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

[Del Tachi]

This is not a serious post.

[Del Tachi]

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.   

[Del Tachi]

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. 

[Del Tachi]

Yes, they should. Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

Pls define what you think indoctrination is

[Del Tachi]

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.

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. 

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. 

[Del Tachi]

Yes, they should. Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

Pls define what you think indoctrination is

indoctrination: the process of teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

religious indoctrination would mean the process of teaching someone to accept a set of religious beliefs uncritically

Forcing your kid to go to church against their wishes would fit this definition.

If you do not believe in "indoctrinating" children in this way then you have made parenting a wholly meaningless enterprise.  Parents should be "uncritically" teaching their kids that stealing, lying and cheating are wrong, among other moral lessons.  Religious teaching, which is a similarly unfalsifiable set of beliefs about the universe, humanity and morality, is in the same category.   

What do you think a job of a parent even is?  to unaffectedly clothe and feed someone for 18 years and not care one iota about the type of person they turn out to be?  If parents are supposed to let literal children dictate the terms of their own upbringing then what even is their purpose?  lol 

[Del Tachi]

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.  Creating causes of action against otherwise lawful exercises of this discretion that only apply to cases where religion is involved is unfair and blatantly unconstitutional. 

[Del Tachi]

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.

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. 

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. 

But I assume this only applies to Christians? If someone doesn't want to be Muslim I assume they are just being patriots?

No? lmao

how do you get away with being this dense?

[Del Tachi]

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. 

[Del Tachi]

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?

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. 

[Del Tachi]

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...polygamy.

If you have your way, I'm not so sure about this one lol

[Del Tachi]

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.

Nonsense.  You've been told multiple times in this thread where this line exists:  abusive or coercive behaviors that go outside the boundaries of normal parental discretion are already illegal.   As the law currently exists, no parent is allowed to beat, threaten, abuse or neglect their child as a way of enforcing their preferred set of religious beliefs. 

Your OP is that parents be barred from exercising normal parental discretion if their child chooses to "opt-out" of church/religious teaching.  You've softened this position to something more like a hypothetical ban on infant circumcision, which is facially an idea worth debating on its merits but is still something only Reddit edgelords care anything about.   

[Del Tachi]

Your OP is that parents be barred from exercising normal parental discretion if their child chooses to "opt-out" of church/religious teaching.  You've softened this position to something more like a hypothetical ban on infant circumcision, which is facially an idea worth debating on its merits but is still something only Reddit edgelords care anything about.   

What would you categorize as "normal parental discretion" in the case of a minor refusing to participate in cult rituals?

You're going to have to be more specific, as the exact context is important.  How old is the child and what exactly is he refusing to do?  Normal parental discretion includes interventions across all four quadrants of the operant conditioning matrix

[Del Tachi]

Your OP is that parents be barred from exercising normal parental discretion if their child chooses to "opt-out" of church/religious teaching.  You've softened this position to something more like a hypothetical ban on infant circumcision, which is facially an idea worth debating on its merits but is still something only Reddit edgelords care anything about.   

What would you categorize as "normal parental discretion" in the case of a minor refusing to participate in cult rituals?

You're going to have to be more specific, as the exact context is important.  How old is the child and what exactly is he refusing to do?  Normal parental discretion includes interventions across all four quadrants of the operant conditioning matrix

Earlier in this thread I alluded to the fact that this would only apply to young adults, so let's say a 15-year-old. Let's say he refuses to say grace, attend church services, or go to Sunday school.

The parents could ground him.  Revoke his social media/video game privileges.  Not allow him to go out with friends on the weekends.

The list of possible reactions is almost infinite.  What's your point?