How to kill religion ???

[SirYeen]

Hi guys,
I've been thinking lately. As some of you might now I'm an Anti-Theist. This for several reasons I might explain if required.
But the original intent of this post is not to convince you to become an anti-Theist since I'm pretty sure people like cristopher hitchens will do a better job. However I think I got a few laws that would completely destroy religion.

1. Religious instruction is not to be taught in classes until a kid reaches the age of 16.

- This might look like a law contradicting freedom but it doesn't. You do not have the right to indoctrinate other people, to change their subconscious. If anything we are respecting freedom of thought.
- By this I mean that religion should not be represented as the truth or anything close to that. Instead it should be seen as part of our culture, with the necessary criticism.

2. Instead a class that has more to do with criticism and perhaps philosophy should be taught. (Really just take a class where you can fit in religion from a DECENT angle.)

- Basically people should have these classes were they learn to think for their own, learn some morals (for example : When you live, try to act in a way that you WANT to take responsibility for those actions or Shape the world by being a civilian of the world you want it to be) and learn to criticize stuff. Now basically what you do is use the Qur'an , the bible and other books and use them as examples of flawed logic. You let them know the books and you teach them what is wrong with them.


3. These 2 laws alone should really change the way people think. If we want to kill religion we need to cause a shift in the mindset of people, this is the only way. Whoever controls the individual, controls the world.


The problem : How do you convince people that these laws are for the better ?
n , I
NOTE : Sorry if any misunderstood me , I do *not* want to ban the books out of the school. I want to ban the classic religion classes. I don't want people to forget about religiowant people to evolve past it.

 

[lrkun]

Let me do some editing. I like this idea and I'm persuaded to take part in your thread's discussion.

However I think I got a few laws that would completely destroy religion.

1. Religion is not to be taught in classes until a kid reaches the age of 16.

- This might look like a law contradicting freedom but it doesn't. You do not have the right to indoctrinate other people, to change their subconscious. If anything we are respecting freedom of thought.


2. Instead a class that involves creativity and criticism should be taught

- Basically people should have these classes were they learn to think for their own, learn some morals (for example : When you live, try to act in a way that you WANT to take responsibility for those actions or Shape the world by being a civilian of the world you want it to be) and learn to criticize stuff. Now basically what you do is use the Qur'an , the bible and other books and use them as examples of flawed logic. You let them know the books and you teach them what is wrong with them.


3. These 2 laws alone should really change the way people think. If we want to kill religion we need to cause a shift in the mindset of people, this is the only way. Whoever controls the individual, controls the world.


The problem : How do you convince people ?

1. I think religion is a choice and should be taught at the age of 18. Hehe, like smoking/beer/driver's license. A certain sense of maturity is required.

2. Creativity and critical thinking.

How to convince people?

Nothing better than education. Case studies would do well as a start. One case representing one with religion and another w/o. Comparing how societies fair with a religion and one without.

 

[retardedsociety]

Imagine if the world was filled with 5 year olds, and you were the only adult, how would you convince all those 5 year olds that Santa Clause doesn't exist?

Maybe some 5 year old's would believe you, but the majority would reject your claims even if you present to them logical arguments, because they are not logical, they are children.

So how can you make children understand there is no Santa Clause?


A slow process of learning, with care and love, with understanding, not shouting, not making fun, not calling them stupid.


But by showing them truly that as time passes they will not see Santa, and most of them will grow up, while others will always remain children.


Religion will most likely never die, but if we always speak of reason to people, science, philosophy, history, more and more people will think this way, and then religion will become a sort of personal thing, a thing you practice on your own in your home, not about salvation or damnation, but about peace with yourself, after all, humans are spiritual.

 

[lrkun]

Imagine if the world was filled with 5 year olds, and you were the only adult, how would you convince all those 5 year olds that Santa Clause doesn't exist?

Maybe some 5 year old's would believe you, but the majority would reject your claims even if you present to them logical arguments, because they are not logical, they are children.

So how can you make children understand there is no Santa Clause?


A slow process of learning, with care and love, with understanding, not shouting, not making fun, not calling them stupid.


But by showing them truly that as time passes they will not see Santa, and most of them will grow up, while others will always remain children.


Religion will most likely never die, but if we always speak of reason to people, science, philosophy, history, more and more people will think this way, and then religion will become a sort of personal thing, a thing you practice on your own in your home, not about salvation or damnation, but about peace with yourself, after all, humans are spiritual.

