Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[LuisDantas]

Yes but because some use religion as a weapon does not mean that all parents do.

But it does mean that religion - all religions - needs to take responsibility for avoiding and correcting such mistakes.

Some do, but it is sadly still very much the exception.

 

[LuisDantas]

No. That is one specific form of religious indoctrination. One specific form is hardly indicative of all religious indoctrination.

True, but quite besides the point. I don't need to prove that it is "indicative of all", but just that it happens to a not-insignificant degree.

You are obviously griping about specific religious beliefs.

Define "specific". Unless you mean "harmful", I think we will have a disagreement here.

For you to extrapolate and assume that all religious indoctrination follows the same path indicates how poorly thought out your argument is.

Rather, your failure to acknowledge it shows a lot about how difficult it is for you to accept it.

 

[Me Myself]

Agreed.



Nope. Rather, it is instead immoral to hold such an irresponsible belief in the first place, at least if one is considering living in society and even raising children.

Religious belief has a lot more of moral consequences than most people admit.

For both right and wrong religious belief can indeed have a LOT of consecuences, but I am evaluating morality from the parent POV. Of course s/he believes the belief is right, otherwise s/he wouldnt hold it. Given taht s/he does hold it, it is a moral duty to teach it so daughter/son as to keep them from eternal suffering.

In any case, I am not interested in that narrow part of the debate. The thing is that the parents must have the right to teach their beliefs to their children.

Some beliefs lead to immorality, some are neutral so to say some are toxic some are antibiotic. The parent will do the best to teach em hir best beliefs and will make mistakes anyways.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Both of your readings are so wrong I am too lazy to try to imagine how you made it to take it that way.

You may if you will re-read and repostulate, if not , that's cool too.

But both of those readings seem as related to what I ve said as if you had made them from random association :s

My ex was Catholic. I was married in a Catholic church. For a while, when she was pressuring me to become Catholic myself, I did quite a bit of exploration of Catholicism including reading the catechism. I know what the Catholic Church's official position is on a wide range of issues.

You say that you'd have to be "bad like Hitler" to go to Hell. Meanwhile, even missing Sunday mass is supposed to be a mortal sin (i.e. enough to send you to Hell), and about unbaptized babies, the Church's official position is (paraphrased) "we can't be sure they won't go to Hell, so better baptize them just to be safe."

If you're going to ignore teachings like this, fine - I ignore them myself. I think they're pretty awful. But why would you bother to baptize your kids in a Catholic Church (i.e. declare them to be Catholic and promise to raise them in the Catholic faith) or align yourself with the Catholic Church if you don't even believe what the Church teaches?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It absolutely does.

Riiiight. You just have to be "special" to see it I guess, because prima facie, its completely irrelevant- I can concede every claim he made (if only for the sake of argument), and it doesn't affect my assertion.

If a child's autonomy is going to be compromised in this fashion inevitably

None of what he said entails that a child's autonomy on matters crucial to self-identity (religion, political views, ethical views, hobbies and tastes, and so on) will inevitably be comprised; that communities are crucial in child development, that parent/child interactions build bonds and trust, and assist in learning, that children begin developing complex/abstract reasoning during a certain age, certainly does not entail this.

Apparently you need to read more carefully, since you're seeing things that are not present.

 

[LuisDantas]

For both right and wrong religious belief can indeed have a LOT of consecuences, but I am evaluating morality from the parent POV.

Uh, why? What would the point be?

By necessity, the morality of acts commited by a parent must be evaluated by a wider standard that includes the effects on the child.

That comes with the territory of being a parent.

Of course s/he believes the belief is right, otherwise s/he wouldnt hold it. Given taht s/he does hold it, it is a moral duty to teach it so daughter/son as to keep them from eternal suffering.

No, no, no. Definitely not. That is the sincerity defense, used by psycho killers to justify their murders. It is not valid, not sound, not acceptable. Not at all.

People have a moral duty to consider the consequences if their beliefs turn out to be wrong. And for parents, that is all the more urgent a need.

In any case, I am not interested in that narrow part of the debate. The thing is that the parents must have the right to teach their beliefs to their children.

Again: why?

Some beliefs lead to immorality, some are neutral so to say some are toxic some are antibiotic. The parent will do the best to teach em hir best beliefs and will make mistakes anyways.

And that is why it can never have complete freedom in that regard.

 

[Curious George]

But it does mean that religion - all religions - needs to take responsibility for avoiding and correcting such mistakes.

Some do, but it is sadly still very much the exception.

I do not know that religions are an entity that needs to take responsibility. I think that parents are an entity that needs to take responsibility.

The responsibility to not cause lasting and substantial harm to a child does not belong to a holy text but to the parents. If the parents are causing lasting emotional or cognitive harm to children then that harm is addressed in statutes that deal with abuse. There is no reason to get religion involved.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Meanwhile, even missing Sunday mass is supposed to be a mortal sin (i.e. enough to send you to Hell)

Could you provide a citation or link for this? Thanks.

 

[Me Myself]

My ex was Catholic. I was married in a Catholic church. For a while, when she was pressuring me to become Catholic myself, I did quite a bit of exploration of Catholicism including reading the catechism. I know what the Catholic Church's official position is on a wide range of issues.

You say that you'd have to be "bad like Hitler" to go to Hell. Meanwhile, even missing Sunday mass is supposed to be a mortal sin (i.e. enough to send you to Hell), and about unbaptized babies, the Church's official position is (paraphrased) "we can't be sure they won't go to Hell, so better baptize them just to be safe."

