Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Jjpregler]

Indoctrination does not equate with "brainwashing." First let's look at the most likely form of indoctrination that is likely to rise to the level of brainwashing, cults or the scientific name given for them in the studies - New Religious Movements (NRM for short). At the onset of these NRMs in the 1960's it was believed that their methods to find and keep members was through brainwashing techniques.

Some of these techniques include total isolation from society, including isolation from information; coltrol over diet, hygiene and bodily function; sleep deprivation; sexual abuse or humiliation; exposure to extreme tempratures; and constant repitition of indoctrinating ideas. Along with these repetitive tasks are assinged to dull the senses. Threats of violence or destruction is often used. Finally the person is requested to perform an action that betrays their moral standards.

The above paragraph seems pretty extreme and drastic. However, the scientific community of sociologists and psychologists cannot agree that those behaviors are brainwashing. Benjamin Zablocki and Eileen Barker have argued several times in favor of this treatment being called brainwashing and the rest of the community finds them irresponsible. Those two have a vested interest, because they are "cult deporgrammers." But the rest of the field calls their conclusion irresponsible and in fact cites that instead the methods used for deporgramming rise to the level of brainwashing moreso than the cults tactics.

If the scientific community cannot even agree on these most extreme versions being brainwashing, there is no possible way you can cite a church, which does not even come close in comparison, as brainwashing. Therefore your equating indoctrination with brainwashing fails on an acedemic level and therefore your argument that indoctrination is abuse fails as well.

Furthermore, your being taught by the army about communist brainwashing techniques was probably bunk as well. In 1956 the US Army published a report stating that Chinese brainwashing was a popular misconception. In fact the report states: "exhaustive research of several government agencies failed to reveal even one conclusively documented case of 'brainwashing' of an American prisoner of war in Korea."

Finally, take me for example. I was indoctrinated. I attended Catholic school for 12 years. I was an altar boy. My father was an Extra-ordinary minister in the church. I was a church lector during my high school years. I attended seminary, but left after one semester. I left the catholic church for a non-denominational church. I attended bible College, taught at Sunday school and taught in adult bible studies.

Then when I returned to college to furthe rmy education, I came across a simple thought while writing one day: over the history of man, we have worshipped thousands of gods. So I determined myself to a scholarly research to determine the answer. The result of which is that I concluded that my religion of christianity was most likely copied from the babylonian myths already in existence at the time it developed. If indoctrination was equivelant to brainwashing, would I have been able to so easily reject all of the past teachings? No.

[Ecurb]

Nobody doubts that the teaching of religion often is abusive. What I don't buy is that it's abusive ipso factor.

Why did you try to introduce the idea that I approved of sanctioning religion? Dragging young native Americans from their homes to be taught white mans religion is not exactly using my principle to excuse this abuse. Referring to torture as if I approve of it, sounds like a desperate attempt to prove your point of view, not a reasoned response to my comments. You are pointing to the excesses of religious abuse to counter my argument that religion is abusive? A strange bit of logic.

The logic isn't strange at all:

P1: Teaching children about religion is abusive P2: Chld abuse should be outlawed Conclusion: Teaching children about religion should be outlawed.

The well-meaning government officials who took Indian children away from their homes held a very similar position to yours. They really thought it was a form of abuse for Indian children to be taught Native Religions (instead of Christianity, because Christianity was "correct" and Native religions "incorrect") and Native languages (instead of English). They were convinced that the Indian schools were in the best interests of the children -- and that assimilation was a native child's only hope of succeeding in a modern world. To some extent they were right. However, they failed to value cultural diversity (just like Xris), they overstated the "abusive" nature of a Native Education (just like Xris does), and they ignored the importance of the bond between parents and children (just like Xris does).

As Jj hs pointed out, "brainwashing" is not well defined. He's not the only one who's "converted" to atheism. Europe today is mostly atheistic and agnostic -- yet 100 years ago, and even 50 years ago, it was a mostly Christian continent (except for comunist Russia). How did that happen? Hundreds of millions of Europeans have rejected the teachings of their youth, and fled from the Church in droves. They have rejected their religions just as they have rejected Lamarckism, homeopathy, and the notion that time is a constant.

