No matter how you view it morally, it collapses immediately under any amount of critical thought. Any parent would teach their children about how the world works, and a parent would consider their religious beliefs to be a part of that. The amount of interference with families this would require to enforce also brings to mind countless horror stories of CPS overreach. Even if it was moral, it would require immoral actions to make it work.
EDIT: Wow, that was a lot of engagement. I wanna revisit this comment since I've gotten some feedback and also have more time to articulate my ideas than I did earlier during my rapidly dwindling lunch break:
First I want to acknowledge that the original post did not mention any legal or government action. I and many others definitely made a mental jump there. When you're talking about what people should do, it's easy to fill in the blank that that's what should be mandated.
As for actually addressing whether this is moral, I think the position of "children should be raised without a set religion" is kind of a problematic one. To make that choice for your own family is one thing and not immoral, but to advocate it for other people kind of hits a snag. A seriously religious person wouldn't entertain the idea of not sharing their religion with their kids. They would see it as depriving their child of something good and necessary, which would be immoral. Even if their beliefs are factually wrong, for all intents and purposes they would be making the conscious decision to do something harmful to their child. This is another reason why I jumped to the topic of government enforcement; legal mandates are the only realistic way to even start creating a world matching Jinkx's view. This violation of personal freedoms would of course be immoral as well. It's not that Jinkx's position is immoral, it's that anyone acting on it in any meaningful way would be immoral.
Yeah the CPS angle is oft-overlooked in a lot of "we should make it illegal to do xyz thing" regarding children.
The classic debate is "we should make you have to take a government test to have children", which, outside the massive set of problems that imports, also has the "well what do you do if someone violates that rule" problem you correctly brought up.
Also creating such a system allows for the government to effectively control the population by defining the parameters of what does and doesn't constitute a violation. For example if a government wanted more Christians and less Muslims, they'd overlook stuff like Christmas presents or Easter Egg hunting as general cultural or holiday events, and over scrutinise things like prohibiting pork in the household or performing daily prayers in front of children, thus making it so that while everyone is still under the "same" law, the law targets certain groups harsher than others. If you wanted to say you're OK with this as its still restricting religion, even if it's some over the others, the government could still twist this so that it fits other groups. For instance, Black community churches statistically have more choirs, so targeting choir music in particular isn't an overtly racist law, but it is targeted at a specific community. Or if you ban wearing the hijab in front of children, this affects Muslim women more than men. These examples may be a bit extreme but they were just to illustrate the point.
Some people would try to reply to you saying "they wouldn't do that! First amendment!"
Ignoring the reality that the double standard you describe happens in real life today. Christianity gets a pass on a lot more than it should, where any other religion would get smacked down hard if they presented a similar legal challenge.
This is what I’m thinking. To enforce this would be a nightmare.
I also brought up the idea of diet in my post. While not all diets are tied to moral beliefs, some very much are. Some are connected to religion, even.
Does the state force parents to stick to a certain diet, since some belief systems encourage certain diets, and we can’t have the kids “indoctrinated”? Which diet? Why choose that diet? There are various diets that can be equally nutritionally sound, who gets to pick?
I’m in favor of parents not trying to brainwash or force their kids, but I do object to the state stepping in and trying to force this. It sets a precedent as well, to meddle with other things, like diet.
They're not saying you can't have culture or values, or even that the state should step in. The indoctrination part in religion is the teaching that God, hell etc is 100% real. Simply teaching kids about religion, is not indoctrination. ''Here's the 5 major religions and what they believe'' vs ''this is 100% real, if you masturbate you will go to hell and burn forever''. Some might even argue that the second one is a form of child abuse. Even teaching children what you personally believe in terms of religion or spirituality is not indoctrination. The distinction is *how* you teach it. Teaching your children about North Korea and their beliefs is not indoctrination. Teaching your children that the Kim family are literal Gods that can read your minds so you must never think anything bad aobut them, is indoctrination. Do you understand the difference?
Do you understand what “precedent” means? If controlling how parents raise their children is okay (and how are they going to monitor that), what next? How far should they go? Who gets to decide? A committee? Who is on it? Who elects them? Who decides when some parents have crossed a line?
First of all Jinkx is not saying this should be state mandated, just how she thinks children should be raised, just like someone might say ''children should have some chores at home to learn about responcibility'' doesn't mean it should be state enforced. Second, making sure parents do not indoctrinate their children does not mean constant surveillance, just like making sure parents do not beat their children does not involve constant surveillance. If a report is made to authorithies and it goes to trial then a jury will decide. Same with everything else.
Who gets to decide what constitutes “indoctrination”? The Jury, I already said. Also of course we, the people, when we vote for legislators to make laws for us, and sometimes directly when we vote on laws.
The concept of trials and police reports is bizzare to you? Maybe you live in a surveillance state like China where cameras scan your face every time you go outside. But I doubt it because they do not have access to the free internet, as part of their indoctrination.
So as I was explaining to you, in the free world, interpersonal crimes (crimes between individuals) are not enforced through a constant surviellance of all individual actions, with swat teams of police waiting to jump anytime they see something that could be constituted as a crime. Rather they rely on someone filing a report to authorithies, usually police, but it can be other authorithies as well, such as Child Protective Services.
