Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[9-10ths_Penguin]

**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.

This says nothing about belief systems that preach claims about the literal truth of god(s), other supernatural things, and humanity's literal relationship to them... i.e. the vast majority of religion.

If your religion is a metaphor for explaining "the inner journey", that's fine, but I think it's dishonest of you to put this forward as anything other than a fringe position. It should not be news to you that religious people really do often take their religion literally.

 

[sojourner]

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

Say what you want. Since Xy isn't predicated upon legalism, there can be no such thing as a "legalistic Christian." It simply isn't a good description, because when one applies legalism to Christian principles, those principles are rendered void.

Let me put it this way. Christianity is to religion what AM is to a radio signal. There can, by definition, be no such thing as a "frequency-modulated AM signal." If the signal is frequency-modulated, it becomes an FM signal, and is no longer an AM signal.

 

[sojourner]

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.

It doesn't necessarily have to be taught as "the right one." It can be taught simply as "the one that works for us."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

You say that as if they're mutually exclusive things. I've seen plenty of examples of coercive religion.

 

[sojourner]

This says nothing about belief systems that preach claims about the literal truth of god(s), other supernatural things, and humanity's literal relationship to them... i.e. the vast majority of religion.

If your religion is a metaphor for explaining "the inner journey", that's fine, but I think it's dishonest of you to put this forward as anything other than a fringe position. It should not be news to you that religious people really do often take their religion literally.

Hah. Even Catholic theologians don't do that. They know full well that the reality of God isn't found in the metaphoric language that must be used to describe God. That argument simply won't wash, Penguin. Some of the smaller, fundamentalist groups might, but they certainly don't represent the "vast majority" of Xy, which includes Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglican, and Lutheran.

 

[sojourner]

You say that as if they're mutually exclusive things. I've seen plenty of examples of coercive religion.

Again, if Xy coerces, it ain't Christianity. It's not the religion itself, that coerces, it's the people.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

This has nothing to do with adults believing the religious beliefs they were indoctrinated with as a kid.

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.

And this also has nothing to do with religious indoctrination. It's just an excuse for why religion doesn't work for some people, and not a good one at that.

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.

They might, but it'll be hard once they're already indoctrinated with certain religious beliefs.

**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.

Do you or do you not think teaching religious beliefs as fact is the wrong way to go?

If so, are you talking about teaching myths as myths, as they're supposed to be understood, only as lessons for life?

If so, then you're not taking issue with the main idea of this thread or anything I've seen. Teaching children myths as myths are supposed to be taught isn't a problem.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hah. Even Catholic theologians don't do that. They know full well that the reality of God isn't found in the metaphoric language that must be used to describe God. That argument simply won't wash, Penguin. Some of the smaller, fundamentalist groups might, but they certainly don't represent the "vast majority" of Xy, which includes Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglican, and Lutheran.

Baloney. The vast majority of Christians believe in a literal God. They believe that Jesus literally came to Earth as a man and was literally crucified. They believe that they will have literal eternal life in a literal Heaven.

People don't picket abortion clinics because they're worried about METAPHORICAL ensoulment of fetuses. They don't fight against evolution in public schools because it disagrees with a METAPHOR. They don't work themselves into a lather at stories of the desecration of a Eucharistic host because of their concern for a METAPHOR of the body of Christ.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Teaching children things that are supposed to be believed just because you and a book said so is a universally bad thing.

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

Only if you want to consider the normal method of teaching Christianity that I described "bad teaching" or any of those other things.

 

[Magic Man]

It doesn't necessarily have to be taught as "the right one." It can be taught simply as "the one that works for us."

Then it's being taught in a different way, one that I already said was different enough that it's not bad in the way that teaching it as the right one is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Say what you want. Since Xy isn't predicated upon legalism, there can be no such thing as a "legalistic Christian." It simply isn't a good description, because when one applies legalism to Christian principles, those principles are rendered void.

Let me put it this way. Christianity is to religion what AM is to a radio signal. There can, by definition, be no such thing as a "frequency-modulated AM signal." If the signal is frequency-modulated, it becomes an FM signal, and is no longer an AM signal.

