Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

That's seriously your criteria for determining whether something is "brainwashing"? Brainwashed: Believing that something is true that your parents have told you.

I'm talking about indoctrination, not brainwashing, just to be technical. But yes, believing something simply because your parents or some other authority figure told you so would be indoctrination.

In that case, I was "brainwashed" when my parents told me that vegetables were good for me.

I was "brainwashed" when my teacher taught me that George Washington was the first President.

This would make every single child brainwashed. After all, all of them believes something that their parents taught them.

Nope, none of that is brainwashing. I assume you now realize there is reason to believe vegetables are good for you other than your parents' say-so. Same with George Washington being the first president and other similar items.

I assume that you acknowledge a difference between "brainwashing" and teaching/informing/educating. What do you think that is?

It's when you can be expected to accept it for a reason other than because it's what you were taught. For instance, you can go to many sources to see that George Washington was the first president. There is no competing belief. It's a historical fact acknowledged by everyone. As opposed to the belief that Yahweh exists. There's a reason such a high percentage of children grow up to be members of the same religion as their parents, and yet people of every different culture acknowledge George Washington as the first president.

The end result of both could very well be the same: Children believing that something is true because they were told it was true by an authority figure.

Maybe at first. I don't doubt that most kids believe a lot of things just because an authority figure told them, but as I've said, the difference is with some things, they can learn later that there are plenty of other reasons to believe them.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes let's. Because this junk is called "appeal to emotion" and is generally recognized as a being a fallacious argument. It's illogical bunk that couldn't be less relevant. "The Soviet Union murdered and killed millions and it was atheist! Atheist indoctrination kills! Spread the word!" Please.

That has nothing at all to do with the article or the reason for posting it.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Yes, I do.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Exactly. To look at or talk to me, you'd put me in the group of "unharmed by religion" because I'm a perfectly good functioning member of society with no obvious major problems. However, I have been harmed by being indoctrinated in a religion, even if it didn't ruin my life.

 

[Magic Man]

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?

This has been covered multiple times. Learning about them is not the same as being indoctrinated in them. I plan to teach my kids about different religions to give them an understanding of what people believe and why, especially since Christianity is such a huge part of society here. But I'm not going to teach them any one religion as if it's the truth and factual.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Do you consider baptism to be (or symbolize) a lifetime commitment?

If so, would you consider a 9-year-old to be old enough for other lifetime commitments? For instance, is 9 too young for betrothal (rather than marriage so that we don't muddy the issue with the question of whether 9-year-olds should be having sex)?

 

[Magic Man]

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?

No, I think that's still a bit young to expect them to make informed decisions. I don't know why we'd expect them to make such a decision when we don't expect them to be capable of making other decisions like about sex, drugs, alcohol, voting, etc. for many years after that. I'd say if they want to be baptized when they're 16 or 18, more power to them.

Of course, this isn't the worst practice around; I'm just saying it's still not in the "best practices" category for me.

 

[Willamena]

I'm talking about indoctrination, not brainwashing, just to be technical. But yes, believing something simply because your parents or some other authority figure told you so would be indoctrination.



Nope, none of that is brainwashing. I assume you now realize there is reason to believe vegetables are good for you other than your parents' say-so. Same with George Washington being the first president and other similar items.



It's when you can be expected to accept it for a reason other than because it's what you were taught. For instance, you can go to many sources to see that George Washington was the first president. There is no competing belief. It's a historical fact acknowledged by everyone. As opposed to the belief that Yahweh exists. There's a reason such a high percentage of children grow up to be members of the same religion as their parents, and yet people of every different culture acknowledge George Washington as the first president.



Maybe at first. I don't doubt that most kids believe a lot of things just because an authority figure told them, but as I've said, the difference is with some things, they can learn later that there are plenty of other reasons to believe them.

Some people, at an age for critical thinking, do actually find good meaningful reasons to support the beliefs they were raised with, e.g. god is in the heart; god is relation, love or being; relation to god that is morally, culturally and existentially significant. Facts are not all that matter.

 

[Magic Man]

Some people, at an age for critical thinking, do actually find good meaningful reasons to support the beliefs they were raised with, e.g. god is in the heart; god is relation, love or being; relation to god that is morally, culturally and existentially significant. Facts are not all that matter.

That may well be, but it still doesn't support the teaching of religious beliefs to children as if they're factual.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My personal story involved a good amount of psychological distress. I was taught that to miss Christmas or Easter mass was a mortal sin (I asked the nun who taught Catechism that several times). That abortion was murder. That taking birth control pills was sinful. That homosexuality was an abomination. That God was male, Jesus was male, and there was nothing sacred with the feminine aspect of humanity.

As a queer female who was sick often and missed a good number of Sundays, I was quite terrified of going ot hell. But it didn't end with childhood....my distress became exponentially worse when I was "born again" in college and heard these messages more often. I once was ready to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger because of how worthless I felt according to what I heard consistently in a religious community that I wanted to be a part of.

Granted, I've forgiven a lot since I left the Christian community, but I'd be dishonest if I were to say that there was no harm in my religious upbringing. I think harm being done to people (including children) has been justified with doctrinal teachings.