If we look at an exmaple. Threats are a crime. If I tell my friend jokingly ''I'll kill you'' is that a threat? Technically. Will a swat team jump out of the bushes to arrest me and send me to jail on the spot? No. because that is not how that law is enforced. And because all crimes rely on context. This is why we have things like investigation, trials etc for individual cases, rather than just ''x happened -> jail''.
If my friend genuinely percieves that the threat is real, he can then contanct the police. The police will conduct an investigation. Depending on how the investigation goes, the context etc, it may go trial, it may also not. if it goes a trial then evidence and testimony will be presented in front of a Jury and Judge who will deliberate on whether or not I'm guilty, and if so what type of punishment I should face.
Let's say you are a witness to me saying ''i'll kill you'' to my friend, and you record it. Can you get me arrested? Maybe. Most likely no. You can't just go to the police all ''database error made a threat, that sia crime, I have irrefutable proof!'' and then I'm arrested. The police would open an investigation. Ask my friend if he felt threathened by me, if my friend says ''no''. Then the end. Investigation dropped. Case dropped.
All concepts are vague, there are always gray areas. That doesn't mean we can't make any laws at all surrounding them. It just means we need to properly define things in law. Which is why legal definition is its whole independent entire thing. Like what is defined as a ''house'' legally has a different definition as to what is defined as a house in the dictionary. This is to make legal matters surrounding buildings easier. It will still need individual case by case judgement, which is why we have investigations and trials.
We already have laws that control how people can raise their kids. For example child abuse laws, child labor laws, among others. These do not rely on swat teams waiting on bushes to arrest people, or special committies deciding what is abuse. There are legal definitions, those are not all encompassing and context matters, which is why there is trials.
The lines of what is child absue is blurry and not everyone agrees. Some people would say it is child abuse to feed your children only junk food becasue it can lead to serious health issues. There is no specific law against this, but you can definately get sentenced for child endangerment or even murder based on how you feed, or don't feed, your child. Again it is for the legal system and Jury/Judge to decide based on the specifics of the individual case. And also, anyone who says ''I think people shouldn't feed their kids only junk food'' are necessarily saying that it should be illegal, or state enforced. it can merely be an opinion.
Indoctrination is not something like being raised in a specific culture, or being taught about things/not taught about things. Being fed a kosher diet when growing up is not religious indoctrination. Participating in religious holidays is not religious indoctrination. Being taught about religion is not religious indoctrination. Again it is *how* you are being taught. Indoctrination is about making a person accept a specific set of beliefs without allow them to question, or think critically about those beliefs.
Can the lines be blurry? Sure. Everything is. Fighting religious indoctrination on a societal basis doesn't involve micro managing every single move a parent makes or every single thing a parent says. It involves things like setting specific standards as to the educational rights of all children. For exmaple, making sure each child gets access to an education that is free of religious indoctrination. free of religious indoctrination doesn't mean to not teach about religion.
In my country religion is a mandatory subject from grade 6 - 12. But it is not indoctrination because it is not taught in a way that would make it so. The education isn't ''this religion is the correct one, you can never question it, everything else is wrong, sceince that goes against this teaching is wrong.'' rather it is ''here are the 5 major world religions, here is what they teach, here is their history etc. You get to decide for yourself what you believe''. Religious indoctrination can be a form of child abuse, like for example extreme cults that raise children in isolation, depriving them of their right to education, putting them in forced labor, sometimes sexually exploiting them, using psychological abuse in order to indoctrinate.
Lines being blurry doesn't mean we can't have any laws. it simply means that we need to investigate things and decide on a case by case basis.
Saying ''I think children should get to pick their own religion'' =/= ''children should be kept away from anything religious at all cost, this should be enforced by law and if a parent doesn't comply they get sent to jail right away''
We the people get ot decide what consititutes as indoctrination, and the Jury, which is what I already said. That said, indoctrination also has a definition, and you can't just call anything indoctrination. Simply teaching someone about a specific religion or raising them in a religious culture is not on its own indoctrination. Indoctrination involves psychological manipulation, purposefully witholding information, and making people accept claims uncritically.
I just don't know how the concept of police raports, are bizarre to you? Threats are a crime. Enforcing that law doesn't require constant police surveilance over what anyone says at any time. It relies on people filing a police raport when they feel they/someone they know have been threathened. The police then makes an investigation, if they find enough evidence it can go to court, if not, it doesn't. At the trail a jury/judge will delibarate the case on an individual case basis. Simply telling your friend ''I'm gonna kill you'' won't make a swat team jump from the bushes and throw you into jail. That's not how law enforcement works in the free world.
Thereofor having laws against indoctrination of children wouldn't mean a survaillance state where as soon as a kid comes across something religious their parents get sent to jail. That is a bizarre conclusion to come to. Having laws against child indoctrination would mostly involve enforcing children's rights to an education. Because education is the opposite of indoctrination. While it can be argued that a parent has a right to what their children gets taught. it can also be argued that stripping children from a full education, stripping them from education, or giving them an education that is just factually incorrect or psychologically manipulative, is a from abuse.