Again: if that's how you want to build your own personal faith, fine. However, here in the rational world, if we see a church whose beliefs entirely agree with, say, the Nicene Creed, and they proclaim themselves to be followers of Christ, we're going to call them Christian... even if their beliefs and practices are coercive.

 

[Magic Man]

Hah. Even Catholic theologians don't do that. They know full well that the reality of God isn't found in the metaphoric language that must be used to describe God. That argument simply won't wash, Penguin. Some of the smaller, fundamentalist groups might, but they certainly don't represent the "vast majority" of Xy, which includes Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglican, and Lutheran.

You don't seem to be in touch with mainstream Christianity. Most Christians and Christian denominations take a very literal approach to the religion. They will dismiss obviously silly literal interpretations like the global flood and such, but they do believe in a literal god, and that Jesus was literally born on earth and ascended into heaven, etc.

 

[m.ramdeen]

Mannnnnnnn!!

I don't have kids (yet), but reading all 130+ pages of this back and forth makes me think that I would have to be looking over my shoulder any time I attempt to raise my (future) children in a way that I thought would mold them into being a decent member of society. I seriously thought that the parents' sole role was to raise their children to the best of their ability in being a good citizen.

Please correct me if I am wrong

Anyhoo, for the purposes of this thread, I think both sides are talking past each other here. The OP did say Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing. With "making" being the operative word we should be able to resolve this.
Theist are simply arguing that they do not make their children follow their religion. Instead they introduce their beliefs to the child and make bring them up with their particular religion's practices (going to church, praying, singing hymns, etc.) because those parents believe it is a valid avenue through which their child can be molded into being a decent citizen.:yes:

Non theist are just following what the OP initially stated. That if you make your children follow your religious beliefs then you are indeed indoctrinating them, maybe so far as to even say brainwashing. Because in doing so you deny the child their freewill in critical thinking and making decisions on their own. Nobody wants that. :cover:

If all parties can agree to the above then we can /thread :run:

IF NOT

I see this as no more that non-theists airing their personal opinion / bias aginst religion on a whole. Of course, each is entitled to express what they feel.
But please do not impose on parents of religion that what they are doing is detrimental to their child's upbringing and do not trample on what people of faith believe simply because you do not agree. You put forward arguments that religious beliefs are not factual and that religious parents are wasting time and maybe so far as to even say teaching fallous concepts. However what you fail to acknowledge is that though the parent's own understanding, their faith has been proven to be truthful based on their life journey and the scriptures that they have read. So while you will have your set of evidence that what religious parents teach are untrue, the religious parents have their evidence to prove otherwise.

I am sure that another thread could be started with the opposite in mind "Why making your children believe their is no true God is brainwashing" And with that both sides could start to argue again. :beach:

So pleasssseeeeeee. To each their own. Raise your children in the way you believe will provide them with the facets to become model members of society and do not bash other parents who are doing the same because of your personal agenda :bow:

 

[sojourner]

This has nothing to do with adults believing the religious beliefs they were indoctrinated with as a kid.

Of course it does.

And this also has nothing to do with religious indoctrination. It's just an excuse for why religion doesn't work for some people, and not a good one at that.

No wonder you've soured on religion. You're confusing "indoctrination" with "formation."

They might, but it'll be hard once they're already indoctrinated with certain religious beliefs.

Not if formation has been undertaken responsibly.

Do you or do you not think teaching religious beliefs as fact is the wrong way to go?

I do -- if I understand correctly what you mean by "beliefs" and "fact."

If so, are you talking about teaching myths as myths, as they're supposed to be understood, only as lessons for life?

Myths are much more than "only lessons for life." They are an imaginative and intuitive framework for understanding ourselves and our world, and giving meaning to our lives.

Teaching children myths as myths are supposed to be taught isn't a problem.

I've said that all along. Although I don't think you conceptualize myth in the same way I do. If I'm not mistaken, you tend to minimalize the importance and efficacy of myth by treating it more as "fairy-tale." For me, myth is extremely important to spiritual development -- more so, in fact, than intellectual knowledge.

 

[ChristineES]

Welcome to the RF, m.ramdeen.

 

[Magic Man]

Mannnnnnnn!!

