Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Mister Emu]

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?

Personal experience doesn't translate well into textual demonstration.

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.

No?

You have nothing against my teaching my children that my religion deals with the truths of reality?

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?

Yes, in general.

Are you willing to declare every non-Catholic to be irrational?

In regards to religion:
Some are indeed irrational.
Some are misinformed.
Some lack the relevant facts.
Some are ____(myriad reasons why).

As I understand it, there is no honest, accurate, fully informed and rational rejection of the truths within the Catholic Faith.

The reality of getting run over by a car if you don't look first before crossing the street is not disputable in the same way that your religious beliefs are.

To the car denier, the car doesn't exist right up to the moment it slams into him/her. To the unbeliever, God doesn't exist (as He is) right up to the moment they stand in His presence.

It's all much the same to the outside observer.

This patent absurdity sort of explains everything, if you fail to recognize the personal nature of choosing ones religion.

Fair enough, the choice in what to practice is indeed a personal choice that one is free to make when one becomes an adult, just like whether to follow the law or not.

The religious facts as they pertain to reality are not though, just like the actual existence of police that ostensibly uphold the law.

Oh my bad, when we see a creature that waddles and quacks, we'd better ask IT first whether its a duck. Derp!

Your armchair psychology is most... unimpressive. Also, your metaphor. You just called this goose a duck

Given that there's no ostensible benefit to the child from having been indoctrinated at a young age versus making an informed choice slightly later on in their life, this was a rather obvious observation- hardly going out on a limb there.

There is great ostensible benefit. Ostensibly, the proper choice of religion leads to eternal happiness ultimately.

 

[1137]

I'm hardly half as interested as keeping up with threads as I used to be, it seems.

Sharing your beliefs with children as BELIEFS was clearly not the concern, rather teaching beliefs as facts. I remember a teacher once saying that even if a family is hardcore creationist they need to teach their children the concepts of evolution, as it is necessary for excelling in areas such as biology. Teaching children fiction as fact, especially when you force them to accept the fiction under dirwct threat of pain or the ingrained psychological issues it will cause once a child begins questioning, is not a healthy, ethincal, or intelligent route to take.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

Um... What?

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'.

Well for one, there are tangible and real negative consequences to unprotected sex, which is not the case with failing to share your parents religious beliefs. Last time I checked, nobody died from holding different religious beliefs than their parents. For another, a 16 year old is able to understand things a young child is not. And lastly, notice how "give more arguments", "have another talk" and so on are not quite what parents typically do when they teach their children religion- as I said, they don't try to convince their children of the truth of their religion by engaging and appealing to their critical intellect, rather, they use their authority and influence to tell them "this is the way things are", and at an age where the child is unable to understand much less question these teachings.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

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

This is a non-distinction. Faith claims are factual claims- it isn't the content of the claim that makes them any different, its the basis for holding them (i.e. faith, as opposed to evidence).

So? Why shouldn't there be such a presumption?

Because it's an artificial presumption-i.e. not due to any inherent advantage of the religious beliefs themselves, but simply because it was ones parents who taught them to them, and children tend to trust their parents.

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!

This may be true- to an extent- for a handful of religious folks, but is not, in general, true about religion, least of all Christianity in America, which is what I imagine most posters have in mind here.

And when is that "magical age?"

Is this really rocket-science to figure out? It'll probably depend on the child- people mature faster or slower than others, after all. Maybe for one person 12 or 14 is appropriate, but for another 16; who knows. The point is that its at an age where the child is capable of understanding and evaluating the matter- something Sunday School age children are definitely NOT in a position to do.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I'm pretty sure our views on all this are pretty similar, in a lot of ways, to be honest. Just in response to this post, I think the fact that your kids will learn about religion, etc from other sources is exactly why it's important for them to be proactively taught about diversity.

It's much the same thinking I have around sex education, for example. Kids will get information. AS well as all the junk, it behooves a parent to ensure they get accurate information as well. Obviously accuracy in terms of religion is a little...subjective...but I guess I'm saying kids should be armed with the information required to understand that there are various belief systems on the planet, etc.

Forcing a kid to follow a faith seems wrong. Equally, I would force my kids to be atheists. I want them to think actively, and to make decisions based on thought and consideration, both of their own views, and from a more empathetic viewpoint. If I can achieve that, I will have done a heck of a parenting job, even if they turn out to be dirty theists.

