Children's Quad...

[_Jersey Girl]

Such a cutesie is little less than a sicko... IMSCO

Here is what constitutes "sicko" in my view:

The couple who recently tied a rock to their dead 9 month old and threw the body over a bridge.

The woman in Florida who sexually abused by raping with a screw driver and then killed an 8 year old girl in a church building, stuffed the body into a suitcase and threw it in an irrigation pond.

The so-called "father" who, when high on PCP, ATE HIS LIVING SON'S EYES out of his head.

The sexual offender in Michigan who killed a 5 year old girl, dragged the body down to a river side and poured concrete over it in order to cover up his henious act.

The person in Florida who caused the death of a 2 year old child, wrapped the child in two drawstring trash bags, stuffed it into a laundry basket only after covering the child's nose and mouth with layers of duct tape and placing a cute little heart sticker over it's mouth.

This society, that in the 1800's, had to prosecute child abuse using the SPCA guidlelines for animal abuse because it failed to provide legally for the abuse of human children.

And you're worrying about children carrying scriptures to church.

[_JAK]

I guess I'm a little puzzled at your outrage on this one, Roger. What's wrong with a children's Bible or Book of Mormon? Most religions have children's scriptures. You can pick them up in any bookstore.

Actually, if it's a children's quad, I wouldn't mind picking one up for my son. He's 5. Where did they get it? Deseret Book?

It would seem that “indoctrination” is that to which Roger objects. The term implies distortion of objective information in favor of dogma – religious dogma.

However, religious indoctrination begins virtually from birth. Numerous denominations baptize infants. The infant has no remembrance of being baptized at a week or a month after birth. The parents do, however. It’s the beginning of indoctrination. Parents tell their baptized children that they have been baptized. Parents inform their children the doctrine regarding baptism and its importance (from the bias of religious doctrine).

Childhood books designed to indoctrinate are a part of marketing religion to children.

One may ask: What’s wrong with marketing religion to children?

From the perspective of parents who want their children indoctrinated into a specific religious mythology, it’s a good thing. From the perspective of parents who want their children to grow into inquiring teens and adults, it’s not a good thing. From the perspective of parents who want their children to have life-long inquiring minds as free from indoctrination or biased, religious dogma as possible, it’s not a good thing.

Roger appears to favor the latter and that children should be reared in an environment of inquiry in all matters of accumulated and accumulating information. If that is not the case, he may object to my interpretation of his comments.

JAK

[_Ray A]

Do you object to all children's books that teach life's lessons? Aesop's Fables is forbidden? Mother Goose is banned?

Well at least you have the category correct.

[_Jersey Girl]

It would seem that “indoctrination” is that to which Roger objects. The term implies distortion of objective information in favor of dogma – religious dogma.

The term implies "teaching".

However, religious indoctrination begins virtually from birth. Numerous denominations baptize infants. The infant has no remembrance of being baptized at a week or a month after birth. The parents do, however.

The infant doesn't remember breastfeeding either. It doesn't remember the sounds and patterns of voices, and yet it continues to bond via verbal communication. The child doesn't remember if it's parents took out insurance policies on it following it's birth. The baptisim, is a form of spiritual insurance in the mind of the believing parent. Whether the child remembers what the parent has done, has no bearing on the value of what the parent has chosen to do for the infant.

It’s the beginning of indoctrination. Parents tell their baptized children that they have been baptized. Parents inform their children the doctrine regarding baptism and its importance (from the bias of religious doctrine).

The "indoctrination" process begins far earlier than that. It begins with the believing parent learns they are carrying a child and considers the child a gift from God.

Childhood books designed to indoctrinate are a part of marketing religion to children.

One may ask: What’s wrong with marketing religion to children?

Children and their parents are marketed to in every way. They're diapers, their baby bottles, their blankets, their toys carry commercial images.

