Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Monk Of Reason]

Depends on how you define religion. If you mean set of beliefs, you cant live without a set of beliefs. You will get many from parents, many from friends and will edit away.

If you mean belief in supernatural, well, you dont have to, but there are a lot of unnecessary (but not detrimental) beliefs that they will be taught by their parents.

Why make an exception on religious beliefs?

We can get into the semantics of religion on another topic. We both sould know the base definition that we are working under for the purposes of this thread.

Secondly those other beliefs are not taugt and upheld as unquestionable truth like religion. At least not usually.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sure...

Do you also recommend ambivalence on the realities of traffic in the street, electrical outlets in combination with dinnerware, and my child's inability to fly even if he wears a superman cape?

The heart of the matter is this: there is an objective reality and recognition, or lack thereof, has consequences; I'm not going to relegate a child I may have to ignorance because Joe down the street wants to deny that fact. Nor does the possibility that my hypothetical child may disavow said reality deter me either.

I'm going to teach any child I might have those things that exist and/or are advantageous for his/her existence. Logic, critical thinking, maths, geography, history, and yes, religion. After that it is up to them.

You see, the issue isn't indoctrination(which is what we are talking about, not brainwashing). You no doubt have little issue with indoctrination is the first five categories, and would likely take some issue if the same attitude you suggest in regards to religion were directed towards the others. The issue is that you dispute the advantages and reality of my religion. I don't.

What makes the boogyman any different than Satan ?

Reality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Reality.

This is where people begin to disagree. How do you know Satan isn't as imaginary as the boogyman? They have similar attributes and quite possibly could have the same origin with the same function.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Thought I would pop back in with this little gem:

I often hear people say that teaching (or forcing) religion to (or down the throats of) children is brainwashing, and all of a sudden you have a rumble on your hands. People see brainwashing as a term suggesting that they are doing something evil and harmful, and perhaps brainwashing is not the right term. However, it simply would seem unethical and questionable to push religion (ANY religion) onto children.

The problem with forcing such a solid system upon a child is a psychological one. One of the main reasons is the connection that children have with their primary caregiver. So much rides on this relationship throughout one's entire life, it affects all relationships and one's functioning in the world. If a child sees, from an extremely young age, that their shared belief in their parents religion is so important, it may stifle future questioning out of the fear of losing that connection. Of course the reverse is also true, during adolescence when a teen rebels against their parents and becomes more influenced by their peers, it may cause extreme rifts in families if the child chooses to use this fundamental connection against the parent (for example, LaVeyan Satanism make most of its profit off of this rebellion). It can, and often does, lead to regret on one side or the other.

This is hardly the only problem. Children cannot even think abstractly or question themselves and what they know until around the age of twelve. Think of, on average, how ingrained the family religion is by age twelve. I can see why families may want this, they believe they are correct and want their kids to be locked into the religion. I don't see the hate for the term "brainwashing" here, it sounds about as unethical as the process to me.

Now, many people argue that it has to do with morals and community. Well, I do not see why eternal and supernatural punishment is needed except in the case of lazy parenting. A simply understanding of punishment will suffice just as well. Condition your kids, use reinforcement and punishment and they will learn not to do what is "wrong" simply because there is punishment. There is not need to say "now Suzie, remember if you lie to mommy and daddy you will suffer for eternity", again it seems rather unethical.

So, I guess it comes down to a choice. What seems ethical is to try and raise your child in a realistic and open world, sharing your ideas with them as they enter adolescence and allowing them to reflect and make the decision for themselves. The only reason to do otherwise is to lock in a child's mind with the religion you wish them to have, but if that is the route you choose stop getting ***** when people use the terms "brainwashing" or "unethical".

I was raised in a family of Atheists and I became Hindu.

My children were raised in a family of Hindus and they became Atheist.

Religion/spirituality is only a 'novel concept' when you aren't constantly exposed to it.

*I really like your avatar btw.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I was raised in a family of Atheists and I became Hindu.

My children were raised in a family of Hindus and they became Atheist.

Religion/spirituality is only a 'novel concept' when you aren't constantly exposed to it.

*I really like your avatar btw.

How did you become a hindu?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sure...