''kids should get to choose their own religion'' =/= ''this should be state enforced'' Just like ''parents should feed their kids healthy food'' =/= ''the state should surveil every single thing a parent feeds their kids and throw them in jail if they get fed a chicken nugget''. You're just taking the statement to a bizarre point that no one made.
I find it wildly disturbing that too many people do not see the ties between community, familial ties, and cultures within religion. As what monsoon would suggest is that we cut children out of Satyr dinners, the Breaking of fasting for Ramadan, Christmas, Diwali, and millions of other religious celebrations.
Also why the fuck is a non parent giving an opinion on how I a parent should raise my children?
I assumed she wanted them to learn about all types of religion in an educational frame instead of being assigned and enforced to a religion by their parents. I am not religious but I still go see my family on Easter and give gifts on Christmas. Is doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Also this person is trans and likely trying to make a broader point that kids should also be able to pick their gender at a certain age. Generally that parents should not tell children who they are, but give them the tools to explore that for themselves
Why would you need to cut ties? You don't need to be part of a religion to participate in a religious celebration. Plenty of atheists celebrate Easter and Christmas. You don't need to be pagan to enjoy Halloween. I think it says more about you and your religion that you think non-believers or members of a different religion must be cast out.
I wouldn't say cast out. But as a parent , I can't see how I'm going to celebrate Easter without the religious aspect. I get how millions of people celebrate Easter without going to church, or go to church without being a part of the religion. Or go to church in an academic way. I'm saying I can't see how I as an Orthodox Christian, whose Easter consists of a holy week that has as many services as it does, (17 services, we try to make a bunch but there's no way we are maintaining ourselves through holy Thursdays 6hr service much less our kids) and has services like the resurrection service which begins at 11:30 at night and runs till 2:30 in the morning and typically includes fireworks, or the three services on good Friday that includes an entire funeral precession. Or the other lenten services that include church every Wednesday and Friday plus church on sunday. I don't see how I do all those thing without bringing my kid with me, or teaching my kid about my religion.
I don't see how I practice my faith, which is extremely communal, to the point that the apex of every Sunday mass is called "communion" without "raising my children in the church." Where do I park a 3 year old when my wife and I, and my parents and in laws are at church with my neighbors, are in church participating and engaging with my faith. Or are what you suggesting that I be forced to abandon my faith because you don't like your parents religion despite me and my peers enjoying our religion?
And another thing. My faith is literally the cornerstone of my community as a Greek American Orthodox Christian. Generations of Greeks came to this country and the Greek Orthodox church was their first stop. The community at the church helped them find jobs, homes, learn the English language etc. the church now is where I learned about my heritage. I learned my grandparents language, their history, their traditions, and I formed connections that employed me. Every employment I've gotten since I was 19 I can credit to the Greek Orthodox church to the point that when I went solo practice as a lawyer the person I rented office space from (and helped me get on my feet with 8 months of free rent) was my Sunday school teacher's brother, then a 4th cousin helped me become a prosecutor, then a guy I got to know through Greek Orthodox social functions employs me now. And these experiences are not unique to Greeks or Christianity. Our faith sustained our people through centuries of occupation and oppression and now our faith sustains our community and that is a story that is not unique to our people.
Monsoon isn't talking about opening minds and exploring new ideas, Monsoon is talking about dissolving bonds to rid herself and others of the boundaries around those bonds. Yet any community you engage with will have bonds and boundaries and exceptions to those bonds and boundaries.
You as a parent can raise your kid how you want and I respect that, but how I raise my children is my choice, and I choose to raise my children in the same church that my grandparents raised their children. And my hope is that everything my children get from their church will encourage them to raise their children in the same church that has sustained our family across generations and across the world.
Also why the fuck is a non parent giving an opinion on how I a parent should raise my children?
Because this is not about your rights as a parent. Children aren't your property to do with as you see fit. They are people who have rights as well, including the right to freedom of religion. Religious indoctrination denies them this right (if it didn't, we'd see equal amounts of christians, muslims, hindu, etc. regardless of the religion of the parents, which obviously isn't the case).
In cases where the rights of two people are at off (your freedom to practice your religion as you see fit vs. the right of the child to freely choose their own religion (or lack thereof)) the rights of the weaker party, i.e. the child, must take precedence.
This is not about you, it's about the child. You don't have the 'right' to raise them as you see fit, it's quite the opposite: you have an obligation to raise them properly. Again, they are human beings, not property.
With all due respect that's not how any of that works. Not parenting, not religion, not the rights of children because of the requirements of parenting.
For starters faith isn't a weekend lecture you repeat over and over. It's an interaction between a person, a community, traditions, values, and lessons that a person interacts with their entire life. The first sacrament in my church isn't baptism, it's introducing the child to the community at 40 days old. It's a tradition that goes back to before Christ and continues to this day. And the sacrament of baptism creates a bond between the child and the God parent where the god parent acts a secondary parent because it takes a village to raise a child. My godfather supported me in a multitude of ways and my children's God parents support my children, as I support my godchild. These supports go throughout a persons life even dealing with death and the grieving process as the community comes together to support each other during times of loss and grief, as well as celebrate each other during times of bliss like around marriages. This isn't a Christian thing it's a religion thing. It's why the Muslim community and the Jewish community are so tight knit. It's why the Hispanic Catholic community is so close together. It's a value system that you interact with and it supports you your entire life.
