I worry about the children of religious parents.

[MysticSang'ha]

What I find interesting right now is down at the bottom of this page suggesting similar threads to go through is "Should parents be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children on religious grounds?"

This might be one of those issues where parental rights don't own the trump card.

 

[dawny0826]

For one thing, harm=/=abuse, as we've established.

Understood. We can move on.

For another, whether brainwashing necessarily constitutes harm is arguable I'm not making a claim about that.

Brainwashing by defnition, is harmful as it involves force and coercion.

The question posed since the OP has been whether or not indoctrinating youth into religion is harmful (and/or abusive).

However, I do not see how teaching children religious doctrines at a certain age could FAIL to qualify as brainwashing, just as a matter of definition..

To ensure that we're both on the same page, let me provide the definition of brainwashing:

Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, thought control, or thought reform) refers to an indoctrination process which results in "an impairment of autonomy, an inability to think independently, and a disruption of beliefs and affiliations. In this context, brainwashing refers to the involuntary reeducation of basic beliefs and values"[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making.

Source: Mind control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which would seem to mean not discussing it at all, or not teaching it as real or factual.

Explain to me how anything that I've described to you in relation to sharing Christ's love and stories that exemplify the importance of love, forgiveness and charity qualify as per the provided definition, above.

Removing your objection towards religion from the equation, please explain to me how anything that I've mentioned qualifies as brainwashing.

Sure. But once again, it is nevertheless correct. "That's your opinion" is not a counter-argument.

And your opinion wasn't a genuine argument to begin with. We can fling opinions at each other for as long as we choose to.

There's no "winning" to this debate, if you haven't noticed.

Um... Ok. So what about being a Christian makes it seem reasonable to teach young children that they bear guilt for something someone else has done, especially when this something and someone are entirely fictional?

I am a Christian and I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I do not subscribe to a faith concept where people are supposed to feel guilt for the actions of others.

Ok, but as I noted, these are not unique to religious instruction, but are general lessons that can be formulated any number of ways- including without any religious dogma, thereby eliminating the negative and keeping the positive.

You have yet to demonstrate any negatives in tangible and demonstrative terms, save through anecdotal account and one study to suggest that religious parents should be concerned.

And the nature of this obligation?

I am obligated as per my faith to raise my children according to God's word. This means that God is a part of our lives.

I've mentioned a couple of other things that would be very similar- teaching your child your political affiliation and views as facts, at an age in which they weren't equipped to understand the relevant concepts and issues for one, would be just as objectionable, and for largely the exact same reasons.

Then, I suppose we should remain silent when around our children so as not to teach them anything. Everything that we do (and if you're a parent, I imagine you understand this) influences our children to some extent.

We influence our children even we don't intentionally project something upon them as fact. I imagine if you're a parent, you understand this as well.

I don't know, why not apply the criteria I'm using? Is it a controversial subject that would be naive or dishonest to present as fact? Is it a matter that generally forms an integral part of a persons identity and worldview? Is it a subject which the child is not intellectually capable of understanding yet?

It's not a controversial subject in my household at all. We're living our lives and minding our own business.

And like you, I had personal experiences too with religion as a teen. It's through my own personal experiences that I can state with confidence that I:

1. Wasn't brainwashed
2. Was certainly capable of thinking and questioning
3. Was introduced to religion as a kid and am a happy, healthy and productive woman

This is a discussion. Nobody is telling you what to do, only advocating their views on the topic under discussion.

Yeah...exactly.

That children typically will uncritically believe fantastical stories from their parents and other trusted authority figures? That was the idea...

Some, perhaps. But, not all. I don't know any children who uncritically believe what they see and hear.

This is going beyond the scope of the analogy. The point is that they accepted it uncritically in the first place- and many children nevertheless maintain belief in Santa Claus/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy/whatever, despite evidence to the contrary, precisely because of the hefty presumption in favor of what their parents have told them.

