Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If a parent bases the bond with their child on a shared religion, what would happen if the child decides on a different religious path?



A person's career or spouse can have a huge impact on their happiness if not their well-being. If a parent cares about what will happen to his child in the future, shouldn't he choose these things for his child, too? After all, the parent is the one with the greater life experience and maturity; he's more likely to make a better decision than the child... no?

Parents disapprove of who a person is going to marry all the time. Many times they don't actively force the child out of their life for doing it, but they sometimes do.

Many parents share their religion with their children, and it certainly isn't the only way to bond. Some parents reject their child, some don't. I can speak from experience about this...but that's personal lol

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, I was in hurry when I wrote that- I had to take my son to his bus.

I don't think arranged marriage is the same as religion. As I said earlier, religion is becoming a scapegoat of the world's problems, as I see it.

Although there is a problem with brainwashing, I see no problem with indoctrination. I am not sure why I would need to keep my religion away from my children. I am not ashamed of it and I don't hide it from anyone else. My children, however, felt comfortable following their own path- I made sure of that in my household (although my husband does not).

I think that arranged marriage is a very appropriate analogy. And it's not a matter of thinking that religion is bad; it's a matter of acknowledging that certain things are so central to a person's identity that denying a person's autonomy amounts to disrespecting the person as an individual. I'd include religious beliefs in this category along with things like political affiliation, choice of career, and choice of spouse. IMO, trying to channel a child into a particular path on any of these decisions implies fundamental disrespect for the child. It's an unloving act from the people who are supposed to love the child the most.

 

[metis]

I'd hypothesize that the positive effects have more to do with being taught morals, respect of elders, and a sense of community. Perhaps organised religion is a path to those, in your opinion?

Yes, I very much agree with what you write above. However, don't take what I wrote to be a blanket endorsement of all organized religion because there's a lot of negative that can come out of organized religion as well as we've seen.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's not really teaching kids what they should believe, at least not the way I did it. When my kids were little kids, they couldn't have possibly have understood my faith. It would be the same, at that age, as teaching about Santa Claus or watching TV and thinking the characters might be real. It isn't until they are older when they start to question things. (My kids were about 6 or 7 or so when they started to question things like that, or at least my son did).

People aren't giving children enough credit here. Except in extreme cases, children are not brainwashed. Most parents might be disappointed if their children followed a different faith than the one they follow or no faith at all, but the majority of parents would not reject their children.

Hmmm...I've never been accused of not giving children credit before. Usually I'm accused of expecting too much from them...lol

To be clear, I don't isolate religion from any other subject in this. My opinion is that the best indicator that a child is intellectually capable of discussing a topic is that they ask about it. Or show an interest.

In short, I wouldn't go out of my way to model religious behaviour, any more than I go out of my way to model non-religious behaviour (although I guess by that I'd mean anti-theistic behaviour? I mean...what's non-religious behaviour??)

I do try to educate my children about religious matters to a level I think they are capable of comprehending, when appropriate. I've had discussions with my eldest about the hijab, for example, and about some of the things she saw at a Christening. IN both cases she was interested because of what she saw.

I would like to think that other parents do the same. I would hazard a guess that a lot don't teach their kids about diversity, and I'd also suppose that a lot give them pretty biased information and coloured views where this does not need to be done. Again, I don't single our religion for this.

If my kids follow a religion, and can rationally discuss why they follow it, it wouldn't worry me in the slightest. I'm trying to teach them to think for themselves, and I think I've come to terms with the implications of that.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

I'm still wondering how your disagreeing is relevant to my hypothetical children's upbringing.

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.

No more or less than when I insist their decision making process end at the conclusion that alien reptiles do not rule the world or that the Pythagorean theorem accurately relays the relationship between the sides of a right triangle.

There is no divide between teaching facts and teaching mental skills.

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.

It isn't the dosage, it is the situational application. You reject not teaching fact, but that I teach my religion as fact.

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?

Certainly, and therein lies the essential difference and why we talk past each other. Your analogy is a matter of taste, mine are all matters of fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Parents disapprove of who a person is going to marry all the time.