[Xris]

So we dispense with the term brainwashing, does that help your objections? I do not think so. If you want me to be extreme in my views about religion, so be it. I will be accused of killing the fish even if it was already dead, so lets go for it. Yes I would if I had the power, stop any religous indoctrination before the age of thirteen. A bit like protecting any vulnerable child from exploitation. The parents have rights but we stop them from introducing them to damaging sexual images, from alcohol, drugs. Why not religion, it is not exactly a factual educational process and it can take many extreme paths. If children never encountered this pervasive influence do you honestly believe they would discover the religion of their parents. Born a Muslim, die a Muslim, born a RC, die catholic. The facts, the percentages prove children are indoctrinated by their parents. So now we have to decide if indoctrination is abusive? Most definitely.

[Ecurb]

So we dispense with the term brainwashing, does that help your objections? I do not think so. If you want me to be extreme in my views about religion, so be it. I will be accused of killing the fish even if it was already dead, so lets go for it. Yes I would if I had the power, stop any religous indoctrination before the age of thirteen. A bit like protecting any vulnerable child from exploitation. The parents have rights but we stop them from introducing them to damaging sexual images, from alcohol, drugs. Why not religion, it is not exactly a factual educational process and it can take many extreme paths. If children never encountered this pervasive influence do you honestly believe they would discover the religion of their parents. Born a Muslim, die a Muslim, born a RC, die catholic. The facts, the percentages prove children are indoctrinated by their parents. So now we have to decide if indoctrination is abusive? Most definitely.

Like Stalin, Mao,and the Indian School supporters, Xris believes children should be taught only what all-knowing Xris believes is either accurate or (worse) "good for them". By the same standard, of course, Christians could argue that atheists' children should be removed from THEIR homes, because their parent are educating them to follow the path to perdition. That's the problem with Xris's point of view -- following his own principles (from a slightly different perspective) leads to a result that Xris would deplore.

[Jjpregler]

So now we have to decide if indoctrination is abusive? Most definitely.

Again you jumped right to a conclusion without any supporting evidence. How is indoctrination abuse? Again I will agree it is wrong. I will agree it is better for children to not be indoctrinated. But how does it rise to the level of the definition of child abuse: "severe maltreatment of a child." How is it dangerous to a child? To make that leap you would have to show that anything we teach a child through a process of learning is severe maltreatment. How is it dangerous for a child to learn something that is mistaken? How is it dangerous for a child to attend sunday School, where they sing, read and eat snacks? How is it dangerous for a parent to pray with a child?

This is all where your leap of logic breaks down. In fact, I can't even call it logic, because there's nothing logical about your position. You have yet to offer one valid argument in defense of your thesis.

And you have not answered my question yet: why do you feel the need to categorize this as abuse. What is wrong with just a plain and simple statement that it is wrong? why do you feel the need to have it in a category which it clearly does not fit and which in a way invalidates any valid argument you may have on the wrongfulness of indcotrination. Cant you see that? Sure you may whip a few atheists up in a frenzy with this language, but how is that any different from what chirstianity does? It seems your are more interested in appealing to the emotions of a few weak minded than appeal to the logic of philosophy students, teachers and enthusiasts. Good philosophy appeals to logic, not emotions.

[Jinxy]

There seems to be an ever growing movement to villify religion. I'll readily admit that people within the church have abused their powers for evil or selfish intent. That can never be excused and any church found 'covering up' such behaviour should be held criminally responsible. Plain and simple.

But lets not lump the bad with the good. There are many individual churches around the world that do immense good for individuals and communities. Becoming part of that kind of an organization teaches kindness and love - and demonstrates how to be a benefit to mankind.

For my own purposes, I separate God from religion - I see them as very different things. And if a child is raised to believe that there is a loving 'father' watching over them, caring for them, wanting the best for them - it can be a wonderful confidence boost. Where, I think, people run into the kinds of indoctrination people are criticizing is when God is used as a threat or when religion imposes moral social codes - instead of that individual coming to their own conclusions about what is 'right' and 'wrong'.

If, when I die, I discover nothingness - that there is no God - well, then the joke's on me. But my continued faith makes me a happier person and a more loving part of the community. Without going to church or practising any kind of religion.

[Jjpregler]

It is true, some indoctrination is brainwashing. Brainwashing may be abuse. But there is not evidence or even discussion showing that all indoctrination is abuse. You can always give examples of churches that went wrong, but there is no evidence or valid arguments showing all indoctrination is severe maltreatment.

