm reminded of a humorous story from residency. I had a friend in my class who was a bit on the granola side, but his wife was waaay out there. Far beyond anything I think you guys would identify with. Anyway, we were at a restaurant with their two-year-old who was sitting on my friend's lap. The tyke proceeded to grab a salt shaker and dump it on Joe's sandwich. Joe instinctively said, "No! Braiden! Don't do that!" at which point his wife flipped out and yelled at him in front of all of us for telling his son "no". He was, in essence, denying Braiden the experience and that was not right. Are you friggin kidding me? Now the example is a bit extreme, but still, it's quite acceptable to "indoctrinate" your son to respect his father's sandwich without leading him along the path of critical thought. |
I fail to see how this is in any way comparable to religious indoctrination and its impact. I doubt Braiden's critical thinking development was retarded due to a lack of salt experiences... |
Well, just because you fail doesn't mean Joe's wife didn't see it. :) The point however, remains. You don't think they are comparable because you don't think the salt experience would lead to any beliefs you disagree with (and thus is no big deal) while the "religious indoctrination" might. Thus you have no problem with the first and a big problem with the second.
The whole indoctrination idea also fails to account for the large number of adults who decide to take on a different worldview than the one they were raised with. Certainly these things we teach in early years are not written in stone and our children (yours and mine) have a choice in the matter. We all employ similar methods and we do the best we know how when trying to raise our kids.
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 20:22:16. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 08:28:51 PM · #1371 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree Matthew. My point is this meaning doesn't care what is being taught (except that it would qualify as idealogical). That's all. |
Well - scientific process is not usually thought of as an ideology. Or uncritical thought (since it inherently embodies critical thinking).
I've spent some time thinking and re-writing this.
I guess that if you disbelieve the evidence and reasoning upon which a scientific conclusion is made (ie you place greater reliance on your intuition than the scientific process) then the teaching of those scientific conclusions might start to look like indoctrination. Its truths might look arbitrary similar to the arbitrary truths found in religion.
There is a pretty big "but" here - for this to be "indoctrination" you would have to disbelieve the validity of the evidence and the process useed to draw conclusions from the evidence. That's a harder claim to make where the evidence is very strong (e.g. evolution).
|
|
|
|
02/28/2011 09:26:15 PM · #1372 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point however, remains. You don't think they are comparable because you don't think the salt experience would lead to any beliefs you disagree with (and thus is no big deal) while the "religious indoctrination" might. Thus you have no problem with the first and a big problem with the second. |
So you're a doctor and a mind reader now? I don't even know what beliefs you're referring to (bolded part). If the father yells at his kid because he believes in ruling with an iron fist then I probably would have a problem with that too.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The whole indoctrination idea also fails to account for the large number of adults who decide to take on a different worldview than the one they were raised with. |
What do you mean by the "whole indoctrination idea"? Nobody is claiming indoctrination is irreversible. If it were we'd still be living in the dark ages and you wouldn't have any opponents in these threads.
Message edited by author 2011-02-28 21:28:42. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 09:59:04 PM · #1373 |
Matthew, don't think I'm antiscience. Obviously that is not the case. But there are large areas or teaching that are beyond the scientific method. Morality for one, but such things as history also fall outside the realm.
So, if you are just objecting to people who are antiscience as a product of their faith, then I'm right there with. This, however is not a prerequisite for a healthy religious life and bringing your children up in the faith while also teaching them critical thinking. |
|
|
|
02/28/2011 11:52:27 PM · #1374 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
erm... "indoctrination" has more than one meaning. It can mean instruction or teaching - but it is more commonly used to refer to the uncritical teaching of idealogical concepts. |
I agree Matthew. My point is this meaning doesn't care what is being taught (except that it would qualify as idealogical). That's all.
Johnny: Daddy, Daquan looks different than me, should I be his friend?
Dad: Yes, Johnny, it doesn't matter what Daquan looks like we should be friends with everybody.
As it stands, I would say such a conversation qualified as "indoctrination". |
It'd only consider that indoctrination if, when Johnny asks "Why not?" the answer is "Because I say so." If you go on to explain why or why not something should or shouldn't be, and alow reasoned questioning of your position, it is not indoctrination as I understand/use the term.
Not that there isn't plenty of indoctrination of one sort or another in the schools ... 
==============
INDOCTRINATION: (n) A country populated entirely by proctologists. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 12:39:02 AM · #1375 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It'd only consider that indoctrination if, when Johnny asks "Why not?" the answer is "Because I say so." If you go on to explain why or why not something should or shouldn't be, and allow reasoned questioning of your position, it is not indoctrination as I understand/use the term. |
Oh sure. That's fine. Every kid gets into the why phase and as parents we can patiently try to explain things to them as we know best. In the end though, given their stage of development, even after all the questioning, the majority of kids, when asked why they should be nice to Daquan, the answer would be, "because my dad said so".
Message edited by author 2011-03-01 00:39:19. |
|