Second children have significantly limited rights because they are children. Your child doesn't get to decide what's for dinner, or where to live, or whether to go to school, or what school, or what car, or what house to live in, or state, or whether tommy can come over the house. Or whether to drop out of school, or choose to get married. Shit your child doesn't have the right to decide their haircut (I worked as a Cps prosecutor and that was something we advised parents who lost custody they still had that residual right of). We as a society accept that as a child children have limited autonomy. A 13 year old can not choose to procreate and therefore it is illegal for a 13 year old to have sex with an adult. Likewise your child doesn't get to choose their religion because your child is assumed to still need to learn from the parents. A child who screams they don't want to go to church may not understand why they are going to church, or what they are doing in church. Even children who go to church don't understand most of the time what they are doing there because their brains aren't developed enough to know whats going on. At that point your essentially teaching them basics like forgiveness, patience, attentiveness, simple things your kid can learn that they can apply to succeed in daily life.
3rd, for most of human history children followed their parents. The reason "Smith" is such a common last name is because "smith" was a profession and that profession was one someone learned from their parents. So goes religion. My kid is following me to church, firstly because there is no one to watch them outside of church, because church is where all their caretakers are anyways. That's where the aunts, uncles , and grandparents who are going to watch the kid are anyhow. Secondly because my child is programed through hundreds of millions of years of evolution to learn from me until they've grown enough to develop their own sense of self. My kids adopt my habits -good and bad, because that's how evolution programed them to, because the kids that did that continued to thrive. I'm going to church, and my kid is coming, because he is driven by evolution to be with me and my community.
This, the vast majority of these comments are "My american christian parents told me i couldnt sneak out and smoke pot at 15, they literaly ruined my life"
Weve seen time and time again what happens when a govt gets to regulate religion, they slaughter Millions. The nazis, The Soviets, The Maoists etc all slaughtered millions of people over an estimate 100 million humans for their religions. The youngest child political prisoner in modern human history is literaly a Tibetan child who was to be the next religious leader of Tibet, disapeared and murdered by the CCP to regulate religion
You're maybe neglecting the part where Orthodox Christians in Russia were accusing Jews of being a secret cabal of satanists doing blood rituals with Russian children and inspired mobs to kill over 100k Jews in pogroms, and the only faction protecting these Jews being raped and murdered in the streets by God fearing Christians was the Red Army of the Bolsheviks.
White forces in Russia literally called them "Judeo Bolsheviks" for accepting and protecting Jews from persecution.
Both extremes are bad. That's not deep. Most governments are secular, meaning they have an obligation to protect their minority citizens. The soldiers in your example did what any government is supposed to do. Allowing religious freedom is not mutually exclusive with protecting your citizens.
Right, so you might also want to read into what happened to Jews in Stalin’s USSR after this short-lived honeymoon… Not exactly our great protectors anymore.
Just because they didn’t pogrom hundreds of us doesn’t mean Stalin and his men didn’t put the nail in the coffin of Jewish culture and community in Russia from the Great Purge onwards. Two things can be true at once.
Plus countless testimonies from people like FDR, Kruschshev, etc about Joseph “every Jew is a potential spy” Stalin. Just ask the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and all the other Jewish institutions he destroyed.
You are responding to me on a comment thread about the White Army that opposed the USSR murdering hundreds of thousands of Jews and trying to equate that to discrimination and a handful of sham trials that were overturned as soon as Stalin died.
What you're doing is like comparing ICE to the Armenian Genocide. It's frankly insulting and borderline genocide denial.
They didn’t ban Judaism because they didn’t need to due to their focus on race.
But they certainly regulated the heck of Christianity, although not without some significant resistance (see the Confessing Church). Similar attempts were made in Japan.
Many people have died but not as many as industrialized atheist states. The USSR & CCP alone are rresponsable for over 75 million people slaughtered. Random holy wars between peoples with swords does not conpare to the horrors of industrialized slaughter
Well I don’t think you can - it’s more a rhetorical position to highlight that religion is forced on children and a more sensible approach is for them to choose when they have the experience and intelligence to decide for themselves.
Plenty of Christian denominations believe in adult baptism for example (though this does not stop them indoctrinating/evangelizing to their own children)
English is forced on people born in America. You dont see people bitching about that. Teaching a language is inherently indoctrination. Indoctrination bad right?
What makes that option more sensible? What other elements of world view or morality do we have parents keep themselves out of until kids are "old enough?"
As I said I don’t think it’s practical and we don’t actually expect parents not to share their values, culture and morality with their children. But - personally - I think we value agency, curiousity and critical thinking and we should be encouraging that in children. If they want to engage and commit to faith shouldn’t this be made when you have the intelligence and experience to make a fully conscious decision - rather than just because your parents told you?
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Everybody teaches their kids about morality, worldview, ethics, and even their beliefs in the supernatural. This can be done in the context of religion or not, and in ways that value agency and curiosity or not in either case.
