Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[BruceDLimber]

How do you know Satan isn't as imaginary as the boogyman?

Quite simple, actually.

God is One, Supreme, and has no equal or rival! There is thus no "devil" out there competing with Him or trying to “get us.”

And "satan" merely refers to our own lower (animal) nature when we give it control instead of our higher (spiritual) nature.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Magic Man]

No matter which approach is used, children as they grow up tend to question much of what they were brought up with, and this isn't bad, imo. I went through this process, and my guess is that many here have also gone through it as well.

This is true. My problem with it, though, is that the indoctrination pulls you one way. It took me a long time to break free of the fear of not being a Christian anymore. I had no idea how I'd go through life not believing in God.

But even as an agnostic, I feel that it was best for us to bring up our children within the religious context, especially for the teaching of morals and values. Also, it tends to get kids involved with other kids who also are being brought up with these same morals and values.

However, with this being said, this is not to imply that only a theistic upbringing can teach morals and values. But both as a parent and a grandparent, it certainly can help.

In what ways do you think it helps to teach morals and values? In other words, what advantages does religion offer for that purpose over a secular approach?

Also, as far as getting kids involved with other similar kids, there are plenty of other ways to do it that don't force beliefs on them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a difference between education and indoctrination, the latter of which implies supplying only one-sided information, even if that information turned out to be true. I'm sure there are many here that want their children to be informed of religious matters but don't want their kids to just blindly follow one way of thinking. Yes, many do do the latter, and I have long had problems with that approach.

Yes, there's a difference in raising kids in a religion and teaching them about religion.

No matter which approach is used, children as they grow up tend to question much of what they were brought up with, and this isn't bad, imo. I went through this process, and my guess is that many here have also gone through it as well.

But even as an agnostic, I feel that it was best for us to bring up our children within the religious context, especially for the teaching of morals and values. Also, it tends to get kids involved with other kids who also are being brought up with these same morals and values.

However, with this being said, this is not to imply that only a theistic upbringing can teach morals and values. But both as a parent and a grandparent, it certainly can help.

Frankly, I think raising a child in a theistic setting has a lot of drawbacks, especially if the child grows up to be non-religious: what do you use as a moral foundation if all of your moral principles were taught as commandments from God? How do you cope with struggles in your life if they've only been presented to you as "tests" that God will reward you for later? How do you cope with the death of loved ones if the only tool you've been given to cope with grief is a promise that they'll live on in an afterlife so they're not *really* dead?

Even when a person hasn't been out-and-out forced to follow a particular religion, teaching them life skills that only work in a religious framework is still problematic.

 

[ChristineES]

I and others keep trying to state that virtually all children will almost always question what their parents teach them. I questioned what my parents taught me and my children questioned what I taught them. Teaching and indoctrination, in themselves, don't appear to cause any harm- it is when abuse is involved that it does cause harm, not necessarily physical abuse, but emotional and mental abuse, as well. Simply teaching and/or indoctrination doesn't appear to cause harm unless the children do not learn to think for themselves and/or are abused- and nearly every child I have knows how to think for himself or herself.

 

[Magic Man]

I and others keep trying to state that virtually all children will almost always question what their parents teach them. I questioned what my parents taught me and my children questioned what I taught them. Teaching and indoctrination, in themselves, don't appear to cause any harm- it is when abuse is involved that it does cause harm, not necessarily physical abuse, but emotional and mental abuse, as well. Simply teaching and/or indoctrination doesn't appear to cause harm unless the children do not learn to think for themselves and/or are abused- and nearly every child I have knows how to think for himself or herself.

I was indoctrinated but not abused, and it caused me harm.

 

[LuisDantas]

Frankly, I think raising a child in a theistic setting has a lot of drawbacks, especially if the child grows up to be non-religious: what do you use as a moral foundation if all of your moral principles were taught as commandments from God? How do you cope with struggles in your life if they've only been presented to you as "tests" that God will reward you for later? How do you cope with the death of loved ones if the only tool you've been given to cope with grief is a promise that they'll live on in an afterlife so they're not *really* dead?