My point still stands. When it's time to give up these beliefs, kids do so because they've questioned and rationalized.

Your overall assessment would be far more valid to me, if children didn't give up belief in Santa Claus, because that would suggest that they are incapable of critical thinking.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I know you find this hard to believe, but an Atheist can preach as good if not better than a religious person ever could. You want a world devoid of religion. A sterile environment is the equivalent of a church sermon. There is either God in your home or there is not.

If religion is not taught in a home, Atheism wins.

Nothing against Atheists, some of my best friends here are Atheists, but truthfully, if you're intellectually honest, Agnosticism is the correct position to hold. Any other belief requires a certain amount of faith beyond evidence or lack of evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I find interesting right now is down at the bottom of this page suggesting similar threads to go through is "Should parents be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children on religious grounds?"

This might be one of those issues where parental rights don't own the trump card.

Indeed.

Also, I remembered something that happened to me that I mentioned some time ago in another thread:

A few years back, I was the coach for a robotics team at an elementary school. It was great - not only did it get the kids excited about math and science, it really helped the self-esteem of a bunch of the kids and helped forge friendships. At the end of our season, the teachers decided to throw a pizza party to celebrate the team's accomplishments. They sent a letter home to the parents telling them about the team's season and the party.

The next day (as I was told by one of the teachers later), one of the kids on the team came up to her in tears. He said that his parents wouldn't let him go to the pizza party because the pizza wouldn't be halal. Apparently, they also didn't trust their son to not eat the pizza if he attended the party but brought his own food. He was excluded from a celebration of his own success because of his parents' desire to impose their religious beliefs on him.

While I would never try to get someone's kid taken away because they wouldn't let him have pizza, I also don't have a problem saying that this was a pretty crappy thing to do.

Yes, the child will probably get over this one day of disappointment, but it still was not the optimal approach to that situation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

What I find interesting right now is down at the bottom of this page suggesting similar threads to go through is "Should parents be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children on religious grounds?"

This might be one of those issues where parental rights don't own the trump card.

I would agree 100% with this. Oh and people need to get over breast feeding in public. Mothers should tell these prudes to pound sand IMO.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You want a world devoid of religion.

Care to explain to me how you know what I want? I take it you are clairvoyant, since I've never said any such thing.

If religion is not taught in a home

Strawman. This is not what I am arguing for, nor do I think anyone else on this thread is advocating that.

Nothing against Atheists, some of my best friends here are Atheists, but truthfully, if you're intellectually honest, Agnosticism is the correct position to hold.

This is completely outside of the scope of this thread, but this couldn't be more mistaken. Agnosticism is not really a philosophically tenable position, and intellectual honesty is a function of available information, so what is intellectual honest to any particular person may vary (in other words, one cannot say what the most/only intellectually honest position is, unless everyone in the world has access to the same exact set of information- clearly they do not).

Any other belief requires a certain amount of faith beyond evidence or lack of evidence.

Erm, ok. Blurring some important distinction in a rather large way, but once again, this is outside the scope of the topic of this thread. There is no lack of threads on this particular subject, if that's what you want to discuss.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Care to explain to me how you know what I want? I take it you are clairvoyant, since I've never said any such thing.


Strawman. This is not what I am arguing for, nor do I think anyone else on this thread is advocating that.


This is completely outside of the scope of this thread, but this couldn't be more mistaken. Agnosticism is not really a philosophically tenable position, and intellectual honesty is a function of available information, so what is intellectual honest to any particular person may vary (in other words, one cannot say what the most/only intellectually honest position is, unless everyone in the world has access to the same exact set of information- clearly they do not).


Erm, ok. Blurring some important distinction in a rather large way, but once again, this is outside the scope of the topic of this thread. There is no lack of threads on this particular subject, if that's what you want to discuss.

I don't believe I want to discuss this any further with you, it is pretty much a waste of time.

