I'm waiting for this to be refuted by those who believe religion is needed to have a good morality code. Unchallenged ideas aren't worth having.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
I'm waiting for this to be refuted by those who believe religion is needed to have a good morality code. Unchallenged ideas aren't worth having.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
So?
I can make food without a recipe book, does that refute that recipe books exist?
They had the words of Jesus, the same words we have now in the NT.
And what does that mean?
Thousands of different schools have thousands of different books to teach from, same with everything known to man, recipe books, dictionaries, how to have sex, how to feel after you have sex, how to keep from going silly, how to go silly, how to stand up and sit down without hurting yourself...
Same difference.
half of one, two dozen of another.
Life goes on.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
s
This raises an important point about the difference between raising a child within a set of principles and raising them in such a manner that they must adopt those principles as well. Vegetarianism is a tricky example because, as you have said, what we eat and what we believe about what we eat are two different things, but raising a child on an all-vegetarian diet could just as easily enforce a belief in vegetarian practice as any other form of indoctrination.
As with all things, the difference lies in the degree to which the parents enforce the practice and the belief. As I said above, my problem is not with raising a child in accordance with a specific set of beliefs or practices, but in which the enforcing of those beliefs to the extent that the child's potential to understand or even be exposed to contrary ideologies is compromised. To vegetarian parents, raising their child on a diet that includes meat would feel like a betrayal of their own ideological position - perhaps in the same way as Christian parents not raising their child to be a Christian may be a betrayal of their position as well. My response would be that those parents, in following their beliefs, are exercising their rights as parents to raise their child how they sincerely feel it is best for them to be raised, and I can't say I have any real objection to either on a broad level. The problem only comes when the parents infringe upon a child's right to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and to formulate their own opinion. The murky area at the center of this debate isn't really about beliefs at all, but about rights. Specifically, the difficult area between the parent's rights to raise their child in a manner in accordance with what they believe is in their best interests, and the child's right to free expression of ideas.
In the case of vegetarianism, the problem is somewhat more simple. Virtually no vegetarian family - except maybe the most isolated ones - can prevent their child from being exposed to at least the idea of eating meat. While I have no issue with the parents raising the child on a vegetarian diet, that right of theirs evaporates - in my opinion - the moment the child determines for itself the diet it wants to adopt. The question of brainwashing only really comes up for me if the child is, on some level, incapable of that level of determination, and with the ubitquity of meat-eating, it isn't difficult to imagine a vegetarian child coming to decide for itself, upon comparing and contrasting the views of those they are exposed to, to formulate an opinion of their own about the subject of eating meat.
With religion, things get a lot more complicated. We are suddenly dealing not with specific ideas regarding specific practices, but with a mandated set of ideological positions which address a multitude of facets of how we live our lives, and the potential for eternal punishment or reward for following those mandates. The framework of a religious upbringing is more often than not one of a adopting a worldview for which all other alternatives lead to, at best, objectively reprehensible moral decision or, at worst, damnation in a dimension of eternal punishment. Unlike vegetarianism, these ideological frameworks can be extremely difficult to see outside of. In many families, societies and even countries, the very idea of rejecting or stepping outside of these frameworks can mean social isolation, shame and even threats to the lives of the individual in the most extreme cases. Even in less extreme cases, such ideologies can have a limiting affect on the child's lifelong ability to process and determine moral choices - even if they eventually reject the doctrines of their parents.
I'm not certain that I could go so far as to call it child abuse per se, but I understand the people who use that phrase and why they use it. And, when I do, I cannot really find much to object to about it beyond the visceral image that the phrase presents. I would simply say that I do not agree with raising a child into a religion, and those that do so are knowingly limiting that child's capacity for assessing and accepting views outside of that particular religious paradigm.
This raises an important point about the difference between raising a child within a set of principles and raising them in such a manner that they must adopt those principles as well. Vegetarianism is a tricky example because, as you have said, what we eat and what we believe about what we eat are two different things, but raising a child on an all-vegetarian diet could just as easily enforce a belief in vegetarian practice as any other form of indoctrination.