I agree that sometimes this can be done in inappropriate ways. However, my position isn't that disrespect doesn't happen; it's that it's better for it not to happen.

Also, I think there's still a dividing line: it's one thing to provide information to someone to inform their decision (and I recognize that this can sometimes be done in a way that's coercive); it's another thing to try to deny the person their right to decide at all and make it for them instead.

 

[ChristineES]

Hmmm...I've never been accused of not giving children credit before. Usually I'm accused of expecting too much from them...lol

To be clear, I don't isolate religion from any other subject in this. My opinion is that the best indicator that a child is intellectually capable of discussing a topic is that they ask about it. Or show an interest.

In short, I wouldn't go out of my way to model religious behaviour, any more than I go out of my way to model non-religious behaviour (although I guess by that I'd mean anti-theistic behaviour? I mean...what's non-religious behaviour??)

I do try to educate my children about religious matters to a level I think they are capable of comprehending, when appropriate. I've had discussions with my eldest about the hijab, for example, and about some of the things she saw at a Christening. IN both cases she was interested because of what she saw.

I would like to think that other parents do the same. I would hazard a guess that a lot don't teach their kids about diversity, and I'd also suppose that a lot give them pretty biased information and coloured views where this does not need to be done. Again, I don't single our religion for this.

If my kids follow a religion, and can rationally discuss why they follow it, it wouldn't worry me in the slightest. I'm trying to teach them to think for themselves, and I think I've come to terms with the implications of that.

First, we both know I am not speaking about you about not giving children credit but to everyone, including myself.

There will always be parents who don't teach their children diversity at all, but, unless they are home schooled or totally isolated, they will have friends and peers at school, they watch Television (if the parents let them). I learned more about Christianity and other religions and other things from my friends at school and on TV then I did my parents. I grew up in California in a somewhat big area (near San Jose) and I learned a lot about different cultures, different values, etc that my parents could not teach me. More isolated areas would be a bit harder for teaching diversity, but not impossible.

I do agree somewhat, a child should not be forced to follow a faith if he or she doesn't want to and doesn't understand.

 

[1137]

When I was a child, my mother told me that "God doesn't exist". That isn't really teaching it, it was stating it (semantics, maybe?). I see the same between lesser religious parents who state to his or her child that God exists and an atheist telling his or her child that God doesn't exist. That isn't really the same as "teaching" it. And then there are parents who believe in God, yet follow no religion.

Staring it to a child who cannot question it nor understand that their parent might believe something that isn't true. You keep missing this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, we both know I am not speaking about you about not giving children credit but to everyone, including myself.

There will always be parents who don't teach their children diversity at all, but, unless they are home schooled or totally isolated, they will have friends and peers at school, they watch Television (if the parents let them). I learned more about Christianity and other religions and other things from my friends at school and on TV then I did my parents. I grew up in California in a somewhat big area (near San Jose) and I learned a lot about different cultures, different values, etc that my parents could not teach me. More isolated areas would be a bit harder for teaching diversity, but not impossible.

I do agree somewhat, a child should not be forced to follow a faith if he or she doesn't want to and doesn't understand.

All of this would also apply to political affiliation, too. A child will get exposed to all sorts of political beliefs in the course of growing up. Would this make it okay to enrol a baby as a lifetime member of the Republican Party (or Democratic Party, or whatever)? After all, he always has the option of cancelling his membership as an adult.

 

[ChristineES]

All of this would also apply to political affiliation, too. A child will get exposed to all sorts of political beliefs in the course of growing up. Would this make it okay to enroll a baby as a lifetime member of the Republican Party (or Democratic Party, or whatever)? After all, he always has the option of canceling his membership as an adult.

In my faith, a child isn't baptized as a baby, but only at a certain age and actually believes. But my father was a Catholic and had me and my brothers baptized as babies, but I never followed Catholicism. My father was not around to teach it to me. I don't consider myself a Catholic and I never have.

