opinions on indoctrination

[Dagman]

Children are very easily convinced and have very fragile senses of individuality. They have almost no ability to think critically or abstractly. Those qualities do not come until adolescence or later. Further, immediate family figures such as parents and grandparents are extremely influential in developing a child's opinions and views.

So when you apply this to religion it becomes quite clear that introducing faith to a child's life by the parents and the community you are taking advantage of the child's inability to think critically. This is indoctrination of vulnerable people to accept or think about a certain religion in a certain way. Once they become adults they cannot evaluate it rationally because it has become ingrained as an emotional issue. It has beomce apart of them and who they are, and they can't look at it critically.

Do any of you have opinions on this?

(I don't know if you guys are OK talking about subjects like this. but there is no offense intended.)

 

[al yunan]

(I don't know if you guys are OK talking about subjects like this. but there is no offense intended.)

It all depends who is asking, as for those who are rude to our sisters even asking the time is inappropriate and offensive.
Does your mother know how you speak to women ?

 

[Dagman]

I think you hate me because of who I am. That is sad. Why be a hateful person? I don't hate you.

 

[Riana17]

I think you hate me because of who I am. That is sad. Why be a hateful person? I don't hate you.

well you are not alone brother, he hates me too
u know what, I can be with anyone but not with someone who thinks he is better than others, whos ego is unreachable, proud of something he is lack of

anyway as for your question,

One may not follow any religion and may be happier if children never follow any religion, but that doesn't change the fact that religion is an important aspect of culture, art, politics, and of the lives of many people your children will meet over the years. If children are simply ignorant about religion, they will be missing out on a lot.
Another, and perhaps more serious, problem with ignoring religion lies in how they will react to religion once they are old enough to make their own decisions.

 

[Dagman]

To start with, you are pre-dismissing a religion to be false and building the argument that it is unfair to teach a child this religion based on that assumption.

Whereas, given that the religion is true, it would be unfair to not to teach it to the child. So to begin with, you need to make sure that the relgion you dismiss isn't false.

Secondly, you give children too little credit. They are able to discern right from wrong when presented with the choice.

I never said that any religion was false. My question refers to all religions. And you can't prove that any religion is correct and others aren't. Even if you could, why not just let people make a decision about it when they are able to think critically? The problem as I said is it becomes intertwined with family, community and individuality. The religion becomes a part of who you are. When something is very close to your heart you have a more difficult time critically analyzing it.

Religion is a very complex topic and certainly not something children can think critically about. Particularly when religions often are quite biased towards themselves, for obvious reasons

So I say why not just let them make their own decision once they reach adulthood?

 

[Dagman]

well you are not alone brother, he hates me too
u know what, I can be with anyone but not with someone who thinks he is better than others, whos ego is unreachable, proud of something he is lack of

anyway as for your question,

One may not follow any religion and may be happier if children never follow any religion, but that doesn't change the fact that religion is an important aspect of culture, art, politics, and of the lives of many people your children will meet over the years. If children are simply ignorant about religion, they will be missing out on a lot.

I don't think religion should be part of politics. But yes culture and art you will be exposed to religion. I mean not going mosque or temple or church or shrine or having religious studies.

Another, and perhaps more serious, problem with ignoring religion lies in how they will react to religion once they are old enough to make their own decisions.

Why is that a problem? I don't understand.

 

[Riana17]

Dagman: I don't think religion should be part of politics. But yes culture and art you will be exposed to religion. I mean not going mosque or temple or church or shrine or having religious studies.


Salam
Religion provides us with our values, our sense of what is right &
wrong, desirable and undesirable. Politics is the means by which we
translate our values into public policy and law. How can these two
things be separated?


Dagman: Another, and perhaps more serious, problem with ignoring religion lies in how they will react to religion once they are old enough to make their own decisions.

Why is that a problem? I don't understand


If they are unfamiliar with religious belief systems, then they will be an easy target for evangelists for just about any faith. Your children will simply lack the intellectual tools necessary to fully understand and evaluate what they are hearing, thus making it more likely that they adopt a very bizarre and/or extreme religion.

 

[al yunan]

I think you hate me because of who I am. That is sad. Why be a hateful person? I don't hate you.

I only hate Allah S.W.T's enemies as for you, you give your self importance if you think I care one way or the other.
You where rude to my sister and that's inexcusable that's all, nothing less nothing more.
Are you capable of understanding honour ?
The ball is in your court, serve !

Masalam

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Oh, another (atheist I presume?) troll.

A common tactic they use is to make the presumption of atheism. Pretending that this is some sort of Archimedean (neutral) vantage point to judge all other worldviews, which is an 'odd' to put it mildly assumption to make.

So there are many worldviews in the world? So what? Since there are so many that means they must all be wrong? We can’t discern which one is right or wrong? Or which one is more true than false?

Don't you think you've been 'indoctrinated' in the culture, habits, customs of your society, is that necessarily a bad thing?

So why do a certain type of atheist, secularist and their associated cohorts peddle this supposedly 'reasonable line'? Contrary to the claims of the poster this ties in with the idea that seems very influential amongst the atheists, secularists etc that bringing up your children in your faith is a form of ‘child abuse’.

For instance Dawkins recounts – (This is taken from 'Rage against God' by 'Peter Hitchens')

‘in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicised cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place’.

He then goes on to repeat these allegations stating on British TV

‘What I really object to is – and I think its actually abusive to children – is to take a tiny child and say ‘You are a Christian child or you of a Muslim child’. I think it is wicked if children are told ‘You are a member of such and such a faith group simply because your parents are’

The word ‘abuse’ used here by both Richard Dawkins and my brother is far stronger than it first seems to be. In modern Britain and slightly less so in the USA, an accusation of ‘child abuse’ is devastating to the accused. It is almost universally assumed to be true. Juries, the media, are intently prejudiced against the defendant before any evidence has been heard. To suggest that any person so charged may be innocent is to risk being accused of abuse oneself.. . . . .

Goes on to say

To use the expression ‘child abuse’ in this context – of religious education and teachers – is to equate such education with a universally hated and despised crime. Such language prepares the way for intolerance and quite possibly, legal restrictions on the ability of parents to pass on their faith to their children, just as they are increasingly restricted in disciplining them. If Professor Dawkins genuinely believes what he said to the Dublin audience then he should logically believe that ‘brining the child up Catholic’ should be a criminal offence attracting a long term imprisonment and total public disgrace. If he does not mean this, then what does he means by the use of such wildly inflated language, and what is he trying to achieve by it?

So you see the deceptive game they play as they try to secularise or marginalise faith groups from the public square by stealth or other means. Be wary of it :skeleton:

I have to disagree with sister Riana17 comment about religion and politics, at some level it does have to play a role in the political life of any nation, the question is can it play a positive role or negative role.

To play no role at all is to become irrelevant much like what Christianity has become in the UK. We have to be involved so we can defend our interests.



Edit: - - -

Presumed he was an atheist, I presumed wrong, apologies