Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Magic Man]

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.

That may well be, which is why we need to be careful how we act and what we say around kids. Kind of like trying not to cuss around little kids, or another method to cuss, but to inform the child of why those words are not something to say in most cases.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Me Myself]

That may well be, which is why we need to be careful how we act and what we say around kids. Kind of like trying not to cuss around little kids, or another method to cuss, but to inform the child of why those words are not something to say in most cases.

Hahahaha kids learn how to curse since 3years old avarage.

Yu are just being extremely naive man.

 

[idea]

I personally don't share the same religious (or political) beliefs as my parents, it would be interesting to see how many people here do?

I have three kids, and I just gave one of them a lecture on not "telling other people what to do", because my religious beliefs hold free will to be our most sacred gift.

 

[sojourner]

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.

In what way are their beliefs coercive?
In what way are their practices coercive?
If you're going to live in the "rational world," my dear Penguin, you're going to have to refrain from such wildly emotional characterizations.

 

[Magic Man]

Hahahaha kids learn how to curse since 3years old avarage.

Yu are just being extremely naive man.

I'm not sure which part of what I said you think this contradicts.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not sure which part of what I said you think this contradicts.

Kids will hear you curse. Very little exceptions.

Children will learn, the best is to actually teach them, and a parent will trach hir kids what they know. Many times this includes religion, and it would be immoral not to teach them what the parent thinks the kid needs.

Religion has been trasnmited by tradition since times imemorial, as all other cultural knowledge. It is the right of the kids to be able to join and enjoy the religious values of their families as part of the family, nit be treated as if s/he was a kind of outsider still too dumb to form part of the spiritual commuty and hear the joyful truths of the family.

There is little more to say. You POV is impractical and in cases of practicing families simply impossible and alienating to the kid.

 

[sojourner]

Most Christians and Christian denominations take a very literal approach to the religion. they do believe in a literal god.

No they don't. They may think they do, but they don't. And I think it's this confusion with what constitutes a "literal" something that really bothers people. When literalism is conflated with metaphor, then there is a fundamental dishonesty that's being taught, which is what you're picking up on -- the dishonesty of teaching a "literal" God. And you're right to do so.
If people realized that God can be just as real as the ground they're standing on, but can only be described metaphorically, the passing on of belief would be far more honest.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Problem is that small children lack such cognitive skills.

 

[sojourner]

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

How do you know that?

 

[idea]

...God can be just as real as the ground they're standing on, but can only be described metaphorically, the passing on of belief would be far more honest.

Everything can only be described metaphorically - that is what all words are, symbols.

I try not to teach my children to believe, instead, I seek to give them the spiritual experiences they need to come to a knowledge of God themselves.

God is literally real, which means He can literally communicate with all of us. It is through this literal communication that anyone gains a personal testimony.

 

[Magic Man]

No they don't.

No, they really do. Denying it is just being dishonest.

 

[m.ramdeen]

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.

But with the comments I am reading from posts made in favour of the OP stance, nobody is drawing a line but Instead drawing a circle, i.e. classifying any and every thing that religious parents do as indoctrination / brainwashing. I have a feeling that members posting against the OP stance already drew such a line stating that they merely introduce their children to activities and concepts that they believe in. However members in agreement with the OP stance are unwilling to accept this notion and instead painted any and every religious activity with the indoctrinating brush

How is that fair?
Why would people class these activities as indoctrination / brainwashing?
Why are OP proponents being so adamant that we are damaging children's futures with religious beliefs?

Straying from the topic, BUT what then can we say about parents who introduce their child to the sport of baseball and make their child go to every Red Socks game because of the parents favourite team? Is this not indoctrination too? Or is it that because it is something as simple as baseball then we need not worry about it? If that is the case then we go right back to Favlun's post where he says what people are finding a problem with is the content and not the method. And that would come right back to my point in that we should stop imposing our personal agendas onto parents because we disagree on theistic concepts

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

But then religious people could make a sweeping statement that avoiding teaching your children that there is a true God is a form of indoctrination, an atheistic way of living. Please do not start any drama on that statement. But I'm just saying it is possible and an argument could develop from both sides.

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.

