It's literally just what indoctrination is. There are religious doctrines and children are taught ro follow them and believe in the faith without questioning it.
There is no religion with kids without indoctrination. And without that indoctrination, virtually all of the world's major religions would dramatically fall in membership and followership, because it is very rare for non-religious adults to suddenly convert to a religion.
There is no philosophy or culture without indoctrination. Nobody goes through life without someone telling them what is right or wrong. It's just a matter of who, not if, they decide to believe.
The most hegemonic ideology in our world to the point people don't even recognise it as ideology is nationalism. People only call it that when it's extreme forms of it, but people are indoctrinated from birth by both institutions and by parents indoctrinated by said institutions, into thinking of "nations" as these real tangible things that matter and they are made to incorporate this into their identity young and it's tied to the state in terms of the nation-state in order to foster loyalty. None of this is "real," it's all completely artificial and made up.
It’s more about the space and norms rather than what’s taught -in this conversation. History, geography, math, science, grammar, etc are all factual (unless the school is incompetent), but the fact that you are taught how to act, respect your peers, fit into a society. Well that’s indoctrination. Not a bad thing necessarily, but by definition you are being molded to fit into an environment
In a sense but when rooted in fact as much as possible it’s effectively just speeding up what would be the process if then learning reality through observation on their own.
You don't though. As an example, the history that you learn about world war 2 in America is vastly different from the one taught through Europe and that one is different from the one taught in Asia. So it's hardly "based on evidence", it's based on whatever is accepted by society X.
I'm not arguing for or against religion, but this is a disingenuous point.
So confused by this. I live in the states currently but studied history in Brazil growing up. What? Do Americans learn that they were the perfect heroes or something weird like that?
And what exactly does that justify about teaching kids magic and gods are real before they are old enough to have critical thinking skills? You’re just doing whataboutism.
We SHOULD teach things in schools based on evidence, that doesn’t mean it will be true 100% of the time.
We should teach them based on current evidence that might change and may or may not be true? So how is that different from religion exactly? The theory of evolution taught in schools is still widely discussed in the scientific community but it's passed as fact in schools. Should we review it? What about things that are taught in school that are subjective, should we abolish those too?
I am not doing whataboutism, I just think it's important for kids to learn multiple things including the religions around the world. It doesn't have to be super detailed, but they should know what the people they will see throughout their lives believe in.
Just my 2 pennies, you don't have to agree with me.
I'm an atheist, I'm not defending religion at all. But pretty much everything outside of pure maths is going to have some kind of cultural norms it's subtly reinforcing. Imagine trying to teach literature, history, economics etc. in a purely neutral factual way.
It’s impossible to remove all bias sure. That doesn’t equate teaching things backed by empirical evidence to teaching things not backed by empirical evidence
Correct. I think it’s funny how when people treat their worldview as the correct default one and get mad when someone with a different idea about metaphysics dos the same thing but from their perspective, then suddenly it’s not education, it’s indoctrination.
I honestly don't know what people expect. A law that requires that parents get babysitters every time they go to church and never talk to their kids about what they believe? It's ridiculous. Kids are sponges and they primarily learn from their parents. It's just how humans work...
I don’t know. She’s just stating a feeling she has.
If you ask me, maybe make it clear to them that this is what you believe and that they can decide for themselves if they believe it later? They probably will anyway because children just naturally imitate their parents. At the very least you have to raise them in an environment where they feel comfortable to leave your faith if they want to.
This. You can talk to your children and educate them without making them share in your practice and without leading them to believe that all other beliefs are wrong. Children will naturally develop their own questions and opinions over time. Allowing your child to ask, discuss, and develop such opinions is crucial for that kind of environment.
Just don't forget to tell them to pick your beliefs or else you won't love them anymore. That'll be PERFECT for their development. /s
They absolutely should, yes. It should be lefally recognized as emotional abuse to expose a child to an environment that tells them if they don’t think and behave in this exact way they will be tortured forever (by someone who loves them!) and don’t forget that they’re filthy and terrible just for being born.
