Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[sojourner]

What's the difference?

You said that it wasn't wrong for a parent to shape their children's self identities unless it's "clearly harmful". What's clearly harmful about children's beauty pageants? The girls on the show seem to like them for the most part, and the parents think they're doing the right thing. Who are you to question their judgement?

And some of the parents are former beauty contestants themselves who use their children's pageant experience to bond and build their relationship. Isn't that a good thing in a religious context? If so, why would it be bad in a non-religious context?

This is hyperbole and I think you know it.

 

[sojourner]

Isn't the fact that religious socialization alone involves threats of eternal hellfire enough for starters?

Not all religions socialization involves those threats. Not even within Xy.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well it hasnt been said how it can be hurtful.

Yes, it has. Numerous times, by numerous posters.

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

Actually, we've been pretty explicit. You just seem to have trouble reading, or else you think we're lying. Not really our problem either way. Those arguing FOR religious indoctrination haven't bothered responding to what those of us who are against it are actually saying, and thus you've all completely immolated yourselves in the field of strawmen you've created.

 

[sojourner]

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.

If you're going to generalize about the cure (implying no specific religious teaching should take place), then you have to generalize about the cause (implying all religious teaching is indoctrination). Proving that it happens "sometimes" or even "most of the time" doesn't justify doing away with all teaching.

 

[sojourner]

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'd wager a guess that most people who don't believe in RCC teaching don't teach those teachings to their children.

 

[sojourner]

Not always. Isolation doesn't mean just with the parents. There are whole droves of communities both now and in the past that isolates people to a very specific way of thinking. Its why political allignment is dominated more by geographic location rather than any other factor.

EDIT: thankfully the internet is fixing this a bit.

Rearing a child within the cultural context of specific mythic interpretations and belief systems =/= "isolationism."

 

[Magic Man]

Self identity is subjective, the parents are free to create it at will and it is not immoral inless it is clearly harmful. They will put on a lot of other subjective things in there like values and likes and dislikes for several things on hir life and surroundings.

Having a religion be part of your identity i not harmful. The parents love the religion, they want it for their children and they teach it to their children and they have the capacity to eeject it anyways because honestly, no children is 100% obidient anyways.

There is nothing wrong with teaching your kids something that you love that has brought you structure and good values and identity.

This is hyperbole and I think you know it.

There is Me Myself's comment in reference to which Penguin posted about Toddlers and Tiaras. I think it's a perfectly apt analogy. If the above is the way you feel about religion and kids, then you shouldn't have any problem with Toddlers and Tiaras.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is hyperbole and I think you know it.

No, it's not.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Excuse me, but the title of the thread is: "Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing." If it's not "truly brainwashing," then it's not "truly brainwashing," and the "semantic quibble" ends up being entirely cogent, and does not "completely [miss] the point of the thread. We are not, in fact, discussing "whether certain tactics in child-rearing are harmful."

 

[Falvlun]

Teaching your child something or encouraging them down a particular path is normal and pretty much unavoidable. Nor, to be honest, do I see much benefit in attempting to avoid doing so.

The problem is the equation of any sort of religious teaching with "indoctrination" and "brainwashing". Those words are meant to imply something above and beyond normal behavior.

I'm reading a novel called "The Violent Bear it Away" about an infant that was kidnapped by a crazy great-uncle who believed that he was a prophet of God, and that he needed to raise up a boy to take his place as prophet. This child was raised in complete isolation, being taught only the great-uncle's version of events, form of religious conviction, and method of viewing the world. This child was brainwashed, truly indoctrinated.

Now, you guys are all perfectly free to water down the term, and utilize it for the average family that takes their kid to church and has them pray before going to bed, but you shouldn't expect everyone to agree with your agenda-laden redefinition.

As for me, I'll continue to reserve the terms "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" for cases that truly call for it-- for exceptional occurrences, and not normal child-rearing.

 

[sojourner]

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.

You're forgetting one. Let's call it "2b."

"Parents' religion taught to children as a mythic framework for the development of an interior life that is expressed through exterior interaction."

 

[Curious George]

Teaching your child something or encouraging them down a particular path is normal and pretty much unavoidable. Nor, to be honest, do I see much benefit in attempting to avoid doing so.

The problem is the equation of any sort of religious teaching with "indoctrination" and "brainwashing". Those words are meant to imply something above and beyond normal behavior.

