Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Me Myself]

How about "the Earth is round and here's a test to confirm it"?

Beyond simple stuff that a kid has to learn very early (e.g. "don't touch the stove"), I fail to see why you'd have to teach much of anything to a child uncritically.

The whys always have an end. Ultimately, s/he will have to trust your information and will do because you are his father (more likely than not)

"What does this mean in this test?" "Iteans this and this" " how do I know this is true?" "Because this and this organizations made those observations" "how do I know those are the organizations that made those observations?" "Bcause you can see it on this webpage" "how do I know this webpage is not a fake?"

Etc etc

There comes a point where there are no reasonable directly provable whys left.

 

[Curious George]

I think we've already done that, albeit piecemeal; you even touched on it yourself, with the comment about teaching kids critical thinking skills rather than any particular conclusions. And, ironically enough, there's a parallel here with my comments about secondary math/science education- I think that its more beneficial (albeit for somewhat different reasons in this case), to teach the child to fish, as it were, rather than giving them some fish; teaching children about religion, including your religion, and giving them the tools to deal with the matter themselves just seems to me to be obviously preferable to the alternative- mostly because independence of thought, intellectual integrity, and individualism are things I value extremely highly.

Yes but you can't really teach a kid to fish if the kid can't even walk. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate anything that shows why a parent should not be able to teach their child that their religion is true until such a point when the child has begun to exercise critical thought. At that point in time the discussion about I believe vs others believe becomes important. Not before. Asking parents to jump through a bunch of hoops, dodge questions, or give superfluous discussion points that are going to fly above any three year old's head is not only ignorant but moronic.

Nothing you or anyone else has suggested has shown that this "religious indoctrination" causes any harm whatsoever. The most tenuous argument that some have made is that teaching a child that your beliefs are facts gives a preference toward your beliefs when the child discovers they are not facts.

Unfortunately even that slight harm which you wave diminishes if the child is taught, once they have critical thinking skills, that those truths were really beliefs. "And guess what? Mommy and Daddy aren't perfect or all knowing so they could be wrong. But this is why we believe what we do and here is what others believe and why.

There is no reason to try to dictate the little choices of parenting. If your argument was simply that responsible parents should give children information when they are ready, then you would not have anyone to argue. Instead, asinine claims about parents severely impacting their children by telling them god is real abound.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you objectively say she would have been better off not being catholic?

In her case, yes, I think she would have been.

Everything has benefits and costs. Simply because something has disadvantages doesnt mean it is inherently bad and not at all good.

Actually, in this case, I'd say that it is only about the bad.

In an approach that's not rooted in a single religion, we can steal good ideas from anywhere. If something is demonstrably good - whether or not it has its origins in religion - then anyone can use it too. Restricting yourself to one religion means that you lose some of your ability to incorporate good outside ideas and you're obliged to accept your religion's bad ideas.

Do you think all catholics believe you will go to hell? I can tell you as a matter of fact that no, they dont. So its not inherent to catholicism, it is inherent to a specific form of its teaching. Likewise, you dont know how many things tha tyou love about your wife, wouldnt have been so were she had raised without such religion.

So its not a reasonable evaluation what you are proposing. You simply cant reasonably jump to that conclusion.

I can't jump to the conclusion that people who are raised in the Catholic Church will be taught the catechism and that at least some of them will take it seriously? You must be joking.

 

[ChristineES]

How do you know? Just because someone is functional doesn't mean they haven't been harmed.

Also, much of the harm I've touched on has to do with people who leave the faith they were raised in. Many people never leave the faith they were raised in.


My ex was raised Catholic. I remember several occasions when she ended up uncontrollably bawling because I couldn't bring myself to be baptized and she was sure I'd end up in Hell because of it. Do you think she was better off for the experience?

What does being baptized as a baby have to do with what religion a person follows in their adult life? Your ex was obviously still a practicing Catholic or she wouldn't have been so upset. Sure, a lot of babies who were baptized as Catholic do become Catholic but some do not. I was trying to point out that latter fact, that being baptized as a baby doesn't necessarily mean the person will grow up to be a practicing Catholic.