Even when a person hasn't been out-and-out forced to follow a particular religion, teaching them life skills that only work in a religious framework is still problematic.

If you mean in a theistic framework, I fully agree. :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you mean in a theistic framework, I fully agree. :yes:

Depends. If you raise a child so that their life skills depend on belief in the tenets of that religion, then you're setting them up for difficulties if they ever cease to believe in those tenets. I don't think a god has to be involved for this to be a problem... though the magnitude of the problem is going to vary from religion to religion (and perhaps person to person) whether the religion is theistic or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Depends. If you raise a child so that their life skills depend on belief in the tenets of that religion, then you're setting them up for difficulties if they ever cease to believe in those tenets. I don't think a god has to be involved for this to be a problem... though the magnitude of the problem is going to vary from religion to religion (and perhaps person to person) whether the religion is theistic or not.

It is mostly a matter of what one sees as justified by their beliefs, I think.

 

[idav]

Yes, there's a difference in raising kids in a religion and teaching them about religion.


Frankly, I think raising a child in a theistic setting has a lot of drawbacks, especially if the child grows up to be non-religious: what do you use as a moral foundation if all of your moral principles were taught as commandments from God? How do you cope with struggles in your life if they've only been presented to you as "tests" that God will reward you for later? How do you cope with the death of loved ones if the only tool you've been given to cope with grief is a promise that they'll live on in an afterlife so they're not *really* dead?

Even when a person hasn't been out-and-out forced to follow a particular religion, teaching them life skills that only work in a religious framework is still problematic.

Theism would have some of the same drawbacks as non-theism but theists would have more of a tendency to not rely on themselves and using God as a scapegoat. This can happen just as easy for non-theists who simply use non-god scapegoats. Kids should be raised to use critical thinking and not just accept answers like "cause I said so" or "else you will end up in hell". Threatening kids with being grounded or saying they will end up in jail is a lot like threatening hell, especially if moral corruption is only avoided to avoid punishments.

 

[Curious George]

If *I* look hard enough? If you want to put forward an argument, it's up to you to do the work to support it.

I've heard lots of people claim that they've been harmed by religious indoctrination. I've never once heard someone say "you know, I feel that I was really deprived by my parents not forcing a religion on me as a kid." Have you? You seem really concerned about the downside of a non-religious upbringing. The way it seems to rile you up, I can only assume that you're basing your position on something more than hypotheticals, right?


Of course not. Not all religions teach religious indoctrination, and not all people follow the teachings of their religion. Who do you think argued this?

Yep. If you look hard enough. Do you really think it is a far fetched idea that people might feel that a parents choice to avoid instilling religious beliefs represents a loss?

 

[metis]

Yes, there's a difference in raising kids in a religion and teaching them about religion.

But some things can only be experienced by doing them. It's sort of like just growing up watching hockey versus actually playing hockey.

Frankly, I think raising a child in a theistic setting has a lot of drawbacks, especially if the child grows up to be non-religious: what do you use as a moral foundation if all of your moral principles were taught as commandments from God? How do you cope with struggles in your life if they've only been presented to you as "tests" that God will reward you for later? How do you cope with the death of loved ones if the only tool you've been given to cope with grief is a promise that they'll live on in an afterlife so they're not *really* dead?

Even when a person hasn't been out-and-out forced to follow a particular religion, teaching them life skills that only work in a religious framework is still problematic.

I only see the drawbacks if the child is so indoctrinated to exclude other concepts and beliefs. Since my wife and I were from different faiths, bringing our kids up to experience these differences turned out to be a plus for them when they got old enough to make their own choices.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theism would have some of the same drawbacks as non-theism but theists would have more of a tendency to not rely on themselves and using God as a scapegoat. This can happen just as easy for non-theists who simply use non-god scapegoats. Kids should be raised to use critical thinking and not just accept answers like "cause I said so" or "else you will end up in hell". Threatening kids with being grounded or saying they will end up in jail is a lot like threatening hell, especially if moral corruption is only avoided to avoid punishments.

