Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

Whaddo ya know! The context has changed! Just as I said. You said "anymore." Apparently, you were part of it at one point in time.

I was, and it didn't help me connect. If they had not indoctrinated me, nothing would be different. That's my point. It's not a necessary component.

 

[Magic Man]

I do have a problem with the values of the WBC. I have a problem with the hate. It's not acceptable to me that they pass on that hate.

Good, then we're agreed that it's not as simple as "Well, it's the parents' beliefs, so they should pass them on".

However, that's the parents' prerogative -- whether we agree with it or not.

Of course. I don't think I've seen anyone say we should stop parents from passing on their beliefs, just that we consider certain approaches to this type of thing to be less than ideal.

 

[Magic Man]

But no one says that you shouldn't give your kids tools of your trade and let them play pretend.

But that's quite a bit different from imposing your religious beliefs on them.

And telling them that x is a good job (a belief) isn't condemned either.

And again, that's quite a bit different from imposing your religious beliefs on them.

 

[sojourner]

I was, and it didn't help me connect. If they had not indoctrinated me, nothing would be different. That's my point. It's not a necessary component.

No. It's one valid way. I believe it to be more helpful than not, since it unlocks imagination and fosters intuitive thinking on several levels.

This is a two-way street. It involves, not only the efficacy of the system, itself, but the serious attention of the practitioner. We can't expect religious practices to magically change us. We have to work at it, too.

 

[sojourner]

Good, then we're agreed that it's not as simple as "Well, it's the parents' beliefs, so they should pass them on".



Of course. I don't think I've seen anyone say we should stop parents from passing on their beliefs, just that we consider certain approaches to this type of thing to be less than ideal.

That's not what the OP stated, though.

 

[sojourner]

Limited perspectives?
Who is the one here with a limitless perspective?

No one has a limitless perspective. We all come with biases, preferences, and particular points of view.

 

[Willamena]

Limited perspectives?
Who is the one here with a limitless perspective?

The limited perspective isn't of a person, it was referred to objectively.

 

[Koldo]

No one has a limitless perspective. We all come with biases, preferences, and particular points of view.

Good. Then here we have the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Koldo]

The limited perspective isn't of a person, it was referred to objectively.

Could you elaborate?

 

[Magic Man]

No. It's one valid way. I believe it to be more helpful than not, since it unlocks imagination and fosters intuitive thinking on several levels.

I prefer to unlock imagination and foster intuitive thinking without imposing beliefs, though. Plus, I'm not sure who imposing beliefs on someone does either of those things, especially the second one.

This is a two-way street. It involves, not only the efficacy of the system, itself, but the serious attention of the practitioner. We can't expect religious practices to magically change us. We have to work at it, too.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

 

[Magic Man]

That's not what the OP stated, though.

What's not what the OP stated?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not surprised.

I most certainly do believe that the sacraments acknowledge the presence of grace. It is that acknowledgement that is ritualized in the act of baptism.

I see what you did there. :sarcastic

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you don't know the difference between the words "acknowledge" and "confer", or that you don't know full well the differences between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of the effect of the sacraments?

 

[ChristineES]

I prefer to unlock imagination and foster intuitive thinking without imposing beliefs, though. Plus, I'm not sure who imposing beliefs on someone does either of those things, especially the second one.



I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

What I am not understanding is this: How can force someone to believe? Sure, you can force a person to go through the motions (of a faith or something else) but you can't force someone to believe. And belief (or non-belief) isn't anything you can even force on yourself. I can't force myself to believe in anything- I either believe something or I don't believe something. We can think about it and weigh our options. A small child probably hasn't learned to do that and probably wouldn't be able to do that, but you still truly can't force someone to believe something and it's not even something we choose.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Rearing children at all is brainwashing. I'm sure somebody has already said that. Not teaching them your religion is brainwashing. Making them wash dishes is brainwashing. Any mistake you make, including letting them watch too much TV like my parents did, is brainwashing. Its all brainwashing, legal, normal and necessary unfortunately. I mean, even if you let them rear themselves in the woods like wolves, its still brainwashing.

sharing your ideas with them as they enter adolescence and allowing them to reflect and make the decision for themselves

I'm very late to the thread, but sharing ideas with adolescents and children is the same thing as telling them. You can try to make them believe it, but its about as effective as just sharing it. Teaching them anything is the challenge.

Now what I think is damaging to children is when a parent never ever lies to them about anything or conversely when they cannot trust their parents. Those are two extremes. If you never, ever lie then that is very strong brainwashing. Kids need to learn not to lie, but they should still know how to do it. It handicaps them if they can't comprehend lying. They also need to learn to value trust, and lies help with that, too.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not surprised.


I see what you did there. :sarcastic

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you don't know the difference between the words "acknowledge" and "confer", or that you don't know full well the differences between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of the effect of the sacraments?

Thanks for the cheap sarcasm. It's been duly noted and given the utmost attention it deserves. <flush>
The gift of the HS is conferred through the priest or minister, not by the priest or minister. Even in the Catholic Church. The sacrament, itself, is a visible sign of grace already at work. Even in the Catholic Church. That's how the sacraments are able to be efficacious -- even in the hands of a "faulty" priest.

 

[idav]

What I am not understanding is this: How can force someone to believe? Sure, you can force a person to go through the motions (of a faith or something else) but you can't force someone to believe. And belief (or non-belief) isn't anything you can even force on yourself. I can't force myself to believe in anything- I either believe something or I don't believe something. We can think about it and weigh our options. A small child probably hasn't learned to do that and probably wouldn't be able to do that, but you still truly can't force someone to believe something and it's not even something we choose.

What I understand of faith is that it isn't 100% certainty. It isn't forcing someone to think in a certain way but rather asking the person to have faith that something is true like, bible is truth, god is truth or whatever belief is being considered.

 

[sojourner]

Good. Then here we have the pot calling the kettle black.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you just throw an outright punch instead of a cheap jab?

 

[sojourner]

I prefer to unlock imagination and foster intuitive thinking without imposing beliefs, though.

Beliefs aren't "imposed." No one can force belief. Beliefs can be offered, suggested, shared, used metaphorically, but not imposed.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

It means that, many times when the religion isn't effective, it's due more to the practitioner or seeker not doing her or his due diligence, than it is to an inherent failure of the religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It means, in part, providing them with a clear context in which they can grow in an intuitive understanding of their self-worth, in relationship with others and the world around them. It's necessary in the same way any other holistic nurturing is necessary to healthy development.

Ah. So while what you call "spiritual development" is necessary, it's something that doesn't require things like religious rituals, mythology involving the supernatural, or arbitrary codes of behaviour at all.

And in fact, if self-worth is an integral part of spiritual development, then I'd say that any religion that teaches that we're all innately sinful or that humans are just "pots" that the potmaker can do with as he pleases (i.e. we have no worth beyond what God decides to bestow on us) would actually go against spiritual development. I realize that not all religious groups teach this, but a non-negligible number do.

 

[sojourner]

What I understand of faith is that it isn't 100% certainty. It isn't forcing someone to think in a certain way but rather asking the person to have faith that something is true like, bible is truth, god is truth or whatever belief is being considered.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for. It isn't "certainty." It isn't a set of notions. It's a stance one takes.