Do you think the issue is about how to educate people properly?

 

[Prolescum]

Hi guys,
I've been thinking lately. As some of you might now I'm an Anti-Theist. This for several reasons I might explain if required.
But the original intent of this post is not to convince you to become an anti-Theist since I'm pretty sure people like cristopher hitchens will do a better job. However I think I got a few laws that would completely destroy religion.

Lol, Hitchens can proposition the Queen for all I care, I'm not one of his acolytes.

* Religion is not to be taught in classes until a kid reaches the age of 16.
- This might look like a law contradicting freedom but it doesn't. You do not have the right to indoctrinate other people, to change their subconscious. If anything we are respecting freedom of thought.

So how exactly do you go about putting this into practice? You can't, so you're basically just fantasizing. Well done! Also, how are you respecting freedom of thought when religion cannot be addressed before the arbitrary age of 16?

* Instead a class that involves creativity and criticism should be taught.
- Basically people should have these classes were they learn to think for their own, learn some morals (for example : When you live, try to act in a way that you WANT to take responsibility for those actions or Shape the world by being a civilian of the world you want it to be) and learn to criticize stuff. Now basically what you do is use the Qur'an , the bible and other books and use them as examples of flawed logic. You let them know the books and you teach them what is wrong with them.

Wait, I thought these were supposed to be laws? So you want more classes where you teach morals. Whose morals exactly? I would go on, but you seem like a young 'un so I'll leave it out.

* These 2 laws alone should really change the way people think. If we want to kill religion we need to cause a shift in the mindset of people, this is the only way.

:lol: Religion will fade on its own when it no longer relevant to people's lives. It isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, so stop worrying and stop saying we should 'kill' it - it makes you sound stupid.

Whoever controls the individual, controls the world.

Which individual? Why do you think 'control', as opposed to your earlier desire for 'freedom of thought', is necessary?

The problem : How do you convince people ?

By being honest and open and not forcing stuff upon them. If they don't listen, you have to walk away knowing that at least you tried.

 

[retardedsociety]

Imagine if the world was filled with 5 year olds, and you were the only adult, how would you convince all those 5 year olds that Santa Clause doesn't exist?

Maybe some 5 year old's would believe you, but the majority would reject your claims even if you present to them logical arguments, because they are not logical, they are children.

So how can you make children understand there is no Santa Clause?


A slow process of learning, with care and love, with understanding, not shouting, not making fun, not calling them stupid.


But by showing them truly that as time passes they will not see Santa, and most of them will grow up, while others will always remain children.


Religion will most likely never die, but if we always speak of reason to people, science, philosophy, history, more and more people will think this way, and then religion will become a sort of personal thing, a thing you practice on your own in your home, not about salvation or damnation, but about peace with yourself, after all, humans are spiritual.

Do you think the issue is about how to educate people properly?

Yes, it all comes down to the roots of society, children, they are brought about to believe in religion, and when they grow up and face the world they find themselves feeling there is a war going on, and people are after their faith. Then they harden themselves and plug their ears to not listen to attacks towards their faith.


A more sensitive way to do this is to educate properly the children of this world, to teach them real science and not let the creationists go around spreading in school intelligent design.


The flow of information is growing every day, so today if a child comes about a religion he or she has more ways to discover things about how faith works and how science works, through the internet.

 

[SirYeen]

Hi guys,
I've been thinking lately. As some of you might now I'm an Anti-Theist. This for several reasons I might explain if required.
But the original intent of this post is not to convince you to become an anti-Theist since I'm pretty sure people like cristopher hitchens will do a better job. However I think I got a few laws that would completely destroy religion.

Lol, Hitchens can proposition the Queen for all I care, I'm not one of his acolytes.

My point was that other people are much better at explaining it. I'm not a fanboy (haven't even read his book).

* Religion is not to be taught in classes until a kid reaches the age of 16.
- This might look like a law contradicting freedom but it doesn't. You do not have the right to indoctrinate other people, to change their subconscious. If anything we are respecting freedom of thought.

So how exactly do you go about putting this into practice? You can't, so you're basically just fantasizing. Well done! Also, how are you respecting freedom of thought when religion cannot be addressed before the arbitrary age of 16?