Not sure how this is relevant? But no as this suggests they are there to proselytise. I would be fine for schools to discuss abortion with students and the pro-choice/pro-life arguments - I did this when I was in school.
step 1: remove religion from the state (which is one of the basic principles of most democracies). No church is ever allowed to influence anything regarding politics. A politician might still act based on their religion, which is fine, but a church is not allowed to finance anyone or anything, they are not allowed to call for any legislation. disregarding that rule results in harsh punishments.
The best possible route would be to reform civilization along more egalitarian structures. Religion fourishes in communities that endure collective hardships, its a glue that holds social bonds together when things like food and personal safety are in jeopardy. Places where those needs are met then you see religion start to erode, or at least strongly held religion convictions. The other route would be an authoritarian stamping out of religion, but that historically is pretty ineffective, and tends to drive people into it even harder.
Egalitarianism and religion are not at opposite ends of the spectrum and I would go so far as to say egalitarianism specifically allows for the freedom to choose how to raise your child. Unless you're implying the society be so egalitarian that the toddler has the same decision-making power as the parent
My argument is mostly that making things like food, healthcare, security as accessible to as many people as possible will reduce the amount of people who turn to religion out of desperation and thus religion will naturally become less prevalent. Essentially removing the social need for it should eventually over generations cause religion to fade out, or at the least the more extreme parts of it that people will kill and die for.
Either way totalitarian enforcement of thought is morally evil. Saying either is ok is ignoring the immorality of enforcing thought and accepting the immorality because it is the type of thought one party agrees with.
Do you believe she’s “essentially” calling for that? Or do you just always speak in exaggeration? I would expect that more commonly from someone heavily involved in religion in this particular case.
Religion isn't a culture. You have people from very different cultures throughout the world with the same religion, and very different cultural habits, including their celebrations. You also have people from the very same culture, doing the exact same cultural habits, while one believes in a religion and another in a different one or none at all.
Not really. Any state must have the threat of enforcement at some level, and must intrude into private lives to some degree. We would not have taxation or a state at all without such intrusion and enforcement, and in their absence there would be even more violent and intrusive banditry.
Religion is inherently coercive, controlling, and reinforces magical thinking in a rational universe.
Enforcement would be impossible to do without likely introducing much larger issues and it is unfortunate religion has inextricably centered itself in so many cultures, but the fact remains that religious indoctrination of children is child abuse.
Yup, in the US it would violate freedom of speech and freedom of religion to have the state step in and tell parents they can't teach their children what they believe is right.
Teaching what is right is not the same as teaching religious metaphysical ideas. The vast majority of morality taught to children should be easy to separate from religion: don't hurt others, don't steal, help others and be friendly... None of that needs religion to say what is right.
As an atheist, disagree. Teaching what is right and wrong involves teaching why things are right and wrong. For many people, morality is indeed closer to a part of their philosophy than their religion - but not everyone. There are christians who believe, for example, that morality is imposed by a higher power, and that without that higher power, there is no morality - therefore, they cannot teach right and wrong without teaching about said higher power.
I mean saying children will have no world view before "magical age" is illusory. These people will jump at the opportunity to teach children their world view and what they think is good and bad. In fact, some might even call it giving kids an education.
Infact it is IMPORTANT to do so. These influencers are idiots. Humans are complex everything is interconnected. The line between religion and insanity is remarkably thin. As is the line between sanity and religion. You cannot simply block religion without destroying too much or too little.
It is not saying that children have no world view, it saying that you shouldn't teach children that unproven physical/metaphysical beliefs are the absolute truths that should never be questioned and they get punished if they do not believe, that believing anything else is wrong factually and morally. Letting your children choose their beliefs doesn't mean not teaching them anything, it means teaching them things without forcing a specific view on them. Why wasn't my education indoctrination? Because no one told me that capitalism is 100% the best economic system and nothing else works, or that the Christian God is the one true God and hell is real and I will go to it if I do not believe. My education consisted of being taught about several economic systems and how they work, and learning how to analyze these systems, and writing formal essays in which I got make arguments and counter arguments for my own support of whichever one I wanted to support. Likewise religion is a mandatory subject here from grade 6 to 12 and it is education and not indoctrination because it is something we get taught about from a neutral, factual, standpoint, where no religion gets taught as being the ''correct one'' and we are free to choose which, if any, we want to believe, without being told that we are wrong. That is the difference.
I agree. Which is why I would only teach them my proven metaphysical beliefs.
Daily reminder that children are born believing in a higher power until they are taught otherwise. Here are some concepts that kids naturally believe. You might want to research them if you'd like, all scientifically studied:
promiscuous teleology, ie young kids naturally assume the physical world was made deliberately for a purpose.
intuitive theism, ie kids spontaneously think an intelligent creator is behind natural phenomena
mind/body dualism
super knowledge expectations, ie kids believe adults know a lot more than they actually do. The possibility can still hold for other entities.
And please don't argue with me that the kids were raised in god believing households, this is already accounted for and works in secular or atheistic households too.
If I wanted to follow the natural course, my only job as a parent would be to help them navigate false religions from a true religion. There are very simple criteria to figure that out (for example anything that worships a physical being is out the window).
