Second Class!

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

So it's not child abuse if it doesn't leave permanent scars?

Might we not start with why you claim it is child abuse before we prove it's not?

Akrasia wrote: »

I believed in the sin and hell and shame aspects of christianity when I was in pre-school and I was genuinely scared going to bed if I forgot to say my bedtime prayer or died before going to confession or that my parents or siblings might end up in hell. Your formative years are primary school. Having a bunch of priests and nuns telling you that you're an inherently bad and 'sinful' person who can only be 'saved' by constantly begging a 'lord' for forgiveness is an objectively bad way to raise children.

If that were the sum of the feedback a child receives when growing up then you might make a case that it's an objectively bad way to raise a child. But I don't think anyone has made the case that any child currently spends their formative years being told only that they are an inherently bad and 'sinful' person who can only be 'saved' by constantly begging a 'lord' for forgiveness... has they? Nor do I think they will.

Akrasia wrote: »

I raise my own kids to think for themselves, to question authority and to have confidence and that if they work hard and put in the effort, that they can accomplish things that they can be proud of.
When i was growing up, we were told that people were given 'gifts' from god, that some people were 'gifted' athletes or musicians. As if all the hours of practice and hard work didn't come into it.

Sounds like you doing a great job so. Well done?

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

What happens during catholic 'education' in primary school is the act of indoctrination, it's a process, they're engaged in 'faith formation' That's what they call it themselves.

So they don't call it indoctrination either? Good to know. That you think it's indoctrination simply because it's Catholic education doesn't really hold water though, does it?

Akrasia wrote: »

The fact that they are failing (in many but not all cases) is due to the increasing secularisation of Irish society. It is difficult to indoctrinate a child at school when the parents don't re-enforce it at home like good catholics would, or where the children know other kids their age with different beliefs

That sounds like a leap of faith to be honest; have you considered that the increasing secularisation of society might be why schools are not as effective at faith formation (since, if they're not trying to indoctrinate they can hardly be said to be failing at it). Though as we noted earlier, if the new curriculum encourages parents to participate in faith formation at home, perhaps that might change (regardless of what anyone might think a good Catholic would do).

Akrasia wrote: »

This is why the most evangelical and fundamentalist parents choose to send their kids to specialist schools run by their own faith, or home school their children themselves.

I'm sure I can't (like yourself) speak for other peoples motivations, but I'd certainly agree that some people are more invested in their religions than others without a doubt.

Akrasia wrote: »

The intention of the 'patron' of the schools is to indoctrinate, but their grip on the schools is slipping.

I very much doubt you'll find a single patron who says their intention is to indoctrinate anyone. More accurate to say you view their intention as being to indoctrinate, regardless of the evidence that they do not in fact indoctrinate.
And there doesn't seem any evidence that any patrons grip on their schools is slipping, does there? They're giving away schools they want to give away, and that's about it.

Akrasia wrote: »

They are in decline. There aren't enough clergy, but their real problem is the 'Laity' are more secular than before. It used to be that the teachers would be frightened if the kids didn't know their catechism for when the priest came to inspect them, but now there are fewer religious teachers and principles to enforce their control.

Religion generally is in decline; it's not observed to the same extent or to the same degree as it was before. That means we'll have more schools that don't have a religious ethos because that's what parents want.

Akrasia wrote: »

They know that their last hope is to maintain a stricter control over a smaller number of schools, which is why they claim they are happy to release a percentage of their schools into state patronage, but those left behind will have a much stronger 'catholic ethos' hopefully (in their eyes) churning out real victims of old school indoctrination.

Or... Catholic educators are only interested in providing a Catholic education to people who want a Catholic education and are happy to deploy their resources accordingly? It doesn't fit the evil indoctrination agenda but it does fit the facts

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

That is not the definition I offered. If you look back at #10 you will see I said "if we accept the term to mean teaching to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. " I hope the difference in meaning from what you presented is apparent.

Not terribly; if they do not accept what they have been taught uncritically, then they have not in fact been taught to accept what they are taught uncritically, have they?

pauldla wrote: »

Religious instruction having no critical component, what is the difference?

Why would it need a critical component? The definition requires that it be accepted uncritically, not that it contain anything critical.

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

My little primary school had heaven, hell, purgatory and limbo In fact, i don't see how the catholic doctrine can be taught without reference to hell and purgatory. Why do we pray for the dead if there's no purgatory?

You're wandering astray of you assertion there; you said you'd call telling children 'believe this or burn in hell' coercion and I said I'm not sure very many primary school teachers do tell their pupils 'believe this or burn in hell'. Do you think they do?

Akrasia wrote: »

Why do we baptise our children, why are there last rites and emergency baptisms if it wasn't for the risk that babies could go to hell or 'limbo' We were taught about sins, some sins that are forgivable through confession, and others that are 'mortal sins' that doom you forever, but even the lesser sins would still land you in purgatory if you hadn't been to confession recently... Every Catholic child still makes their first confession before their first communion. What are they being taught about this? That it's not important? I doubt it.

That's interesting, though very much non sequitur-ish. Maybe better suited to a thread in Christianity?

Akrasia wrote: »

Children aren't stupid, they ask lots of questions to try and understand things, but they're also very vulnerable because they trust their teachers and adults when they are given answers to those questions. You don't need to bang the drum, kids have powerful imaginations, you just need to introduce the idea of hell and tell them that it is real, and children will fill in the blanks themselves.

So... not easily indoctrinated then? I agree. But... introducing the idea of hell, telling them it's real, and allowing them to fill in the blanks. It's not actually[/I telling them 'believe this or burn in hell'. Is it?

Absolam

Christy42 wrote: »

Surely you should also get rid of the religious discriminatory laws as well as expanding the school. After all they won't be used if there is enough room at the school so we should get rid of them.

But if they're not being used why bother getting rid of them? After all, they won't be used. Not that they're laws. Or that there might ever not be enough room in the school....

Christy42 wrote: »

Also getting rid of those rules is free and can be done immediately so we may as well.

Keeping them is also free though. And those whose rules they are might feel we may as well not?

Christy42 wrote: »

Also not being able to pay fees is not discrimination. Me not being able to afford a Ferrari is not discrimination. Someone not selling me a Ferrari because of my religion is.

Sure, but asking people to pay fees is discrimination; it discriminates between people with enough money to pay them and people without. Like asking for a baptismal cert discriminates between people who have been baptised and people who haven't.

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I accepted it unquestioningly for the time it was shoved down my throat. Once the rug was pulled from underneath, it crumbled.

So in short... not indoctrinated. Glad you cleared it up

Christy42

Absolam wrote: »

But if they're not being used why bother getting rid of them? After all, they won't be used. Not that they're laws. Or that there might ever not be enough room in the school....
Keeping them is also free though. And those whose rules they are might feel we may as well not?
Sure, but asking people to pay fees is discrimination; it discriminates between people with enough money to pay them and people without. Like asking for a baptismal cert discriminates between people who have been baptised and people who haven't.

Rules that aren't used cause clutter in general. Rules should be as streamlined as possible to make them readable (though including everything needed is more important).
I can't see how banning religious discrimination is a bad thing? There is a good reason for discriminating in favour of those with siblings in the school or those living nearby. I can't see one for selecting students based on religion.

So you are saying I do have a case to sue Ferrari because I can't afford one of their cars?

I notice that this country does have laws against discrimination based on religion. Exceptions from discrimination laws seem to be for religious entities in general. Funny given that they all seem to preach tolerance.

Absolam

Christy42 wrote: »

Rules that aren't used cause clutter in general. Rules should be as streamlined as possible to make them readable (though including everything needed is more important).

I imagine that's a matter of taste for those whose rules they are? There are people who like a bit of clutter...

Christy42 wrote: »

I can't see how banning religious discrimination is a bad thing? There is a good reason for discriminating in favour of those with siblings in the school or those living nearby. I can't see one for selecting students based on religion.

Well sure, but then you're not religious. If you were, and you wanted to ensure your children received a religious education, then you might.

Christy42 wrote: »

So you are saying I do have a case to sue Ferrari because I can't afford one of their cars?

I'm not, no. I'm saying they discriminate between you and someone who can afford one by setting the price so high.

Christy42 wrote: »

I notice that this country does have laws against discrimination based on religion. Exceptions from discrimination laws seem to be for religious entities in general. Funny given that they all seem to preach tolerance.

Do you think so? I imagine they wrote those exemptions whilst the politicians and civil servants weren't looking, eh?

Cabaal

Lets play the multiquote game, whoop!

Absolam wrote: »

I very much doubt

I'm sure you do have alot of doubt,

you'll find a single patron

I'm sure we'll find many

their intention is to indoctrinate anyone.

And cult members will never say they are in a cult,

regardless of the evidence that they do not in fact indoctrinate.

and cult leaders don't run cults,

And there doesn't seem any evidence that any patrons grip on their schools is slipping, does there?

Lets see
- less religious marriages
- less kids doing communion
- less people marking as catholic on census
- more people ignoring religious dogma in life
- more students finishing school and not believing in what was covered in school or pursing a religious life (to be a priest or nun)

Its slipping, face it

They're giving away schools they want to give away, and that's about it.

whoop, free schools that the tax payer pays for anyway!

Religion generally is in decline;

Indeed it is, long may it continue.
Lets follow the Netherlands shall we



http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2013/12/03/dutch-bishops-give-pope-francis-a-bleak-picture-of-catholic-church-in-decline/



I must say its hard to beat the multiquote champion!

