Extremely religious schools: what to do about them

[mur'phon]

All over the world, some children are sent to extremely religious schools where they learn that a certain religion is the absolute truth, and some political ideologies are right, and must be supported. The more extreme schools teach that they must folow orders without question, even if it means harming their loved ones, or commiting crimes. In short, the children are brainwashed, as they are taught to not question what they learn.

 

So, do you think that such schools should be legal?

Is it against the parrents right to decide what they think is best for their children to make such schools ilegal?

Is it against the childrens freedom to choose a religion to let the parents send them to such schools?

If you think they should remain legal, should they have to folow special laws?

[mimartin]

I’m speaking only of American schools in my comments here.

 

Yes, schools should be allowed to operate with religious afflation only if they are private schools and not receiving any type of federal government funding. What you are describing here sounds more like a cult and not any religious school I’ve ever seen.

 

It is not only the parent’s right, but their obligation to do what is in the best interest of their child. If the parent decides that a religious school was in that best interest then by it would be appropriate to enroll their child. However, what you are describing here is not the teachings of any religion that I ever heard of. Using your definition of an extreme religious school I would hope parents would look for an alternative. That said it still should be legal do to the idea of freedom of religion.

[SilentScope001]

I hate bias as much as the next person...but Come on!

 

There is a difference between public schools and private schools. The difference is that, in private schools, the person already believes in the radical religious teachings and already accepts the bias as fact. All he really need to do is go over there and actually learn what that bias means, but that's about it.

 

In public schools, you are forced into one school that is public, and therefore, no bias is allowed, due to the fact that you cannot choose what public school's ideology to follow...they all are basically the same. But you do choose what private school to go to.

 

In other words, these people knew what these schools are teaching, and go there anyway, because they actually believe in what the school teaches. Therefore, I don't think anything should be done about extremely religious schools. It might be best to have no state sponsorship, but even so, I don't think you can condemn "brainwashing"/teaching if the person consents to being "brainwashed"/taught. Really, for those who do believe in free will, can't you trust the child to make a choice in saying, "Wow, this is an awesome religion" and "This religion stinks! I'm converting!"

 

If you are talking about cults though, well, that's why you got illegal paramilitary groups in the USA who go around kidnapping brainwashed childs in cults and brainwashing them to hate cults. Two wrongs make a right, no?

[tk102]

All over the world' date=' some children are sent to extremely religious schools where they learn that a certain religion is the absolute truth, and some political ideologies are right, and must be supported. The more extreme schools teach that they must folow orders without question, even if it means harming their loved ones, or commiting crimes. In short, the children are brainwashed, as they are taught to not question what they learn.[/quote']

 

What schools are you talking about? Can you give an example or should we just accept what you say is the truth? This pretext sounds hypothetical and could be skewed to make whatever argument you like.

So, do you think that such schools should be legal?

Sure. You say "all over the world" so I don't know what legal system you're referring to. Perhaps under a dictatorship or totalitarian regime they'd be illegal, but that goes against my ideology.

 

Is it against the parrents right to decide what they think is best for their children to make such schools ilegal?

Yes of course if private schools are made illegal it goes against the parents' right to decide. By definition.

Is it against the childrens freedom to choose a religion to let the parents send them to such schools?

Children do not have the same rights as adults in, well probably every country I can think of. They don't have the freedom to choose their school or their medical care. That freedom resides with the parent(s) or custodian.

If you think they should remain legal, should they have to folow special laws?

Special laws? No. Only that the students demonstrate aptitude and attendance and whatever other criteria enough to qualify for a state-recognized diploma.

[GarfieldJL]

Okay this is a rather complex topic, and can't be a straight yes or no. I'm assuming you just mean religious schools and are not referring to cults.

 

It's okay for religion to be incorporated in private schools, and for kids to go to church. That being said there is a line that has to be drawn.

 

 

Brainwashing kids to be suicide bombers, or commit violence against others because they aren't of the same religion is immoral.

 

Many private schools provide students with extremely good educations, including religious schools, most of those students when they come out are pretty descent people. However, in a situation like this it all depends on what goes on in the school and the church, synagog (sp?), mosque, etc. you can't really generalize.

