There are 567 comments.

1. Coolidge
   Flicker

   @Flicker

   10:06 AM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):
   I use the term morals when talking about religious beliefs that are founded, usually, on laws that are given by the deity (think 10 Commandments) and their derivatives. I use ethics to describe beliefs that are developed through logic based on postulates that the individual defines. 

   I use morals to refer to axiomatic right and wrong.  And ethics to refer to pretty much professional or business aspects of being appropriate or inappropriate.

   Morals are by nature absolute, the highest standard for everyone to adhere to, and people are judged according to their moral deficits, such as saying a person has loose morals, or has no morals at all.  And ethics are something for specific people to aspire to, such as saying that a person holds to the highest ethical standard in his profession, as if there is an acceptable scale of ethical behavior.

   Morals underlie criminal laws and social interaction very broadly, but are not laws.  Ethics are not laws either, but are enforced as if law.

   For examples, morals apply to living room situations and conversations between close acquaintances but no one breaches any ethics in the living room, unless the subject involves something to do with business.  On the other hand, CEOs can be accused of ethical improprieties and be censured or sanctioned or fined for lapses in ethics, but are not be accused on the grounds of immorality.

   Morals are broad and and cultural and prohibit lying, stealing, raping and killing.  These are always wrong, for everyone.

   But ethics are codified by professional organizations and prohibit misrepresenting, wasting, misusing authority, or misfeasance.  And so these are right or wrong depending on who is doing them, and the nature of the professional or business relationship.

   One can have his own code of ethics, but I think this is actually a personal application of a greater morality.

2. Coolidge
   Manny

   @Manny

   11:16 AM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Manny (View Comment):

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Manny (View Comment):

   I don’t believe in brainwashing period…

   Now you may have a more detailed definition of brainwashing. I don’t know. I’m just using it as common idiom.

   Same here. I never said anyone was brainwashed. And childhood indoctrination is like childhood discipline, it’s necessary and even today still legally permitted! It’s your child, and usually from own your flesh, and you have the right to inculcate within him/her your beliefs. And there is an age of accountability, though I don’t know what that is for any given child, but deliberately choosing a spiritual path and willingly following it is, I think, qualitatively different (but not completely different) from accepting a path or a belief before one has reached the age of reason and responsibility.

   Then again, God knows the faith within the heart of a child, and I don’t.

   Students seem to get “indoctrinated” into Liberalism while in college. I don’t know what a clinical definition of indoctrination would be. Obviously they don’t have the full facts of life and once most get out into the world they drift away. I was pretty Liberal in college. It didn’t take me very long after college to shift to a conservative philosophy, and this was well before my religious conversion. So based on my life, it’s hard for me to understand brainwashing, and what appears to be indoctrination appears to be fluid based on life experiences. So is it really indoctrination?

   Off the top of my head I’d say indoctrination is catechizing. Something like teaching math, beginning with axioms and going through their application. And the expectation that these axioms will be understood as foundational truths.

   Both Protestants and Catholics have catechisms. For Roman Catholics, it is described this way: “A sure and certain standard for the teaching of the faith.” — Pope John Paul II.

   For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition is introduced this way:

   Four centuries in the making, a monumental undertaking and a magnificent achievement, the first definitive Catholic Catechism since the Council of Trent in 1566 details the doctrine, dogma, and the basic tenets of the Church.

   I’m sure indoctrination can be done subtely with adults and even covertly. In my view this is still not brainwashing but indoctrination. Corporations and professional organizations can do his with vision statements, and continuing training and testing. Universities can do this through inculcation and through the choice of classes that are available, and statements that students must make or follow. Grammar schools can easily teach the basic tenets of the popular culture to children. Anyway, indoctrination has to do with teaching doctrine, dogma, and tenets. And it in itself is not a bad thing.

   Well said. It’s along the lines of “formed in the faith.”  It’s the connotation between that and indoctrination that needs to be explored. Let me reflect. 

3. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   12:46 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   HeavyWater (View Comment):

   David C. Broussard (View Comment):

   HeavyWater (View Comment):
   Morals rooted in ancient religious texts and religious theology can result in good or bad morality.

