Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby Fox » 28 May 2012, 16:33

YES.
"When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her." Wilde

"I don't know where the sun beams end and the star light begins. It's all a mystery." Flaming Lips

"a man's position here is not ruled so much by what he can earn as by what he can owe and still remain at large." Letters of a Shanghai Griffin

"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight.
redbubble
http://www.planetediting.com
Forumosan avatar
Fox
Retired President (tuì xiū de zǒng tǒng)
Retired President (tuì xiū de zǒng tǒng)
 
Posts: 5565
Joined: 11 Jun 2002, 16:01
Location: Taipei
59 Recommends(s)
78 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby Confuzius » 28 May 2012, 16:49

finley wrote:
Neither does Daoism. (my understanding of Hinduism is shaky on this point and I do not want to say something that may be wrong).
So we have Judaism-which gives a reason (actually many reasons, Judaism is not a "one belief/one answer" kind of religion-there are MANY beliefs that are all equally accepted and considered authoritative on a number of issues including the reason for creation, the afterlife, etc).
Buddhism & Daoism-no creator god.


For practical purposes, I don't think that really matters (your description of reincarnation is very interesting btw - the aim, it seems, is to avoid subsequent lives, presumably on the basis that the next one might be a crappy one). Most religions offer some sort of explanation for the Way Things Are, whether or not a creator was involved. Existential angst is thus conveniently banished.


Yes, existence itself is seen as cyclic. You think modern science thinks in LONG spans of time? (billions of years) Buddhism thinks in "kalpas" (they are hard to define) but billions of years (dunno how many exactly) is a kalpa, and there are many kalpas, and kalpas are endless (ie always another one around the bend!).

Time itself is sort of cyclic-never ending. One reason Buddhism fares very well with modern science. ACTUALLY (side note) the more I learn about quantum mechanics the more I come to an intellectual understanding of Buddhist metaphysics and cosmology since they teach many similar things.

But back to the life things-your karmic continuum has already been here COUNTLESS times throughout all them damn kalpas...and unless you extinguish (nirvana) your karmic continuum, it will just keep on 'agoin 'round and 'round and round (ie wheele of life...see it all the time at Buddhist places, kinda looks like the steering wheel of a sailing ship).

And yes, the goal IS to end the cycle of 'birth and death' and to have no other rebirths.

(and one point I did not say, but should be said about this, that instead of teaching a doctrine of a soul...Buddhism teaches a doctrine of "no soul" (anatman-Sanskrit) as well as "emptiness" (sunyata-sanskrit) the latter meaning nothing has an inherent, self existence but is only an outcome of 'causes and conditions' and composite parts brought together under certain circumstances).
"Knowledge alone is transitory, the outcrop subsequent to 'I desire all things'". - A. O. Spare
Confuzius
Betelnut Beauty (bīnglang Xī Shī)
Betelnut Beauty (bīnglang Xī Shī)
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 08:09
113 Recommends(s)
76 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby zender » 28 May 2012, 16:53

Confuzius wrote:Here's where we run into a bit of trouble...

If you define the afterlife as either resurrection or a soul, then Buddhism does not believe in an afterlife.

Reincarnation (bad term, actually people prefer "rebirth") is not the soul being born again. Its more like playing pool....This is how rebirth works in buddhism. It is not YOU that is reborn, rather it is your 'karmic continuum' ie the energy/force of your actions continue until they are dissolved....This is actually the goal of classical Indian Buddhism-to STOP the karmic continum. the word Nirvana literally means to 'extinguish' much like a candle. The goal of Buddhism (classical Indian) is to actually 'use up' your energy/force (karma) and let it 'extinguish' or sort of run out of gas so then there are no more rebirths.

This clearly, has nothing to do with a soul or resurrection. Would you consider it an afterlife? (some scholars of Buddhism do, some do not).

Interesting. Yes, I think I still consider this a belief in an afterlife (in Buddhism) whether you achieve Nirvana or your good Karma from good actions and thoughts in this life gife you a better rebirth. If you do well in this life, you will be rewarded later.

So what's next on the list of religions that don't believe in an afterlife? What's the biggest one?
zender
Presidential Advisor (zǒng tǒng gù wèn)
Presidential Advisor (zǒng tǒng gù wèn)
 
Posts: 3079
Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:10
Location: In front of my computer
82 Recommends(s)
110 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby heimuoshu » 28 May 2012, 17:21

Interesting thread. Is teaching your children about religion and about the religion you follow always "indoctrination"?
Is it really necesary to ruin a thread in the parenting forum because one couldn't accept that others see the world differently from you? Shouldn't we also teach our kids to show compassion and understanding for others and respect for their point of view regardless of whether we agree or not?
As for the way the question is phrased - Yes, it is.
But then again it is a question that has to be answered in the affirmative because the person asking it is trying very hard to ridicule those who believe differently. If you say no, well then you are indoctrinating your child. I guess there is a fine line between indoctrination and education.