[Darth InSidious]

What about them? If people send their children their, or their children decide to that's their issue, not yours. You don't like it? Tough. You can't legislate against things just because you don't agree with them.

 

@Garfield: It is, I believe, "synagogue"

[GarfieldJL]

What about them? If people send their children their, or their children decide to that's their issue, not yours. You don't like it? Tough. You can't legislate against things just because you don't agree with them.

 

@Garfield: It is, I believe, "synagogue"

 

 

@ InSidious sp? = not sure on spelling

 

 

And it is an issue if a school is brainwashing kids to want to walk into a McDonalds or a mall somewhere and blow themselves up thinking they're go to paradise.

[True_Avery]

And it is an issue if a school is brainwashing kids to want to walk into a McDonalds or a mall somewhere and blow themselves up thinking they're go to paradise.

That is a problem in of itself, but it still feels like a classification. Ever seen Jesus Camp? They didn't tell them to walk into buildings and blow them up, but they did quite a few other things. People do stuff under the thought that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and they are clean. I'm not attacking you, and I know it was only an example of many forms of brainwashing, it still seems like classification and possibly dealing with people more overseas than the brainwashing on home turf. Just a thought, but I still agree with you fully. Brainwashing is a terribly thing, but there are other forms other than blowing stuff upm a lot of them more dangerous.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

There is a difference between public schools and private schools. The difference is that, in private schools, the person already believes in the radical religious teachings and already accepts the bias as fact. All he really need to do is go over there and actually learn what that bias means, but that's about it.

 

In public schools, you are forced into one school that is public, and therefore, no bias is allowed, due to the fact that you cannot choose what public school's ideology to follow...they all are basically the same. But you do choose what private school to go to.

For some reason you're excluding little children, who certainly do not choose which school they want to go to. Second of all, many religious schools do more than 'teach what their bias is about' - they also actively encourage it.

 

Oh, and I find it strange that apparently public schools are in your eyes something you're forced to by definition to choose, while religious schools seem to be voluntary by definition. If, when I was six, my parents decided I was to attend a religious school, there'd be nothing voluntary about it.

 

Really, for those who do believe in free will, can't you trust the child to make a choice in saying, "Wow, this is an awesome religion" and "This religion stinks! I'm converting!"

Don't give me that. Indoctrination into religion is just that - indoctrination. You can't shove dogma down a kid's throat and at the same time go 'they're free to choose for themselves'. Indoctrination, by definition, is the encouragement of one practice while discouraging all other. If parents are sending a kid to a religious school, most of the time it's because they want the kid to not follow any other religion, while staying true to Jesus or Allah or Ganesh.

 

If I tell a kid from birth that God is real and I have the kid partake in prayer, church service, and so on, and send the kid to a religious school, I can't at the same time go 'oh, they're free to choose for themselves' without making myself guilty of hypocrisy, because clearly I don't want them to do so - if I did, I'd not be indoctrinating them in the first place, would I now? I'd send them to a regular school where they attempt to teach all sides equally.

 

Not to mention that indoctrination is a very powerful tool. If something becomes 'part of your culture' and you're never told to question it, you won't. Plain and simple. The female victims of circumcision in the Middle East do not question the practice, regardless of how horrific it is. Why? Because they've been brought up to believe it's part of life and should be carried out.

 

This movie delves into the subject more thoroughly. For starters, go to 3:40 and listen to his points on children of politically involved parents.

 

Brainwashing kids to be suicide bombers, or commit violence against others because they aren't of the same religion is immoral.

I'd go as far as saying that all indoctrination and brainwashing is immoral, regardless of whether it makes the victim follow God, suicide bombing, Bush, or environmentalism.

 

Many private schools provide students with extremely good educations, including religious schools, most of those students when they come out are pretty descent people.

I don't question their morality, but I do question the fact that many religious schools, not to mention the new Creation museum, actively lie to their victims. Evolution is apparently not real, atheism leads to moral downfall, faith is a virtue (read: the less you question your beliefs and think for yourself, the better you are as a person), and the US was founded as a Christian nation.

 

It's strange that the very same people who condemn pro-communist propaganda in Red China and all too easily condone the same practices on their own people and children - if only the subject switches from Communism to Jesus. Why is it wrong to indoctrinate kids from childhood to love Chairman Mao, when it's OK to indoctrinate them to love Jesus?

