A question for those who were raised Catholic

[Joan_of_Bark]

Yes, I was brainwashed, and it’s still going on. Every day for hours at a time I was subjected to television, radio and every other kind of media which imprinted on me countless acts of violence, numerous murders, sex acts and innuendo too numerous to mention. Things which no parent would subject their kids to in real life. All of this (name removed by moderator)ut directly contradicted what my parents had tried to teach me about morals, character, value, honor, compassion, and discipline.

Nobody worried about this. It was fiction. It was entertainment. Entertainment doesn’t matter. But it matters to children, who spend their formative years busily imprinting every image that comes into their senses. Catholic schools don’t have a chance of competing with that kind of brainwashing.

But really, I wasn’t brainwashed too badly. I grew up in the age of “Leave it to Beaver” and “Father Knows Best” media, and wasn’t subjected to the thousands of violent and sexual message which now universally permeate the media. Still, that kind of brainwashing continues, and affects even adults.

Michael Gurian, in his book “What Stories Does My Son Need?” recounts an incident told to him by a mother about her son’s experience with a violent video game:

“One night after playing the game, my 5 year old gave me his usual goodnight kiss, saying ‘Good night, Mom! I love you! See you in hell!’”

Apparently a phrase he picked up from the game. She tossed out the game.

Brainwashing abounds. Most of it is of the secular humanist variety.

So why do Christian parents allow their children to see these things?

Look, I grew up playing cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war games, etc. I played with toy guns, GI Joe, and various other implements of death. I was taught that there was good guys and bad guys (no gray areas), and that bad guys (Indians were always bad guys) should always be killed in the end by the good guys. We’re talking about the sixties and seventies here, so I think you’re looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses. If you want more evidence, read about medieval Europe, when almost everyone was Catholic. It was hardly a time free of war and conflict.

Besides, are you saying that you must be taught Catholicism, or at least Christianity, to have morals?

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

1. Where in the Catechism does it state that? So that way I can clear up your misinterpretation. The Church has excommunicated people who have said that people cannot be saved outside the Church. It may not count for much to you but many who have come to the Church from these different religions find it easier to settle because the Truth is much clearer. You should be careful of your modernist semantics. It is clear that you are under the assumption that “many truths” in all religions are inherently wrong anyway.

Paragraphs 161 and 166 in the catechism.

It’s not “my assumption” that many “truths” are not, in fact, true. It is a belief I have come to by studying and thinking about them.

1. What is the “bigger picture”? Again, you are bias. Not in that you think you are right. But that assuming everyone else is wrong and has to be wrong because there is no objective truth. The “bigger picture” here is clearly not quality but quantity. Yes you have more numbers of things in mind but definitely not considered.

Where do I state that “everyone else is wrong”? I never said that. If I say that anyone is wrong about anything, it is not because I have assumed it, but because I’ve looked at what they say or do and come to that conclusion. And where do I say there’s no objective truth? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I noticed also that you find there is ambiguity, vagueness and contradiction in the Bible. If you look for it, you will find it. That does not mean it that it is because you cannot see past the words. I have found many of them. I still find them. I eventually figure it out though because there are none of these, only seemingly at a shallow level; which is the first thing we see.

You’re getting off topic, but I’ll just point out that there are hundreds of Christian denominations, all with their own views about what the Bible says. What other proof do I need that there are contradictions there?

 

[awatkins69]

I’m only replying to the original post. I haven’t read everything in between.

Virtue is habitual orientation to the good. Now, the good for a person is an actualization of the end of the human essence. Man, in light of the supernatural character of his soul and intellect, has a supernatural end. Thus faith is a virtue insofar as it is necessary for the realization of said end. Therefore Catholic parents have a right, or rather, a duty to instill the faith in their children for their own good. Got this stuff from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

PS I was raised Catholic, lost the faith due to bad education, and came back. Could have all been avoided had I inculcated the virtue of faith from my youngest years.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Uh . . . a claim of objectivity is exactly what I would expect from someone who actually is brainwashed.

Where do I make a claim of objectivity? No-one can claim complete objectivity. That would only be possible for a person raised by wolves in the wild and who entered society as an adult. I made the above comment to counter the assumption that I must have been raised as an atheist, and therefore have been brainwashed (an unfortunate choice of word I now admit) also.

However, I do maintain that there are *levels *of objectivity. A child who is exposed equally to many different religious beliefs growing up is more objective than someone who is only sent to (fill in the blank) schools, synagogues, mosques, or churches.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

I think your phrasing of “brainwashed” puts people off…it sounds harsh…so what do you expect?

Nope…because I know other people of other religions end up in different religions as well. Maybe you should have phrased your question a tad bit nicer.

