Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[sojourner]

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.

How dumb is this?! You can't equate a milk allergy with a belief system. The fact is that people don't commit suicide unless they're unbalanced. The girl probably would have made another excuse if she hadn't been Christian.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

We ve talked about this, and nope you are not.

Morality would be accepted as indoctrination for that definition and a lot of religious upbringing doesnt inherently discard for the kid the posibilities of other religions. Mine never did.

About fact, you are pretending is is a provable piece of information which is not the same as a true piece of information.


You even said that if you watched a crime but cant prove it to society in general, then the crime is not a fact.

That goes against the definition that says fact is a true piece of information.

Have you changed your mind since?

 

[sojourner]

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.

It wasn't the belief that did it -- "believing that Daddy's in heaven" isn't cause to commit suicide. Believing that "my pain will go away if I commit suicide" isn't part of the Christian belief system.

 

[Magic Man]

We ve talked about this, and nope you are not.

Morality would be accepted as indoctrination for that definition and a lot of religious upbringing doesnt inherently discard for the kid the posibilities of other religions. Mine never did.

Only if that's the way you're teaching morality. I don't advocate teaching morality like that. Some religious upbringing doesn't discard other possibilities, but most in this country does.

About fact, you are pretending is is a provable piece of information which is not the same as a true piece of information.

Yes, it is.

You even said that if you watched a crime but cant prove it to society in general, then the crime is not a fact.

That goes against the definition that says fact is a true piece of information.

Have you changed your mind since?

No, it doesn't go against the definition.

 

[sojourner]

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.

That belief, however, is patently not within the realm of Christian teaching. In fact, if you get right down to it, if she thinks "Daddy's in heaven," then killing herself won't get her to heaven, because suicide places one in hell -- not heaven -- according to traditional teaching.

 

[Magic Man]

It wasn't the belief that did it -- "believing that Daddy's in heaven" isn't cause to commit suicide. Believing that "my pain will go away if I commit suicide" isn't part of the Christian belief system.

But "believing that I will see daddy if I kill myself" is part of the Christian belief system, and it's the particular one that made her kill herself.

 

[Falvlun]

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".

You aren't the only voice on your side of the fence. It ranges from your mild outrage to more vehement opposition.

Regardless, I think both of our interpretations are much closer to the mark than Peng's. The problem isn't that people are misinterpreting yours, and his, position as claiming that "all religious beliefs are harmful".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Until you can explain in clear language what "taking care of them spiritually" entails and why it's necessary, I think it's premature to make judgements about whether a particular parenting approach provides it.

Earlier, you said that values are religion. I fail to see how dunking a baby in water has anything to do with values.

 

[Me Myself]

Only if that's the way you're teaching morality. I don't advocate teaching morality like that. Some religious upbringing doesn't discard other possibilities, but most in this country does.



Yes, it is.



No, it doesn't go against the definition.

So, something is not true until society in general knows it?

I am sorry, thats just false and definetely not in tune with the definition of "true"

 

[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 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.

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.

Your argument is that kids shouldn't be baptized because they are too young to make that sort of commitment, and they shouldn't be put in a position to break a promise.

BFF statements are unlikely to be honored "forever". Thus, by the same reasoning, parents shouldn't condone or allow their children to choose to get these-- just as you don't think a 9 year old should be allowed to choose to be baptized.

Baptism no more "ties you down" to a particular religion than a BFF necklace requires you to remain friends with this person forever. There is no legal ramification. A person is just as free to change their mind and walk out of that religion as if they had never been baptized.

And if we are talking about disrespect, I think it much more disrespectful to tell a 9 year old "You aren't old enough to know that, right now, you want to be a Christian and you'd like to demonstrate that by being baptized" than it ever could be to baptize a baby-- who could really care less about the whole deal.

 

[ChristineES]

But "believing that I will see daddy if I kill myself" is part of the Christian belief system, and it's the particular one that made her kill herself.

A young girl believing she will see "daddy" has nothing to do with my or even the girl's faith. If it did, every person who lost a loved one would be killing themselves and we just don't do that. The girl was troubled and that is why she killed herself.

 

[Falvlun]

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

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.

How many people who were raised in the US can't shake the irrational fear in adulthood that George Washington will punish them after they die for immigrating to another country?

It would probably help if you had acknowledged the second half of that quote:

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

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.

Thus, the end result isn't the distinguishing factor. The distinguishing factor is the methodology, how you get to the end point.

Homicide and accidental death both have the same result-- a dead person. So why do we have different words or ways of thinking about them? Because how they get there is a relevant difference.

It seems to me that you are calling homicide on an accidental death.

Here, I was addressing the usage of the word "brainwashing" and whether it is appropriately applied to raising a child to believe a particular religion.

Whether a particular belief is harmful is a different question, as I explained in the second half.

(I am of the opinion that, no, the level of harm we are talking about here, in most usual cases, is not really worth the amount of outrage being thrown at it.)

 

[Curious George]

Earlier, you said that values are religion. I fail to see how dunking a baby in water has anything to do with values.

Simple. Many parents value cleanliness. So despite their children's protests, the parents dunk them in soapy water every night.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

Duly noted, and I think that is a reasonable distinction.