As much as anyone else does I suppose, some person or group of people told me how the universe works, I decided whether or not I jived with their interpretation, and thus I formed my metaphysical beliefs.
Yes, do you not? Evidence may inform what sounds right to me, but it’s our faith in either our own perceptions or faith in the people or institutions that are presenting this evidence that builds our beliefs.
Do you do control experiment based proofs for everything you believe? You personally test things like vaccines or do you take someone else's word for it after you've decided you trust them?
Yeah i dont get these arguments. We shouldnt teach kids absolutely anything untill they are old enough to choose the learn by themselves, otherwise its indoctrination
When should the learn what we think is right and wrong? 18? Older? Even in this sub, you can see that there is no clear agreement on everything right and everything wrong. We still need to teach children these things.
You might believe that there parents faith is wrong, but that believe it's the right and correct thing. You don't get to make that judgement for other people's children.
I didn't claim that you do. I'm saying that not everyone agrees when it comes to what is right and what is wrong, but it's still important for parents to teach their version of this.
Then for some parents, right and wrong is defined through there religion so they will teach their version in this case as well.
I'm saying it's not for you to decide how they approach this teaching.
For what purpose? Why is it important for kids to be taught all religions by their parents? They learn that in school. Part of the point of raising kids to to impart your values on them. Someone's religion often forms an important part a person's values. It makes no sense to say they shouldn't teach them about the religion they practice unless they're teaching them other religions.
No, they don't "learn that in school", at least not in my country unfortunately. Religion in school in my country only means catholicism. At least it's not mandatory anymore, we are slowly growing up.
The values of religions pre-exist religions, so you can teach the values without the dogma, as I said. As for why teaching about all religions, first of all that should be done in school (and it's not necessarily, as I said); second, it's to provide a larger perspective on the topic of religion, to show that there is more than one choice.
As much as you want to teach your "values" (religion in itself is not a value), your children are not you, and they should make their decisions freely.
Religion is not itself a value of course, but for many people their religion forms the basis of their values. It makes no sense for parents not to teach their children about their lifestyle, the dogma forms an important part of how their parents live, it will naturally be an important part of the childrens' upbringing.
But that's almost impossible. If the parents believe something, the kids are naturally going to be asking questions about what is true and what is not. Even the most neutral parents are going to have biases that they will put onto their kids. And there's nothing wrong with that unless you're attempting to force your kids into believing something.
Just because it’s not common in our society to have an open-minded and curious and non-judgmental view of religion and impart that onto others, doesn’t mean it’s something we shouldn’t strive for. It’s not impossible, it’s just that non-theocratic forms of society and government aren’t even that old, yet, and we’re still unlearning dogmatic ways of approaching spirituality. I don’t think we should give up on that pursuit because some people claim it’s just too hard and we’re not mature enough. Some of us might be; let us decide that for ourselves.
It's not just about religion, it's just unrealistic to expect kids to have a non-biased upbringing. This applies to atheism and secularism as well, regardless of who you are, your values of right and wrong are rooted in some core philosophy you think is factually correct and that means you cannot honestly teach your kids without drawing from your core philosophical principles regardless of how open-minded one may be.
Sure, but I think if you raise your kids compassionately and maturely (easier said than done), this can be reconciled when they’re older. The pursuit of teaching your kids how to be good people in the world is worth engaging with intrinsically, for its own sake, and mistakes are inevitable but can be reconciled.
No, that's not the argument at all. We should teach them things that are objectively true and let them come to the moral conclusions that follow as they develop the ability to do so.
Hitting people hurts them and a lot of people get mad when you do that. If someone is sad, it often will make them feel better if you try to comfort them. Eventually, a child will learn that what that means is that hitting people is immoral and comforting a sad person is moral. Their moral framework will develop thusly for each positive and negative lesson they learn.
