The Electric/Spiritual Universe of Jesus Christ

[Khatru]

Some young children question.  The crucial thing is that when any individual is old enough and ready, they can question and choose what to believe or what not to believe, at least in the Christian religion.

Sadly, there are far too many believers out there whose day isn't complete until they've threatened their children with eternal suffering and damnation for doubting the mumbo jumbo that's being imposed on them.

[BashfulAnthony]

Sadly, there are far too many believers out there whose day isn't complete until they've threatened their children with eternal suffering and damnation for doubting the mumbo jumbo that's being imposed on them.

Really?  And you are able to give some facts and figures to substantiate that, are you?  Or is it just anecdotal?

[SusanDoris]

Really?  And you are able to give some facts and figures to substantiate that, are you?  Or is it just anecdotal?

Perhaps you could give some facts about why you think it isn't mumbo-jumbo.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Differently to you - I do not think that dogmatic beliefs should be taught to children as if they were facts.

You told us here though that you think this is fine, albeit with reference only to your particular faith - hence my question. And no, children do not necessarily just grow out of it in later life. Far from it. Before their reasoning abilities are developed children are highly susceptible to being told by authority figures that what they're taught is true. If they're in the environment of a school and one teacher tells them about maths, the next about geography and the next about god why would children question the authority of just one of them?

That's why religious faiths are so keen to get them young - "give me child until seven and I'll give you the man" and all that.

Again, you don't understand children well.  Most of what they hear goes in one ear and out the other, as it does with history, geography, and much else.  As to your quote: well isn't it just conceivable, even in your world, that Christian principles of love and forgiveness, etc, are worth imparting from an early age?

[BashfulAnthony]

Perhaps you could give some facts about why you think it isn't mumbo-jumbo.

I don't know what world you live in! We are talking here of the odd fanatic and loony maybe  And since you seem to accept what was alleged, perhaps you could help with some sort of corroboration.  If you make such statements you should be ready to give some concrete facts to back it up..  As is pointed out so often here, most people do not have much time for religion, in any form anyway.

[Nearly Sane]

Again, you don't understand children well.  Most of what they hear goes in one ear and out the other, as it does with history, geography, and much else.  As to your quote: well isn't it just conceivable, even in your world, that Christian principles of love and forgiveness, etc, are worth imparting from an early age?

Is there a patent number on love and forgiveness?

[BashfulAnthony]

Is there a patent number on love and forgiveness?

OF course not, but that is what the essence of Christianity is, and that is what it attempts to impart, and why that should be considered subversive is beyond my understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

OF course not, but that is what the essence of Christianity is, and that is what it attempts to impart, and why that should be considered subversive is beyond my understanding.

I don't think anyone is calling it subversive. And I don't anyone is talking about  themselves eing problematic. The  concentration has been on treating beliefs as the existence of a god as facts.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

[/quote ???Again, you don't understand children well. Most of what they hear goes in one ear and out the other, as it does with history, geography, and much else.

A lot better than you do it seems, as indeed do the religions that spend so much money, time and effort trying to get to them early. Why do you suppose they do that if it actually does go "in one ear and out the other"? Indeed, in that case why bother with education at all at that age?

As to your quote: well isn't it just conceivable, even in your world, that Christian principles of love and forgiveness, etc, are worth imparting from an early age?

First, what on earth would make you think them to be "Christian" principles rather than ideals that most societies hold to be desirable in any case?

Second, why would a school not be able to teach the desirability of these things without also making a lot of unwarranted claims of fact from any of several various religious faiths?

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't think anyone is calling it subversive. And I don't anyone is talking about  themselves eing problematic. The  concentration has been on treating beliefs as the existence of a god as facts.   

When people talk of indoctrination, as some do on here, then I think that is equivalent to suggesting it is subversive.  The trouble here is that the argument is totally one-sided.  Given that religion is taught in schools, and will be in the foreseeable future, it might be apposite to pay more attention to the positive good that it teaches, a point of view rarely acknowledged here.

[Nearly Sane]

When people talk of indoctrination, as some do on here, then I think that is equivalent to suggesting it is subversive.  The trouble here is that the argument is totally one-sided.  Given that religion is taught in schools, and will be in the foreseeable future, it might be apposite to pay more attention to the positive good that it teaches, a point of view rarely acknowledged here.

North Korea uses indoctrination to back up the status quo, how is that the equivalent of subversion?