You put it into practice by educating them. You slip it right into school. They can still teach it at home but if you slip it into schools and prevent schools from teaching religion you are going to deconvert tons of people.

* Instead a class that involves creativity and criticism should be taught.
- Basically people should have these classes were they learn to think for their own, learn some morals (for example : When you live, try to act in a way that you WANT to take responsibility for those actions or Shape the world by being a civilian of the world you want it to be) and learn to criticize stuff. Now basically what you do is use the Qur'an , the bible and other books and use them as examples of flawed logic. You let them know the books and you teach them what is wrong with them.

Wait, I thought these were supposed to be laws? So you want more classes where you teach morals. Whose morals exactly? I would go on, but you seem like a young 'un so I'll leave it out.

Morals : Humanism ? Just general common sense. I'm pretty sure everyone can think of good morals, we just don't because we aren't actively busy with them most of the time. It is similar to why the bible can't be a moral guide sent by god : If you aren't a moral man you won't see it as a moral book.

The law is to insert these classes. Force schools to insert them and force them not to teach religion. That is the law.

* These 2 laws alone should really change the way people think. If we want to kill religion we need to cause a shift in the mindset of people, this is the only way.

:lol: Religion will fade on its own when it no longer relevant to people's lives. It isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, so stop worrying and stop saying we should 'kill' it - it makes you sound stupid.

I'm pretty sure people will always have trouble and will always turn to religion and even if it does die out on its own there is nothing wrong with speeding up the process. I don't know if you noticed but we are having a lot of trouble globally. If you want to fix them people need to become conscious of those problems, religion hampers people becoming conscious imho.

Whoever controls the individual, controls the world.

Which individual? Why do you think 'control', as opposed to your earlier desire for 'freedom of thought', is necessary?

THE individual. By controlling the mindset of people you control the people. It is not really "controlling" in a literal way really. Basically you teach the things you want people to be aware of.

The problem : How do you convince people ?

By being honest and open and not forcing stuff upon them. If they don't listen, you have to walk away knowing that at least you tried.

You misunderstood (again :roll: ). The problem is how to convince people that these laws are for the better. I'm not forcing my opinion onto people. I'm trying to prevent other people from indoctrinating people. Two different things. If you want to convince people you need open people. These laws would give us that gap.

 

[Prolescum]

You misunderstood (again :roll: ).

No I didn't. This is the same tripe I read over an over again from self described anti-theists with varying degrees of vitriol. I actually chose RE as a GCSE topic at school despite being born and still being an atheist. Creating a law to limit study is walking the wrong path to enlightenment.

The problem is how to convince people that these laws are for the better.

They're not laws, they're pipe dreams. They're unpleasant ones too.

I'm not forcing my opinion onto people.

Except you are proposing a law to limit education based upon your desire to 'kill' religion.

I'm trying to prevent other people from indoctrinating people.

I know what you think you're doing, which isn't quite the same thing as what you actually are suggesting.

Two different things. If you want to convince people you need open people. These laws would give us that gap.

Yet you are requiring that we arbitrarily forbid people under the age of sixteen from learning about something that has been prevalent throughout recorded history? Pfft. We'll have to also ban history, geography, politics and literature to name a few as well, otherwise those pesky inquisitive fifteen year olds will wonder about the influences and motivations the artists, philosophers and scientists had when making noteworthy contributions to human civilization, you know, seeing as it permeates their work and frames their perspectives. Opening a whole new can of worms there, matey.

The only thing you can do is discuss it openly and honestly; anything less and you're on the wrong side of the battle.

 

[Fictionarious]

Stopping religion (either halting it's progress, or eliminating it completely) can be accomplished by the same measures that would be necessary to destroy any meme (inherently self-replicating idea). Two broad categories in no particular order:

1. Educating people about what religion is and what ideas like it are. How their perceived truthfulness is dependent on their lack of falsifiability, how their promises (heaven) and threats (hell) are disguised as parts of an apparently valid description of the way the world is, and how they are all essentially manifestations of the same big cosmic joke of a mistake (as cargo cults attest by their mere existence). In short, that religions are to the global discussion forum what "hold your breath, count to 10, post this to five other videos, then press f5 to see your crush's name!" are to the YouTube comment section.