Yes, you are right. I was trying to provoke a response by using a loaded term. It worked, but the ends never justify the means.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Protestants don’t believe in exorcisms? Source, please.

I’ve never heard of a protestant believing in exocisms. Isn’t that what Catholic priests do? I’ll check for a citation, but I’d like to see your source, too.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Coercion would only be involoved if you somehow forbid your adult children from converting. I believe in parental rights. I have every right to raise my children as carnivorous Catholics. My next door neighbor has every right to raise her kids as vegan wiccans. I have no problem with Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, JW, Protestant whatever parents raising their kids in that faith. That’s a parent’s right, it’s what a good parent does. However, I also believe in the right of religious freedom. Ergo, when they reach adulthood, everyone should have the right to change their religion if they so desire. You’re implying that those of us in the west are engaged in some sort of religious coercion where our kids are concerned. That’s not true. What is true, is in a lot of Muslim nations conversion is illegal and punishable by death. That’s brainswashing and coercion, not what Catholic parents in the West do when they baptize their children and take them to Mass on Sunday. Not even close!

In Christ,

Ellen

I agree that there’s a difference in degree of coercion (and that’s what I wrote in the OP). And as a libertarian I also agree that every parent has a right to raise their children in the manner they see fit. However, I was asking the question (you did notice it was a question, right?) if you ever have doubts about whether you reached your beliefs mainly by your own free will, or if you ever suspect that you were simply indoctrinated into them.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

I’m pretty sure I haven’t been, particularly since for a long time there I started accepting everything the world has to offer. Moral relativism, a false belief that Religion was the greatest cause of suffering in the world et. al.

I considered leaving the Church, and indeed for a long time I was so luke warm I wasn’t even making it to church every Christmas and Easter. Then I also considered protestantism, and the idea that if there was a God, perhaps he was bigger than any particular religion.

It wasn’t until I decided to sit and logically think out faith and what exactly I was doing with it that I realized how foolish I was… When I came to this realization, I came back with avengance. So I guess my question to non-believers, do you think the below could be true?

Psa 14:1 Unto the end, a psalm for David. The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God. They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one.

Of course not. I object to being called a fool, corrupt, or have my ways labelled as ‘abominable’. Do you believe that no atheist in the history of the world has done any good? Talk about extremism! (And another reason atheists don’t put much stock in the morality of the Bible).

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Joan of Bark,
Did you really us James Randi as a source of “debunking”? First of all, his lame “magic” stunts are even worse than that Criss Angel (or whatever that crazy guy’s name is). He only attracts because of his popularity. Have you actually thoroughly read any of his stuff? Or did you just believe whatever he says to be true because he is a skeptic? Because even skeptics have seen the errors within his “debunking”. The worse part about most skeptic literature (and I hold Richard Dawkins to be the king of this; he should stick to writing science books; his compilation of books was really well thought out) is that they do not “disprove” by any means of facts; all they do is use derogatory adjectives, imagery and such. (I am just talking about those skeptic books against Christianity and Theism by the way) Even atheists dislike that. Sam Harris is the man to go to because he actually tries to use logic, albeit he still insults but only subtly. I respect a person who uses logic and reasoning like Sam Harris. Talk to Michael Ruse (another atheist scientist) about Richard Dawkins. Another problem is that skeptics will believe it without doing their own investigations. For some reason, when a skeptic writes, it is all truth and fact; but when a Christian (or anyone defending theism) writes, it happens to be all false and deluded. You got to do better than James Randi. (We also have to be careful of our own literature; just for your information.) Although I do commend you for doing your own research in the Catechism and Bible and such. Good for you (not being sarcastic). I do not mean to insult you. If I did, I apologize. Take care.
Gregg

Has it occured to you that religions who practice things you don’t believe in might say the same thing in their own defense? That Christians don’t look into their beliefs, but simply dismiss them because they’re not in line with mainstream Christian thinking?

I was an atheist long before Dawkins, Harris, or Bart Ehrman (a writer I would recommend as a scholar and agnostic) were writing books. I came to my skepticism honestly, through looking at all the evidence. And I don’t believe that when a skeptic writes, it’s all ‘truth and fact’, nor do I know of any atheist or agnostic who does hold such a view – just as I don’t believe that believers are always wrong. On the board in which I spend a good deal of my time (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board) we often disagree with each other, as well as with the “popular” skeptics that have become famous.

And now you’re dragging me off topic.

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

And so, recognizing this, one can conclude that “brainwashing” does not prevent anyone from believing something different when they mature into adulthood. What, therefore, was the point in starting the thread?
For the record, BTW, if I had had a similar upbringing I’d be bitter towards religion as well…

Everyone is different. Some adults are able to cast off childhood indoctrination and come to other conclusions. Others cannot. That’s why I framed the OP in the form of a (admittedly loaded) question.

