Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[dantech]

Another important difference is that brainwashing is either intended, or has as a consequence, that critical evaluation is prevented- in general, we don't teach our children our religion by giving them arguments or evidence for our religion, or trying to persuade them of its truth in a critical manner; we tell them this is how things are. Critical evaluation only comes after (if at all), rather than before or during, as it should. And even if it comes after, as I've pointed out several times now, the playing field is not level- having been indoctrinated at a young age means the beliefs have become ingrained and cannot easily be dislodged, even if one is so inclined.

And the fact remains that, 10+ pages into the thread, we've seen a laundry list of reasons NOT to do it, and not a single argument listing any benefits of it. It just seems like a losing proposition; nothing is gained by it, as opposed to letting the child make an informed decision for themselves at a later and more appropriate age, and it would seem something is lost.

First of all, an informed decision can't be made at any age.

Now, imagine you have a son who is old enough to make his own decisions (around 16 years old?). You've already had the "sex talk" with your son. You find out he's been having unprotected sex with the girl he met last month.
What do you do? You keep letting him go through with that informed decision? Or do you do your best to stop him? Do you not have another talk with him? Perhaps give more arguments as to why unprotected sex is so bad and dangerous for his life?

If you answer yes to these questions, then please, tell me how that's at all different from a religious parent trying to save his son from 'Insert the parent's religion's AIDS equivalent'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First of all, an informed decision can't be made at any age.

Now, imagine you have a son who is old enough to make his own decisions (around 16 years old?). You've already had the "sex talk" with your son. You find out he's been having unprotected sex with the girl he met last month.
What do you do? You keep letting him go through with that informed decision? Or do you do your best to stop him? Do you not have another talk with him? Perhaps give more arguments as to why unprotected sex is so bad and dangerous for his life?

If you answer yes to these questions, then please, tell me how that's at all different from a religious parent trying to save his son from 'Insert the parent's religion's AIDS equivalent'.

Religious belief is a core part of a person's identity. STD infection is not. Only one of these courses of action is attempting to change the boy's identity.

Edit: another way of looking at it: nobody deliberately contracts HIV as a matter of conscience. Plenty of people choose not to practice the Jewish (or Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) faith as a matter of conscience.

 

[sojourner]

Basic manners and adequate are not controversial factual claims.

Neither is religion. Religion deals with faith claims -- not fact claims.

No, not necessarily, and even so, it removes the possibility of a level playing field. Regardless of how far-fetched the religious beliefs, for most people having been taught by their parents (who they look up to, especially as a child) at an early age (making it ingrained by the time one reaches an age where one can question) creates a pretty large presumption in favor of those beliefs.

So? Why shouldn't there be such a presumption? You all are acting as if religious beliefs are empirical fact. They aren't. They are ways of looking at the world and one's place in it. They are ways of creating space for understanding of very large concepts that don't necessarily have empirical language. Religion deals in myth and metaphor, not fact and figure. If a particular system of myth and metaphor creates understanding within the milieu of a particular culture, so be it!

I for one will not be teaching my children ANYTHING about religion until they are old enough to understand and evaluate the concepts involved and make a decision for themselves.

And when is that "magical age?" There are plenty of adults -- and very old ones, too -- who don't understand, nor are capable of evaluating the concepts involved. But then, we don't try to teach our children nuance. We simply teach them the tenets (in the case of Xy) of loving God and loving neighbor, of being honest and authentic, and building a trust relationship with the world around them.

 

[sojourner]

What seems ethical is to try and raise your child in a realistic and open world, sharing your ideas with them as they enter adolescence and allowing them to reflect and make the decision for themselves. The only reason to do otherwise is to lock in a child's mind with the religion you wish them to have, but if that is the route you choose stop getting ***** when people use the terms "brainwashing" or "unethical".

This sounds real good until you dissect it and find that you've weighted the terms "realistic" and "open" to mean "whatever doesn't include religious myth or metaphor. Imparting a shared history of myth and metaphor isn't being any less "real" or "open" than sharing any other kind of information. And it's not inherently a "bad thing," either. What's unethical is deciding that myth and metaphor are "biased" and not giving one's children the opportunity to exercise the more creative parts of their psyches.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Neither is religion. Religion deals with faith claims -- not fact claims.

If this was true then the religious debates portion of this forum would be vastly smaller. It is precisely because so much of religion incorporates innumerable fact claims - claims which are often incorrect - that sceptics feel a pressing need to engage in debate with the religious on so many fronts. Were the religious not to continuously make so many eroneous fact claims, the scope of debate would be vastly diminished and would likely consist of more comparative theology and discussions over the ability to be certain about this knowledge of the supernatural (since we are no longer dealing with fact claims, we are no longer discussing the natural but rather the supernatural) as well as perhaps discussions about implications of proposed theological concepts and so forth.