   This is true, but has its roots in the culture that spawned the rule in the first place. Exodus and Deuteronomy set forth many rules that we ignore today (earing pork or shellfish, or wearing clothes made of mixed materials), but they made sense in a time when the Jews were living in the desert and doing some of those things protected their health overall, though I have no idea what the practical use of the mixed fabric was. For the Bedouin culture the adultery issue was one that sparked constant strife and killing. The solution was brutal and shouldn’t apply today, but it was created to solve a real problem.

   The point that religious based rules are more difficult to change is valid, but doesn’t invalidate the reality that the easiest way to gain a common set of beliefs and rules is via religion.

   On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

   What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

   One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

   Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

   Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

   My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

   Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible.  If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug.  Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

4. Coolidge
   Red Herring

   @EHerring

   12:50 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   Government can only provide you with what is legal and illegal, it can’t provide the answer for morality. When it tries to impose morality, it fails. Governments, by their very nature, become immoral over time. 

5. Inactive
   HeavyWater

   @HeavyWater

   1:02 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   kedavis (View Comment):

   On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

   What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

   One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

   Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

   Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

   My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

   Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

   Most atheists I know, if asked where their morality comes from would likely say, “From my intuitions.  My intuition tells me that stoning someone to death for gathering wood on the sabbath is morally wrong, even if the God of the Bible commands it.”  

   These atheists might admit that their intuitions are falliable.  Yet they would also likely view the Bible as fallible having been written by fallible human beings, not a morally perfect God.  

6. Coolidge
   Red Herring

   @EHerring

   1:05 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   HeavyWater (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

   What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

   One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

   Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

   Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

   My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

   Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

   Most atheists I know, if asked where their morality comes from would likely say, “From my intuitions. My intuition tells me that stoning someone to death for gathering wood on the sabbath is morally wrong, even if the God of the Bible commands it.”

   These atheists might admit that their intuitions are falliable. Yet they would also likely view the Bible as fallible having been written by fallible human beings, not a morally perfect God.

   350,000,000 people in the US, each determining his own morality is disorder.

7. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   1:12 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   HeavyWater (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

   What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

   One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

   Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

   Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

   My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

   Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

   Most atheists I know, if asked where their morality comes from would likely say, “From my intuitions. My intuition tells me that stoning someone to death for gathering wood on the sabbath is morally wrong, even if the God of the Bible commands it.”

   These atheists might admit that their intuitions are falliable. Yet they would also likely view the Bible as fallible having been written by fallible human beings, not a morally perfect God.

   But they might only believe that killing a person is wrong to start with, regardless of what “sin” it’s for, because of theological underpinnings that they go by even if they claim to deny their origins.

   That’s where their “intuition” comes from even if they don’t understand it themselves.

8. Inactive
   HeavyWater

   @HeavyWater

   1:24 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   Red Herring (View Comment):

   HeavyWater (View Comment):

   kedavis (View Comment):

   On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

   What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

   One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

   Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

   Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

   My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

   Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

   Most atheists I know, if asked where their morality comes from would likely say, “From my intuitions. My intuition tells me that stoning someone to death for gathering wood on the sabbath is morally wrong, even if the God of the Bible commands it.”

   These atheists might admit that their intuitions are falliable. Yet they would also likely view the Bible as fallible having been written by fallible human beings, not a morally perfect God.

   350,000,000 people in the US, each determining his own morality is disorder.

   Which is what you get with 350,000,000 Christians.  You lots of theology textbooks saying contrasting things.  

9. Member
   Django

   @Django

   1:57 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Manny (View Comment):

   Painter Jean (View Comment):

   DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

   I have long felt that Breitbart’s famous comment that “politics is downstream from culture” is no longer true and perhaps never was.

   I think it depends on the issue, Drew. Certainly, when it came to same-sex marriage, the battle was lost because the culture – the public – didn’t see the value of traditional marriage. In contrast, I’d say that the transgender idiocy is being imposed from the top down.

   I continue to be shocked at how few people (except cultural conservatives) are outraged by the transgender idiocy. This should have been stopped by both parties because the American people would not stand for it. Or so one would think. But that is not what is happening. I think you under estimate how much of this is supported by Americans.

   I doubt it’s supported as much as “What can *I* do about it? Especially since even talking about it might get me fired.”

   About ten years ago there was a meeting called by legal for the entire department. I found out about it after it took place because for some reason I was not invited. A rather effeminate looking guy had announced that he was going the full route. That was the reason for the meeting: So legal could explain/warn everyone about the situation. 

10. Member
    Django

    @Django

    1:59 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Morals rooted in ancient religious texts and religious theology can result in good or bad morality.