You and Quag can have at it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Indeed.

Also, I remembered something that happened to me that I mentioned some time ago in another thread:



While I would never try to get someone's kid taken away because they wouldn't let him have pizza, I also don't have a problem saying that this was a pretty crappy thing to do.

Yes, the child will probably get over this one day of disappointment, but it still was not the optimal approach to that situation.

I would agree 100% with this. Oh and people need to get over breast feeding in public. Mothers should tell these prudes to pound sand IMO.

These posts make me think of something:

My position on the OP is this....like anything else, it's difficult to pin down what is black and white save for the most blatant cases of neglect or abuse. Rev Rick and Dawny and I myself know this: parenting is full of ups and downs and mistakes and triumphs. Whether we're religious or not, follow a specific creed or allows for pluralism in the same household, for 18 years (roughly) we find ourselves in so many opportunities to build our kiddos for their future or mess them up.

And the degree to which we can mess things up varies with all these hundreds of thousands of moments.

I myself personally with my husband run our household in a pluralistic fashion. We don't bar the kids from exploring....in fact, when they have expressed interest, we accompanied them to the relevant establishments and checked out materials from the library. But my husband and I have made it a point to keep our own religious beliefs more privately, which makes a pluralistic household easier to maintain. At the moment, two of our kids are atheist, one is agnostic, and one is (what I perceive) a pantheist.

Granted, both hubbie and I have had our fair share of negative experiences from the religious upbringings we both had. But, in all honesty, neither one of us points to our parents as the source, but the mainstream cultural applications of various religious doctrine that were also central to our childhood homes.

I find the OP to open more nuanced discussion and debate rather than a clear dividing line of us vs. them. Call me a fence-sitter.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Can't we all just get along?

I think an orgy ought to do the trick. But that's just me.

 

[Reverend Rick]

As long as there is love in the home, the kids will be just fine.

 

[lunamoth]

As long as there is love in the home, the kids will be just fine.

Wise words, Rick. :clap

13 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,[a] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly,[b] but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Brainwashing by defnition, is harmful as it involves force and coercion.

And how broadly are we construing force and coercion?

To ensure that we're both on the same page, let me provide the definition of brainwashing:


Source: Mind control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, given that "re-education" (as in, unlearning existing beliefs and knowledge) would seem to rule out young children who have not had any existing education in the first place, that won't work. Let's stick with indoctrination or inculcation then.

Explain to me how anything that I've described to you in relation to sharing Christ's love and stories that exemplify the importance of love, forgiveness and charity qualify as per the provided definition, above.

Being prima facie positive messages doesn't mitigate the fact that it is nevertheless being imparted in a way in which there is an imbalanced power relationship. If you are teaching someone something in a way which prevents or minimizes their ability to question, judge, and potentially reject those teachings, particularly when what you're teaching is controversial and partisan, that is indoctrination, and it seems the only thing preventing it from being brainwashing is something of a technicality. It's like brainwashing, only there isn't anything to wash away first.

And your opinion wasn't a genuine argument to begin with.

Actually, that isn't entirely true. I've given arguments for why I think religious education of children below a particular age or stage of development is pointless. In any case, denying that you could even understand how one may take from the doctrines of Hell or Original Sin either fear or guilt just strikes me as disingenuous. You honestly don't see how the concept of Hell could lead to fear? You don't see how the concept of sin could lead to guilt? Really?

I am a Christian and I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I do not subscribe to a faith concept where people are supposed to feel guilt for the actions of others.

Then you apparently belong to a denomination which places no special significance or emphasis on the doctrine of Original Sin. Lucky for you.

You have yet to demonstrate any negatives in tangible and demonstrative terms, save through anecdotal account and one study to suggest that religious parents should be concerned.

Think about what you've just said...

I am obligated as per my faith to raise my children according to God's word.

I gotcha. Does "according to God's word" include teaching them religious truth-claims as factual?