 

[Koldo]

Neither is religion. Religion deals with faith claims -- not fact claims.

So? Why shouldn't there be such a presumption? You all are acting as if religious beliefs are empirical fact. They aren't. They are ways of looking at the world and one's place in it. They are ways of creating space for understanding of very large concepts that don't necessarily have empirical language. Religion deals in myth and metaphor, not fact and figure. If a particular system of myth and metaphor creates understanding within the milieu of a particular culture, so be it!

And when is that "magical age?" There are plenty of adults -- and very old ones, too -- who don't understand, nor are capable of evaluating the concepts involved. But then, we don't try to teach our children nuance. We simply teach them the tenets (in the case of Xy) of loving God and loving neighbor, of being honest and authentic, and building a trust relationship with the world around them.

I wonder why you are trying to frame religion in a particular narrow way.
Just check what the user 'thau' is saying on this very topic and you will realize that the line between 'faith claims' and 'fact claims' can easily be crossed by religions.

 

[sojourner]

Young children are not even capable of understanding that someone may believe something that is not true. Neither "God exists" or "God does not exist" is inherently true, there is no way of knowing, so why even touch the subject? I understand the idea of letting parents raise their kids how they want, but lines must be drawn. I have seen generation after generation of first graders become more aggressive, lazy, disrespectful, etc over the past 16 years. Why? Because that is the world we live in. Lazy parenting is going to lead to undisciplined children. What is it if not lazy that, instead of teaching your children realities to function in the world you simply pass it off as "God did it" or "follow rules or burn in hell" or "don't **** off God because he is vengeful".

I'm calling fallacy here. You're saying that "all religious teaching is lazy parenting." That just ain't the case.

How about teaching children about the benefits of society, the limits of understanding, etc.

Hmmm... the Xy I was reared with did exactly that. But perhaps that, too, is just "lazy parenting..."

Why force them into one situation when they need to be able to handle many? And why create discrimination and elitism?

I've been professionally involved with religion for about... oh... 30 years. I've never known Xy to inherently be discriminatory or involved in elitism. In fact, I've found it to be quite the opposite.

How is it ethical to force something upon children that should be their own decision before they can even question?

Maybe we should just keep kids out of school for the first twelve years, until they can decide for themselves what input they want.

You're creating such a tempest in a tea pot here. There's nothing wrong with giving children input. The human brain was designed to soak up and process input. But maybe we should just poke their eyes out so they don't have any vision forced on them until they're ready to "handle" sight. Or pull their ears off until they're ready to "handle" sounds. And those dreadful children's books?! O.M.G.!!! Such trash to "force on unsuspecting children!"

sheesh!

 

[Lien]

You cant wash brains as long as they dont want it : )

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither is religion. Religion deals with faith claims -- not fact claims.

sojourner,

Mister Emu says that he teaches his religion as fact:

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

Is he wrong to do so?

When you say that religion doesn't deal with fact claims, are you talking about your own religion specifically or religion in general? Because apparently in Mister Emu's case (and I suspect also in the case of many, many other people), their religion does deal with fact claims.

 

[sojourner]

Values can be taught without religion.

Value is religious. All you're doing is changing the window-dressing to make it "appear" to be "non-religious."

"Love your neighbor as yourself." "Love your enemies." "Care for the earth." "Be honest." These are all "religious principles." Andthey can be taught using any one of a number of religious myths and metaphors. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[sojourner]

If this was true then the religious debates portion of this forum would be vastly smaller. It is precisely because so much of religion incorporates innumerable fact claims - claims which are often incorrect - that sceptics feel a pressing need to engage in debate with the religious on so many fronts. Were the religious not to continuously make so many eroneous fact claims, the scope of debate would be vastly diminished and would likely consist of more comparative theology and discussions over the ability to be certain about this knowledge of the supernatural (since we are no longer dealing with fact claims, we are no longer discussing the natural but rather the supernatural) as well as perhaps discussions about implications of proposed theological concepts and so forth.

Too many zealots confuse faith-claims with fact-claims.

 

[sojourner]

I wonder why you are trying to frame religion in a particular narrow way.
Just check what the user 'thau' is saying on this very topic and you will realize that the line between 'faith claims' and 'fact claims' can easily be crossed by religions.

And so they are. But that's not the fault of the religion. It's the fault of the overzealous practitioner.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner,

Mister Emu says that he teaches his religion as fact:



Is he wrong to do so?

When you say that religion doesn't deal with fact claims, are you talking about your own religion specifically or religion in general? Because apparently in Mister Emu's case (and I suspect also in the case of many, many other people), their religion does deal with fact claims.

Religion in general. If they're placing a label of "fact" on what is clearly a belief, they are mistaken.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Value is religious. All you're doing is changing the window-dressing to make it "appear" to be "non-religious."

