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

[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 

[Cokeland Saxton]

Yes, they should. Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

Pls define what you think indoctrination is

Forcing religion on their child, which seems to be like 95% of "Christians" in this country. Idk how someone can think that's ok. I hope you learn one day to overcome your indoctrination.

[afleitch]

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 

The question was 'should minors who wish to leave their parents religion be given legal protections.'

Not only is your answer 'no' it also appears to be that parents have a right to not let them leave it.

[politicallefty]

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?

I think this topic question presupposes that the child is old enough to want to say no through some form of reasoned mind. I don't believe anyone here is arguing that someone at Pre-K age has the agency to stand up to their parents in a reasoned way (although I would argue for more protections under the law for their sake as not being property). However, at any of those ages, that does not mean they don't possess the rights granted by the Constitution.

I would ask why the US is the only country in the world that hasn't ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's clear that based on the countries that have ratified that it's just a statement of beliefs. There's something very wrong with the religious right in this country. My issue with religion in this country is that it tends to give far too much power to parents, despite the fact that children are owed a certain level of autonomy. Parents do not own their children. They are not property.

[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.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

[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.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

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.

Honestly, I have no idea. All I can offer are my judgement calls on a case-by-case basis. Coming up with a unified philosophical theory of minor rights would definitely be a good idea.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Parents  also force kids to eat vegetables even if they want to eat candy

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, they should. Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

Pls define what you think indoctrination is

Forcing religion on their child, which seems to be like 95% of "Christians" in this country. Idk how someone can think that's ok. I hope you learn one day to overcome your indoctrination.

Part of a job of a parents is to pass on their values to their kids

[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. 

[Ferguson97]

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.

Parents  also force kids to eat vegetables even if they want to eat candy

The difference is that vegetables are good for you.

[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?

[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. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Parents  also force kids to eat vegetables even if they want to eat candy

The difference is that vegetables are good for you.

So what you are saying is you think the government should be basically in charge of parenting and decide what is good or not for your child .

[fhtagn]

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.

Parents  also force kids to eat vegetables even if they want to eat candy

The difference is that vegetables are good for you.

So what you are saying is you think the government should be basically in charge of parenting and decide what is good or not for your child .

The government isn't good at most things, but they've been proven many times in recent history that they're willing to work with groups that endanger children. Just look at Drag Queen Story Hour being allowed in schools and public libraries, despite their issues related to pedophilia.

Source

A media spokesperson for the library confirmed one of the program’s drag queens, Tatiana Mala Nina, is Alberto Garza, a 32-year-old child sex offender. In 2008, he was convicted of assaulting an 8-year-old boy.

...

Houston Public Library released the following statement:

“We were made aware today that one participant for Drag Queen storytime who read at the September 29, 2018, Drag Queen Storytime has a criminal background that should have prevented him from participating in the program.

...

“In our review of our process and of this participant, we discovered that we failed to complete a background check as required by our own guidelines. We deeply regret this oversight and the concern this may cause our customers. We realize this is a serious matter."

Source

A Milwaukee judge and former president of an LGBTQ organization that sponsored Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) events has been arrested on child pornography charges.

Judge Brett Blomme, 38, was arrested and charged with seven counts of child pornography possession. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, he is accused of uploading 27 videos and pictures of child sexual abuse to the messaging app Kik under the name "DomMasterBB."

Also related to those sources:




Right, but somehow parents being good parents are the bad guys.

[Associate Justice PiT]

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 my child decides that he does not want to go to science class because he believes the Earth is flat and evolution is false, is it indoctrination for me to force him to go anyway?

[Ferguson97]

some nonsense

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