Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[ChristineES]

That's anecdotal evidence. It doesn't invalidate the fact that a large percentage of people do grow up to follow their parents' religion when it's taught to them as children. That's why you have such a high percentage of children who grow up to be Muslim in Muslim countries, and Christians in Christian countries, etc.

I was stating that my own experience shows otherwise and I am only going by people I've known personally. If I go by my own experiences with people I've known, then I can say that very many of my friends and peers left the religion they were raised with and some stayed with it. I live in the USA where there is a lot of diversity, as well.

 

[Magic Man]

I've already said why I disagree with that. It is also apparent that you had that situation- parents "drilling" you with the faith. I think the best course for me is to "agree to disagree" on this one point.

I'm still not sure why you disagree. I didn't even have parents "drilling" me with the religion in the harshest sense of the word. It was much more lax. It was just an accepted fact. We celebrated Christmas and other holidays in a religious way. We went to church every week. I went to Catholic school for 8 years. I went through all the sacraments. I think it was a pretty normal religious upbringing, which is why I use it as an example. It wasn't especially harsh or forceful, but it was assumed that I was Christian and believed all of it. Even with that lenient approach, it still caused me distress later in life.

 

[Magic Man]

I was stating that my own experience shows otherwise and I am only going by people I've known personally. If I go by my own experiences with people I've known, then I can say that very many of my friends and peers left the religion they were raised with and some stayed with it. I live in the USA where there is a lot of diversity, as well.

I understand, and I pointed out that that's anecdotal evidence and doesn't counter actual statistics. There are always going to be exceptions, but the typical situation is the child growing up to be a member of the parents' religion.

 

[Koldo]

That...

...refers not to any particular person's perspective, but a perspective regardless of any particular person.

A perspective that according to the context in which it was written belongs to some people.

 

[ChristineES]

I understand, and I pointed out that that's anecdotal evidence and doesn't counter actual statistics. There are always going to be exceptions, but the typical situation is the child growing up to be a member of the parents' religion.

There is another thought on this. Most people (of the ones I knew) didn't have any distress with the actual changing of faith, but more with their families' and friends' reactions to it. That has really nothing to do with the learning of the faith, however. Being rejected by their families and peers can be very distressing.

I don't know your situation at all, so I can't comment on it.

 

[Magic Man]

There is another thought on this. Most people (of the ones I knew) didn't have any distress with the actual changing of faith, but more with their families' and friends' reactions to it. That has really nothing to do with the learning of the faith, however. Being rejected by their families and peers can be very distressing.

I don't know your situation at all, so I can't comment on it.

That may have been their experience, but it seems that again their experiences are not the norm. At the very least it seems obvious that a significant number of people have distress caused by religion.

 

[Curious George]

Except that it is like forcing them to work in your profession, so it's not a bad analogy.

No. Its not. You are not talking about just parents who use threats of banishment or violence, you are talking about simply telling a child something as innocuous as "God is real." If you are equating the slight preferential treatment that this gives to force, then so would innocuous choices of encouraging pretend play of a certain type or telling them your profession is good also equate to force.

 

[Curious George]

Except that it is like forcing them to work in your profession, so it's not a bad analogy.

Wrong. Forcing them to work in the parents profession occurs at an age where the child can have a profession. A more apt analogy would be forcing a kid to clean his or her room.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I understand, and I pointed out that that's anecdotal evidence and doesn't counter actual statistics.

Which show that all of Europe used to be very Christian and now most of Europe isn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Which show that all of Europe used to be very Christian and now most of Europe isn't.

Indeed, and probably in the next few decades America will follow suit.

 

[Willamena]

A perspective that according to the context in which it was written belongs to some people.

Technically, being objective, it belongs to all people.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, your perspective is too limited to see how it was rendered useless then.

 

[sojourner]

Learning the parents' religion would stop them from exploring others because they've already been taught that theirs is the true one.

Not necessarily.

 

[sojourner]

legalistic Christians

Mystic -- you know I respect you and I know your story. Respectfully, therefore, I might point out that the terms you posted, which I've quoted above, are an oxymoron. The terms are mutually exclusive. There is, by definition, no such thing as a "legalistic Christian," for Xy isn't rooted in legalism, but in relationship. These legalistic people may believe they're Christian -- and they may be -- but they're not living into the principles of mutual love and honor. We may use the term "Christian," or "many Christians," or even "most Christians" when referring to them, out of convenience. But strictly speaking, they're maybe better called "misinformed Christians" or "malpracticing Christians," etc.

But "legalistic Christians" they are not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mystic -- you know I respect you and I know your story. Respectfully, therefore, I might point out that the terms you posted, which I've quoted above, are an oxymoron. The terms are mutually exclusive. There is, by definition, no such thing as a "legalistic Christian," for Xy isn't rooted in legalism, but in relationship. These legalistic people may believe they're Christian -- and they may be -- but they're not living into the principles of mutual love and honor. We may use the term "Christian," or "many Christians," or even "most Christians" when referring to them, out of convenience. But strictly speaking, they're maybe better called "misinformed Christians" or "malpracticing Christians," etc.

But "legalistic Christians" they are not.

... and no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

 

[sojourner]

It's not that hard. It happens all the time with religious beliefs.

In order for that to happen, the seeking adult must neglect to question, to intuit, and to grow. A person who retains exactly the same beliefs s/he garnered as a child is not growing.

In other words, you could be forcing a religion on a kid that doesn't fit him, and then it will be hard for him to find one that does?

No, in other words, a person's tie to her or his religious beliefs is a tie of relationship. If the person fails to grow in that particular relationship, it may not be the fault of the beliefs, but the fault of the person to adequately exercise, stretch, question, and test those beliefs.
Or, they may find out that the beliefs are simply a bad fit for them, and learn to espouse some other mythic system that will better suit their needs.

 

[sojourner]

So, you agree one path shouldn't be forced on them, and they should be allowed to instead find their own path when they're ready?

**sigh** I shouldn't have to treat you like a child in order to quell these infantile attempts at derailing an argument.

But here goes. Listen carefully, my Innocent:
<slowly and carefully>
Parents have the responsibility to see to the spiritual development of their children to the best of their abilities. That may include inculcating a specific system of belief wherein the inner journey is explained as metaphor. When the child is old enough, the child may retain they system, or choose one that is better suited to her or his unique needs.

 

[Magic Man]

Not necessarily.

It will either stop or hinder them. Learning that one path is the right one from the time you're a small child will affect your ability to look at other paths as real possibilities.

 

[sojourner]

I understand, and I pointed out that that's anecdotal evidence and doesn't counter actual statistics. There are always going to be exceptions, but the typical situation is the child growing up to be a member of the parents' religion.

You treat that as if it's a universally bad thing. I'm sorry your situation was distressing, but that doesn't mean that everyone's (or even most people's) is distressing.

 

[sojourner]

That may have been their experience, but it seems that again their experiences are not the norm. At the very least it seems obvious that a significant number of people have distress caused by religion.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the distress is caused by bad teaching, bullying, or coercion, and not the religion, itself?