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Lets play the multiquote game, whoop! I'm sure you do have alot of doubt, I'm sure we'll find many And cult members will never say they are in a cult,and cult leaders don't run cults, Lets see
- less religious marriages - less kids doing communion - less people marking as catholic on census - more people ignoring religious dogma in life - more students finishing school and not believing in what was covered in school or pursing a religious life (to be a priest or nun) Its slipping, face it whoop, free schools that the tax payer pays for anyway! Indeed it is, long may it continue. Lets follow the Netherlands shall we I must say its hard to beat the multiquote champion!

It's good to know we can always rely on you to have more to say the less cogent argument you have to present

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

You're wandering astray of you assertion there; you said you'd call telling children 'believe this or burn in hell' coercion and I said I'm not sure very many primary school teachers do tell their pupils 'believe this or burn in hell'. Do you think they do?
That's interesting, though very much non sequitur-ish. Maybe better suited to a thread in Christianity?
So... not easily indoctrinated then? I agree. But... introducing the idea of hell, telling them it's real, and allowing them to fill in the blanks. It's not actually[/I telling them 'believe this or burn in hell'. Is it?

It's not telling them 'believe this or burn in hell'
It's telling them, Believe this.
There is never even the option of not believing it.

And then telling them that they will go to hell if they don't pray or go to confession, or praise god etc.

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

Catholic doctrine is one that requires the sacraments to get to heaven. it's not like some protestant sects where it's just about faith and deeds mean nothing. In Catholic doctrine,
no baptism = no heaven,
no confession = purgatory,
mortal sins = hell unless you beg hard enough for forgiveness. And mortal sins include
Apostacy
missing mass (on a day of obligation)
lying
disobeying one's parents
Envy
Extreme anger
Hatred
Heresy
suicide
....

if you're a kid who heard that lying is a mortal sin, and you tell a lie, catholic doctrine says you're going straight to hell if you get hit by a bus before you confess that sin and get absolution from a priest.

Eternal sins are utterly unforgvable regardless of atonement or contrition and the main one is 'Blasphemy against the holy spirit'
So I'm basically screwed I guess.

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

It's not telling them 'believe this or burn in hell'
It's telling them, Believe this. There is never even the option of not believing it. And then telling them that they will go to hell if they don't pray or go to confession, or praise god etc.

So, now that we know it's not 'believe this or burn in hell' we know it's not coercion. We got there in the end!

Akrasia wrote: »

Catholic doctrine is one that requires the sacraments to get to heaven. it's not like some protestant sects where it's just about faith and deeds mean nothing. In Catholic doctrine, no baptism = no heaven, no confession = purgatory, mortal sins = hell unless you beg hard enough for forgiveness. And mortal sins include Apostacy missing mass (on a day of obligation) lying disobeying one's parents Envy Extreme anger Hatred Heresy suicide .... if you're a kid who heard that lying is a mortal sin, and you tell a lie, catholic doctrine says you're going straight to hell if you get hit by a bus before you confess that sin and get absolution from a priest. Eternal sins are utterly unforgvable regardless of atonement or contrition and the main one is 'Blasphemy against the holy spirit' So I'm basically screwed I guess.

Really? I was under the impression that there are no sins that cannot be absolved, though that all seems somewhat astray of the point again.. and again perhaps better suited to the other forum? Still, I would point out that if you don't think you're going to heaven, you can hardly think you're screwed as a result of doing things you think someone else believes would prevent them getting into heaven.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

So, now that we know it's not 'believe this or burn in hell' we know it's not coercion. We got there in the end!
Really? I was under the impression that there are no sins that cannot be absolved, though that all seems somewhat astray of the point again.. and again perhaps better suited to the other forum? Still, I would point out that if you don't think you're going to heaven, you can hardly think you're screwed as a result of doing things you think someone else believes would prevent them getting into heaven.

Teachers don't have to say believe or go to hell. They say believe and once the child believes, the consequences of changing those beliefs are eternal damnation. (apostasy is a mortal sin)

Catholics are allowed to 'doubt' but only in their weakest moments, and they are expected to force any such ideas out of their heads for force themselves to believe

When I was a child, there was never even the option to reject the theology. It was as true as geography, or history or maths or any of the other subjects taught as facts by the same teachers teaching me catechism.

El_Duderino 09

Absolam wrote:

So in short... not indoctrinated. Glad you cleared it up

If you say so. It was clearly a failed attempt at indoctrination. It was only coming from one avenue and it failed.

Everything in primary school was about god. My favourite example was about how history is all about gods creation. She even told us that it's called 'history' because it tells 'His-Story' (meaning god's story). Silly really but an impressionable mind is easily persuaded.

My parents weren't big into religion and neither were my peers after primary school.

You seem to be defining indoctrination so if you say it wasn't, then it wasn't.

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

Teachers don't have to say believe or go to hell. They say believe and once the child believes, the consequences of changing those beliefs are eternal damnation. (apostasy is a mortal sin)

That... doesn't really stack up. Once you change the beliefs, eternal damnation is off the table, surely? So, if you don't believe, you won't go to hell, because you don't believe in it. And if you do believe, you won't go to hell for not believing, because you do.

Akrasia wrote: »

Catholics are allowed to 'doubt' but only in their weakest moments, and they are expected to force any such ideas out of their heads for force themselves to believe

I'm not too sure on that one either... I have to admit I don't recall ever being told I was expected to force myself to believe. Though my education might not have been entirely up to scratch.

Akrasia wrote: »

When I was a child, there was never even the option to reject the theology. It was as true as geography, or history or maths or any of the other subjects taught as facts by the same teachers teaching me catechism.

And yet you rejected it all the same... like so very many others. Which brings us rather neatly back to the fact that it was evidently considerably closer to instruction than indoctrination.

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you say so. It was clearly a failed attempt at indoctrination. It was only coming from one avenue and it failed.

Perhaps it was, though you have to admit it might also have been the sincere attempt of a dedicated teacher to save your soul for Jesus. Either way since you weren't indoctrinated all's well that ends well, eh?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Everything in primary school was about god. My favourite example was about how history is all about gods creation. She even told us that it's called 'history' because it tells 'His-Story' (meaning god's story). Silly really but an impressionable mind is easily persuaded.

Ah now... I bet there was some maths in there, wasn't there? A bit of Irish maybe, and some geography? Maybe some painting and suchlike? I think perhaps everything in primary school was about god is a tiny exaggeration.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

My parents weren't big into religion and neither were my peers after primary school.

So would you say your parents and peers were a greater influence on your outlook than your teachers?

El_Duderino 09

Absolam wrote:

Perhaps it was, though you have to admit it might also have been the sincere attempt of a dedicated teacher to save your soul for Jesus. Either way since you weren't indoctrinated all's well that ends well, eh?

Well you seem pretty intent on putting those words in my mouth so, have it your way.

I'm certain it wasn't a nefarious attempt to harm me. I'm also certain it was a fairly pure attempt at indoctrination.

Absolam wrote:

Ah now... I bet there was some maths in there, wasn't there? A bit of Irish maybe, and some geography? Maybe some painting and suchlike? I think perhaps everything in primary school was about god is a tiny exaggeration.

I'll rephrase. In primary school, we were taught that everything we learn was important because it was God's creation. That's why it was important to know. not to instill love if learning, to avoid thumbing your nose at god's world.

Absolam wrote:

So would you say your parents and peers were a greater influence on your outlook than your teachers?

It was a 2 teacher school so I had 1 (normal) teacher for the first 4 years and 1 (religious) teacher for the other 4. They had a fair chance make her mark on us and as you haven't acknowledged is that it worked fairly comprehensively for the time she was an influence on me.

Family and peers were a greater influence in the long run and it started up fall apart after her direct influence was removed.

For the time she was there, she was enough of an influence to have me as a full on believer.

Does that answer your question?

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well you seem pretty intent on putting those words in my mouth so, have it your way. I'm certain it wasn't a nefarious attempt to harm me. I'm also certain it was a fairly pure attempt at indoctrination.

Well, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth! So, how about, in your opinion, if you were to ask your teacher whether my characterisation of her actions or yours was nearer to her own motivation, which do you think she would choose? In your own words...

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'll rephrase. In primary school, we were taught that everything we learn was important because it was God's creation. That's why it was important to know. not to instill love if learning, to avoid thumbing your nose at god's world.

To avoid thumbing your nose at god's world, or to marvel at the joy of Gods creation? Either way, I suppose it's a good indication of what a Catholic ethos might mean in a school; the delivery of factual lessons (maths, geography, Irish etc) within the context of a particular faith, so you've probably offered a useful insight there for posters who up until now have been confused by the concept.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It was a 2 teacher school so I had 1 (normal) teacher for the first 4 years and 1 (religious) teacher for the other 4. They had a fair chance make her mark on us and as you haven't acknowledged is that it worked fairly comprehensively for the time she was an influence on me.

I don't think it's fair to say I haven't acknowledged it; I did point out that I suspect saying it 'stuck' may be a bit of an overstatement given the timescale involved, and that I think it's fair to say most small children are inclined to believing in things anyway (though you didn't respond). So it seems to me your religious fervour as a child might reasonably be equated with your enthusiasm for Santa or the Easter Bunny at the same time.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Family and peers were a greater influence in the long run and it started up fall apart after her direct influence was removed. For the time she was there, she was enough of an influence to have me as a full on believer. Does that answer your question?

