Should minors who wish to leave their parents' religion be given legal protections?

[Calthrina950]

This is not a serious post.

It is.

Should children be beholden to their parents views on all matters? Particularly if it's through coercion.

Absolutely not, and it's about more than just religious belief.

You are thinking about this too abstractly.  It is already illegal to neglect or beat your kids for being an atheist or not wanting to go to church.  What other legal protections ought to be in place?

If insisting on a religious upbringing for children is "coercion" then how is it not similarly coercive to discipline your kids when they lie, cheat, steal, are bullies, sneak out of the house at night, etc.?  Religious teaching is a fundamental aspect of a child's moral education 

Rearing children in a chosen religious tradition is part of parents' right to free exercise.  Your idea that this basic and inescapable aspect of parenting (i.e., moral education) be potentially criminalized is unserious, dangerous and illiberal.   

Religious freedom is a right enshrined in the Constitution. Moral freedom isn't.

huh?  moral freedom?  what's that?

Being able to freely raise your children in a religious tradition is religious freedom, plain and simple. 

Children are individuals and are entitled to freedom of religion, just as anyone else.

Wouldn't this same argument apply to those who say that minors should have the right to transition genders? If minors have the right to attend any church they wish, or to not attend church at all, against the wishes of their parents (which isn't something I object to), then who is to say that they don't have rights in certain other aspects?

[Calthrina950]

Wouldn't this same argument apply to those who say that minors should have the right to transition genders? If minors have the right to attend any church they wish, or to not attend church at all, against the wishes of their parents (which isn't something I object to), then who is to say that they don't have rights in certain other aspects?

Children have the right to identify with any religion or gender they choose. If that religion or gender requires them to physically alter otherwise healthy parts of their body, then the choice should not be left up to them.

That provides additional clarification, and I generally agree with what you say here. Children obviously have rights, and are individuals, as you note, but their rights are subject to restrictions because of their minor status and their "less developed" intellectual and physical abilities. Going from this, do you think a parent should have the ability to bring their child with them to church or to a religious gathering? Or to place their children in religious (i.e., Catholic and Jewish) or Sunday schools?

[Calthrina950]

This is not a serious post.

It is.

Should children be beholden to their parents views on all matters? Particularly if it's through coercion.

Absolutely not, and it's about more than just religious belief.

You are thinking about this too abstractly.  It is already illegal to neglect or beat your kids for being an atheist or not wanting to go to church.  What other legal protections ought to be in place?

If insisting on a religious upbringing for children is "coercion" then how is it not similarly coercive to discipline your kids when they lie, cheat, steal, are bullies, sneak out of the house at night, etc.?  Religious teaching is a fundamental aspect of a child's moral education 

Rearing children in a chosen religious tradition is part of parents' right to free exercise.  Your idea that this basic and inescapable aspect of parenting (i.e., moral education) be potentially criminalized is unserious, dangerous and illiberal.   

Religious freedom is a right enshrined in the Constitution. Moral freedom isn't.

huh?  moral freedom?  what's that?

Being able to freely raise your children in a religious tradition is religious freedom, plain and simple. 

Children are individuals and are entitled to freedom of religion, just as anyone else.

Wouldn't this same argument apply to those who say that minors should have the right to transition genders? If minors have the right to attend any church they wish, or to not attend church at all, against the wishes of their parents (which isn't something I object to), then who is to say that they don't have rights in certain other aspects?

Certainly. I think it's self-evident that people under 18 (but presumably over 0) should have the ability to make some decisions for themselves. The extent to which this covers (different types of) medical decisions is fuzzy, but kids absolutely deserve some amount of autonomy--from their parents, sure, but also from the government.

What would the best framework be then? How can we balance parental authority with the rights of minors? I think that this question needs to be considered seriously, given the disputes that we are seeing with regards to transgender rights, sex education, abortion, and other matters.