Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the basic issue with Pangwan is he thinks children have rights that trump parental rights.

Of course they do. Don't you think this? Parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. I've never met anyone who claims that parents can violate their children's rights at will.

Let's not get too extreme and talk about abuse unless you believe taking your children to church is abuse.

AFAICT, the only people that have been throwing around the term "abuse" are people defending religious indoctrination on the grounds that it's not "abuse".

Speaking for myself, I'm not saying that forcing a child into a religion is abusive. It's disrespectful, certainly, and it often leads to negative consequences, but I don't think that "mainstream" indoctrination is so severe that it crosses the line of abuse.

... however, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's healthy or positive.

 

[Curious George]

I have not seen Penguin ever support laws against teaching children the parents' religion. Maybe I missed it, but that's why I was asking. My point was that you might be misconstruing someone disagreeing with the practice as someone trying to infringe on parents' rights.
.

Well for starters we can see posts like these


.

And I say that trying to force kids into lifelong religious commitments goes against the general principle in our laws that says we shouldn't force kids into lifelong commitments, as evidenced by our attitude to things like tattoos and marriage.

Two points occur to me here:

- how the law IS is irrelevant when considering how the law SHOULD be.

- the child is just as entitled to freedom of religion as the parent.

I am not going to bother quoting every post and I especially am not going through all of the posts and try to quote every time someone has likened raising a child in a religion to abusive behavior.

If you believe that children's rights are being infringed upon wrongly, then you are arguing that U.S. law is wrong in this regard. If the law is wrong, should it not be changed? If you are suggesting that your belief that parents should not raise their children in religion is no better than the next guys beliefs that parents should, then we agree. However, I am not sure that is what penguin is saying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you believe that children's rights are being infringed upon wrongly, then you are arguing that U.S. law is wrong in this regard. If the law is wrong, should it not be changed? If you are suggesting that your belief that parents should not raise their children in religion is no better than the next guys beliefs that parents should, then we agree. However, I am not sure that is what penguin is saying.

My position is that religious indoctrination is an example of disrespectful and often harmful behaviour.

However, I don't think that changing the law is necessarily the solution. After all, it seems to me that this comes down to an issue of respect, and I don't know of any way to make respect happen with legislation. I think the solution is to persuade parents that they should think highly enough of their kids not to try to force a religion on them (... or political affiliation, or career choice, or spouse, etc., etc.)

 

[Magic Man]

Really? Again?... It's ok for a parent to teach their kids in the manner they feel is appropriate as long as you feel it is appropriate. Otherwise it is not appropriate.Your position is becoming very confusing.

My position is very simple. People should be allowed to teach their kids how they see fit, as long as they're not actively harming them. Just because people are allowed to do something, though, doesn't mean I have to agree with the action. I disagree with the practice of indoctrinating children, even though I don't want it to be illegal. I thought this had been made abundantly clear from the other few times I've said it plainly.

My position is simple. As long as the parent isn't breaking the law which we as a society have agree to. You feel you know better. So does every parent. Why should they listen to you? And, if they did agree, it shouldn't be a problem to get the laws changed. You feel it's morally wrong. Ok, other parents don't have the same morality you do. Or, again, if they did, it shouldn't be too hard to gets laws passed.

Actually, that's not simple at all. Let's make it simple:


There are things we all agree with and disagree with when it comes to parenting. There are also things we all think should be illegal when it comes to parenting. This particular practice is one with which I disagree, even though I don't think it should be illegal.

Sure in a way that you feel is appropriate. That doesn't necessarily mean they are going to have a better or happier life because of it.

You never have that guarantee no matter how you parent. All you can do is go with the method that gives you the best chance of a good outcome.

I remember a story about a guy who decided to raise a genius. Only allow her to listen to classical music. Taught her mathematics, science, critical thinking. It worked. Ended up with an IQ of around 210? Not sure but pretty high.
Anyway she grew up miserable. Overweight, no friends but she was very smart. Who knows, taught her a little religion she might have ended up with a better support group. Still I'm sure the parent did what he thought was best.