Well, no, it doesn't answer whether you think your teacher, or your parents and peers, had a greater influence on you at the time, only which had a greater influence afterwards (and, I suppose, overall?). Do you think as a result of the various influences at the time (say around November or December time during those four years) you were more interested in celebrating baby Jesus' birth, or being good to ensure Santa looked favourably on you?

El_Duderino 09

Absolam wrote:

Well, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth! So, how about, in your opinion, if you were to ask your teacher whether my characterisation of her actions or yours was nearer to her own motivation, which do you think she would choose? In your own words...

Hard to say. She might be stupid enough to think indoctrination is a good thing. Why would it matter what she thought anyway. As I already said I wasn't intended to harm, but it was an attempt at indoctrination, yes.

Absolam wrote:

To avoid thumbing your nose at god's world, or to marvel at the joy of Gods creation? Either way, I suppose it's a good indication of what a Catholic ethos might mean in a school; the delivery of factual lessons (maths, geography, Irish etc) within the context of a particular faith, so you've probably offered a useful insight there for posters who up until now have been confused by the concept.

What's the difference? It was learning so you didn't disappoint god. In neither case is it about learning because learning is awesome. What would you prefer me to say?

Absolam wrote:

I don't think it's fair to say I haven't acknowledged it; I did point out that I suspect saying it 'stuck' may be a bit of an overstatement given the timescale involved, and that I think it's fair to say most small children are inclined to believing in things anyway (though you didn't respond). So it seems to me your religious fervour as a child might reasonably be equated with your enthusiasm for Santa or the Easter Bunny at the same time.

Isn't the accelerated timescale the whole point of indocrtinating children? 'Give me the child for his first 7 years and I'll give you he man', and all that jazz. The indoctrination did stick while it was ongoing, and began to crumble after it stopped.

Hard to say about the Easter Bunny and Santa and God. When we really questioned the Easter Bunny and Santa, people told us that we were right that they didn't exist but we couldn't tell any other children. We still played along at home with easter egg hunts and Santa presents. When we questioned god, we were not encouraged by the teacher or my parents. So god was in a different category. We were not indoctrinated to believe on Santa or the Easter Bunny. There was no 'hell' for figuring out they were imaginary. Does that answer your question?

Absolam wrote:

It certainly answers who you think had a greater influence on you, yes. So do you think as a result (say around November or December time) you were more interested in celebrating baby Jesus' birth, or being good to ensure Santa looked favourably on you?

See above for easter bunny vs god.

Yes the teacher was the main person giving it the big'n about god and it stuck while it was ongoing. Once it stopped, the indoctrination began to fall apart.

It seems that you feel it is only indoctrination if it's successful. At leat you keep reframing my experiences to that effect. Would you share your opinion instead please?

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hard to say. She might be stupid enough to think indoctrination is a good thing. Why would it matter what she thought anyway. As I already said I wasn't intended to harm, but it was an attempt at indoctrination, yes.

In fairness I wasn't asking whether you thought she was stupid; I assumed we would both agree she was sufficiently intelligent to be a teacher, and at least by virtue of that know the difference between instruction and indoctrination. Knowing that difference then, she might well have an idea whether or not she was herself attempting to instruct you or indoctrinate you... which is why it's relevant what she thought. If she thought she wasn't trying to indoctrinate you, then there is a reasonably good case for saying she probably wasn't, in fact, trying to indoctrinate you, regardless of any attempt to harm you (which I accept you are probably right in saying wasn't present either).

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What's the difference? It was learning so you didn't disappoint god. In neither case is it about learning because learning is awesome. What would you prefer me to say?

I wouldn't prefer you to say either, though I'd prefer you to be accurate. The difference is the difference between deliberately avoiding being mean spirited, which presumes a prediliction to mean spiritedness, and pointing out the pleasure of existence. Essentially a difference between positivity and negativity I suppose. I don't think learning because learning is awesome is going to be the only reason people learn things, do you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Isn't the accelerated timescale the whole point of indocrtinating children? 'Give me the child for his first 7 years and I'll give you he man', and all that jazz. The indoctrination did stick while it was ongoing, and began to crumble after it stopped.

What accelerated timescale? Did your time pass more swiftly with one teacher than the other? And no, I'm not aware that an accelerated timescale is a feature of indoctrination; you'll probably have to expand on that idea a little more. Still, I'd suggest that it's poor (and simply ineffective) indoctrination that only lasts for as long as it is being applied; surely the point of indoctrination is to inculcate the behaviour?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hard to say about the Easter Bunny and Santa and God. When we really questioned the Easter Bunny and Santa, people told us that we were right that they didn't exist but we couldn't tell any other children. We still played along at home with easter egg hunts and Santa presents. When we questioned god, we were not encouraged by the teacher or my parents. So god was in a different category. We were not indoctrinated to believe on Santa or the Easter Bunny. There was no 'hell' for figuring out they were imaginary. Does that answer your question?

Not really; it appears your idea of indoctrination is that it must be something the indoctrinator also believes in? So because adults didn't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny, telling you they existed, and enforcing that belief with tricks to enforce the idea of their existance, and (for at least some of your childhood denying that they didn't exist) wasn't indoctrination? That seems pretty spurious to be honest... the only difference in the god category seems to be that they haven't necessarily agreed with you that god doesn't exist? Nor, to be blunt, does there seem to be a hell for figuring out that god is imaginary. Just like Santa and the Easter Bunny.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

See above for easter bunny vs god.

How does that answer which had more influence on you exactly?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes the teacher was the main person giving it the big'n about god and it stuck while it was ongoing. Once it stopped, the indoctrination began to fall apart. It seems that you feel it is only indoctrination if it's successful. At leat you keep reframing my experiences to that effect. Would you share your opinion instead please?

Well yes; if, at the end of a process of indoctrination someone hasn't in fact been indoctrinated and simply does not accept what they have been taught uncritically, I would say that it wasn't in fact indoctrination at all. If it was, they would accept what they were taught uncritically, and evidently, as with you, that is not the case. Think of it as; murder is only murder if there's a dead person afterwards. Otherwise, it's not murder.

El_Duderino 09

Absolam wrote:

In fairness I wasn't asking whether you thought she was stupid; I assumed we would both agree she was sufficiently intelligent to be a teacher, and at least by virtue of that know the difference between instruction and indoctrination. Knowing that difference then, she might well have an idea whether or not she was herself attempting to instruct you or indoctrinate you... which is why it's relevant what she thought. If she thought she wasn't trying to indoctrinate you, then there is a reasonably good case for saying she probably wasn't, in fact, trying to indoctrinate you, regardless of any attempt to harm you (which I accept you are probably right in saying wasn't present either).

Clever enough to be a teacher and very uncritical an credulous about catholicism. She may have been completely in favour of indoctrination as a meabs of instruction and to bring people to Jesus (or whatever your preferred phrase was).

Absolam wrote:

I wouldn't prefer you to say either, though I'd prefer you to be accurate. The difference is the difference between deliberately avoiding being mean spirited, which presumes a prediliction to mean spiritedness, and pointing out the pleasure of existence. Essentially a difference between positivity and negativity I suppose. I don't think learning because learning is awesome is going to be the only reason people learn things, do you?

I disagree. She may well have seen indoctrination as a good thing.

Absolam wrote:

What accelerated timescale? Did your time pass more swiftly with one teacher than the other? And no, I'm not aware that an accelerated timescale is a feature of indoctrination; you'll probably have to expand on that idea a little more. Still, I'd suggest that it's poor (and simply ineffective) indoctrination that only lasts for as long as it is being applied; surely the point of indoctrination is to inculcate the behaviour?

I mean the fact that they start the indoctrination at the first possible moment in school. I mentioned the famous quote about how the catholics felt all they needed was indoctrination for the first 7 years of a child's life and they could successfully create a Catholic fir life. That quote probably assumes social family and peer pressure to reinforce the indoctrination.

Absolam wrote:

Not really; it appears your idea of indoctrination is that it must be something the indoctrinator also believes in? So because adults didn't believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny, telling you they existed, and enforcing that belief with tricks to enforce the idea of their existance, and (for at least some of your childhood denying that they didn't exist) wasn't indoctrination? That seems pretty spurious to be honest... the only difference in the god category seems to be that they haven't necessarily agreed with you that god doesn't exist? Nor, to be blunt, does there seem to be a hell for figuring out that god is imaginary. Just like Santa and the Easter Bunny.

I don't assume the indoctrinator has to believe in indoctrination. The teacher in my case could have believed in indoctrination, she might have been trying to bring us to Jesus, it might have been both. I hope that clears it up for you.

Maybe the story of the easter bunny was a form of indoctrination. It certainly appears that you would accept that view. But the crucial difference is that once i seriously questioned them, they told me the truth. That was not the case for god. My parents didn't threaten me with he'll for questioning god but the reacher made the threat of hell very clearly. The threat was there for one and not the other. I see that as a crucial difference because one has a clear path out of belief, the other has a very undesirable path if you don't believe. . Does that clear this up for you?

Absolam wrote:

How does that answer which had more influence on you exactly?

Because one was reinforced even in the face of scepticism. The other wasn't. Simple really.

Absolam wrote:

Well yes; if, at the end of a process of indoctrination someone hasn't in fact been indoctrinated and simply does not accept what they heven wave been taught uncritically, I would say that it wasn't in fact indoctrination at all. If it was, they would accept what they were taught uncritically, and evidently, as with you, that is not the case. Think of it as; murder is only murder if there's a dead person afterwards. Otherwise, it's not murder.