2. Instituting and enforcing policies that in any way inhibit their mode of transmission, by far the most predominant and deplorable of which is from parents to their children. In this category would belong movements that would stop public funding of churches, as well as movements that emphasize the rights of children to self-determination over the supposed rights of parents to indoctrinate as they see fit.

I have come to believe that there are few causes more important to the world now, if negotiations of world peace are to begin meaning anything, than any that would embrace these two approaches in a publicly accountable fashion and use them to advocate and inform the public and policymakers about this issue, while uniting various strands of freethinking organizations in support of this goal.

 

[Prolescum]

Stopping religion (either halting it's progress, or eliminating it completely) can be accomplished by the same measures that would be necessary to destroy any meme (inherently self-replicating idea). Two broad categories in no particular order:

1. Educating people about what religion is and what ideas like it are. How their perceived truthfulness is dependent on their lack of falsifiability, how their promises (heaven) and threats (hell) are disguised as parts of an apparently valid description of the way the world is, and how they are all essentially manifestations of the same big cosmic joke of a mistake (as cargo cults attest by their mere existence). In short, that religions are to the global discussion forum what "hold your breath, count to 10, post this to five other videos, then press f5 to see your crush's name!" are to the YouTube comment section.

2. Instituting and enforcing policies that in any way inhibit their mode of transmission, by far the most predominant and deplorable of which is from parents to their children. In this category would belong movements that would stop public funding of churches, as well as movements that emphasize the rights of children to self-determination over the supposed rights of parents to indoctrinate as they see fit.

I have come to believe that there are few causes more important to the world now, if negotiations of world peace are to begin meaning anything, than any that would embrace these two approaches in a publicly accountable fashion and use them to advocate and inform the public and policymakers about this issue, while uniting various strands of freethinking organizations in support of this goal.

This is based on the faulty premise that religion is just an intellectual conceit to be deconstructed; are you suggesting people don't have revelatory or religious experiences without prior knowledge of a particular scripture? That it doesn't happen out of the blue? Can you say with a straight face that all religious people that were and will be necessarily required or requires someone else's interpretation of the divine for said experiences to have relevance?
We will always wonder, there's no way around that except showing empirically that there was, is or isn't a creator.
Reducing religious experience to the analogy of a cargo cult is disingenuous at best.

 

[Jotto999]

Yet you are requiring that we arbitrarily forbid people under the age of sixteen from learning about something that has been prevalent throughout recorded history? Pfft. We'll have to also ban history, geography, politics and literature to name a few as well, otherwise those pesky inquisitive fifteen year olds will wonder about the influences and motivations the artists, philosophers and scientists had when making noteworthy contributions to human civilization, you know, seeing as it permeates their work and frames their perspectives. Opening a whole new can of worms there, matey.

The only thing you can do is discuss it openly and honestly; anything less and you're on the wrong side of the battle.

I agree. Rather than inhibiting information availability, the most constructive way I can think of to diminish religiosity is to increase information availability. Particularly since it's been statistically shown that education scales inversely with religiosity (though so do socioeconomic factors, going by the sources found here.)

Even if learning about religion for the first time at 16 increased the odds of rejecting it (I suspect it would), I doubt that's feasible, or enforceable. Instead, I think reducing religiosity by improving the standard of living and from further scientific developments is the best way.

 

[Fictionarious]

This is based on the faulty premise that religion is just an intellectual conceit to be deconstructed; are you suggesting people don't have revelatory or religious experiences without prior knowledge of a particular scripture? That it doesn't happen out of the blue? Can you say with a straight face that all religious people that were and will be necessarily required or requires someone else's interpretation of the divine for said experiences to have relevance?
We will always wonder, there's no way around that except showing empirically that there was, is or isn't a creator.
Reducing religious experience to the analogy of a cargo cult is disingenuous at best.

Religion is a conceit to be deconstructed, though not in any sense an exclusively intellectual one. The question of whether people do or don't have "revelatory or religious experiences" without being inspired by an existing scripture is a good one. Clearly they do. Most of those are either prophets that found a religion, or prophets that redefine an existing one. I can say with a straight face that there are many potential causes of religious/spiritual/personally-transformative experiences, be they schizophrenia, drug use, misinterpretation of the natural events and strange coincidences, obsessive self-reflection, etc. And my goal is not to discount these.

