Philosophy Discussion Forums

Rederic wrote:

So for a history teacher to teach 6th graders the benefits of democracy is indoctrination

Not if they're taught about other forms of government also.

But quite often in being taught about the other governments, they villify most of the other options.

Jjpregler wrote:

Rederic wrote: Not if they're taught about other forms of government also.

But quite often in being taught about the other governments, they villify most of the other options.

Because all of this is very subjective. If your teacher or lecturer supports one view or another, he/she will stress that view.

Jjpregler wrote:

Belinda wrote:I take your point Bermudj. However schools are subject to legislation regarding methods and curriculums. The American Constitution moreover, doesn't it legislate for separation of church and state and that this be carried into schools?

Yes, but indoctrination occurs in the US schools for a number of other topics. Especially on topics such as capitalism and democracy as just a few. A plain and simple definition of indoctrination is the teaching of a doctrine as better than other choices. So for a history teacher to teach 6th graders the benefits of democracy is indoctrination. So one cannot make a blanket statement that indoctrination is wrong. In some cases a very strong argument can be made for indoctrination actually being necessary.

So one cannot call indoctrination child abuse. Which therefore, makes calling indoctrination of religious ideas child abuse harder, as the only difference then is being indoctrination of an idea that is wrong or that a certain goup of people do not believe the idea. This then would entail that one can argue that indoctrination of democratic society as wrong and therefore child abuse.

Well said Jjpregler, I needed to know this.

Then is the fact that young children perhaps cannot understand how the big moral principles permeate democracy, say, and seldom permeate or even infiltrate capitalism, a reason to indoctrinate and not to educate the child to be autonomous in areas where he is unable to go ? Teaching, indoctrinating, about Gentle Jesus instead of attempting to indoctrinate the ontological proof of the existence of God is an instance of content that is suited to a young child and arguably does no harm. In the case that this is done there are other moral sages similar to Gentle Jesus who should also be indoctrinated to be politically correct. E.g. Good King Wenceslaus, Robin Hood, Santa Claus in his nonjudgemental mood, Dances With Wolves, Gautama Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, Prime Minister Clement Attlee. All of those sages may be taught, as is Gentle Jesus, as exemplars of Do As You Would Be Done By which is a simplified form of The Golden Rule.

Religion is a many headed creature , and there is good reason not to teach morality attached to bad science. In this case, Genesis may be too difficult for young children not to mention too difficult for many adults.But the synoptic Gospels perhaps bowdlerised a little can be suited to the indoctrination of young children.I am of course presuming that The Golden Rule is the moral mainstay and top ethic of our free civilisation.

I am still accepting Jjpregler's advice regarding the benefit of indoctrination.

I submit then that what is sometimes wrong about indoctrination is that it can persuade the child always to respect authority in whatever form the authority presents. Religious and moral fables are okay then as fables, but not to be taught as history which should always have a eye to scientific rectitude however historical evidence is interpreted.

So for a history teacher to teach 6th graders the benefits of democracy is indoctrination.

Indeed. However are sixth graders (I am unfamiliar with American grades as I am unfamiliar with modern UK 'levels') of an age to balance the respective merits of right and left wing, optimistic and pessimistic, interpretations of political stances? This is a difficult enough exercise for many undergraduates.

**************************** To Bermudj: My former opinion about the amount of control that the state has over school curriculums and methods was inaccurate and misinformed. I think that French state schools are state controlled as to methods and curriculums but to what extent I do not know.

what if we support a system that teaches our children that they are far more important and have infinitely more divine rights than others because they believe in Santa? He is a jolly soul after all and teaches brotherhood towards all men. But if you don't believe in him you will burn in a fiery prison of misery for eternity. Nothing abusive about teaching children that right? Bigotry not clearly defined or directed I'm afraid is still bigotry. So is teaching bigotry abusive? is really the question. Our laws have not defined it as such but personally I feel it socially inhibits ones future. To enjoy art and culture one has to allow for some degree of magical thinking. I believe it is best for the individual to fully understand when they are thinking in abstract not possible terms. Personally my magicometer is set to zero largely because of religious teaching. I am open to the possibility it could be my wiring. A very large part of culture and entertainment is automatically dismissed by my brain. I wouldn't trade my Spock brain for anything though.

Eyes of a Stranger, I think that the tribalism as you describe it is an everlasting fault of mankind, and religion at its best teaches that universalism is good: tribalism bad. This is an everlasting moral struggle, and if I may say so, universalism is represented by the best of the teaching of the sage Jesus, and by the practical politican St Paul. I mean, 'Who is my neighbour?'

Belinda wrote:the sage Jesus,

Was he really such a sage?

So for a history teacher to teach 6th graders the benefits of democracy is indoctrination

Not if they're taught about other forms of government also.