You could have saved the Socratic method and just asked of I was a believer. If not then I wasn't indoctrated, by your definition. If I had the same experience as my classmate and he is a believer, was he indoctrinated and I wasn't? If indoctrination is outcome what do yu call the process?

On the murder point, attempted murder is still frowned upon. 'I tried to murder them but I failed. No harm no foul' is not a successful defence in court.

She tried to indoctrinate us whether she was aware of it or not.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

That... doesn't really stack up. Once you change the beliefs, eternal damnation is off the table, surely?

So, if you don't believe, you won't go to hell, because you don't believe in it.

Belief in a god is not a simple belief that can just be turned on or off. It's a far deeper set of beliefs that take time to arrive at and depart from.

Because it is impossible to prove that god does not exist with complete certainty, and because so many other people believe in god, there is a fear attached to leaving a religion due to the potential consequences for your eternal soul if there happened to be one.

And if you do believe, you won't go to hell for not believing, because you do.

But you can still go to hell for any of the other 'sins' that people commit every day just by being normal human beings

The fear of hell is more real for believers than non believers.

I'm not too sure on that one either... I have to admit I don't recall ever being told I was expected to force myself to believe. Though my education might not have been entirely up to scratch.And yet you rejected it all the same... like so very many others. Which brings us rather neatly back to the fact that it was evidently considerably closer to instruction than indoctrination.

If you don't force yourself to believe and lose your belief in god naturally, you become an apostate and that is a mortal sin.

I don't know if you're a catholic. If you are, you don't seem to know very much about your own religion. If you're not, then your experiences are irrelevant to this thread which is about catholic indoctrination in Irish schools.

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Clever enough to be a teacher and very uncritical an credulous about catholicism. She may have been completely in favour of indoctrination as a meabs of instruction and to bring people to Jesus (or whatever your preferred phrase was).

She may well have been, but what I was asking was whether you believe she thought she was doing it, not whether she might have agreed with doing it.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I disagree. She may well have seen indoctrination as a good thing.

She might have, but I'm not sure why you think it would bear on what I said?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I mean the fact that they start the indoctrination at the first possible moment in school. I mentioned the famous quote about how the catholics felt all they needed was indoctrination for the first 7 years of a child's life and they could successfully create a Catholic fir life. That quote probably assumes social family and peer pressure to reinforce the indoctrination.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you think is accelerated by educating children when they begin education (bearing in mind you're having difficulty establishing that anyone has ever been indoctrinated); surely that's what's supposed to happen? What timescale exactly is accelerated? I have a sneaking suspicion the famous quote you're thinking of is "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man". It's generally attributed to Aristotle, who's not famous for being a Catholic. Or even a Christian... so I'm not sure it does much for the rest of your argument, since the intent of the point is that the early years of a persons life are the most formative. St Frances Xavier & St Ignatius Loyola in fairness are often credited with it; it's certainly associated with the Jesuit Order and their dedication to the education of children, as all educators understand the importance of formative years to an adult character.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't assume the indoctrinator has to believe in indoctrination. The teacher in my case could have believed in indoctrination, she might have been trying to bring us to Jesus, it might have been both. I hope that clears it up for you.

Why would you think it might? I didn't say anything about you assuming the indoctrinator has to believe in indoctrination; I said you give the impression that the indoctrinator must believe in what they are indoctrinating, otherwise teaching children about Santa and the Easter Bunny would be indoctrination, just like teaching them about God, would it not? Whether or not your teacher believed in indoctrination is, it seems to me, somewhat less relevant than whether she believed she was indoctrinating you.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe the story of the easter bunny was a form of indoctrination. It certainly appears that you would accept that view. But the crucial difference is that once i seriously questioned them, they told me the truth. That was not the case for god. My parents didn't threaten me with he'll for questioning god but the reacher made the threat of hell very clearly. The threat was there for one and not the other. I see that as a crucial difference because one has a clear path out of belief, the other has a very undesirable path if you don't believe. . Does that clear this up for you?

Well, I wouldn't; it's why I'm wondering if you do, since it seems remarkably similar to what you call indoctrination when it comes to the subject of god. Still, do you think your parents didn't tell you the truth once you seriously questioned them about god? Do you think your teacher didn't? Did your teacher actually threaten you for questioning god? In fact... why were you questioning god if, as you say, you were 'indoctrinated' and 'very religious'? Surely you ought to have been singing His praises along with her? Or was it only a little bit indoctrinated?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Because one was reinforced even in the face of scepticism. The other wasn't. Simple really.

That only tells us which one made more effort in your opinion though (and it's not a great leap to see it's the one's who believe in what they're telling you)... not which had more influence on you exactly.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You could have saved the Socratic method and just asked of I was a believer. If not then I wasn't indoctrated, by your definition. If I had the same experience as my classmate and he is a believer, was he indoctrinated and I wasn't? If indoctrination is outcome what do yu call the process?

But I know you're a believer. In the face of evidence that you do not in fact accept Christian teaching uncritically, you believe you were indoctrinated. Thinking something in clear opposition to facts you're aware of is certainly belief. So obviously there's nothing to prevent your classmate being a believer even if he wasn't indoctrinated.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

On the murder point, attempted murder is still frowned upon. 'I tried to murder them but I failed. No harm no foul' is not a successful defence in court.

It is indeed frowned upon, though I'd hazard the opinion that ''I tried to murder them but I failed" is indeed a very successful defense to a charge of murder, just not a charge of attempted murder. And to relate it back to our discussion, you'd need to provide some evidence of 'attempted indoctrination' that rises above instruction in order for such a charge not to be frowned upon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

She tried to indoctrinate us whether she was aware of it or not.

Yet you can't even say that she herself believes she tried to indoctrinate you, though you can say that if she tried she certainly failed. My guess is she tried to instruct you and probably gave you at least enough information to make your own decision when you were ready, even if it wasn't one she'd agree with. Sounds suspiciously like education.....

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

Belief in a god is not a simple belief that can just be turned on or off. It's a far deeper set of beliefs that take time to arrive at and depart from. Because it is impossible to prove that god does not exist with complete certainty, and because so many other people believe in god, there is a fear attached to leaving a religion due to the potential consequences for your eternal soul if there happened to be one.

That still doesn't stack up though. Why would you leave a religion if you thought there were potential consequences for your eternal soul if there happened to be one? That you have a basis for leaving at all demonstrates that you don't think there are potential consequences for your eternal soul because you don't believe there happens to be one.

Akrasia wrote: »

But you can still go to hell for any of the other 'sins' that people commit every day just by being normal human beings The fear of hell is more real for believers than non believers.

Maybe... that doesn't support your statement that 'the consequences of changing those beliefs are eternal damnation' though. If you're sticking with your beliefs you believe you can go to hell for things, but if you're not then you don't. The fear of hell is not just less real, it's not at all real, for non believers.

Akrasia wrote: »

If you don't force yourself to believe and lose your belief in god naturally, you become an apostate and that is a mortal sin.

That sounds suspiciously like a personal opinion.. you said "Catholics are allowed to 'doubt' but only in their weakest moments, and they are expected to force any such ideas out of their heads for force themselves to believe", and my objection was that I haven't come across that in Catholic teaching. Have you found Catholic teaching that says Catholics are expected to force themselves to believe, or are you just making it up?

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't know if you're a catholic. If you are, you don't seem to know very much about your own religion. If you're not, then your experiences are irrelevant to this thread which is about catholic indoctrination in Irish schools.

I don't think you need to be a Catholic to know that telling children they are expected to force themselves to believe isn't on the religious curriculum, quite frankly.
Apostasy, by the way, is the voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion; simply losing belief in God 'naturally' (however you construe that, and whether or not one was forcing oneself to believe prior to it) would not qualify either as apostasy or as a mortal sin; to be an apostate one must deny the religion itself, and for it to be a mortal sin the denial must be made with full knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law, and with consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

And it's only fair to point out that you yourself, El_Duderino 09, and not forgetting our original poster Kiwi in IE are evidently not Catholic, so I'll venture my experiences are no more or less irrelevant to this thread than everyone else's.... a thread which is about 'Second Class!'. In the Atheism & Agnosticism forum

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Isn't the accelerated timescale the whole point of indocrtinating children? 'Give me the child for his first 7 years and I'll give you he man', and all that jazz. The indoctrination did stick while it was ongoing, and began to crumble after it stopped.

Ok this is what I actually said about the accelerated timescale. 3 posts on and I wish you read it the first time. Nothing about time passing more quickly. It's about getting the child when they are most impressionable and enforcing the idea you want establish. The point is to make the idea so ingrained in he child's wold view that it is beyond question. That's why religious indoctrination starts well before teaching a child about other important decisions.

Absolam wrote:

She may well have been, but what I was asking was whether you believe she thought she was doing it, not whether she might have agreed with doing it.

I've answered this a few times now. I dink know for sure but I think it's very possible that she knee what she wants doing and thought it was a good thing.

Absolam wrote:

She might have, but I'm not sure why you think it would bear on what I said?

