Homeschooling

[Leebo]

I think your inclusion of Westerner in the first sentence is a mistake. Westerner would definitely not think it's wrong to indoctrinate children.

My position is that very young children are incapable of making any kind of decision about which religion they'd like to follow, if any. If their right to choose is to be respected, they need time to develop first.

I never said evolution is true "because it's the status quo." This wasn't a debate about evolution. Even so, I actually gave a paragraph or so explanation of the treetops of what evolution is relative to other concepts in science and why it's basically a given if you accept that heredity and natural selection exist. It's just the name for the interaction between those concepts.

[bluebooger]

I think your inclusion of Westerner in the first sentence is a mistake. Westerner would definitely not think it's wrong to indoctrinate children.

My position is that very young children are incapable of making any kind of decision about which religion they'd like to follow, if any. If their right to choose is to be respected, they need time to develop first...

very young children are incapable of making many kinds of decisions about what's good for them

parents aren't supposed to respect the their child's right to choose
they're supposed to choose for them

if we let children choose then they'd stay up all night; never take a bath; never brush their teeth; eat candy, cake and ice cream for every meal; never put on shoes when they go outside; eat stuff they find on the floor; never go to school; ... and on and on

parents are supposed to parent
they are supposed to make choices for their child specifically because they child cannot
some parents make bad choices
but they should be the ones making the choices, not the children

hopefully parents teach their children to share; not to bully other children; not to take things that don't belong to them; to clean up after themselves and so on

would anyone tell a parent "You shouldn't teach YOUR child YOUR morality. Your child should be allowed to explore and make decisions for themselves about what is right and wrong."

that's basically what you're telling a parent when you tell them they're [/i]indoctrinating[/i] their child and they shouldn't teach them their values and morals

if a child's parents are republicans and their child asks "why is that person sleeping on the street?" then the parents have the right to give a answer based on their beliefs
is that indoctrination ?
or is it just parents passing on knowledge to their child

if a child's parents are democrats and their child asks "why is that person sleeping on the street?" then the parents have the right to give a answer based on their beliefs
is that indoctrination ?
or is it just parents passing on knowledge to their child

you can bet the democrat parents and the republican parents are giving contradictory answers
and each is thinking "oh, that poor misinformed child"

but it's the parents job to teach their children and answer these kinds of questions

if a child's parents are religious and their child asks "why is that person sleeping on the street?" then the parents have the right to give a answer based on their beliefs, even if their beliefs are based on religion

my 8 year old nephew is a disgusting little racist
he learned it mostly from his father, but also from his mom
I don't like what they teach him but I'm sure not going to say they don't have the right to raise their child the way they want
I also don't like that they let him have soft drinks EVERY meal
"really ? you let him drink a can of coca cola for breakfast ? every day ? "
I guess they're just respecting his right to choose

but I see it as being bad parents for not choosing for him
but, that's their choice

god bless america LOL

[Leebo]

There's a difference between teaching a child morality and teaching a child religion. They are two distinct things. I didn't say anywhere that parents can't make choices for their children either. And sure, a child is going to be exposed to your political beliefs, but everyone would agree it would be silly for you to declare your child the same political party as yourself and act as though they made a reasoned decision. The important thing is to explain yourself to your children and separate subjective from objective.

But if you believe that everyone has a right to choose their religion, then so do children.

If my children want to know if God exists or what different religions are, I'll be happy to explain to them that everyone needs to find that answer for themselves after long and careful consideration.

[Jack1798]

Leebo, It's because children can't make decisions for themselves that parents must make them for them. This is the reason why kids aren't allowed to vote, drink, smoke, gamble, drive a car, rent a hotel room, etc. until they're between the age of 16-21ish. Why? Because they aren't ready for the responsibility that comes with those privileges. Parents must guide their children in their life so that they make the right choices. I just honestly don't see why you think it is wrong for a parent to teach their religion to their child. This is America and we have the freedom to do this yet you are making it seem as though a parent who teaches their religion to their kid is like some dictator brainwashing the masses. for goodness sakes is it really that bad that a kid learns a few Bible stories and sings Amazing Grace? Really? Lighten up! And let's face it, a parent provides everything for their child- food, clothing, toys, shelter, love, education, etc. and all they require of their children is to go to church on Sunday? Is that really to much to ask?