However, a significant portion of "revelation" IS a direct result of the memetic influence of an existing religious scripture - in the latter half of 2006, when I was just discovering myself as a conscious unbeliever, I followed a website that claimed the rapture would happen during the 2007 New Year. I waited expectantly to see whether the rapture would happen or if the web site would be removed at it's absence. The woman behind it had received divine revelation in a dream some twenty years prior, had written a book about it, spending presumably every free moment in pursuit of her new life's purpose (getting the word out about GOD), and updated the site and it's followers with news EVERY DAY. Then, about on about Jan 02, it disappeared, and I was struck with an unexpectedly profound sense of pity and grief for the whole thing. How much turmoil was going through the woman's mind right at that moment? How much was going through the minds of those who believed her? Did they sell all their property and rack up debt? Or did they merely make decisions they wouldn't have otherwise made as a result of their misplaced trust in a dream?

I think it was at this moment I realized that there is really no security in a falsehood, no matter how temporarily comfortable it might be, and that "The Truth" was what I was going to spend the rest of my lonely life obsessing over, trying to pin down.

Having said all this, I am the same user who made a post recently about UFO's; I believe progress is yet to be made and mysteries yet to be solved. I put all religions in the company of cargo cults because from an anthropological perspective, there is no difference in the phenomenon but one of scale. It is not disingenuous. We have shown empirically that there was no single conscious creator of all myriad forms of life (rather it was evolution through natural selection), we have shown empirically that for all of the history of the universe as we have been able to perceive the evidence of it, there has been no conscious element. And the creator hypothesis is at it's core an unfalsifiable one. If an alleged "creator" is entirely un-perceivable, then its absence or presence is in either case unprovable. And even if we did prove that one way or another, that doesn't say anything toward the moral injunctions attached to religious scripture and thought, or heaven and hell, or anything else so often attached to the claim.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Ignore the pond scum. He's just a head fuck.

What I find really disturbing is this viper's assertion that religion will disappear on its own without any participation of our generation. Such non-starter statements are the type of rhetoric that sets people up for failure, expecting things to happen without working for it.

Don't buy into the bullshit. Religion will fall only if we take active steps to make it.

 

[SirYeen]

You misunderstood (again :roll: ).

No I didn't. This is the same tripe I read over an over again from self described anti-theists with varying degrees of vitriol. I actually chose RE as a GCSE topic at school despite being born and still being an atheist. Creating a law to limit study is walking the wrong path to enlightenment.

The problem is how to convince people that these laws are for the better.

They're not laws, they're pipe dreams. They're unpleasant ones too.

I'm not forcing my opinion onto people.

Except you are proposing a law to limit education based upon your desire to 'kill' religion.

I'm trying to prevent other people from indoctrinating people.

I know what you think you're doing, which isn't quite the same thing as what you actually are suggesting.

Two different things. If you want to convince people you need open people. These laws would give us that gap.

Yet you are requiring that we arbitrarily forbid people under the age of sixteen from learning about something that has been prevalent throughout recorded history? Pfft. We'll have to also ban history, geography, politics and literature to name a few as well, otherwise those pesky inquisitive fifteen year olds will wonder about the influences and motivations the artists, philosophers and scientists had when making noteworthy contributions to human civilization, you know, seeing as it permeates their work and frames their perspectives. Opening a whole new can of worms there, matey.

The only thing you can do is discuss it openly and honestly; anything less and you're on the wrong side of the battle.

Where exactly did I say they shouldn't be able to learn it ? I said they shouldn't be able to learn it at school. You learn science because it is useful, you learn history because it's useful (well to some degree). If a subject is not useful and can even be bad for a child you remove it. They can learn it at home all they want. Also I'm not actually banning religion, I'm just putting it in another daylight. Religion is a big part of culture and should be taught, but by all means not as the absolute truth or anywhere close. We shouldn't change how history is taught because people don't start to worship Marshal Heigh (shure him being a fucktard helps).

One last thing :
The replacing class would be discussing it openly and honestly. I never said anything about lying. I might be on the wrong side for you but as I see it wrong and right can be relative to who's judging.

 

[Nautyskin]

How to kill religion? Well, you won't kill it; people are too attached to eternal existence, but here is what I think would help stem some of the negative influence it has in our daily lives:

Teach critical thinking skills to children by encouraging them to question, test and investigate.

Also make sure that educators are actually educated on the topics that they teach. (i.e You should not be 'teaching' 'evolution' if you do not know the correct response to the question "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?")

