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

[John Dule]

Yes, if a minor explicitly states that he does not wish to participate in his parents' cult, he should have legal protections barring his parents from forcing him to attend cult meetings and indoctrination sessions.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

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.

[John Dule]

The First Amendment is that Congress makes no law prohibiting religious freedom, not that people be shielded from exposure to religious teaching from their parents or other private individuals.

I was making a policy argument, not a legal argument. Though it could be argued that CPS, as a government agency, would be "withholding state action" by refusing to take a child away from an abusive parent, which could trigger judicial review of that agency decision. However, that isn't the point I was making.

Children lack the necessary level of discernment or maturity to always know what's in their best interest.  The development of their conscience is shaped through a combination of moral teaching and lived experience.  Parents are correct to direct and influence this process, which is all that a religious upbringing amounts to.

There is no shortage of people raised in strict religious households who then come to revaluate, redefine or reject that faith later in life.  I would even count myself among them.  That this happens so frequently suggests you and the typical anti-theist lot here are just pushing a (very bad) solution in search of a problem. 

I wasn't suggesting that there should be some kind of blanket ban on taking kids to church. But if a kid expresses repeated and consistent objections to attending cult meetings with his parents, and they attempt to force him to do so by physical violence, abuse, coercion that exceeds ordinary parental discretion, or other harm or threats of harm, that kid should be emancipated from his parents (I'm assuming here that a minor of a sufficient age to voice objections to church attendance would also be of sufficient age for emancipation). I imagine that this type of situation would arise mostly in circumstances involving Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, or the most extreme sects of Islam and Christianity.

[John Dule]

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?

Yes, but if the kid objects or refuses to attend, the parents should not force it on them.

[John Dule]

The First Amendment is that Congress makes no law prohibiting religious freedom, not that people be shielded from exposure to religious teaching from their parents or other private individuals.

I was making a policy argument, not a legal argument. Though it could be argued that CPS, as a government agency, would be "withholding state action" by refusing to take a child away from an abusive parent, which could trigger judicial review of that agency decision. However, that isn't the point I was making.

Children lack the necessary level of discernment or maturity to always know what's in their best interest.  The development of their conscience is shaped through a combination of moral teaching and lived experience.  Parents are correct to direct and influence this process, which is all that a religious upbringing amounts to.

There is no shortage of people raised in strict religious households who then come to revaluate, redefine or reject that faith later in life.  I would even count myself among them.  That this happens so frequently suggests you and the typical anti-theist lot here are just pushing a (very bad) solution in search of a problem. 

I wasn't suggesting that there should be some kind of blanket ban on taking kids to church. But if a kid expresses repeated and consistent objections to attending cult meetings with his parents, and they attempt to force him to do so by physical violence, abuse, coercion that exceeds ordinary parental discretion, or other harm or threats of harm, that kid should be emancipated from his parents (I'm assuming here that a minor of a sufficient age to voice objections to church attendance would also be of sufficient age for emancipation). I imagine that this type of situation would arise mostly in circumstances involving Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, or the most extreme sects of Islam and Christianity.

This is the fatal flaw.  Abusive and coercive behaviors that fall outside the boundaries of normal parental discretion are already illegal.

Ok, and I'm saying those legal protections should exist. Apparently you disagree.

[John Dule]

Anyone who says yes to this beyond the basic ones we have right now should never say they stand up for the values of immigrants ever again

I never said I did. Most immigrants have terrible values, as do most people in general. I do stand up for their right to free movement, though.

[John Dule]

The First Amendment is that Congress makes no law prohibiting religious freedom, not that people be shielded from exposure to religious teaching from their parents or other private individuals.

I was making a policy argument, not a legal argument. Though it could be argued that CPS, as a government agency, would be "withholding state action" by refusing to take a child away from an abusive parent, which could trigger judicial review of that agency decision. However, that isn't the point I was making.

Children lack the necessary level of discernment or maturity to always know what's in their best interest.  The development of their conscience is shaped through a combination of moral teaching and lived experience.  Parents are correct to direct and influence this process, which is all that a religious upbringing amounts to.

There is no shortage of people raised in strict religious households who then come to revaluate, redefine or reject that faith later in life.  I would even count myself among them.  That this happens so frequently suggests you and the typical anti-theist lot here are just pushing a (very bad) solution in search of a problem. 

I wasn't suggesting that there should be some kind of blanket ban on taking kids to church. But if a kid expresses repeated and consistent objections to attending cult meetings with his parents, and they attempt to force him to do so by physical violence, abuse, coercion that exceeds ordinary parental discretion, or other harm or threats of harm, that kid should be emancipated from his parents (I'm assuming here that a minor of a sufficient age to voice objections to church attendance would also be of sufficient age for emancipation). I imagine that this type of situation would arise mostly in circumstances involving Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, or the most extreme sects of Islam and Christianity.

This is the fatal flaw.  Abusive and coercive behaviors that fall outside the boundaries of normal parental discretion are already illegal.

Ok, and I'm saying those legal protections should exist. Apparently you disagree.