This post was recommended by asiababy (28 May 2012, 19:55)
Rating: 5.88%
heimuoshu
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
High School Triad Member (gāozhōng liúmáng)
 
Posts: 510
Joined: 29 Oct 2004, 01:44
6 Recommends(s)
24 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby sandman » 28 May 2012, 18:27

Christians aren't "taught" anything, at least not in the sense of a list of rules and regulations.

:eek: :eek: :eek: I know, I know. No posts with nothing but smilieys. But still. :eek: :eek: :eek:
sandman
Manjusri (Wénshū)
 
Posts: 30176
Joined: 04 Jun 2001, 16:01
28 Recommends(s)
199 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby urodacus » 28 May 2012, 19:24

finley wrote:"Why is the universe here?"
"Where else would it be?"



Despite the fact that our universe is infinitely big, there actually still is infinitely enough room not occupied by our universe for an infinite number of other universes to exist.

So, yes, it could be anywhere really.

We are here, though, to observe our universe purely because we're not in any other universe. Our universe's does not owe it to us to exist, but our existence does owe a lot to our universe. That's why water boils and freezes at exactly the right temperature in our universe, but may not in others.
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 11282
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: banished by the Illudium Q-36 demodulator
195 Recommends(s)
250 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby Vay » 28 May 2012, 20:05

heimuoshu wrote:Is it really necesary to ruin a thread in the parenting forum because one couldn't accept that others see the world differently from you? Shouldn't we also teach our kids to show compassion and understanding for others and respect for their point of view regardless of whether we agree or not?


Oh are we bringing this up again? Moral outrage really is out of fashion these days, isn't it. I've already expressed thanks for diverse input and admitted I was wrong when corrected on a point, but geez I guess I must be the biggest bastard on Earth for not accepting the Post Modern doctrine that all beliefs and perspectives are equally valid... :roll: I'm going to repost my response to Confuzius with the hope that the issue will finally be closed:

You seem to confuse "telling others what to think" with exposing someone to undesired opinions or information that they may find intellectually challenging or encroach on their emotional comfort zones. I've said it before but I'll repeat it now: I think mixing up these two is the reason young people in modern society have such a hard time with accepting criticism constructively, and is largely why the public in general rejects empirical information the conflicts with their pre-existing beliefs.

Let me give you an example: my buddy and I will occasionally, on a Saturday night, go to a random restaurant where shark fin soup is served and stand there with signs warning potential customers of the cruelty and environmental destructiveness involved in procuring that particular delicacy.

According to your definition, I may be "telling those potential customers what to think". Certainly they didn't go to the restaurant hoping to see me or my sign. But I'm not getting in their way - I'm simply standing there making my moral stance known and hoping to influence them or at least insert of splinter of cognitive dissonance or moral discomfort into their brains.

This was basically the intention of my post in the parenting forum... to make a little protest against what I consider brain-washing of children and hopefully make some readers aware of the existence of the books in question. I was thankful that the moderators left my post for as long as they did, but also not upset when they took it down, as it was clearly an infraction of the rules.

Is that all clear enough?
"So given that we all agree that the world is warming, would it be unlikely to have heat waves outpace cold fronts by 3:1? Where's the Gotcha! in that?" - Fred Smith
Forumosan avatar
Vay
Mahjong Maniac (májiàng mí)
Mahjong Maniac (májiàng mí)
 
Posts: 2190
ORIGINAL POSTER
Joined: 01 Nov 2001, 17:01
Location: still in the Matrix
27 Recommends(s)
50 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby asiababy » 28 May 2012, 20:11

heimuoshu said:
Shouldn't we also teach our kids to show compassion and understanding for others and respect for their point of view regardless of whether we agree or not?


Absolutely. I'm not really "religious", but I've been brought up by parents that tried to understand and value everyone's views on religion. We had the Koran, many versions of the Bible, the book of Mormon, the latest editions of "Awake", lots of Buddhist books, books by Darwin, Black Magic, and more, in our bookshelves, and our father read to us from all of these. He believed the first to step to understanding is exposure. Everyone from all groups were invited into our home, and were all treated with respect. This resulted in lively, respectful discussion. I truly hope to pass this dedication to understanding and respect down to my own children.
Family-friendly events and destinations Taiwan-wide. http://kidzone-tw.blogspot.com/
Looking for like-minded parents, a friendly space to take your kids, and classes for English-speaking children? http://www.parentsplace.com.tw

This post was recommended by sandman (29 May 2012, 12:56)
Rating: 5.88%
asiababy
Martyr's Shrine Guard (zhōngliècí wèibīng)
Martyr's Shrine Guard (zhōngliècí wèibīng)
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: 17 Mar 2004, 11:56
Location: A hill in Keelung
2 Recommends(s)
46 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby Confuzius » 28 May 2012, 21:38

Vay wrote:
heimuoshu wrote:Is it really necesary to ruin a thread in the parenting forum because one couldn't accept that others see the world differently from you? Shouldn't we also teach our kids to show compassion and understanding for others and respect for their point of view regardless of whether we agree or not?


