I think the trouble with arguing these kind of things is that the answer is:
“Yes that’s bad.”
But the people who are a) asking the question, and b) answering “yes that is bad”, are completely the wrong people, in that they themselves would never contemplate undertaking the action in question.
ie: We’re a bunch of vegetarians all nodding when one of us asks “So, eating meat is bad then, huh…?”
Your example proves my point. Please see my comments, above, on the inevitability of parental bias in upbringing children- that is not the issue here. If a parent deliberately indoctrinates their child into veganism, they effectively deprive that child of the free choice to eat meat before they reach the maturity to decide for themselves whether or not to be a vegan. I’d argue this intentional deprivation of the child’s free choice is immoral (whether or not it’s harmful for the child to eat meat or be a vegan).
But if there’s enough consensus, things might change.
Huh.
Breaking News: Pigs seen flying over London.
That’s what I mean, the real question is not if it is immoral for parents to indoctrinate their children, but whether it is moral or not for a society to prevent them from doing so.
It seems unlikely that society can actually intervene in this way- even under a tyrannical regime (cf. Stalinism)- so the question of whether it should is pretty much academic- however interesting.
In any case, it’s perfectly possible for people to regulate their own morality, and history abounds with examples of how societal mores adapt and change with the zeitgeist- even within doctrinally circumscribed systems like religion. It wasn’t long ago that people considered it morally correct to burn heretics at the stake, but we don’t do that now. Thankfully.
So we may live in hope that those pigs will one day be seen soaring over London’s dark, satanic skyline…
First, I would inquire as to why he thinks there’s no gravity. If he’s young enough, I’d humor him (like we humor imaginary friends). If he’s older, I’d listen to his reasoning, and if I found it was seriously lacking, I’d simply say I disagree but suite yourself.
If, on the other hand, my child was simply asking about the existence of gravity, I’d make no qualms about it - I’d say yes, gravity exists - but this is because gravity is not a controversial issue. It’s not like debates over the existence of gravity rage all the time everywhere you go. If it were a controversial issue, however, I think my above speech example would be warranted.
Gib,
That is my point. We know that base 10 isn’t true in any real sense, yet there is no debate as to whether children ought be indoctrinated in it and deprived of free choice. Why oughtn’t the same logic apply to religion? MMP’s comment on gravity also applies, only we know gravity to be true.
Coatless,
I think where we disagree is on the moral imperative of free choice. What is so great about free choice? Why ought that be the single highest moral value? And why is the free choice of the individual paramount as opposed to free choice of the family or society (which would demand duty and obedience in the case of the individual)?
Much of our life is not of our choosing. We do not choose where and when we are born, to which parents, in what kind of a community, to what class, ethnicity, and so on. Why ought creed be any different? Indeed, as codified by American law, it would seem that it oughtn’t be as “creed” is usually lumped together with things like “race”, “gender”, and “national origin”.
Why should we pretend children (or people at all) are independent beings when they aren’t? All these things exist in context of one another and can really only be understood as such. Why embrace a false model and use that as our standard for morality?
As for the suicide cults, will you indoctrinate your children to stay away from suicide cults? Or will you let them freely choose to join one?
Yes, I agree- this is the sticky point in this matter. As I suggested here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=2111090#p2111090
When it comes to the adoption of the Christian faith, I gather this issue of free choice is really important.
As I said:
I’m no theologian, but as I understand it free choice is essential to the central tenets of Christianity. Without it we cannot be ‘saved’, so it’s a pretty Big Deal. But you’d have to ask a theologian about all that…
Is there a theologian in the house?
I’m not sure that a modern, liberal notion of self and said self making a “free choice” applies to a pre-modern mystery cult. But even taking for a moment that it does, so what? What does Christian soteriology have to do with morality? Even in Christianity. Right? The thief and the murderer dying with Jesus were immoral but still saved. Mary M was immoral but still saved. Heck, lots of Protestants argue that everybody is immoral. So I’m not sure a clear line can be drawn between the Christian notion of salvation and the Christian notion of morality.
And what about non-Christian contexts? Christianity isn’t the only game in town, after all.
I don’t especially want to get into a discussion of slavation and substitutionary atonement here, exctiting though that might be. 
I think it’s basically irrelevant to the question posed in my OP.