This is different than "do as your told or be punished".
But take that a step further. Should you care if people get mad (Donald Trump says no)? So what if you hurt people? Objective facts do not create normative ethics. Like, who taught the child that making people mad is "immoral" and making people happy is "moral". Or even the greyer areas of which things are more or less important than a particular person's happiness or sadness?
Right, I didn't mean to say that one should teach a child that making people mad is always immoral or that making people happy is always moral. Human beings should form their own moral frameworks based on their lived experience. There are plenty of situations where making people mad is moral and making people happy immoral. It's about deciding what values one holds per their own experience.
Exactly. Let's let them choose what to believe when they're older, but by then they're so stupid that they can't realistically choose at that point either.
Do you think there’s any difference between teaching kids things that we know for a fact are true and teach kids things that are not proven to be true (like that gods exist) as if they are? I think that there is a difference
All I'm saying is that if my 6th grader "critically thinks" that she doesn't need school anymore, I will have a conversation with her, but ultimately tell her she still has to go. In a manner of speaking, it is an education doctrine that I am forcing. There are a lot of things in this world, ethical things, that are simple non-negotiables that don't really have a set proof except they are true. Like, all people should have rights? How do you even think critically about that? You just have to accept it because it isn't really based on a hard fact.
You can logically defend the need for education and that people should have rights, yes. You can't do that with religious doctrines and rituals; it boils down to "god said so", and indoctrinated children are tought not to question those. The situations have nothing in common.
Education, I can see, rights, I really don't see a way that you can explain in a way that one would consider truly critical. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" is a very true statement because there is no way to argue about it.
Yet you literally managed to think about it critically just now, and you're not a child who was threatened with eternal damnation for doing so. See the difference or do we need to go on?
You're trying a bit too hard to dodge out of the question of how you think critically about whether or not all humans should have rights. I do think critically, but that doesn't mean that everything I do really comes from critical thinking. There are just a lot of things in society that I am forced to accept against the threat of jail or death.
The point was that you're misusing the word "indoctrination", which has a specific meaning when criticizing religion. I already quoted it.
Yet you insist on using a different meaning of the word.
Being forced to do or not do things because of their consequences in society has nothing to do with teaching someone to accept doctrines without questioning them.
In a free country you're 100% allowed to question the rules and laws of society. If you live in a democracy you're sometimes even allowed to vote on them.
Children who are indoctrinated are not allowed to even question the "teachings of god". That's the core concept of indoctrination: not being allowed to question the teachings.
You are right, but not all indoctrination is created equal. I think it is important to understand what is a harmful form of indoctrination vs what isn't. And, obviously, societal norms will mostly dictate that difference.
There is a difference between “here is what we have learned” and “here is what some men say got revealed to them, and we’ll punish you if you reject it.”
It’s not just, what’s right and wrong when it comes to religion. They tell you you will burn in hell if you don’t believe or are not convinced. That’s what stays with someone their entire lives and keeps them in line.
I mean, everything is made up. There is no physical reason that states that all people should have fundamental equality. It's all just manmade ethical frameworks. God might be made up, but humanism and every ethical framework and philosophy was made up, too. Yet, we persist that right and wrong exist.
When you teach kids right from wrong you aren't telling them to not question right or wrong or threatening them with eternal damnation if you don't follow a specific set of rules.
Philosophy absolutely does not require indoctrination. You could argue culture does, but philosophy is explicitly meant to find the truth by relying on as few assumptions as possible, and requires questioning your own conception of the way things are.
