That web page is disturbing.

Although the parents are already with faith in their religion this whole learning/teaching plan seems a bit like 're-conditioning' for the parent too...

"When you visit the zoo, see a circus or watch a TV program with Elephants in it, this is another opportunity to talk about the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. As we see an Elephant, we can remember and again reinforce and apply these great Biblical Truths of Eternal Value and live them each day."

There is certainly no room for these parents to think for themselves when they are busy doing what they believe is the right thing for their kids.

repetition is good

repetition is good

repetition is good


 

I totally agree, it's a brainwashing and it's creepy! Obedience, what a mindfuck.
Actually, things like civil disobedience did something good for the people. If we agree to do something based on our understanding of a reason behind that, then it's a rational choice, not an obedience, and it's much better.

Dunno why, but this Eden story seems to me actually as a misunderstood allegory. You want a knowledge of good and evil and everlasting life? Well, this requires to leave a sweet paradise of ignorance, and to enter the wilderness, to hunt, kill, devour, to build countless cities and ruin them, to evolve and suffer doing so, for thousands and millions of years. That's all the trick, nothing comes easy. It scares me more what God would do, if the people would actually obey him and never touch the apple.
"Huh, what do I see? Again, a non-functional species, lacking a healthy curiosity and stimulus to evolve? I can't release them into the wilderness like that, they would starve to death there or fall prey to something. All right, let's cremate the specimens quickly and start working on some new prototypes. I have to get it right this time."

I agree that this type of teaching is very wrong and is a form of psychological abuse.  To say that it is abuse is to imply that it should not be allowed and that the community should step in and prevent such behavior from occurring any longer.  Banning teaching the bible obviously is not going to fly in this country at this point in time.  So how do you get people to realize the harm they are inflicting upon their children, especially when respected community leaders are saying how important it is to teach children the classical morals tales from the bible?  Have any of you had any success in getting anyone who was not already an atheist (or deist even) to realize just what is being taught to children with these tales?  What constructive action can we really take once we realize that these teachings are abuse?

I mean, these biblical stories are not all bad. For example, I don't see any problems with Christians teaching their children about the Sermon on the Mount, or the commitment of Jesus to the poor, or when Joseph forgave his betraying brothers in Genesis, or when Esau forgave backstabbing Jacob, or when Jesus commanded Peter to put away his sword after he was arrested. All these stories teach great messages for children.

As for disturbing stories in the Bible (Judges 11 really comes to mind), I'm not sure there is anything you can do to stop it. Most people won't listen, and it's not like you can constitutionally create laws against it.

So also aiia, I definitely don't approve of people teaching their children that.

Lol, the way you described that - if I had never read the story of Adam and Eve before, I might conclude that it was a sneaky satire about the paradox of faith, knowledge, and religion.

Are you talking to me?

You are aware, are you not, of just how irate I get when people try to pull the bullshit "You aren't a parent so you can't talk about parenting" argument, right?

Let's just pretend I had a huge temper tantrum, presented the argument that being a parent is not a prerequisite to understanding developmental psychology, and then we agreed to let this thing drop rather than turn it into an internet pissing match.

Damn, I hate that argument more than almost anything else.

Having kids isn't a prerequisite to having an idea of how to raise them. I don't have kids, but I've had a great deal of contact with them over the years. I was one of those few guys who spent a lot of time babysitting in my teenage years, and my exposure to children has only slightly lessened since. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of brainless twits out there with kids. I'm not going to ignore it just because I don't have any myself. If that argument had any reality to it, then we'd still be roaming the plains, since there was a time when all children were raised by the community as opposed to their biological family. Hell, most parents don't do much of anything for their kids these days. It's all done in school while the parents work their asses off just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Gee, guess Charles Darwin and his 'armchair biology' or Einstein with his 'armchair physics' must've been really out to lunch then, hey? It's not like the former ever saw a cell, or the latter ever saw a photon.

I imagine it doesn't. Of course, the fact that your inherent bias as a parent makes the job of appealing to you through empirical findings you don't happen to like raher difficult doesn't actually undermine said empirical findings.

Yes, it was. Don't pretend that you aren't aware where anecdotal stories belong in the field of objective analysis.

The fact that you walked out of church camp an atheist does not somehow demonstrate that children are not, on average, much more inclined to favor irrational ideologies they are taught in their formative years.

I don't know why you're getting so defensive or why you would think resting your case on anecdotes and emotionally charged, finger-stabbing rhetorical questions would make it any stronger.

Do tell: When you drove your daughter to get dunked, did you offer prayers to her to reinforce those of the priest? You you spend the trip there telling her about the awesome radicalness of Jesus Christ, her new Lord and Savior? Do you read her some of the more pleasant parables out of the Bible? Do you have her watch Veggie Tales in the hotel room before tucking her in for bed?