 

So, do you think that such schools should be legal?

I think that news media, schools, museums and other facilities of information and education should be made to follow certain standards of truthfulness and accuracy. It becomes increasingly harder to think for yourself when you live in a society where you're lied to about abortion and condom usage at school, about WMDs in Iraq and Muslims in Malmö by FOX News, about evolution by Kent Hovind, and about Muslims by Chic tracts.

 

If you testify in court, you have to make an oath to tell 'nothing but the truth', and if you're a medical professional, you can't lie to a patient about medicines, his conditions, or anything else related to medicine. Why? Because in certain cases in life, truth simply is a necessity. You say it's wrong to teach kids that blowing themselves up at a McDonald's is wrong? Why? Because it takes lives? The Vatican doctrine on condom usage has killed litterally millions in Africa, and is still staunchly defended by most people.

[Totenkopf]

The Vatican doctrine on condom usage has killed litterally millions in Africa, and is still staunchly defended by most people.

 

Naw, that's TOO convenient. It's indiscriminate sexual practice that's responsible for millions of deaths in Africa. Next thing you'll be blaming the Vatican's position on condoms for the size of China's and India's populations. The Vatican also looks down on fornication, but that doesn't necessarily stop people from engaging in the behavior that got them AIDS in the first place. You might as well blame the pharmaceutical industry for not flooding Africa with drug cocktails to combat the virus as well.

 

Keep in mind, DE, that many people who go to religious schools often turn away from that faith. Nothing, including indoctrination apparently, appears irreversible.

[True_Avery]

Keep in mind, DE, that many people who go to religious schools often turn away from that faith. Nothing, including indoctrination apparently, appears irreversible.

That is a good point. Most of the athiests I hang around with were put into religious schools as children. But a lot of the hardcore religious were put in the same schools. Guess you got like a 50/50 chance of being indoctrinated or running away forever.

[Darth InSidious]

@ InSidious sp? = not sure on spelling

Yes, that's why I showed you the correct spelling as far as I am aware

 

@DE: If indoctrination is so powerful, how would you explain the mass apostasies certainly happening within the Catholic church, or the frequent accusation that Catholics don't know what they believe in?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Naw, that's TOO convenient. It's indiscriminate sexual practice that's responsible for millions of deaths in Africa.

And if the people practicing indiscriminate sex were allowed to use condoms, the AIDS epidemic would either have been far less severe. It's very easy to say that oh, who needs condoms? Let's just tell them to not get each others laid. In reality, however, abstinence education does not work.

WASHINGTON -- Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.

--Source.

 

In stark contrast, this report by Advocates for Youth shows that 'comprehensive sex education', which includes educating children and teens on condoms, has a significant effect:

Research has identified highly effective sex education and HIV prevention programs that affect multiple behaviors and/or achieve positive health impacts. Behavioral outcomes have included delaying the initiation of sex as well as reducing the frequency of sex, the number of new partners, and the incidence of unprotected sex, and/or increasing the use of condoms and contraception among sexually active participants. Long-term impacts have included lower STI and/or pregnancy rates.

You might as well blame the pharmaceutical industry for not flooding Africa with drug cocktails to combat the virus as well.

Refraining to fight a problem (not sending 'drug cocktails') and actively worsening it (prohibiting condoms) are two different things. I place far more blame on the Vatican and other anti-condom, anti-sex ed, anti-AIDS education institutions.

[Nancy Allen``]

Schools shouldn't make any one belief to be better than another, one very simple reason for that is because it's unfair to those who follow a diffirent religion. Perhaps special schools that are dedicated to one religion can teach it but certainly the more extreme stuff, taking some of what's written in holy texts litrially, shouldn't be taught period. Again for a very simple reason, we are meant to fear and hate the big bad Muslim terrorists and their religion, understandably so given their actions if not right, but if we go about killing nonbelievers then we are as bad as we claim them to be.

[mimartin]

People do stuff under the thought that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and they are clean.

