Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

Religion is culturally imbedded.

And? Extricate it.

 

[Magic Man]

Because in our culture, it's the duty of the parents to rear their children according to values they believe are worthwhile and conducive to the fostering of wholeness.

Great, and those values shouldn't involve putting their own beliefs in their children's heads.

 

[Koldo]

I would think the fact that she was disturbed enough to choose suicide would be enough to suspect that she was not in the most rational state of mind,...

I disagree.
I wouldn't, a priori, consider any person who commited suicide to be irrational for doing that.

...but regardless, do you automatically accept everything you're told as reliable teuth until it's disproven? Most of the rest of us try to use our critical thinking skills when we're presented with a claim.

I do use critical thinking skill when I am presented with a claim. On this particular case, there is a suicide note explaining her reasons. There is no other evidence to show that this note is bogus.

Allow me to clarify this point though: I am not saying this belief was sufficient in itself to make her go through with the suicide. Otherwise, many other people would have done the same. What I am saying is that this belief was particularly important, essential, for this suicide to happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When a person says they are killing themselves to be with their dead loved ones, while there are other factors in play, we have to acknowledge that their belief that they'd see their loved ones again played a significant role. The point of the example was just to show how religious beliefs, even mild and comforting ones, can be harmful, not that religion is so horrible it causes everyone to do this.

I think you have some messed up views about the rationality of people during bouts of mental illness, and I think it's bizarre to blame a religion with a prohibition on suicide for someone's suicide.

 

[Curious George]

Great, and those values shouldn't involve putting their own beliefs in their children's heads.

On what basis. You want to infringe upon parental rights, but only offer tenuous, unsound reasoning. Some could certainly make the case for specific actions or methodologies, but these arguments make no rational claim that extends to religion; they only make claims that are already covered or ought to be covered under child abuse. Religion need not enter the conversation, thus the introduction of religion likely stems from personal bias.

 

[sojourner]

Worth is a construct. It is whatever people make it out to be.

Didn't I just say that?

As a reader, I say: It can.

Nope. Penguin asked what it meant to "take care of children spiritually." My answer was that it meant "providing a clear context in which [children] can grow in an intuitive understanding of their self-worth, in relationship with others and the world around them."
That can mean any number of things, but not every thing is conducive to an intuitive understanding of self-worth in relationship with others and the world around them. If, for example, one is taught that "you must obey me, or your mother will die," one's sense of self-worth is patently misunderstood. So, that context isn't included in the set of "clear contexts" I mentioned. Additionally, if the context, itself, isn't clear, then it doesn't count. A good example is saying "there's no difference between Christianity and Hinduism." Because there clearly is a difference between the two.

 

[psychoslice]

Of course we are going to condition and program our children, we name them, bring them up in the way we believe is the best for them, we send them to school and there they are also programmed. I feel what we all should do, even in schools, is to teach children to question everything, to think for themselves, with this tool they will then grow up as better adults. But the sad fact is that we are too frightened to do this, society wants children to grow up and to fit their sick world, governments don't like people thinking for themselves, it threatens their plans, or the way they think the world should be, and so we then have robots called society, or culture which we all try to protect.

 

[sojourner]

And? Extricate it.

it doesn't work that way. Religion, for the religious, is part of their cultural context. If you extricate religion, the context changes.

 

[sojourner]

Great, and those values shouldn't involve putting their own beliefs in their children's heads.

Of course they should! Because the religious beliefs are part of the values the parents deem worthwhile.

 

[sojourner]

I wouldn't, a priori, consider any person who commited suicide to be irrational for doing that.

Really?!
Srrsly?

The psychiatric community would disagree with you.

 

[Koldo]

Didn't I just say that?

Not at all.
You just said there is such a thing as 'invalid' worth.
You don't recognize that people may build it on different grounds that may seem invalid from your perspective but valid from theirs.

Nope. Penguin asked what it meant to "take care of children spiritually." My answer was that it meant "providing a clear context in which [children] can grow in an intuitive understanding of their self-worth, in relationship with others and the world around them."
That can mean any number of things, but not every thing is conducive to an intuitive understanding of self-worth in relationship with others and the world around them. If, for example, one is taught that "you must obey me, or your mother will die," one's sense of self-worth is patently misunderstood.

How so?
How is self-worth being patently misunderstood?

