Indoctrination 101

Remove all ads!

This sickens me. Mandatory diversity training, even if it is against a parent's wishes. When will people realize that you can't force someone to like someone or something.

taken from here

 

Is Religious Education mandatory in the US?

I'm not sure that teaching diversity is the same as indoctrination. My general understanding of "indoctrination" is instilling a singular set of beliefs in someone, whereas "Diversity" is about having many differing opinions.

R.E. is (was?) compulsory in the UK as it teaches about different beliefs like Islam etc. Still it has a heavy Christian bias. The best way of overcoming prejudice, whether religious, sexual, or racial, is by teaching people. Although I found the mandatory nature of the subject extremely annoying, I can now appreciate that the reasoning behind it was to try and prevent irrational hatreds in later life.

[ March 30, 2005, 16:45: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Without checking out the links because time does not permit, I have to wonder if the problem is the curriculum rather than the required attendance. Perhaps the school is overstepping their bounds in their materials. I don't see why they shouldn't have the right to say "You can believe whatever you want, but this is the sort of behavior that is expected when you are attending school or school-sponsored events. If you have different opinions that's fine, but express them on your own time and in another place."

Tolerance and diversity should work both ways, now shouldn't it?

 

The one thing we cannot be tolerant with is intolerance.

I also dont see why the word indoctrination has such negative connotations. School is all about indoctrinating young people into persons able to live in the society we have built. Education is of secondary importance. It is even more vital that the kids receive all this indoctrination if they have received indoctrination from their homes that goes against the perceptions of society and is viewed as harmful to said society. I see no difference in indoctrinating kids of religios nutters who believe gays should be stoned to be more tolerant than to indoctrinate kid from criminal junkie family to not steal or take drugs. Same thing.

 

Diversity Training? When I was at school, my teachers always taught me to be nice to other people. Why do we have to give everything a fancy name and make it all so serious?

 

"Diversity" and teaching against "discrimination" relies on telling people that it's wrong to deny homosexuals the "right" to marry other homosexuals or to adopt children and that homosexual couples are to be regarded the same as heterosexual couples. This is something I won't ever swallow and such indonctrination is unconstitutional as it violates people's freedom of conscience.

Someone who assaults gay people just because they are gay does have a problem and deserves to go to jail for a hate crime and gay people aren't necessarily worse candidates for many jobs, but I have the right to believe that it's wrong for them to engage in homosexual carnal activity and it's wrong to allow them to "marry" people of the same gender or allow children.

I am not going to do what is demanded by the modern politically correct culture, i.e. keep my beliefs away from reality.

I don't want any pro-gay stuff to be officially endorsed, let alone enforced, and my beliefs can't be surpressed under all civilised constitutions in the world if their meaning is not being twisted. I don't want any mandatory training, although I would probably still go to argue with the instructors and point out their bias.

 

Perhaps not yours but your children should be exposed to a different viewpoint while in school and hopefully they will see the light.

 

As far as I know they're not saying that religious groups are wrong for their moral veiws on homosexuality but they are trying to teach children that discrimination based on sexuality is wrong.

This isn't an attempt at trying to undermine religion, it's an attempt at preaching tolerance and acceptance of those who have made different (legal) life choices.

If someone is going to get up in arms about this for religious veiws let me remind you that there are many God condoned instructions in the bible that are illegal in todays society (stoning women who have sex out of wedlock etc.) It isn't the government's attempt to undermine the bible, it's just not enforcing a rediculous blue law.

Pro-gay? You're missed the point Chev, it's not 'pro-gay' it's 'anti-hate'. Pro-gay would suggest they're trying to convince children to BE homosexuals. Rather they're telling them that there is nothing wrong with being homosexuals.

 

This is also a fundamental question of where the line is drawn between the responsibilities of parents versus schools. What exactly is the role of a school? How much of this should be left up to the parents to teach?

 

Here are a few theoretical questions.

"Why must anyone be tolerant of anyone?"

"Why must we teach Anti-hate?"

In my opinion if someone wants to hate someone they should be allowed to. If someone doesn't want to associate "tolerate" someone they should be allowed to also. When did it become illegal to be a cranky old man?