    This is true, but has its roots in the culture that spawned the rule in the first place. Exodus and Deuteronomy set forth many rules that we ignore today (earing pork or shellfish, or wearing clothes made of mixed materials), but they made sense in a time when the Jews were living in the desert and doing some of those things protected their health overall, though I have no idea what the practical use of the mixed fabric was. For the Bedouin culture the adultery issue was one that sparked constant strife and killing. The solution was brutal and shouldn’t apply today, but it was created to solve a real problem.

    The point that religious based rules are more difficult to change is valid, but doesn’t invalidate the reality that the easiest way to gain a common set of beliefs and rules is via religion.

    On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

    What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

    One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

    Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

    Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

    My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

    Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway. 

11. Member
    Stina

    @CM

    1:59 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    I have long felt that Breitbart’s famous comment that “politics is downstream from culture” is no longer true and perhaps never was.

    I think it depends on the issue, Drew. Certainly, when it came to same-sex marriage, the battle was lost because the culture – the public – didn’t see the value of traditional marriage. In contrast, I’d say that the transgender idiocy is being imposed from the top down.

    Except, politically, SSM was losing. It took legislating from the bench to get SSM and I think largely, the population just thinks it’s never going to go away, so learn to live with it.

    In that, the culture had no effect on the laws and the Supreme Court affected the culture.

12. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    2:02 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Morals rooted in ancient religious texts and religious theology can result in good or bad morality.

    This is true, but has its roots in the culture that spawned the rule in the first place. Exodus and Deuteronomy set forth many rules that we ignore today (earing pork or shellfish, or wearing clothes made of mixed materials), but they made sense in a time when the Jews were living in the desert and doing some of those things protected their health overall, though I have no idea what the practical use of the mixed fabric was. For the Bedouin culture the adultery issue was one that sparked constant strife and killing. The solution was brutal and shouldn’t apply today, but it was created to solve a real problem.

    The point that religious based rules are more difficult to change is valid, but doesn’t invalidate the reality that the easiest way to gain a common set of beliefs and rules is via religion.

    On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

    What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

    One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

    Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

    Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

    My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

    Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

13. Member
    Stina

    @CM

    2:10 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Manny (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Do politicians control social media or does social media control politicians? Who pays who?

    Have you been following Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files”? I’m not surprised the media has been largely silent on the revelations.

    Right. Twitter supported left leaning politicians. Your argument is that politicians support media. In this case, it’s the opposite.

    Nope. The government directly managed content on Twitter. And what they were doing with Twitter you know they are also doing with Facebook, Google, every other social media venture, as well as every media venture. It is absolutely shocking. The biggest government scandal of the century, and the media is downplaying it because they are complicit.

    That is politics directly controlling the culture.

    I’ll believe it when I see the scope of it. This must be the third conspiracy theory in three days you’ve suggested. Did it ever occur that right leaning websites have an interest in feeding conspiracy theories?

    How free is your mind?

    Well, if you don’t believe in a free mind, then the whole American experiment is a waste. You might as well pack up the country and move on. Democracy is predicated on free decisions.

    You’re talking about what is ideal. I’m talking about what is.

    Yeah, this is close to nihilism. There is nihilism on the right as well as nihilism on the left.

    I’m not sure why these things offend you so much.

    I’m not offended. I have an ear for argumentation and how people rationalize arguments. I’m telling you that’s close to nihilism. You argued that people aren’t inherently free to make decisions. That’s just a long held belief by nihilists.

    What I heard, boiled down to essence, is “the truth will set you free.”

    You have a population being fed lies that largely are incapable of verifying true facts from lies. That enslaved people. They need to hear the truth and that isn’t in the cultural institutions right now.

    I don’t think we need to control the institutions to shift the culture back… think of the early church changing their cultures. But it does require a boldness people aren’t ready for. They still have too much to lose… and that’s why they are silent, because they don’t want to LOSE what they have.

14. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    2:26 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Morals rooted in ancient religious texts and religious theology can result in good or bad morality.

    This is true, but has its roots in the culture that spawned the rule in the first place. Exodus and Deuteronomy set forth many rules that we ignore today (earing pork or shellfish, or wearing clothes made of mixed materials), but they made sense in a time when the Jews were living in the desert and doing some of those things protected their health overall, though I have no idea what the practical use of the mixed fabric was. For the Bedouin culture the adultery issue was one that sparked constant strife and killing. The solution was brutal and shouldn’t apply today, but it was created to solve a real problem.