But I’ll wait to see what the house theologian has to say on the necessity of free choice, if there is such an expert on these boards? As I understand it, a person must (be in a position to) choose to be ‘saved’ as a Christian, or he isn’t really saved as a Christian at all.
Isn’t that a moving target? Now it isn’t that indoctrinating children into any religion is wrong because it restricts free choice but rather that indoctrinating children into Christianity is self-defeating since it denies salvation to the indoctrinated. That is a fine topic, but substantially more narrow in scope.
So which is it? Is it about free will as it applies to individuals or is it about free will as it applies to Christians?
As for the resident theologian, the ones we have don’t stop by very often anymore and we haven’t gotten a fresh crop in a while. Though there are plenty of atheists who know a great deal about Christianity and I am sure they could answer that question. Though I will say that your position sounds rather Protestant – Evangelical even. Catholics, Coptics, and Orthodox Christians all have rites that would seem to argue against the free will interpretation. Infant baptism, for example. And Calvinists and related sects that believe in Predetermination, well, free will doesn’t really enter into that discussion either. So now the scope is even more narrow, as it only applies to specific sects of Christianity.
They aren’t deprived of any free choice. If they want to go with a base 8 number system, all the power to them. To teach them the base 10 number system is only to give them something useful, maybe even necessary, in order to get by in the world, but that’s not the same as insisting that it is the only number system possible or that all other number systems are somehow wrong or immoral.
The fact that we know gravity exists is all the more reason to allow children to make their own choice on whether to believe in it or not. That is to say, if we’re right in thinking we know it, then we must know it by some justification. Rather than shove the doctrine of gravity down children’s throats like dogma, give them the justification and let them decide for themselves. We can reasonably trust that the justification is strong enough (i.e. we can experience gravity first-hand) that no sane child would reject the notion (although with this kind of justification, I hardly think the concept of gravity needs to be taught).
…additionally, perhaps there is reason to allow children the opportunity to defy gravity. This is something many of them naturally tend to want to do, so it may be more auspicious to channel their oppositional attitudes to Reality rather than insist they stay grounded in all respects. Perhaps we ought not indoctrinate children into our version of Reality; introduce them to it, sure, but keep hubris universally in mind, insofar as that’s feasible. (I’m not claiming it’s very feasible, though. 
)
The only thing that I can really say on this matter is that it is definitely a good thing to let kids determine what they want to believe for themselves. At the same time, though, the kids are going to need some kind of a starting point, and that starting point is generally going to be what the parents believe or don’t believe.
One could argue for a laissez-faire approach to parenting when it comes to teaching (or not) Religion to kids, but I think it is really hard to do for parents that may be of an actual Religion. The reason for this is because it is difficult for such a parent to actually practice their Religion (going to church, for example) and not bringing the kid along every single time. Even if a parent were to do this, the same parent could just be sitting around casually reading a Religious text and most kids of a certain age will inquire, “Whatcha readin’ Daddy?”
Ultimately, I think teaching a kid Religion may actually be the best thing to do. At the same time, though, a truly caring parent will also explain alternative Religions or the conception of having no Religion at all to a kid. I’m not saying to necessarily give other Religions equal time (A Catholic can really be expected to alternate weeks with a Jewish church, for example) but just to let them know they are out there.
Controversy exists BETWEEN individuals or in a society.
I’m sure religious parents tell their kids about (the sometimes “evil”) atheists and even other religions… They simply add that those people are wrong in their (dis)belief. How could they possibly say anything different and remain honest?
I wouldn’t mind telling my kid about how people thought the earth was flat and how some people still believe that… I’d just add that they are wrong and likely mentally challanged. In fact, I’d feel like an ass if I didn’t!
The ‘free choice’ issue is important to my argument for two different (but interrelated) reasons:
A) I propose it’s immoral deliberately to deprive children (by way of indoctrination) of the freedom to choose to adopt a religion;
B) Theologically speaking, I understand that a person’s choice to become a Christian must be willing and informed, and their personal relationship with their God (and therefore their salvation) depends on their volition.
So, I don’t think it moves the target to bring both issues into the discussion.
I don’t believe it’s exclusively a Protestant theology that a person must adopt their faith freely, willingly and knowingly, but once again I’m no expert in these matters (and anyway, this ‘minor subset’ is made up of hundreds of millions of people). Perhaps you could demonstrate how it’s morally correct (or even literally possible) for a normally sapient person to be obliged to adopt any religious faith against their free will and informed knowledge? I suppose it may be the case with certain religious sects, but I don’t see it in the main world religions.