There's a difference between going to have your daughter baptized to show her that it's a silly superstitious ritual and going to have your daughter baptized as an initiation ritual into a religious cult. While we're spewing anecdotes, I watched my step-nephew get baptized into a Pentacostal church just a few months ago, and if you don't call the ceremony involved in that 'brainwashing' I don't know what the fuck you would call it.

I don't believe anyone is calling you too moronically stupid or delusional to raise a child. The parents who sent their kids off to be looked after by that batty lady in Jesus Camp, the lady who artificially fertilized herself so she could have 8 or so kids, that douchebag who heads the Westboro Baptist Church... these people are too Goddamn looney-tunes to have a automatic right to have kids. They really are, and if you don't want to believe that, well there you go.

...And just FYI, there's no 'making' a sociopath. Sociopathy is a genetic trait; you could be the best parent in the world and still give birth to a sociopath.

I'd like to be more precise than that:

Brainwashing is child abuse, even if you think it is in the child's interest and/or are not consciously aware that you're doing it.

So, yes - more straightforwardly, parents who are trying to do what they believe is best for their children by brainwashing them are committing child abuse.

No. In fact just the opposite. Highly subjective.

There have to be reasonable standards, though. If you believe that you can keep your child from being evil by beating them senseless on a daily basis, I don't think you'd have to have children to see that it's reasonable to want to stop that from happening.

On the other hand, while I know this annoys Hamby, your point is valid. Becoming a parent is a huge psychological change that I believe only parents can understand. And that's from someone who just has lots of friends who are parents. The change is obvious, and I can see how difficult it is.

That said, I don't think the reasonable standards (like above) need interfere with the more subtle actions that a parent can take. For instance, personally, my mother promised my grandmother that I'd be raised Catholic. She gave it her best go, and I learned all the Catholic ... things. It did me no harm, though, because the people I admired as a child didn't take any of the religious stuff seriously.

In your case, how could it be damaging to dunk your daughter (points for alliteration!) when it was something she wanted to try? If you've discussed how you feel about religion, what else can you do?

I don't think that's anywhere close to brainwashing, though. There are people who want to indoctrinate their children. Where one draws the line, however, becomes pretty difficult at that point, because it's really a parent's job to teach a child what they can to help them out. If the parent happens to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that Dr. Phil is a qualified therapist, or that guns are a good thing to have in the house, then those parents are going to teach those things to their children.

If you want to also tell them that freedom of thought is important, then we have to let them.

Not even once. I have exceptionally sound knowledge of my capabilities. If I say I can do something better, I can. Though I don't often say such a thing.

You obviously misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't blaming parents in this context, I was sympathising with them.

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. When babysitting someone for a week, you are the parent. Obviously you haven't much experience in babysitting, therefore by your own logic you cannot comment on my experience.

Answering that question would require more knowledge than the simple phrase "church camp". I never went to one myself, but I've known a few people who did. Some of them found it abusive, some of them found it fun. It rather depends on the camp, and what their policies are.

How can it be abuse to do what the child wants? Hell, with baptism everything is different. Just because the church thinks it does something doesn't mean it does. I was baptized. I don't remember it. I don't care that it happened. It didn't mean or do anything. It couldn't have harmed me anymore than a bath could.

I could start a whole new topic with this paragraph, but I don't feel like it right now. I answered the base question above, and that will have to suffice.

There is a responsibility for the life of another that is with you 24/7 that I'm not sure someone who is not a parent can completely grasp.  It's not just a matter of realizing that you need to care for the child, but becomes a need to nurture and provide that is as strong as the sexual drive.  This only applies to parents who are willing to truly parent instead of just breed.  Do you ever feel this almost overwhelming responsibility for another person that never ends?   

Well for one thing, that responsibility does in fact end. It might not end as quickly as some, but it ends at 14 or 16 or 18 or 19 or 21 or whatever age happens to be the age of majority where you are. Sometimes it's even before that moment. At that time, you have NO responsibility for the child, unless you choose to accept extra responsibilities. At that point they are legally an adult, and the responsibility lies with them.

As for feeling it myself, I have always felt a responsibility for all children. If I see a child in trouble, I will help that child if I can. I never even thought about this character benefit within my psyche until somewhat recently. I don't have to be a parent to feel responsibility for a child. In fact, my feeling may be "superior"(if such a word can be applied here, it was the only one that came to mind to get the point across) to yours. I feel it for every child equally. You feel it for your own above and beyond others. Or at least, that's the impression I recieve from reading your post.

 Now we're getting somewhere.  You're getting what I was trying to say.  In short, here's why the "You aren't a parent so you don't know" argument pisses me off.  It's not an argument, and it isn't justification for anything.  It's just an emotional outburst.