As with all things, the difference lies in the degree to which the parents enforce the practice and the belief. As I said above, my problem is not with raising a child in accordance with a specific set of beliefs or practices, but in which the enforcing of those beliefs to the extent that the child's potential to understand or even be exposed to contrary ideologies is compromised. To vegetarian parents, raising their child on a diet that includes meat would feel like a betrayal of their own ideological position - perhaps in the same way as Christian parents not raising their child to be a Christian may be a betrayal of their position as well. My response would be that those parents, in following their beliefs, are exercising their rights as parents to raise their child how they sincerely feel it is best for them to be raised, and I can't say I have any real objection to either on a broad level. The problem only comes when the parents infringe upon a child's right to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and to formulate their own opinion. The murky area at the center of this debate isn't really about beliefs at all, but about rights. Specifically, the difficult area between the parent's rights to raise their child in a manner in accordance with what they believe is in their best interests, and the child's right to free expression of ideas.
In the case of vegetarianism, the problem is somewhat more simple. Virtually no vegetarian family - except maybe the most isolated ones - can prevent their child from being exposed to at least the idea of eating meat. While I have no issue with the parents raising the child on a vegetarian diet, that right of theirs evaporates - in my opinion - the moment the child determines for itself the diet it wants to adopt. The question of brainwashing only really comes up for me if the child is, on some level, incapable of that level of determination, and with the ubitquity of meat-eating, it isn't difficult to imagine a vegetarian child coming to decide for itself, upon comparing and contrasting the views of those they are exposed to, to formulate an opinion of their own about the subject of eating meat.
With religion, things get a lot more complicated. We are suddenly dealing not with specific ideas regarding specific practices, but with a mandated set of ideological positions which address a multitude of facets of how we live our lives, and the potential for eternal punishment or reward for following those mandates. The framework of a religious upbringing is more often than not one of a adopting a worldview for which all other alternatives lead to, at best, objectively reprehensible moral decision or, at worst, damnation in a dimension of eternal punishment. Unlike vegetarianism, these ideological frameworks can be extremely difficult to see outside of. In many families, societies and even countries, the very idea of rejecting or stepping outside of these frameworks can mean social isolation, shame and even threats to the lives of the individual in the most extreme cases. Even in less extreme cases, such ideologies can have a limiting affect on the child's lifelong ability to process and determine moral choices - even if they eventually reject the doctrines of their parents.
I'm not certain that I could go so far as to call it child abuse per se, but I understand the people who use that phrase and why they use it. And, when I do, I cannot really find much to object to about it beyond the visceral image that the phrase presents. I would simply say that I do not agree with raising a child into a religion, and those that do so are knowingly limiting that child's capacity for assessing and accepting views outside of that particular religious paradigm.
Last edited:
Actually, that first web site is run by a psychologist with a PhD (who has other psychologists with doctorates on the advisory board), but that's beside the point:
You said that you'd never heard of an atheist who discussed having mental problems from being brought up religiously. The web sites I linked to have exactly that: many testimonials from actual atheists discussing having mental problems from their religious upbringings.
Be careful - you don't want to throw your back out moving goalposts around like that.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I disagree with only the implication that a child should be able to choose their own diet. While a child's input should matter this input should not be the deciding factor.
I agree very strongly with your last sentiment. I think it is important to understand that parents consciously choose to limit their child's capacity for assessing and accepting outside views because they feel it is the child's best interest.
This is a ridiculous analogy:
- children have to eat something. Just by necessity, the parents have to make one choice and set aside the other options.
- nutrition is a demonstrable, measurable thing. Feeding a child nothing but McDonald's or marshmallow Fluff doesn't meet the needs of the child, and this can be backed up by actual evidence.
- I've never heard of anyone forcing 13-year-old kids to make solemn oaths that they'll only eat vegetarian or will always make sure to eat at KFC at least once a week for the rest of their lives.
I'm refuting the statement that without a Bible there's no religion, by saying you can absolutely have religion without any Bible.
Do you know who Marcion is?
Different books in the canon allows for different interpretations. Imagine a Bible that didn't have any of Paul's letters or the Apocalypse of John: that Christian sect would be very different from mainstream ones.
Something else about vegetarianism: the parent may have ethical objections to buying or handling meat, so in these cases, the parent wouldn't be able to provide a child with non-vegetarian meals at home without violating his or her own conscience.
OTOH, if the child eats meat while at a friend's house, then the parent doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have the same concerns about violating his or her own conscience.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Is it possible that you are overly obsessed with religion?
I find it ironic you are trying to argue that kids should be allowed to make choices but fail to see that parents should be allowed to make choices.
So, if a parent believes a certain behavior is not beneficial do they need demonstrable evidence that the behavior is detrimental?
No, I'm against this sort of behaviour across the board.
