JCC God Exists.

Catholics decided to open schools instead of gas stations because, as an average, it's easier to influence children than truckers.

 

womp-womp-wwwooooommmmpppp

 

Classical liberalism is an ideological system. I will raise my children to abide by its norms--"hammer it at them". Is that egregious, in your view? Why or why not? If not--independent of your appraisal of Christian theology/epistemology/ethics per se--what makes Christian/Marxist/Muslim/Confucian etc. parents raising their children to abide by their ideological precepts inherently wrong?

 

Next time liberals are promoting hate, I'll agree with you.

 

"Promoting hate" being "wrong" is a value judgment derivative of the ideological framework of classical liberalism. The next generation won't abide by it unless you "hammer it into them".

If this were a debate regarding the epistemological deficiencies of the major world religions I doubt we would disagree on much of anything. But what's being asserted here is that indoctrination of religion is a specific kind of indoctrination. Contrary to what you may wish to believe, a child locked into a sensory deprivation chamber until age four won't walk out espousing platitudes about the virtues of tolerance and pluralism. He needs to be "brainwashed" into abiding by those values.

 

I remember when this thread didn't suck and I didn't hate all of you.

 

I dare you to imagine Bigfoot in powered armor fighting Nazis.

 

Let me ensure I understand you correctly. You thought an intelligent way to evaluate the moral valence of teaching Christianity was to compare it to something that (in your mind) is intrinsically bad, and then say the first thing is necessarily bad by merit of what you just compared it to? When you didn't draw any point of similarity outside the fact that both things are taught to children? Really?

Does it? Presumably, you are going to give us some example of this later on in your post? How would the mode of teaching a novel differ, depending on what one felt about its importance in the literary canon?

No one ever has different ideas than you about what is or is not acceptable? The only possible differences must stem from failure of sincere belief? It's interesting to know that apparently people can't disagree about methodology anymore.

After this weird combination of abstraction and arm chair philosophy, let's try to pin down what we're actually discussing in concrete terms. There is some material to cover as a group, usually supplemented by preparatory home study beforehand. Classes with younger students skew towards recreational activities and arts and crafts as elements of lesson plans. Those with older students are based more in reading and analysis. Group sessions are led by adult teachers.

I guess what I'd like is some clarification on how this fundamentally differs from other types of instruction? Is the combination of homework and group exercises somehow novel? Is it inherently sinister to use adults as teachers? What exactly is your objection to the methods used to teach Christianity (and other religions) as distinct from teaching any other subjects? Is it instead your position that teaching anyone anything must always tend towards authoritarianism?

Ah, is this the problem? "True" individualism? As opposed to false individualism? Thank you, Senator Paul. Is "freedom" also at stake? Any other amorphous and stupid buzzwords you'd like to drop into this debate?

What does this have to do with how it is taught? Are you claiming it would be somehow less guilt-laden if lesson plans catered to visual instead of auditory learners? Or did you just slip back into talking about your objections to the content of Christianity, because in spite of all your bluster you don't really have a point outside of this?

As a point of interest, religious instructional teaching has largely evolved in parallel to the broader trends in secular education. Primarily because teaching is teaching, regardless of the specific content. But putting aside that thought for the moment (since you are so bizarrely resistant to it), suffice it to say that like general education, American religious instruction was considerably more rote and didactic in times past than in the present day. During the same period, American political discourse was more welcoming of compromise and dialogue. This tends to undermine your point.

 

This is an argument in bad faith on your part precisely because I am not arguing about people's beliefs in some platonic sense, but the shadowy nexus of action + social pressure + inner conviction.

eyeroll.gif

Ah yes, spitting contempt. That old Jabba-wocky standby. Look brah, you may be a resentful authoritarian and proud of it, but that doesn't mean I care. As I tried to say earlier, agree to disagree.

I have always been talking about the synergy of the content of Christianity with the modes in which it is taught. That you have consistently tried to steer the conversation towards "modes" rather than actually engaging with the points I am trying to get across makes me believe that this conversation is pointless.

I don't know in what way I can more adequately express my disinterest in your transparent attempt to shift this conversation down roads that focus solely on the cruelty of Christian instruction so that you can dismiss the other points therein. As I predicted earlier, "mind control" ended up being a goal-shift-ey term that allowed you to essentially decide that, unless something was torture, it was alright. (Apparently up to and including emotional blackmail.)