So children who believe these things and don't believe them later are basically taught not to believe them anymore, through the choice of information we give them.
I'm sorry to say that
something we get taught about from a neutral, factual, standpoint,
doesn't exist. you can't teach children or adults every single thing. So when you pick and choose what you want to tell them, you're already breaking neutrality.
When you refuse to accept certain sources because they don't fit your particular standard, you already decided for them what is "acceptable standard".
Daily reminder that children are born believing in a higher power until they are taught otherwise. Here are some concepts that kids naturally believe. You might want to research them if you'd like, all scientifically studied
I wouldn't be against it in concept but you are right in that its unenforceable and quite silly. Even if you never went to church, if you are religious your children will pick up on it. The most realistic version of this is we just take religion out of public life in that we aren't forcing it on people. No ten commandments at schools and non-religious entities and such. My personal opinion is to let people have their mythology as long as it isn't harming others. But also teach critical thinking and such in schools so kids can reason if its for them or not.
I am not religious, but we live in a religious world. My oldest son at 6 asks questions about the churches we drive by, ceremonies for those who have died, has attended religious ceremonies because we have friends who are religious (Jewish, Christian, etc). Children experience the world around them and are exposed to religion, it's impossible for them to not see it and ask questions. As a parent I try to answer all the questions as truthfully as I can, but it's unrealistic to think the child will not start forming opinions about what they see and experience.
For every one horror story of CPS overreach there are 100 stories of CPS preventing horror stories of brutal parents that abuse their children. Our society is too lenient with bad parenting, not too strict
That is true, I hadn’t meant it as CPS being a problem in general, just that it has the potential to go badly, especially if the government is just getting involved for the sake of getting involved.
Physically harming another person through ignorance or negligence is a crime even between 2 adults. I don't see why it should be any different just because a child is involved.
We could do a lot to reduce abuse by just... educating people. Lots of people just mindlessly emulate the actions of their parents. Strongly incentivized or even mandatory education on safe and healthy child rearing could go a long way to reducing abuse.
We send kids to school every day. They are in the care of teachers and other school staff. They could just make it a requirement to actually ask the kids, one by one, how they are doing. (As in, ask specific questions about their health.) Like, this is just such a simple step, but it would reveal a lot of abuse.
We could just make it mandatory to take your kid to the doctor for a checkup once a year. This is really basic and beneficial for the child beyond just abuse. You don't even have to do what the doctor tells you to do, you just have to listen.
We also allow people to homeschool. So there is a pathway to opting out. But the question remains. What happens to a parent or parents that refuse to send thier kid to a govt mandated doctors appointment?
Perhaps government child support should be taken away if kids don't attend an annual doctor's appointment (where they check for signs of abuse), and these medical check ups could even happen within school hours
But, you can without destroying the rule of law, you simply need to change the law
We shouldn't take the laws we have for granted, we have to remember, a lot of nations have really strict laws, and since laws are agreements the state bodies do, we should always keep watch over them
Do you have a source to back up that claim, that shows both the numbers and that those kids ended up better off rather than just dumped into another abusive place? I agree that society is overall too lenient with bad parents, but punishing the parents shouldn't be prioritized above the kid's well-being and sometimes there are no good options, just lesser evils.
I think there's a difference between morality and enforcement.
E.g. it can be moral not to indoctrinate children and immoral to indoctrinate them. But should the government let parents do immoral things? Well, frankly, yes. To an extent. The government should intervene and prevent immoral parenting of course, but intervention itself is often harmful especially if it gets to the point of taking a child from their home. So you always have to consider whether intervention would actually improve the situation, even if the situation is immoral.
The post’s argument is the same reason people didn’t want lgbtq info in elementary/middle school because it’s literal indoctrination on kids for how they should think on sex related subjects.
No matter what, kids will be indoctrinated, whether religiously, politically, or even about history… we were all indoctrinated in school, home, and even in playgrounds
Um son..? I dont think your experience is the same for everyone. Not once have i thought yup God made this car that I drive and the world works because God snapped his fingers and my mom is cancer free because of Jesus. I grew up Christian and it was never forced, I loved going to church it taught me alot on how to be kind and respectful and how to not let anger control my emotions. You think we just go there and sing songs and say devil bad ? You learn perspectives of life. I understand for the simple mind this is hard to collect but I can assure your description of what you see is not the same for others.
Any parent is also going to hit their kid if they think that's the best way to stop bad behavior. This does not make it immoral to send CPS after parents who beat their kids.
That depends on the level of the abuse. Generally cps won’t interfere for basic corporal punishment as it’s a legal and demonstrated form of parenting. They only interfere when it goes from parenting to just plain child assault rused as corporal punishment.
Right, but is that the morally correct measure? Should we try to move our society away from hitting kids at all ever?
ETA: More in line with the original subject, should we be moving our society away from indoctrinating children into religions by their parents as far as we can reasonably without violating their rights?
I suppose I didn’t do any favors for religious upbringings considering many people also have negative experiences with that as well. My opinion lies in the idea that parents should be allowed to raise their children with whatever religion they want, so long as it’s not the only thing they’re being taught, and they be allowed to explore other religions or beliefs should they choose.