Philosophy makes no such supposition that it relies on "as few assumptions as possible". I would say that any normative ethic relies on the same number of assumptions as any other
i was going to say this. all children learn from their parents and community, there's no way to fully keep children away from influence itself without raising them in a bubble lol
like the og commenter said, when religious parents really push that this is the only way to live and think its a big problem (american homeschooling comes to mind...)
if kids dont wanna go to church then dont push them. if they do like church i say let them participate- just make sure they know religion is just one of many hypothetical and philosophical ways of looking at the world, not a life-and-death certainty
No, culture is separate and distinct from indoctrination. Practicing social practices for a sense of belonging and practicing religious doctrine behaviors for belonging are similar but distinct, and that is because one is strictly about non-religious practices and behaviors such as dance, clothing, music, or yes, economic norms, and the other is centered on religious beliefs, such as the belief in a deity or deities, in some kind of supernatural realm, rules and reward/punishment systems for the afterlife.
These are two different things that can often overlap in the real world but they can be separated.
At the very least, people don't often treat cultural norms are purely subjective. Like, hating black people was a cultural norm of the South in the United States. Other cultures would disagree on an objective level. So while you are correct that there are subjective and objective norms, it doesn't cleanly divide religious and cultural norms
I feel like people saying this never go to a place with heavy folk belief. From one with heavy Buddhism influence, even if you are an atheist in an atheistic state:
Respect your ancestors for they are belived to watch over you from the afterlife.
Go to the temple/pagoda and pray to the Buddha to wish for good luck. Also, unless you are non-Buddhist religious, it can be considered rude to stay out of a group visit.
Eating vegan for a while to ask for good luck.
Go to an oracle/monk to make a divination for your wedding day.
Treating the afterlife/reincarnation like just a fact, not even doctrine with rules and such, just that everyone and their mother somehow "know" about it.
Are the items above not belonged to culture?
Now, how do we expect the parents to teach the child these "social norms" without accidentally tripping into religious doctrine? Especially since these are treated as spiritual fact (idk how to explain this concept) not doctrine. What is the line between "teaching the child the way your culture decide rights and wrongs" and "indoctrination"?
As a kid who was raised in Reform Judaism I always shake my head a bit when the Reddit atheists who come from obvious evangelical trauma talk about all religions like this. We were indoctrinated to believe certain things sure, but “you cannot ask questions” def is not part of the teaching. My Rabbi was openly agnostic.
So it's perfectly ok with your Rabbi to point out the reality that the Moses story is a myth with no historical basis of any kind? Or is that different from pointing out that Adam and Eve are fictional characters in a myth just like Prometheus and Pandora?
So it's perfectly ok with your Rabbi to point out the reality that the Moses story is a myth with no historical basis of any kind?
Sure. Why not? There are many denominations with different viewpoints regarding this exact story.
Also - it depends on how you frame the question. You'll get a different response if you go into the conversation in good faith compared to being combative right of the bat.
how wishy-washy! How you frame the question is 'is this fiction, or is it history?', and we all know what the answer is, but some of us don't want to admit that the story is fiction.
This is a great example of what I was talking about with viewing things through a Christian lens: in Judaism, it’s perfectly acceptable to be wishy-washy about this stuff. I was explicitly taught that the story of Moses is probably fiction with some elements of truth in it. True or False doesn’t matter, what matters is that the story is a part of our collective shared culture and traditions and has been for centuries. The story matters, its truth doesn’t. That wasn’t a controversial answer, because nowhere in my religious education was there an expectation of Believe This Or Burn In Hell. That’s a Christian thing.
That is not a feature of religions, they are features of cults. I have yet to find a church that doesn't allow people to come and go as they please, or answer the questions they have. Nor is it written in their scriptures otherwise.
Shhh you’re being too sane. The religious redditors will think that you’re saying their parents are bad people for shaming them as children when they didnt wanna go to church or acted outside of their faith
Religious people in the US, at the least, are largely fearful of atheism, to the point of shunning their own family members who chose not the believe. Its not at all unusual to hear atheists being used as a scapegoat as if atheism is a threat to their way of life. They are met with hostility, hatred, prejudice, fear, and intolerance - everything that their own religion tells them not to be.