Absolam wrote:

Sorry, I'm not sure what you think is accelerated by educating children when they begin education (bearing in mind you're having difficulty establishing that anyone has ever been indoctrinated); surely that's what's supposed to happen? What timescale exactly is accelerated? I have a sneaking suspicion the famous quote you're thinking of is "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man". It's generally attributed to Aristotle, who's not famous for being a Catholic. Or even a Christian... so I'm not sure it does much for the rest of your argument, since the intent of the point is that the early years of a persons life are the most formative. St Frances Xavier & St Ignatius Loyola in fairness are often credited with it; it's certainly associated with the Jesuit Order and their dedication to the education of children, as all educators understand the importance of formative years to an adult character.

See above. Yes get the religious mindset into the child early so they are much less likely to question it. Rule 1 of indoctrination.

Absolam wrote:

Why would you think it might? I didn't say anything about you assuming the indoctrinator has to believe in indoctrination; I said you give the impression that the indoctrinator must believe in what they are indoctrinating, otherwise teaching children about Santa and the Easter Bunny would be indoctrination, just like teaching them about God, would it not? Whether or not your teacher believed in indoctrination is, it seems to me, somewhat less relevant than whether she believed she was indoctrinating you.

I know she believed in catholicism. I don't know if she knew she was indocrtinating us.

I pointed out the crucial difference between easter bunny and god. They blocked the path to unbelief in one case with threats of hell and disappointing god. For santa, no threat was made about hell or disappointing Santa

Absolam wrote:

Well, I wouldn't; it's why I'm wondering if you do, since it seems remarkably similar to what you call indoctrination when it comes to the subject of god. Still, do you think your parents didn't tell you the truth once you seriously questioned them about god? Do you think your teacher didn't? Did your teacher actually threaten you for questioning god? In fact... why were you questioning god if, as you say, you were 'indoctrinated' and 'very religious'? Surely you ought to have been singing His praises along with her? Or was it only a little bit indoctrinated?

Yes. My parents didn't believe in either Santa or god in the case of my father. They thigh it would be better to reinforce the belief in god until I was old enough to make up my mind. That's the opposite approach to most beliefs where we wait until the child is old enough to understand before telling them about complex ideas. This point links back to the early indoctrination in he case of religion instead of waiting until the child is older (I called this an accelerated timescale which you misunderstood twice).

Absolam wrote:

That only tells us which one made more effort in your opinion though (and it's not a great leap to see it's the one's who believe in what they're telling you)... not which had more influence on you exactly.

More effort by putting emotional and threatening roadblocks to unbelief. That'sa classic element of indoctrination.

Absolam wrote:

But I know you're a believer. In the face of evidence that you do not in fact accept Christian teaching uncritically, you believe you were indoctrinated. Thinking something in clear opposition to facts you're aware of is certainly belief. So obviously there's nothing to prevent your classmate being a believer even if he wasn't indoctrinated.

This is gobbledygook and didn't answer the question I asked about what you call the process if it failed to work over the long run.

Absolam wrote:

Yet you can't even say that she herself believes she tried to indoctrinate you, though you can say that if she tried she certainly failed. My guess is she tried to instruct you and probably gave you at least enough information to make your own decision when you were ready, even if it wasn't one she'd agree with. Sounds suspiciously like education.....

You seem up know my experience better than I do. Did you really need me for this conversation? You could have just monogued.

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok this is what I actually said about the accelerated timescale. 3 posts on and I wish you read it the first time. Nothing about time passing more quickly.

Other than the words accelerated timescale? Let's try again; what timescale exactly do you believe is being accelerated? Given that timescale is a measure of time, and acceleration is an increase in speed.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's about getting the child when they are most impressionable and enforcing the idea you want establish. The point is to make the idea so ingrained in he child's wold view that it is beyond question. That's why religious indoctrination starts well before teaching a child about other important decisions.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with accelerated timescales at all though? And yes the purpose of indoctrination is that someone (child or otherwise) holds certain ideas beyond question. So if they don't hold those ideas beyond question (just as you didn't) then evidently they have not been indoctrinated. And I can't say that religious instruction (which I'm unclear as to why you're equating with important decisions, instead of other instruction) does take place well before other teaching; there's a heck of a lot of basic teaching (potty training, basic language, maths etc) before we get to metaphysics, usually...

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've answered this a few times now. I dink know for sure but I think it's very possible that she knee what she wants doing and thought it was a good thing.

You've certainly dodged answering it a few times, yes. I think you're right, given that she was a teacher, teaching, she probably knew what she was doing and thought it was a good thing. But do you think she thought she was indoctrinating you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

See above. Yes get the religious mindset into the child early so they are much less likely to question it. Rule 1 of indoctrination.

So... same as education, character formation, ethics, morals etc etc? Rule 1 of pretty much everything to do with growing up really, not indoctrination (which doesn't necessarily require one to be a child).

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know she believed in catholicism. I don't know if she knew she was indocrtinating us.

Well in fairness she couldn't know she was indoctrinating you, because she evidently didn't indoctrinate you. but what I asked ( I know you know this is coming) was whether she believed she was indoctrinating you.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I pointed out the crucial difference between easter bunny and god. They blocked the path to unbelief in one case with threats of hell and disappointing god. For santa, no threat was made about hell or disappointing Santa

Can we explore that a little bit please? What exactly is the path to unbelief, and how is it blocked by threats of hell and dissapointing god? And are we still talking about your teacher here, or does 'they' now include your parents who weren't big into religion and your peers who weren't either after primary school? When you pointed out the crucial difference between easter bunny and god, what was it, and how did they react?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes. My parents didn't believe in either Santa or god in the case of my father. They thigh it would be better to reinforce the belief in god until I was old enough to make up my mind.

Interesting... so you seriously questioned your parents (who weren't big into religion, and didn't believe in god in the case of your father), and their reaction was to encourage you to believe in something they didn't until you were old enough to make up your own mind, which obviously must be later than when you were old enough to seriously question them on the subject, and in the meantime threaten you with hell (which they obviously didn't believe in) for questioning it. But Santa just got the boot straight off?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the opposite approach to most beliefs where we wait until the child is old enough to understand before telling them about complex ideas. This point links back to the early indoctrination in he case of religion instead of waiting until the child is older (I called this an accelerated timescale which you misunderstood twice).

Well, you seem to be confusing complex ideas and beliefs there, but I agree your parents do seem to have had a peculiar approach to things... though it doesn't really seem to lean towards indoctrination either. As for an accelerated timescale you still aren't showing what's being accelerated?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

More effort by putting emotional and threatening roadblocks to unbelief. That'sa classic element of indoctrination.

Yes I'm interested in seeing how you think that roablokc thing works alright. And now what you think these classic elements of indoctrination are... since they haven't come up before is there any chance you could give is a link to whatever scientific work it is that defines them?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is gobbledygook and didn't answer the question I asked about what you call the process if it failed to work over the long run.

Do you think? If you take each sentence individually, which do you find gives you trouble; perhaps I can rephrase it for you? As for what I call things I'd probably just go with the dictionary definitions.
To indoctrinate is to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
The process of such teaching is indoctrination.
Someone who has been taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically is someone who has been indoctrinated.

What I think is giving you trouble is that if a teacher attempts to teach someone something, and that person does not learn it, they cannot be said to have been taught it. So someone who has not been taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically (as would be evidenced by their failure to accept those beliefs uncritically) is someone who has not been indoctrinated.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You seem up know my experience better than I do. Did you really need me for this conversation? You could have just monogued.

Oh, I haven't offered any idea that I know your experience; I've simply suggested that the characterisation you've offered for other people may not be what they'd offer for themselves, and in fact their motivation may have been more noble than you give them credit for.

El_Duderino 09

Absolam wrote:

Other than the words accelerated timescale? Let's try again; what timescale exactly do you believe is being accelerated? Given that timescale is a measure of time, and acceleration is an increase in speed.

The timescale for teaching children complex ideas. Teaching usually starts with simple ideas and works up to more complex ideas. God is an extremely complex notion. So they get it in early to avoid it being questioned. Does that clear up what I mean by accelerated timescale and do you understand that that is what happens with religious instruction?

Absolam wrote:

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with accelerated timescales at all though? And yes the purpose of indoctrination is that someone (child or otherwise) holds certain ideas beyond question. So if they don't hold those ideas beyond question (just as you didn't) then evidently they have not been indoctrinated. And I can't say that religious instruction (which I'm unclear as to why you're equating with important decisions, instead of other instruction) does take place well before other teaching; there's a heck of a lot of basic teaching (potty training, basic language, maths etc) before we get to metaphysics, usually...

Sure the basics first, then more complex ideas. But religious instruction is in the first batch of school classes. God is completely our of place beside a maths class doing basic addition and a language class doing basic spelling.

Absolam wrote:

You've certainly dodged answering it a few times, yes. I think you're right, given that she was a teacher, teaching, she probably knew what she was doing and thought it was a good thing. But do you think she thought she was indoctrinating you?

I've said on each occasion that I don't know if she knew she was indocrtinating us. You have misunderstood this answer on each occasion. If this answer is still confusing, let me know.

Absolam wrote:

Well in fairness she couldn't know she was indoctrinating you, because she evidently didn't indoctrinate you. but what I asked ( I know you know this is coming) was whether she believed she was indoctrinating you.

See above and each of the answers prior to this one. I don't know if she knew she was indocrtinating us (whether successfully or not).

Absolam wrote:

Can we explore that a little bit please? What exactly is the path to unbelief, and how is it blocked by threats of hell and dissapointing god? And are we still talking about your teacher here, or does 'they' now include your parents who weren't big into religion and your peers who weren't either after primary school? When you pointed out the crucial difference between easter bunny and god, what was it, and how did they react?

