Should we ban the indoctrination and brainwashing of children by religions? Is it chi

A resource based economy rather than one based on monopoly money (capitalism)

 

And nothing in your post, shows that those ex-Christians who grew to distrust or dislike the Christian version of hell that they were taught, were unable to figure it out and move beyond the idea without government help.

You just keep providing more and more evidence that the clear majority of Christians retain a very healthy capacity discern, to critique and to think and reject beliefs with which they no longer feel comfortable. It looks likes hell is a loser of an idea that is causing some serious erosion in those faiths that adopt and sell it. The process is working itself out just fine without government getting into the business of 'banning' the teaching of ideas you don't like. Those ex-Christians don't either. My guess is that they won't teach that eternal hell idea to their kids.

 

Is it really a clear majority, though? Ex-Christians don't constitute a majority, by any means.

I'm 14 years old, and contrary to the "rebellious teens" stereotype (a misguided stereotype if there ever was one, particularly in this day and age), the majority of my peers are totally indoctrinated into their parents' way of thinking, especially when it comes to religion. I mean, just yesterday in a religious studies lesson, we started chatting about our eating habits, and the number of students who followed a specific dietary code based on religion had absolutely no idea why they did so and had never thought of questioning it. Their parents' word was divine law. The family plays a huge part in conditioning children - and often into pretty reactionary viewpoints too - and I think if the state (not our current state; I distrust the capitalist state as much as the family) could alleviate this, it would be great.

 

Not sure that the term brainwashing really applies at all to any of this. Most of the definitions go like this "any systematic effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in persons against their will, usually beliefs in conflict with their prior beliefs and knowledge. It initially referred to political indoctrination of prisoners of war and political prisoners". http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/brainwashing Or this one, "Inducing a person to modify attitudes and behavior in certain directions through various forms of psychological pressure or torture.

Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

Unless you can show that either Grandma or the priest used to disbelieve in witch-craft and excorcism and then modified their beliefs against their will, It might not be the right term. Maybe they were Hindus or agnostics five years prior, but you have not established that and you haven't established that any of this was against their will. We don't know.

Now I did say 'most', because out of the 8 definitions offered on that page, there was one that did not refer to a change or alteration in belief system. Per Mosby's medical dictionary, brainwashed refers to "intensive indoctrination, usually of a political or religious nature, applied to individuals to develop in their minds a specific belief and motivation" By that definition, they probably both were, but then again, its so broad, it can apply to almost all of us by all sorts of social forces with respect to political beliefs,depending on what 'intensive' means. As I said above thread, I have been told I was politically brainwashed and indoctrinated a hundred times.

When looking at the definitions of indoctrinate, I will readily stipulate that parents, churches and schools do a lot of indoctrinating and governments endorse the indoctrinating of the citizenry when ever it is convenient and conducive to a continuation of the status quo. I have no doubt that both the grandparent and the priest were indoctrinated, but then again so was I and virtually every kid that attending public school. We worked it out.

 

You aren't getting at my position then. I don't demand and insist that people of faith reject 'hell' to prove they are stable, content or emotionally healthy or still capable of critical thinking. Most Christians do not reject their parents preferred faith, but most are not fixated or tortured by it either. They are comfortable, competent and able to live, sleep, think, work and have healthy social relationships without questioning or rejecting their faith. then there is not a problem needing a solution, let alone a government solution.

In your above example, if those students who are following a specific dietary code, are not malnourished, anemic or diagnosed with scurvy, I don't particularly care if they question those restrictions. If they are happy and content enough, so be it! If they are not happy and content, its up to them to decide whether they are so unhappy they want out of the 'trap'. The resources are out there. the information is out there. There is plenty of competition among the religious and non-religious belief systems. they choose to engage in some discovery, or live with what they have.

 

Little Children have no defenses against this, they will believe adult authority figures especially the ones parents encourage them to look up to and of course parents, if they tell them scary hellfire stories then they trust that is true they are wired by evolution to do so since if they didn't they would die young. So I will note foisting religion on them young stunts their critical thinking skills if you teach Johnny the Bible is literally true and he forms his entire world view on that then they won't then accept things like modern science for example. And worse you force them by peer pressure to join religious cults as minor children not adults even and use that pressure to keep them in. Some are worse than others like the Amish (who at least wait until they are eighteen) and the Mormons.

 

And then they quit attending once they get bored, or move towards another set of ideas that better fits their state of mind or lifestyle. Ask almost anyone who has watched as the pews grow emptier and emptier as older parishoners die, and the teens and young adults drift away from their parents choice of faith. Its happening in virtually every denomination.