Oh are we bringing this up again? Moral outrage really is out of fashion these days, isn't it. I've already expressed thanks for diverse input and admitted I was wrong when corrected on a point, but geez I guess I must be the biggest bastard on Earth for not accepting the Post Modern doctrine that all beliefs and perspectives are equally valid... :roll: I'm going to repost my response to Confuzius with the hope that the issue will finally be closed:

You seem to confuse "telling others what to think" with exposing someone to undesired opinions or information that they may find intellectually challenging or encroach on their emotional comfort zones. I've said it before but I'll repeat it now: I think mixing up these two is the reason young people in modern society have such a hard time with accepting criticism constructively, and is largely why the public in general rejects empirical information the conflicts with their pre-existing beliefs.

Let me give you an example: my buddy and I will occasionally, on a Saturday night, go to a random restaurant where shark fin soup is served and stand there with signs warning potential customers of the cruelty and environmental destructiveness involved in procuring that particular delicacy.

According to your definition, I may be "telling those potential customers what to think". Certainly they didn't go to the restaurant hoping to see me or my sign. But I'm not getting in their way - I'm simply standing there making my moral stance known and hoping to influence them or at least insert of splinter of cognitive dissonance or moral discomfort into their brains.

This was basically the intention of my post in the parenting forum... to make a little protest against what I consider brain-washing of children and hopefully make some readers aware of the existence of the books in question. I was thankful that the moderators left my post for as long as they did, but also not upset when they took it down, as it was clearly an infraction of the rules.

Is that all clear enough?


Cant all just see that the child wants attention and has recently learned the word 'post-modernism" and likes to apply it to anything he doesn't like?

He actually thinks hes 'protesting' something here in the forums by being rude. Just looking for attention, or else he would have just let his post (which he evidently saved, maybe out of protest) just die off in cyberspace, I know I did.
"Knowledge alone is transitory, the outcrop subsequent to 'I desire all things'". - A. O. Spare
Confuzius
Betelnut Beauty (bīnglang Xī Shī)
Betelnut Beauty (bīnglang Xī Shī)
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 08:09
113 Recommends(s)
76 Recognized(s)



Re: Is the religious indoctrination of children unethical?

Postby E04teacherlin » 29 May 2012, 00:29

Vay wrote:
heimuoshu wrote:Is it really necesary to ruin a thread in the parenting forum because one couldn't accept that others see the world differently from you? Shouldn't we also teach our kids to show compassion and understanding for others and respect for their point of view regardless of whether we agree or not?


Oh are we bringing this up again? Moral outrage really is out of fashion these days, isn't it. I've already expressed thanks for diverse input and admitted I was wrong when corrected on a point, but geez I guess I must be the biggest bastard on Earth for not accepting the Post Modern doctrine that all beliefs and perspectives are equally valid... :roll: I'm going to repost my response to Confuzius with the hope that the issue will finally be closed:

You seem to confuse "telling others what to think" with exposing someone to undesired opinions or information that they may find intellectually challenging or encroach on their emotional comfort zones. I've said it before but I'll repeat it now: I think mixing up these two is the reason young people in modern society have such a hard time with accepting criticism constructively, and is largely why the public in general rejects empirical information the conflicts with their pre-existing beliefs.

Let me give you an example: my buddy and I will occasionally, on a Saturday night, go to a random restaurant where shark fin soup is served and stand there with signs warning potential customers of the cruelty and environmental destructiveness involved in procuring that particular delicacy.

According to your definition, I may be "telling those potential customers what to think". Certainly they didn't go to the restaurant hoping to see me or my sign. But I'm not getting in their way - I'm simply standing there making my moral stance known and hoping to influence them or at least insert of splinter of cognitive dissonance or moral discomfort into their brains.

This was basically the intention of my post in the parenting forum... to make a little protest against what I consider brain-washing of children and hopefully make some readers aware of the existence of the books in question. I was thankful that the moderators left my post for as long as they did, but also not upset when they took it down, as it was clearly an infraction of the rules.

Is that all clear enough?

Your point is very clear to me.
You'd rather be happy because you made someone else unhappy (create moral discomfort) than leaving people alone to do their own thing. Why don't you rather spend the time you hang out at the restaurant making other people unhappy with your own kid before he becomes a catholic. God forbid we wouldn't want that now would we.
You're not going to get people to stop serving shark fin soup. You're just going to get them to hate foreigners interfering in everything more. Congratulations. Your creation of moral discomfort has just made life much more difficult for people (read white guys) who like living here and don't have a point to proof.
E04teacherlin
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
Scooter Commuter (qí jī chē shàng xià bān)
 
Posts: 614
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 01:54
85 Recommends(s)
50 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to Religion & Spirituality



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 2 visitors

You generally can't send someone more than a couple of full-size digital photos as an e-mail attachment; those files are too big, and they'll bounce back to you. (Instead, use iPhone or Picasa--photo-organizing programs that can automatically scale down photos in the process of e-mailing them.)
More tips from David Pogue