Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, the OP does say "Why making your children follow your religion is truly brainwashing." That implies all religious upbringing. Talk to the guy who reamed up the OP.

Making your children follow your religion sounds like all religious upbringing to you? That may explain everything.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No. "Teaching as fact" isn't at all the same thing as "teaching a mythic way of understanding."

Yeah, well, "teaching a mythic way of understanding" is not how parents generally teach their child religion. If this were true, teaching them religion and reading them Harry Potter would be done in the exact same fashion. However, in the second case fiction is recognized as fiction but in the former, fiction is construed as fact.

 

[sojourner]

Why base this determination on how frequently it occurs and not the level of harm?

He said nothing about frequency. He did use the terms "normal" and "exceptional."

 

[sojourner]

Not themselves, probably, but even if they just go through the motions, their church will still likely require that the children go through catechism classes before they're confirmed, so they will be taught it.

And as the child grows up and goes through the sacraments from First Communion through marriage, they'll have to swear many times that they believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and will follow its teachings... IOW, they'll be coached to lie. This might be better than actually teaching a child he's hellbound if he becomes apostate, but I think it's still problematic.

Most people who disagree with Catholic teaching aren't Catholic, and wouldn't rear their kids within that faith. Most people would rear their children within religions that they find agreeable.

 

[sojourner]

And a few decades ago, you wouldn't find many people who would say that getting behind the wheel after four or five beers was impaired driving. Does this mean it wasn't?

Now who's arguing semantics?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Teaching your child something or encouraging them down a particular path is normal and pretty much unavoidable.

Indoctrination is pretty much unavoidable. That's sort of a standard component of sociological theories within the social and cognitive sciences. Growing up and being educated in some country learning some language(s) is not brainwashing (how could it be) but it certainly is a matter of indoctrination. Otherwise, there would be no cultural differences.

 

[ChristineES]

What I would really like to know is how people are defining "brainwashing". I gave a dictionary definition, which didn't seem to describe what others are describing. And I would like to know if the term "brainwashing" is similar to the term "indoctrination". The way I and others define the term brainwashing appears to be different than how others are defining it.
I have pictures in my head about brainwashing that I've heard of: Using abuse- physical and verbal, beating, starving, etc. Do you picture the same thing or do you have another picture. I would like to understand it.

 

[Me Myself]

And a few decades ago, you wouldn't find many people who would say that getting behind the wheel after four or five beers was impaired driving. Does this mean it wasn't?

I am asking Magic Man which definition he is using. I am using the oxford and by so I am saying that "dont hit your sister because its wrong" is as indoctrinating as "god hears your prayers" because both are claims without objective reasoning behind them that are forming set beliefs in the kid.

All the morals we teach our kids are indoctrination.

 

[sojourner]

Making your children follow your religion sounds like all religious upbringing to you? That may explain everything.

The question, in using the terms "you" and "yours," means "everyone who read this post," which assumes a broad spectrum of generality.

 

[Willamena]

What I would really like to know is how people are defining "brainwashing". I gave a dictionary definition, which didn't seem to describe what others are describing. And I would like to know if the term "brainwashing" is similar to the term "indoctrination". The way I and others define the term brainwashing appears to be different than how others are defining it.
I have pictures in my head about brainwashing that I've heard of: Using abuse- physical and verbal, beating, starving, etc. Do you picture the same thing or do you have another picture. I would like to understand it.

If you believe it because you know it for a fact, it's "learning." If the other guy believes it, but you don't, then it's "indoctrination."


/rolledeyes

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, well, "teaching a mythic way of understanding" is not how parents generally teach their child religion. If this were true, teaching them religion and reading them Harry Potter would be done in the exact same fashion. However, in the second case fiction is recognized as fiction but in the former, fiction is construed as fact.

But that means that the alternative suggested is also not a generality. All parents do not teach religious beliefs as fact. Since the OP implies a generality, even if there is only one set of parents who do not teach belief as fact, that reality renders the OP moot.

 

[sojourner]

What I would really like to know is how people are defining "brainwashing". I gave a dictionary definition, which didn't seem to describe what others are describing. And I would like to know if the term "brainwashing" is similar to the term "indoctrination". The way I and others define the term brainwashing appears to be different than how others are defining it.
I have pictures in my head about brainwashing that I've heard of: Using abuse- physical and verbal, beating, starving, etc. Do you picture the same thing or do you have another picture. I would like to understand it.

Brainwashing is abuse. Normal religious upbringing is not abusive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. "Teaching as fact" isn't at all the same thing as "teaching a mythic way of understanding."

And you think that "teaching as a mythic way of understanding" describes the typical religious upbringing?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

But that means that the alternative suggested is also not a generality. All parents do not teach religious beliefs as fact. Since the OP implies a generality, even if there is only one set of parents who do not teach belief as fact, that reality renders the OP moot.

"Generality" doesn't mean "all the time, without exception." Generalities are descriptions of what is most commonly true. They are not rendered "moot" by small numbers of exceptions.

People generally have two arms and two legs. Just because there are people that have anywhere from 0-3 limbs as well, doesn't make the general statement any less valid.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am asking Magic Man which definition he is using. I am using the oxford and by so I am saying that "dont hit your sister because its wrong" is as indoctrinating as "god hears your prayers" because both are claims without objective reasoning behind them that are forming set beliefs in the kid.

All the morals we teach our kids are indoctrination.

To a certain extent, this is true. Kids need to learn things like "don't touch the stove" before they're able to fully comprehend why. However:

- the fact that some indoctrination is necessary doesn't automatically imply that unnecessary indoctrination is good.
- I think we all acknowledge that indoctrination to a certain degree is wrong: if a parent tried to force their child to support a particular political party, go into a particular career, or marry a particular person of the parents' choosing. We all agree that a line exists, so the question is which side of the line religious indoctrination falls on.

 

[sojourner]

"Generality" doesn't mean "all the time, without exception." Generalities are descriptions of what is most commonly true. They are not rendered "moot" by small numbers of exceptions.

People generally have two arms and two legs. Just because there are people that have anywhere from 0-3 limbs as well, doesn't make the general statement any less valid.

True. I should have used the term "universal" rather than "general." The use of "you" and "your" implies a universal -- not a general -- condition.

 

[sojourner]

We all agree that a line exists, so the question is which side of the line religious indoctrination falls on.

Since methods of religious teaching (I object to the term "indoctrination" -- MW has "indoctrinate" as: "to teach [someone] to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs") is not universal in methodology with regard to indoctrination, it may fall on either side of a line demarcated by indoctrination.

 

[Magic Man]

No. "Teaching as fact" isn't at all the same thing as "teaching a mythic way of understanding."

If you're not teaching religious beliefs as facts, then it's not number 2 at all. If you're teaching myths the way they supposed to be used, it's number 3.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since methods of religious teaching (I object to the term "indoctrination" -- MW has "indoctrinate" as: "to teach [someone] to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs") is not universal in methodology with regard to indoctrination, it may fall on either side of a line demarcated by indoctrination.

If you had been paying attention to the thread, you would have seen that it's been indoctrination, not merely education, that I've been objecting to this whole time.

 

[sojourner]

And you think that "teaching as a mythic way of understanding" describes the typical religious upbringing?

"Typical" doesn't matter in the context of the OP. The OP suggests a universality that negates "typical."