Teach kids the basics of geography. Religion. Evolutionary biology. Show them the evidence and support for each.

Teach them what we know about how the actual world works, and HOW we know it.

None of this is really being done, and it's an absolute disgrace.

 

[Nautyskin]

Where exactly did I say they shouldn't be able to learn it ? I said they shouldn't be able to learn it at school.

Religion has been a massive part of human history and you really cannot tell the story without it. It's also pretty important in understanding how the world operates in general, so I don't think what you're suggesting there is a very good idea.

 

[RedYellow]

I'm not sure religion needs to be killed. I'm optimistic in the notion that reason will win out over religion naturally. The power of intellect provides much more of an advantage, and as information becomes increasingly available it will be harder to keep people uninformed, which is really what most fundamentalist groups depend on.

For example, Creationism has withered away on youtube as the major players in that area either destroyed their own credibility or boarded themselves up behind account blocks and comment censorship to hide their bullshit ideas and opinions from scrutiny. Atheists are the only ones who formed a stable community and never block or censor people who disagree. I believe this is a smaller version of what will happen on a global scale. Fundies will either adapt and smooth over their beliefs to fit society, or lock themselves away from the rest of the world. Most people wont allow themselves to be too separated from society, we are a social species afterall.

 

[Prolescum]

Ignore the pond scum. He's just a head fuck.

What I find really disturbing is this viper's assertion that religion will disappear on its own without any participation of our generation. Such non-starter statements are the type of rhetoric that sets people up for failure, expecting things to happen without working for it.

Don't buy into the bullshit. Religion will fall only if we take active steps to make it.

How very feeble an argument you make. Don't listen because he's a head-fuck? :lol:
Not for the first time either.
I have reported your pathetic post.

Where exactly did I say they shouldn't be able to learn it ? I said they shouldn't be able to learn it at school.

And I say that teaching it at school is valuable. Look, you're talking about people indoctrinating children, however, that is not what happens in an RE class.

You learn science because it is useful, you learn history because it's useful (well to some degree). If a subject is not useful and can even be bad for a child you remove it.

And you've made that determination yourself, it's not based upon any national concensus. History is immensely useful.

If people are determined to give their children religious instruction (which is what I think you're talking about), what's to stop them just home-schooling their children were your idea to come about? Is it not better that they learn about these things in an appropriately academic atmosphere?

They can learn it at home all they want. Also I'm not actually banning religion, I'm just putting it in another daylight. Religion is a big part of culture and should be taught, but by all means not as the absolute truth or anywhere close.

What? Religions are, at the core, a pile of nonsense, but that's entirely beside the point.

We shouldn't change how history is taught because people don't start to worship Marshal Heigh (shure him being a fucktard helps).

One last thing :
The replacing class would be discussing it openly and honestly. I never said anything about lying.

That is exactly what you do in a religious education class now.

I might be on the wrong side for you but as I see it wrong and right can be relative to who's judging.

Anyone wishing to limit what people can and can't learn is an enemy of free thought.

I'm not sure religion needs to be killed. I'm optimistic in the notion that reason will win out over religion naturally. The power of intellect provides much more of an advantage, and as information becomes increasingly available it will be harder to keep people uninformed, which is really what most fundamentalist groups depend on.

Succinctly put, I completely agree and it is the reason that the apoplectic anti-religious bile that spews forth from people like the Ultimate Blasphemer is both pointless and irrelevant.

 

[Aught3]

Ignore the pond scum. He's just a head fuck.

What I find really disturbing is this viper's assertion that religion will disappear on its own without any participation of our generation. Such non-starter statements are the type of rhetoric that sets people up for failure, expecting things to happen without working for it.

Don't buy into the bullshit. Religion will fall only if we take active steps to make it.

Fairly obvious that this is inappropriate, please tone it done and don't attack other users.

 

[Nautyskin]

Look, you're talking about people indoctrinating children, however, that is not what happens in an RE class.

Actually you're wrong about that, at least in Primary Schools in Australia. Ever heard a bunch of kids singing religious songs with the punchline:

"You better believe in me. Or WATCH OUT!"?

That's not the only example I can provide, but it was the most shocking.

Indoctrination takes place in Primary Schools in this country. There's teaching religion, and teaching about religion. I support the latter. The former makes me sick.