Trigger words: indoctrination indoctrinate
Indicator sentences: Isn't that indoctrination?
Negotiation parts: Would you punish/scold your kids for lying? Stealing? Calling people names? Cheating on a test? Shouldn't you allow them to do that until they are old enough to decide for themselves? Those are behavioral topics, and is completely un related to teaching of a ideology.
Trigger words: indoctrination indoctrinate
Indicator sentences: What separates indoctrination from regular teaching, to you?
Negotiation parts: Parents know they could be wrong, religion knows it is right. Very different points of view What separates it? Pretty easy answer. Evidence VS Idea. If it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true. Teaching something that isn't proven true is indoctrination [STA-CITE]> If it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true. [END-CITE]You can argue that for 'hard' science, but what about 'soft' science like sociology or history? [STA-CITE]> If it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true. [END-CITE]See, your idea is never going to work, because religious parents *do* believe it to be true (and as matter of life and death - often eternally so, and certainly sincerely!), and also feel justified in their *evidence* for it; be that faith, personal experience or what have you. So what you're really saying is that it needs to be *objectively* true, able to be independently verified. Who are you going to trust to fairly evaluate what is and what isn't objectively true, tell you what you can and cannot teach your own child?! [STA-CITE]> Teaching something that isn't proven true is indoctrination [END-CITE]Let's say I, as a secular parent, want to teach my child that we should treat all people the same, regardless of race, gender, what-have-you. Why should I have to prove that this "should" is true to anyone? If we are limited to only teaching things that are objectively, provably and *certainly* true I think the amount we could actually teach our children is massively reduced. Why should the state, or anyone else, get to make that call? I am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true. [STA-CITE]>Let's say I, as a secular parent, want to teach my child that we should treat all people the same, regardless of race, gender, what-have-you. Why should I have to prove that this "should" is true to anyone? [END-CITE]Well, you don't have to because not everyone sees it that way. I think this is a trap, so I'm talking about morals, which is a different topic than religion. People have different morals with different beliefs and different ways of being grown up. There are others who believe that hating people from sexuality and religion IS OKAY BECAUSE THEIR RELIGIOUS WRITINGS SAY SO. So technically, it isn't a truth for all others. [STA-CITE]>I am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true. [END-CITE]Well this is ridiculous. Not many things can be known 100%. If you know anything about the history of science, it has evolved a lot over time. Things that used to be accepted as facts were disproven and improved with new theories and there is no reason to think that all current knowledge is 100% true. Science is no perfect but I'm sure you know this. Some believe that the Bible(or any other holy book) is evidence of their religion. I don't see how everyone can agree on what is true or else we wouldn't ever really need to disagree on anything would we. [STA-CITE]> So technically, it isn't a truth for all others. [END-CITE]Sure, I agree. But my point is that so much of what we teach children about the world, their place in it, the way they ought to interact with the world and those others in it is *very subjective*. [STA-CITE]> I am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true. [END-CITE]Again, if we can only teach *factual* truths that doesn't leave us with much to pass on to our children, does it? [STA-CITE]> Well, you don't have to [prove that treating all people the same is something we should do] because not everyone sees it that way. [END-CITE]But hang on, if you allow for people to see moral truths differently and teach accordingly, why do you not allow people to see metaphysical "truths" differently, and teach accordingly? [STA-CITE]>Again, if we can only teach factual truths that doesn't leave us with much to pass on to our children, does it [END-CITE]I see your point. But yet, I think that there is a lot that is passed down. [STA-CITE]>But hang on, if you allow for people to see moral truths differently and teach accordingly, why do you not allow people to see metaphysical "truths" differently, and teach accordingly? [END-CITE]Morals can be seen differently because everyone is different. In my mind, it's completely different from religion. [STA-CITE]> Morals can be seen differently because everyone is different [END-CITE]'Faith in the supernatural can be seen differently, because not everyone's faith is identical'. Neither seem like a sound argument to me? [STA-CITE]> In my mind, it's completely different from religion. [END-CITE]OK, so let's ignore talk something like the