"Indoctrination" certainly has negative connotations, however, I can see it being applicable, and especially so, if you apply the same meaning to other forms of childhood education.

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.

Is not "now realize there is a reason to believe" the operative phrase there? At the time, I did not know these reasons. I believed because that's what I was taught.

Likewise, children raised in religious households can later "realize that there is a reason to believe" beyond simply "my parents told me". (Just as they can "realize that there isn't a reason to believe".

Thus, future-understanding really isn't relevant.

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.

Ah, but you are falling out of the agreed-upon definition of indoctrination above: Belief that something is true because an authority figure told me.

It doesn't matter whether a fact can be proved beyond the authority figure. What matters is how they are taught the fact, and the reason that they currently believe it to be true. Like I said-- content isn't the distinguishing factor-- in indoctrination or brainwashing. The distinguishing factor is the method in which something is taught.

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.

And you don't think that this is possible with religious beliefs?

Children grow up into adults. Many of these people will either embrace the religion in which they are raised, and find reasons to corroborate their belief. Some of these people will decide that it's all a load of BS.

You are claiming that the ability to learn about something in the future makes something not "indoctrination". If that's the case, well, then teaching your kid religion isn't indoctrination.

 

[Falvlun]

I am a person who was indeed actually bothered by the religious things in which I took part.

In a way, I would have prefered not to have been baptized and not to have done confirmation. My parents just made me go through those because they thought it would be better for socialization although they dont believe it is important anways in and on itself. They werent even married by the church.

Even then, I understand I am an anomaly, and they did what they did because they thought it was the best. I am sure it has been the best for a lot of other children. I am just not one of them.

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.

I think there is a difference between being bothered by something and being harmed by it.

Lots of things are going to bother us. Parents make their kids do a lot of things the kids don't want to do, like participate in a particular sport. Yeah, it might suck, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you were harmed.

Not saying that you weren't harmed, but just wanted to provide my two cents on the harmed vs bothered scenario.

 

[Me Myself]

I think there is a difference between being bothered by something and being harmed by it.

Lots of things are going to bother us. Parents make their kids do a lot of things the kids don't want to do, like participate in a particular sport. Yeah, it might suck, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you were harmed.

Not saying that you weren't harmed, but just wanted to provide my two cents on the harmed vs bothered scenario.

Meh, I wouldnt say harmed at all. Just bothered.

 

[sojourner]

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.

So... parents shouldn't teach their children to commit to things that are important?

 

[Willamena]

Earlier, you said that values are religion. I fail to see how dunking a baby in water has anything to do with values.

Sacrament.

 

[Magic Man]

Is not "now realize there is a reason to believe" the operative phrase there? At the time, I did not know these reasons. I believed because that's what I was taught.

Likewise, children raised in religious households can later "realize that there is a reason to believe" beyond simply "my parents told me". (Just as they can "realize that there isn't a reason to believe".

Thus, future-understanding really isn't relevant.

Except that the reason they find those reasons later is that they were indoctrinated in the first place. Again, this brings up the fact that most children end up members of the religion of their parents. If you have 100 couples bring their kids up as Christians and 100 bring their kids up without religious beliefs at all, chances are 75% or more of the first group will end up Christians, while a tiny percentage of the latter group will end up Christians, like maybe 1-5%.

Meanwhile, if you have a group of 100 couples bring up their kids with the teaching that George Washington was the first president, and 100 couples bring up their kids without that teaching, probably 100% of both groups' children will end up realizing Washington was the first president.

Ah, but you are falling out of the agreed-upon definition of indoctrination above: Belief that something is true because an authority figure told me.

It doesn't matter whether a fact can be proved beyond the authority figure. What matters is how they are taught the fact, and the reason that they currently believe it to be true. Like I said-- content isn't the distinguishing factor-- in indoctrination or brainwashing. The distinguishing factor is the method in which something is taught.

I think you're thinking too small. We agree on the "belief that something is true because an authority figure told me" definition. What I'm saying is that there are many ways to verify things like George Washington being the first president. I agree most things shouldn't be taught as "because I said so". However, I don't think the method of teaching is the whole story. As I said above, whether or not you teach a child that Washington was the first president, he can learn it later and accept it because it's verified in many different ways. He never has to accept it just because you say so. With a belief like "God exists", if he doesn't accept it early on because you say so, he's extremely unlikely to accept it as an adult.

And you don't think that this is possible with religious beliefs?

Children grow up into adults. Many of these people will either embrace the religion in which they are raised, and find reasons to corroborate their belief. Some of these people will decide that it's all a load of BS.

You are claiming that the ability to learn about something in the future makes something not "indoctrination". If that's the case, well, then teaching your kid religion isn't indoctrination.

This all comes down to why something is accepted. I submit that no adult accepts the fact that George Washington was the first president just because a teacher or their parents once told them so. I also submit that ultimately all adults raised in a religion they adhere to as adults are ultimately accepting the religious beliefs as fact because their parents and religious leaders (and maybe others) told them so. They may later find arguments or "evidence" they think supports their beliefs, but that's really only because of the indoctrination. That's why the same arguments and "evidence" convince extremely few people not raised in that religion, whereas regardless of what they were taught as children, the evidence is more than enough to convince them as adults that George Washington was the first president.

 

[Koldo]

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

That wouldn't be sufficient.