You do realize that type of parenting is the kind I'm talking about opposing, right?

Not if they want to be a soldier. Maybe if I could foresee the future. I'd know what were the correct choices for my kids. I don't and I don't believe you do either but I'm doing the best I can. I don't think it's my place to be telling other parents how they should be raising their kids. I hope it works out for the best but I don't have a crystal ball. Do you?

That doesn't really address my point. Do you or do you not see a problem with forcing kids to believe things the parents believe, as opposed to teaching them about things and letting them form their own conclusions?

No, I would take what I felt is appropriate action according to my morals when faced with such circumstances. Has nothing to do with telling them how to or not to raise their kids. Has to do with me and my morals and my actions to protect the kid in a manner I saw fit. That's not because I view more morals as better. That's because I act according to my morality.

I hope you don't think that's anything other than a convoluted attempt to rationalize the fact that you also feel it's OK to judge other people's parenting at times.

Ok, I see no reason to concern myself with the religious belief of others. If a child believes and they are happy with it, great. If they are not happy, and there are a whole lot of things to not be happy about, of which religion seems fairly minor, hopefully they can see their way to changing things.


I know people have told me they had parents who they claimed used their religion to abuse them. However I don't believe in denying the rights of a parent because of those that few abuse their rights. You need to deal with the individual, not everyone who happens to profess the same religious belief.

You're still responding to strawmen. We're talking about a particular parenting style. The question is whether it's a good style or not. The question is not whether we should allow it. Should parents force beliefs on kids, or should they teach kids to think for themselves and let them make their own decisions?

What I'm saying is that what people feel is right is not based on objective morality. They felt as morally right as you do now. In the future society may find your morality reprehensible and condemn you for it. You cannot use your own feelings as an objective gauge for morality.

So, do you think people should own slaves or not?

 

[Magic Man]

Well for starters we can see posts like these

I am not going to bother quoting every post and I especially am not going through all of the posts and try to quote every time someone has likened raising a child in a religion to abusive behavior.

If you believe that children's rights are being infringed upon wrongly, then you are arguing that U.S. law is wrong in this regard. If the law is wrong, should it not be changed? If you are suggesting that your belief that parents should not raise their children in religion is no better than the next guys beliefs that parents should, then we agree. However, I am not sure that is what penguin is saying.

Penguin has already responded, clarifying what I had already pointed out. But let me respond to the bolded part.

I am suggesting that it is my opinion that teaching your kids your religion as if it's the true one is a bad parenting method. I am also suggesting that that opinion is better than the "next guy's" belief that parents should teach their kids their religion. I'm saying that the better opinion is the one that treats people the way they'd want to be treated. An adult Catholic wouldn't want to have beliefs forced on them, so by their own standard, they shouldn't force their beliefs on others, even kids.

 

[Nymphs]

I believe people make too big a deal out of this, most children rebell which is why Atheist parents may well raise a preacher or religious parents may have an Athesist young adult.

What?

 

[Nakosis]

My position is very simple. People should be allowed to teach their kids how they see fit, as long as they're not actively harming them. Just because people are allowed to do something, though, doesn't mean I have to agree with the action. I disagree with the practice of indoctrinating children, even though I don't want it to be illegal. I thought this had been made abundantly clear from the other few times I've said it plainly.

Ok, you don't want to make it illegal you just want to promote your ideas about raising kids is better then the next guys. I'm sure the next guy feels the same. I feel my bias is my bias and what I believe is right or better is not necessarily right of better for everyone else. That's kind of how religious ideology gets started, people assuming they know better about what's right and what's wrong then the next guy. Fortunately the US constitution provides some safeguards against us imposing or beliefs one another.