If you're going to ignore teachings like this, fine - I ignore them myself. I think they're pretty awful. But why would you bother to baptize your kids in a Catholic Church (i.e. declare them to be Catholic and promise to raise them in the Catholic faith) or align yourself with the Catholic Church if you don't even believe what the Church teaches?

I dont know, why would I?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There are still some people claiming that it is not?

Not exactly. And I don't think they're entirely sure what they're claiming; the approach seems to be the classic "throw alot of $ht at the wall and hope some sticks" strategy- but what they seem to be saying is that the fact that religious indoctrination compromises autonomy and personal choice on a matter closely tied to ones self-image and worldview is either inevitable, not a bad thing, or no different from other such compromises.

Unfortunately, none of this has been shown, nor should we expect it to.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not know that religions are an entity that needs to take responsibility. I think that parents are an entity that needs to take responsibility.

Everyone must take responsibility if there is a desire to belong in a society.

How else could it be a society?

The responsibility to not cause lasting and substantial harm to a child does not belong to a holy text but to the parents. If the parents are causing lasting emotional or cognitive harm to children then that harm is addressed in statutes that deal with abuse. There is no reason to get religion involved.

There is no reason to spare it from its responsibility, either. Are you seriously proposing that it must be assumed that it holds none?

What would the justification for such open-ended cumplicity and omission be?

 

[LuisDantas]

I dont know, why would I?

In many cases it is due to social pressure and perhaps a touch of fear of criticism. Tradition can be a powerful force.

 

[Me Myself]

In many cases it is due to social pressure and perhaps a touch of fear of criticism. Tradition can be a powerful force.

I was interested to hear Penguins resonse because I am still not sure what on Earth he read from a post before that where he quotede and I dont know why he asked me that question. Just a bit lost there

Yeah, I assume those would be factors for someone to do so. Me personally I guess it could happen if my wife was catholic, of course, I cant know if I would be married or have children ( though it would be cool, someday)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you provide a citation or link for this? Thanks.

Sure:

"On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass..." (#1247). Therefore, the Catechism teaches, "Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit grave sin" (#2181), and grave sin is indeed mortal sin. Recently, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, repeated this precept in his apostolic letter Dies Domini (Observing and Celebrating the Day of the Lord, #47, 1998).

Is Missing Mass a Mortal Sin?

Note: I was a bit simplistic in my last post. For a sin to be mortal (i.e. worthy of Hell), it has to meet three criteria:

- the sin has to be grave matter (and the Catholic Church considers missing mass to be "grave", as noted above)
- the sin has to be committed deliberately
- the sinner must have full knowledge of the sinful nature of the act.

This means that there's some wiggle-room for extenuating circumstances:

Of course, serious circumstances arise which excuse a person from attending Mass, such as if a person is sick, has to deal with an emergency, or cannot find a Mass to attend without real burden. A pastor may also dispense a person from the obligation of attending Mass for serious reason. For instance, no one, including our Lord, expects a person to attend Mass who is so sick he can not physically attend Mass; there is no virtue in further hurting one's own health plus infecting everyone else in the Church. Or, in the case of a blizzard, a person must prudently judge whether he can safely travel to attend Mass without seriously risking his own life and the lives of the others.

... and like any sin, it can be forgiven by the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. confession), but once someone has missed mass, if they die with the sin unforgiven, the official Church position is that they would be hellbound.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure:

Thank you!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont know, why would I?

I thought you were explaining how the scenario you described was a positive example of religious indoctrination... no?

 

[Curious George]

True, but quite besides the point. I don't need to prove that it is "indicative of all", but just that it happens to a not-insignificant degree.

No that IS the point. For you to make blanket accusations about all religious indoctrination-- on the premise that some religions have or continue to encourage followers to engage in activity that harms children-- is wrong.

Define "specific". Unless you mean "harmful", I think we will have a disagreement here.

Oh, I mean specific practices which you believe are harmful and some which you might show are harmful. But those specific practices are all any such arguments can possibly condemn. Your extrapolation is both unnecessary and illogical.

Rather, your failure to acknowledge it shows a lot about how difficult it is for you to accept it.

An argument that religious indoctrination should not take place which can only offer a couple of specific examples of "harm" is not a good argument. All you can succeed in is showing that those specific examples should not take place. This does not connect to the larger category of religious indoctrination. Some have attempted to abstract the "harm" and say that the children experience a loss because of preferential biases that were indoctrinated. The problem with this argument is that it represents a value judgement that is no more or less a belief than the religion in the first place. Furthermore, if we are using such a loose definition of "indoctrination" then parents do indeed indoctrinate their children in any number of facets. To attack all religion, for no other reason that you either have a gripe with a few specific religious doctrines, or general bitterness is not a result of my failure to acknowledge anything. Rather, you should look to your own ability to address your personal biases.

 

[Me Myself]

I thought you were explaining how the scenario you described was a positive example of religious indoctrination... no?

Nah, to me it is kind of a neutral one?

Its just how it is around here. I was just explaining that "do so or you will go to hell" is not, by far, the only way it will go if a children is raised with a religion.

As I said efore: first you need to have that as a dogma of the religion, and then second it depend son culture. Peoplle here while they self denominate catholics do think the pope can and has been wrong on matters of faith. A lot. Technically speaking, it is catholic dogma that the Pope is only infaliable in very specific conditions .

So I was merely saying that telling your kids your religion is true is not, by far, the same as telling them their hindu friend will go to hell. Ive never heard any of my parents, friends or teachers in religion tell me such a thing. You may judge it to be uncatholic or something, but I am just telling you how it is

 

[1137]

This is certainly a record for a thread of mine. Get jobs, people

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is certainly a record for a thread of mine. Get jobs, people

My job is to respond to your threads. Everybody knows that.