Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Kilgore Trout]

Think of the blame your parents have been tossing back and forth over the years in your case.

I wouldn't doubt this, seeing that I'm a paragon of reason and sanity, and my parents are irresponsible nutcases.

 

[sojourner]

It seems to me that your notion of what religion is excludes the religiosity of people like Mister Emu and dantech. Before I can take you seriously, you'll have to come up with something more inclusive that accounts for beliefs like theirs.

With all due respect, they've probably crossed the line between "belief" and "fact." I'm not responsible for that trespass.

I seem to remember that you stated that Xy has doctrinal fact-statements, and that I asked you to enumerate some of them so that we could take a closer look. Before I can take you seriously, I'd like to see the list you believe constitutes authoritative "fact-statements." Otherwise, it seems to me that you're unclear as to what, precisely, constitutes religion.

 

[sojourner]

You can't raise kids without indoctrinating them. When they learn your language it changes how they think. Cognition is fundamentally related to culture and language. Raising your children to believe certain things are right or wrong (or aren't) is indoctrination. It's also essential, IMO.

I wasn't indoctrinated. I was always free to question, as soon as I became able to do so.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To state that there is no God is a belief.

I don't think that's what anyone is proposing. In fact, I've said explicitly, several times now, that raising ones children to be atheists is as problematic as raising them to belong to any other religion, and for the same reasons. It cuts both ways.

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to "not get" religion, until that lack of understanding is projected as "the only correct stance" with regard to religion.

I meant not "getting" belief.

Belief-based religion is not worth a lot of trouble.

No, it's not a "weakness" of religion, because religion isn't a forced thing -- at least not in this country.

Uh... how many Christians and Muslims do you know again?

And how can a dependence on belief not be a weakness?

To say that "religion shouldn't rely on belief to such an extent" is to say that "people shouldn't rely on being human to such an extent."

So you see belief as a defining characteristic of humanity? Really?

Let's just say that I will not agree.

"Belief" is what religion is all about. What should religion "rely" on, if not it's own authenticity as a way to help make meaning?

It seems to me that in order to seek its own authenticity religion is basically duty-bound to dispose of its beliefs as far as it can.

 

[LuisDantas]

To state that there is no God is a belief.

Yes. One that can't be imposed.

 

[sojourner]

Teaching the kids critical thinking skills should help avoid indoctrinating them, teaching them to think for themselves. If the kids are to just regurgitate what they hear then that it indoctrination.

That's not particularly "indoctrination," though. "Indoctrination" assumes questioning is not allowed -- not that it is beyond the child's cognitive capacity.

 

[LuisDantas]

The main reason why indoctrination / brainwashing are seen with so much despisal is because they hurt the cognitive capability of their targets, though. They go way beyond simple censure or misrepresentation, by strongly associating certain emotions to certain concepts.

 

[sojourner]

I'm saying that my belief is held on faith, rather than evidence.

Right. And saying, "I believe" is different from saying, "I know." A belief statement speaks to an understanding of self and world. a fact statement speaks to knowledge of self and world. There's a difference. One is approached through metaphor, myth, story. The other is approached through fact, analysis, and conclusion.

It's like the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. It's a myth -- a story -- that helps children establish themselves in the story of America in such a way that truth, right and justice are fostered as desirable ends. Is it fact? No. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree. But knowing George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree doesn't foster understanding -- only knowledge.

Unfortunately, your idea of what religion "is" is not and has not been shared by most people, whether now or throughout history. Given that religion is just a social phenomenon, this shows that what you think religion is, is NOT, in general, what religion actually is.

Most people also get stuck in phases 2 and 3 of Fowler's stages of faith development. Of course they're gonna see it in extremely simplistic terms and not grasp the enormity of it.
Plus, "what religion is" isn't based upon an opinion-poll approach. It's defined by those who actually understand what the hell is going on.

No, that is far from clear.

You need to take a good look at what brainwashing is.

Its an uncontroversial point that young children can't understand or evaluate the matter, whereas as one gets older, one can. There is no single, magic number, but there's clearly a line to be drawn. And given that ones religion often forms an integral part of a person's identity, parents taking it upon themselves to make this choice for their child is simply selfish.

From Fowler's model, people usually aren't ready to evaluate the matter until their mid-twenties to early thirties, by which time most normal people are away from their parents and on their own. Which means that, in the earlier stages, parents teaching their children the myths and metaphors are age-appropriate.

 

[sojourner]

On the flipside, though, it's because of this emphasis on individuality that many traditionally community-based religions are able to practice at all today. In the West, a parent's right to be Jewish (for instance) and his child's right not to be Jewish are both the same right when it gets right down to it. This makes religious indoctrination hypocritical... at least in this society.

There was a time when everything but Protestant Christianity was severely repressed here. At one point, Catholics were effectively barred from public office. In my parents' lifetime, there were private clubs that didn't allow Jews to join. If we hadn't moved from that community-based idea of religion to an individualistic approach, Jews and Catholics wouldn't be in a position to expose their children to their faith at all.