[Rederic]

For my own purposes, I separate God from religion - I see them as very different things.

That's good, I can see the sense in that. Now all we have to do is separate education from religion.

[Jinxy]

Actually, I'd be happy to see the abolishment of all 'religion'. It has been used since the dawn of civilization to control populations - enough is enough. And, certainly, the influence of religion over education (and government) has been at the root of so many of our problems...when will we learn?

[Bermudj]

...It has been used since the dawn of civilization to control populations - enough is enough. And, certainly, the influence of religion over education (and government) has been at the root of so many of our problems...when will we learn?

Everything is about controlling people. Religious laws are created by groups which are not as accountable as those which create the secular laws, so in that respect the secular laws have some advantage.

[Xris]

...It has been used since the dawn of civilization to control populations - enough is enough. And, certainly, the influence of religion over education (and government) has been at the root of so many of our problems...when will we learn?

Everything is about controlling people. Religious laws are created by groups which are not as accountable as those which create the secular laws, so in that respect the secular laws have some advantage.

Religion has been allowed for centuries to impose its will on us all. It is only recently with the rise of secular power that it has been restricted but it would love to impose its influence on us all. Why do faith schools find the need to educate our children? I am not advocating we outlaw religion but I am requesting we do not permit religous indoctrination till a child has sufficient ability to rationalise. Why tell a three year old that god made everything. That Christ was certainly born in a stable in Jerusalem. No one can even prove Christ lived but our little children by the time they are six are convinced of the Christmas story. They sing hymns praising the angels, thanking god for their daily bread and this is not indoctrination. Not an abuse of power? Physical abuse it may not be but it is abuse.

[Jinxy]

The examples you give (children singing hymns praising angels, thanking God for their daily bread) aren't good ones if you want to convince someone that there is something nefarious or evil going on with the indoctrination of children.

The problem is, of course, that neither the faithful nor the atheists have 'the answer'. There is no proof that there is or is not a God. So I would say that it is equally 'abusive' to teach children that there is no God - if you want to play the odds game...

[Rederic]

The problem is, of course, that neither the faithful nor the atheists have 'the answer'. There is no proof that there is or is not a God. So I would say that it is equally 'abusive' to teach children that there is no God

If children aren't taught about God in the first place, then teaching them that there isn't a God doesn't arise. They don't believe in God naturally, they have to be indoctrinated.

[Jinxy]

I don't mean to be argumentative, Rederic, but what world are you living in? We can argue the 'shoulds' and 'shouldn'ts' all we want, but living in today's society means that children will hear about or be exposed to the notion of 'God' whether or not their parents are doing the teaching.

[Ecurb]

The problem is, of course, that neither the faithful nor the atheists have 'the answer'. There is no proof that there is or is not a God. So I would say that it is equally 'abusive' to teach children that there is no God

If children aren't taught about God in the first place, then teaching them that there isn't a God doesn't arise. They don't believe in God naturally, they have to be indoctrinated.

If children aren't taught about black holes in the first place then they don't believe in black holes. Does that mean we're "indoctrinating" them by teaching them about black holes. Obviously, nobody should teach children to believe things that are untrue. That's why some people here think they shouldn't be taught to believe the Christian religion. That's fair enough. The question is: who gets to determine what is true and what is untrue? Xris? Some science faculty? It's ridiculous.

Public schools (State schools for you, Xris) should teach the accepted scientific canon (even though there are disputes about what this comprises). But parents have a responsibility to teach their children what THEY believe is true. Forbidding Christian parents from teaching their religion to their children is tyranny. IN addition, it demands that parents lie to their children. If a child asks his mother about God, is she (a devout Christian) required to lie, and say, "No, Tommy, there is no God and Jesus did not die for your sins." Requiring parents to lie to their children is surely worse than allowing them to talk about religion. It has a dramatic impact on the trusting relationship between parent and child. Yet that is what some posters here seem to want to do.

Which constitutes "abuse"? Parents telling their children what they believe to be true (even if they are incorrect, as we all are about many things)? Or Xris outlawing such speech and throwing parents in jail for telling their children what they believe to be true? I can see that some people here think the world would be a better place if there was no religion. But how can they be so dogmatic and tyrannical as to want to outlaw the free and honest expression of dearly held ideas within a family home? Are Xris and his supporters going to start burning all Religious texts? Yes! Book-burning is the logical next step on their tyrannical agenda.