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

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Says the person who is top dense to realize A) transitioning is medically necessary and B) expanding access to hormones for minors does not equate to genital surgery.

I never denied either of those things.

That's just untrue. On multiple occasions when you've been pressed on why you carve out this ideologically inconsistent, unscientific stance, you go on about genital surgery and ignore hormone therapy, when I make it clear that I'm talking about HRT and not surgery. Learn2Read. And if you do not deny medical necessity of transitioning for transitioning, then forget ideological consistency; it's cruelty you have to answer for.

I don't think you even read my posts, to be honest. You just respond with a word salad refuting arguments nobody was making. Practice reading and then replying to the words other people write for while, and then maybe we can have a conversation.

Jesus Christ.

[John Dule]

Says the person who is top dense to realize A) transitioning is medically necessary and B) expanding access to hormones for minors does not equate to genital surgery.

I never denied either of those things.

That's just untrue. On multiple occasions when you've been pressed on why you carve out this ideologically inconsistent, unscientific stance, you go on about genital surgery and ignore hormone therapy, when I make it clear that I'm talking about HRT and not surgery. Learn2Read. And if you do not deny medical necessity of transitioning for transitioning, then forget ideological consistency; it's cruelty you have to answer for.

I don't think you even read my posts, to be honest. You just respond with a word salad refuting arguments nobody was making. Practice reading and then replying to the words other people write for while, and then maybe we can have a conversation.

Jesus Christ.

You need to stop. Seriously. This constant badgering of other users with random non-sequiturs-- responding to arguments they didn't even make-- is not a good look. As I've said multiple times, it is the permanence and irreversibility of the procedure (whether that is a surgery or hormone therapy) that I object to. This is why I have now said numerous times that I don't oppose the use of puberty blockers. This is a perfectly ideologically consistent delineation. Stop. Posting.

Also, it's unbelievable how the mods treat you with kiddie gloves whenever you start these exchanges.

[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.   

[Devout Centrist]

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

No? I'm saying that drag queens have a historical connection to the LGBT community. Anyone even remotely familiar with LGBT history would know this.

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.

There are pedophiles in every walk of life - teachers, coaches, priests, family members. Assuming that all drag queens are pedophiles is what I'm criticizing.

And yet those other professions actually contribute something to society (yes, even priests). Drag queens, meanwhile, are an offensive and misogynistic caricature of both gay men and women. They should be socially isolated and shunned.

Jesus Christ, dude, you don't drink, you don't smoke, you think drag queens are offensive...what do you do for fun?

[John Dule]

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?

Jesus Christ, dude, you don't drink, you don't smoke, you think drag queens are offensive...what do you do for fun?

Mostly I hike. If you'd like a fuller understanding of what I do in my spare time, go to 37°56'37.9"N 122°37'30.9"W and dig.

[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

[John Dule]

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.

[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?

[John Dule]

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?

Ok, and I wouldn't argue that these decisions would rise to the level of abuse at first. If the kid were kept in isolation from his friends for an extended period of time, however, I'm sure you would agree that that would rise to such a level.

[Devout Centrist]

If we're talking something like a Fundamentalist LDS sect or Scientology's Sea Org, sure. But most of that already falls under existing child abuse and endangerment laws. You can't exactly ban a parent from requiring their kids go to religious worship weekly (and we shouldn't, to be clear).

[John Dule]

If we're talking something like a Fundamentalist LDS sect or Scientology's Sea Org, sure. But most of that already falls under existing child abuse and endangerment laws. You can't exactly ban a parent from requiring their kids go to religious worship weekly (and we shouldn't, to be clear).

And I didn't suggest we should as a matter of policy. What I said is that we should be more zealous in our use of CPS to intervene in situations where parents are forcing their children to be members of their cult via abusive, coercive methods.

[Mopsus]

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?

Ok, and I wouldn't argue that these decisions would rise to the level of abuse at first. If the kid were kept in isolation from his friends for an extended period of time, however, I'm sure you would agree that that would rise to such a level.

How often do you think this happens?

[John Dule]

How often do you think this happens?

I don't know. Do you?

[Devout Centrist]

If we're talking something like a Fundamentalist LDS sect or Scientology's Sea Org, sure. But most of that already falls under existing child abuse and endangerment laws. You can't exactly ban a parent from requiring their kids go to religious worship weekly (and we shouldn't, to be clear).

And I didn't suggest we should as a matter of policy. What I said is that we should be more zealous in our use of CPS to intervene in situations where parents are forcing their children to be members of their cult via abusive, coercive methods.

I didn’t post this as an attack on your position to be clear. I think the difficulty with your argument is adopting and fairly deciding a legal standard around what constitutes isolation for young adults. Could this be used to bar homeschooling? Does social interaction outside of the immediate household preclude the possibility of isolation? What about insular religious communities like Amish, Orthodox or Hasidic Jews, etc? It’s hard to imagine any legal test that could be adopted here that wouldn’t either run afoul of statute regarding religious freedom or be completely pointless.

I think there are clear situations where CPS should be more involved, particularly around new religious movements with a history of child or sexual abuse. That being said, CPS itself is something to be used judiciously; placing children in the foster care system has many unintended consequences and ought to be used as the last resort. I fear that creating broad and perhaps unclear legal standards regarding child abuse will only make matters worse for an already dysfunctional system.

[Mopsus]

How often do you think this happens?

I don't know. Do you?

As someone who grew up in a conservative religious environment, I think the likely answer is “Not very often”. Most teenagers aren’t Atlas teens; they don’t have deeply-held political, philosophical, and religious views derived from reading Wikipedia articles late into the night. They mostly believe what their parents believe. If they don’t, and their parents are abusive towards them because of it, their parents should be prosecuted - not for disrespecting their children’s beliefs, but for being abusive. I think what you have is a solution in search of a problem.

[Ferguson97]

How often do you think this happens?

I don't know. Do you?

As someone who grew up in a conservative religious environment, I think the likely answer is “Not very often”. Most teenagers aren’t Atlas teens; they don’t have deeply-held political, philosophical, and religious views derived from reading Wikipedia articles late into the night. They mostly believe what their parents believe. If they don’t, and their parents are abusive towards them because of it, their parents should be prosecuted - not for disrespecting their children’s beliefs, but for being abusive. I think what you have is a solution in search of a problem.

Even if the law winds up protecting just one kid, then it'll be worth it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How often do you think this happens?

I don't know. Do you?

As someone who grew up in a conservative religious environment, I think the likely answer is “Not very often”. Most teenagers aren’t Atlas teens; they don’t have deeply-held political, philosophical, and religious views derived from reading Wikipedia articles late into the night. They mostly believe what their parents believe. If they don’t, and their parents are abusive towards them because of it, their parents should be prosecuted - not for disrespecting their children’s beliefs, but for being abusive. I think what you have is a solution in search of a problem.

This is actually not entirely true actually, a lot of hipster Christians were raised Catholic or conservative evangelical (or Mormon in the mountain west from what I've gathered) and didn't have abusive parents over it but fervently disagreed with those churches and rejected them. And of course a lot became completely irreligious before rediscovering Christ.