Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Me Myself]

Not really. The difference between teaching beliefs as truths and truths as truths isn't especially tricky.

We are unable to know what is true. We have been changing our understand of what is true for millennia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What does that have to do with anything? People are using the general term "religion" and there are a lot of different religions out there. There are a lot of variations within all those different religions, which make them even more numerous. No one is separating Christianity from Hinduism or Islam from Paganism much less any variations within those religions. Edit: I meant within the thread.

I think that several people in this thread - yourself included - are trying to minimize the significance of very common harmful practices.

For instance, you yourself said that you're opposed to infant baptism... to when a priest and the child's parents declare that a child is Christian for the rest of his or her life regardless of how the child feels once he or she grows up. I don't think you can ignore that the largest Christian denomination on the planet insists that its members do this to their children... and that's just one example.

 

[sojourner]

It's entirely germane. You're presenting your own opinion of religion as, if not the standard model, some sort of archetype. Meanwhile, if we looked at the full spectrum of religious belief, we'd find that not only is your position only representative of a very small sliver of that spectrum, that small sliver would be dwarfed by the percentage of religious people who find your approach downright heretical.

Basically, you're trying to get the tail to wag the dog.

Nope. First of all, the point to which I was responding was that there are three possible ways to look at religious teaching. I pointed out that there is a fourth way. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the frequency of the method -- only the existence of the method.

Second, I suspect that the methodology I provided is more ubiquitous than you're giving it credit for here. In fact, I'd like to take a peek at the hard data you used to come up with your assertion that my position is "only representative of a very small sliver of that [religious methodology] spectrum.

Basically, you're trying to vilify religious teaching as a whole by downplaying a methodology that is possibly far more ubiquitous and quintessential as a way of teaching religion than you would like to admit here.

 

[sojourner]

I think that several people in this thread - yourself included - are trying to minimize the significance of very common harmful practices.

For instance, you yourself said that you're opposed to infant baptism... to when a priest and the child's parents declare that a child is Christian for the rest of his or her life regardless of how the child feels once he or she grows up. I don't think you can ignore that the largest Christian denomination on the planet insists that its members do this to their children... and that's just one example.

They don't "insist." In fact, there's a movement now within Catholicism to wait until children are more like 16 years of age to baptize.

I think that several people in this thread are trying to minimize the significance of very common beneficial practices, while inflating the significance of harmful practices.

 

[Me Myself]

I think that several people in this thread - yourself included - are trying to minimize the significance of very common harmful practices.

For instance, you yourself said that you're opposed to infant baptism... to when a priest and the child's parents declare that a child is Christian for the rest of his or her life regardless of how the child feels once he or she grows up. I don't think you can ignore that the largest Christian denomination on the planet insists that its members do this to their children... and that's just one example.

I dont see the point. There are many secular practices I may oppose, so to all of us.

 

[Me Myself]

They don't "insist." In fact, there's a movement now within Catholicism to wait until children are more like 16 years of age to baptize.

I think that several people in this thread are trying to minimize the significance of very common beneficial practices, while inflating the significance of harmful practices.

My problem is that they equate all forms of religious teachings with the most outlandish and radical or controversial forms of religious teachings.

Without going to religions, there are many values a parent can teach their children that we will be against, whether secular or religious.

What is the point?

 

[Curious George]

And yet, if this individual did not believe that she could meet her father once again after death, who knows what might have happened?

If the text is correct: "A schoolgirl has killed herself because she was desperate to be reunited with her dead father in heaven. '', then it wouldn't have happened.

Incorrect. She still could have killed herself because she missed her dad so much, and death was a release from that pain. We don't know nor will we ever know what could have, should have, or would have happened had the scenario been tweaked.

 

[Me Myself]

Incorrect. She still could have killed herself because she missed her dad so much, and death was a release from that pain. We don't know nor will we ever know what could have, should have, or would have happened had the scenario been tweaked.

Not to say this specific belief does not adress reincarnation or many othe r posible beliefs that may come in many religions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I dont see the point. There are many secular practices I may oppose, so to all of us.

Do you swear to uphold the teachings of organizations that promote those practices? Do you insist that your children swear to uphold them?

 

[sojourner]

My problem is that they equate all forms of religious teachings with the most outlandish and radical or controversial forms of religious teachings.

Without going to religions, there are many values a parent can teach their children that we will be against, whether secular or religious.

What is the point?

That's been my problem, too. They're trying to insist that religious teaching is innately harmful or a violation of rights.

 

[sojourner]

Do you swear to uphold the teachings of organizations that promote those practices? Do you insist that your children swear to uphold them?

That practice is not universal to religious teaching.

