The Fwench.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
Parents can keep their children from being in such a situation, if they want to. How many 3rd graders proselytise anyways

Third graders can transmit their values to their fellows, which happens when they have a very strong value system in comparison to the other pupils. for example, a person raised in a diehard racist family will feel confident to brag about it toward children who haven't recived strong anti-racist values. Same with religious values: a pupil coming from a diehard religionist family will try to impose this 'truth' on other kids except diehard atheist ones.

But the main stake is about adults trying to proselytize children, without the kid's interest in mind. I have a strong hatred for child-advertisement, for example, but religious or political indoctrination can be a scary thing when it runs rampant. At school, i.e at the place where we have control, we try to avoid it.

[Kuciwalker]

From his family

So only his family can indoctrinate him, by law?!

You believe very young children can make an informed choice. I don't. And remember, I'm not speaking about highschoolers here, I'm speaking about 4-7 year olds.

Parents can keep their children from being in such a situation, if they want to. How many 3rd graders proselytise anyways

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
How is that kid supposed to learn values?

From his family

SOMEONE has to teach values to the kid. Why not expose children to many beliefs, and let them CHOOSE?

You believe very young children can make an informed choice. I don't. And remember, I'm not speaking about highschoolers here, I'm speaking about 4-7 year olds.

[Kuciwalker]

If the kids hear that, fine. They can also hear lots of OTHER opinions.

The fact is, it is impossible by definition to avoid "indoctrination" of children - they have to be taught SOMETHING. Thus, they should be exposed to as much as possible, rather than fed state propoganda.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker

Besides, as I try to convince people on the streets to vote for the Communist Party, I am forbidden by the law to try convincing those younger than 16 (I'm for a lower age of consent in this regard, but I'd find it highly amoral to proselytize children).

"Remember kids! These nice treats are the gift of the communist party! The communist party is your friend! It's better than Santa, because it's true! "

[Kuciwalker]

Now, that's the principle, which dates back to the begginings of the Third Republic, and I think it is obsolete in many regards: I'd prefer an approach based on age, rather than based on the attendance of public school. Such as forbidding people outside of the family to proselytize their system of values and beliefs on a very young and influencable kid.

How is that kid supposed to learn values? SOMEONE has to teach values to the kid. Why not expose children to many beliefs, and let them CHOOSE?

[Kuciwalker]

At the public school, yes.

What is school, other than convincing a child (or "indoctrinating" one) into certain truths decided upon by the state?

The public school is supposed to be devoid of political, religious or commercial advocacy.

Circular logic. It is supposed to be this way because it is supposed to be this way.

Besides, as I try to convince people on the streets to vote for the Communist Party, I am forbidden by the law to try convincing those younger than 16 (I'm for a lower age of consent in this regard, but I'd find it highly amoral to proselytize children).

(btw, "amoral" means that it is unrelated to morality, or indifferent to it - "immoral" means morally wrong )

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
So it is illegal to try and convince children of things?

At the public school, yes. The public school is supposed to be devoid of political, religious or commercial advocacy. Besides, as I try to convince people on the streets to vote for the Communist Party, I am forbidden by the law to try convincing those younger than 16 (I'm for a lower age of consent in this regard, but I'd find it highly amoral to proselytize children).

Now, that's the principle, which dates back to the begginings of the Third Republic, and I think it is obsolete in many regards: I'd prefer an approach based on age, rather than based on the attendance of public school. Such as forbidding people outside of the family to proselytize their system of values and beliefs on a very young and influencable kid.

To me, banning headscarves in senior highschool is preposterous wrt proselytism. At this point, kids are supposed to be mature enough not to get swayed by this.

[Kuciwalker]

So it is illegal to try and convince children of things?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Spiffor, an individual is free to his right to indoctrinate. Just so long as the other individual remains free to his right to choose to be indoctrinated or not.

mrmitchell, an individual is free to his right to have sex. Just so long as the other individual remains free to his right to choose to have sex too, or not.

Well, or almost. There is something called "age of consent" for sex, a concept I suppose you agree with. I wonder why children, who are sooooo influencable when it comes to sex, can prpoduce an informed choice when it comes to indoctrination.

[Kuciwalker]

"Indoctrinate" is, like proselytise, just a negative term for "convince".

[MrFun]

Isn't it possible to separate the concepts of individual expression from indoctrination?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Akka
Ah, well, I said it :

Originally posted by Akka
(of course, I'm aware that there is plenty of people who mix "neutrality" with "religion-bashing", but well, if the concept of neutrality is lost for them, I'm not to blame...).

I'm just soooo surprised

You're actually wrong here - the state isn't being neutral with respect to religion, it's SUPPRESSING religion. Being neutral is no advocacy or suppression of any religious view, including atheism.

On a symbolic point of view : it's run by the state, hence it's neutral when it comes to religions and political opinions. Hence no religion nor political opinion for everybody representing or under the responsability of the State.
Seems pretty easy to understand for me.

The state is neutral when it comes to religions and political opinions. It's run by the state. Therefore it is neutral wrt those things. However, it is completely irrational to then suggest that those under its responsibility must ALSO be neutral wrt those things. Should prisoners, who are the responsibility of an organization run by the state (a jail), also be required to be "neutral" wrt religion?

On a practical point of view, it's hard to say when ends a statement of opinion, and when starts proselytism. Saying "no religions nor politics at school" is a good, simple and fair way to avoid the bickering about "but no I wasn't proselytising (sp ?), I was just saying/displaying what I thought".

What's wrong with "proselytising"? It is merely a negative term for trying to convince others of your point of view. If an action is specifically disruptive to the classroom, or ends up with physical harm to a student or property, then yes, it should be stopped, but not because it is "proselytising".

On a principle point of view : personnal opinions about religions and politics, has nothing to do in school.
Well, it can be argued that it's just our values, and not a universal rule.
As for me, I stand by these values.

Why don't they have anything to do with school? Students most of all need to learn the importance of independent thought, not be spoon-fed government propoganda.

[mrmitchell]

Spiffor, an individual is free to his right to indoctrinate. Just so long as the other individual remains free to his right to choose to be indoctrinated or not.

The guv'ment can't do such indoctrination, because whenever it acts it's representing the entire nation. And that whole "church-state" separation thing.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You would be wrong then

A government-sactioned indoctination is probably the most efficient one, but yet we have many indoctrined religious extremists in france, a place where you can expect the State not to endorse it.

How is that even possible?

Ok -- indoctrination can occur in various forms, only one of which could involve government sanctioning.


there