Little kids have no defenses against any of the beliefs or values foist upon them by their parents. They trust what Mom and Dad say about values, politics, economics, abortion, gays, blacks, communists, atheists or people of faith. You teach your poisons, toxins, and biases and your kids have no defense system either. But they grow up and learn to question values that you never thought yours would. And the world goes round and round and round

Religion does not 'stunt' critical thinking. Religion in the wrong hands does, but then so does atheism or secular humanism. The problem is not the idea or set of ideas but in a combination of arrogance and insecurity that induces some parents and other adults to intensify the propaganda to such a point that kids are scared to talk and offer alternatives to those adults. Your very post is full of silly stereotypes and bigotry combined with that same intensity , that I wonder that anyone should trust you to teach critical thinking.

 

Nothing lasts forever.

 

The Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster that runs this country wants only those loyal to the cause. A system of indentured slavery an a semi Totalitarian police state where individual rights and freedoms can be trampled on at will.

 

I don't think the effect of the specific belief into which a child is indoctrinated makes any difference to the situation. Unquestioningly holding any sort of belief is for one thing completely irresponsible, and for another, when a lot of people in a given society do this, it seriously hampers the intellectual and cultural life and social progress of said society. It's partly why we're mired in this period of reaction right now. Living in a world of lemmings is no fun.

 

I think you are putting this too strongly. I don't see it as 'completely irresponsible' to hold a belief unquestioningly, nor do I see it is a social duty to question ones' beliefs. I reserve those judgments for more immediate and concrete actions like a refusal to parent and support your offspring, or a refusal to offer any aide or help to a heart attack victim on the street corner. I do agree with your second sentence and I would submit that any hint of the proposal in the OP, does far more than hamper intellectual exploration and social progress. Using government to pick the winners and losers in the idea game, by banning teaching of some, or micromanaging the parenting, will CRUSH intellectual exploration and social progress. Government cannot make people question their beliefs and it ought not try to get them to abandon them.

 

I know North Korea bans it. The former Soviet union banned it. Saudi Arabia bans anything but Islam. If they can do it....then perhaps we can gain the same benefits they received.

 

I don't really believe in the concept of social duties, actually; it's a little too abstract for me. But an unquestioningly held belief is very often the foundation of faulty logic and therefore isn't "intellectually healthy", as it were. This isn't the reason I support legislation against religious brainwashing; it's just an example of how not questioning one's beliefs can be unhealthy on an individual level.

Government pretty much already picks the winners and losers in the idea game. Bourgeois liberalism (in the loosest sense) permeates every inch of public life, the media and the education system in the West, and outside of the Western world bourgeois illiberalism does so much more blatantly. The only reason why this ideological permeation appears so subtle is that we're in a period of reaction; immediately after the bourgeois revolutions and throughout much of the 20th century, it wasn't so subtle.

Besides, banning public religious institutions and parental brainwashing would not crush intellectual exploration as much as open the door to it. Religion is a completely reactionary force in society and does nothing but hinder social progress and provide a convenient excuse for bigotry and hatred. It would be better if it were completely eradicated from public life and children were free from its corrupting influence.

- - - Updated - - -

The DPRK and USSR did not turn out the way they did because of a ban on religious indoctrination.

 

The brainwashing of people young and old by hardline Islamics has only been surpassed by atheistic communinsts/liberals/ aka "the Left."

The size and scope of those brainwashed under communism is hard to imagine. During the height of the Soviet Union, there were over 20 million people in the Gulag system every year, having every aspect of their life controlled by the central regime. The fact that millions died in genocides from Godless atheists like Pol Pot and Chairman Mao should be warning enough---but the cancer of communism/socialism continues it's growth in the US.

Freedom of thought and religion started in the Christian West---and has been under attack by socialists and and now Muslims for years.

 

You replaced my phrase ' picking winners and losers in the idea game', with a prefaced 'pretty much' to suit your own ideological agenda. If ' bourgeois liberalism" permeates every inch of public life, that is because it has won in the marketplace of ideas in this country, and your ideological agenda has been unable to gain traction. Do a better job of persuading and your preferred ideas may permeate public life without having to use government to arrest competitor ideas. We do not censor ideas or their expression, or ban private or public houses of worship or institutions to suit your pleasure or your biases.

If you think the same government that you want to give the authority to ban religious ideas and learning, is going to stop right there and watch the blossoming of 'intellectual exploration', you are absolutely right - until that exploration leads to any nascent reformation movement that threatens the status quo power structure and then those ideas with be deemed 'reactionary forces' and 'hindering social progress'. Your arrogance is blinding your naiveté. Your views of religious learning are actually stereotypic, bigoted and silly. Theological thought and study is another avenue for intellectual exploration, just as philosophy, political science and economic theory can be explored intellectually. That is why there are university degrees in theology that extend the human mind and spiritual endeavor.