Actually, that's not simple at all. Let's make it simple:

There are things we all agree with and disagree with when it comes to parenting. There are also things we all think should be illegal when it comes to parenting. This particular practice is one with which I disagree, even though I don't think it should be illegal.

There are practices I disagree with as well. Doesn't mean I know for sure a particular practice is going to actually help or harm the child later in life. Just means it's not the way I'd go about things.

You never have that guarantee no matter how you parent. All you can do is go with the method that gives you the best chance of a good outcome.

Different parents want different outcomes for their children. So yes they will act in accordance with what they believe will produce a favorable outcome.

You do realize that type of parenting is the kind I'm talking about opposing, right?

Not really sure. Your opposed to what you consider forcing or indoctrination of ideas onto children. I find the "forcing" and or "indoctrination" of ideas necessary for society at least until the child is capable of self-determination. Me, I like encouraging self-determination. My wife likes to encourage continued dependance on her "wisdom". My kids develop their personality partially based on that interchange. I don't know that makes them better or worse then then someone else's kids. It just makes them who they are.

That doesn't really address my point. Do you or do you not see a problem with forcing kids to believe things the parents believe, as opposed to teaching them about things and letting them form their own conclusions?

Depends on a lot of things. Culture, society, want the parents want for the kids. I don't pretend to know what is best for someone else's kids. Not even sure I know what is best for my own kids. However I am who I am and I can only hope I didn't damage them too much in the process of raising them.

I hope you don't think that's anything other than a convoluted attempt to rationalize the fact that you also feel it's OK to judge other people's parenting at times.

Of course I'm going to judge. I'm going to judge according to my morality. What I'm saying is that doesn't mean I think my morals are better then theirs. Just different.

You're still responding to strawmen. We're talking about a particular parenting style. The question is whether it's a good style or not. The question is not whether we should allow it. Should parents force beliefs on kids, or should they teach kids to think for themselves and let them make their own decisions?

Actually I'm arguing against your belief that you know which "style" is better for someone else's kids.

So, do you think people should own slaves or not?

Me, no. So what. Others in the past, present and probably future have different morals.

Actually, historically, slavery and conquest seem the basis of most powerful civilizations. Once a civilization starts promoting freedom and equality things like the economy starts to decline rapidly. Human nature and things like access to available resources will dictate morality. What we accept as right and wrong changes with the circumstances we find ourselves in.

 

[Nakosis]

What?

Yep, noticing quite a revival among the youth in Christian belief. Kids want to have something to believe in. If the parents don't give it to them they'll go find it for themselves.

I'm assuming "good" Atheist parents would have no issue if their child chose for themselves to become Christian.

 

[Magic Man]

Ok, you don't want to make it illegal you just want to promote your ideas about raising kids is better then the next guys. I'm sure the next guy feels the same. I feel my bias is my bias and what I believe is right or better is not necessarily right of better for everyone else. That's kind of how religious ideology gets started, people assuming they know better about what's right and what's wrong then the next guy. Fortunately the US constitution provides some safeguards against us imposing or beliefs one another.

I've addressed this before. The whole idea of everyone's ideas being equally valid doesn't work. If we truly went with that, we couldn't have laws or anything other than anarchy. It's OK to think your views are better than others', but it's best when you have some kind of rational argument to back it up.

Of course there are times when it's best to just say "let them do things their way". For the most part, it's good to not judge others' parenting. It's true that you don't know what's going on in their lives, so just let them do things their way. But as I've gone over before, we all feel there are times it is OK to judge their parenting. You just don't think this is one of those times, whereas I do.

This is not how religious ideology gets started. To a certain point, we have to judge others' actions and even parenting. We can't just let parents do whatever they want with their children. This isn't a case where we should force them to stop, but it is a case where it's acceptable to judge a practice.

There are practices I disagree with as well. Doesn't mean I know for sure a particular practice is going to actually help or harm the child later in life. Just means it's not the way I'd go about things.

In other words, you agree, but are hesitant to agree fully.