Then, I suppose we should remain silent when around our children so as not to teach them anything.

Um, yeah, ok.

We influence our children even we don't intentionally project something upon them as fact. I imagine if you're a parent, you understand this as well.

I don't see the bearing this has on the present topic... I'm not arguing against influencing children, but doing so in a very specific manner that has some distinct properties and consequences that make it somewhat of a special case.

It's not a controversial subject in my household at all.

Ok, and? How about outside of your household?

And like you, I had personal experiences too with religion as a teen. It's through my own personal experiences that I can state with confidence that I:

1. Wasn't brainwashed
2. Was certainly capable of thinking and questioning
3. Was introduced to religion as a kid and am a happy, healthy and productive woman

K.

Some, perhaps. But, not all. I don't know any children who uncritically believe what they see and hear.

Let's just get this out in the open- are you denying that, in general or on average, children view their parents as trusted authority figures?

My point still stands. When it's time to give up these beliefs, kids do so because they've questioned and rationalized.

Sometimes; but they are far less likely to question or rationalize, and ultimately reject, something they've been told from a young age by those they trust. Which is why there are always some children who still believe in Santa Claus, despite all of their friends and everyone else telling them that Santa Claus is just a story.

Look; nobody is saying that religious indoctrination makes it impossible for a child to come to their own conclusions, only that it makes it more difficult, and does so to no apparent gain.

Your overall assessment would be far more valid to me, if children didn't give up belief in Santa Claus, because that would suggest that they are incapable of critical thinking.

Unfortunately, that's not what I'm arguing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As long as there is love in the home, the kids will be just fine.

We don't have very high standards, do we?

I don't think anyone's arguing that religious indoctrination kills anyone. Only that it is not positive or optimal. Just fine? I suppose. As good as they could've been without it? Probably not. And that is the point.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't believe I want to discuss this any further with you, it is pretty much a waste of time.

It certainly appears that trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time, so I won't stop you.

Very nice of you to take the time to let us all know how little this topic (or anyone's views on it) interests you, though. Be sure to stop by again and let us know how little you're interested anytime in the future.

 

[Reverend Rick]

We don't have very high standards, do we?

I don't think anyone's arguing that religious indoctrination kills anyone. Only that it is not positive or optimal. Just fine? I suppose. As good as they could've been without it? Probably not. And that is the point.

My kids are productive adults, my parenting skills are not in question. I have a great relationship with them. There is nothing you can say to take anything away from that.

I would suggest you get some help dealing with anger issues about your childhood.

It would be interesting to hear what qualifies you as some parental guru.

People who invest too much involvement in how other people raise their children raise a few red flags for me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

My kids are productive adults, my parenting skills are not in question.

Apparently you didn't read the post you quoted. No surprise here. You are arguing with imaginary people, bud.

I have a great relationship with them. There is nothing you can say to take anything away from that.

Since that doesn't contradict a single thing I've said, I have no desire to.

I would suggest you get some help dealing with anger issues about your childhood.

I would suggest you focus less on trying to guess my motivations, and direct your responses to the things I and other have said, rather than agendas or emotional issues you've invented for us. You have enough on your plate as is.

Besides, I thought you didn't want to discuss this?

It would be interesting to hear what qualifies you as some parental guru.

Yeah, nice try. Unfortunately, we've already dispensed with this red herring, at least two or three times already. One needn't be "some parental guru" to make an accurate claim on this subject. Heck, one could be a terrible parent, and their view could nevertheless be right.

This is basically a cop-out: a way to allow you to voice objections and maintain your disagreement but nevertheless avoid providing any pertinent responses, or reasons for your view.

People who invest too much involvement in how other people raise their children raise a few red flags for me.

Yeah, "investing too much involvement" by, you know, commenting on an internet discussion about it.

Pretty nosy, the audacity!

 

[dawny0826]

And how broadly are we construing force and coercion?