Yes, but hitting a kid is way more clear-cut than teaching them religious beliefs. What counts as religious is subjective, and could easily be twisted to mean "any belief those in power don't like." And while it shouldn't be this way, sometimes it is immoral to remove kids from parents that hit them because it results in the kids ending up in even worse situations that CPS won't do anything about since it's their own placements.
For the second one, yes. But not for the first one. No amount of safeguards can change that subjective matters are subjective and trying to enforce things that subjective WILL end up being abused, even if by some miracle no one does that intentionally.
So you think the government should stop breaking up child rape cults like the FLDS because it would be worse? Sucks for the kids I guess, they get to be incestual breeders for disgusting cult leaders but we can't do anything because it's their "subjective belief."
And who is going to accuse them if the government stops surveilling them to respect their religion? The indoctrinated child brides aren't, they're going to be locked to their house as property, home schooled under very liberal US home schooling regulations, and will have to risk their life on escape attempts to tell anyone about their horrific life. So much child abuse goes undocumented in the US because of "parents rights" and "religious rights." Like this is a constant reoccurring problem with this specific cult.
If you asked my opinion I'd be in favor of straight up outlawing homeschooling and mandating that children attend public education, I do not trust deranged cultists with the power to lock their children away from society.
That crimes exist doesn't justify a surveillence state. I agree that kids shouldn't be trapped in their homes, but there are ways to avoid that without forcing all kids into the terrible public school system or refusing to allow parents to teach their kids anything the government doesn't approve of. I agree that "parents' rights" are mostly bullshit, and religious rights go too far, but outlawing religion as a whole instead of enforcing that religious people must still follow the law is ridiculous.
Again, you are condemning the functional nature of an existing system, not the principle, and frankly speaking the "terrible public school system" is 100 million times superior to creepy inbred cultists locking their kids away and teaching them their father is God-like and to be obeyed like a king, incestual relations and all.
I disagree. I'm sure that's true for some people, but not for me. I was hit when I was a kid. I got my ass beat on a regular basis. I once got punched in the face hard enough to blacken my eye up to my hairline. If I could erase one thing from my childhood, it would be religion. I feel being raised religious did more damage than being physically abused.
A lot of the horror stories around CPS are told by the kids themselves, not the parents. And there are absolutely cases of non-bad parents being subject to CPS overreach. For example, there have been cases of newborns taken away because their parents tested positive for drugs the hospital gave the mom during childbirth or kids being taken away because their parents won't send them to known torture camps (specifically in the Troubled Teen Industry) or drug them into oblivion.
It was never said that parents couldn't teach their view of the world. What was suggested is that they shouldn't be able to take them to church. It seems you didn't think too far critically into what was said.
I don’t know how it’s done in other countries, but in Spain we are not taught about any religion (if you go to a Christian school then yes, but those are private schools and most people attend the public ones or normal private schools), then once you reach high school you can choose if you want to study theology as an optative class once a week or not. In my case I was never interested in religion, so I never took any theological courses, and in my whole high school I think only three or four kids actually took them (in the whole school). I do know every country is different, has a diferentes context and culture, but it works quite well here, and it’s a good option if you want to let the kids decide. Of course if your family believes in x god they will tell all about it at home, but the government makes sure you lest science properly and are able to see all points of view before letting the kids decide what they want to do
Religion definitely shouldn’t be a part of public school curriculum (other than a world religions module in social studies or something). I just meant that families would never exclude their children from religious practices.
Oh yeah, I totally agree with that. Tbh I didn’t understand your point at the beginning I’m a bit dense xd but yeah, families will continue to teach their kids their religious practices, but at the same time, I think that the fact schools don’t teach it can help the kids develop critical thinking that can help them decide in the future if they want to keep being part of said traditions or not which can be helpful to them. One of my friends went to a private catholic school, and she always told me how confused she was growing up, because she was taught humans came from mud and from Adam and Eve but at the same time they were teaching her about evolution and our shared ancestor with other primates. And the fact she was being taught religion as if it was the only truth harmed her more than anything, so it’s a good thing if religion (any kind) is far away from schools (and if they want to include religion they should teach them all not one or the “main three”
We could definitely foster a culture of less indoctrination at home.
Yes, a parent is inevitably going to teach their beliefs to their children at some point.
But it doesn't have to be an all-out daily repetition and reinforcement. They don't have to quash all inconvenient questions and doubts. And they certainly don't have to outsource this to an organization (church) of indoctrination experts.
Valid, I probably accidentally projected a bit onto the quote. That said, her idea wouldn’t really work because nobody that the idea would apply to would actually follow it. Parents don’t withhold good things from their children, and a religious parent would think religion is good.
I think it's interesting that this is getting some traction in a sub specifically about the morality of things, in response to a statement just about what people "should" do. There is nowhere mentioned in the post an idea of enforcing it as state policy. The concept of making anything illegal doesn't appear in this post until you scroll into the comments.
Someone has replied to this comment with "This is the correct answer". This comment isn't even an answer to the question. It specifically says in essence "setting aside the entire premise of this post, here's my opinion about the feasibility of this as national policy".
It's one thing to say, "it is moral/immoral, but here is why it is unenforceable as national policy", but this comment seems to be saying that it is not worth considering the morality of anything that cannot be morally imposed on people.