Not really sure. Your opposed to what you consider forcing or indoctrination of ideas onto children. I find the "forcing" and or "indoctrination" of ideas necessary for society at least until the child is capable of self-determination. Me, I like encouraging self-determination. My wife likes to encourage continued dependance on her "wisdom". My kids develop their personality partially based on that interchange. I don't know that makes them better or worse then then someone else's kids. It just makes them who they are.

I'm opposed to indoctrination that has no real purpose. Obviously we have to teach kids certain things like how to communicate and how to interact with others. You can call that indoctrination, if you want, but teaching them personal beliefs as if they're true isn't necessary. We usually try to wait until a child's ready to teach them more advanced ideas. We don't try to teach kids algebra or about sex until they're a bit older. Just as with those other things, we can't expect kids to understand religious beliefs until they're at least a bit older. So, all I'm saying is teach them things consistently. We also don't teach them algebra is true "because we said so". We teach them how it works and why.

Of course I'm going to judge. I'm going to judge according to my morality. What I'm saying is that doesn't mean I think my morals are better then theirs. Just different.

Of course it doesn't mean that, but it also doesn't mean they're just different. As I said with laws, we have to determine at some point what is better and what's worse. With a lot of things, it's fine to just leave it at "we have different ideas". With some things it's reasonable to go further and say it's not only different to do it one way, it's better. Or else we can't tell people not to kill their children.

Actually I'm arguing against your belief that you know which "style" is better for someone else's kids.

And I'm explaining that you know what's best for someone else's kids too, in some cases. That's why we have laws regarding parenting. It sounds great to say "Hey, we're all just different; you have your beliefs and I have mine and they're all equal", but it doesn't really work like that. As a society we have to decide which views are better. We don't have to make laws for everything, but it's reasonable to conclude that some views are better than others, not just different.

Me, no. So what. Others in the past, present and probably future have different morals.

So, it's OK to break free from this "all beliefs are equal, just different" mindset.

 

[paarsurrey]

Of course they have the right. That doesn't mean they should choose to do it.



If they're open to "truth", then they're probably not bringing their children up in their religion.

It is part of the belief in the Truthful religion to be always open to Truth.

Regards

 

[Nymphs]

Yep, noticing quite a revival among the youth in Christian belief. Kids want to have something to believe in. If the parents don't give it to them they'll go find it for themselves.

I'm assuming "good" Atheist parents would have no issue if their child chose for themselves to become Christian.

It would irritate me, but they are free to chose what they would like...but then again, I'm not going to be a parents, so this doesn't apply to me.

 

[Nakosis]

I've addressed this before. The whole idea of everyone's ideas being equally valid doesn't work. If we truly went with that, we couldn't have laws or anything other than anarchy. It's OK to think your views are better than others', but it's best when you have some kind of rational argument to back it up.

Sure we could and it's how I think we go about it. We reach an arbitrary agreement based on common morality. With enough agreement among enough people the morality we agree on can be enforced and becomes laws. Doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

Of course there are times when it's best to just say "let them do things their way". For the most part, it's good to not judge others' parenting. It's true that you don't know what's going on in their lives, so just let them do things their way. But as I've gone over before, we all feel there are times it is OK to judge their parenting. You just don't think this is one of those times, whereas I do.

Ok... Not saying your view is wrong. Just not my view.

This is not how religious ideology gets started. To a certain point, we have to judge others' actions and even parenting. We can't just let parents do whatever they want with their children. This isn't a case where we should force them to stop, but it is a case where it's acceptable to judge a practice.

According to our current morality. What I don't judge is that our morality is any better. it just "happens" to be what it is caused by whatever influences went into it's development. Different time, different place, different morals.

In other words, you agree, but are hesitant to agree fully.

It means my agreement doesn't cause any type of universal rightness. It just means we happen to find some common moral ground. If I was a different person perhaps we wouldn't find it as common.

