Philosopher Daniel Dennett wants to force all parents, even parents who home-school their offspring, to give up their children to educators like himself. For what purpose? To expose the children, Dennett argues, to "uncontroversial" facts about the world's religions. Listen to Dennett make his case in a short segment from our recent debate in Boston, and then you can hear my answer to him.
In his book on religion, Dennett writes, "How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents? It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?" Dennett insists that "parents don't literally own their children the way slaveowners once owned slaves, but are, rather, their stewards and guardians, and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere."
During our debate, Dennett asked me what part of his proposal I disagreed with. Well, I agree with him that one of the purposes of education is to expose young people to facts and ideas that they do not get at home. But I disagree with Dennett's presumption that parents are typically the indoctrinators while educators are always the liberators. Notice how derisively and condescendingly he talks about religion. His derision is entirely unsubstantiated by facts. He mocks the Vatican and wonders if it will one day become a museum, and he wonders if Mecca is headed for repossession as "Disney's Magic Kingdom of Allah." Sure enough, a good part of the audience is moved to snickers and laughter. This is bigotry posing as intellectual sophistication. Dennett has taught the undergraduates well: chuckle at anyone who takes religion seriously and this is how you will be considered an enlightened, mature person.
We should turn Dennett's questions on him and apply them to professors: "How much do we regard children as being the property of their teachers? Should secular educators be free to impose their anti-religious beliefs on young people? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? Universities don't literally own undergraduates the way slaveowners once owned slaves but are, rather, their stewards and guardians and ought to be held accountable by outsiders for their guardianship, which does imply that outsiders have a right to interfere."
For legislators, alumni and parents, probably the best way to hold universities accountable is through financial leverage. The way I do it is to take on self-satisfied pedants like Dennett and expose them, in front of their own students, as intellectual emperors without clothes. Watch the Dennett debate and you will see how the snickers and applause of the skeptics eventually gives way to a sullen silence. These students are desperately in need of an alternative to the strident secularism of Dennett and his colleagues. True liberation for young people means freedom not only from the ignorant fundamentalism that Dennett rails about, but also freedom from the secular fundamentalism that he and many others in the academy sadly embody.
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
Teaching as a Form of Indoctrination
Posted Dec 13th 2007 7:23AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Islam, Christianity, Controversy, Atheism
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
- Jerry Brown on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Roert Dean on General Clark is Absolutely Right!
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- andreawalker419 on Breastfeeding an Eight-Year-Old?
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- Meat for Public Schools Often Rejected by Fast Food Chains
- Salahis Subpoenaed To Appear Before Panel Probing Party Crashing
- Will George Stephanopoulos Go Better With My Omelet?
- $1 Billion Spent on Political Ads in '09
- In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins
- Tiger Woods' Transgressions and the Gender Split
- Jimmy Carter's Grandson Runs for Office in Georgia
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 35)
61. richelle,
most every university i know teaches world religion just as you suggest,who objects? why do you need to teach kids. when alot of times they don't have the conceptual ability to comprehend?
brian at 1:49PM on Dec 13th 2007
62. Well I have no guilts about living what some of you would call an "unfulfilling life". There are many paths to fulfillment, even if someone tells you "uh-uh, only one". You can feel differently, but don't dare fight me on it.
Mokele-Mbembe at 1:50PM on Dec 13th 2007
63. CK----->
"32. Since the secular movement and the ACLU have taken control of "public' education we have had three generations of its product to examine. in that time we have seen a dramatic drop in US educational standards compared internationally. But we have also seen increased school violence, drug use, teen pregnancy and single parenthood. The moral standard has become "you can't prove i did it".
Do we need more of this secular attitude in education ?
Who benefits, other then a few pretend "academics" seeking attention. Why should they set any standard?"
----------------------
BBWWWWAAAHHHHH. Wrong. The countries that are ahead of the USA academically are secular schools.
-----------------------
School violence, teen pregnancy and single parenthool: doesn't this sound like PARENTAL SHORTFALLS? I don't know of any public school that promotes those things.