What helped is the understanding that many of the injustices are cultural. It's culturally appropriate to raise a family in a particular faith, so much more is forgiven when it comes to religious teaching....as long as it's culturally accepted religious teaching.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think that's a fine age to explore, and definitely old enough for the child to express their own opinion on things, but a 9-year-old will change so much that I think it's a mistake to try to tie them to a particular path for the rest of their life.

 

[Willamena]

That may well be, but it still doesn't support the teaching of religious beliefs to children as if they're factual.

As was discussed earlier, children are not at an age where they can critically think well enough to distinguish literal statements from non-literal statements.

You may as well argue in favour of waiting until they are of age before they can become citizens.

 

[Magic Man]

As was discussed earlier, children are not at an age where they can critically think well enough to distinguish literal statements from non-literal statements.

So, don't teach them myths as being literally true.

You may as well argue in favour of waiting until they are of age before they can become citizens.

I have no idea how that follows.

 

[Willamena]

Teaching kids "only the facts, m'am" is for your benefit, not theirs. Kids don't need to distinguish that only the facts are worth learning--they have the whole world in front of them to learn.

 

[Willamena]

So, don't teach them myths as being literally true.

Yes. That's as bad as teaching them that only the facts matter.

 

[ChristineES]

This has been covered multiple times. Learning about them is not the same as being indoctrinated in them. I plan to teach my kids about different religions to give them an understanding of what people believe and why, especially since Christianity is such a huge part of society here. But I'm not going to teach them any one religion as if it's the truth and factual.

I understand. I was speaking more of a child at an age of about 9 or 10 and older choosing a religion. You've already said that a child should not make a religious decision until about 16 or so. But I disagree. I, personally, became a religious seeker at age 13. Before that, I heard about and learned about more than one religious idea from various people. My stepfather told me a tiny bit about his Buddhist upbringing, my friends at school were various denominations of Christianity, I had peers at school who followed other faiths. During my childhood, people went through a period of learning about reincarnation (because of a book called "Audrey Rose"). I thought about all of that- I found it all pretty intriguing although I followed no religion, never went to Church (although my mom let me go to Sunday school once or twice with friends). I don't remember my mother ever saying anything about religion whatsoever except to say "Jesus was just a good man" a couple of times. Edited to add: I became a Christian at 17.

 

[ChristineES]

I think that's a fine age to explore, and definitely old enough for the child to express their own opinion on things, but a 9-year-old will change so much that I think it's a mistake to try to tie them to a particular path for the rest of their life.

I've often thought about that. I would see younger children get baptized and wonder if they would change their minds later on. Even if they did, I don't think the baptism actually binds them to anything.

 

[Willamena]

You may as well argue in favour of waiting until they are of age before they can become citizens.

I have no idea how that follows.

My mind made a leap, sorry. You argued that children are indoctrinated, such as with the idea that George Washington was the first president, until they are of an age to critically think, open a text book and get the facts, and then it becomes "learning." You argued that with some topics, such as god, although the method is the same, that it's somehow different. When I pointed out that people can grow up to find meaningful reasons to support their belief in god, you argued that the problem lies in teaching those same "some" topics as if they are factual.

We teach kids things "as if" true, because that’s how beliefs are taught--we believe things are true. All beliefs. The statement that George Washington is the first president is accepted as belief by the student until the text book can be opened in the same way that the statement that god is real is accepted by the novice until the moment god is found in the heart. Then it becomes fact.

When you're at an age where you do not distinguish between the literal and the non-literal, you take the facts where they come--not just literal, in actual states of the world, but also in the non-literal places: in the meaning behind a gesture, a phrase or a look, in the value of delight or the emotion of music. Nothing fails to be facts--it's only when you reach the age where you're required to lump facts with the text books that "literal" enters the picture at all.

If there's an insistence that god not be taught because it's not supported by history, archaeology or text book, you fall into that trap.

 

[Willamena]

My personal story involved a good amount of psychological distress. I was taught that to miss Christmas or Easter mass was a mortal sin (I asked the nun who taught Catechism that several times). That abortion was murder. That taking birth control pills was sinful. That homosexuality was an abomination. That God was male, Jesus was male, and there was nothing sacred with the feminine aspect of humanity.

As a queer female who was sick often and missed a good number of Sundays, I was quite terrified of going ot hell. But it didn't end with childhood....my distress became exponentially worse when I was "born again" in college and heard these messages more often. I once was ready to put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger because of how worthless I felt according to what I heard consistently in a religious community that I wanted to be a part of.

Granted, I've forgiven a lot since I left the Christian community, but I'd be dishonest if I were to say that there was no harm in my religious upbringing. I think harm being done to people (including children) has been justified with doctrinal teachings.

What helped is the understanding that many of the injustices are cultural. It's culturally appropriate to raise a family in a particular faith, so much more is forgiven when it comes to religious teaching....as long as it's culturally accepted religious teaching.

It's accepted that religious beliefs can be harmful. The problem lies in generalizing religion as harmful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's accepted that religious beliefs can be harmful. The problem lies in generalizing religion as harmful.

Actually, I think the problem in this thread has more to do with people jumping to the conclusion that when someone says "harmful religious beliefs are harmful", they really mean "all religious beliefs are harmful."