Do you also recommend ambivalence on the realities of traffic in the street, electrical outlets in combination with dinnerware, and my child's inability to fly even if he wears a superman cape?
... The issue is that you dispute the advantages and reality of my religion. I don't.

Except, the consequences and reality of getting run over by a car are indisputable and uncontroversial. For you to fail to recognize that your religious views are not is simple vanity, or perhaps delusion. And when you also consider the personal and individual nature of choosing ones religion, deigning to take this decision that is properly your child's (albeit one for when they reach a certain, i.e. LATER, age) upon yourself makes it hard to plea that you're doing it with their best interests in mind- at least be honest about it, you don't raise your child into your religion for their interests, but for yours.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

How did you become a hindu?

To cut a long story short...

My parents were part-owners of a hotel chain in Indonesia and Malaysia when I was a child.

They were also lay sociologists and photographers, so any religious festival was a great opportunity to bring out the cameras and sell the shots to glossy travel brochures for tourists...

It was at one such festival in Malaysia called Thaipusam, I got lost in the crowd, wound up at a Murugan temple...I saw people having metal rods and skewers placed through their bodies...no blood...no pain...then I had a vision of Lord Shiva...I was just 10 years old.

I went back to Bali to study Sanskrit and Agama Hindu Dharma...feeling Shiva inside every temple...inside me...joined Yellow Bamboo..

I studied Hinduism and Yoga for many years before marrying a Hindu priest (Pujari) and adopting Hinduism formally at age 21.

Then, I studied mantras, prayers and pujas before going to India for a year, taking Mantra Dikska (initiation) from Swami Chidananda of the DLS in Rishikesh and becoming a fully qualified Yoga/meditation instructor.

Enough for now.

 

[Me Myself]

We can get into the semantics of religion on another topic. We both sould know the base definition that we are working under for the purposes of this thread.

Secondly those other beliefs are not taugt and upheld as unquestionable truth like religion. At least not usually.

I (for a change) am not interested on an argument about semantics. I was asking which definition we are using so to know what we are refering to here.

Morality is something taught as if unquestionable in many households and so is religion. The way i see it it is wrong to heavily oppose a teens desire to explore new religions, but when s/he is a kid, s/he is likely not to be able to make the choice on hir own anyways.

If you want hir going to church because you feel s/he will learn a lot of good things from it, you very well can send hir to church and its okay.

Its the way you decide upon a lot of others things for hir anyways. They will get more agency as they have more age to understand more gray and intricate subjects. Before then, you gotta make the choices.

At least in my case, I don't make an exception for religion. I have problems with parents trying to choose their child's religion, political affiliation, career, or spouse, etc. All of it's objectionable.

You can teach a child a religion but I honestly wouldnt say a child is "catholic" or "republican" or etc. In any case, if s/he makes you questions about economy or politics you can either tell him you wont tell him and let someone else answer hir questions for you or tell him what you believe on the subject. Likewise with religion.

The thing is at if you are very religious, not to tell them qhat you are doing when you are praying will feel like you are excluding hir form something that is important to you which would likely have an impact.

I dont think we should force religioupon em, but certainly not hide it in the closet as if it was shameful.

 

[Me Myself]

Thought I would pop back in with this little gem:

I often hear people say that teaching (or forcing) religion to (or down the throats of) children is brainwashing, and all of a sudden you have a rumble on your hands. People see brainwashing as a term suggesting that they are doing something evil and harmful, and perhaps brainwashing is not the right term. However, it simply would seem unethical and questionable to push religion (ANY religion) onto children.

The problem with forcing such a solid system upon a child is a psychological one. One of the main reasons is the connection that children have with their primary caregiver. So much rides on this relationship throughout one's entire life, it affects all relationships and one's functioning in the world. If a child sees, from an extremely young age, that their shared belief in their parents religion is so important, it may stifle future questioning out of the fear of losing that connection. Of course the reverse is also true, during adolescence when a teen rebels against their parents and becomes more influenced by their peers, it may cause extreme rifts in families if the child chooses to use this fundamental connection against the parent (for example, LaVeyan Satanism make most of its profit off of this rebellion). It can, and often does, lead to regret on one side or the other.