I'm reading a novel called "The Violent Bear it Away" about an infant that was kidnapped by a crazy great-uncle who believed that he was a prophet of God, and that he needed to raise up a boy to take his place as prophet. This child was raised in complete isolation, being taught only the great-uncle's version of events, form of religious conviction, and method of viewing the world. This child was brainwashed, truly indoctrinated.

Now, you guys are all perfectly free to water down the term, and utilize it for the average family that takes their kid to church and has them pray before going to bed, but you shouldn't expect everyone to agree with your agenda-laden redefinition.

As for me, I'll continue to reserve the terms "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" for cases that truly call for it-- for exceptional occurrences, and not normal child-rearing.

I can't frubal you again, but I will eventually for this post.

 

[sojourner]

No, it's not.

What's clearly harmful about children's beauty pageants? The girls on the show seem to like them for the most part, and the parents think they're doing the right thing. Who are you to question their judgement?

And some of the parents are former beauty contestants themselves who use their children's pageant experience to bond and build their relationship.

"What's wrong with a parent living vicariously through their children in order to 'bond' with them?" is hyperbole. There's everything wrong with objectifying one's children in such manner as to satisfy one's own needs for validation.

 

[sojourner]

I can't frubal you again, but I will eventually for this post.

Done! That was a great post!

 

[sojourner]

Teaching your child something or encouraging them down a particular path is normal and pretty much unavoidable. Nor, to be honest, do I see much benefit in attempting to avoid doing so.

The problem is the equation of any sort of religious teaching with "indoctrination" and "brainwashing". Those words are meant to imply something above and beyond normal behavior.

I'm reading a novel called "The Violent Bear it Away" about an infant that was kidnapped by a crazy great-uncle who believed that he was a prophet of God, and that he needed to raise up a boy to take his place as prophet. This child was raised in complete isolation, being taught only the great-uncle's version of events, form of religious conviction, and method of viewing the world. This child was brainwashed, truly indoctrinated.

Now, you guys are all perfectly free to water down the term, and utilize it for the average family that takes their kid to church and has them pray before going to bed, but you shouldn't expect everyone to agree with your agenda-laden redefinition.

As for me, I'll continue to reserve the terms "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" for cases that truly call for it-- for exceptional occurrences, and not normal child-rearing.

^^This^^

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"What's wrong with a parent living vicariously through their children in order to 'bond' with them?" is hyperbole. There's everything wrong with objectifying one's children in such manner as to satisfy one's own needs for validation.

If you're going to make assumptions about the motivations of pageant parents and paint them all with the same broad brush, can I do the same for religious parents?

 

[Magic Man]

Teaching your child something or encouraging them down a particular path is normal and pretty much unavoidable. Nor, to be honest, do I see much benefit in attempting to avoid doing so.

The problem is the equation of any sort of religious teaching with "indoctrination" and "brainwashing". Those words are meant to imply something above and beyond normal behavior.

I'm reading a novel called "The Violent Bear it Away" about an infant that was kidnapped by a crazy great-uncle who believed that he was a prophet of God, and that he needed to raise up a boy to take his place as prophet. This child was raised in complete isolation, being taught only the great-uncle's version of events, form of religious conviction, and method of viewing the world. This child was brainwashed, truly indoctrinated.

Now, you guys are all perfectly free to water down the term, and utilize it for the average family that takes their kid to church and has them pray before going to bed, but you shouldn't expect everyone to agree with your agenda-laden redefinition.

As for me, I'll continue to reserve the terms "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" for cases that truly call for it-- for exceptional occurrences, and not normal child-rearing.

It's not watering it down when the result is the same. My parents took me to church, sent me to Catholic school and generally taught me Catholicism as fact. It wasn't as harsh as your example, to be sure, but the result was the same: me being Catholic and believing in everything religious they did.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you're going to generalize about the cure (implying no specific religious teaching should take place), then you have to generalize about the cause (implying all religious teaching is indoctrination). Proving that it happens "sometimes" or even "most of the time" doesn't justify doing away with all teaching.

I find it telling that when someone argues against coercive religious instruction, you assume it to mean ALL religious instruction.

 

[Magic Man]

You're forgetting one. Let's call it "2b."

"Parents' religion taught to children as a mythic framework for the development of an interior life that is expressed through exterior interaction."

That's a fancy way of saying what I said in number 2.

 

[Me Myself]

Nope, that stuff is still not indoctrination.

By the oxford dictionary standards, they would be.

They are not any less indoctrination than simply telling them God hears them pray.