Nope. It is the right of every parent to pass on their biases, views, values and identity on to their kids. And I'm not even being sarcastic - that's the promise and peril of leaving child-rearing to the family unit.
That's valid, and i'm certainly not opposed to the basic right of raising your own children, but rather there be some form of oversight for cases such as this. A society should strive to rid itself of harmful values, of which this anti-thought drivel is a part, and if that infringes on parenting then so be it.
I may disagree with it, but I respect the right of some Evangelical mom to teach her kids creationism as much as I respect the opposite. Now you can make this or that argument in favour of the state educating kids instead of their parents, but I think that's an argument you would lose. If the family is not there to educate its own, what purpose exactly does it serve?
It's not as if i'm saying children should be educated
entirely by the state, but merely that there be a tad more oversight into what the devil these evangelist parents are feeding their kids! The teaching of such anti-thought bullshot like what's demonstrated in the linked clips is quite frankly tantamount to physical abuse, which most western Governments take a hard line against. Hence it should be a logical step for the Government to regulate what these kids are told. The parents are vital to the education of their children, but without the communal and open educational experience of a proper school, the parents alone just aren't enough.
The difference between teaching and indoctrination exists more on paper than in substance - and I say this for all people and all topics of education. I would much, much, much prefer indoctrination to be decentralized, as is the case when each parent educates their children, then under the power of a monolithic organization. Call it hedging your bets.
Can't really argue with that, although i'd rather have no indoctrination at all.
