Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Falvlun]

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)?

I suppose we should ban "Best Friends Forever" necklaces too. You know, because it's like supporting child engagements.

 

[Falvlun]

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."

Not really. It's the claim that teaching your child a religious belief as a fact is harmful, and akin to brainwashing/child abuse, that people are arguing against.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose we should ban "Best Friends Forever" necklaces too. You know, because it's like supporting child engagements.

Who suggested banning anything?

As for the necklaces, as long as parents don't insist that their kids get them and don't make them out to be inviolable commitments, I think things will be fine.

 

[Willamena]

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."

Perhaps the real problem is people getting away with tautologies like "harmful religious beliefs are harmful."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps the real problem is people getting away with tautologies like "harmful religious beliefs are harmful."

What - you're going to dispute a tautology now?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Who has said that only the facts are worth learning? I hope you're not implying I've said that.

 

[Magic Man]

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."

I haven't argued that.

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.

Correct. If you're teaching them myths as myths are supposed to be taught, it's no problem. If you're teaching them myths as literal fact, that's a problem.

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.

Myths can certainly be taught as myths are meant to be. They just shouldn't be taught as literal fact, whereas literal facts should be taught as literal fact. I really don't understand why this is so complicated.

 

[Magic Man]

Not really. It's the claim that teaching your child a religious belief as a fact is harmful, and akin to brainwashing/child abuse, that people are arguing against.

Then I don't know why you're arguing that. The claim to argue against would be "teaching children religious beliefs as if they're facts to be accepted is indoctrination and not the best way to raise children".

 

[Willamena]

Then I don't know why you're arguing that. The claim to argue against would be "teaching children religious beliefs as if they're facts to be accepted is indoctrination and not the best way to raise children".

And why are religious beliefs singled out?

 

[Magic Man]

And why are religious beliefs singled out?

Well, they are the subject here. Any beliefs that are not supported by facts would qualify. I would say political beliefs and some others should also not be taught as facts. But religious beliefs are the most common ones taught to children in this ways.

 

[Willamena]

Well, they are the subject here. Any beliefs that are not supported by facts would qualify. I would say political beliefs and some others should also not be taught as facts. But religious beliefs are the most common ones taught to children in this ways.

And some religion is supported by facts, such as the immanence of a meaningful god in some people's lives. So the statement to argue is, "teaching children religious beliefs that are make-belief as if they are supported by facts is indoctrination and not the best way to raise children."

I think no one would disagree with that.

 

[Magic Man]

And some religion is supported by facts, such as the immanence of a meaningful god in some people's lives. So the statement to argue is, "teaching children religious beliefs that are make-belief as if they are supported by facts is indoctrination and not the best way to raise children."

I think no one would disagree with that.

Apparently some people do disagree with it, and it's also no different from what I said.

 

[Willamena]

Apparently some people do disagree with it, and it's also no different from what I said.

It wasn't what you said, it's all that's left of the thread to argue.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

We cant know if it did.

Just because she said she did it because of that doesnt mean that she wouldnt have done it were she an atheist (I cant live without my father, the pain is too big, etc)

Its imposible to know and given there are no statistic supporting higher rates suicides for theists or christians, there is no reason to infere it would have saved her.

 

[Me Myself]

Well, they are the subject here. Any beliefs that are not supported by facts would qualify. I would say political beliefs and some others should also not be taught as facts. But religious beliefs are the most common ones taught to children in this ways.

Your definitions of indoctrination, brainwashing and facts are alien to the dictionary definitions and the general understanding definitions of such words.

This opinions of yours are certainly not facts even by your invented standards.

 

[Magic Man]

Your definitions of indoctrination, brainwashing and facts are alien to the dictionary definitions and the general understanding definitions of such words.

Let's test that:

Indoctrinate: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs

Nope, looks like I'm using the dictionary definition. I haven't talked about brainwashing. Now for fact:

a true piece of information

So, looks like I'm using the dictionary definition of that too.

 

[Koldo]

We cant know if it did.

Just because she said she did it because of that doesnt mean that she wouldnt have done it were she an atheist (I cant live without my father, the pain is too big, etc)

Its imposible to know and given there are no statistic supporting higher rates suicides for theists or christians, there is no reason to infere it would have saved her.

It is impossible to determine with certainty what she would have done. However, it is nonetheless true that upholding such a belief was necessary for this particular suicide, unless you insist we must ignore what the text says.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Or is it more a sign of disrespect for the child's humanity as a child of God to not take care of them spiritually, until they are old enough to make those decisions for themselves.

Hey! Wait! I know! Let's just not feed our children until they're old enough to know about the intricacies of proper nutrition. Or better yet -- let's just let them decide what they want to eat as soon as they're born.

 

[ChristineES]

I've heard of kids killing themselves because their parents told them they couldn't date a certain person. I don't see anyone arguing against all kids dating to lessen that because most people know that dating wasn't what really caused the suicide. The same can be said for suicide of a girl who wanted to be with her father who died- religion isn't truly what caused the suicide.

 

[Me Myself]

It is impossible to determine with certainty what she would have done. However, it is nonetheless true that upholding such a belief was necessary for this particular suicide, unless you insist we must ignore what the text says.

Or unless I accept the writter of the text is fallible?