Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we use the following definition of brainwashing, then what people do with their children could not be brainwashing.

Definition of brainwash:
Impose beliefs on somebody: to impose a set of usually political or religious beliefs on somebody by the use of various coercive methods of indoctrination, including destruction of the victim's prior beliefs


You'll notice that it says coercive methods of indoctrination, not just simple indoctrinations. And it says it destroys prior beliefs. Children are born without beliefs.

I know you're not the first person to bring this semantic quibble up, but I think it completely misses the point of the thread. The question is whether certain tactics in child-rearing are harmful; whether they meet the strict dictionary definition of "brainwashing" is largely irrelevant.

This argument reminds me of discussions I've seen about sexual assault that end up being a snipe hunt about the definition of "rape" (e.g. "there wasn't penetration, therefore it wasn't rape") to the point where the question of whether a particular act is harmful - whether or not it's technically "rape" - ends up being ignored.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... and more to the point, if threatening someone - explicitly or implicitly - with being cut off from their family now and torture forever after they die unless they believe what their parents want them to believe isn't coercive, then I don't know what is.

 

[ChristineES]

I know you're not the first person to bring this semantic quibble up, but I think it completely misses the point of the thread. The question is whether certain tactics in child-rearing are harmful; whether they meet the strict dictionary definition of "brainwashing" is largely irrelevant.

This argument reminds me of discussions I've seen about sexual assault that end up being a snipe hunt about the definition of "rape" (e.g. "there wasn't penetration, therefore it wasn't rape") to the point where the question of whether a particular act is harmful - whether or not it's technically "rape" - ends up being ignored.

It isn't semantic quibble. Teaching our children religion is not brainwashing. It might be indoctrination but even that may not be true. Not everyone says it is brainwashing here in this thread but enough do to bring it up. I have already brought up early in the thread that teaching a child anything would be considered indoctrination- teaching them to not be self-centered is a good example, since everyone knows that babies are all born self-centered. Teaching children how to share is indoctrination. Teaching kids to say "thank you" and "please" is indoctrination. It's just not religious indoctrination.

 

[ChristineES]

... and more to the point, if threatening someone - explicitly or implicitly - with being cut off from their family now and torture forever after they die unless they believe what their parents want them to believe isn't coercive, then I don't know what is.

Not all people who teach their children their religion teach them about this stuff. Not even all religions believe in this stuff. A small percentage do. I can't deny that a few parents will disown their children if they follow a different religion. A few parents might disown their children for becoming vegans. That doesn't mean that all meat-eating parents will disown their children if they decided to be a vegan.

Threatening people is what I call abuse. It is not because of the parents teaching their religion to their children but because the parents are control freaks. You can teach your children religion but I frown upon forcing them to follow it or else. I never said anything different on that.

 

[ChristineES]

To be quite frank, we teach our children a lot more than just our religion. My children, for example, know that I love Star Trek. This is rather superficial, but it brings up a point. My sons don't watch Star Trek and my daughter only watches it sometimes. My children know all of my interests. They couldn't not know them, as they live with me. And they know my religion. The fact is that I didn't actively teach it to them. They asked me about it and I answered their questions is about all I did. Most parents do what I do. Some actively teach their faith to their children and there are a few who force their children to follow it. If there is no abuse involved, I don't think we can tell parents what to do.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

To be quite frank, we teach our children a lot more than just our religion. My children, for example, know that I love Star Trek. This is rather superficial, but it brings up a point. My sons don't watch Star Trek and my daughter only watches it sometimes. My children know all of my interests. They couldn't not know them, as they live with me. And they know my religion. The fact is that I didn't actively teach it to them. They asked me about it and I answered their questions is about all I did. Most parents do what I do. Some actively teach their faith to their children and there are a few who force their children to follow it. If there is no abuse involved, I don't think we can tell parents what to do.

You called?

 

[ChristineES]

You called?

Cute.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Cute.

I picked the name cause I knew sooner or later someone would drop a line like that

 

[Magic Man]

Everything that you teach them will be indoctrination.

Not true.

 

[Magic Man]

To be quite frank, we teach our children a lot more than just our religion. My children, for example, know that I love Star Trek. This is rather superficial, but it brings up a point. My sons don't watch Star Trek and my daughter only watches it sometimes. My children know all of my interests. They couldn't not know them, as they live with me. And they know my religion. The fact is that I didn't actively teach it to them. They asked me about it and I answered their questions is about all I did. Most parents do what I do. Some actively teach their faith to their children and there are a few who force their children to follow it. If there is no abuse involved, I don't think we can tell parents what to do.

It seems a lot of people are lumping your approach with Star Trek in with "teaching your religion to your children". They are two different things. In the same way you would't say you taught your children Star Trek, you wouldn't say the same about the same approach regarding religion. It's the difference between teaching them your religion and teaching them about your religion.