From the perspective of parents who want their children indoctrinated into a specific religious mythology, it’s a good thing. From the perspective of parents who want their children to grow into inquiring teens and adults, it’s not a good thing. From the perspective of parents who want their children to have life-long inquiring minds as free from indoctrination or biased, religious dogma as possible, it’s not a good thing.

This board and other boards are filled with children who were "indoctrinated" throughout their childhood and who defy your assertion that children who are raised in a religious home fail to develop inquiry based thinking. Craig Criddle is a prime and glaring example of that. Tarksi, Dale Broadhurst, and Trevor are others.

Roger appears to favor the latter and that children should be reared in an environment of inquiry in all matters of accumulated and accumulating information. If that is not the case, he may object to my interpretation of his comments.

JAK

That a family chooses to "indoctrinate" or teach their children religious traditions in no way excludes the child from being raised in an evironment of "inquiry in all matters" or a deprivation of information.

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl stated:
Yes, they do and people need to stop attaching a stigma to the word "indoctrination" as if it were something wrong to do. post reference

Historically, Christians have killed other Christians over doctrine. Roman Catholics and Protestants have killed each other over doctrine. Palestinians and Israelis are presently killing each other over doctrine and regarding territory as doctrine is applied.

Without question, there is “stigma” attached to indoctrination. While it may be laudable to think that people should be more tolerant, the fact is that the heavier the indoctrination, the less tolerant youth and adults are toward those of different doctrines.

The more agnostic, if you will, that people can be toward a doctrine which even they tend to favor, the less likely they are to kill others who hold different views.

However, it’s most unlikely that people will “stop attaching a stigma to…indoctrination.”

Just look at the hostility among Mormons on this forum toward one another and toward those of other beliefs (doctrines).

People are not killing one another over different interpretations of the works of William Shakespeare or any other literary figure with which there are varying interpretations. Why is that? It’s because the study of various interpretations is done with dispassionate, academic analysis. It’s done with an intellectual engagement of the writings of Shakespeare. (We could apply this to the interpretation of many writers. Shakespeare is merely illustration.)

In religion, however, indoctrination is done with the judgment of absolute truth. Hence, people well indoctrinated into particular religious views are both willing and motivated to kill others who reject or challenge their truth. Of course not all are willing to kill. But short of that, there is great animosity if not hatred toward religious people with whom other people disagree. You will recall “The Battle for God” a book title.

To achieve your goal, Jersey Girl, “people” must become less adamant, more laid back as it were regarding any given doctrine. That’s not likely when indoctrination is pursued relentlessly from cradle up. Why do people baptize their children at birth into a particular religious order? It’s the beginning of indoctrination.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl stated:
Yes, they do and people need to stop attaching a stigma to the word "indoctrination" as if it were something wrong to do. post reference

Historically, Christians have killed other Christians over doctrine. Roman Catholics and Protestants have killed each other over doctrine. Palestinians and Israelis are presently killing each other over doctrine and regarding territory as doctrine is applied.

Without question, there is “stigma” attached to indoctrination. While it may be laudable to think that people should be more tolerant, the fact is that the heavier the indoctrination, the less tolerant youth and adults are toward those of different doctrines.

The more agnostic, if you will, that people can be toward a doctrine which even they tend to favor, the less likely they are to kill others who hold different views.

However, it’s most unlikely that people will “stop attaching a stigma to…indoctrination.”

Just look at the hostility among Mormons on this forum toward one another and toward those of other beliefs (doctrines).

People are not killing one another over different interpretations of the works of William Shakespeare or any other literary figure with which there are varying interpretations. Why is that? It’s because the study of various interpretations is done with dispassionate, academic analysis. It’s done with an intellectual engagement of the writings of Shakespeare. (We could apply this to the interpretation of many writers. Shakespeare is merely illustration.)

In religion, however, indoctrination is done with the judgment of absolute truth. Hence, people well indoctrinated into particular religious views are both willing and motivated to kill others who reject or challenge their truth. Of course not all are willing to kill. But short of that, there is great animosity if not hatred toward religious people with whom other people disagree. You will recall “The Battle for God” a book title.