I acknowledge that this is your stance. In your estimation, religious parents are not doing the best by their children when they pigeonhole their minds into the parent's belief. If that's where you and member of the OP party stand then fine, you are free to maintain non-theistic way of living and show your children the same in keeping with the common notion that parents are doing the best for their children.

However, I will repeat, do not impose or claim that religious are performing an injustice because whether you want to agree or not, following a religion is a real thing and their beliefs are the truth.
There are many threads running on this forum which seek to disprove such a notion, I would urge OP proponents to put forth such arguments there. But in the matter of religious parents introducing their religion to their children, the parents' actions are justified and is a natural way of bonding.

I too was made to dress up and go to Church, and sing hymns and listen to pastors rambling on and inevitably sleeping because in my little head I couldn't understand what the heck was going on and it seemed like a waste of time. But my parents had a plan, they know they wanted me to be a model citizen and proceeded accordingly.

Fast forward to today and I can't tell wen last I stepped inside a church. I wouldn't consider myself a Christian by any stretch of imagination. But do I despise my parents for what they did? NO
Maybe I'm an exception or a one-off case. But then aren't all families different:rainbow1:

Now can we /thread :bow:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No they don't. They may think they do, but they don't.

Yes, since you're the authority on what people REALLY believe, contrary to what even they themselves think they believe (and say they believe, and act like they believe, etc.).



Did the absurdity of this comment only strike you after you posted it, or have you still not realized it yet?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

First, thank you for addressing my post. I'm aware of the respect, soj. The feeling is mutual.

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.

While I prefer your perspective, at least a few of these Christians I have known might disagree with your assessment.

Toward the end of her life, my grandmother became much more universalist in her religious views when it came to salvation, grace, forgiveness, and love. I respected her wish to refrain from discussing my religious views in her house while she respected other religious views that are different than hers. Granted, our relationship deepened as we aged, and time and family bonds won out, but in her earlier years I doubt she would not see herself as a religious person unless she believed the Bible to be mostly factual in its history and doctrine. And this was what my mother and her siblings were raised in, and which also heavily influenced our own household.

It was typical to simply assume that we all belonged to the Catholic Church, regardless of how we may feel about doctrine. Regardless of any questions we may have (we really shouldn't have any questions). Regardless of the problem of evil, of an eternal hell, of missing Mass, of what parts don't make sense from the Nicene Creed, of how we felt about the Flood story.

I think times have changed. Even 10 years ago, my staunchly Catholic grandmother would become repulsed by the very mention of homosexuality, but in the year before she died, she relaxed and became supportive of same sex marriage rights. She felt the same back during the Civil Rights era, the advent of the Pill, of abortion rights, and eventually she relaxed and became more inclusive, but only after decades of feeling hostility toward anything considered progressive at the time or seemingly against the word of God.

This where I return to my point, and that I believe it's the culture we live in. Much like it's been culturally appropriate to raise children with the occasional spanking, to circumsize our male infants, and to at least question (if not despise) feminism....I think in this country the culture expects children to be raised in a religious-centered household, and not only normalizes it, but idealizes it.

Again, the respect is completely mutual. Perhaps it's more in keeping with the idea that what is indoctrinated in our culture is, itself, coercion, bullying, and emotional manipulation in regards to many aspects. And perhaps religion tends to be one of many avenues where such bad behavior travel and unfortunately create negative impact.

 

[Curious George]

That may well be, which is why we need to be careful how we act and what we say around kids. Kind of like trying not to cuss around little kids, or another method to cuss, but to inform the child of why those words are not something to say in most cases.

But this is indoctrination by your definition. Parents should let their children choose for themselves whether they want to swear or not. The parent should explain the reasoning of both people who swear and people who don't. They shouldn't tell them that it is bad, or that they shouldn't do it, because those are beliefs. Moreover, the parents should reserve all discussion until the child is capable of critical thought on the matter.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, since you're the authority on what people REALLY believe, contrary to what even they themselves think they believe (and say they believe, and act like they believe, etc.).



Did the absurdity of this comment only strike you after you posted it, or have you still not realized it yet?