Essentially, it breaks down to:

1) Parents' religion forced on children through abuse or threats (like physical abuse or just disowning).

2) Parents' religion taught to children as if it's fact with the implication that they should believe it.

3) Parents' religion explained to the children when they ask, but only in the context of that being what they believe and others have many other beliefs.

We all agree that number 1 is wrong, and I think we all agree number 2 is acceptable. So, the only question is about number 2. I think it's the wrong way to go, as I think option 3 is the only acceptable way. I'd also say both 1 and 2 constitute indoctrination.

 

[oldbadger]

Not true.

Taking a child to a Spurs game is fine, but......... Manchester United? Hell!

 

[idav]

I know you're not the first person to bring this semantic quibble up, but I think it completely misses the point of the thread. The question is whether certain tactics in child-rearing are harmful; whether they meet the strict dictionary definition of "brainwashing" is largely irrelevant.

This argument reminds me of discussions I've seen about sexual assault that end up being a snipe hunt about the definition of "rape" (e.g. "there wasn't penetration, therefore it wasn't rape") to the point where the question of whether a particular act is harmful - whether or not it's technically "rape" - ends up being ignored.

Brainwashing is probably a good way to get people to remember, the problem is its ability to be used to control. Or is the problem what we are teaching? I dont think the ends justifies the means to have a pefect society at the expense of brainwashing the masses.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Its impossible to hide religion from them till they have twelve. It also wouldnt be neutral to do so.

Strawman, as has been pointed out several times. If the only objections you have are to things that people have NOT said, perhaps you have nothing else to contribute.

Everything that you teach them will be indoctrination.

Nope.

I know you're not the first person to bring this semantic quibble up, but I think it completely misses the point of the thread. The question is whether certain tactics in child-rearing are harmful; whether they meet the strict dictionary definition of "brainwashing" is largely irrelevant.

This argument reminds me of discussions I've seen about sexual assault that end up being a snipe hunt about the definition of "rape" (e.g. "there wasn't penetration, therefore it wasn't rape") to the point where the question of whether a particular act is harmful - whether or not it's technically "rape" - ends up being ignored.

Exactly. This blather about brainwashing and "not being able to wash what isn't there" is a red herring.

 

[Curious George]

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

How else could it be a society?



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?

The justification lies in the fact that religion can not take responsibility, only the people involved in a religion can.

 

[Me Myself]

Well it hasnt been said how it can be hurtful.

It has been said it can be hurtful if there is emphasis on hell teaching.

Besides that, what specifically is being argued?

This becomes semantic because those against ""brainwashing" arent being very clear explicitely to what they are against,

For what I remember I agreed with peng withh most of what he was against.

 

[Me Myself]

Not true.

Yes.

Any set of beliefs that is being taught and they cannot think critically is by definition indoctrination. I am talking about the oxford here.

You must not hit your sister

Dont eat too many candies

Sharing is good


All indoctrination.

 

[idav]

Yes.

Any set of beliefs that is being taught and they cannot think critically is by definition indoctrination. I am talking about the oxford here.

You must not hit your sister

Dont eat too many candies

Sharing is good


All indoctrination.

You have doctrine then it is possible to teach it so the learner views it with a critical eye. Of course most probably choose to indoctrinate and brainwash in my culture but not everyone chooses to push there own agenda even if they have them.

Cultures by defintion manage to manipulate the masses, everyone having various taboos. As the various countries continue to infest there brand of materialism, at the same time it brings us closer to broadening our identities, hopefully without losing too much of our individualism.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes.

Any set of beliefs that is being taught and they cannot think critically is by definition indoctrination. I am talking about the oxford here.

You must not hit your sister

Dont eat too many candies

Sharing is good


All indoctrination.

Nope, that stuff is still not indoctrination.

 

[sojourner]

They're certainly not "merely" that.

Then what are they?

'd be interested to find out why you think that religious beliefs enable spiritual formation at all.

I'd be interested to find out why you apparently think that they don't.

A child raised in a home with religious parents already has a "cultural context".

And that context is taught to the child as truth. Nothing wrong with that.

We're talking about cases where the parents go one step beyond this and insist that the child give intellectual assent to the same beliefs they do.

Why shouldn't they? At least until the child is able to discern for her or himself what works for her or him and what doesn't.

It's not just a matter of a "Catholic, Jewish or Muslim context"; it's a matter of a context where nothing but Catholicism, Judaism, or Islam is tolerated. Don't you see something wrong with that?

Then you need to be clearer about what you mean, because this:

nothing but Catholicism, Judaism, or Islam is tolerated.

isn't the same as this:

insist that the child give intellectual assent to the same beliefs they do.

 

[sojourner]

It is not complicated. Parents often use religion as both a weapon and a justification for some particularly nasty forms of abuse.

It's not complicated. Parents often utilize religion as both a tool for creating healthy self-awareness and as a cultural context in which to rear their children to become well-adjusted, whole individuals.