We already have laws against murder, rape, assault, battery, as long as the "hater" doesn't cross those lines why is it anybodys business?

I dislike that it is being implied that Chev is doing something wrong and hopefully the school systems will correct his defective parenting (I say this without even knowing if Chev is a parent).

The school systems are there for education. That means reading, writing, etc. Values are meant to be taught at home and/or wherever people go for worship.

There is always a lot of whining about teaching religion in school. As far as I'm concerned homosexuality should be classified as a religion.

 

I'd be more concerned if such programs (which never existed before) detrimentally impacted other areas of education (like maths). I already despair at the quality of basic mathematical and writing skills that I see in kids these days. I don't want them to be getting even less education on those core areas because they have had to go to some diversity training. I'm not saying that this isn't an important area and I sympathise with anybody who has been on the receiving end, like dmc, but I'm not convinced that such a program would have much impact anyway as I bet it would be presented in a pretty airy-fairy manner (based on my experience of other "PC" initiatives).

 

@DMC,

Yes, you are correct I am Jewish. Not only that, but I'm short (only 5'6"). I have experienced more than my fair share of discrimination, but if anything it has made me a stronger person.

Now, what you are talking about is bullying. Bullying falls under the category of assault, which is clearly illegal. I have no problem with schools having anti-bully programs. Little Snook's public school I feel does a pretty good job of it.

I cannot fathom how anyone can believe that "sensitivity training" will stop hatred. If anything it will probably make it worse for people are being made to suffer through things they obviously don't agree with.

 

My religion teaches that too.

And what else is the latter than pro-gay? Pro-Numenorian or pro-Mordorian doesn't make you a national of Numenor or Mordor, right?

There is nothing wrong with being homosexuals per se, but there is something wrong about leading a homosexual lifestyle which includes sexual behaviour. I don't want my children to be taught otherwise by teacher figures.

The light comes from Rome...

[ March 31, 2005, 08:55: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

TGS - The schools are only mirroring what much of corporate America is engaged in. I have been to a couple of these same taining sessions, working for a large corporation, with much of the same goal - to try to get people to just basically get along with each other.

But I'm not sure if you have a problem with private corporations engaging in exactly the same thing. IMO, indoctrination is the thing regardless of if it's at home, the workplace, the school, the church, the media, computer games, the internet, etc, etc, etc.

[ April 01, 2005, 04:13: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

People are people regardless of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Preference or Religeon. Teaching them that they can't hate someone because of such differences is one thing.

Forcing someone to accept certain things that contradict their religeous beliefs (the question of Homosexuality) is in and of itself discrimination against the Religeous.

Further, Christianity no longer teached Hatred of Gays. We are taught that God is a loving father. Those of you with children would understand that you don't ceace to love a child when they do something you expressly forbid them to do, but you also don't tell them that what they did was okay...

Also, someone considered that this was not Pro-Gay, but Anti-Hate. I'll accept that as long as you alloow me the claim that Christianity isn't Anti-Gay but Pro-Family. It promotes anything that promotes the family.

 

I'll allow you to claim that your version of Christianity isn't Anti-Gay but Pro-family. Alas some Christians could easily be described as Anti-Gay.

 

Only under the circumstances of a very narrow definition of what constitutes a family, which I don't accept, so you're being far more generous than I.

Honestly, if people really can't manage to act in accordance with institutional norms for the brief amount of time they need to interface with said institution, maybe they should just drop out of society, go off and define their own little social utopia where everyone follows one set of narrow rules, and leave the rest of us alone. Whatever happened to live and let live?

As I see this case, the school isn't trying to dictate what students are allowed think is right and wrong within the scope of their personal lives and moral codes, they're just trying to ensure peaceful interactions between people with differing viewpoints. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

Generically, If Person A doesn't live according to Person B's morals, but Person A's life has no impact whatsoever on Person B's life, why should Person B be allowed to dictate how Person A lives?

Anyone who insists upon maintaining the right to tell others that they're wrong without giving those other an equal chance to say the same in reverse are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.