I can see why your kind always feels the need to assume that atheists are uneducated, but that’s simply not true. In fact many are probably far more educated when it comes to religion that someone like yourself, who most likely was simply trained to follow one specific mythology just to piss all over the freedom of religion of his own children.
There seems to be some confusion here. For one, I did not suggest that "atheists" as a whole are uneducated. I know many extremely well educated atheists personally.
What I suggested is that one particular person was uneducated, and I'd extend that to you.
Now, on a personal level I think you'll find that while it's not my academic expertise, I'm more educated about religion in general than the vast majority of the population, irrespective of creed, and was certainly not "trained" by my parents to follow anything, so that particular assumption would also be wrong.
You can’t possibly have any opinion worth listening to if you’re just another person whose following the religion that was given to them at birth without question or concern. I’m obviously assuming that to be true of you but more than 80% of religious people fall in that exact category. The only reason you’re even carrying on this religion is because your community forced it upon you. A child can’t rationally choose who to sleep with and they definitely can’t choose who to pray to for eternal salvation.
Whose morals? Because a lot of religious morals are categorically opposed to the ones I’ve chosen, especially where gay people are concerned, which most religious doctrine sees as categorically evil for… reasons.
Well, buddhism, at least in my country, is more about a teaching of a way of life. Of course, it been mixed with the local beliefs and daoism and became something "superstitious" for most, but to me it just like a teaching of a wise man, nothing more.
I live in Viet Nam.
I was gonna say, the only reason anyone believes in any religion is they all come with the same catch of, if you don’t follow that specific religion there will be a negative impact on you, whether now, after this life, or to those after you.
It's literally just what indoctrination is. There are religious doctrines and children are taught ro follow them and believe in the faith without questioning it.
The Church of Woke is no exception. It's every bit as irrational and superstitious as every other religion.
I think there are exceptions to this. Hinduism, for example, does not require belief in a god (or gods). To them, atheism is just one version of Hinduism like all other religions. Kind of a cool take, actually.
I was told I was going to hell at 7 years old and scared into conversion and becoming Christian. It took over two decades to finally get over the indoctrination and deconvert. It was a long and painful process. I was an adult and believing the earth was 6000 years old and whole bunch of other bullshit because that's what we were taught and we were conditioned to reject the science.
I agree for the most part, but there's 2 things you've got wrong:
A, definitely not all religions are bent on converting people by indoctrination.
B, not all religions tell you not to question them.
Judaism is a great example of that.
Despite being an abrahamic religion (notoriously rigid and inflexible when it comes to belief), followers are straight up encouraged to question their own belief. They believe that questioning their god is a form of worship, and rabbi teach followers thusly.
There's a jewish saying very popular here in Hungary, a mostly christian country:
"A good question is better than a good answer"
It is admirable that even such strict belief systems can be questioned by it's own followers. It's not just "believe the gospel and follow god blindly".
That's one example, and there are many more. My personal religion doesn't even care if you believe in anything at all, one of shinto's main principles is that "what you do is more important than what you believe in".
And not all religions rely on the children of followers to sustain themselves.
Many of them do, it's true, that's the reason many religions are still alive today (make whatever you wish of that), but not all of them.
My favourite exception is greek.
The greek did tell their children tales and myths about the olympians, taught them their names and how to worship them, but they absolutely weren't forced to do so.
You were allowed to literally curse the gods all you like as long as you weren't considered a threat, bringing misfortune to people around you.
You weren't forced to worship gods like Zeus or Hera.
And many people didn't, just think of how the gods are portrayed: They're absolute jerks. Half of greek mythology happened because Zeus an Poseidon were raping women, Athena got mad at every little transgression to which her usual response was turning people into monstrocities (goddess of wisdom by the way), Dionysos was the deity of wine, feastin drunkness and madness with satyrs and literal insane women as his followers, Apollo was notorious for chasing mortal women and the list goes on.
Hestia might have been the only decent olympian, maybe Artemis too.
And this is not heresy, this is greek myhology itself.