Not a real argument but just something to think about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No more or less than when I insist their decision making process end at the conclusion that alien reptiles do not rule the world or that the Pythagorean theorem accurately relays the relationship between the sides of a right triangle.

There is no divide between teaching facts and teaching mental skills.

There is if the conclusions you're pushing can't be demonstrated from facts and reasons. Care to demonstrate the truth of the Catholic Church? If you can, I'm sure the Pope wishes he had you around during the Reformation.

It isn't the dosage, it is the situational application. You reject not teaching fact, but that I teach my religion as fact.

No, I support not trying to shoehorn a child into a particular pigeon hole (is that an inappropriate mixing of metaphors? I bet a shoehorn could be used on a pigeon) on matters that are fundamental to a person's identity like religion.

Certainly, and therein lies the essential difference and why we talk past each other. Your analogy is a matter of taste, mine are all matters of fact.

If religion is a matter of fact and not taste, then any rational person who's privy to all the relevant facts would come to the same conclusion and accept the truth of the same set of religious beliefs. Do you think this is the case? Are you willing to declare every non-Catholic to be irrational?

 

[ChristineES]

Staring it to a child who cannot question it nor understand that their parent might believe something that isn't true. You keep missing this.

I am not missing this, I simply just don't agree. Even if a child is taught a religion at two years old, he or she will not even begin to understand it. Teaching it to them at age can do no harm (usually) if they don't even know what is being taught. If a child doesn't understand it, then I don't see how it could do him or her any harm.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not missing this, I simply just don't agree. Even if a child is taught a religion at two years old, he or she will not even begin to understand it. Teaching it to them at age can do no harm (usually) if they don't even know what is being taught. If a child doesn't understand it, then I don't see how it could do him or her any harm.

Then it's agreed: political party memberships for every baby!

 

[ChristineES]

Then it's agreed: political party memberships for every baby!

I didn't insinuate that!

I am not talking of a child JOINING a religion, just LEARNING about their parents religion. As far as I can see, a parent wanting to baptized their baby is for the parents, not the child. I don't agree with it but I also see no harm in a parent doing it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would hope that parents and children bond with more than just one thing.

It is possible to bond over religious topics without necessarily sharing a faith, too.

 

[ChristineES]

It is possible to bond over religious topics without necessarily sharing a faith, too.

Yes, true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't insinuate that!

I am not talking of a child JOINING a religion, just LEARNING about their parents religion. As far as I can see, a parent wanting to baptized their baby is for the parents, not the child. I don't agree with it but I also see no harm in a parent doing it.

When a baby is baptized in the Catholic Church, it's a declaration that, from that point forward, the baby is a Christian. That's the sort of practice I've bern talking about. From your clarification, I gather that you consider this practice inappropriate too. Do you agree?

 

[ChristineES]

When a baby is baptized in the Catholic Church, it's a declaration that, from that point forward, the baby is a Christian. That's the sort of practice I've bern talking about. From your clarification, I gather that you consider this practice inappropriate too. Do you agree?

To be truthful, I don't believe in baptizing babies or anyone else who doesn't understand about the faith. Baptizing is only for those who actually start follow Christianity on their own. I've had a lot of debates with Catholics about this very thing but never here on the RF. But it is more ritual and tradition, the way I see it. The Bible doesn't teach baptizing babies.

 

[thau]

As long as you maintain there is no evidence for God, then you have a point. But you are tragically wrong on that.

As long as you maintain there is no evidence for life after death, then you have a point. But because you are wrong that as well, only a very brainless or uncaring parent would abandon their children to the whims of the world (and teenage rebellion) and risk never seeing them again after death.

Your good intentions would yield tragic results, IMO.

 

[LuisDantas]

As long as you maintain there is no evidence for God, then you have a point. But you are tragically wrong on that.

As long as you maintain there is no evidence for life after death, then you have a point. But because you are wrong that as well, only a very brainless or uncaring parent would abandon their children to the whims of the world (and teenage rebellion) and risk never seeing them again after death.

Your good intentions would yield tragic results, IMO.

Uh... what are you talking about?