I'd say he path to any understanding is questioning and broadening thought. In most cases people encourage broadening thought and questioning. In the case of god, questioning was not encouraged. It was met with emotional threats of insulting and hurting god. It was also met with the threat of hell for those who don't believe (within the catholic paradigm)

Absolam wrote:

Interesting... so you seriously questioned your parents (who weren't big into religion, and didn't believe in god in the case of your father), and their reaction was to encourage you to believe in something they didn't until you were old enough to make up your own mind, which obviously must be later than when you were old enough to seriously question them on the subject, and in the meantime threaten you with hell (which they obviously didn't believe in) for questioning it. But Santa just got the boot straight off?

Bingo. Wield ain't it. Except my parents didn't use emotional threats or hell. That was just the teacher. My mother would have used Pascal's Wager (what if you're wrong) without the explicit threat of hell. I know you were being facetious but you were surprisingly close.

Absolam wrote:

Well, you seem to be confusing complex ideas and beliefs there, but I agree your parents do seem to have had a peculiar approach to things... though it doesn't really seem to lean towards indoctrination either. As for an accelerated timescale you still aren't showing what's being accelerated?

Accelerated timescale meaning introducing complex ideas at an age where you are too young to know better than to accept them. My parents took a strange approach alright. Mother isn't a practicing catholic anymore so I suppose she had gher own questions at the time. Pity we didn't discuss them at the time. We could have sped up the process of making up our mind.

Absolam wrote:

Yes I'm interested in seeing how you think that roablokc thing works alright. And now what you think these classic elements of indoctrination are... since they haven't come up before is there any chance you could give is a link to whatever scientific work it is that defines them?

I can't be explaining these thinges all day. Simplified conversation for brevity.
'Mam I don't think Santa exists because it doesn't make sense for X Y Z reasons'.
'Fair play son. You're right but you can't tell the other children'

'Mam I don't think god exists because it doesn't make sense for X Y Z reasons'
'Well what if you're wrong'. The teacher pushed back harder, telling us about hell and how our lack of belief would hurt god (the pain that Jesus endured to make us back off from asking those kinds of questions and arriving at the understanding that god doesn't exist.
Ultimately I overcame the roadblock

Absolam wrote:

Do you think? If you take each sentence individually, which do you find gives you trouble; perhaps I can rephrase it for you? As for what I call things I'd probably just go with the dictionary definitions. To indoctrinate is to teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. The process of such teaching is indoctrination. Someone who has been taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically is someone who has been indoctrinated.

Absolam wrote:

What I think is giving you trouble is that if a teacher attempts to teach someone something, and that person does not learn it, they cannot be said to have been taught it. So someone who has not been taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically (as would be evidenced by their failure to accept those beliefs uncritically) is someone who has not been indoctrinated.

The teacher might have been making their best attempt to teach it whether it stuck in the long term or not, wouldn't you agree? The success or failure of the teaching doesn't change the intention to teach. The same for her attempt to indoctrinate us (though I don't know whether she would say she was trying to indoctrinate us)

Absolam wrote:

Oh, I haven't offered any idea that I know your experience; I've simply suggested that the characterisation you've offered for other people may not be what they'd offer for themselves, and in fact their motivation may have been more noble than you give them credit for.

I don't know exactly what her motivation was. I've said a few times that I doubt it was meant to harm us even if it was a foolish attempt at indoctrination.

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The timescale for teaching children complex ideas. Teaching usually starts with simple ideas and works up to more complex ideas. God is an extremely complex notion. So they get it in early to avoid it being questioned. Does that clear up what I mean by accelerated timescale and do you understand that that is what happens with religious instruction?

Sorry, no not at all. Do you imagine God is taught as a complex idea to small children? Is it not actually taught as a simple idea (you know the one generally derided in A&A, big beard on a cloud etc etc) and then the complexity of catechism, dogma, philosophy, comes along later? How much time did your teacher spend discussing strict mental reservation, perfect and imperfect contrition, or even the Aesity of God? I'm afraid your idea isn't holding any water... before we even get to the fact that what you're suggesting isn't an accelerated timescale (which would still require simple concepts to be taught first, and complex ones taught in more rapid succession than in other subject streams), it's a reversed timescale. It simply isn't what happens with religious instruction, sorry.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure the basics first, then more complex ideas. But religious instruction is in the first batch of school classes. God is completely our of place beside a maths class doing basic addition and a language class doing basic spelling.

Really? From the Junior Infants religion textbook;
"Grow in Love | Junior Infants/Primary 1 | Teacher’s Manual
During this theme of work, the children will engage with the following knowledge and concepts:
1) Jesus, Mary and Joseph are the Holy Family of Nazareth
2) Jesus listened to Scripture when he was a child
3) We learn about Jesus from the Bible
4) Jesus is the most important person in the Bible, God’s own Son"
Which of these concepts would you say are more complex than addition and spelling? Particularly given that children are already familiar with the concept of family, listening to stories, learning from books, and people being important. Because I'm thinking that basic maths looks a lot more complex to a four year old than this....

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I've said on each occasion that I don't know if she knew she was indocrtinating us. You have misunderstood this answer on each occasion. If this answer is still confusing, let me know.

Nope, you have dodged the answer on each occasion. I have never asked if she knew she was indoctrinating you, she evidently couldn't have known she was because she didn't indoctrinate you. I have asked if you think she believed she was indoctrinating you. There's nothing confusing about your answers so far; it's perfectly clear you have an issue with answering the actual question put.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

See above and each of the answers prior to this one. I don't know if she knew she was indocrtinating us (whether successfully or not).

Still not the question I asked though, is it? I wonder why it causes you such difficulty.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd say he path to any understanding is questioning and broadening thought. In most cases people encourage broadening thought and questioning. In the case of god, questioning was not encouraged. It was met with emotional threats of insulting and hurting god. It was also met with the threat of hell for those who don't believe (within the catholic paradigm)

So.. is the path to unbelief the path to understanding? Or are you avoiding another question. If it helps, I'm specifically asking about your path to unbelief that you seem to think you were on, and which was 'blocked' by by threats of hell and dissapointing god. What you think is mostly the case with regards to other paths in other circumstances may not be at all relevant to the question you see. Though I am interested in what you think the catholic paradigm is, just as an aside.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Bingo. Wield ain't it. Except my parents didn't use emotional threats or hell. That was just the teacher. My mother would have used Pascal's Wager (what if you're wrong) without the explicit threat of hell. I know you were being facetious but you were surprisingly close.

I'm afraid I've no idea what you mean by "Wield ain't it". It is odd that you say "Bingo" which usually signifies an exact match and then go on to say that in fact, that's not what you parents did. So... not "Bingo" at all really? Let's explore the teacher bit though, since she did apparently use emotional threats and hell... was that in response to you 'seriously questioning' her about God? Did you 'seriously question' her about Santa? Can you give us a feel for the format of this serious questioning before we move on to her response? And can we just check again (since you didn't answer last time), why were you questioning god if, as you say, you were 'indoctrinated' and 'very religious'?
You said "They blocked the path to unbelief in one case with threats of hell and disappointing god". Should that 'they' really be a 'she'? Because so far you're giving the impression that neither your father or your mother actually did attempt to prevent you from not believing in either Santa, the Easter Bunny, or God?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Accelerated timescale meaning introducing complex ideas at an age where you are too young to know better than to accept them. My parents took a strange approach alright. Mother isn't a practicing catholic anymore so I suppose she had gher own questions at the time. Pity we didn't discuss them at the time. We could have sped up the process of making up our mind.

So we know your concept of an accelerated timescale is fundamentally flawed, along with your confusion between complex ideas and beliefs, and we know that your mother didn't actually make any effort to encourage you to believe in any of the three characters we've been discussing. Which brings us back to the question; do you think your teacher, or your parents and peers, had a greater influence on you at the time?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can't be explaining these thinges all day. Simplified conversation for brevity. 'Mam I don't think Santa exists because it doesn't make sense for X Y Z reasons'. 'Fair play son. You're right but you can't tell the other children''Mam I don't think god exists because it doesn't make sense for X Y Z reasons' 'Well what if you're wrong'. The teacher pushed back harder, telling us about hell and how our lack of belief would hurt god (the pain that Jesus endured to make us back off from asking those kinds of questions and arriving at the understanding that god doesn't exist. Ultimately I overcame the roadblock

So... where was the roadblock exactly? Your answer to my earlier questions may give me some clarity here before you get to this point, but you'll understand, it all seems a bit dodgy. Apparently, according to yourself you were 'indoctrinated' and 'very religious', a state which did not change until you were nearly a teenager. And yet you're saying you didn't accept those beliefs (you questioned both your mother and your teacher on them), and your thinking on the subject was critical to the point of doubting the very existence of the characters involved forcing your teacher to make you "back off from asking those kinds of questions" (albeit with threats that would be insubstantial to anyone who didn't believe the characters involved didn't exist). You see the dichotomy you're presenting here? Only one half of what you're saying can be true....

