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

[Ferguson97]

Thoughts?

[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.

[DC Al Fine]

The phrase "legal protection" is doing a lot of work here. What do you mean specifically OP?

[Ferguson97]

The phrase "legal protection" is doing a lot of work here. What do you mean specifically OP?

I intentionally made it open-ended. If you think they should have protections at all, what should they be?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Of course, and it should have to be based on an opt-in and not an opt-out (so as an example, it would never be legal to take children too young to communicate to a religious event).

[OSR stands with Israel]

No they shouldn’t

[Mopsus]

Of course, and it should have to be based on an opt-in and not an opt-out (so as an example, it would never be legal to take children too young to communicate to a religious event).

Asinine. I presume it should be illegal to take babies to their grandparents’ house as well.

[Aurelius]

Of course, and it should have to be based on an opt-in and not an opt-out (so as an example, it would never be legal to take children too young to communicate to a religious event).

Asinine. I presume it should be illegal to take babies to their grandparents’ house as well.

Atlas has a handful of people with, ah, unique moral frameworks. There's really no point in arguing with someone who thinks adultery is okay and baptism is unacceptable. Completely different wavelengths.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The phrase "legal protection" is doing a lot of work here. What do you mean specifically OP?

I intentionally made it open-ended. If you think they should have protections at all, what should they be?

I would be in favor of a significant tightening (at the very least including harsher sentencing guidelines) of existing laws against child abuse if the abuse is somehow motivated by the child expressing religious or political views that the parents or guardians don't like.

[Del Tachi]

This is not a serious post.

[Ferguson97]

This is not a serious post.

Why don't you believe it's serious?

[afleitch]

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.

[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.   

[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.

[Aurelius]

If this would prohibit parents from requiring their minor children to attend religious services or events, then no. If this is about kids who get abused, beaten, thrown out, etc for leaving their parent's religion, then of course, and it should be punished harshly. I believe there should be very harsh punishments for parents who neglect or abuse their children for any reason (probably harsher than whatever we have now), but there don't need to be separate laws handling the same criminal actions based on the reasons they happened.

[°Leprechaun]

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.

edit... Many religions teach that being gay is a sin and this obviously hurts gay children.

[Cokeland Saxton]

Yes, they should. Religious indoctrination is child abuse.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.