    The point that religious based rules are more difficult to change is valid, but doesn’t invalidate the reality that the easiest way to gain a common set of beliefs and rules is via religion.

    On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

    What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

    One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

    Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

    Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

    My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

    Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    There is an entire branch of metaethics devoted to discussing the status of morality, not its content.  

    Some philosophers are moral realists.  Some believe that morality is socially constructed and what is moral or immoral is determined by the society in which one lives.  The moral realists disagree, believing that whether moral claims are correct or incorrect are not dependent on what anyone thinks about a given moral claim.  

    Among moral realists, some are natural moral realists while others are non-natural (though not necessarily supernatural) moral realists.  

15. Member
    Stina

    @CM

    2:26 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Manny (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    I never heard anyone say that Christians were brainwashed.

    Yes, I have heard that argument. Here is a counter to that argument from a Christian apologist:

    The more worldly and ungodly American society becomes, the more devout Christians will be criticized and persecuted for their beliefs and actions. One popular criticism that has been leveled against Christians in recent years involves the Christian home. Allegedly, Christian parents are guilty of brainwashing their kids. Before children are old enough to digest for themselves all of the evidence for God’s existence, the Bible’s inspiration, or Jesus’ deity, some Christians (though sadly not near enough) are ingraining these beliefs into their children. Faithful Christian parents regularly and systematically teach their children fundamental Christian teachings without apology.

    The fact that he is countering the argument shows it was leveled against him. If you read further down, the mere fact of instructing children in the faith is considered brainwashing. I have heard that argument going back to my adultescence. Who knows, when I was atheist way back in my youth I may have used it myself. It is a childish argument.

    Actually I just remembered a Lib young lady who I had a discussion with on this, and she argued that there should be a law that required children to not have any religious instruction until they were adults and could make up their minds for themselves. I thought this was laughable. Obviously she had no children herself and was an atheist – though spiritual! hahaha. I told her how could that possibly work. The parents would go to church on Sunday but the children would have to stay at home? I asked her if she realized that Jews circumcize their their male children as a religious rite. How could that possibly work? She never brought it up again.

    I would not equate parental instruction to brainwashing, but I would equate the same instruction from government run institutions to be brainwashing.

    How a parent educates their children is a personal matter.

    Society has been culturally massaged, with little bits and pieces of shifting thought, that it is appropriate for government to educate children. Even my husband and his mother, who are receptive to pro-homeschooling arguments and statistics, still feel weird about homeschooling (why I don’t homeschool). My husband has the absolute worst attitude towards teachers and schools, yet he still would rather his kids be in public school. It isn’t logical, it is visceral.

16. Member
    Stina

    @CM

    2:36 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Manny (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Manny (View Comment):

     

    I don’t believe in brainwashing period. People make free minded decisions on the facts they have available. I was just giving what some people use as arguments. I have heard the argument that people are brainwashed into religion. People do make adult conversions. Is that brainwashing? Is that indoctrination? Is that coming to a conclusion from personal experience and thought? Frankly I think it’s the latter. But people who don’t understand the conversion and are taken aback from it often attribute it to brainwashing.

    Now you may have a more detailed definition of brainwashing. I don’t know. I’m just using it as common idiom.

    Same here. I never said anyone was brainwashed. And childhood indoctrination is like childhood discipline, it’s necessary and even today still legally permitted! It’s your child, and usually from own your flesh, and you have the right to inculcate within him/her your beliefs. And there is an age of accountability, though I don’t know what that is for any given child, but deliberately choosing a spiritual path and willingly following it is, I think, qualitatively different (but not completely different) from accepting a path or a belief before one has reached the age of reason and responsibility.

    Then again, God knows the faith within the heart of a child, and I don’t.

    Students seem to get “indoctrinated” into Liberalism while in college. I don’t know what a clinical definition of indoctrination would be. Obviously they don’t have the full facts of life and once most get out into the world they drift away. I was pretty Liberal in college. It didn’t take me very long after college to shift to a conservative philosophy, and this was well before my religious conversion. So based on my life, it’s hard for me to understand brainwashing, and what appears to be indoctrination appears to be fluid based on life experiences. So is it really indoctrination?