So, that context isn't included in the set of "clear contexts" I mentioned. Additionally, if the context, itself, isn't clear, then it doesn't count. A good example is saying "there's no difference between Christianity and Hinduism." Because there clearly is a difference between the two.

So, a clear context is a context where there are no lies?

 

[Koldo]

Really?!
Srrsly?

Yes, seriously.

The psychiatric community would disagree with you.

Then do me a favour and call them to this topic.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh, you are well aware of it.

So you pretend to know that I am deliberately lying to you?

At least when I make empathic judgements, I spend more time with the person

By your apparent tendency to jump to the easiest answer, you seem to be the one going on hunches, not me.

 

[Koldo]

So you pretend to know that I am deliberately lying to you?

At least when I make empathic judgements, I spend more time with the person

By your apparent tendency to jump to the easiest answer, you seem to be the one going on hunches, not me.

I know what I know.

And I am fairly certain of where you stand. Where your bias lies. And you are aware of it as well.

 

[sojourner]

Not at all.
You just said there is such a thing as 'invalid' worth.
You don't recognize that people may build it on different grounds that may seem invalid from your perspective but valid from theirs.

Nope.
I said (from post #1175):

What's "of worth is up for grabs."

You said:

Worth is a construct. It is whatever people make it out to be.

That's the same thing.

I qualified my statement with this:

That worth is valid so long as it promotes healthy self-awareness and self-differentiation. Worth is invalid if that worth is dependent upon some arbitrary condition.

How is self-worth being patently misunderstood?

Because one's self-worth isn't predicated upon codependent conditions enforced upon one from outside oneself.

So, a clear context is a context where there are no lies?

A clear context is one which is based upon truth.

 

[Me Myself]

I know what I know.

And I am fairly certain of where you stand. Where your bias lies. And you are aware of it as well.

Actually, I am just honestly surprised at how sure you are with so little information.

You truly seem to jump to conclusions with extremely superficial information.

There is little I can tell you. If you knew me, you would know that one of my main principles is that one must strive to know oneself and that I dont expect anyone's judgement about themselves to need to be accurate until evidenced against it. Any of my friends can tell you this.

If you knew me you would also know I take great time before pretending I more or less know someone and there are even circumstances with people I ve known for years and very intimately that I will tell them " This is my understanding from what I know of you, but I cant be certain because I have not seen you much on these circumstances and because of x y and z, but the contrary would surprise me"

Really, believe as you must, but you are making a very ironic and funny mistake.

I have no reason to lie to you about this. I have little doubt you invented one or a cuple in your head though.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, seriously.

How disturbing!

Then do me a favour and call them to this topic.

Irrelevant. The accepted norms of human behavior do not depend upon "who's here."

 

[Curious George]

I know what I know.

And I am fairly certain of where you stand. Where your bias lies. And you are aware of it as well.

I am not so sure where his bias lies in this argument. If you review his posts, here and in other threads, you will find that he doesn't necessarily argue in favor of religion or against it. I think that he demonstrates a bias toward parental discretion in parenting matters but that is hardly irrational.

 

[Me Myself]

I am not so sure where his bias lies in this argument. If you review his posts, here and in other threads, you will find that he doesn't necessarily argue in favor of religion or against it. I think that he demonstrates a bias toward parental discretion in parenting matters but that is hardly irrational.

And not to say I already said that any beleif including religious ones can be used to rationalize suicide or lead to beleive scide is the best option.

I have just told him I dont believe every claim about motives of every stranger who comitted suicide to be inherently trustworthy to truly know it is as it says.

Apparently, this is controversial.

 

[Koldo]

Nope.
I said (from post #1175):

You said:

That's the same thing.

I qualified my statement with this:

I don't comprehend what you are saying here.

You said: ''Worth is invalid if that worth is dependent upon some arbitrary condition.''

This means there is such a thing as invalid worth according to you.
What do you disagree with?

Because one's self-worth isn't predicated upon codependent conditions enforced upon one from outside oneself.

I have absolutely no idea how "you must obey me, or your mother will die'' has anything to do with this...

Either way,
What if i disagree with you?
Why should I see self-worth the same way as you do?

A clear context is one which is based upon truth.

Then a whole lot of people are not living in a clear context as their parents are telling them to follow their religions. I am not saying all religions are untrue, but rather that so many of them contradict one another that it is safe to say that many religions are not based completely upon truth.