This is hardly the only problem. Children cannot even think abstractly or question themselves and what they know until around the age of twelve. Think of, on average, how ingrained the family religion is by age twelve. I can see why families may want this, they believe they are correct and want their kids to be locked into the religion. I don't see the hate for the term "brainwashing" here, it sounds about as unethical as the process to me.

Now, many people argue that it has to do with morals and community. Well, I do not see why eternal and supernatural punishment is needed except in the case of lazy parenting. A simply understanding of punishment will suffice just as well. Condition your kids, use reinforcement and punishment and they will learn not to do what is "wrong" simply because there is punishment. There is not need to say "now Suzie, remember if you lie to mommy and daddy you will suffer for eternity", again it seems rather unethical.

So, I guess it comes down to a choice. What seems ethical is to try and raise your child in a realistic and open world, sharing your ideas with them as they enter adolescence and allowing them to reflect and make the decision for themselves. The only reason to do otherwise is to lock in a child's mind with the religion you wish them to have, but if that is the route you choose stop getting ***** when people use the terms "brainwashing" or "unethical".

Would you advice parents to not pray in front of their kids? To hide a part that may be very important of them from their loved youngsters? Do you think they wont tell?

I can understand not forcing them to pray, I would personally never force anyone to pray nor I have any memory of a parent ever forcing me to pray, but hiding what you love from your kids because maybe they will share such love with you?

I dont see it as any more ethical honestly. I could also see a lot of ptential for damage BTW. Not saying it would happen with every case but :

"Mommy with whom were you talking to?"

"i ll tell you when you reach twelve years old"

"Whyyyyyy?"

"i cant tell you"



"Why does mommy doesnt want me to know? Is it she is doing something bad? Is what she is doing bad?"

If you honestly believe that the children can have aneutral opinion about something central to their parents life by when they are twelve simply because the parents were being really secretive about it you are being oh so charmingly naive

At least appreciate the naivity man

 

[Mister Emu]

This is where people begin to disagree.

Therefore?

Except, the consequences and reality of getting run over by a car are indisputable and uncontroversial. For you to fail to recognize that your religious views are not is simple vanity, or perhaps delusion

I never said it was indisputable... everything can be disputed, some people dispute the reality of a spherical Earth. I'm still going to teach any children I might have that the Earth is a spheroid.

And when you also consider the personal and individual nature of choosing ones religion, deigning to take this decision that is properly your child's

That's a mighty strong declaration.

The "choosing" of religion is no more personal or individual than the choosing of the quadratic formula.

at least be honest about it, you don't raise your child into your religion for their interests, but for yours.

You wanted to talk about vanity and delusion earlier while you presume to know my motivations while having never met nor held a conversation with me?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To cut a long story short...

My parents were part-owners of a hotel chain in Indonesia and Malaysia when I was a child.

They were also lay sociologists and photographers, so any religious festival was a great opportunity to bring out the cameras and sell the shots to glossy travel brochures for tourists...

It was at one such festival in Malaysia called Thaipusam, I got lost in the crowd, wound up at a Murugan temple...I saw people having metal rods and skewers placed through their bodies...no blood...no pain...then I had a vision of Lord Shiva...I was just 10 years old.

I went back to Bali to study Sanskrit and Agama Hindu Dharma...feeling Shiva inside every temple...inside me...joined Yellow Bamboo..

I studied Hinduism and Yoga for many years before marrying a Hindu priest (Pujari) and adopting Hinduism formally at age 21.

Then, I studied mantras, prayers and pujas before going to India for a year, taking Mantra Dikska (initiation) from Swami Chidananda of the DLS in Rishikesh and becoming a fully qualified Yoga/meditation instructor.

Enough for now.

Cool story. It was just to my understanding one had to be born Hindu.

I (for a change) am not interested on an argument about semantics. I was asking which definition we are using so to know what we are refering to here.

Morality is something taught as if unquestionable in many households and so is religion. The way i see it it is wrong to heavily oppose a teens desire to explore new religions, but when s/he is a kid, s/he is likely not to be able to make the choice on hir own anyways.