I think that what I'm describing can still be an issue even when there isn't deliberate forcing.

For instance, I remember a former member here talking about his experience when he lost his faith: it was like all of his departed loved ones died again all at once, since it suddenly hit him that he couldn't expect to see them in Heaven any more.

Imagine that you're in that situation and you've never been given any tools to deal with grief other than the promise of reunion in Heaven. How are you suppose to cope? And this isn't even an issue of using God as a scapegoat; for plenty of well-meaning devout parents, the idea that Heaven might not exist is so foreign to them that they don't even bother to think about how to handle things in that case.

That's just one example of where even well-meaning religious indoctrination by loving parents can create problems. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Magic Man]

But some things can only be experienced by doing them. It's sort of like just growing up watching hockey versus actually playing hockey.

1) That doesn't mean you have to expose the child to every experience. For instance, with hockey. The kid can watch it and probably decide whether he wants to try it or not.

2) Would you force your kid to play hockey?

I only see the drawbacks if the child is so indoctrinated to exclude other concepts and beliefs. Since my wife and I were from different faiths, bringing our kids up to experience these differences turned out to be a plus for them when they got old enough to make their own choices.

Indeed, but here's a question: did you only use two faiths with your children? In other words, did you exclude all other religions and non-religions?

 

[Curious George]

Sure. And that is very much besides the point. Why are you even bringing up this universality clause?

Because people have asserted that instilling religious preference is worse than not. This is the product of faulty logic. Either the practice of instilling religious belief is not the cause of harm rather the method of instillation is the harm, or the harm is merely a merely preference, which represents a value judgement the imposition of which would result in contradiction.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, they are beliefs, and some of them are better than others because some are less likely to result in harm.

Yes but it is not logical to asume that one will cause harm. So one cannot say that one is always better than the other or that one should be prevented, when your potential must necessarily reflect statistical truths that are correlative not causal.

I take it you gave up on that whole proof thing.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, we know that supernatural beliefs are not facts.

Again, prove it.

Prove that God does not exist. If you cant then it may be a fact that God exists.

 

[Curious George]

You seem really concerned about the downside of a non-religious upbringing. The way it seems to rile you up, I can only assume that you're basing your position on something more than hypotheticals, right?

I am not sure. What do you think I am basing my opinion on?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes but it is not logical to asume that one will cause harm.

It's reasonable to assume that religious indoctrination has a high chance of causing harm, even if you disregard "telling kids false things is in itself harm".

So one cannot say that one is always better than the other or that one should be prevented, when your potential must necessarily reflect statistical truths that are correlative not causal.

Sure, one can. Religious indoctrination causes harm. Raising kids without religious indoctrination doesn't cause harm. Therefore the second option is better.

I take it you gave up on that whole proof thing.

What proof thing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But some things can only be experienced by doing them. It's sort of like just growing up watching hockey versus actually playing hockey.

And actually playing hockey means expending lots of time and effort that could be spent elsewhere. Every hour the child spends doing passing drills or sitting on the bench between game shifts is an hour that can't be spent actually experiencing some other thing. Why not be guided by the interests the child actually expresses?

I only see the drawbacks if the child is so indoctrinated to exclude other concepts and beliefs. Since my wife and I were from different faiths, bringing our kids up to experience these differences turned out to be a plus for them when they got old enough to make their own choices.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that you raised your kids in both faiths? And what do you mean by "exclude"?

 

[Magic Man]

Again, prove it.

Prove that God does not exist. If you cant then it may be a fact that God exists.

This doesn't follow. God's existence is not a fact. It is a belief. A fact is "the earth is a sphere", something that has enough evidence to prove. You don't have to prove the opposite of a claim for the original claim to not be a fact.