Leaderboard

Indoctrination is a funny word. Is it indoctrination when you teach a child the laws of physics? Is it indoctrination when you teach a teenager the rules of the road and how to drive a car? Is it indoctrination when you teach a child that actions have consequences and how to evaluate which consequences are better than others? See, the view that teaching principles and truths is wrong and somehow harms a child is founded on the belief that it removes their capacity to think for themselves. We educate children to help them understand the principles that will allow them greatest possible success and happiness in life. I once debated this with a father who stopped by a friend's apartment when I was visiting one day. His two sons were living together, one was in his late teens the other his early twenties. Both were living on their own on welfare and had no direction in life. One was a petty thief and the other a small time drug dealer who had just finished describing his plans to travel to Amsterdam to make his next big purchase. (This was in France so the idea wasn't as complicated as you might assume). The father challenged me on why should a man teach his children right from wrong, why should he "indoctrinate" them on what the church teaches about Jesus Christ and God? He believed he had done his sons a favor by not filling their heads full of garbage about God. My response was, that the reality is if you're not teaching your children someone else is always happy to do so. And quite often it is down paths that are destructive to self and to society. I pointed to my friend and asked, "What have you taught them as a result? Is this the outcome your wanted?" Now, is it a fair question? Is it possible for a child to learn all of what I describe and still choose a destructive path? Absolutely. But are they more or less likely to do so? Which approach leads to greater potential happiness and fulfillment in life? Why does God have to be involved? Why can't you just teach moral principles without introducing the supernatural into the conversation? Because ultimately there is a moral foundation to life. More importantly there is a purpose to life. There are fundamental truths that can be discerned, evaluated, experimented upon and absorbed into one's being. Here is a list of basic principles that I have taught my children: https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/articles-of-faith To do so requires faith and trust. Not in man but in God. Not just in self but in the greater sense of what we are and who we can become. Too many spend their lives seeking fulfillment in empty pursuits that ultimately do not fill the void within. How do you steer a child to a path that helps them find those answers? By teaching them to recognize God and to understand their own moral responsibility to find the answers He can provide. Freedom comes by learning how to ask questions and walk with faith to find those answers. It is easy to become cynical and declare that the belief in God has caused so much of the horrors in life. That believers have wielded it like a club to injure others and control people. But my response is, was the effort of God or was it of man? How can you tell the difference? Ah, there is the real question. What is the difference between delusion, manipulation and allowing faith to lead you? That is where a teacher is needed and the right approach to finding those answers is required. But ultimately it is possible to see and recognize the difference, to discern truth. It sounds crazy and illogical but I'll stand by that statement. Is Kim Davis right? I would say the principle she is trying to uphold is true but her actions are false. She has set herself as a martyr in not fulfilling a responsibility to which she was elected by the people she serves. Were I in her position I would have resisted but ultimately resigned because I believe she was caught between two equally important principles. Ultimately you have to stay true to what you know God has taught but you also have to support your democratically elected government. She confused her role and abdicated her responsibility. But I can say that because I agree with her that marriage is defined by God and not man. Government can sanction a union between two men or women but that does not mean it is morally right or that it constitutes marriage. There is a difference between a union and relationship of temporal existence and one that will persist into the life that follows this one. I don't say this to debate this particular issue but simply to offer an example of what it means to live in the world, to influence it but ultimately to recognize that a believer has a responsibility to avoid becoming "of the world" at the same time. In fact, I won't reengage on the question of gay marriage in this thread because we've beaten it to a pulp in a separate discussion previously. We simply disagree on what is right on that question. So Alden, am I teaching my children? Absolutely. But I adhere to the belief that if I teach them correct principles they will be better equipped to make their way through life and find answers for themselves. And that by doing so I establish a relationship of trust that I have a responsibility to uphold as much as they do. That I should be honest with them in what I know, what I believe and how I arrived at that understanding. And that I trust them in their capacity to find answers of their own.

It wasn't directed at you at all. Discussing is one thing, questioning (challenging) somebody about their faith or foundation of it is another. Kevin (bless his heart) tends to post things that he has seen elsewhere, knows it is provocative and goes with it anyway. He posted another bullshit meme on Facebook yesterday that essentially said all Christians support slavery, racism, bigotry and whatever else. In reality it's a very tiny percentage, but the main goal of it was there for two reasons. 1. Provocation 2. Advance the anti-christian agenda of the far left. He regurgitated it which was the goal of the creator of it. I know plenty of very liberal people that don't participate in any of that nonsense. Mainly the older ones with sense while the younger ones (not all) get all their new info from social media and biased sites INSTEAD of having discussions. Intelligent discussion has taken a back seat to some really fucking stupid memes, pictorials and quotes/articles from people/celebrities that are idiots to begin with.. Social media is for pictures of my dogs and cats.

It goes back to not long ago where everybody knew it was disrespectful to question others beliefs and almost everybody practiced that rule. It was common sense and respect for others. As early as middle school we were told that you don't argue religion or politics as the outcome will never be good. You and I remember that. Social media has changed the rule of common sense in the religion area, it's a daily thing to see the card-carrying types of the far left attacking Christianity, mainly the very evil white Christian male. I was raised Catholic and I have zero issue with it. I also have no issue with what others believe in regardless of what deity or following it may be or even if they are atheist. That is called respect for others and their beliefs. Beliefs are an individual preference as we are all individuals with our own thoughts on different things. To actually question somebody on their religious beliefs is beyond comprehension to me. It's just really fucking disrespectful. Food for thought for those that are into attacking religion.