 

I'm not speaking for anyone, but my own personal belief and experience. The way I was taught (in church and at home) is I will be forgiven of my sin if I ask forgiveness, but only if I am truly remorseful for commenting that sin. The Sunday school teacher and my mother made it very clear to me that I could not truly be remorseful if I planned ahead to ask for forgiveness and then willfully commenting that sin. So at least in my opinion and the way I was taught this is not true. Also just because I am forgiven by God for my sin does not make me clean, once I first sinned as a very young child I can never be considered clean or pure again in the religious senses. I believe that even if I ask God’s forgiveness, I’m still not released from that sin unless I strive to prevent myself from doing it again. I have to strive to make myself a better person each day. If the said sin was against another I need their forgiveness as well as God’s. Without the victims forgiveness I can not truly forgive myself and while God’s forgiveness of my sin is more important, me forgiving myself is more difficult to achieve and something I have to live with ever minute of every day.

 

So in my opinion this is not brainwashing, this is people misinterpreting religion to justify living with their own sinful acts. I’ve even read of the church accepting money to grant absolution for a deceased sinner. I have no clue if that works, and my personal views will not allow me to test that theory.

[Totenkopf]

And if the people practicing indiscriminate sex were allowed to use condoms, the AIDS epidemic would either have been far less severe. It's very easy to say that oh, who needs condoms? Let's just tell them to not get each others laid. In reality, however, abstinence education does not work.

 

Refraining to fight a problem (not sending 'drug cocktails') and actively worsening it (prohibiting condoms) are two different things. I place far more blame on the Vatican and other anti-condom, anti-sex ed, anti-AIDS education institutions.

 

Seeing as how the Church can no more stop people from having all that sex it disapproves of in the first place, it's difficult to blame it for their unwillingness to use protection as well. To paraphrase Stalin, where are the Pope's divisions? If the people disobey the proscriptions on fornication, they don't get a pass on not using protection. They are, in effect, disobeying twice. No, it's simply the people there that are to blame. You're also on thin ground in your last statement. By not providing a cure, "Big Pharma" could be accused of as much guilt as "the Church" in actively worsening a problem--the spread of a disease, not less. Same goes for the people who run those countries . However, given your strident atheism, I'm not entirely surprised you seek to place most of the fault on the Vatican. As I said, TOOOOOO convenient.

[GarfieldJL]

Define what you mean by extremely religious, because it seems that you're painting every religious school as doing the same thing. Not all religious schools try to brainwash their students, unless you consider teaching people to respect life, have compassion for others, etc. to be brainwashing.

[mimartin]

Seeing as how the Church can no more stop people from having all that sex it disapproves of in the first place, it's difficult to blame it for their unwillingness to use protection as well. To paraphrase Stalin, where are the Pope's divisions? If the people disobey the proscriptions on fornication, they don't get a pass on not using protection. They are, in effect, disobeying twice. No, it's simply the people there that are to blame. You're also on thin ground in your last statement. By not providing a cure, "Big Pharma" could be accused of as much guilt as "the Church" in actively worsening a problem--the spread of a disease, not less. Same goes for the people who run those countries . However, given your strident atheism, I'm not entirely surprised you seek to place most of the fault on the Vatican. As I said, TOOOOOO convenient.

 

I agree with you 100% that we have to take responsibility for our own action. Many times when we are looking for who is to blame for a problem, we should be looking at our own reflection in the mirror.

 

Withholding valuable lifesaving information from someone in the name of morality is the same as murder. Giving people all the ways to prevent the spread of the disease and letting them decide which best would work for them, puts all the responsibility on them to behave in a socially responsible way. Of course abstinence would work best and should be taught, but it will not work for everyone no matter how well their intentions.

 

I am not saying any organization should condone permissive behavior that goes against its belief structure; by the same token if you are there in a humanitarian capacity you should do everything possible to prevent the spread of the disease and save life. Condoms have been proven to be an effect way to prevent the spread of HIV, while abstinence prevents the spread of HIV 100% of the time, condoms have slowed the disease in the western nations.

 

While I agree with Bishop Maurice Piat that “The condom is a stopgap, a lesser evil, but not the solution.” I believe condoms would slow the disease down enough to start looking for solutions instead of just digging graves. Until reading this I had no idea that 29.4 million of the 42 million cases of HIV could be found in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

I personally applauded the Catholic Church and all the other organizations and people helping in this fight, but there is so much more to do.