I don't have kids (yet), but reading all 130+ pages of this back and forth makes me think that I would have to be looking over my shoulder any time I attempt to raise my (future) children in a way that I thought would mold them into being a decent member of society. I seriously thought that the parents' sole role was to raise their children to the best of their ability in being a good citizen.

Please correct me if I am wrong

Anyhoo, for the purposes of this thread, I think both sides are talking past each other here. The OP did say Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing. With "making" being the operative word we should be able to resolve this.
Theist are simply arguing that they do not make their children follow their religion. Instead they introduce their beliefs to the child and make bring them up with their particular religion's practices (going to church, praying, singing hymns, etc.) because those parents believe it is a valid avenue through which their child can be molded into being a decent citizen.:yes:

Non theist are just following what the OP initially stated. That if you make your children follow your religious beliefs then you are indeed indoctrinating them, maybe so far as to even say brainwashing. Because in doing so you deny the child their freewill in critical thinking and making decisions on their own. Nobody wants that. :cover:

I think the problem comes in deciding where to draw the line. Some of us think presenting your beliefs to your children while taking them to church, praying, etc. is making them your children follow your religion. Others don't think it is.

I am sure that another thread could be started with the opposite in mind "Why making your children believe their is no true God is brainwashing" And with that both sides could start to argue again. :beach:

You could do that, but you wouldn't get much opposition from those of us here calling religious upbringing indoctrination.

So pleasssseeeeeee. To each their own. Raise your children in the way you believe will provide them with the facets to become model members of society and do not bash other parents who are doing the same because of your personal agenda :bow:

Sure, but I'll still point out that raising your kid to hold the same religious beliefs as you isn't the best way to go.

 

[Me Myself]

Sure, but I'll still point out that raising your kid to hold the same religious beliefs as you isn't the best way to go.

Kids will hold the same beliefs as their parents on much more than religious aspects at least until they are old enough to question things more througly.

 

[sojourner]

Baloney.

Pastrami.

It's the most sensual of all the salted-cured meats.

The vast majority of Christians believe in a literal God.

I invite you to interview that "vast majority" and ask them to fully describe that God, such that no quality, no feature, is left undiscovered. Until such time, the God they believe in cannot be "literal." They may believe God is real (and I share that belief), but they cannot believe God is "literal" until they can define God without metaphor.

They believe that Jesus literally came to Earth as a man and was literally crucified.

So do I. There is ample evidential justification for such a belief in the literal existence of Jesus who was crucified.

They believe that they will have literal eternal life in a literal Heaven.

No they don't, because, like God, things that are infinite cannot be literally discovered -- only described metaphorically.

People don't picket abortion clinics because they're worried about METAPHORICAL ensoulment of fetuses. They don't fight against evolution in public schools because it disagrees with a METAPHOR. They don't work themselves into a lather at stories of the desecration of a Eucharistic host because of their concern for a METAPHOR of the body of Christ.

Probably not, but, like you here, there is conflation of metaphor with definition.

 

[Magic Man]

Not if formation has been undertaken responsibly.

That may well be, but then formation isn't undertaken responsibly in most Christian upbringing in this country.

I do -- if I understand correctly what you mean by "beliefs" and "fact."

Good, now we're getting somewhere.

Myths are much more than "only lessons for life." They are an imaginative and intuitive framework for understanding ourselves and our world, and giving meaning to our lives.

My point is that they're not supposed to give factual information about the world, sort of an add-on to the above question.

I've said that all along. Although I don't think you conceptualize myth in the same way I do. If I'm not mistaken, you tend to minimalize the importance and efficacy of myth by treating it more as "fairy-tale." For me, myth is extremely important to spiritual development -- more so, in fact, than intellectual knowledge.

1) I view myths as good ways to learn about ourselves and our roles in the world.

2) This view means you're not really arguing against what we're talking about. The vast majority of Christians in this country (and probably others) don't view myths like this. They believe in a literal god and a literal Jesus, a literal afterlife, etc. They think of the Christian myths as factual information about the universe, rather than a metaphorical way to understand the human condition and how we relate to each other and the universe.

 

[sojourner]

Teaching children things that are supposed to be believed just because you and a book said so is a universally bad thing.

No. It isn't.

Only if you want to consider the normal method of teaching Christianity that I described "bad teaching" or any of those other things.

The method isn't the religion -- or what's being taught.