Errr...that last bit was a joke to see if anyone was still paying attention.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not advocating leaving babies at home to go to church. I'm also at the same time purely against bible beating. And to an extent religion is a venom.

Also I don't belive in being neutral as its impossible but not shoving it down their throat is very doable. For example I have family members who no longer speak to me because I'm an atheist. I was litterally forced to go to church till I was able to move out. I was beat once because I argued for evolution.

That kind of ****. Get it?

I may have misunderstood the OP (I haent found feedback to my direct reply to it yet by the OP starter) but your stance seems far less radical.

Basically, if the child doesnt want to do e religious stuff, he is not forced, but the parents keep on being religious and dont play hide till s/he is twelve with it.

I find such approach to be reasonable one.

I would also think its cool if the parents sitll try to influence with the religion as long as they dont make it seem their love is conditional to it nor try any kind of punishment for not sticking to such religion.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm hardly half as interested as keeping up with threads as I used to be, it seems.

Sharing your beliefs with children as BELIEFS was clearly not the concern, rather teaching beliefs as facts. I remember a teacher once saying that even if a family is hardcore creationist they need to teach their children the concepts of evolution, as it is necessary for excelling in areas such as biology. Teaching children fiction as fact, especially when you force them to accept the fiction under dirwct threat of pain or the ingrained psychological issues it will cause once a child begins questioning, is not a healthy, ethincal, or intelligent route to take.

The parent will teach the kid what s/he believes to be true as s/he believes it to be true.i dont think any special emphasis should be put on religion for when uou make them know they can disagree with you and you will still love them, unless you think they are confused on that particular area and seem to think you wont love them if they are of a different religion.

What I find straight wrong is parents lying to their kids about Sanga and other things the PARENTS view as fiction but still lie to their kids about. Then again, that lie will mostly die now with so much kids being able to just google it

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personal experience doesn't translate well into textual demonstration.

Wait... but you said that you wanted to teach your children logic and critical thinking. This makes it sound like you want them to accept your beliefs on the basis of nothing more than your say-so.

Accepting hearsay uncritically is the exact opposite of critical thinking. This goes back to what I said before: if you're going to push your religious beliefs on your children, then you're necessarily going to compromise what you teach them about logic and critical thinking.

No?

You have nothing against my teaching my children that my religion deals with the truths of reality?

I thought I just explained that I disagree with teaching children about religion in such a way that the "truth" of one particular religion is a foregone conclusion.

Yes, in general.

In regards to religion:
Some are indeed irrational.
Some are misinformed.
Some lack the relevant facts.
Some are ____(myriad reasons why).

Well, since you find it so easy to devalue every other religion, hopefully you'll see why someone else wouldn't value your own.

As I understand it, there is no honest, accurate, fully informed and rational rejection of the truths within the Catholic Faith.

I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, then congratulations: the Catholic faith is in the same category as Russell's Teapot and Sagan's Dragon in the Garage. "You can't prove it's not true" doesn't get you to "it's reasonable to force on kids."

 

[buadum]

Its only natural that if people believe something will save their children that they will push it onto them.

Lucifer was a product of his fathers teaching before he rebelled and got his behind smacked with ease, you must have heard the story about the time Lucifer became a loser at the hands of the archangel Michael.

You like to follow the underdog.

 

[dantech]

Um... What?


Well for one, there are tangible and real negative consequences to unprotected sex, which is not the case with failing to share your parents religious beliefs. Last time I checked, nobody died from holding different religious beliefs than their parents. For another, a 16 year old is able to understand things a young child is not. And lastly, notice how "give more arguments", "have another talk" and so on are not quite what parents typically do when they teach their children religion- as I said, they don't try to convince their children of the truth of their religion by engaging and appealing to their critical intellect, rather, they use their authority and influence to tell them "this is the way things are", and at an age where the child is unable to understand much less question these teachings.

I'm not sure what kind of parents tell their son, who is of age to make a decision, force their authority on him to instill religion onto him.

Also you believe it's okay for a father to use his authority to prevent life threatening diseases, but these fathers don't believe life ends after 80 or so years. They believe they are saving their children from whatever the religion warms about. In the case of Judaism, there is an after life that parents would like their sons to be apart of. They don't want their child to "stop living" after his life on earth.

So how is that any different?

 

[Sha'irullah]

The primary issue with this complaint is that when people believe in a religion they have total absolute assurance that what they believe is real.

