This page was last updated on August 3, 2012.
More options needed; Adam Cilli; Beaver County Times; August 1, 2012.
Mr. Cilli wrote a previous letter on this topic entitled “Who is brainwashing who?”
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“There have been several passionate responses to my recent letter to the editor. To be clear, I am not criticizing parents who raise their children in the Christian tradition. I am simply stating that those who present the Christian perspective as the only viable explanation for the existence of the universe, Earth, and humanity, and who disregard all other faith traditions as well as science, are in no position to accuse professors of brainwashing students.”
[RWC] Looking back to my critique of Mr. Cilli’s previous letter, the first thing I should have done was provide the definition of brainwashing. The Merriam-Webster definition of brainwashing is “a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.” The word we should be using is indoctrination since no one is forcing students to attend a given college or class. The Merriam-Webster definition of indoctrinate is “to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle.”
Mr. Cilli wrote he is “not criticizing parents who want to raise their children in the Christian tradition,” then does just that when he says those parents are in no position to complain about indoctrination in school.
Let’s look at a history for an example of indoctrination. When I was a kid, all the way from grade school through college I was taught FDR’s policies/programs brought the U.S. out of the Great Depression, a position not “based on evidence and logic.” This position was reinforced in “news” and even entertainment. It wasn’t until I was long out of college I did the research and learned the FDR story is a lie.
“Rather than unquestioningly accepting everything we are told, I advocate a spirit of healthy skepticism, in which all sides are given a voice and are critically evaluated. I support teaching children to adopt positions based on evidence and logic, to align themselves with those views which are supported by reason.”
[RWC] Since religion is about faith, not “evidence and logic,” Mr. Cilli appears to oppose teaching children about religion.
“In his impassioned letter, Don Villella suggests children freely decide to be Christians. Undoubtedly this is true in many cases; but not in those where Christianity is repeatedly presented as the only true religion and belief system. If a child is only taught Christian doctrine, how can he possibly choose to believe something else? When only one option is presented, there can be no decision.”
[RWC] Mr. Cilli still doesn’t appear to understand teaching religion is not the same as teaching subjects like civics, economics, et cetera. Religion (including atheism) is a matter of faith, not fact, and there’s nothing wrong with that. For example, there is no way followers of any given faith can use “evidence and logic” to claim their religion is the one true religion. Does that make a religious belief right or wrong? No.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.