If you want hir going to church because you feel s/he will learn a lot of good things from it, you very well can send hir to church and its okay.

Its the way you decide upon a lot of others things for hir anyways. They will get more agency as they have more age to understand more gray and intricate subjects. Before then, you gotta make the choices.

I mean an organized religion with a name. Not just a vague concept.

And i'm not talking abou opposing anyone from doing anything but simply NOT imposing the idea on them at a young age.

And some morality is taught. Not all and nay even the majority is not.

Therefore?

You made the claim that the reality is that Satan is real. I am waiting for you to back that up.

 

[Me Myself]

Cool story. It was just to my understanding one had to be born Hindu.


I mean an organized religion with a name. Not just a vague concept.

And i'm not talking abou opposing anyone from doing anything but simply NOT imposing the idea on them at a young age.

What would be imposing to you?

If wife and husband always prayed together before meals, should they stop since they have a child? Should they not talk about it? Deliberately hid eit from them? Change thier lifes so the child doesnt know about their religion?

I can understand not forcing them to pray or believe, that is a very reasonable position. Hiding your religion from them though or saying "I will tell you when you are twelve" when they ask you about it seems just plain wrong to me though, not necessarily always but I can surely see it backfire on many scenarios, and it would definetely load it for them. By not talking about it you are already ENSURING they wont be neutral about it because you build up interest, curiosity, deliberation, etc.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What would be imposing to you?

If wife and husband always prayed together before meals, should they stop since they have a child? Should they not talk about it? Deliberately hid eit from them? Change thier lifes so the child doesnt know about their religion?

I can understand not forcing them to pray or believe, that is a very reasonable position. Hiding your religion from them though or saying "I will tell you when you are twelve" when they ask you about it seems just plain wrong to me though, not necessarily always but I can surely see it backfire on many scenarios, and it would definetely load it for them. By not talking about it you are already ENSURING they wont be neutral about it because you build up interest, curiosity, deliberation, etc.

The latter. Not forcing them to pray. Not forcing them to go to indoctrinating ceremonies from the time before they could speak. Not engraining this ideology that is a false axiom.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Cool story. It was just to my understanding one had to be born Hindu.

I thought that may have been the motive behind your question, so let me reply by saying 'in which birth'?

A female can become a Hindu by marriage (default) because a woman has no caste, class or position, so she automatically 'adopts' that of her husband.

Other than that, I have always seen it as 'whether I am a Hindu or not is totally irrelevant...that's only what people say and people aren't really a 'credible source'. lol

Shiva chose me and that's all I knew (all I needed to know). It was my understanding that a non-Hindu could attain Samadhi just like a Hindu could and that 'Hindu' was only a 'pigeonhole term' really.

There was a time when I felt like I needed to 'belong' to a religion, but that time has long since passed.

I just refer to myself as a 'Hindu' because it's easier than saying "I am not a Hindu, but I worship a Hindu God, do Hindu prayers, observe Hindu Holy Days, live according to Hindu Dharma, don't eat beef (or anything with 4 legs - I eat chicken, fish etc), do everything according to the Hindu religion...but I am in no way a Hindu". lol

 

[Me Myself]

The latter. Not forcing them to pray. Not forcing them to go to indoctrinating ceremonies from the time before they could speak. Not engraining this ideology that is a false axiom.

So you think its okay to keep on praying, as long as they dont force the children to go along with it?

About the ceremonies, if the family is going to the church, deliberately not sending the baby seems unatural to me. Everything is "endoctrinating" anyways.

What I dont like is treating religion as if it were venom. Some religions may be, but simply having your kid with you at church is not anymore brainwashing than forcing them to sit through a movie they dont wanna see because their sister does and you gotta share and there is no nanny.

 

[Me Myself]

The thing is that if you are deliberately leting them out of your religion, that is also sending a message, which is not "neutral"

You simply cannot be neutral about this things if you yourself are not neutral towards them. And no one is neutral to anything anyways.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I thought that may have been the motive behind your question, so let me reply by saying 'in which birth'?

A female can become a Hindu by marriage (default) because a woman has no caste, class or position, so she automatically 'adopts' that of her husband.