[Leebo]

Yes, parents make decisions. It's interesting that you bring up the fact that they can't vote as children. We don't let their parents cast votes for them, do we? No, we wait until the children have grown to let them vote for themselves. If your stance applied to drinking and smoking, we'd leave that up to parents do decide.

My point is that it's important to be open with children when you are sharing your opinions with them. It's okay to tell kids that you aren't someone who knows definitively the answers to everything. I don't think all parents who raise their children in a religious family are indoctrinating them by default. But it came up here because people said that homeschooling was useful in keeping the kids from defecting.

I guess I can explicitly say that singing some religious songs and going to church is not really what I'm talking about. It's hard to give concrete examples, but for instance people who tell their children they're going to go to Hell if they don't believe in God. That goes beyond just exposing them to church.

[Jack1798]

Leebo,
Most religious parents DO let their children make their own religious decisions and let them come to faith on their own after presenting their case.

I think what the real debate here is the question of whether a parent or the state should be allowed to make religious and educational choices for children. I would wholeheartedly say that it should be the parents because the PARENTS know their own children the best. At the end of the day if the kid doesn't like their parent's decisions he/she's free to make his/her own decision at 18 anyway.

Also, you mentioned earlier that parents should not be afraid of their children hearing opposing viewpoints to their worldview if in fact their worldview is correct. You have also mentioned several times that children should be presented with the facts and develop their own viewpoints. Based on these two things that you said then, why is it that you are against creationism/intelligent design being taught in schools? Just curious.

[Leebo]

I'm not against the idea of teaching creationism (intelligent design is also creationism) in the context of philosophy or world religions. The argument is always that it shouldn't be taught in science classes. Because it's not science.

To expand on my "telling children they're going to Hell" idea. To me, that's the psychological equivalent of trying convince someone at gunpoint. And when used on a child, it's devastating.

[Jack1798]

Leebo,
Where did I, or anybody for that matter, say that religious parents are saying to their children that they "are going to hell?" That smacks of an ad hominem attack to me. Secondly, even if they did say that, (which again, I have never heard of a religious parent doing) that is no where near a comparison of someone literally holding a gun to a child's head to make them do something. Telling someone something you believe to be true is not force-feeding your view to them or "convincing them at gunpoint." Also you said that creationism is "not a science." You made a truth claim there yet made no effort to back that up. I thought this was an academic environment where we support our claims with facts, reason, evidence and logic. Could you please clarify why you think creationism is not a science?

[Leebo]

I didn't ever claim anyone here said that. I used it as an example of something I would oppose as indoctrination. And yes, there are people who tell this to their children.

I also said it's "the psychological equivalent." And as a threat, its scope is greater than physical bodily harm.

Also, really... you want me to explain why creationism is not a science? I shouldn't have to provide definitions for common English words at risk of being accused of some kind of academic dishonesty.

Here, from Wikipedia, just for definition's sake: Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Creationism is not based on testable explanation and predictions, it is the doctrinal belief that life and the universe were created by God or a higher power. This is an inherently untestable claim.

[Jack1798]

Leebo,
Can you please explain to me how evolution is a "enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe?" Last time I checked, evolution is a process that is so slow that it is not testable or observable. And please don't throw Darwin's finches or the domestication of the wolf as examples as those are simply changes within a given species which I believe do happen and are observable. However, in order for evolution to work you must have changes between species. What I mean by this is that sure, we have seen the wolf being bred down to the Chihuahua but at the end of the day both are still dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris). We have never seen however, a dog change into a cat or vice versa. Nor have we seen a fish turn into a frog. we claim to have found "the missing link" but in order for Darwinian evolution to happen we have to have literally 100s of thousand of "missing links" between each species. No where have we found these missing links in the fossil record. I, as a skeptic just have serious doubts about the theory of evolution.