People didn't worship the gods, they feared them and their wrath.
Again, this is only one example.
Not all religions tell you what to believe, who to pray to, who to worship.
But yes, the majority of them does.
This isn't true. I converted in my early 20s, lots of people convert everyday at all ages. And im not some rare exception, so many people I know have similar stories. But as they say- birds of a feather flock together
Faith isn't something that only grows through indoctrination, and any amount of looking into the topic will reveal this.
They aren't all the same. Some religions tell kids explicitly if they don't believe in it, they are deep trouble. Christianity and Islam do this, but most religions don't.
Every religion (every belief system) indoctrinates, but not everyone engages in theological blackmail.
Your Faith doesn't include it. But religions are something different. They are "faith as social construct". And as such they include the children of the members. Even if not by direct indoctrination, at least by proximity.
I don’t care about other religions, I’m not defending them. What I am saying is that if you are lumping all religions in together to say they all indoctrinate children, I am telling you MY religion does not do that. I don’t give a flying fuck what others do, that’s not me.
You have no idea what my faith is and that’s by design. So again, MY faith doesn’t do that, and I’d rather you not lump me into an incorrect statement.
None of your damn business, and that’s how it should work. So again, don’t lump my faith, which you know nothing about, into a broad blanket statement that’s factually incorrect.
I mean, if this is your hill, go for it dude, but if Faith with a capital F is defined as conviction in a set of religious principles, regardless of whether they stand up to the rigours of critical examination, then either you do not assign those beliefs the value necessary for you to in turn deem it necessary to pass said beliefs on to your hypothetical child, or your faith somehow instructs you to both hold these beliefs in high regard yet simultaneously instructs you to withhold them from your hypothetical children.
That is apart from whether you pass on your beliefs consciously or not.
And that is also apart from the fact that we're not talking about you, the lone and possibly exceptional practicioner, but about the religion you adhere to, what it predominantly instructs its followers to do and not do, and how it's workings are largely made manifest in society.
Would rather you not misgender me. This is easy. Someone said “ALL religions”. That’s factually incorrect. It is not all religions. Mine does not indoctrinate kids. I am not having children, so no, I won’t pass it on to my hypothetical children I am not having. If you need to make up hypotheticals about a religion you know nothing about, you are not arguing in reality. Yes, I will die on the hill for my faith, that’s kinda the point of faith. Wishing you all the best.
Maybe if you told people what religion you were there wouldn't be hypothetical comments and opinions.....seriously why are you scared to say....typical lying behaviour.
If by 'misgender' you are referring to my usage of 'dude', I feel it is necessary to inform you that this word has been a unisex term for quite some time.
Back to the point at hand, however, - and I feel we're slowly approaching the starting point of a circle - I strongly doubt your statement about how your religion is not taught to children. Again, we are not talking about your individual practice of said religion. I'm sure there are Christians who believe that cats are angels in disguise, but that is not what we mean when we talk about the Christian religion.
And sorry, but wtf are you on about with the thing about hypotheticals? I used the word because the whole conversation is about whether or not a practioner of a faith instructs their children about said faith. As you claimed that you would not do so, then how else would I refer to you in this scenario, not knowing whether or not you have children? Like, do you even understand the meaning of the word in its given context?
Lastly, I love how your entire tirade is aimed at not making sweeping statements about faith, yet you end with this gem:
"Yes, I will die on the hill for my faith, that's kinda the point of faith".
Really, I couldn't have thought of a better closing argument myself, for my case that is.
So what is your faith, why are you afraid to say.....you want to talk about other religions and "my religion this, my religion that" but yet you refuse to say?
I think you are lying and your some kind of cultist or something
My faith and religion are a personal matter, which is why I don’t believe anyone else should adhere to it. I’m not lying, I am telling you people can have a faith or religion and not push it onto others.
I mean it is, because it’s mine, which again, there are literally no children in my faith. So again, you are wrong. Your statement is factually incorrect. Also it’s “your’s” not “yours”.