As per the defnition, this would be action that would result in a child's inability to think independently.

Well, given that "re-education" (as in, unlearning existing beliefs and knowledge) would seem to rule out young children who have not had any existing education in the first place, that won't work. Let's stick with indoctrination or inculcation then.

Are you acknowledging that perhaps brainwashing would be more of an extreme?

Instilling ideas in our children doesn't necessarily translate negatively.

Think of it on a spectrum as to how stringent or regimented religious influence translates. I'm not denying that the extreme happens, but, I would contend that negatvitiy of the brainwashing variety would be on the extreme.

Being prima facie positive messages doesn't mitigate the fact that it is nevertheless being imparted in a way in which there is an imbalanced power relationship.

There's always an imbalanced power relationship when you look at parent and child relationships. There's always imbalace when you examine teacher/child relationships.

Some parents (religious or otherwise) allow for greater room for questioning than others. Some parents present religious themes as fact, where others present themes as questions for children to explore.

If you are teaching someone something in a way which prevents or minimizes their ability to question, judge, and potentially reject those teachings, particularly when what you're teaching is controversial and partisan, that is indoctrination, and it seems the only thing preventing it from being brainwashing is something of a technicality. It's like brainwashing, only there isn't anything to wash away first.

Agreed. However, I'm asking you to consider that not all parents present religion to their children in this vein.

Actually, that isn't entirely true. I've given arguments for why I think religious education of children below a particular age or stage of development is pointless. In any case, denying that you could even understand how one may take from the doctrines of Hell or Original Sin either fear or guilt just strikes me as disingenuous. You honestly don't see how the concept of Hell could lead to fear? You don't see how the concept of sin could lead to guilt? Really?

Do you really believe it to be pointless? That seems odd to me, considering that you had likened it to brainwashing before now.

Of course I can understand how the concept of hell could lead to fear, which is precisely why I, as an adult to do not subscribe to such "brand" of Christianity. I don't believe that we are supposed to fear hell or feel excessive amounts of guilt. I believe that we are to live in love and live according to Christ's example. When we love, we fulfill the law to the fullest. There is no hell to fear. There's no need to fear.

Then you apparently belong to a denomination which places no special significance or emphasis on the doctrine of Original Sin. Lucky for you.

No one is perfect. Of greater significance to us is love and forgiveness.

Think about what you've just said...

What?

I gotcha. Does "according to God's word" include teaching them religious truth-claims as factual?

When I talk about faith, I speak in terms of what I believe and I explain why I believe. They're free to take from that what they want to. The only truth-claim that I've presented as fact is that I love them with all my heart and believe that God does too.

Um, yeah, ok.

Well?

I don't see the bearing this has on the present topic... I'm not arguing against influencing children, but doing so in a very specific manner that has some distinct properties and consequences that make it somewhat of a special case.

Then, you and I have nothing to argue over. At the heart of it, I don't agree with brainwashing children either or presenting religion to children in a manner to where they would not be encouraged to ask questions, reject or explore other options.

Ok, and? How about outside of your household?

Outside of my peer group, I couldn't tell you.

Let's just get this out in the open- are you denying that, in general or on average, children view their parents as trusted authority figures?

Of course kids see their parents as trusted authority figures.

Sometimes; but they are far less likely to question or rationalize, and ultimately reject, something they've been told from a young age by those they trust. Which is why there are always some children who still believe in Santa Claus, despite all of their friends and everyone else telling them that Santa Claus is just a story.

I think that you and I are in agreeance that much is contingent upon the parents and the manner by which religion is presented.

Some kids are also less capable of critical thinking (as are some adults).

Look; nobody is saying that religious indoctrination makes it impossible for a child to come to their own conclusions, only that it makes it more difficult, and does so to no apparent gain.

I would agree that it CAN make it more difficult.

Unfortunately, that's not what I'm arguing.

Doesn't really matter. We both made valid points.