Yes, obviously we disagree on whether the law should apply equally to people irrespective of their religion.  You admit it shouldn’t, which is an inherently unserious and bigoted position. 

Which protections for minors with cult member parents would you like to eliminate?

[John Dule]

None.  They don’t need any more/less protections than kids with “normie” parents have.  The law treats kids equally regardless to their parents’ religion or lack thereof, as it should.  You admittedly disagree. 

Of course the law treats parents equally regardless of their religion. It does not, however, treat parents equally regardless of how they attempt to inflict that religion upon other autonomous individuals (children). Parents already can lose their kids to CPS if they are abusive, and we should broaden our definition of abuse to encompass things like circumcision and coerced speech. It's probably too early for this now, but within the next 50 years as religious belief continues to die out in our society, hopefully an emerging nonbeliever majority will take responsibility for the rights of children whose parents have sadly been subsumed into cults.

[John Dule]

None.  They don’t need any more/less protections than kids with “normie” parents have.  The law treats kids equally regardless to their parents’ religion or lack thereof, as it should.  You admittedly disagree. 

Of course the law treats parents equally regardless of their religion. It does not, however, treat parents equally regardless of how they attempt to inflict that religion upon other autonomous individuals (children). Parents already can lose their kids to CPS if they are abusive, and we should broaden our definition of abuse to encompass things like circumcision and coerced speech. It's probably too early for this now, but within the next 50 years as religious belief continues to die out in our society, hopefully an emerging nonbeliever majority will take responsibility for the rights of children whose parents have sadly been subsumed into cults.

Honestly the fact you support such government intrusion into people’s lives means you really shouldn’t call your self a libertarian cause you are not .


The government deciding what is or what is not good for your kids , what values should be or not be taught to your kid is authoritarianism 101 and frankly communist so please stop 

I'm sorry that I don't support your right to mutilate another person's genitals with impunity. I will try to be better in the future.

[John Dule]

Let’s make this clear , there are already legal protections for this . A parent cannot hurt their child , they cannot refuse to provide for them to try to make them go to their place of religious worship with them .


The most they can do is ground the child or spank them so yah

And the question at hand in this thread is "Should those protections remain in place?" Apparently some people do not think so, which is deeply disturbing.

[John Dule]

"Should we ban religion?" phrased yet another way. No. And it won't ever happen in the United States because even most secular Americans aren't as driven by the issue as Atlas internet warriors.

It sounds like you're admitting that religion wouldn't be able to perpetuate itself if believers didn't brainwash their kids from birth.

[John Dule]

"Should we ban religion?" phrased yet another way. No. And it won't ever happen in the United States because even most secular Americans aren't as driven by the issue as Atlas internet warriors.

It sounds like you're admitting that religion wouldn't be able to perpetuate itself if believers didn't brainwash their kids from birth.

No, I'm implying that you cannot have religious liberty if parents are not allowed to raise their children according to their values, not someone else's and definitely not the state's by coercion. Which is usually something libertarians don't like. Pity that I guess.

I care about religious liberty for all individuals-- which includes children.

[John Dule]

"Should we ban religion?" phrased yet another way. No. And it won't ever happen in the United States because even most secular Americans aren't as driven by the issue as Atlas internet warriors.

It sounds like you're admitting that religion wouldn't be able to perpetuate itself if believers didn't brainwash their kids from birth.

No, I'm implying that you cannot have religious liberty if parents are not allowed to raise their children according to their values, not someone else's and definitely not the state's by coercion. Which is usually something libertarians don't like. Pity that I guess.

I care about religious liberty for all individuals-- which includes children.

Religious freedom includes expression, which for all intents and purposes is actually living by your religion. That protection covers child-rearing. This, and the fact that the opinion of the parent or parents outweighs that of the child's, have been commonly understood for a long time.

Fortunately, the many things we've "understood for a long time" have been reconsidered and rightfully discarded in the past 250 years, and this will be another in a long line of feudal practices that will go the way of the dodo someday-- along with serfdom and polygamy. The fact that we allow the most vulnerable members of our society to be indoctrinated, mutilated, and frightened into submission by their cult member parents is deeply saddening to me. However, I agree that the time is not yet ripe to take action about it.

[John Dule]

Dule really has let his hatred of religion absolutely shred his libertarianism

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

[John Dule]

oh no you're not letting me cut the tip of my son's dick off against his will and then have an old man suck the blood away, what is this, stalinist russia

[John Dule]

i told my daughter she was going to hell for being a lesbian and now cps has taken her away from me, why am i being persecuted like this

[John Dule]

Dule really has let his hatred of religion absolutely shred his libertarianism

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Seems a bit odd that you're holding this position that parents are in no place to have a say in things their children can or cannot do at any point in their lives. It sounds great and all until you get to the stereotypical libertarian meme:

Are you willing to admit that parents have every right to tell their kids having sex with an adult is not okay and is not allowed, or do you believe children have the right to engage in those acts and the parents should have CPS come after them for telling them otherwise?

Parents can tell kids whatever they want. What I'm saying is that if their children are not receptive to those ideas, and they decide to then create a hostile home environment in an attempt to force their beliefs on their kids, CPS should get involved. I don't think this is too controversial of a position.