To achieve your goal, Jersey Girl, “people” must become less adamant, more laid back as it were regarding any given doctrine. That’s not likely when indoctrination is pursued relentlessly from cradle up. Why do people baptize their children at birth into a particular religious order? It’s the beginning of indoctrination.

JAK

Ask yourself, JAK, why you need to resort to extremes in order to make a case against what the believing public does in every day life such as giving their young children a children's book of scripture.

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl stated:
That a family chooses to "indoctrinate" or teach their children religious traditions in no way excludes the child from being raised in an evironment of "inquiry in all matters" or a deprivation of information. post reference

In various ways, indoctrination does, in fact, preclude the inquiry of children growing to adulthood. Colleges which are supported by specific religious denominations tailor education there to match the religious dogma of the religious group which supports the college. To suggest that “traditions in no way exclude the child…” from rigorous inquiry in “all matters” is incorrect.

Religious indoctrination skews information to make it comply with the doctrine. Hence there is a distortion and “deprivation of information” (to use your words).

“Indoctrination” is a pejorative unless it happens to be one’s own indoctrination preference. Muslims motivated to carry out suicide bombings as a result of indoctrination are an example of “deprivation of information.”

The more hard-core the “indoctrination” the greater the “deprivation of information.” Conversely, the softer the “indoctrination” as to reduce it to merely information about a particular group, the less the “deprivation of information.”

For example, the man who shot dead a doctor in a Lutheran church who provided abortion services in a women’s clinic was indoctrinated. He believed he was doing God’s will by killing the doctor.

He lacked sufficient detachment from his own indoctrination to disagree with a practice and speak (freedom of speech) to the issue of Roe vs. Wade 1973.

Historically, the KKK was an organization which used indoctrination to motivate killing of those they hated.

Hence, indoctrination is potentially dangerous and can be demonstrated historically to lead to grave atrocities against people.

Objective analysis is the enemy of indoctrination. The greater the level of objective analysis, the lesser the impact of indoctrination. People are not killing one another over a difference of perspective on the words of William Shakespeare. They are killing one another over a difference in religious indoctrination.

Objective “inquiry into all matters” is not possible where doctrine is sacred, not to be questioned, and the threat and fear of the terrifying is laid out through indoctrination.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl stated:
That a family chooses to "indoctrinate" or teach their children religious traditions in no way excludes the child from being raised in an evironment of "inquiry in all matters" or a deprivation of information. post reference

In various ways, indoctrination does, in fact, preclude the inquiry of children growing to adulthood. Colleges which are supported by specific religious denominations tailor education there to match the religious dogma of the religious group which supports the college. To suggest that “traditions in no way exclude the child…” from rigorous inquiry in “all matters” is incorrect.

Religious indoctrination skews information to make it comply with the doctrine. Hence there is a distortion and “deprivation of information” (to use your words).

“Indoctrination” is a pejorative unless it happens to be one’s own indoctrination preference. Muslims motivated to carry out suicide bombings as a result of indoctrination are an example of “deprivation of information.”

The more hard-core the “indoctrination” the greater the “deprivation of information.” Conversely, the softer the “indoctrination” as to reduce it to merely information about a particular group, the less the “deprivation of information.”

For example, the man who shot dead a doctor in a Lutheran church who provided abortion services in a women’s clinic was indoctrinated. He believed he was doing God’s will by killing the doctor.

He lacked sufficient detachment from his own indoctrination to disagree with a practice and speak (freedom of speech) to the issue of Roe vs. Wade 1973.

Historically, the KKK was an organization which used indoctrination to motivate killing of those they hated.

Hence, indoctrination is potentially dangerous and can be demonstrated historically to lead to grave atrocities against people.

