Genealogies of Ignorance: A Conversation on Childhood Indoctrination

Baptism of a child by affusion
Image via Wikipedia

In a previous post, titled, “My children are currently being raised Roman Catholic”, I brought up the question of childhood indoctrination and examined a Catholic woman’s justification for requiring her children to be indoctrinated into the Catholic Church. If you have not read that post then I suggest that you take a quick look at it to understand what follows.

This post prompted an interesting written exchange elsewhere between myself and a reader. Below I am reproducing that conversation, at least up to the point upon which it stands now, because it allows me to further explicate my views on this subject within the context of a dialog. The other person’s name and identity will remain anonymous (”Reader” will suffice as a designation), but I suspect that many other people share the same or similar views as this Reader does.

The Reader’s statements are presented as Reader. My responses are presented as Me.

Reader: Are not parents care-takers of their children? If they think it is in their best interest to introduce them to religion, despite what someone outside of their family thinks, is that any of our business?

Couldn’t we apply this same logic to a child’s diet? Education? Residence? Political beliefs? Overall attitude? We do not want robots; we want developed children from a loving environment. What better way to bestow our love by teaching our experiences to our children, rather than throwing them to “the wolves” with no understanding of what’s to come.

It is our charge to equip our children for the world to the best of our abilities; whether that means imparting our spiritual experiences, or neglecting their spiritual man.

To each his own.

Me: This entry is questioning whether it really IS in a child’s best interest to be not just ‘introduced’ to religion, but thoroughly indoctrinated in a religion regardless of what the child’s wishes may be. This is a far more serious than simply teaching a child one’s life or spiritual experiences.

Reader:

in·doc·tri·nate –verb

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

Again: “It is our charge to equip our children for the world to the best of our abilities; whether that means imparting our spiritual experiences, or neglecting their spiritual man. To each his own.”

Please note that these are merely my opinions I’m expressing, so that perhaps you’ll understand a different perspective. I, in no way, want to provoke anyone or feel the need to be necessarily right or wrong in anyone’s eyes. I hope that was already understood.

Me: Okay…well, I understand your opinion but like I said earlier, my issue is with something that I see as far more serious than simply introducing children to religion or spiritual experiences. So, I’d be happy to hear your opinion on the specific issue of indoctrination.

Reader: Do you have children? If you think about it, on the converse–and btw, I am concluding that you are an atheist because of your name–what if your family was a family of atheists, but all of society believed in God and Christianity? Do you want us to shove our God down your children’s throats? And to tell you that you are not allowed to “indoctrinate” your children to believe there is no God?

Plus, in regards to your quote, “Essentially, the implication here is that children are not mature enough to make their own decisions when it comes to religion, so as a child that decision must be made for them. But if the decision is made for them throughout their childhood, how can one expect that same child to be fully equiped to make his or own decision once he or she is a full grown adult?”:

The fact of the matter is our children are not mature enough to make their own decisions. If my son made his own decisions, he would be playing all day instead of doing his homework. He would eat Gushers and Fruit Roll Ups and never any vegetables. He would spend his afternoons in swimming pools or at parks, instead of go to school. Our children need guidance from adults, not passive morons who think their children (or anyone’s children) should have the “right” to choose whatever they want. That’s why children do not vote until they are 18; that’s why they do not serve in the military until they’re 18 (unless they have permission); that’s why they don’t get tattoos, or piercings until 18. They are children and don’t know how to make decisions yet– but you said, how will they be fully equiped? They will be fully equiped if they are taught right from wrong. If they are shown what is overall good, and overall bad. Yes, some children are exposed to some religions that are bad for this country or bad for the world, but we do not have the right to be able to strip other people of their right to the first amendment– or do we? I am open to your opinion as well…

Me: To answer a couple of your points:

(1) I would never indoctrinate or approve of the indoctrination of children into believing there is no god. I am against any form of childhood indoctrination.

(2) The question regards whether child are mature enough to make their own decisions regarding religion, not everything in their daily life. This is different. This is telling a child what opinions he or she must hold. I doubt that many people would look approvingly on a set of parents that made their children swear to be Republicans. How is that different from making children swear that they believe Jesus rose from the dead and will punish unbelievers in hell?

(3) I am not interested in stripping people of any rights. And I am certainly not interested in passing laws against this. However, I do feel that it needs to be roundly and loudly criticized.