 

[Quintessence]

To an extent. While it is certainly true that different religions display different attitudes towards truth and interpretation, I have some problems with the assertion than there are ANY religions which do not entail certain truth-claims. I'm not sure that a religion with no truth claims is not a contradiction in terms; this strikes me as poetry or art, not religion.

I suppose it depends on the box one is putting "religion" into. I, for one, refuse to limit the definition of religion to organized, creedal, dogmatic systems that revolve around truth-claims. It excludes too many things that are classified as religion by academics. Much of religion is art and poetry and storytelling. That's the mythology, the rituals, the practices.

Well, but we aren't talking about subjects "as a whole". Physics as a whole cannot be adequately translated to some people, at any age. Both mathematics and physics, however, have basic elements which can be taught. Religion, however, does not seem comparable; the most fundamental elements of religion already presuppose metaphysical and logical concepts which are irreducible, and are quite sophisticated. There is nothing in religion that is comparable to basic counting or arithmetic, for instance.

Oh my. I see plenty of reducibility. I don't have the intimate familiarity with other religions as much to give good examples, but I could pull dozens upon dozens of examples of reducibility from my own religious umbrella. Just as one example, the practice of meditation is a foundation skill utilized in many other practices. Even more foundational than that would be exercises in awareness; simple paying attention to things going on around you. These things are easy to teach a child and are already taught to children in a non-religious context as observational skills.

As a teacher, it's part of your job to reduce complexity into something digestible for your students. I don't buy religious teachings (or any teachings, really) being irreducible.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Are you acknowledging that perhaps brainwashing would be more of an extreme?

I don't know about "extreme", but if brainwashing requires removing existing education, then the religious indoctrination of children simply wouldn't qualify because there isn't anything to unlearn.

There's always an imbalanced power relationship when you look at parent and child relationships. There's always imbalace when you examine teacher/child relationships.

Right, which is why I think we have to be somewhat careful here, and respect the fact that teaching children about certain (controversial, partisan, personal) subjects may not always be ideal.

Some parents (religious or otherwise) allow for greater room for questioning than others. Some parents present religious themes as fact, where others present themes as questions for children to explore.

And I would hope its clear which one of these methods I'm taking aim at.

Agreed. However, I'm asking you to consider that not all parents present religion to their children in this vein.

I'm well aware that not all parents do that.

Do you really believe it to be pointless? That seems odd to me, considering that you had likened it to brainwashing before now.

I do not see any unique benefit to it whatsoever, so yes, basically I do.

Of course I can understand how the concept of hell could lead to fear, which is precisely why I, as an adult to do not subscribe to such "brand" of Christianity.

So if there is potentially a causal relation here, why would we willingly expose such concepts to children of a certain age, even if the danger it is merely a risk and not a certainty?

What?

You basically said "you've demonstrated nothing, except for what you've demonstrated". You may want more, and I've admitted that I'm not really in the mood for tedious statistic-mining and am avoiding that on purpose, but I have provided more than nothing.

When I talk about faith, I speak in terms of what I believe and I explain why I believe. They're free to take from that what they want to. The only truth-claim that I'm presented as fact is that I love them with all my heart and believe that God does too.

Then this is far from the more objectionable cases I'd imagine most of us have in mind. But I'm still curious, what use does a child of a certain age have for knowing their parents religious beliefs? What is lost by waiting until they are, say, a pre-teen?

Then, you and have nothing to argue over. At the heart of it, I don't agree with brainwashing children either or presenting religion to children in a manner to where they would not be encouraged to ask questions, reject or explore other options.

Well there ya go.

Outside of my peer group, I couldn't tell you.

Oh come now... You post on this forum, surely you're aware that many people dispute the truth and value of virtually the entirety of the Christian faith? (and others as well)

Of course kids see their parents as trusted authority figures.

Ok then.

I would agree that it CAN make it more difficult.

Would you agree that it probably does so on average?