-------------------------
So you think that public schools should take over moral teaching to your kids? What if you don't agree with that teaching?
Besides, isnt' that what parochial school is for: Those parents who want their children preached to?
-----------------------
Public schools have been around longer than 3 generations, by the way.
------------------------------------------
bship:------>
"the whole point of Dinesh’s argument is that universities don’t foster critical thinking. Humanistic and social science disciplines especially are dominated by the kind of sneering disregard for traditional morality and ethics exposed by Mr. D’Souza."
------------------------------
And you think RELIGION fosters critical thinking?
LOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL
You must think that these professors sit up at the front of the class, with their horns and tail, and vilify all religion, especially christianity.
I mean, is that what you think?
I've been going to college, frankly, my whole life. I love to learn things. Not in sociology, not in any psych courses, not in ethics, not in philosophy have I heard of heard of such a thing.
Morality is a thing learned from your parents, or your guardians. If you want to send your kids to church, fine. To religious university, fine. Even secular colleges have courses on religion, theology, etc.
---------------------------
Allan Bloom certainly had some good points: his main passion was to promote the teaching of the 'great books' of philosophers, great thinkers.
Nothing wrong with that. I agree that such curriculum should be mandatory in college. I believe many of those books are still being taught today.
He was also an enigma. A gay man who never championed the gay rights movement. His politics were reactionary. Worst of all, he hated rock and roll. He thought students were 'led astray' by campus leaders (thinking of the 60's and 70's). Maybe they were. But the world was changing, not just in the USA.
Thanks for reminding me of him. I am an avid fan of Saul Bellows, who was his great friend.
--------------------------
I really liked Pamela's post with her experience with religion and her kids.
Linda at 1:53PM on Dec 13th 2007
64. I wish that I could support parent's rights in this, but I cannot. Imagine if the parents are brian small b and rita, or dena. If they succeeded in indoctrinating their kids in their version of this mishmash, it's not only a disservice to society, but to the children. They will go into the world without the ability to see reality clearly, and there goes our future. Imagine a child of brian and rita becoming president... Well, it would be pretty much identical with our current situation, come to think of it...
We need to allow parents to educate their children, but we need to establish if they're sane first. If they're not, it is abuse to allow them to retain their children. Same when a parent is molesting their kids. It's a form of molestation! Just ask Matthew Murray. Or, since you can't now, read his blog posts...
Brian at 1:54PM on Dec 13th 2007
65. My past experiences may very well have destroyed my "will to believe" as it has been put. I was told as a child in ccd that mary was perfect and I could never be like mary. As I grew older I was told to buy a certain amount of scrip each month on top of the tithing that was very carefully kept a record of. A social worker friend of mine once called a church for assistance for an elderly lady who was in need of aid and their response was to ask if she was a member of the parish. The fear of hell was a constant reminder and my salvation only obtainable through what was little more than dogma. My experience with my children I have already described.
I used alcohol to self-medicate my anxiety and Bi-Polar disorders which led to a suicide attempt and placed me in an outpatient program where they did little to help me understand the disorders, but instead tried to ram AA down my throat as a panacea. Every day I had to listen to someone read from "the book" about god and how he and the 12 steps where the ONLY way to overcome your addictions. To me it was little more than the same brainwashing that I had been exposed to in church...more dogma and I resented having to be held a captive audience to it.
I need no "higher power" to understand the workings of these disorders, but rely instead on cognitive thinking (using my brain)to understand the clues and triggers that set off my anxiety. Oh yeah, meds really, really, help!!! AA is a faith based organization who's goal may indeed be to help those in need, but is ultimately still selling the idea of god to those who are the neediest. Still indoctrination to my mind, and I used my mind to refuse to be sucked into any of it.
My will to believe has been destroyed by the farce that is religion and its constant use of fear and intimidation as indocrination techiques. Oh and the hypocrisy. I took the blinders off years ago and stepped back to look at the things that I had been brought up to believe and found them to be little more then boogey men hiding in my closet.