I'm opposed to indoctrination that has no real purpose. Obviously we have to teach kids certain things like how to communicate and how to interact with others. You can call that indoctrination, if you want, but teaching them personal beliefs as if they're true isn't necessary. We usually try to wait until a child's ready to teach them more advanced ideas. We don't try to teach kids algebra or about sex until they're a bit older. Just as with those other things, we can't expect kids to understand religious beliefs until they're at least a bit older. So, all I'm saying is teach them things consistently. We also don't teach them algebra is true "because we said so". We teach them how it works and why.

However if they are in a culture that requires acceptance of certain beliefs it'd be better that the parents did teach those beliefs the shunning, ostracizing even physical harm that might be caused by their lack of belief. To possibly keep their kids alive. Parents see their own benefits in teaching their children whatever they teach. Things you may not see as benefits but then your circumstances are different.

Of course it doesn't mean that, but it also doesn't mean they're just different. As I said with laws, we have to determine at some point what is better and what's worse. With a lot of things, it's fine to just leave it at "we have different ideas". With some things it's reasonable to go further and say it's not only different to do it one way, it's better. Or else we can't tell people not to kill their children.

Depends on the morals one happens to have. Someone else might very well tell their parents it's ok to kill their kids. All they need is enough agreement and enforcement to make it law.

And I'm explaining that you know what's best for someone else's kids too, in some cases. That's why we have laws regarding parenting. It sounds great to say "Hey, we're all just different; you have your beliefs and I have mine and they're all equal", but it doesn't really work like that. As a society we have to decide which views are better. We don't have to make laws for everything, but it's reasonable to conclude that some views are better than others, not just different.

Ok, but again you are working with an arbitrary set of morals. It makes it "right" or "better" because of the morality you happen to have. For someone with different morals it wouldn't be right or better.

So, it's OK to break free from this "all beliefs are equal, just different" mindset.

All beliefs are not equal to anyone. It's just that their rightness or wrongness in your eyes are dependent on your morals. A different set of morals means the the rightness or wrongness of a belief is not universal.

Look at it this way. I have compassion towards my fellowman. I didn't choose to have compassion it's just the way I feel for whatever reason. Another person may lack that compassion. Their morality is likely to be a great deal different then mine. They didn't choose to lack compassion. What is right for them will be different then what is right for me. What is better for them will be different then what is better for me. Are they wrong because they are different? They didn't choose to be different. That's just who they are.

Are you wrong for who you are? Are you wrong because you have compassion?

 

[Nakosis]

It would irritate me, but they are free to chose what they would like...but then again, I'm not going to be a parents, so this doesn't apply to me.

Yes, children are often irritating.

 

[Nymphs]

Yes, children are often irritating.

I never said that.

I just said I've chosen not to be a parent.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure we could and it's how I think we go about it. We reach an arbitrary agreement based on common morality. With enough agreement among enough people the morality we agree on can be enforced and becomes laws. Doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

Let's address this idea that no one's ideas are better than anyone else's and that any judgement is arbitrary. This is sort of true, but not at all helpful. Judgements and ideas based on facts, logic, reason and consistency can be shown to be more beneficial than those which aren't. That's why we generally agree that there needs to be a good reason for a law. We don't just say "Hey, let's make a law that you can't jump up and down".

So, just giving up and saying everyone's ideas and judgements are equal and yours are no better than anyone else's isn't a good way to approach the issue. There are certainly times when it's good to remember that we're not in a position to judge others' ideas or actions, but there are times when it is indeed good to do so.

Forcing your personal beliefs on your children is one of those times. As with the laws mentioned above, there is good reason to make this judgement. Mainly it's that you're not respecting your child as a person by letting them make their own decision on the topic when they're mentally able to do so. By the time they're ready to truly understand something like religion, you've already set them up to lean heavily towards your views. The better way to approach it is to give them the info when they're ready for it in an unbiased way and let them make their own decision.