It's just that religion tends to be the one major holdout: the ways that parents tried to dictate a child's whole life (e.g. forcing a child into a particular trade or into an arranged marriage) are now frowned upon or often outright illegal. However, it's still common for parents to think they should force their children into a particular religion.
Edit: I am obsessed with robotics and motorsports... but I don't tend to talk about these topics much on RF.
Why is this ironic? I think we both recognize that, in general, parents shouldn't be able to dictate lifelong decisions for their children. Or do you agree with arranged marriage?
I don't understand your question.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
Who said we cant?
Not sure what that even means?
What if is irrelevant to me.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
It is ironic because you would like to infringe upon the parents right to parent. I am okay with parents making lifelong decisions that effect children. Haven't we already discussed this in one or more circumcision threads. But raising your child in religion is not exactly the same as arranging a marriage. But, I understand that many cultures choose to arrange marriage and I am not so culture centric as to have the audacity to call them wrong.
Religion focuses on the now as well. Arranged marriage is a choice about the future. While religion does have future impacts, much of it focuses on the child as a child.
I'm sorry if my question was not clear enough. You suggested that dietary habits that a parent views as negative would falll under the parents control because the negative effects are measurable and there is evidence to support the parental decision. I am asking, does the*parent then need evidence to make decisions that they believe are beneficial? My next question is how should this evidence be evaluated?
,
Who said we cant?
You implied it, perhaps without meaning to, right here:
I suspect you meant to say, without the Bible, there is no Christianity... which is also untrue IMO.
Seeing as I misunderstood you, could you explain your choice of words?
Well, it's not entirely an hypothetical. The Apocalypse of John almost didn't make the canon; the Apocalypse of Peter almost did. Now, if that had made it, Christian theology would be VERY different, because there's a verse that says outright that everyone will eventually get out of hell.
The first Christian Bible was the Marcion Bible. It only contained a heavily edited version of the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul's letters. All references to Jewish literature (which hadn't yet been codified into the Tanakh, if I remember correctly) were removed.
The Catholic Bible includes other books from the Septuagint in its Old Testament. The Ethiopian Bible includes the Book of Enoch and a few others. An early popular Christian book was The Shepherd of Hermas, which I'll bet got into a few Bibles here and there.
kashmir
Well-Known Member
I was referring to him and his religion, which comes directly from the bible.
If the bible was never written, there would be nothing to read and go by.
we have what we have and we cant what if and come to conclusions.
It wouldnt matter anyway.
Its a pointless discussion.
What if this wasn't in the bible and that was instead?
Seriously, it isn't relevant to make any valid point, not to me anyway.
People here cant even figure out how to communicate on what we have as a reality, so why even what if that isn't a reality?
Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
Like I said, it's not really hypothetical, since in reality there are already several different Biblical canons, which do cause large differences in individual theologies.
Besides, I didn't make any "what if" statements, which are speculative. I made "if...then" statements, which are assertive.
My point is this: there isn't just one version of the Bible, because the Bible isn't a single book; it's a literary canon. Therefore, the statement in bold:
is not wholly accurate.
Relying heavily on assumptions... yes, ethics can be calculated in such a way...
I'd say assumptions which many people would disagree with, I for one.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Who me? What? No that isn't the case. I said that wasn't the case, actually.
Do you mean 'Christianity' in the sense of basic Scripture? Then yes, duh. But that isn't my entire religious belief.
yikes.
No assumptions whatsoever.
Take any action, and apply that formula. It will give you the answer to whether that action is ethical.
I didn't come up with this formula, furthermore. It's standard utilitarian ethics.
People might disagree, but if I can be presented with an action that runs counter to this formula, and yet is demonstrably ethical, then I can be certain that the formula isn't absolute (which I already guess; a major rule of thumb is that there's always exceptions to every rule, even this rule of exceptions.)
Last edited:
Bwahaha... yes, your paragraph was full of them. Any ethical discussion is... every philosophy of ethics requires an underlying assumption.
The major one I disagree with:
I would also argue that there it is not necessary that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...
I've never seen any situation in which the needs of the few or the one ultimately outweigh the needs of the many. Even that reverse quotation from Search For Spock was actually a case of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one.
Furthermore, if something causes major unhappiness for miniscule happiness, how can it be considered good? Understand that "happiness" doesn't necessarily mean "pleasure" or "comfort". If you like, you can substitute "happiness" for "health".