Objective analysis is the enemy of indoctrination. The greater the level of objective analysis, the lesser the impact of indoctrination. People are not killing one another over a difference of perspective on the words of William Shakespeare. They are killing one another over a difference in religious indoctrination.

Objective “inquiry into all matters” is not possible where doctrine is sacred, not to be questioned, and the threat and fear of the terrifying is laid out through indoctrination.

JAK

You are once again, resorting to extreme examples, JAK. Over the years, I have pointed out time and time again, that there is no insurance against mental illness in this life and religion is not the main cause of psychosis. I have posted repeatedly, the excerpts of the biographies of some of the worlds most extreme leaders and in nearly every single case, there existed a history of early abuse.

An time and time again, you have ignored that connection. In 10+ years, when referring to extreme leaders, I haven't once seen you acknowledge that connection. You ignore it as if it didn't exist.

You write as if religious families live in a vacuum and travel to and from church in pneumatic tubes as if they were a bank deposit. You write as if children raised in religious homes do not attend school, do not interact with other children and adults outside of their reilgious congregation, that adults do not go to work, pursue higher education and do not live as integrated parts of society.

These last lines of your post are a fine demonstration of the truth by assertion thinking that you attribute to believers:

Objective “inquiry into all matters” is not possible where doctrine is sacred, not to be questioned, and the threat and fear of the terrifying is laid out through indoctrination.

Inquiry based learning is being taught in early childhood programs all over the US, my own classroom is a demonstration model for that. Children are not being taught solely by parents nor are their parents living in a vacuum without interacting with and availing themselves of the benefit of being a part of an integrated society.

I take acception to what you have implied.

[_JAK]

Jersey Girl stated:
Ask yourself, JAK, why you need to resort to extremes in order to make a case against what the believing public does in every day life such as giving their young children a children's book of scripture. post reference

Well, it’s a judgment to claim “resort to extremes.”

The analysis addresses the issue of “indoctrination.” It addressed the exact wording which Jersey Girl constructed. Would Jersey Girl not agree that indoctrination which results in the murder of people who operate within the law is a negative? Is not indoctrinating Muslims to kill Christians a negative? Is not indoctrinating Protestants to hate Roman Catholics a negative?

Indoctrination tends to produce intolerance. Many who engage in indoctrination regard tolerance as the enemy (the enemy of truth). They dislike honest intellectual inquiry. Why? It’s because honest intellectual inquiry is a threat to doctrine (truth by assertion).

To be sure people do what you observe above. My first comments (this thread) were in what I considered was support for what Roger expressed. Perhaps he will address whether my interpretation of his view was reasonably accurate.

That people do something every day does not make it a good thing. But, you are certainly correct that people do what you describe above.

In other posts on this thread, I have described the inherent dangers of indoctrination of religious dogma.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl stated:
Ask yourself, JAK, why you need to resort to extremes in order to make a case against what the believing public does in every day life such as giving their young children a children's book of scripture. post reference

Well, it’s a judgment to claim “resort to extremes.”

The analysis addresses the issue of “indoctrination.” It addressed the exact wording which Jersey Girl constructed. Would Jersey Girl not agree that indoctrination which results in the murder of people who operate within the law is a negative? Is not indoctrinating Muslims to kill Christians a negative? Is not indoctrinating Protestants to hate Roman Catholics a negative?

Indoctrination tends to produce intolerance. Many who engage in indoctrination regard tolerance as the enemy (the enemy of truth). They dislike honest intellectual inquiry. Why? It’s because honest intellectual inquiry is a threat to doctrine (truth by assertion).

To be sure people do what you observe above. My first comments (this thread) were in what I considered was support for what Roger expressed. Perhaps he will address whether my interpretation of his view was reasonably accurate.

That people do something every day does not make it a good thing. But, you are certainly correct that people do what you describe above.

In other posts on this thread, I have described the inherent dangers of indoctrination of religious dogma.

JAK

Is honest intellectual inquiry what you base your notion on of what goes on in the family life of a believing family?