Indoctrination robs children of their identity.

[Quixote1818]

And it should no longer be promoted in American society.

It strikes me that it's still absolutely fine by American standards to indoctrinate your children in to YOUR beliefs. Talk about dangerous and selfish! As Emerson once wrote:

"I suffer whenever I see that common sight of a parent or senior imposing his opinion and way of thinking and being on a young soul to which he is totally unfit.Cannot we let people be themselves and enjoy life in their own way? You are trying to make another you. One's enough."

I certainly don't think their should be any laws preventing people from indoctrinating their children but I think their needs to be an organized campaign to discourage Parents from doing this. Hell, our own Founding Fathers didn't even believe in indoctrinating children, capturing them at an early age when their mind is still developing and conforming them and molding them into exactly who their parents are. That is Bull Shit!


In 1787 Jefferson wrote a letter to his 16 year old Nephew Peter Carr about religion. I strongly feel this letter should be required reading in all public schools and promoted strongly by the liberal community and Air America.

Jefferson wrote:

Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said, that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile, or death "in furea"....

Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics. Most of these are lost. There are some, however, still extant, collected by Fabricius, which I will endeavor to get and send
you.

I believe people should be encouraged to find their own spiritual path and tap into the mysteries of the universe in their own very personal and unique way. Parents should stop indoctrinating their children but instead teach them about all religions and encourage them to be skeptical and seek as much knowledge as possible before defining their spirituality. Most importantly I believe Liberals need to be more aggressive in educating people about the dangers of Indoctrination and ask them why they would want to take their child's identity away? This is the heart and soul of the current culture war here in America and we are losing ground. We must speak up!


"This I believe:
That the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world.
And this I would fight for:
The freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected.
And this I must fight against:
Any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual."
John Steinbeck

[Nikia]

1. I think most parents do this, intentional or not

Most parents who are religious take their children to church. For many church going people, church is about community as well as religion. It makes sense to them that the whole family goes to church together. While at church, that child is exposed to their parents religion. Whether the child is truly indoctorinated or not depends on the child.
Parents, without even trying, expose children to many ideas, intentional or not through their choice of media (television programs, movies, books, art, ect.), lifestyle, conversations with the child, and conversations with other adults. These ideas can be religious, political, or philosophical about how one should view the world, others, and oneself and what one should value. Young children, who have not been alienated from their parents in a major way, usually believe that their parents hold the correct world view because their parents are necessary for their survival.
In time, a child usually questions their parents beliefs and will weigh the ideas for themselves. They will be attatched to many of these early beliefs, though, unless they can prove to themselves beyond any doubt that those beliefs are wrong.
It is just not Freepers who are suspetible to indoctorinating their children. It is everyone. Just think about what you are doing when you have a conversation in front of your child about how Bush is a bad president and a bad man. While that statement is correct, you are indoctorinating you child with that belief, aren't you?

[Quixote1818]

4. Homer Simpson once said:

"I love children!!!! You can teach them to hate all the things that you hate!"

Kind of falls in line with what you were saying. I agree for the most part however their are different levels of indoctrination and taking a child to church is one thing however drilling a religion into their head and putting down all other spiritual beliefs is another. My sister does this. A lot of Americans go to church and yet still encourage their children to think for themselves. Their is a happy medium I believe.

I agree with what you said about indoctrinating children with out even trying as I was most certainly influenced by my parents liberal beliefs growing up. As you said, I questioned them for a while but then returned. They did encourage me to find my own beliefs and politics however and that freedom was refreshing.

Parents should try to watch themselves and not try to influence a child too much. Encourage them to discover their own identity as Thomas Jefferson did in his letter to his Nephew.

[SmokingJacket]

2. Trouble is, many people don't see the difference between indoctrination

and teaching.

And the line is in fact fuzzy.

I'm teaching my children to be secular humanists and liberals. I also make sure they know that other people believe other things and ultimately their beliefs are in their hands -- but I can't help but give them a biased point of view.

For instance, my kid has asked me about God, and I'm pretty frank about the reasons I don't believe in one. I tell him that his grandparents are religious, and they probably have good reasons for being so... but all he hears are my reasons. And so it's not surprising that he's also an agnostic.

Is that indoctrination? I don't feel like it is, but I'm pretty hard-pressed to say how what I'm doing is any different from what religious people do-- that is, passing on my beliefs and values.

[Ladyhawk]

5. I think children should be taught to think for themselves.

I was robbed of my identity by fundamentalist indoctrination.

You can raise your children in your belief system, but you should also teach them to think for themselves and that their final choice is entirely up to them. So, SmokingJacket, you're probably doing it right.

[Quixote1818]

6. I have no problem with what you are doing

I think parents should put it in this kind of context: "Here is what I believe but I am NOT you and I am not God with all the right answers. Before you decide what you believe you should gather as much knowledge and use as much reason and intuition as possible." Certainly you will have some influence but the child will also know he/she is free to find his/her own spiritual path. It sounds like you are basically doing that.

I am not as concerned as much about pushing political beliefs on children as I am spiritual beliefs.

[madeline_con]

3. FYI, all parents in all cultures teach children their beliefs.

I can't imagine how one would do otherwise.

I have no idea how to turn my sons into Kurdish men, for example. (???)