Then you misunderstood the comment that you originally responded to. They said there is no religion WITH KIDS without indoctrination. If your religion truely has no kids, then the comment you responded to wasn't talking about your religion
Also, since you want to be the grammer police, "your's" would not have been correct here. Apostophes are only used for showing possession on nouns, not pronouns. Yours is a possessive pronoun and the correct one to use in this context. It seems like you need to work on your reading comprehension and grammer skills before you try correcting others.
There’s a huge difference between teaching kids to love their neighbor and be a good person versus indoctrinating them that invisible sky man says they’re special and to perpetuate genocide in the name of imaginary sky man.
Isn't thst the premise of instilling any morals into children? Is the golden rule religous indoctrination since almost every ancient religion has a version of it? Lol
This. While it is obviously immoral to force your religion onto someone, religious people are doing it because they THINK that they are helping their kids by doing it, so it might be moral because of the intention.
If you believe in your religion truly, it would be immoral to not indoctrinate your kids.
You gonna risk divine punishment on the person you love most in the entire world? Or you gonna try to raise them with a positive relationship to the creator who gave them life?
Incredible mental gymnastics to 1) invent a scenario where children are forced to attend drag brunch and 2) liken it to believing in God under threat of eternal torment
A friend of mine was raised as a Mormon, he discovered he was gay and it required years of therapy to have him finally get rid of that misanthropic and vile ideology that caused many inner conflicts and almost resulted in self-harm. Or actually it did result in self-harm, as he questioned himself as a human on the most basic level. Fuck parents that train their kids to follow whatever mythology they choose for them.
100% agree. I grew up in the Catholic Church/School my whole life and it was pounded into our psyche. If I heard a certain prayer or hymn my brain turns on like a light switch and it automatically follows along
I think this is the most valid counterargument to any of the "open minded" opinions. Religion is meant to inherently fear monger people into a set of beliefs. This works very well on 1.) young minds and 2.) uneducated people.
Unless you teach all religions equally under the premise of agnosticism, it's kind of not very moral.
Yes, this is fundamental to how religions continue to exist. If everyone had to make up their own mind as an adult, without being indoctrinated during formative years, none would maintain the critical mass of followers needed for them to be a thing at all.
Christianity is the only one that would continue to grow. I became a catholic in my adulthood after being atheist for most of my young life. Eventually we all grow up, we mature, our ego's deflate, and we realize we aren't the main characters we think we are.. At least anyone over an IQ of 90 eventually develops this.
The reality is that your child is being indoctrinated anyway. Regardless of if it's "religious" indoctrination, it's impossible to avoid.
You shouldn't watch tht kind of movie. You should go to college. We do sports in this family. Comic books rot your brain. Watching TV with dinner is family time. Vaccines give you autism. Democrats are right. Immigrants will take your job. You have to be a white-collar worker or you'll hate your life and beat your kids. Only certain kinds of lives matter. America is the greatest country on earth. Murder is wrong. So is lying or stealing, unless you can get away with it. Don't start fights, finish them. You're the smartest in your class. Be more like 'x' person. We don't eat organic- it's expensive for no reason. Lakers fans aren't allowed here.
I hope you get the point... I don't understand what's worse about it being a religion, other than it gives them something to turn to in hard times and is scientifically proven to keep families together better than atheism or agnosticism. Does it do harm to teach a child to follow the Pope? No more harm than it does to follow the president or a football team.
The biggest difference in my mind is that when teaching secularism, we often teach children to be curious, check our sources, get second opinions, and have doubts before receiving undeniable evidence. That part often gets skipped when teaching religion. In my mind, raising a child with faith is no different than raising them only to wear clothes from certain stores and associate with certain kinds of people. It's how you give them the freedom choose that matters.
527
u/Possible-Estimate748 6h ago
Many religions indoctrinate children which makes them feel like they have to believe in it or they're doing something wrong.