Not teaching one's kid that a particular religion is true is like telling them that the sun does not exist. The absolute of this belief is that strong.

I myself admit that I would raise my own kids to be staunch Deists most likely. Many may object but I find it justifiable and rational.

Religion is no different as it is also cultural and a to the individual it is factually assertive in requirement. Many non-theist like myself will of course find the concept of raising a child as Christian, Hindu or Jew to be very wrong and damaging but this though just stems from the lack of understanding about religion and its importance in people's life.

 

[Me Myself]

The primary issue with this complaint is that when people believe in a religion they have total absolute assurance that what they believe is real.

Not teaching one's kid that a particular religion is true is like telling them that the sun does not exist. The absolute of this belief is that strong.

I myself admit that I would raise my own kids to be staunch Deists most likely. Many may object but I find it justifiable and rational.

Religion is no different as it is also cultural and a to the individual it is factually assertive in requirement. Many non-theist like myself will of course find the concept of raising a child as Christian, Hindu or Jew to be very wrong and damaging but this though just stems from the lack of understanding about religion and its importance in people's life.

All of this sounds very reasonable... Did someone hacked your account or did I missed the catch?

 

[Sha'irullah]

All of this sounds very reasonable... Did someone hacked your account or did I missed the catch?

Um, hacked my account? I am unaware of such a thing. I have not been active for quite some time here

 

[Koldo]

The primary issue with this complaint is that when people believe in a religion they have total absolute assurance that what they believe is real.

Not teaching one's kid that a particular religion is true is like telling them that the sun does not exist. The absolute of this belief is that strong.

I myself admit that I would raise my own kids to be staunch Deists most likely. Many may object but I find it justifiable and rational.

Religion is no different as it is also cultural and a to the individual it is factually assertive in requirement. Many non-theist like myself will of course find the concept of raising a child as Christian, Hindu or Jew to be very wrong and damaging but this though just stems from the lack of understanding about religion and its importance in people's life.

I don't think it stems from a lack of understanding. Quite the opposite if i may say so.

 

[Koldo]

I'm not sure what kind of parents tell their son, who is of age to make a decision, force their authority on him to instill religion onto him.

Also you believe it's okay for a father to use his authority to prevent life threatening diseases, but these fathers don't believe life ends after 80 or so years. They believe they are saving their children from whatever the religion warms about. In the case of Judaism, there is an after life that parents would like their sons to be apart of. They don't want their child to "stop living" after his life on earth.

So how is that any different?

That's the difference between belief and knowledge.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't think it stems from a lack of understanding. Quite the opposite if i may say so.

You are getting confused. I am saying a lack of understanding about the sincerity of belief in one's culture.

An Atheist knows that religion is false while a religious person will say otherwise. As a Deist I will assert both are wrong and do so with great sincerity.

Both parties "know" that the other party is wrong. So a parent raising her child in a religion is deemed a justifiable act to that parent.

 

[Me Myself]

That's the difference between belief and knowledge.

We cant really know what do we truly know.

Maybe something you saw today was an hallucination, but you havent noticed. Something you think you know.

 

[Me Myself]

You are getting confused. I am saying a lack of understanding about the sincerity of belief in one's culture.

An Atheist knows that religion is false while a religious person will say otherwise. As a Deist I will assert both are wrong and do so with great sincerity.

Both parties "know" that the other party is wrong. So a parent raising her child in a religion is deemed a justifiable act to that parent.

Again, I agree.

Not necesarily with the who is wrong and who is not part, but with the everyone "knows" part.

 

[dantech]

That's the difference between belief and knowledge.

Have you never spoken to a very religious man? It's not belief, it's knowledge. One's beliefs can be equal to one's knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are getting confused. I am saying a lack of understanding about the sincerity of belief in one's culture.

An Atheist knows that religion is false while a religious person will say otherwise. As a Deist I will assert both are wrong and do so with great sincerity.

Both parties "know" that the other party is wrong. So a parent raising her child in a religion is deemed a justifiable act to that parent.

I have a different take on the issue. It's because I think the issue of belief is so important that I don't think we should indoctrinate our kids to believe in a particular belief system... and this applies especially for parents with strong religious convictions.

If a parent is very devout themselves, then they probably place great value on their freedom to believe and practice according to the dictates of their conscience without coercion. If they try to force their children to follow the same religion, then they deny this freedom to their children.

... and the more the parent considers their beliefs important, the more hypocritical it is for him to do this.