[Totenkopf]

Given the plethora of sources of info available today, I find it a bit unlikely that the Vatican can so tightly control information as to render many ignorant in Africa about the efficacy of condom usage. Besides, the Vatican endorsing prophylactics is a lot like SADD or MADD enabling a drunken driver to use his vehicle, all the while warning against getting behind the wheel. Or perhaps like the law telling you not to rob banks, but then providing you with free handguns to heist a bank of your choice, and tips on how to avoid getting arrested.

[mimartin]

There is a very big difference between providing condoms that would save lives and providing booze to an alcoholic driver or guns to a robber that could result in the loss of life.

 

I never said that the Vatican held the information in tight control, I said if they are there to help save lives then condoms could be an effective tool in that fight. I also that if they are going to teach one proven way to save lives (abstinence), then you should teach other forms that might be necessary if abstinence does not fit into that person’s way of life.

[Totenkopf]

There is a very big difference providing condoms that would save lives and providing booze to an alcoholic driver or guns to a robber that could result in the loss of life.

 

I never said that the Vatican held the information in tight control, I said if they are there to help save lives then condoms could be an effective tool in that fight. I also that if they are going to teach one proven way to save lives (abstinence), then you should teach other forms that might be necessary if abstinence does not fit into that person’s way of life.

 

The point of the comparison is that no group can give conflicting "advice" and remain even remotely credible, regardless of the outcome. But I wasn't implying that you thought the Vatican held that information (widely dissemenated globally in the first place) too close to the vest. Rather that they aren't the only source of info available on how effective/ineffective condom usage is in the end (no pun intended, btw).

[GarfieldJL]

The Vatican actually does have a point about Abstainence, seriously that's the best way to not get an STD is not to have sex while you're not married. I really find moral relativism to be rather scary, because you could argue just about anything to moral when in fact it isn't.

 

As far as Muslim religious schools, to be honest a lot of them receive direct funding from radical groups and preach hate. I don't think all Muslims believe that way, but unfortunately it appears many of those with influence are for lack of a better term lunatics.

 

On the flipside I do know some people that went to schools with religious backgrounds and they turned out fine.

 

This isn't a cut and dry topic, and the thing about Muslim schools right now we need to keep careful watch on them because in case people have forgotten we are at war with Islamic Extremists (fanatics).

[Nancy Allen``]

I really find moral relativism to be rather scary, because you could argue just about anything to moral when in fact it isn't.

 

I'm gonna use that, you're absolutely right, saying violence is immoral even in the event of saving lives is quite a frightening prospect. Case in point, police having to use lethal force on someone pointing a gun at someone, people can scream blue murder about it all they want but if police don't act then they would have two or more deaths instead or just the one, the assailent's.

 

You're also right about a great many things, religion for example, not being as simple as some would make it out to be.

[Samuel Dravis]

I said if they are there to help save lives then condoms could be an effective tool in that fight.

 

I also that if they are going to teach one proven way to save lives (abstinence), then you should teach other forms that might be necessary if abstinence does not fit into that person’s way of life.

Not exactly. Religion doesn't exist to save people's lives, per se. It exists to save people's souls. If push comes to shove and a person has to make a decision between their soul or their life, religion says they should choose their soul, because there's obviously more payoff on that one. Catholicism has a number of martyrs that have done exactly that; I think most (or all, perhaps) are considered saints.

 

Maybe people don't follow their professed religion. However, if the Catholics continue saying that using condoms is inconsistent with their faith, just as they have always done, I don't think they can be blamed for the people dying of STDs.

[mimartin]

Not exactly. Religion doesn't exist to save people's lives, per se.

 

Then why are they there saying they want to stop this epidemic? If what you say is true they should give the 29 million infected now as well as the rest of the population last rites and head back to Rome. My understanding of infectious diseases is you first attempt to stop the spread of the infection. While I agree abstinence is the best and most fool proof way to stop the disease dead in it tracks, it is not the only option or even the most practical one.

 

http://www.cathnews.com/news/310/53.php

 

I’m all for principles and morals, but if I can save a human life my principles and morals may have to be bent a little for the greater good.