Never at one point in this thread did I agree that the conversation should be solely focused on the way in which the material was taught to determine whether or not it was abusive. That sort of reductionism is absurd. In short, I never asserted, as you said I did, that "harm deriv(es) from the modes of instruction for Christianity." Rather, harm, in most cases, derives from some combination of the emphasis on certain doctrines, the teacher, the sternness of the atmosphere in which it is taught, the social climate, the personality of the student, etc etc etc.

But classification of instruction in Christianity as "coercive" (which was my original entry point into this thread) has little to do with whether or not such things are harmful.

This is rose-covered glasses nonsense. Political discourse was never "welcoming of compromise", there was just very little cleavage in the Overton window because of the liberal consensus and the fact that neither party was constituted in large part and exclusively by the hardline Christian right.

 

Didn't Venture Bros do that one already?

 

It would be amazing if they did.

 

This is the sort of thing that makes this discussion ridiculous. You loudly protest that I am missing your point. Yet, with comments like this one, you have repeatedly implied that there is in fact something inherently wrong with religious instruction as distinct from the content of any particular religion . You've also serially failed to defend this claim. Given that it manifestly is part of your point, you should perhaps either stop saying it, or offer some support for it. Alternatively, you can keep lurching between what ever you think allows you to say something disparaging, and then tell everyone we're "not getting it" when your lack of actual argument is noted.

Not really. If I may remind you how we got to this point, it is the cap of a long sequence of posts wherein you didn't say you wanted to discuss the synergy between content and instructional methods, but that you in fact felt that those two things were indistinguishable. This causal chain went: content determines importance, and importance. . .something. You never really explained how the importance of material influences the method for disseminating it, and have now balked when I asked you to explain. I suppose asking you to offer rationales for your assertions was too much to expect.

I never said that it was. I said it was "more welcoming" which is a relative rather than absolute judgment. One which you agree is true.

 

I can't tell you to stop reading your own baggage into what I am trying to say.

What you bolded is simply what I interpreted as you trying to discuss. The better way of writing it would have been "cruelty (or lack thereof) in Christian instruction".

You are basically doing that thing where you decide in advance what a conversation is about and then act like everyone else is an idiot for not following along.

No, because to be "more welcoming of compromises" implies that there were compromises to be made. If the parties are more uniform in their general programs then I don't see how you can signal that that indicates compromise, it simply means lack of diversity.

Nope. We got to this point by you not letting the conversation die.

The natural stopping point would have been at the point in which I said that I found indoctrination into Christianity distasteful because, and I quote myself

Furthermore, I did not suggest that mode and content are "indistinguishable", rather that the nature of my objection to Christian indoctrination comes from THE combination of the two. I said specifically "Your aim seems to be to create some sort of rhetorical space where, even if you dislike Christianity, it is perfectly okay for adults to coerce their children into practicing Christianity. But it cannot be done." My intent is not that the two are "indistinguishable" in some banal sense, but that my judgement of them comes from a systemic viewpoint. That is, in this sort of pseudo-moral judgement "content" and "mode" cannot be separated.

Yes, I feel a bit icky about any indoctrination of children, but I feel especially icky about children being indoctrinated into CERTAIN KINDS of ideas. I don't think that is evasive or difficult to understand.

 

You've had a multitude of opportunities to clarify what you want to discuss. If you don't feel like there's anything wrong with the modes of instruction themselves, perhaps you should not have said

No one put these words in your mouth. If you didn't want to contest that the modes of religious instruction were intrinsically harmful, perhaps you shouldn't have spent so much time doing so.

Oh, I see. Was it not "true" compromise? Good thing you and Holden Caulfield are here to protect us from the phonies. Where would we be without your endless attempts to tell us about Overton Windows, and memes, and transhumanism, and whatever pseudo-intellectual buzzword you next decide is hip and en vogue?

 

This has devolved into pure spite and bitterness at this point. This is the last time I will engage you in this sort of discussion, Wocky.

 

Can we talk about how hilarious and terrible Passion of the Christ was?

Because that movie was hilarious and terrible.

 

Alternatively you could either just:

A) Continue along the lines of discussion you clearly were having

or

B) Stop accusing me of "failing to engage" or "shift goal posts" and instead just admit that I was responding to actual content within your posts, but that you'd now like to discuss something separate and decline to defend those claims any longer.

 

Rogue_Ten I should beat your ass for starting this thread.

 

god proud of cockroaches

 

this thread owns and anyone who's anyone knows it

 

Kinky

 

Official God FAQ

 

I hope this thread goes on forever. It will be YJCC's Hamsterdam.

 

Terribly AWESOME, maybe.