Other than that, I have always seen it as 'whether I am a Hindu or not is totally irrelevant...that's only what people say and people aren't really a 'credible source'. lol

Shiva chose me and that's all I knew (all I needed to know). It was my understanding that a non-Hindu could attain Samadhi just like a Hindu could and that 'Hindu' was only a 'pigeonhole term' really.

There was a time when I felt like I needed to 'belong' to a religion, but that time has long since passed.

I just refer to myself as a 'Hindu' because it's easier than saying "I am not a Hindu, but I worship a Hindu God, do Hindu prayers, observe Hindu Holy Days, live according to Hindu Dharma, don't eat beef (or anything with 4 legs - I eat chicken, fish etc), do everything according to the Hindu religion...but I am in no way a Hindu". lol

Thats fine. I was just wonder. The typical Hindu belives that it must be from birth and they don't really belive in second births as that generally a Christian thing. But if you call yourself a Hindu and you belive what you believe then by all accounts you are Hindu. I was just wondering was all.

So you think its okay to keep on praying, as long as they dont force the children to go along with it?

About the ceremonies, if the family is going to the church, deliberately not sending the baby seems unatural to me. Everything is "endoctrinating" anyways.

What I dont like is treating religion as if it were venom. Some religions may be, but simply having your kid with you at church is not anymore brainwashing than forcing them to sit through a movie they dont wanna see because their sister does and you gotta share and there is no nanny.

I'm not advocating leaving babies at home to go to church. I'm also at the same time purely against bible beating. And to an extent religion is a venom.

Also I don't belive in being neutral as its impossible but not shoving it down their throat is very doable. For example I have family members who no longer speak to me because I'm an atheist. I was litterally forced to go to church till I was able to move out. I was beat once because I argued for evolution.

That kind of ****. Get it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure...

Do you also recommend ambivalence on the realities of traffic in the street, electrical outlets in combination with dinnerware, and my child's inability to fly even if he wears a superman cape?

The heart of the matter is this: there is an objective reality and recognition, or lack thereof, has consequences; I'm not going to relegate a child I may have to ignorance because Joe down the street wants to deny that fact. Nor does the possibility that my hypothetical child may disavow said reality deter me either.

I'm going to teach any child I might have those things that exist and/or are advantageous for his/her existence. Logic, critical thinking, maths, geography, history, and yes, religion. After that it is up to them.

If you insist that your child's decision-making process must end at the conclusion that he should be Catholic, then I'd say you aren't teaching him logic and critical thinking as much as you could have. An important aspect of critical thinking is a willingness to follow evidence and reason wherever it leads; a predetermined conclusion is in opposition to this principle.

You see, the issue isn't indoctrination(which is what we are talking about, not brainwashing). You no doubt have little issue with indoctrination is the first five categories, and would likely take some issue if the same attitude you suggest in regards to religion were directed towards the others. The issue is that you dispute the advantages and reality of my religion. I don't.

I think it was Galen who wrote "the poison is in the dosage." The fact that parents will have influence on their children doesn't mean that all influence is a good idea.

As an analogy, the parents' marriage will usually become a model for the child of what marriage should be. This could have all sorts of influence on who the child chooses as a spouse. However, this doesn't mean it should be okay for the parents to take this one step further and choose a spouse for their child as part of an arranged marriage. Do you agree?

 

[LuisDantas]

Rape leads to less inner conflict than religious indoctrination? Mmmk... And the severity of physical harm isn't measured by how much inner conflict it creates anyways, but by... you guessed it, the severity of physical harm. If I break my arm, it doesn't make it hurt any less if I experience no inner conflict over it.

In any case, this is sort of a pointless tangent unlikely to be resolved, but I honestly think you are either underplaying the severity of acts like rap, or overplaying religious indoctrination (or perhaps a little of both)- for instance, I'd imagine that anyone who had actually been raped would not only dispute your claim, but be offended by it as well, but that's just my impression.

It is indeed a tangent, and of course I will be disputed. I will only point out that there are degrees of indoctrination, and the most extreme mix with, enable and enhance parental abuse.

 

[Walkntune]

We live in a world where people hold value to what people do and what they have instead of who they are. Who are the ones truly brainwashed?