I was raised with no religion whatsoever, was never taught it. And I became a Christian when I was nearly 18 years old. I am not unusual, most people learn to think for themselves- maybe they'll follow the same faith as their parents taught them, maybe they'll follow a different faith, or maybe they will practice no religion. My son is not unusual, although I am a Christian, and my husband is one, and my daughter is one, my son has decided that there is no God and he doesn't want to follow any religion. I don't think my family can that different from most other families.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The whys always have an end. Ultimately, s/he will have to trust your information and will do because you are his father (more likely than not)

"What does this mean in this test?" "Iteans this and this" " how do I know this is true?" "Because this and this organizations made those observations" "how do I know those are the organizations that made those observations?" "Bcause you can see it on this webpage" "how do I know this webpage is not a fake?"

Etc etc

There comes a point where there are no reasonable directly provable whys left.

There are ways to measure the curvature of the Earth that even a young child can do. Heck... elementary school kids can even confirm heliocentrism for themselves the way Galileo did if a transit of Venus happens.

 

[Me Myself]

In her case, yes, I think she would have been.


Actually, in this case, I'd say that it is only about the bad.

In an approach that's not rooted in a single religion, we can steal good ideas from anywhere. If something is demonstrably good - whether or not it has its origins in religion - then anyone can use it too. Restricting yourself to one religion means that you lose some of your ability to incorporate good outside ideas and you're obliged to accept your religion's bad ideas.


I can't jump to the conclusion that people who are raised in the Catholic Church will be taught the catechism and that at least some of them will take it seriously? You must be joking.

Plase do address my post oinmresponse to "The earth is round here is the test"

In her case, yes, I think she would have been.


Actually, in this case, I'd say that it is only about the bad.

In an approach that's not rooted in a single religion, we can steal good ideas from anywhere. If something is demonstrably good - whether or not it has its origins in religion - then anyone can use it too. Restricting yourself to one religion means that you lose some of your ability to incorporate good outside ideas and you're obliged to accept your religion's bad ideas.


I can't jump to the conclusion that people who are raised in the Catholic Church will be taught the catechism and that at least some of them will take it seriously? You must be joking.

For what Ive seen, your reading comprehension is usually much better than that peng.

That is not at all what I ve said. Of course you can know that some may. Believe that. If you ar einterested in what conclusion I did say you cannot jump to, you are welcome to re-read or tell me in which part did I expressed myself in a way that was confusing.



Edit: i see you did addressed it, cool beans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What does being baptized as a baby have to do with what religion a person follows in their adult life? Your ex was obviously still a practicing Catholic or she wouldn't have been so upset. Sure, a lot of babies who were baptized as Catholic do become Catholic but some do not. I was trying to point out that latter fact, that being baptized as a baby doesn't necessarily mean the person will grow up to be a practicing Catholic.

It's a promise by the parents and godparents that they'll do their best to ensure the child grows up to be Catholic. The issue isn't so much with the promise as it is with the following through on the promise... and many parents do follow through.

And as for the ones that don't... I question the value of teaching a child through their actions that it's okay to disregard a promise.

 

[Me Myself]

There are ways to measure the curvature of the Earth that even a young child can do. Heck... elementary school kids can even confirm heliocentrism for themselves the way Galileo did if a transit of Venus happens.

A bunch of other options can appear in a kids mind. Most of which we would cathegorize as obviously wrong ( and I would agree) but we woudl need to depend onot immidiate sources of knowledge to debunk such hypothesis.

They could think its some form of optical ilussion they dont understand (if they have seen optical ilussions elsewhere) ey could think on the sky as a form of big screethat can appear whatever who ever is controling it wants it to appear ( which could not be discarded (although obviously it cannot be evidenced) without space exploratioand other methods) etc.

I think you are underestimating the imaginaiton of a kid and the degree of trust that we give a lot of organisations.

People have "evidenced" "directly" things that we today see as obviously wrong before.

 

[Me Myself]

So, basically that.

There is always an issue of trust, there are always more "why"s and "what if"s

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seriously think that this constitutes harm?

I was baptized as a 12 year old. That splash of water, and my lifelong registry as a Lutheran, have absoutely no impact on me whatsoever.

How much less would a baby care? Or someone who doesn't even remember the rite?

I think it constitutes disrespect for the child as a person to baptize them "for life" before they're old enough to choose this for themselves.

I agree that a single disrespectful act that happens to a person as a baby (Edit: can certainly be overcome) but:

- I think that more often than not, disrespectful acts don't happen isolation. If it's just one act out of a larger trend, that trend can potentially be very damaging. At the very least, I think that a parenting approach that's respectful of the child can be beneficial, and treating the chikd with disrespect is incompatible with this.

- looking at infant baptism in isolation, I think that the balance is tipped against doing it... even though it's not the end of the world if it happens.