 

[Me Myself]

Do you swear to uphold the teachings of organizations that promote those practices? Do you insist that your children swear to uphold them?

What does this have to do with beauty peagents?

I just dont get how many extremely distant things are you relating.

I am sorry to tell you even such an oath can be and will be interpreted in many ways, and no, personally I dont believe in doing such a thing.

In any case, I do expect my children to uphold a lot of values with which other people may disagree.

The thing is, we will teach our kids a lot of things without making an extense debate about it( or have, or if not then for those not having kids, thanks for helping with the enviroment more than us, unsensible ******** )

Many religions have to do with communities instead of "organizations" and dont include such oaths.

If you want to denounce specific religious practices, another thread about it could be interesting, but equating specific religious practices to all religious practice doesnt work.

Its like me saying bats are evil because my brother in law got himself batd in the head multiple times. Lets ban beisball?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They don't "insist." In fact, there's a movement now within Catholicism to wait until children are more like 16 years of age to baptize.

If they uphold the authority of the Magisterium while they say that kids should wait until age 16 to be baptized, then I'd say they're rather conflicted.

I think that several people in this thread are trying to minimize the significance of very common beneficial practices, while inflating the significance of harmful practices.

Which ones, specifically? What common beneficial practices do you think are being minimized, and what harmful practices do you think are being inflated? If you don't want to give an exhaustive list, then just a few examples will be fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That practice is not universal to religious teaching.

Would you agree that it's bad to swear to uphold the teachings of organizations that promote harmful practices - religious or not - or to insist that one's children swear to uphold them?

 

[Me Myself]

If they uphold the authority of the Magisterium while they say that kids should wait until age 16 to be baptized, then I'd say they're rather conflicted.


Which ones, specifically? What common beneficial practices do you think are being minimized, and what harmful practices do you think are being inflated? If you don't want to give an exhaustive list, then just a few examples will be fine.

So, by now I get you think its wrong to make children be baptized, swear formal oaths (to religion) or be punished for transgressing a "purely religious" norm.

Which other things you see as religious indoctrination?

The problem is that we need to talk about specific actions that we deem wrong if we need to understand each other.

I plan otelling my kids they can pray and God will listen. In your book, is this wrong?

 

[Me Myself]

Would you agree that it's bad to swear to uphold the teachings of organizations that promote harmful practices - religious or not - or to insist that one's children swear to uphold them?

Wile I am sure we will agree on a lot of this practices tha you may have in mind to be harmful, you do understand this is not white and black, yes?

Ofr example most parents thar would indeed assist the swearing of oath would not see the actions promoted as harmful more often than not.

 

[sojourner]

If they uphold the authority of the Magisterium while they say that kids should wait until age 16 to be baptized, then I'd say they're rather conflicted.

The church is constantly in a state of flux. It necessarily involves some conflict. The church is still conflicted about the nature of God after 1700 years, for example.

What common beneficial practices do you think are being minimized

The use of religious practice as an aid to spiritual formation, the provision of a cultural context in which children can be nurtured in a holistic way, the passing down of stories and tradition that have been foundational for our communal life, a way of impressing positive values upon children and instilling in them the importance of living in deep relationship with others, to name a few.

what harmful practices do you think are being inflated?

Instilling in children a specific method of developing spiritual meaning, providing a specific cultural context in which children can be nurtured, teaching specific religious beliefs as important and as unique and necessary for a whole life, to name a few.
I think that there's a philosophy being put forward here that rearing children with specifics in terms of religious context is necessarily a "bad thing."

 

[sojourner]

Would you agree that it's bad to swear to uphold the teachings of organizations that promote harmful practices - religious or not - or to insist that one's children swear to uphold them?

Not necessarily. We teach our children to swear allegiance to a country that continues to systemically propagate violence against certain groups, and that systemically funnels the preponderance of the nation's wealth to the richest 1% of the population. Those things are harmful practices. But we still teach our children to pledge allegiance to the flag of that country, because we feel that the positives outweigh the negatives. Nothing is ever perfect.

 

[Curious George]

He said that pageant parents are living vicariously through their children and objectifying them in order to "satisfy one's need for validation." If you can't see tge degree of assumption and stereotyping in that, I'm not sure I'll be able to explain it to you.

no he suggested that some parents do this and this specific trait is immoral. This does not equate to All pageant parents or to the pageants alone.

 

[Magic Man]

So? It's a tragic story, but there were obviously more things than simple religious upbringing going on that contributed to the suicide. I doubt that religious upbringing had all that much to do with it.

I'm not sure how religious upbringing didn't have much to do with it. She did it because she believed she'd go be with her dad.

The point is, even a simple teaching of religious beliefs like heaven, which is a very common one, can have harmful effects.