Note: The word indoctrination means the process of indoctrinating, and to indoctrinate means to instruct in doctrines and principles. There is nothing in the word indoctrination that would necessarily mean that the principles being instructed are not, in fact, based on truth or reality. Indoctrination is the business of education, and is a perfectly good word to use. Of course, it can be argued that all education is the imposition of another’s opinions upon impressionable youth, and I’m sure Socrates was indeed guilty of this. Whether it justifies his execution or not is a matter that this thread has taken up, much to all of the contributing members’ credit.
Mhoram’s post comes to the point very clearly when dealing with the issue of censorship: the real discussion should not be about the act of censuring, but who censures, by what authority do they censure, upon what principles do they censure, and who is the object of the censure. For every act of censorship, if we look at each of these questions, then we can come to reasonable arguments against censorship (I’m speaking of small-minded, irresponsible censorship that takes the form of banning) that in the end make far more sense than just saying: Censorship is wrong!
Each facet of the question has its importance, but most will focus on the principles by which censuring is practiced. As long as the principles are safely non-religious, most people don’t have a problem with said principles. For example, when movie critics censure a movie based on poor plot or bad acting, people may disagree, but they aren’t going to say that plot or acting have nothing to do with making a movie good or bad. But if an authority in an organized religion where to say to its believers that such a book or movie is bad based on doctrinal or moral reasons, people come out of the woodwork to say its “Censorship, and all censorship is wrong” (while ignoring that movie critics practice of a form of censorship everyday based on different principles), or that said authorities are totalitarians and hypocrites. The result being that all discussion and debate ends abruptly, and as a consequence those religious authorities, and their principles, go unquestioned and unchallenged.
Quote:
|
Parents can be expected to make these decisions according to their own moral and ethical standards, the only other recourse they have that I can see is to unthinkingly bow to some previously decided status quo.
|
Well, if the status quo promotes unthinking bowing, then that status quo isn’t a good one to follow, however, not every status quo is a bad thing, and to ignore centuries and millennia of human existence in ethical decision making is foolish.
Quote:
|
Second, private schools tend to cater to special-interests (most notably, religion), and thus tend to be far less open-minded than public schools.
|
This has not been my experience, as I noted above. I found much more close-minded people in the public school system than I found in the Catholic parochial system. At least in the Catholic schools there was greater freedom to broach controversial issues dealing with God, morality, religion, etc… because the school, parents, and teachers weren’t threatened by these controversial issues due to their firm acceptance of the Catholic Weltanchaung. As a result, the most challenged religion in this system was the Catholic religion. In the public schools, however, there was considerable worry that any discussion of any religion would offend an administrator, parent, or teacher; thus all religions were investigated in only the most superficial manner. Western culture’s generally negative assessment of religion in part comes from the fact that many schools give the impression that religion is, first, something that can’t be talked about, and second, something that is insignificant to human existence. What induced me to hang up teaching was when I was told by a public school administrator that I was not to mention “the Church” in my Western Civilization class. Attempting to discuss medieval Europe without mentioning the Church is like trying to teach geometry without mentioning angles.
Also, I found it most interesting how this debate turned to the issue of rights in relation to morality. It helps to remind me just how brilliant Robert Bellah, and his cohorts, are. Anyway, this does help to clarify that the will of the majority alone is a dangerous, and never trusted, governing principle. The predominance of constitutional government is example enough of how little faith is placed on the will of the majority, which is never left to its own devices.
Aiwendil, I agree with your assessment “that censorship is only valid when there is a direct causal link between it and harm or harmful actions.” This is good common sense, but in regard to morality (as opposed to ethics) what constitutes harm or harmful actions? Should toleration be upheld at the expense of one’s faith? There are many who would not agree, upon religious grounds, that some things should be tolerated in society. For example, there are those who believe, upon religious grounds, that pornography should be banned completely, not just restricted. Likewise, there are those who believe, upon religious grounds, that Tolkien and all other fantasy writers, should not be read at any time and at any age. For them, fantasy writers do harm and inspire harmful actions in all people, no matter the age. In this case you are either to oblige these people, and, therefore, pull all fantasy books off of public library shelves so as not to offend them, or to present a staunch argument against their principles, and thus save those fantasy books from banning.
By privatizing all discussion about religion, banning the mention of religion from the public forum, these nutty people will inevitably win their case, because no one can enter into meaningful debate with them. Thus, out of toleration for them and their sensibilities, you have an unquestioned and silly form of censorship which is now acceptable because it was done out of “toleration” for their religious beliefs.
[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]
[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]