 

[idav]

I think it constitutes disrespect for the child as a person to baptize them "for life" before they're old enough to choose this for themselves.

I agree that a single disrespectful act that happens to a person as a baby, but:

- I think that more often than not, disrespectful acts don't happen isolation. If it's just one act out of a larger trend, that trend can potentially be very damaging. At the very least, I think that a parenting approach that's respectful of the child can be beneficial, and treating the chikd with disrespect is incompatible with this.

- looking at infant baptism in isolation, I think that the balance is tipped against doing it... even though it's not the end of the world if it happens.

Yeah we are brainwashed by the culture. Round here boys get baptized and circumcised before day 10. Ive heard countries with worse rituals but the things we do cause everyone els does is amazing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah we are brainwashed by the culture. Round here boys get baptized and circumcised before day 10. Ive heard countries with worse rituals but the things we do cause everyone els does is amazing.

BTW: I've edited the post you quoted. Looks like I forgot half a sentence. My fault for posting right after I wake up.

 

[Koldo]

The entirety of the premise for this thread and everything resulting from it. It's completely idiotic.

I was talking about my posts.
What in my post were you argumenting against specifically?

No. You just reveled in an emotional appeal for reasons I can't imagine. Also, before you complain it wasn't one, look up the ******* fallacy first. Promoting a suicide said to be for specific reasons we can't know are true in the face of the hideous number of total suicides is either a fallacious appeal or an abandonment of critical argumentation. Take your pick.

I think you should be the one to read what the fallacy is all about before suggesting others to do so. This is a blatant misrepresentation of what was said.

 

[Koldo]

And, as I've shown, it was not relevant. Millions of people espouse heaven, and millions do not commit suicide based on that teaching.

Just because a lot of people do not commit suicide due to that belief, it does not mean that this said belief can not be relevant to trigger suicide on a particular case.

Likewise, a lot of people can drink milk without a problem whatsoever, and yet some people are so allergic to milk that they die after drinking it.

 

[Koldo]

Oh no no, let us know that the text is a statistically confirmed and unbiased 100% correct in every word and dot report of what happens when you teach any religion to any kid.

You can not dismiss a suicide being caused by a religious belief on the grounds that statistically speaking the prevalance of suicides on christians is not particularly higher than in other groups.

One thing is to say that this death is not statistically relevant.
Another is to say that it had nothing to do with a religious belief.

 

[Koldo]

Pretending my case is the case is as ridiculous as thinking every religious child will commit suicide to meet parents in heaven or that each children raised without religion is at greater risk of suicide.

And who is doing that?

 

[Magic Man]

No, she did it because she was mentally unstable. The loss of her dad was the catalyst.

How do you know she was mentally unstable? And don't say because she committed suicide.

The point is that "suicide" is not a teaching in her religion. The sanctity of life is. The suicide is a result of aberrant thinking, not religious teaching.

And the point is in this instance, a girl killed herself due to the belief that she'd go to heaven to see her dad.

 

[Magic Man]

2) So telling your child that God is real, or Karma is real, or attaining enlightenment is truly possible is unacceptable?

It's certainly not ideal.

You want people to treat their children as agnostics and let them discover their own way. I get that. However, this is all based on your belief that this is the best way to raise a child. It is not a fact. It is not provable. It is merely a belief which you would like parents to implement.

We're talking about religious beliefs, where there are hundreds or thousands of conflicting beliefs in the world, and none of them is any more provable than the others. When dealing with beliefs like that, it's not unreasonable to say that the best way to go about teaching children is to let them choose for themselves.

 

[ChristineES]

What about this scenario. In Churches I've attended, children who were aged about 9 or older make their own decisions to be baptized (I've never seen anyone under the age of 9 be baptized). Do you agree with that practice?

 

[ChristineES]

It's certainly not ideal.



We're talking about religious beliefs, where there are hundreds or thousands of conflicting beliefs in the world, and none of them is any more provable than the others. When dealing with beliefs like that, it's not unreasonable to say that the best way to go about teaching children is to let them choose for themselves.

You know, that's all well and good. But how can a child make a decision about any belief if he or she doesn't learn about them? I've known about children who were 9 or so years old making decisions about the same faith as parents, a different faith than parents, and rejecting any religion at all. Do you think that they're too young to make that decision for themselves at that age? The thing is, children don't just learn about faith from their parents, they also can learn it from their peers at school. This is especially true here in California where we have a very diverse student body.