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The teacher might have been making their best attempt to teach it whether it stuck in the long term or not, wouldn't you agree? The success or failure of the teaching doesn't change the intention to teach. The same for her attempt to indoctrinate us (though I don't know whether she would say she was trying to indoctrinate us)

Oh, I'm sure we can give your teacher the benefit of the doubt and say she was probably doing her very best to teach you. I'll hold back on saying she intended to indoctrinate you though, since you yourself can't even say you think she would have said she ever attempted to do so. Still, whatever she intended is not neccasarily the same as what she did; however much she may have tried to teach you, whether or not you were taught can only be determined by the result; and in this case the result is you do not accept Christian beliefs uncritically. Do you?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know exactly what her motivation was. I've said a few times that I doubt it was meant to harm us even if it was a foolish attempt at indoctrination.

Yes, you do seem to want to introduce the intention to harm all the time, even though I've not brought it up. The point I made was that the characterisation you've offered for other people (like 'foolish attempt at indoctrination') may not be what they'd offer for themselves, and in fact their motivation may have been more noble than you give them credit for.
Like, 'genuine attempt to educate'.

Kiwi in IE

An update on Little Kiwi does Second Class

Well, we couldn't be happier in fairness! He has come home the last two days with no homework because he's doing it while the rest of the class do religion! He's a busy, sporty kid with loads of extra curriculars, and this is a huge bonus.

Far from feeling left out, I'm having to reign in his urge to brag about not having homework in front of his mates, in case it becomes an issue with other parents. The school are being brilliant about it all. With all the horror stories about Catholic schools making opting out really difficult, we feel very lucky, and I think at the end of the day, with no ET around, we chose really well. I have been dreading second class for the last 3 years, but I'm over the moon with the outcome so far!

Kiwi in IE

He has swimming tonight and I've gone from feeling annoyed at the amount of religion, to hoping for it each day!

robindch

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

[...] I'm over the moon with the outcome so far!

I'm glad to hear that he and everybody have settled in so well - perhaps that way of working could be used in other schools where things haven't worked out.

Kiwi in IE

robindch wrote: »

I'm glad to hear that he and everybody have settled in so well - perhaps that way of working could be used in other schools where things haven't worked out.

Absolutely! Schools should be obligated to work with the parents with sitter outers to make sure it works! OH and I were very pro active on the matter. We were not happy with him doing extra work or colouring. I don't want him bored and I don't want him to feel punished. We had suggested to the school that we will supply a tablet and he will do educational games or watch documentaries on tablet with headphones in, they suggested to us he do an extra maths or Irish book. I knew full well that a child in the class playing on a tablet while religion is on would cause a stir and make the other kids envious. I said to the school at the start of this year that we want him to either do that or the homework. Came home the next day with all the homework done! As much as I don't want him hearing about sin etc, he's not a gullible kid, and I am pretty confident that, being the type of child he is, if he heard anything weird he will tell us so it can be discussed at home. I'm more than happy with the homework and I think the school is happy that we are not insisting that he plays on his tablet! Win/win!

eviltwin

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

An update on Little Kiwi does Second Class

Well, we couldn't be happier in fairness! He has come home the last two days with no homework because he's doing it while the rest of the class do religion! He's a busy, sporty kid with loads of extra curriculars, and this is a huge bonus.

Far from feeling left out, I'm having to reign in his urge to brag about not having homework in front of his mates, in case it becomes an issue with other parents. The school are being brilliant about it all. With all the horror stories about Catholic schools making opting out really difficult, we feel very lucky, and I think at the end of the day, with no ET around, we chose really well. I have been dreading second class for the last 3 years, but I'm over the moon with the outcome so far!

Ah that's brilliant to read Kiwi, I'm delighted it's worked out so well. It can be done! Its a shame it's such a battle for some parents when your school has shown everyone can be accommodated.

learn_more

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

OH and I have just had our first meeting with the school about the dreaded communion year, which begins for Little Kiwi in September! They were brilliant in fairness, but their hands are tied in many areas by the 'patron' which is understandable. Apparently the 'Grow in Love' programme has been designed to ensure that Catholicism is drummed into them at school to make up for the fact that most children are not getting it at home, and is therefore a lot more full on than 'Alive O' was.

Little Kiwi has until this point sat in the classes and done colouring/drawing and has stayed home on mornings when there are church services. He's sitting out completely now, we don't even want him to be listening since they are now getting into 'sin', guilt and some of the more offensive concepts. He will have to remain in the class, as they cannot commit to religion being done at a fixed time for the whole year, so he will watch documentaries that are age appropriate on subjects that interest him, and that build on topics they are learning about in other subjects (countries, animals, historical events etc) on his tablet. I'm reasonably happy with this. What do you guys think? Given the school patronage situation being as it is, and the teachers/principle cannot be held responsible for that, it's probably the best we can hope for. He's not being isolated completely from his class, but nor will he be listening to bollocks.

They haven't confirmed the communion dates yet, but if it's not going to be close enough to the Easter holiday that we'll still be in NZ, we will go to the UK for either a football match or to Legoland that weekend. Not a hope that I'm going to let it appear in the eyes of an 8 year old that's it's advantageous to be Catholic, because everyone else is having parties/getting money and gifts, while he's sitting at home, or that he is going to be doing something that's harder work than religion in class all year, because we are not Catholic. I told the school as much when they initially suggested an extra work book (maths/English/Irish).

I am pretty confident that none of his friends who are taking religion will be feeling sorry for him, or that he will be feeling sorry for himself with this plan.

I went to a catholic school and I came out a happy atheist so I kinda think you getting your knickers is twist about nothing.

I think the conformism thing that went on is this county is largely gone. I never went to mass because of anything I was taught in school, it was pressure form my parents, my mother particularly who only cared about what the neighbours thought of us as a family in the community.

When that sense of conformism is gone from society, and I think it is gone, then I don't think you need to panic that you offspring will become 'indoctrinated' to the point that they have lost control of their own mind and will become something you don't want them to become.

Actually, you could trust your offspring to see thought the bull and then they would have an greater insight , which they wouldn't have if they went to an 'atheist school'.

It's not like everything Catholicism teaches is completely wrong. An ideal situation would be schools that teach about every religion, instead of just one. That's just a dream though, of course.

I just worry that militant atheism goes a little bit too far and creative divisions that don't really need to be there. I as an atheist went to a catholic school and it didn't rub off on me. I'd rather have that memory and experience of it cause now I see it for what it was.

If I had kids, I would be quite happy to send them to a Catholic school but I would make sure as a parent that they understood that they are being sent to a catholic school, and what that actually means.

I wouldn't exclude them from the holy communion or confirmation event. I think that would be horrible. Those events don't corrupt children. I think it would be mean to exclude them. It wouldn't swing them one way or the other as to what they ultimately believe, rather I think it would make they feel left out. And for what.

Why don't you let them believe what they want to believe, and make up their own minds. Don't fret about it too much.

Hotblack Desiato

So if all this indoctrination doesn't work, why is it there?

Peregrinus

If it "doesn't work", in what sense it is it indoctrination?

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

If it "doesn't work", in what sense it is it indoctrination?

Attempted indoctrination.

Cabaal

learn_more wrote: »

I went to a catholic school and I came out a happy atheist so I kinda think you getting your knickers is twist about nothing.<SNIP>
I wouldn't exclude them from the holy communion or confirmation event. I think that would be horrible. Those events don't corrupt children. I think it would be mean to exclude them. It wouldn't swing them one way or the other as to what they ultimately believe, rather I think it would make they feel left out. And for what.

I'll be honest, it sounds like you're just a bouncy castle catholic and nothing more, even if you call yourself an atheist.

I just worry that militant atheism goes a little bit too far

Interesting,
So its militant if you don't want a religion pushed on your child, its militant to simply follow your constitutional rights?

Do you refer to Muslims as militant Muslims when they also don't want the catholic religion forced on their children too? Perhaps there's also militant protestants.
:rolleyes:

Why don't you let them believe what they want to believe, and make up their own minds. Don't fret about it too much.

Oh I'd agree with this,
They should make up their own minds, but putting them into a system that spends an excessive amount of of primary school time focusing just on the catholic faith isn't a very good way of doing that.

Any parents I've talked to that don't want their children in catholic religion classes have no problem with kids making up their own mind later, but forcing a kid into believing in "holy god" at 5, 6, 7 etc isn't the way to do it.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

If it "doesn't work", in what sense it is it indoctrination?

So if it doesn't work then the next argument is why waste so much school time on it?

Communion/Confirmation prep should take place outside of school time and religion class should involve all faiths, by far the best way forward for a multicultural society when it comes to tax payer funded public schools.

Anyway, we have a thread on that general subject - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056757792&page=103

lets stick to the topic of this thread.

Kiwi in IE, I'd be wary as time goes on that other kids may kick up about your child being able to do homework and that the school may then get awkward. I've seen a tendency that schools would much rather give kids opting out of religion a book to read or work sheets.

While the school becoming awkward may not happen at primary level I have seen it occur at secondary (which I've found really weird), it of course will very much depend on the school. Some schools vary alot over others

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

So if it doesn't work then the next argument is why waste so much school time on it?

Well, that was actually Hotblack's question, wasn't it?

But it seemed to me he framed the question in a way intended to "poison the well", by inviting people to share the assumption that religious education was "indoctrination". My point was simply that the fact that Hotblack could ask the question at all rather points to the fact that it isn't indoctrination.

Now you're in effect reframing the question as " if it isn't indoctrination - if students can reject the views offered - then why spend any time on it?". There's a striking contrast between Hotblack's position and yours; Hotblack suggests a subject should not be taught because it's indoctrination, and you're now suggesting that a subject shouldn't be taught because it's not indoctrination.