There is no real intellectual exploration where there is a government to standardize its limitations and proper parameters. Phrases like 'hindering social progress' or 'intellectually unhealthy' are just bowls of word broth. The few pieces of meat and vegetable floating therein, do not give them enough substance that they won't spill all over the table.

 

You are right .... Prison population is high in Russia 581 per 100,000. Second highest in the world.

Only country higher is the US at 721 per 100,000.

Looks like Russia has progressed and we have gone backwards ?

There is a difference between brainwashing and indoctrination. I agree that the current indoctrination by the Gov't is bad. Your mistake is thinking that it is only the left. It is both Red and Blue.

This is different from sophisticated mind control techniques used by Christianity and Islam.

Both are insidious and malicious.

 

The marketplace of ideas in this country is a rigged game and there is definite censorship of ideas and their expression. I am not referring to speech which is banned (and some are such as certain things considered hate speech).

Try telling Phil Donahue there is no censorship of ideas. After speaking out against the Iraq war the guy never worked again.

We do not teach kids the basic's of Philosophy (logical fallacy, logic, what constitutes a valid argument) and Civics ( basic principles on which this country was founded, legitimacy of authority, individual rights and freedoms)

Without these basic tools, how are the masses supposed to weed through the cacophony of fallacy and irrational arguments fed them on a daily basis ?

More on this later.

I agree with most of what you are saying here. That would be giving the Gov't way too much power. The way to fight some of the dangerous ideologies taught by religious institutions is best fought with education. (Not teaching kids what to think but how to think)

The best way to dispel stupid idea is to get them into the open and have them debated publicly. Unfortunately the mass media will not touch some topics; Abortion and Religion ( our role in the creation of the humanitarian crisis in Syria if you want something current) to name just a few.

This is a form of censorship.

 

Our side calls it teaching, your side calls it indoctrination.

indoctrination:
teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology, especially one with a specific point of view:
religious indoctrination.

brain·wash
ˈ
verb

make (someone) adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure.

Teaching through forcible pressure is not a method used by modern Christian schools. This is the common method in communist nations like China and North Korea. It is also preferred method of teaching in hardline Islamic areas. "Convert or die." And so on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-soldier-who-escaped-from-raqqa-a6818601.html

 

This makes no sense whatsoever. To not teach the word of God, is brainwashing.

 

Everyone, to an extent, writes to suit their own ideological agenda. Your talk of "winners and losers in the idea game" and "the marketplace of ideas" is the typical capitalist narrative. And as I said, the reason why censorship seems so subtle (despite obvious media biases, the secrets and lies of the government, religion, and the total brainwashing apparatus which is the education system in which I'm currently wasting my life) is that we are in a period of reaction. The capitalist ruling class certainly did employ blatant censorship historically, when it was necessary, and continues to do so in other parts of the world.

True. Just as the capitalist ruling class does.

Except that it won't go quite as far, because it will be a government run by the working-class, by the majority. So there will be limits to intellectual exploration while the state still exists (the state is transient) but not so many as there are now.

I agree that theology can be a useful subject to study, mostly for sociocultural reasons, but studying it differs from adhering to it.

"Intellectually unhealthy" = logically irresponsible and therefore not conducive to intellectual development on an individual level. I think social progress is a coherent notion; we all know when a society is static and when it is dynamic.

And I would go further: there is no real intellectual exploration while a government exists.

 

Once again, please provide me a list of ideas, secular or religious, ideological or philosophical, political or economic that our government bans from intellectual exploration. Please do not refer to the 'capitalist ruling class' as a synonym for government and then 'respond'. It is not and you cannot once you fall into the ideological trap.

I just smile when someone attempts to define what is intellectually healthy and I laugh out loud when you put an equal sign between that phrase in logically responsible. 'Intellectually healthy' growth is often the opposite of logical and it sure as hell is not bound by any ones sense of 'responsible' or irresponsible.

You have not read or studied much more of the creative arts or literature than you have theology, have you? You need to pick up some books of poetry, listen to some music and go to an art museum. Your definition of what is intellectually healthy is, once again, limiting and arrogant. You lack imagination and I don't want such people deciding what ideas we ought to ban. You would do well as a bureaucrat though.

 

Why, are atheists that insecure in their rejection of God?

 

Back to the original thread about brainwashing.
If it's invasive enough it can lead to nightmares like this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistani-teenage-boy-cuts-off-own-hand-after-imam-accused-him-of-blasphemy-a6820846.html

 

Canada's oil, forestry products and mine production do not fit well in a bank. Cash does.

I do not think you know what you are talking about.

Regards
DL

 

You are wrong. They pass on the lies.

I just happen to think it is in the best interest of the population and a duty of our government to insure that corporation that they tax exempt should not be actively lying to the population for their money.

If you have a problem with that then your morals are not what they should be.

Regards
DL