Let's take the restaurant business as an example. Suppose you were to suggest to me that instead of making salsa from scratch, I should contract with a wholesaler to make it for me, reducing labor and therefore reducing my tax load as well.  I could respond two ways:

1) You've never been a restaurant owner.  You can't talk about my business.  Don't tell me how to run my business!

2) Well, that would seem like a good idea up front, but typically, a restaurant doesn't have enough purchasing power to get a reasonable deal from a wholesaler until they are doing well over two million in sales, and I'm only doing about seven hundred and fifty thousand in sales.  The bottom line is that until my business grows more, it would not be to my benefit.

If I give you answer #2, you still wouldn't have the experience of owning a restaurant, but you wouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that your idea wasn't that great after all, and you'd know why.

With parenting, it's the same.  When those of us who are childless suggest something that parents believe is unworkable, either there's a good reason -- which can be explained logically -- or there isn't.  If there is, then explain it to me, and I can learn something, or perhaps I can argue with you to show you that your explanation isn't valid after all.  If there isn't, then don't play the "I'm a parent" card.

You know, I'm sure, that the act of childbirth releases a ton of various bond-inducing chemicals, perhaps most notably oxytocin.  It's extremely well documented that the effect of these chemicals is to create a deep and long lasting EMOTIONAL bond between mother and child.  And since you've read all my stuff on evo psych, you know that emotions are nature's way of getting us to do things that we wouldn't do logically.  They are literally logic-evaders.

With that in mind, think back to all the parents in your life you've seen give the "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY CHILD!!!" emotional  outburst.  Now, think about how many of them were doing things that all their friends thought were pretty ill-advised, and think about the times you've cringed at someone's parenting practices.  Our evolution is designed to make us extremely protective of our children, to the point of irrationality.  It seems contradictory in today's society, but remember, we have only lived in this kind of society for a few thousand years.  For the previous 99% of our history, the only real question was whether or not to doggedly and loyally protect your children against all threats.  We hadn't invented all the other shit we have today to make irrational decisions about.

Essentially, there are only two ways the "Don't tell me how to parent" argument can be interpreted logically:

1) I'm very emotional about this and feel threatened by you.

2) I have a good reason for disagreeing with you, and I can explain it to you logically.

If it's one... well, with all due respect, I invite you to sit and spin.  If it's two, let's skip the theatrics and talk about empirical data.

I think we pretty much agree on this one too.  People who don't have kids can certainly contribute to the discussion regarding child rearing.  Unfortunately, it's often idiots who don't have a clue that open their mouths and then prejudice parents against taking advice from non-parents.  Non-parents have to overcome this hurdle by showing that they do truly have something to contribute to whatever discussion.  You've done this to my personal satisfaction, but obviously not everyone agrees with me. 

I would just like to note in passing that for #1 there can often be an element of "I'm tired.  I'm human.  I'm aware of my shortcomings regarding being a parent and am working on all that.  I've had enough and you need to back off."  I'm sure you can understand and sympathize with this.  I would imagine it's near impossible to perfectly run a restaurant (especially in this economic climate) and sometimes you need to just get through something related to the business without a whole lot of flak from lets' say your best employees who do know enough to contribute to your decision making process.  The decision(s) you make maybe could be enhanced by what they have to say, but will still be ok without their input.  And in child rearing EVERYBODY and their grandma have opinions.  It's not exactly fair to you, but this constant receiving unwanted and often times idiotic advice is what you personally are up against when talking about raising kids.  It's a good thing you seem to have a thick skin!  Which means #2 has to be very strong.

In terms of #2, we touched on the idea of the use of the subconscious on a thread several weeks ago.  I'm wondering how much you have studied the ideas revolving around intuition and if you have any good book recommendations here.  Sometimes when trying to figure out what to do for my kid I don't know why a certain approach is correct, but I know it is.  Now, since hanging around here, I have become very much aware of the idea of positive confirmation of results wherein people remember what did work well and forget about what didn't and am incorporating that into my analysis.  However, it still seems that more often than not these situations when I am sure about what to do but cannot logically explain fully why I know this to be the correct approach do turn out more positively than negatively.  And in such cases I would not be able to provide you with a fully logical explanation as to why this approach X to parenting is better than approach Y until well after the situation has passed I can better see how everything played out.  I can understand your not wanting to give someone a free pass if they cannot logically explain why they see a certain approach as beneficial as that can (and often does) have very nasty consequences, but sometimes that is the best answer a person can give at the moment. 

I do look forward to seeing what you'll have to say regarding the above paragraph.  I have no doubt it will be thought provoking.   