Reader: I do agree with you to a point. My parents taught me what they believed and I accepted it as a child. As an adult, I had the opportunity to reject what I was taught, and I did reject it for quite some time, until I decided that, after eight years of searching, it was right for me after all. I agree that it is wrong to tell someone what to believe, and to reject them if they do not believe it.

But it is not anyone’s right to tell anyone what they should be allowed to teach their children.

Just like it is wrong to go to Iraq and tell Iraqis how to believe or act, it is wrong for Americans to go into fellow Americans’ homes to tell them how to behave. Unfortunately, although these thoughts are “nice”, they are all quite moot points.

However, I appreciate how kind you’ve been while disagreeing with me. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have differences in opinions, and I do respect that you are able to share your opinions without being patronizing.

Me: “But it is not anyone’s right to tell anyone what they should be allowed to teach their children.”

To an extent I would agree. However, surely we can imagine situations in which it is in the best interest of the child not to be taught certain things. Should parents be allowed to raise racist children? Maybe. How about teaching children that it is okay to perform acts of violence on another class of people? Some parents reject all medical science for religious reasons and force their children to reject medical treatment – even in life threatening situations.

The pertinent question, therefore, is not whether or not we can intervene on a child’s behalf but in what circumstances should we?

Reader: “The pertinent question, therefore, is not whether or not we can intervene on a child’s behalf but in what circumstances should we?”

Physical abuse. When a child’s life is in apparent danger, that is when someone else should step in. Otherwise, it is none of our business. Even if that’s annoying (which I know it is).

Me: I agree that physical abuse dictates that we must intervene on the child’s behalf. However, I do not agree that in cases of what I will call “mental abuse” that it is none of our business. It should be our business because this will have an affect on the child’s life and future. This is why Richard Dawkins calls childhood indoctrination a form of child abuse. Children are the future and it behooves us to know whether or not parents are teaching their children wrong, silly, stupid, or dangerous ideas.

I am not saying that in this case we have a right to physically intervene. I do believe in protecting certain freedoms. All that I am saying is that we should not shy away from criticizing such practices because we are afraid that it is none of our business.

Reader: I am not “afraid” that it is none of our business– it is none of our business. Who’s to say what’s right or wrong? Will it become a thing like in Germany when all Jews were wrong? When it was first only a mere hatred then hatred grown to genecide?

It is none of anyone’s business what religion I choose for myself or for my children– otherwise my rights are being tampered with.

Me: Your rights are only being tampered with if you are forced, through legislation or some other means, to do something contrary to what your stated rights are. I am not talking about forcing anything on anyone. However, watch a documentary like “Jesus Camp” and you might appreciate why I feel that how parents are indoctrinating their children should be, in general, society’s business.

Children that are taught to fear eternal hellfire or that the non-Christians will be tortured after death. Children that are taught to embrace the possibility that the end of the world may be at hand and that this is a good thing. This can and is in many cases traumatizing or has other negative psychological effects.

When ideas themselves being imposed on young and innocent children might constitute a form of mental child abuse then yes, it is our business to show concern and criticize the religious beliefs and institutions that encourage it.

Reader: No offense, but how do you know what will happen after death?

Me: I am not claiming to know what happens after death. But I do know that there is absolutely no evidence for any of the claims I mentioned in my previous note. None. Not even close. And that’s part of the problem. Children do not recognize this. And what results is a genealogy of ignorance and an inability to properly reason about the reality of religious claims.

You know, lost amid all this talk about parents rights is the even more obvious right of a child to a proper and beneficial education. There are thousands, if not millions, of children being taught right now that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that scientific knowledge should be demonized. There are children being taught that homosexuality is a sin and abnormal. There are children that are being denied comprehensive sex-education because their parents fervently believe in abstinence only. Etc.

*

That is the where the conversation currently stands. Do you agree with Reader on any points? Would you have answered Reader differently than I did?

[Cross posted at AnAtheist.Net]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


“My children are currently being raised Roman Catholic”

Richard Collins asked parents in an online forum whether or not it is right to force their religious beliefs on children. The first response came from a lady with the handle, “rabbitgirl”:

My children are currently being raised Roman Catholic. IF they wish to change faith or, indeed, turn away from any faith at all, in the future then that will be their choice and they can follow their own hearts at that time.