But quite often in being taught about the other governments, they villify most of the other options.

You have evidence of this, do you?

-- Updated July 8th, 2012, 9:12 am to add the following --

religion at its best teaches that universalism is good: tribalism bad

What, you mean the tribalism of Catholicism, Protestantism, or any of the other 38000 denominations are going to teach that tribalism is bad? Not to mention the other religions.

Rederic wrote:

So for a history teacher to teach 6th graders the benefits of democracy is indoctrination

Not if they're taught about other forms of government also.

But quite often in being taught about the other governments, they villify most of the other options.

You have evidence of this, do you?

I never researched this, but only have my personal experience when I was growing up. I remember being taugfht on numerous times that democracy is the best form of government. We were taught that communism was evil, we were taught that totaliatarianisms were evil, we were taught that facists were evil. So yes, I do have a small sample, and I'm sure many others can also attest if taught in the US the idea that our government is the best form of government possible.

I never researched this, but only have my personal experience when I was growing up. I remember being taugfht on numerous times that democracy is the best form of government. We were taught that communism was evil, we were taught that totaliatarianisms were evil, we were taught that facists were evil. So yes, I do have a small sample, and I'm sure many others can also attest if taught in the US the idea that our government is the best form of government possible.

I think as far as the US is concerned you're probably correct. From this side of the pond, we watched as the McCarthy witch hunts were played out & I believe it's still difficult to get a visa if you're a self confessed communist. We don't have this particular prejudice here, but have others instead. From what I can gather it would be almost impossible for an atheist to become President.

Nobody has mentioned Scientology yet. I don't know a tremendous amount about it, but I have a friend who's sister- in- law belongs to this organisation. Her daughter (my friends niece) has been "educated" by the Scientologists since she was six years old. My friend says it's very difficult to see his niece as the Scientologists put obstacles in the way. I don't actually know what she is taught as they won't say. Would you agree that in this case indoctrination is probably happening, & could it be construed as abuse?

Bermudj wrote:

Belinda wrote:the sage Jesus,

Was he really such a sage?

I don't know for sure. Does anyone? I am possibly slightly prejudiced.


Rederic wrote:

religion at its best teaches that universalism is good: tribalism bad

What, you mean the tribalism of Catholicism, Protestantism, or any of the other 38000 denominations are going to teach that tribalism is bad? Not to mention the other religions.

I said religion at its best. I guess that some Roman Catholics and some Prots will prefer the more humane dicta of Jesus to the petty rules and regulations that define their internal rituals.The same goes for other religions where it is not too diffcult to sort out which aspects of them are divisive and which are inclusive

Bermudj wrote:

Belinda wrote:the sage Jesus,

Was he really such a sage?

If you put it with some onions it makes a nice stuffing.

Belinda maybe slightly prejudiced....Lol Living as a man with no humiliation issues as taught by your ilk I will certainly try to be respectful. Actually even ilk was disrespectful among those with humiliation issues. I do apologize for my candor. For centuries man understood the golden rule. A single individuals karma would be positive if that individual followed the rule and did unto others yyyyyyyyyyyyadda...yada. Then the powers that be.... used the rule to create order and subservience. This was tried many times. At the council of Niceau it was finally perfected. My opinion only. You can read Jesus's words again and again through various predated texts from paean to gnostic to unrelated Confucius. man already knew the truth. History says the man Jesus was an unremarkable brother of a preacher named James. I don't trust any of it for sure but I do trust what I know and feel. With as open a mind as I can muster I do feel teaching religion to children is abusive. With a woman as open minded as Belinda being confused about such a simple issue I offer as proof.

Rederic wrote:
I think as far as the US is concerned you're probably correct. From this side of the pond, we watched as the McCarthy witch hunts were played out & I believe it's still difficult to get a visa if you're a self confessed communist. We don't have this particular prejudice here, but have others instead. From what I can gather it would be almost impossible for an atheist to become President.

Nobody has mentioned Scientology yet. I don't know a tremendous amount about it, but I have a friend who's sister- in- law belongs to this organisation. Her daughter (my friends niece) has been "educated" by the Scientologists since she was six years old. My friend says it's very difficult to see his niece as the Scientologists put obstacles in the way. I don't actually know what she is taught as they won't say. Would you agree that in this case indoctrination is probably happening, & could it be construed as abuse?

Scientology does control it's members and prevents free thought and social contact so I would say that is abuse.

Rederic wrote:
Nobody has mentioned Scientology yet.

I don't know enough about scientology to comment on whether their methods are abuse or not.

Jjpregler wrote:
I don't know enough about scientology to comment on whether their methods are abuse or not.

So if you observed bruises without known causes you would not suspect abuse. You do not need to know how they enforce their indoctrination to believe they have been.