[Gordon]

Again, you don't understand children well.  Most of what they hear goes in one ear and out the other, as it does with history, geography, and much else.

I reckon I understand children well, having had three and now having four grandchildren, and they retain a great deal of what they hear even if they don't fully understand it. Deliberately exposing them to stuff that requires a level of understanding beyond their capabilities is generally best avoided in situations outside the family context, such as in primary schools, whereas within the family setting they have the appropriate support in dealing with personal/family matters such as religion.

As to your quote: well isn't it just conceivable, even in your world, that Christian principles of love and forgiveness, etc, are worth imparting from an early age?

These principles aren't exclusively Christian though and can be imparted to children without any reference to religion - as we did as parents.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

When people talk of indoctrination, as some do on here, then I think that is equivalent to suggesting it is subversive.  The trouble here is that the argument is totally one-sided.  Given that religion is taught in schools, and will be in the foreseeable future, it might be apposite to pay more attention to the positive good that it teaches, a point of view rarely acknowledged here.

Teaching to young children faith beliefs by asserting them to be facts is indoctrination. That you happen also to think that some of those faith beliefs are facts doesn't change that. 

[BashfulAnthony]

North Korea uses indoctrination to back up the status quo, how is that the equivalent of subversion?

Indoctrination is all but subversive by definition. To forcibly introduce attitudes that you desire is a subversion of human rights, whether it be on a national or personal scale.

[Nearly Sane]

Indoctrination is all but subversive by definition. To forcibly introduce attitudes that you desire is a subversion of human rights, whether it be on a national or personal scale.

Eh? subversion is about overturning the social order of a state, or social structure.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Teaching to young children faith beliefs by asserting them to be facts is indoctrination. That you happen also to think that some of those faith beliefs are facts doesn't change that.

But you have to prove they are not facts, just as religion has to prove they are.  Anyway, in my time these events were always prefaced by, " some believed,"  and that is perfectly acceptable to my way of thinking.  To me the emphasis was always on teaching Christian principles.

[Nearly Sane]

But you have to prove they are not facts, just as religion has to prove they are.  Anyway, in my time these events were always prefaced by, " some believed,"  and that is perfectly acceptable to my way of thinking.  To me the emphasis was always on teaching Christian principles.

No, person making the claim has the burden of proof. These Christian principles, did you teach them by saying this is what I believe to be Christian principles, though some Christians disagree with me, and they are principles that non Christians may hold without ever having heard of Christianity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

But you have to prove they are not facts, just as religion has to prove they are.  Anyway, in my time these events were always prefaced by, " some believed,"  and that is perfectly acceptable to my way of thinking.  To me the emphasis was always on teaching Christian principles.

You have the burden of proof backwards here. To be taught as facts in (non-faith) schools statements have to satisfy various criteria (evidence, testing, falsifiability etc). In faith schools however faith claims are given a free pass from these criteria and so are taught as if they are facts.

The "some believe that" principle applies in RE lessons in non-faith schools, but that boundary is breached in faith schools. That's why they exist - to be able to do that with impunity.   

[BashfulAnthony]

Eh? subversion is about overturning the social order of a state, or social structure.

Subversion can mean overturning a social order, etc, as you say, it also means corrupting a person's personal morals which is the sense in which I used it.

[Nearly Sane]

Subversion can mean overturning a social order, etc, as you say, it also means corrupting a person's personal morals which is the sense in which I used it.

  So where anywhere has anyone here put forward a position that religious teaching overturns young children's personal morals?

[SusanDoris]

Given that religion is taught in schools,   ...

Please explain exactly what you mean here when you say religion is "taught" .

Of course, all religious beliefs and non-belief should be taught ABOUT but your use of the word 'taught' does not imply that.

[BashfulAnthony]

  So where anywhere has anyone here put forward a position that religious teaching overturns young children's personal morals?

Well, Ippy, for one, talks of little else.  I don't notice many atheists contradicting him.

[BashfulAnthony]

Please explain exactly what you mean here when you say religion is "taught" .

Of course, all religious beliefs and non-belief should be taught ABOUT but your use of the word 'taught' does not imply that.

That's precisely what I mean:  "taught about."

[Nearly Sane]

Well, Ippy, for one, talks of little else.  I don't notice many atheists contradicting him.

Does he? Where does he say it is overturning the personal morals of the young person?

[BashfulAnthony]

Does he? Where does he say it is overturning the personal morals of the young person?

Have you never noticed his favourite comment about indoctrination/brain-washing?