"Exclusivity" and "community" are not interchangeable terms. There are lots of open, inclusive, and fully welcoming communities. It becomes difficult when the usual parameters for community membership (such as like-mindedness, common cultural expressions, etc.) are either not as stringent as they might otherwise be, or simply are not allowed to be in the mix. I understand what you're saying; what I'm saying is that community/individualism are worked out on a different level than I think you're stating here. Individualism is raised to a level of honor for purposes of diversity (which is seen as a good thing), rather than used on a lower level as a "gatekeeping" device to keep out "those who are different." It raises community awareness to a higher level of functioning as a multifaceted entity, rather than a monochromatic club.

 

[Koldo]

What's "non-standard" about it? Values come from a part of our psyche that seeks to place us within the world and how to relate to its constituencies. Values help us to assign a concept of our worth as individuals and as members of communities.

That's precisely what religion is! A system that seeks to foster understanding about our place in the world and how to relate to its constituencies. Religion helps us assign a concept of our worth as individuals and as members of communities. That's the whole point of corporate worship, for Pete's sake!

Except that's not precisely what religion is!

Religions are not just values. Values are a relevant part of religion.
There is a whole more about religion than just values.

 

[sojourner]

In traditional community-based religion, culture and religion were inseparable. There is no word for religion in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Hittite, or Sanskrit. To describe someone's religion was to say what gods they worshipped and how. The modern conception of religion is primarily a Christian one that changed how religion was understood in India, China, and the East in general through colonialism, indoctrination, and more general cultural contact. The modern concept of religion is one of the greatest examples of indoctrination that exists.

I think you're right. Religion has historically been an integral part of the culture. But I don't think it's primarily a "Christian" thing. It's only a "Christian" thing to the extent that Xy became an extension of the political machine, forced upon other cultures from the outside. But we have to consider also that the world is much more of a melting pot culturally than it used to be. Culturally-imbedded religion may be impossible in a world that has so much invasive outside cultural influence. Religion must become pan-cultural.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I wasn't indoctrinated. I was always free to question, as soon as I became able to do so.

Man is born free...

 

[sojourner]

And there's no way that you can claim that religious indoctrination is not a violation of the child's individuality and personal choice

Cultural nurturing isn't a violation of individuality, though. Sure, in a multifaceted world, cultural awareness ought to be instilled. But human development relies heavily on socialization, which is carried out within a certain cultural context.

 

[sojourner]

Religion is, by its very nature, a matter of separating people into in-groups and out-groups.

I disagree. Speaking from Xy, religion is most definitely not a matter of "separating people." Our structures have made it that way, but that's not what it is philosophically or theologically. Xy is naturally inclusive. Matthew 26 calls for Xtians to go forth and dissolve the demarcation between "us" and "them." Paul says that there is more Jew or Greek, because all are one in Christ Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Yet even in those societies, people were able to separate religion from culture. Case in point: Marcus Aurelius' "reverse Pascal's Wager" where he considers whether gods exist and whether one should worship them.

Marcus Aurelius is relatively late, though -- ca. 160 c.e.

 

[sojourner]

The thing I'm against is actively, deliberately steering kids toward a particular religious path.

Why? Why is that such a bad thing? Remember: religion isn't just something objectively studied and analyzed -- it's subjective, experiential, and felt as part of the cultural context in which a child is nurtured.

I object to any sort of ceremony where the parents declare their intention to raise the child to believe in a particular religion, such as infant baptism in the Catholic tradition.

So... you object to parents promising to nurture their children within a definable cultural context???

Not forcing: "I'm going to mass. You're welcome to come with me if you like."
Forcing: "I don't care that you don't want to go to mass. You're coming with me."

Depends on the age and stage of development of the child.

Not forcing: "I'm not going to buy bacon or serve it for dinner."
Forcing: "I forbid you from having a cheeseburger when you're at the mall with your friends."

Setting the bar for healthy eating is part of the parents' job.

Not forcing: "whatever you believe, you'll always be our daughter."
Forcing: "if you don't believe in God, you're not welcome in my house."

When the child becomes really old enough to make that choice, being welcome or not in the home is extreme.

 

[sojourner]

Belief-based religion is not worth a lot of trouble.

Religion is belief.

And how can a dependence on belief not be a weakness?

When it helps to foster greater understanding of a person's place and worth in the world.

So you see belief as a defining characteristic of humanity? Really?

Yes. Belief is part of the human equation. Animals don't have beliefs. Intuition, imagination, creativity are all very, very important facets in human intelligence.

It seems to me that in order to seek its own authenticity religion is basically duty-bound to dispose of its beliefs as far as it can.

Huh??? You're simply not making sense. If it weren't for belief, religion wouldn't be religion -- it'd be something... else.

 

[sojourner]

Except that's not precisely what religion is!

You're wrong. What about religion isn't about the worth of the individual and an understanding of worth in all life?

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion is belief.

When it helps to foster greater understanding of a person's place and worth in the world.

Yes. Belief is part of the human equation. Animals don't have beliefs. Intuition, imagination, creativity are all very, very important facets in human intelligence.

Huh??? You're simply not making sense. If it weren't for belief, religion wouldn't be religion -- it'd be something... else.

It'd be better religion