Sorry. Full-time job (most days). Full-time parent (damn cellphones to hell[wherever that is]).

1.) I have never ran a restaurant and couldn't tell you how to plan a menu. I can be a good customer or a bad customer depending upon my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE visiting your restaurant.

That's the key.

If you're around my children and they are assholes then absolutely you could say something and be justified.

However, my spouse is given free rein to take the kids to church if they want to go. She could force them and I would still allow it because it has not been proven to do harm. Many of us are living proof. (Sure. Some of us run around with a little grudge for missing out on Sunday morning fishing trips. lol.)

It is the same in the instance cited to begin this thread. These people are doing the only thing they think will make their children into 'fine, upstanding citizens'.

WE haven't met their children or the parents. WE don't have enough data to form an objective analysis of success or failure because the kids that may be affected by this particular type of indoctrination are still in development.

We have nothing more than anecdotal evidence in any of the cases. Yet you want religious parents to prove it's NOT child abuse to enforce biblical/ideological tutoring upon their offspring???

Prove it NOT? Few people can respond to that question with regard to ANYTHING.

We can't PROVE that religious indoctrination at an early age is child abuse because there are a serious number of us that have had that sort of upbringing yet are religion-free.

I'm not trying to be snide here, but it may come off that way:

It's like you're looking for an objective criteria for something that, in my opinion, can only be a subjective matter and outside of your perception.

I'm not saying that you COULDN'T be a good parent or give some good advice to parents just because you don't have children. I am saying that you are unable/unwilling to apply it yourself and thus coming off as an armchair parent instead of a coach or coordinator on the field.

You're putting forward hypotheses but not including the testable criteria and ignoring/missing some data.

Vastet,

Yes. I have babysat before I became a parent. A lot. Nine female cousins, six older than me. All but one very fertile. Nothing kills a tryst with a MILF like explaining why you have a carseat in the living room if you don't have kids. lol.

Not one moment of that experience helped me when it became my own children I was watching. Sorry.

Josh, with all due respect, I'm not even going to respond because I've already responded to everything you've said in this post.  If you don't see that, then... well, I've addressed that, too.  I'll leave it to the reader to judge.  Like I said before, I really just don't have the patience to have this discussion with someone who sincerely holds to your position.  It's like arguing with a theist.  You don't see that, and you believe I don't see your point of view.  We're just going to have to part company on this.

In all seriousness, I still think you're way cool, though.  No bullshit, no sarcasm.

I didn't ask you to skulk away.  Be confident in your victory if you like.  Call it a draw.  Call it an empty pissing match.   I don't care to have this discussion with you.   It's just going to end with us not agreeing.  I'm ok with that.  I'm asking you to be ok with it and leave it so we don't spend days bitching at each other about something we're never going to agree on.

In fact, I withdraw my demand for a definition from the other thread.  The reality is that this is one area where we don't and won't see eye to eye, and I'm ok leaving it at that and not crossing swords.

Oh no, I'm not going that far. I'm saying that there's a huge emotional change that happens to parents, not that the rules of logic no longer apply. I was validating an emotional response from Josh, but you shouldn't interpret that as an attempt to change the rules of argument.

But it's easy to see how even the difficulties faced on a job could only be appreciated by someone who's actually done that job. I'm not saying that just because someone has been a parent, it necessarily makes them a better judge of how children should be parented. That may seem contradictory to my own point, but couples often go to a third party to ask about relationship or parenting issues, and that third party could be a childless doctor who could give them valuable information on parenting that they otherwise wouldn't have.

That appreciation of the job isn't an argument, though. I don't think there's a precise way to express how shitty or excellent parents have been. I've known a bunch of people with varying degrees of both. It doesn't take a parent to see that someone abusing their kids physically isn't doing a terrific job, but once it gets more subtle, I'd say you would have to make a stronger case, taking into fair consideration the people who have done the work of parenting already.

Oh look, some statistics to back that up.

According to the (American) National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, in 1997 neglect represented 54% of confirmed cases of child abuse

Neglect can only be the fault of the parent. Most sexual abuse is familial. As is physical abuse. So much for the myth of the parent being designed in some way to be a parent.

Agreed.

By 'familial' it doesn't mean parents.

What are the statistics on babysitters?

Agreed. Parenting is a work in progress. Punishing the parents AFTER they have abused or neglected the child is the way the system works.

Preventing the parents from teaching their children their ideology and values is unacceptable in an allegedly free society.

True, but it often does.

No idea. Your turn to dig up a link.

An acceptable alternative is to make sure that parents don't have a monopoly on a childs education. Parents should not have the right to bring up a child on lies; crippling their ability to have a healthy and happy life, anymore than they should be able to beat their kids; having a similar effect.

OK.

You guys win.

I really thought I had seen it all.