Baloney. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on values. It's chauvinistic and myopic to claim that it does.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion in general. If they're placing a label of "fact" on what is clearly a belief, they are mistaken.

Hmm.

I find it hard to take you seriously when you put forward what's obviously a fringe viewpoint as a statement from authority. The vast majority of religion incorporates factual claims, and I think you know this as well as I do.

 

[sojourner]

Baloney. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on values. It's chauvinistic and myopic to claim that it does.

Depends on what you mean by "religion." If you mean the institutions and systems of belief, I'd agree with you. However, religious principles -- or more properly, spiritual principles -- are all values-based. And when one engages in spiritual practices or formation, one is making value judgments about one's self and one's place in relationship to the world, as well as one's notions, beliefs and actions.

"Religion" doesn't "have a monopoly on values." "Religion" is values. I posit that every human being who engages in making value judgments is engaging in some sort of "religious" -- or rather spiritual -- practice, whether they utilize spiritual myth and metaphor, or not. Because, when it comes down to it, that's really all spiritual practice is: establishing values.

 

[sojourner]

Hmm.

I find it hard to take you seriously when you put forward what's obviously a fringe viewpoint as a statement from authority. The vast majority of religion incorporates factual claims, and I think you know this as well as I do.

'K. What are those "factual claims?"

That "Jesus was an historic figure?" But no. Because in the creed (which is a statement of faith, not a statement of fact), we say, "I believe in Jesus Christ..."

That "God exists?" No. Again, we turn to the creed. "I believe in God the Father..."

That "Xy is the only true religion?" Again, no. The creed: "I believe in the holy catholic church..."

That "baptism saves?" Again, the creed: "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin..."

Just what are these alleged "fact claims," Penguin? I'm finding it hard to take you seriously when the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are such foundational and authoritative statements for the church-at-large -- and not "fringe viewpoint," as you put it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

'K. What are those "factual claims?"

That "Jesus was an historic figure?" But no. Because in the creed (which is a statement of faith, not a statement of fact), we say, "I believe in Jesus Christ..."

That "God exists?" No. Again, we turn to the creed. "I believe in God the Father..."

That "Xy is the only true religion?" Again, no. The creed: "I believe in the holy catholic church..."

That "baptism saves?" Again, the creed: "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin..."

Just what are these alleged "fact claims," Penguin? I'm finding it hard to take you seriously when the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are such foundational and authoritative statements for the church-at-large -- and not "fringe viewpoint," as you put it.

I don't have the foggiest idea why you would think that someone saying "I believe X" is mutually exclusive with making a factual claim that X is true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depends on what you mean by "religion." If you mean the institutions and systems of belief, I'd agree with you. However, religious principles -- or more properly, spiritual principles -- are all values-based. And when one engages in spiritual practices or formation, one is making value judgments about one's self and one's place in relationship to the world, as well as one's notions, beliefs and actions.

If your proclamation from on high depended on some sort of nuance in the term "religion", then wasn't it misleading for you to issue it without explaining that nuance?

"Religion" doesn't "have a monopoly on values." "Religion" is values. I posit that every human being who engages in making value judgments is engaging in some sort of "religious" -- or rather spiritual -- practice, whether they utilize spiritual myth and metaphor, or not. Because, when it comes down to it, that's really all spiritual practice is: establishing values.

Wrong. Religion is an expression of values. Other non-religious things (secular humanism, for instance) are also expressions of values.

 

[Erebus]

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.

Just wanted to chime in on this as I was Christened as a baby (not sure if there's a difference between Christening and baptism, it's not exactly my area of expertise!) because my mum believed that it was a way of inviting God to watch over me. Now I don't begrudge her this at all as, even though I long ago turned away from Christianity, she did what she genuinely felt was best for me.
Ultimately that's what most parents want to do for their children. They want to give them the best shot in life and this may or may not include religious elements. I was raised with some Christian values, because my mum felt they provided a decent foundation for learning moral values. My dad agreed, despite being an atheist himself. As my mum is also a practicing white witch, I was also taught some basic magical principles.*
When I was old enough to want to explore other religions I was not only allowed to do so, but was encouraged to. I even bought a copy of the Satanic Bible without issue. Now we did have some rows when I was a teenager and decided that all religion was stupid and wrong, but I'll hold my hands up and say that one was on me I was pretty obnoxious as an atheist/anti-theist.

In retrospect I've got to say that my religious upbringing was a far cry from forced indoctrination and even further removed from brainwashing. It was simply the result of my parents doing what they felt was best for me.
That's not to say that religious indoctrination doesn't occur, it most certainly does. However I don't think it's possible to draw a clear line between what is acceptable and what isn't. It's rather like trying to define art or pornography, "I'll know it when I see it." Suffice to say some parents do stray into zealotry, but I don't agree that all religious upbringings qualify.

*I've always found it interesting that she blends Christianity with Witchcraft.