This is something you and Hotblack need to sort out between yourselves, obviously. I can't resolve it for you.

My own view, FWIW, is that any education system worth its salt has to both introduce students to to ideas, techniques, values etc and equip them to evaluate them, make assessments, make judgments. The fact that students who have participated in religious education subsequently reject the beliefs involved doesn't mean that religious education has failed them. (If nothing else, it may have equipped them to make better-informed and sounder judgments about religion than a few of those that are manifested on this board. )

Cabaal wrote: »

Communion/Confirmation prep should take place outside of school time and religion class should involve all faiths, by far the best way forward for a multicultural society when it comes to tax payer funded public schools.

Possibly. Or possibly, if we're serious about multiculturalism, "tax payer funded public schools" should reflect the multicultural diversity of society, and should endeavour to offer the kinds of education that the taxpayers want for their children. We certainly don't foster multiculturalism by arbitrarily ruling that certain cultural practices must be banned from schools regardless of the wishes of students or parents.

Pherekydes

Peregrinus wrote: »

If it "doesn't work", in what sense it is it indoctrination?

Indoctrination is the process, not the end result.

Pherekydes

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it seemed to me he framed the question in a way intended to "poison the well", by inviting people to share the assumption that religious education was "indoctrination".

Teaching church doctrine is indoctrination. By definition.

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

Teaching church doctrine is indoctrination. By definition.

Surely teaching any doctrine is indoctrination, by definition? And, since "doctrine" means "that which is taught", surely all teaching is indoctrination, by definition?

This isn't particularly helpful and, more to the point, I don't think it's what Hotblack meant by "indoctrination". I'm reasonably confident that he intended to invoke the "brainwashing" sense of indoctrination.

Cabaal

indoctrination

Indoctrination often refers to religious ideas, when you're talking about a religious environment that doesn't let you question or criticize those beliefs. The Latin word for "teach," doctrina is the root of indoctrinate, and originally that's just what it meant.

We know that the catholic church does not teach kids to be critical of what it teaches in religious classes, it doesn't want kids questioning the very idea of Jesus or water into wine or any of its core beliefs. As such it is very much indoctrination.

It cannot be called education because that involves actually using your brain, indoctrination just wants you to open your brain and pour the info in and not question any of it.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm reasonably confident that he intended to invoke the "brainwashing" sense of indoctrination.

There are two closely-related meanings of the word - the brainwashing sense in which it's normally used and the more specific sense of 'inserting a doctrine' - a doctrine generally being understood to be a set of beliefs concerning some topic, usually religious.

It's open to debate how useful it is to use the term since it's never quite clear from context which sense one means and - I have to accept some blame here myself - it's possible to slide from one sense to the other during a discussion in order to point-score.

However, both senses of the word signify that the job of the teacher is to inject some set of beliefs into a student, regardless of whether the beliefs are true or whether doing so is good for the student. Or more simply, to instruct a student on what to think on a topic, instead of how to think on a topic.

looksee

I was talking to a friend a couple of days ago, she is RC of the reasonable, middle of the road type.

We were discussing education and she was arguing against secular schools on the grounds that 'parents should have a choice'. This discussion foundered on the notion that there were people who did not have a choice at present, so we moved on.

The next point was that parents would wish for a particular ethos in the school. This was a Christian ethos that underpinned everything that was 'right' - conduct, attitude, care for others, etc. I queried the idea that a school had to be Christian to have moral standards, and she agreed...but the Christian ethos was all about these things, so we went round in circles a bit longer.

I was not fighting, just discussing, but it was very clear that this intelligent and clear thinking woman could not deal with the idea of a school that did not offer Catholic teaching, for no more specific reason than 'choice' (for some!) and 'ethos' (for moral standards), neither of which she had very clearly considered.

We really don't have to get into all the complex ideas about dogma and indoctrination, the issue is very simple; maintain the status quo and avoid change. She herself was pointing out that most young teachers didn't believe the religion they were supposed to teach, but she could not see that this might be an issue. She was saying that in a relatively short number of years the older staff members of schools will retire and the whole religion in schools business would fall away. I suppose in the end she is probably right, but it seems like a rather dishonest way of going about it. I suppose in 20 years time we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Cabaal

I think the above can be summed up very easily,
Catholics and religious people for the most part really fear change, its scares them and they will fight it at every turn and always have done. Especially change that gives equality and rights to groups of people that they dislike, see as wrong/sinful or "feared".

It seems to be a ingrained religious mindset

Akrasia

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Absolutely! Schools should be obligated to work with the parents with sitter outers to make sure it works! OH and I were very pro active on the matter. We were not happy with him doing extra work or colouring. I don't want him bored and I don't want him to feel punished. We had suggested to the school that we will supply a tablet and he will do educational games or watch documentaries on tablet with headphones in, they suggested to us he do an extra maths or Irish book. I knew full well that a child in the class playing on a tablet while religion is on would cause a stir and make the other kids envious. I said to the school at the start of this year that we want him to either do that or the homework. Came home the next day with all the homework done! As much as I don't want him hearing about sin etc, he's not a gullible kid, and I am pretty confident that, being the type of child he is, if he heard anything weird he will tell us so it can be discussed at home. I'm more than happy with the homework and I think the school is happy that we are not insisting that he plays on his tablet! Win/win!

Absolutely delighted for you.

keep the updates coming. My son is in first class and you are now officially an inspiration

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

There are two closely-related meanings of the word - the brainwashing sense in which it's normally used and the more specific sense of 'inserting a doctrine' - a doctrine generally being understood to be a set of beliefs concerning some topic, usually religious.

It's open to debate how useful it is to use the term since it's never quite clear from context which sense one means and - I have to accept some blame here myself - it's possible to slide from one sense to the other during a discussion in order to point-score.

However, both senses of the word signify that the job of the teacher is to inject some set of beliefs into a student, regardless of whether the beliefs are true or whether doing so is good for the student. Or more simply, to instruct a student on what to think on a topic, instead of how to think on a topic.

I have to disagree a little bit, Robin. You’re suggesting thare are two possible senses of “indoctrinate”, one of which is very pejorative (“brainwashing”) and the other of which is quite pejorative (“teaching something without regard to its truth or benefit”) . I don’t think your second meaning reflects how the word is actually used; people are regularly accused of “indoctrinating” when they teach something they believe to be true or beneficial or both. In fact, I don’t think you’re going to be able to find an example in the wild of someone using “indoctrinate” to mean “teach something which you, the teacher, know to be untrue or harmful”.

I’ll go this far; if I say that you’re “indoctrinating” someone, what I very often mean is that you’re teaching them something which I believe to be untrue or harmful. Where “indoctrinate” is used pejoratively, it’s mainly used to signal the speaker’s views about what is being taught.

But I still don’t think that was the sense implied by Hotblack’s question in post #86 which, you’ll recall, was “So if all this indoctrination doesn't work, why is it there?”. The question fairly clearly implies that the whole point of indoctrinate is to control what people think; if they don’t end up thinking what you want them to think the endeavour has been pointless and might as well not have been undertaken.

The other meaning of “indoctrinate” makes no sense in this context. “What is the point of schools teaching stuff that Hotblack doesn’t agree with, if students don’t end up accepting it?” But neither the schools nor the students give a stuff whether Hotblack accepts it; why would they? Why would Hotblack even expect them to?

So, unless we take Hotblack to be a drivelling idiot who just mouths random words - and I don’t take him to be that - I have to understand his question as invoking a meaning of “indoctrinate” which is “brainwashing”, or something pretty close to it.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I was talking to a friend a couple of days ago, she is RC of the reasonable, middle of the road type. We were discussing education and she was arguing against secular schools on the grounds that 'parents should have a choice'. This discussion foundered on the notion that there were people who did not have a choice at present, so we moved on. The next point was that parents would wish for a particular ethos in the school. This was a Christian ethos that underpinned everything that was 'right' - conduct, attitude, care for others, etc. I queried the idea that a school had to be Christian to have moral standards, and she agreed...but the Christian ethos was all about these things, so we went round in circles a bit longer. I was not fighting, just discussing, but it was very clear that this intelligent and clear thinking woman could not deal with the idea of a school that did not offer Catholic teaching, for no more specific reason than 'choice' (for some!) and 'ethos' (for moral standards), neither of which she had very clearly considered. We really don't have to get into all the complex ideas about dogma and indoctrination, the issue is very simple; maintain the status quo and avoid change. She herself was pointing out that most young teachers didn't believe the religion they were supposed to teach, but she could not see that this might be an issue. She was saying that in a relatively short number of years the older staff members of schools will retire and the whole religion in schools business would fall away. I suppose in the end she is probably right, but it seems like a rather dishonest way of going about it. I suppose in 20 years time we will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

Was you friend arguing against secular schools on the grounds that 'parents should have a choice', or arguing against replacing all schools with secular schools on the grounds that 'parents should have a choice'? Because the former doesn't sound like the reasoning of an intelligent and clear thinking woman, whereas the latter kind of does. From what you say she obviously understood that a school needn't be Christian to have moral standards, so is it fair to say your difficulty was in convincing her that a school that with the same moral standards that isn't Christian school still has the same ethos? Because you can understand why the absence of the Christian element might indicate that it doesn't... even if it's equally moral.

Personally I think in 20 years time no one will even remember the fuss; we'll still have different kinds of schools to suit different kinds of parents, and both schools and education will probably be an entirely different way of 'indoctrinating' the kind of concepts parents want their children to appreciate.