Merriam-Webster defines literal in this way:
Adhering to fact...or primary meaning of a term;
free from exaggeration or embellishment;
Characterized by a concern mainly with facts;

Now I ask you -- how can God be known or believed literally when there are no facts, no primary meaning to go from? What God may or may not be can only be embellished by what we believe -- not reduced to what we know.

It's a matter of definition and proper use of terminology. God cannot be literally known. We cannot define God. God can only be believed metaphorically, for any cognitive construct we have of God is metaphorical. No one has seen God, touched God, or in any way physically encountered a uniquely individual entity called "God." They may believe they have done so -- but they haven't.

Therefore, in talking about our belief in God, it is improper and dishonest to say that "God is literal." One can say, "I believe that God is real" and be on the safe side of truth -- but not, "I believe God is literal." God isn't literal.

It's not a matter of me "knowing what people believe." It's a matter of being precise in language, so that we're also honest in our communication.

Some people -- heck, even most -- people may believe that God is literally as they have conceptualized God to be. But the belief would be incorrect, for God (in order to be God) must be greater than our ability to define.

 

[sojourner]

at least a few of these Christians I have known might disagree with your assessment.

I'm absolutely sure of it!

in her earlier years I doubt she would not see herself as a religious person unless she believed the Bible to be mostly factual in its history and doctrine. And this was what my mother and her siblings were raised in, and which also heavily influenced our own household.

Ok, but that's not quite what "legalism" is. That's more "literalism."

Again, the respect is completely mutual. Perhaps it's more in keeping with the idea that what is indoctrinated in our culture is, itself, coercion, bullying, and emotional manipulation in regards to many aspects. And perhaps religion tends to be one of many avenues where such bad behavior travel and unfortunately create negative impact.

I think you're right. But in that case, it's not particularly the religion -- or the passing down of beliefs -- that's the culprit, but the culture.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm absolutely sure of it!

Fair enough.

Ok, but that's not quite what "legalism" is. That's more "literalism."

Hmmm....help me out here. What's the difference? (Got a fever today. Trying to focus)

I think you're right. But in that case, it's not particularly the religion -- or the passing down of beliefs -- that's the culprit, but the culture.

Oh I'm quite sure culture is the culprit. But much like, IMO, science must continue to re-examine its ethics in appropriating what is considered right and what is harmful, I believe religion ought to continue to re-examine itself on its ethical appropriations in culture. Including its practices of infant baptism, marital vows, and teachings concerning homosexuality. It was once considered proper parenting to never pick up your children....ever...so as to maintain distance and authority over children. It was once considered a proper marriage if a woman were to vow to obey her husband. And it was once considered proper to abandon, abuse, and attack homosexuals or anyone engaged in same sex romantic/sexual liaisons.

Everyone, scientist, humanist, and religious alike ought to consider if such things are seen as unethical nowadays IMO how their speech and behavior helped to be culpable of abuse. How did the biological sciences support homophobia in the past? Likewise, how does religion?

Oooh, hang on....I think my fever is breaking. Suddenly I'm sweating up a storm. Yikes. LOL

 

[sojourner]

Hmmm....help me out here. What's the difference?

Legalism entails very tightly-defined notions of boundary, identity, ethics, rules. Legalism says: "The rules of engagement are more important than your own personhood." Legalism says: "You will believe these things so long as you live under my roof." Literalism is the transference of belief to fact.

Xy cannot be legalistic by definition, because love relationships are not legalistic in nature -- and that's what Xy is -- a relationship of love.

Oh I'm quite sure culture is the culprit. But much like, IMO, science must continue to re-examine its ethics in appropriating what is considered right and what is harmful, I believe religion ought to continue to re-examine itself on its ethical appropriations in culture. Including its practices of infant baptism, marital vows, and teachings concerning homosexuality. It was once considered proper parenting to never pick up your children....ever...so as to maintain distance and authority over children. It was once considered a proper marriage if a woman were to vow to obey her husband. And it was once considered proper to abandon, abuse, and attack homosexuals or anyone engaged in same sex romantic/sexual liaisons.

Everyone, scientist, humanist, and religious alike ought to consider if such things are seen as unethical nowadays IMO how their speech and behavior helped to be culpable of abuse. How did the biological sciences support homophobia in the past? Likewise, how does religion?

Yup. Otherwise, it becomes both legalistic and literalistic.