[John Dule]

Dule really has let his hatred of religion absolutely shred his libertarianism

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Seems a bit odd that you're holding this position that parents are in no place to have a say in things their children can or cannot do at any point in their lives. It sounds great and all until you get to the stereotypical libertarian meme:

Are you willing to admit that parents have every right to tell their kids having sex with an adult is not okay and is not allowed, or do you believe children have the right to engage in those acts and the parents should have CPS come after them for telling them otherwise?

Parents can tell kids whatever they want. What I'm saying is that if their children are not receptive to those ideas, and they decide to then create a hostile home environment in an attempt to force their beliefs on their kids, CPS should get involved. I don't think this is too controversial of a position.

So if a teenager wants to start a sexual relationship with their teacher, CPS should get involved (targeting the parents) if the parents take any "hostile" steps to prevent their underage child from having inappropriate relations with said adult? This could include having numerous conversations telling them it is wrong, removing their privileges in the home for going out, requiring strict rules for when they do go out, moving to a location where the child cannot keep seeing said adult, etc.

... Sex with a minor is already illegal. The government would be getting involved there regardless, and the action it would take would be against the teacher. This question is hardly applicable. I'm sure you can come up with something that will actually stump me.

[John Dule]

So by your logic "forcing" beliefs on children is okay when the government does it? Your argument here was that forcing anyone to go against their beliefs is hostile, and grounds for action against whoever is preventing children from acting based on their beliefs. If the child has a sincerely held belief that it is ok to engage in relations with their teacher, why is it ok for the government to say "no, that's illegal", but not ok for parents to influence their child to achieve the same desired result?

When did I say that parents shouldn't be able to influence their children that way? The goal here is to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from coercive influence at the hands of bad actors with a severe power imbalance. That includes pedophiles who use their age and position in society to manipulate their targets into dependent relationships.

If it's pedophilia you're worried about, then let me tell you a little something about the Catholic Church-- not to mention the arranged child marriages that take place in various extremist religious groups around the globe.

[John Dule]

So by your logic "forcing" beliefs on children is okay when the government does it? Your argument here was that forcing anyone to go against their beliefs is hostile, and grounds for action against whoever is preventing children from acting based on their beliefs. If the child has a sincerely held belief that it is ok to engage in relations with their teacher, why is it ok for the government to say "no, that's illegal", but not ok for parents to influence their child to achieve the same desired result?

When did I say that parents shouldn't be able to influence their children that way? The goal here is to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from coercive influence at the hands of bad actors with a severe power imbalance. That includes pedophiles who use their age and position in society to manipulate their targets into dependent relationships.

If it's pedophilia you're worried about, then let me tell you a little something about the Catholic Church-- not to mention the arranged child marriages that take place in various extremist religious groups around the globe.

You don't have a "goal" if you aren't willing to see how flawed your logic is when applied to any other scenarios. If you want to be edgy and anti-religion by all means go for it, but at least be honest about why you are doing it. Because nothing you are saying is actually helping what you claim to be the goal.

We already have systems in place to protect the vulnerable from real cases of abuse. What you are promoting is targeting innocent parents for raising their kids within their religious and cultural values because you just hate religion.

No. I said from the outset that this was limited to minors who explicitly state their wish to not be involved in such practices and actively resist involvement. Children put in this situation should be able to receive state protection from parents who seek to vindictively punish them for not conforming to their expectations. Look back at my first post in this thread and I'm sure you will better understand my position.

[John Dule]

If what they are being asked to participate in is truly abusive or the activities are illegal in nature, protections already exist to support those children. What you have suggested numerous times in that thread goes way beyond truly helping those who are being harmed, it's targeting innocent people that are doing their jobs are parents.

It's not just a matter of whether the nature of the activity is abusive. It's also a matter of whether the form of coercion used to get children to participate in the cult rises to the level of "abuse." Of course, I think we should take a fairly broad definition of that word (circumcision, as I said earlier, is certainly a form of abuse). I'm open to hearing arguments about where we should draw that line, but I won't entertain for a moment the idea that many in this thread appear to adhere to-- that such a line should not exist at all.

[John Dule]

some nonsense

Not sure why you decided to turn this discussion into a "gay people are pedophiles" rant, but thanks for derailing the conversation.

I never said anything about gay people being pedophiles. It suggests far more about you and your assumptions to come to that conclusion in response to what I said. Perhaps you aren't the ally you pretend to be.

You literally said

Just look at Drag Queen Story Hour being allowed in schools and public libraries, despite their issues related to pedophilia.

Don't play dumb.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

[John Dule]

The government deciding what is or what is not good for your kids , what values should be or not be
taught to your kid is authoritarianism 101 and frankly communist so please stop 

... what do you think communism is

Anyway Communism is just not an economic system , like many leftists claim it is. It yes is about destroying every traditional structure that exists in society from the economic system to religion to the family to make sure the state controls every aspect of your life .

In fact cultural revolutions that took place in the USSR and China were just as integral to the communist system as whatever economic system they had in place.

Educational. And yet, irrelevant.