    Raise a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

    – Some verse in the bible

    I think that is largely what we are fighting over when it comes to public schooling and curriculums. Everyone fighting over it knows this is true and it’s why the fight is so bitter over our school boards and schools.

    Is it indoctrination? Or simply TEACHING a worldview? Are they the same? Or is it dependent on who controls that education?

    My position is that it is indoctrination when the parents can’t control it. And lack of control can look like many different things.

17. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    2:39 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    I suppose one man’s indoctrination and brainwashing is another man’s proper education.  

18. Coolidge
    kedavis

    @kedavis

    2:50 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I suppose one man’s indoctrination and brainwashing is another man’s proper education.

    “When I do it, it’s education.  When you do it, it’s indoctrination.”

19. Member
    Western Chauvinist

    @WesternChauvinist

    

    Post author

    2:55 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I suppose one man’s indoctrination and brainwashing is another man’s proper education.

    “When I do it, it’s education. When you do it, it’s indoctrination.”

    I think it’s simple. Indoctrination is the teaching of doctrine. What doctrines are your kids learning is the question. In public schools they’re learning the Left’s doctrines of rights over obligations, victim/oppressor dynamic, complete bodily autonomy (even if it involves the body of another person), all sexual desires are equally good . . . In other words, they’re learning cultural Marxism and to do what is right in their own eyes — or, at least, what is right by the lights of the Left.

20. Member
    Django

    @Django

    3:12 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Morals rooted in ancient religious texts and religious theology can result in good or bad morality.

    This is true, but has its roots in the culture that spawned the rule in the first place. Exodus and Deuteronomy set forth many rules that we ignore today (earing pork or shellfish, or wearing clothes made of mixed materials), but they made sense in a time when the Jews were living in the desert and doing some of those things protected their health overall, though I have no idea what the practical use of the mixed fabric was. For the Bedouin culture the adultery issue was one that sparked constant strife and killing. The solution was brutal and shouldn’t apply today, but it was created to solve a real problem.

    The point that religious based rules are more difficult to change is valid, but doesn’t invalidate the reality that the easiest way to gain a common set of beliefs and rules is via religion.

    On my mother’s side of my family, nearly everyone is a non-believer. On my wife’s side of the family, nearly everyone is a Christian, some more devout than others.

    What struck me about 10 or 15 years ago was how these two families, who live a thousand miles away from each other and have never met, have such similar morals and behavior.

    One summer, one of my wife’s nieces when with her church as a missionary in Africa. That same summer, one of my atheist cousins, who is almost the same age, found a non-religious humanitarian organization that was doing anti-poverty work in Africa. So, this non-religious cousin signed up and flew out to Africa to help out.

    Both of these families pursue education at mostly non-religious universities. That niece I mentioned is getting married next year to a Jewish man. Her Christian parents don’t seem to mind.

    Observing these young people, both religious and non-religious, has made me much more optimistic about the future of America than other conservatives seem to be.

    My non-religious cousins are as kind and generous people as one could imagine. Similar compliments could be paid to many of my wife’s religious relatives.

    Seems like if the religious people are asked where their attitudes/morality come from, they can just point to the Bible. If the atheists are asked the same thing, all they can do is shrug. Or maybe also point to the Bible even if they hate doing it.

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

    I haven’t given it much thought for years, so I am hesitant to run my keyboard on the subject now, but that’s not the philosophical meaning of “natural law”. 

21. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    3:16 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

    I haven’t given it much thought for years, so I am hesitant to run my keyboard on the subject now, but that’s not the philosophical meaning of “natural law”.

    If you talk to an atheist scientist and ask him, “Where do our moral come from?” his response is likely to be, “Much of our pro-social behavior is adaptive.  The saying, ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ might give us a hint as to why human beings tend to cooperate with each other in many circumstances.  Evolution through natural selection has given us a mixed bag of behaviors ranging from vengeance to generosity.”

22. Member
    Western Chauvinist

    @WesternChauvinist

    

    Post author

    3:25 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

    I haven’t given it much thought for years, so I am hesitant to run my keyboard on the subject now, but that’s not the philosophical meaning of “natural law”.

    If you talk to an atheist scientist and ask him, “Where do our moral come from?” his response is likely to be, “Much of our pro-social behavior is adaptive. The saying, ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ might give us a hint as to why human beings tend to cooperate with each other in many circumstances. Evolution through natural selection has given us a mixed bag of behaviors ranging from vengeance to generosity.”