idea of a multiverse. I can't prove or demonstrate it to be true, don't even really understand it, but for whatever reason (let's say their dog died) I might want to teach it to my child as being true. Let's say I teach them that this is just one of an infinite number of universes, and that in Universe X, Fluffy lives on. This is clear indoctrination of something unable to be proven, but why on earth should the state or anyone else be granted the power to tell me I can't teach this to my child?! If your sole problem is with churches and *institutionalised* indoctrination I think you're missing the point. I was raised and indoctrinated in Christianity from the moment I was born until I left home, despite our family being staunchly anti-church, and never attending any religious communities. Do I wish I hadn't been indoctrinated with the idea that the apocalypse was fast approaching and the world doomed? Abso-fucking-lutely. But how can you *legally* prevent parents from passing on their superstitions, magical thinking and supernatural beliefs without auditing everything they hold to "be true" and censoring on a scale that would make the Soviet Union blush? No thanks. [STA-CITE]> Morals can be seen differently because everyone is different. In my mind, it's completely different from religion. [END-CITE]This in itself is a philosophical stance that you are seeking to have imposed upon society. Not all people view morality separate of religion. Seeking this policy effectively enforces a state ideology.
Trigger words: ideology
Indicator sentences: How do you define ideology?
Negotiation parts: A system of ideas. It could vary between a bunch of topics, but I am talking about ideas of religion The scientific method is a system of ideas. It relies on inductive logic, to be sure, but you still have to start out with the idea of experimentation as a form of empirical support. Science as we know it is a product of the ideas of the 1500s-1700s (ish), and is very much a "system of ideas". What makes the scientific method different from religion? Don't all parents teach a "system of ideas" to their children? If your parents have ever spoken politics around you, they were discussing a system of ideas, and by a certain logic, practicing indoctrination. Morality is a system of ideas. Should we not teach kids to be moral? If they're taught a strictly atheist moral system, that's still an ideology.
Trigger words: force
Indicator sentences: Telling a child something isn't forcing things on them. I tell them "The sky is blue" or "This song is nice" - is that forcing it on them?
Trigger words: agnosticism
Indicator sentences: Not necessarily, or in most cases.
Negotiation parts: Agnosticism argues that it is not possible at a given moment in time to know absolutely, but then we don't know anything absolutely. Moreover, that that's okay, we'll work with what we have. That's kind of a flimsy sort of agnosticism. Just saying "well, we're not ABSOLUTELY SURE" is something that I think pretty much any really honest person, religious or atheist, will admit. If that's all agnosticism means, it's a label that can be applied to pretty much anyone. well yes, essentially, why is flimsy a bad thing? but on the question of god it can also be applied to the standards of evidence argument presented earlier. That is, there is insufficient evidence to significantly attribute "god" more reason for existence than anything else. That's why it's not insignificant to say absolute knowledge seems impossible at a given time. You can have the position while still making significant statements.
Trigger words: agnosticism (2)
Indicator sentences: I agree and that's not what agnosticism is about.
Negotiation parts: [STA-CITE]>Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and **perhaps** unknowable. [END-CITE]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism Agnosticism doesn't necessarily mean taking a stance that it's impossible to know stuff about god and that we will never know anything about god(s). I guess it depends what definition you use. Type "define agnostic" into google and you get >a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. If you type "define agnostic*ism*" you get the wikipedia paragraph. Merriam-webster agrees with me: [STA-CITE]>a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god [END-CITE]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic But it's really a spectrum http://reverseenginears.com/rethink/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png I quite agree. But quite a few religious people, myself included, already admit that the existence of God MAY not, to a certainty, be knowable. So a label for "we MIGHT not be able to find this one thing out" seems rather useless.
Trigger words: disproportionately
Indicator sentences: How do you define "disproportionately?" What's the proper proportion and how do you know that?
Negotiation parts: If childhood indoctrination had no effect on the grown up adult's religious choice, and there are more than 3 religions, more than a third of adults should be of a different faith than their parent.