BTW, haven’t you ever heard anyone say: “I was raised to believe that ___ is wrong!” It’s a revealing choice of words, don’t you think?

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

I think Joan of Bark has been brainwashed by James Randi.

Oh, yes, James Randi is my dad. I remember him taking me to the James Randi institute every Sunday, and sending me to the School of Skepticism, and making me recite the pledge of the skeptic every night while growing up …

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

UnityofTrinity:
My eyes! Please, Unity, can you stick to a dark colour, I had a hard time reading that.

With regards to the sabbath, the commandment is quite clear.

Exodus 20 (NJB)

8 'Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.
9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath for Yahweh your God. **You shall do no work that day, neither you nor your son nor your daughter nor your servants, men or women, nor your animals nor the alien living with you. **11 For in six days Yahweh made the heavens, earth and sea and all that these contain, but on the seventh day he rested; that is why Yahweh has blessed the Sabbath day and made it sacred.

Notice the bolded part. It doesn’t say: You may only do some work. It’s an absolute command, which is why practicing Jews take it very seriously. Look up Numbers 15:32.

As for your comments about many people not being real Christians, well, that’s an accusation often made about Catholics by protestants.

And again, I’m being dragged off topic …

 

[Joan_of_Bark]

Okay, I’m exhausted, so this will be my last post for awhile.

I’m sorry and beg forgiveness for using the loaded term brainwashed in my OP. It was an unfortunate choice of word, conjuring up visions of Naziism and its ilk, and had no place on this forum. I promise to be more circumspect in future.


Thank you for all your responses, even the one that implied I’m a fool …

 

[Kay_Cee]

Where do I make a claim of objectivity? No-one can claim complete objectivity. That would only be possible for a person raised by wolves in the wild and who entered society as an adult. I made the above comment to counter the assumption that I must have been raised as an atheist, and therefore have been brainwashed (an unfortunate choice of word I now admit) also.

However, I do maintain that there are *levels *of objectivity. A child who is exposed equally to many different religious beliefs growing up is more objective than someone who is only sent to (fill in the blank) schools, synagogues, mosques, or churches.

Look, my problem with your whole brainwashing scenario is that you’ve made two mistakes in logic:

1. By asking us if we’ve considered that we might have been brainwashed, you’re essentially asking us to prove we haven’t been. That is, you are asking us to prove a negative.
2. Suggesting we may have been brainwashed sounds like the fallacy of “poisoning the well.” Regardless of what arguments we give, it can be claimed such arguments stem from our being brainwashed.

If you want to argue against Christianity, give us some logical arguments. As for me, logic tells me Christianity is either true or it isn’t (going by the law of non-contradiction), regardless of whether one is raised to believe it or not. So suggesting we believe it’s true most likely because we were raised that way is incredibly weak.

Did it ever occur to you we might believe Christianity is true based upon logic? I suggest you read Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli’s *Handbook of Christian Apologetics and then come back here and try to refute the arguments in that book, including their 20 arguments for the existence of God. Lest you think the authors are arguing Christianity is true because they were brainwashed by their upbringing, I should point out that Kreeft is also the author of *Socratic Logic, *a textbook which is currently in its third edition.

*These include “The Argument from Change,” “The Argument from Efficient Causality,” “The Argument from Time and Contingency,” “The Argument from Degrees of Perfection,” “The Design Argument,” and “The Argument from Contingency.” The authors also include objections to these arguments, objections which they soundly refute.

 

[antroji]

Hi Greg,

No sarcasm intended. I was just making the point that most of the posts on here up to yours that I’m now responding to might as well be about music, which I love (your list contains some of my faves.) I had as little intent of sarcasm as your use of “dude” has of being demeaning, as in parts where I have lived that term is an insult. I’m betting you didn’t even know that, and am quite sure that you meant it in a chummy way.

I’m only trying to point out that if we strip the OP’s question of its emotional loading, she is trying to point out a common dynamic in the way any human is raised, and asking its significance relative to our religious convictions. And I’m maintaining that that is a question worthy of examination, not on the grounds of religious reactivity, but of simple psychological competence pertinent to haw we learn anything. No one would balk, I sense, if the question was about how we learn to appreciate, or not, certain foods. But religion is tied up more intimately with our feeling of identity than is our taste in flavors and textures.

I also do not see that the OP’s post #1 has any hint of claim that there is no absolute truth. It is only concerned with the process of acquisition. And again, it could be the acquisition of any cultural pattern, but here it is applied, rightfully in these fora, to religion.

I also disagree with your semantic analysis of the OP #1. And I speak here as someone very interested in semantics, having been an English major, enjoying math and logic, and having the discipline of General Semantics as a minor hobby. You might enjoy reading Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski, especially the part about the tool of analysis called “the structural differential.” (BTW, try “intrinsic” as a synonym for “inherent.” “Innate” works as well.)

