Religious indoctrination is wrong - Essay Example

Then, why is constructivism viewed in many schools as the lone method for instruction? Children answering question papers with a prejudice for another religious belief will be punished if they answer by their beliefs rather than in line with the indoctrination of their schools. Under constructivism, and as argued by Richard Dawkins, religious indoctrination of children is particularly repulsive since it conflicts with moral standards. A number of critics observe the presence of indoctrination in any effort to teach religious beliefs.

There is a major debate about the description of indoctrination, but this debate is beyond the scope of this paper. However, this paper applies John Chambers’s definition of indoctrination: “intentional implantation of equivocal or debatable content in the hope that no matter what counter-evidence is produced the… students will continue to hold the content as true and never see it as equivocal or false” (Purdy 1992, 158). A relevant aspect of this description is that it helps to differentiate between education and indoctrination, which requires imparting information or knowledge with a truthful explanation of its merits.

The present author thinks that in question are unspoken, and often unrecognized, arguments about the value of individual judgment and choice. It appears that what is assumed to be essential about these judgment and choice is that they are ‘ours’. The core of this argument is some idea of ‘unadulterated,’ ‘unbiased’ choice. Widespread opinion at times compares any influencing or manipulating of other people, particularly helpless, innocent, or trusting ones like children, with brainwashing or indoctrination.

LaFollette, for instance, argues that if children are religiously indoctrinated by their parents then they are hampered from maturing as critical thinkers and independent adults (Langlaude 2007, 51). As stated by John White: “If the parent has an obligation to bring up his child as a morally autonomous person, he cannot at the same time have the right to indoctrinate him with any beliefs whatsoever, since some beliefs may contradict those on which his educational endeavors should be based” (Langlaude 2007, 51).

Indoctrination of established religions in fact disregards human vulnerability, weaknesses, or immaturity in other ways. Established religions’ physical abuse of children can be traced back to prehistoric times and is still widespread. Cases of such thrive within the walls of Christian religions, especially in their historical account of detained native children, and in the maltreatment committed by ministers, nuns, and priests who on account of their authority and its predestined worth were bestowed with faith and have held influence over the indoctrinated.

Therefore, rather than depending on ambiguous and uncertain values and beliefs, we need an open dialogue of what children should learn and how to better assist them in doing it. Hence we should tackle the issue whether they should be taught about vital topics or whether they become skilled at making good decisions if left wholly to their own means. If children are given the opportunity as much as possible to decide on their own, it is possible but unlikely that they will effectively pull themselves out of the chaos and come out the stronger.

Gradually, and through practice, people are able to possess the abilities which liberate them of the