My children ARE taught about all the different (major) religions of the world….. indeed I find the whole subject very interesting and know a goodly amount about different faiths myself anyway. Being a Catholic DOES NOT prevent one from embracing another faith any some time in the future and I would support my children if that was their decision. BUT I am not doing them any harm in raising them in my own faith at this time. They attend a Catholic school and get an excellent education, they attend mass on Sundays (and other holy days) which takes up an hour of their day (I fail to see what harm this does to them), my daughter has opted to be an altar server, my daughter has made her First Holy Communion and in a couple of years time will be due to make her confirmation. At that time it will be HER choice as to whether or not she makes an adult commitment to my faith, she may wish to defer that decision (many young Catholics do) or she may decide to turn away at that time. I know I did at her age……….. but I returned to the Church when I was older having investigated some other options.

Such a response, I am afraid, is probably not at all uncommon. This woman wants to maintain an appearance of open-mindedness and fairness, but at the same time she is not willing to let go of the control she asserts over her children when it comes to making them go through the entire Catholic indoctrination process. Her children do not get a choice until they are older, by which point they have already been firmly immersed within Catholic doctrine and beliefs. Notice how she says that “at that time [after confirmation] it will be HER choice as to whether or not she makes an adult commitment to my faith” (emphasis added). Well, gee, you have already forced the child to make a commitment to your faith. What kind of choice is that, really?

In other words, “you can decide whether or not to commit to my faith but only after you have formally committed and initiated yourself into my Church (in this case, the confirmation ceremony).”

Essentially, the implication here is that children are not mature enough to make their own decisions when it comes to religion, so as a child that decision must be made for them. But if the decision is made for them throughout their childhood, how can one expect that same child to be fully equiped to make his or own decision once he or she is a full grown adult?

Imagine that this women wasn’t talking about Catholicism but, rather, said:

“I am going to raise my child as a racist until she grows up, at which point she is free to make her own choices concerning which types of people she wants to hate.”

Or how about:

“I am going to raise my child as a right-wing Republican until she grows up, at which point she is free to choose her own political orientation.”

How are these any different than saying, “I am going to raise my child as a Catholic until she grows up, at which point she is free to choose her own religion”?

Now, I know what you might be thinking. One might be tempted to simply dismiss my examples as ludicrous. No mother would ever, for example, raise a child to be racist. I might have thought so too, at least until I read a book on the role of women in organized hate movements (specifically racist organizations). The book is called Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. The author, Kathleen Blee, interviewed nearly 40 women who are involved in various capacities in different white supremacist groups. There are many shocking revelations in this book in terms of the way these people think about themselves and others. However, for the purpose of this blog I would simply like to highlight a single passage that is related to the problem of childhood indoctrination.

The following is a direct quote from one of the racist mothers that Blee interviewed for her book:

[I took] them to the dedication of the white race. … We dressed the kids up in fatigues and little hats because I didn’t have time to make little robes, and we took them and we had them dedicated [to white supremacism. … It's my responsibility to train these two [but] they can make their own choice when they come of age.

I hope my children will be involved or at least understand why their father and I are involved but I will not force anything on my children.

I really can’t say whether or not my children will join [our Nazi group]. They will be raised National Socialist with racial pride, family values, and morals. (pg. 48)

It is obvious to me that we have here the same logic for two different forms of indoctrination. How much different is imagining children in little white Klan robes, really, from imagining children in little white church robes? Sure, the ideologies have vastly different moral implications but the effect here is the same and, at least to me, equally distasteful. What is distasteful is that the child is forced into a particular ideology beginning at a time in the child’s life when he or she is not mature enough to thoroughly understand and analyze the issues with these ideologies.

One can say that raising little racists is far worse in terms of the moral consequences than raising little Catholics. I agree. Being an extreme racist is socially more problematic than being a Catholic. However, the implications are the same and equally disturbing. Children all over the world are being raised to think a certain way (at least with regards to certain issues) rather than being raised how to think. In a world where religion is a polarizing force in which absurd and unprovable claims are the central issue, this is a problem. It is a problem for getting along in a global society fractured by competing and equally baseless religious claims.

As Bill Maher concludes in his film Religulous, we need more doubt and less indoctrination in this world.

[This post originally appeared in two separate posts on AnAtheist.Net here and here]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]