Pamela at 1:54PM on Dec 13th 2007
66. brian
please would you stop. you sound like rita. i don't think you are a bad person, but do you see what you are doing? you are devaluing the lives of other people by saying they have wasted their minds because they do not believe in god. do you think this is how god would want you to represent your fellow human beings? if the answer to that question is yes, then i don't think that is a god worth serving. who is to say non-believers are lonely? i'm agnostic and i'm not lonely. my brother is atheist and he is not lonely.
Richelle at 1:56PM on Dec 13th 2007
67. "they are probably all hurt and shunned by most so they have found solace in the fringe group who call themselves atheist. "
Good god, brian, if this is what you truly believe, then you do have a sad world-view. My condolences.
brandon at 1:57PM on Dec 13th 2007
68. Dinesh,
I feel like you're accusing colleges of having a lack of objectivity because you don't like the message they preach: namely, secularism and liberalism. You claim to be "exposing" Dennett, but exposing what exactly? He's not trying to hide his viewpoint, and he's advocating an attempt at objectivity. Of course he teaches from his viewpoint. You lecture from your viewpoint. You can't expect someone to be totally objective.
You cannot be indoctrinated into atheism...there are no tenets or articles of faith that are incumbent upon ALL atheists to believe.
Besides, indoctrination is simply what people call teaching that they don't agree with. It sounds more sinister.
AndrewV at 10:12AM on Dec 14th 2007
69.
Children should be taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think.
FL Chick at 1:58PM on Dec 13th 2007
70. There is no more heinous form of child abuse than indoctrinating a child into christianity.
Richard at 1:59PM on Dec 13th 2007
71. I fear I will have to decondition my niece and nephew, as thier mother is delusioned with religion and is using it as a parenting tool. Dispicable.
Richard at 2:02PM on Dec 13th 2007
72. richelle,
most every university i know teaches world religion just as you suggest,who objects? why do you need to teach kids. when alot of times they don't have the conceptual ability to comprehend?
-----------------------
why teach kids? because by the time they can go to college the seeds of intolerance have already been planted. and those who are willing to embrace other religions can if they want to because world religion is not a required class. so those who want to go on saying "well xyz religion is the only correct way to believe and i don't even want to hear about any other religions" doesn't have to take the class. not to mention, what about the percentage of kids who never attend college?
Richelle at 2:02PM on Dec 13th 2007
73. Richard,
68. There is no more heinous form of child abuse than indoctrinating a child into christianity.
Richard
---------------------------------------------
I can think of one , well three actually.
Darwinism, bangism, atheism.
Observant at 2:10PM on Dec 13th 2007
74. mincpa. thank you for sharing. As I say that, perhaps you recognize the lingo: I have 22 years sobriety and gratitude for every day of life.
I have sponsored many people, some religious, some atheist or agnostic. My attitude has always been "whatever floats your boat".
Some newly sober people were turned off by the "higher power" part of the program. I told them what worked for me: my higher power was the group, the act of sharing, and the camraderie of the fellowship. I let them know that I am a 100% atheist, and it's no problem for me.
The only requirement for membership is a desire to stay sober.
I do try to live and let live. Frankly, I don't believe your mountain story. But that's just me. I've done a bit of mountain climbing and I know how goofy I get when the air gets thin.
Did you ever read the story about Edward Whymper, the first man to climb the Matterhorn in Zermott, Switzerland.
After the party of seven summitted, when descending, one of the party slipped, and, as they were all roped together, all began slipping, and the four on the bottom had the misfortune to have the rope break and they fell to their deaths.
Whymper and the other two were naturally shaken by this event. As they continued their descent in the fog, they saw a cross in the fog for a few seconds. Whymper took this to be a sign, perhaps of their lost friends.
I guess my point is, it was an optical illusion, they were exhausted by the climb and distraught over their dead friends.
Substantiation of the supernatural has never been proven.
Linda at 2:13PM on Dec 13th 2007
75. observant, you prove my point perfectly. Deny proven science for religious dogma. Way to go.
I do feel sorry for you.
Richard at 2:14PM on Dec 13th 2007