Hold on now. Kevin may be quite a bit younger than us, but he has a right to voice whatever opinion he has. We get it is a social teaching tool, with stories that relate to how people should treat each other - why does the Bible need to be the reference book? Again, I hold to my statement that there is more important information out there now to further humanity, not a static religious text.

Actually that is an incorrect characterization. Taking off will expound later.

You just reiterated everything I already said; work on reading comprehension. And if you don't think atheism is a following, you need to wake up. I'll agree that agnostic isn't a following, it has too many loose interpretations that IMO all boil down to someone that may or may not believe in a creator, but really doesn't care either way.

Hitler was a deist, he used political means to accept or reject religion .. as in he used it to his advantage to raise up established religions, and then of course destroy them when it seemed fit for his nationlist views. These were men, doing bad things for political reasons. If you think a person being agnostic or an atheist is a following, I fell sorry for your thought processes. Faith is the absence of evidence. Its the core argument.

I should start taking my wife to church more.

Is Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt the most extreme example you can find Kevin? What about the waves of the Red Sea pushed aside to allow a whole civilization to cross on dry land? Or fire and brimstone that consumed the Priests of Baal in their competition with Elijah? If you study the Bible, really study to understand the language (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic) and figurative speech that is used and messages that are being presented you begin to question claims that are made after a simple reading of the text. Proof texting is a problematic practice and it is used extensively by pastors and preachers who riff on a verse that they don't truly understand and create problematic conclusions as a result in those who follow them. I don't personally believe the Bible is the perfect Word of God so I have no issues with the recognition that there are many problematic passages within the books that comprise it. I believe it in so far as it is translated correctly and I am highly suspicious what many people claim is their understanding of scripture. Unless you put it into the context of the culture and time and language of the period in which these events occurred you may be drawing incorrect conclusions. Job for instance is a highly misunderstood narrative for instance. Sorry Kevin but the claiming that I'm harming my children by teaching them correct principles is projecting your own experiences and beliefs onto a very different set of circumstances. What you claim as education in school is just a set of rules that govern a particular discipline. I'm saying that life is the ultimate educational experience and it helps to have a view to governing truths under your belt if you're going to effectively navigate it.

You all realize that this is a pointless debate, that is why there are so many religions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYAhlz7rnPU

Aren't you catholic? If so, your kids got the same white wash.

It doesn't take much to just gain some insight. You can attempt to belittle the points of these men, but you have to realize that outside information, in and of itself, is likely directly correlated with the decline of religious membership. As soon as you add outside variables to what used to be a very tight equation, the so called truth in that tight equation becomes less and less solid. I would go so far as to say that religion has been around as long as it has due to constraints on information for so many years, combined with people's desire for traditions. On that point, I'm very welcome to every person having as much access to information as possible. Not against what anyone believes... call it whatever you want... He, god, universe, Gaia. If it empowers someone to do right by others, there's nothing wrong with it. Personally, I don't need the impending doom from an almighty head to goad me into caring about you as a fellow human being. Morals are not a religious exclusive. It's when those religions are used for corrupt purposes that I really have a problem with... and not one, as far as I know.. is exempt from that.

I did not read it fully, but took a quick look. Any thing I should pay close attention to? Because this looks like indoctrination to me. Even if we overlook the controversy in teaching children this young about religion without examining other ones (or none at all), it teaches the kid to listen to god. "To strengthen each child’s desire to obey Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and to obey his or her parents. (..) Politely ask the children to do several actions, such as stand up, turn around, reach up high, touch their toes, and sit down. Thank them for doing as you asked. Explain that they were being obedient. They obeyed your instructions. (..) Explain that our parents love us and want us to do things that will keep us safe and happy. (..) Explain that when we obey our parents, we can feel happy. Our parents are also happy when we obey. (..) Explain that one of Heavenly Father’s commandments is that we pray only to him. We do not pray to other people or to images, which are like statues. Explain that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego knew Heavenly Father’s commandments and wanted to obey them. Heavenly Father protected these men from the fire because they obeyed him. The fire did not burn them. " This entire thing is centered around teaching children to obey religion, and I'm not seeing anything that even acknowledges the possibility of any other way. It links this concept to the family structure and implies that it is what holds the family together, and makes everyone happy. In other words, the child is a bad person for not participating in this. I realize LDS is not the only one who does this, but this is indoctrination.

I think there's a difference between discussing/debating it and attacking. Also, I have a really strong issue with the idea that people should mind their own business, when someone like Kim Davis is refusing to mind her own, and you don't hear much from the rest of her crowd telling her to shut up or get out of the way. The real game changer isn't social media, it's that more people are losing their religion. And maybe social media plays a role in exposing the indoctrinated to a different way of life. Discovering that not having god doesn't mean you end up in the gutter. For the record, my development pre-dates social media. And I always had these discussions. I don't find it unreasonable for someone to question my own belief, though I do find it unreasonable for someone to attack it.

Cmon Erik. Questions end in question marks. ;) So in your mind. Religion kills more people than any other cause of death in the world? Wow, you are really drinking that Atheist koolaid now.