I have re-stated my understanding of the OP question in several posts now, with as few takers of it as the OP has had, namely zero. Maybe the emotional loading of the “b” word coupled with the “r” or “C” word cause major thalamic overload in people of faith. Not just ours–such combinations are a loaded cocktail for any belief system, To be able to control and see though that is a useful tool, handy for those of any religion who are faced with temptation and neediing a clear mind.

In any case I appreciate your interest and involvement. God Bless.

 

[Stylites]

Would you let your children decide for themselves whether to play in the street or not? Or eat whatever they want to?

One could argue that a child is in the religion which God wants them to be in because of birth.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Absolutely. I believe that someone who switches his or her beliefs as a free adult is more objective, because that person has seen more than one side of the argument.

But you base your conclusion on who is more objective only on those who switch their beliefs! What about those who argue, contemplate, study, and research yet remain fully satisfied with their original beliefs? They are certainly as objective as those who have switched their beliefs!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Hi Greg,

No sarcasm intended. I was just making the point that most of the posts on here up to yours that I’m now responding to might as well be about music, which I love (your list contains some of my faves.) I had as little intent of sarcasm as your use of “dude” has of being demeaning, as in parts where I have lived that term is an insult. I’m betting you didn’t even know that, and am quite sure that you meant it in a chummy way.

I’m only trying to point out that if we strip the OP’s question of its emotional loading, she is trying to point out a common dynamic in the way any human is raised, and asking its significance relative to our religious convictions. And I’m maintaining that that is a question worthy of examination, not on the grounds of religious reactivity, but of simple psychological competence pertinent to haw we learn anything. No one would balk, I sense, if the question was about how we learn to appreciate, or not, certain foods. But religion is tied up more intimately with our feeling of identity than is our taste in flavors and textures.

I also do not see that the OP’s post #1 has any hint of claim that there is no absolute truth. It is only concerned with the process of acquisition. And again, it could be the acquisition of any cultural pattern, but here it is applied, rightfully in these fora, to religion.

I also disagree with your semantic analysis of the OP #1. And I speak here as someone very interested in semantics, having been an English major, enjoying math and logic, and having the discipline of General Semantics as a minor hobby. You might enjoy reading Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski, especially the part about the tool of analysis called “the structural differential.” (BTW, try “intrinsic” as a synonym for “inherent.” “Innate” works as well.)

I have re-stated my understanding of the OP question in several posts now, with as few takers of it as the OP has had, namely zero. Maybe the emotional loading of the “b” word coupled with the “r” or “C” word cause major thalamic overload in people of faith. Not just ours–such combinations are a loaded cocktail for any belief system, To be able to control and see though that is a useful tool, handy for those of any religion who are faced with temptation and neediing a clear mind.

In any case I appreciate your interest and involvement. God Bless.

The problem is that it is very difficult to discuss something like brainwashing when a brainwashed person does not know he/she is brainwashed! We can blather all day (not an insult directed to you) but it is pointless. The discussion of the effects of parental, church, and secular influences on us is certainly important but the term “brainwashing” has been used and we are stuck with it.

 

[JimG]

So why do Christian parents allow their children to see these things?

Look, I grew up playing cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war games, etc. I played with toy guns, GI Joe, and various other implements of death. I was taught that there was good guys and bad guys (no gray areas), and that bad guys (Indians were always bad guys) should always be killed in the end by the good guys. We’re talking about the sixties and seventies here, so I think you’re looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses. If you want more evidence, read about medieval Europe, when almost everyone was Catholic. It was hardly a time free of war and conflict.

Besides, are you saying that you must be taught Catholicism, or at least Christianity, to have morals?

Yes, those games were good; and the lessons were moral. Good guys. Bad guys. Compare the media of the 1950’s and 1960’s to what children are bombarded with today.

As for the Middle Ages, perhaps you have been brainwashed about that. Try this book.

In any case, I’d say the brainwashing today is done primarily by the secularist media, not by parents.

 

[antroji]

We are as stuck, LittleSoldier, in aything only to the degree we wish to be. The OP has already expressed regret at using that term and has moved on. Can’t you? In crtical thinking we try to see beyond snags that would inhibit a clear picture of what is intended. We read between the lines as well as the overt statement. So, we can get caught up in an emotional flag, or get on with business.

You and others on here remind me of the two monks who met a young woman at a river crossing. The older monk picked her up and and courteously carryed her across the torrent, and set her down, dry, on the other side. A few miles down the road the younger monk remonstrated that their order did not allow touching women. The older monk replied "I put that woman down at the edge of the stream; you are still carrying her!’