    Secular humanists are living off of last year’s sap of the Judeo-Christian West. But, the tree is dead.

23. Member
    Sisyphus

    @Sisyphus

    

    3:30 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Stina (View Comment):
    I don’t think we need to control the institutions to shift the culture back… think of the early church changing their cultures. But it does require a boldness people aren’t ready for. They still have too much to lose… and that’s why they are silent, because they don’t want to LOSE what they have.

    It all belongs to Him, anyway. As do we. Clay feet and all.

24. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    3:31 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

    I haven’t given it much thought for years, so I am hesitant to run my keyboard on the subject now, but that’s not the philosophical meaning of “natural law”.

    If you talk to an atheist scientist and ask him, “Where do our moral come from?” his response is likely to be, “Much of our pro-social behavior is adaptive. The saying, ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ might give us a hint as to why human beings tend to cooperate with each other in many circumstances. Evolution through natural selection has given us a mixed bag of behaviors ranging from vengeance to generosity.”

    Secular humanists are living off of last year’s sap of the Judeo-Christian West. But, the tree is dead.

    I think secular humanists are living off of many ideas not found in the Bible.  

    Representative government and competitive elections.  

    No human being should be allowed to own another human being.  

    The Bible didn’t say, “And there shall be a legislative branch, an executive branch and a judicial branch.”  

    The Bible didn’t say, “And woman shall have the right to vote.”  

    We moved beyond the Bible a long time ago.  

25. Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik

    @DrewInWisconsin

    3:37 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    We moved beyond the Bible a long time ago.

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

26. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    3:47 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    We moved beyond the Bible a long time ago.

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

    I forgot to mention unleaded gasoline and cable tv.  

    Those aren’t in the Bible either.  

27. Member
    Django

    @Django

    4:07 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    We moved beyond the Bible a long time ago.

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

    I forgot to mention unleaded gasoline and cable tv.

    Those aren’t in the Bible either.

    It’s possible that the main messages of the Bible concerned “eternal verities”, not minutia. 

28. Member
    Sisyphus

    @Sisyphus

    

    4:20 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

    I haven’t given it much thought for years, so I am hesitant to run my keyboard on the subject now, but that’s not the philosophical meaning of “natural law”.

    If you talk to an atheist scientist and ask him, “Where do our moral come from?” his response is likely to be, “Much of our pro-social behavior is adaptive. The saying, ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ might give us a hint as to why human beings tend to cooperate with each other in many circumstances. Evolution through natural selection has given us a mixed bag of behaviors ranging from vengeance to generosity.”

    Wrong about God, wrong about morals. No surprises here.

29. Inactive
    HeavyWater

    @HeavyWater

    4:22 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

    I haven’t given it much thought for years, so I am hesitant to run my keyboard on the subject now, but that’s not the philosophical meaning of “natural law”.

    If you talk to an atheist scientist and ask him, “Where do our moral come from?” his response is likely to be, “Much of our pro-social behavior is adaptive. The saying, ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ might give us a hint as to why human beings tend to cooperate with each other in many circumstances. Evolution through natural selection has given us a mixed bag of behaviors ranging from vengeance to generosity.”

    Wrong about God, wrong about morals. No surprises here.

    Correct about both.  

30. Member
    Django

    @Django

    4:23 PM EST ⋅ Jan 1, 2023

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    They point to “natural law”. Some of them do anyway.

    “Natural law” seems to be more along the lines of “kill or be killed.”

    I haven’t given it much thought for years, so I am hesitant to run my keyboard on the subject now, but that’s not the philosophical meaning of “natural law”.

    If you talk to an atheist scientist and ask him, “Where do our moral come from?” his response is likely to be, “Much of our pro-social behavior is adaptive. The saying, ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ might give us a hint as to why human beings tend to cooperate with each other in many circumstances. Evolution through natural selection has given us a mixed bag of behaviors ranging from vengeance to generosity.”

    The real problem with atheism and morality was highlighted in a debate between Berlinski and Hitchens. Hitchens was offended by the implication that an atheist couldn’t distinguish between right and wrong. Berlinski nailed it when he said, “That’s hardly the point, is it? . . . You may know what is right and we may agree, but what compels you to choose right over wrong?” 

    I probably misquoted, but the content is correct.