Could you say that a person is, in a meaningful way, a Christian, if they only unwillingly or unwittingly become one? Is there such a thing as a Christian baby? Or a non compos mentis Christian (with advanced Alzheimer’s, say)? If you drugged an atheist with hypnotics (Rohypnol, perhaps), and then persuaded them to adopt the Christian faith whilst thus incapacitated, I hope you’d be put in prison! But would your victim be a Christian in any proper sense at all? I don’t think so. The element of discretion and volition in the adoption of a faith is not only a theological requirement, but a common sense necessity.
As I suggested above, indoctrination is a pejorative term. It means you tell people one there is only one way of thinking that is true and acceptable. You don’t teach about alternative ways of viewing an issue. You don’t encourage or even permit rational consideration of alternatives.
So indoctrinating anyone into anything is wrong. It’s antithetical to free liberal democratic thinking. Teachers should teach people about stuff and let them make up their own minds. Otherwise they have crossed a boundary into denial of the other’s autonomy or free will. This is an ethical issue that isn’t peculiar to religion and can be applied to anything that can be taught.
Why? We have no problem depriving children (by way of indoctrination) of the freedom to choose what they believe about biology, history, mathematics, crossing the street, and so on. Why and how is religion different?
If that is the major thrust of your position, why not restrict the dialogue to Christianity? It seems dishonest to say “religion” when you mean “Evangelical Christianity”. Point A is well-taken as a given (though I disagree with that given) but this second point seems trivial if the discussion is about “religion” and not “Evangelical Christianity”.
How are we conceiving free will and informed knowledge? Free will doesn’t exist in an absolute sense. We aren’t Rawlsian automatons behind the veil of ignorance, instead we are realized human beings with associations and obligations that compel us down certain paths. Religious commitment as a manifestation of familial and cultural legacy is deeply important. As for informed knowledge, knowledge is not a value-neutral term instead it is knowledge of something within a particular context or narrative. Furthermore, basal knowledge, the sort of thing needed to overcome the hermeneutic circle, is always taught via indoctrination. We understand parts of a system in reference to the entire system but we understand the entire system in reference to its parts. Post-modernists say we can’t overcome that and knowledge is therefore impossible. That is, of course, poppycock. The way it is overcome is by giving people very small manageable parts (basal knowledge) through indoctrination and then building from there. It is like learning to read: letters form words, words form sentences, sentences form paragraphs, paragraphs form passages, and passages form texts. Since we are indoctrinating children in other areas, why not indoctrinate them into religion as well? Their informed knowledge is based off indoctrination, so what makes religious indoctrination different?
As for why a normal person may be obliged to adopt a religion, things like duty to family, country (where an official religion has been established), and culture are all possible answers. Or because the religion provides other services that they desire (be it food for a beggar or access to artifacts for a curator). Plenty of reasons.
Do they perform the rituals associated with Christianity? Do they associate with other Christians during the practice of these rituals? If so, I see no reason not to call them Christian. Whether or not they are “saved” as a Christian is another matter but it is unrelated to the discussion. Or at least it is for me since I don’t believe anyone is “saved” as a Christian because I don’t think Christianity is true.
Of course. If they are born to Christian parents and the parents engage them in Christian rituals (like Baptism, prayer, and all that), why wouldn’t they be Christian?
If others around them engage them as a Christian (particularly their family and those around them most – those two catagories ought overlap so as to be indistinguishable but oughts ain’t ises, unfortunately), how aren’t they Christian?
In this case, the atheist probably isn’t a Christian because once the drug wears off they will revert back to atheism. Religious faith requires a larger context than a brief moment. If, on the other hand, the conversion persisted after the drugs wore off or if the person were kept drugged/hypnotized then they would indeed become a Christian.
Yes. The point being?
I wouldn’t.
Why is a human labeled anything other than what they are free of obligations outside of their immediate selves? A mom has to be a mom, even though they aren’t connected to their child after birth. It’s sort of forced upon them as a societal duty, instinctual even. I don’t know how much religion would apply to this but you could say that if someone is brought into a Christian household then they must instinctively and socially feel like they have to appease their family in order to be accepted and loved. So if that makes them Christian in the way a crackwhore who puts her child up for adoption is a mother then I guess, but not by much.