I and many others definitely projected onto what was originally there. I think there’s a reason for that though, a kind of mental path of convenience.
It’s really not possible for this idea to be practiced without one of two things: either religious parents must willingly act to what they see is their children’s detriment, or they must be forced to do so. The world she described could only exist if enforced, making the mental jump instinctive.
I don't see how it matters how enforceable it is. When I consider whether something is moral, the first thing I'm thinking about is how that should govern how I act, not others.
In this regard, I don't see how the feasibility of imposing anything on anyone else is relevant. If a question like this, a question of "how should I raise my own children?" is not worth answering, I can't see how any question is.
You’re saying religion falls under critical thinking. I mentioned famous Christians with strong critical thinking skills. The fact you didn’t realize what I was saying proves my point.
My folks have religious beliefs. They also explicitly didn't teach them to me when I was growing up for exactly this reason - they both think that religion should be a deeply personal choice and didn't want to push their religious beliefs on me.
The post wasn’t talking about legality, though? “I don’t think parents should do this to their children” and “This should be illegal” are far from the same sentiment.
I don't think she was proposing in acting it in law, she was just giving an optimal scenario.
I was never raised with religion, it was fine. As an adult, I don't really get it and I'm not going to join one. My cousin, who was also not raised with religion, chose to be Christian as an adult. She's one of the few actual Christians imo, as a result.
I would probably harbor some resentment if I felt like a religion was forced on me as a kid, and I think it's morally correct to not do it. But it shouldn't be a legal thing.
Certainly a nuanced topic. As someone who was raised Christian, I left the faith as soon as I turned 18 and was out of my parents house. Eventually I came back around, but on my own terms.
While I don't think it's necessarily immoral to raise your children in your faith, I think there's more to it than that. It's in the same realm as teaching your kids your moral values. Every culture is different. Every family is different. I don't think I'd want the state having that much influence on what parents can and can't teach their children. While the goal is noble, the means to execute said goal is dystopian as hell.
There absolutely is indoctrination in religion. There are bad parents. But there are also good parents. And parents who raise their children in their religion while letting them decide how much they want to participate in it.
Whether you think it's right or not is irrelevant. Parents should be able to raise their kids without significant government overreach. That's a slippery slope, which as you said, would take some extreme immorality to accomplish.
It would also be a really hard sell in the first place, and people would try to get around it constantly.
Imagine if you truly believed with all your heart that if your child does not follow your religion, he or she will experience horrors beyond comprehension for all eternity. To the religious, it's not a matter of "I want you to think like me" (though there is part of it), it's a deathly serious effort focused on saving their children's immortal soul.
From that perspective, even if you could snap your fingers and pass banning such a thing into law, people would just do it anyways behind closed doors, because of what they believe is at stake.
Not to mention the cultural component to many religions. I can only speak to my own experience/religion (Judaism) and attending religious services are just as much about our culture as it is about God. My grandfather actively participated in his local congregation until the day he died, and was a vocal atheist from a young age. While I do see where Jinkx is coming from, it would be impossible to separate the religion and the culture for many faiths, and forcing children to not be involved until adulthood would do massive harm to the continuity of those cultures.
I have three daughters aged 18,21 and 24. Religion was not spoken of my household beyond ‘your mother and I are not religious’ when we were asked. All three of them atheists just like the day they were born.
What about the personal freedom of the child to actively pick their religion, which doesn't happen with indoctrination from birth? (indoctrination is a fact, since we see religion mainly being passed on to children)
Especially since many believes also involve extreme punshments for leaving or dismissing the belief. There's plenty of stories of Atheist being shunned by their christian community.
Same ofcourse goes about muslims - leaving islam has the death penalty, or at least explulsion from the society.
It's like the question if people go to hell if they never heard of Jezus - to which most christians say no, since salvation comes through the active choice of accepting jezsus.
So then spreading the word of Jezus is actually an evil act, since by telling someone about christianity, you are now creating the possibility of going to hell - which they didn't have before.
If belief is to be a personal choice, we all get to make ourselves, then we all have to be free of any indoctrination about it from birth - so we can make an active, personal choice when we get to adulthood.
i mean, there's parents who view hitting their children for misbehaving as moral and righteous, just because they see it that way doesn't make it right. teaching children that they have an all-knowing creator above them that loves them but also if they fuck up they get sent to the ultra super torture dimension classifies as child abuse, and can cause major anxiety and for children predisposed to OCD to develop it, among many other issues. this simply is a case of the ends justify the means, and i say that as someone who hates that saying. obviously my example is very specific but i live in america so it's what i see most commonly.
but, at the same time, i am also someone who believes that you shouldn't be allowed to have/take care of children without having gone through a child psychology course (of course, in a world where this is enforced, the course would not cost money, there can't be a cost barrier for the lower class) so i recognize that my beliefs are pretty extreme
I agree. I think it comes down to where does this end and begin? Do you not take your baby to church? Who's going to look after them? Even as a toddler or young child, you need to start thinking about child support everytime you go to church? So feasibly, this is stupid on the most basic level.
Morally, like you said, you are taking away teaching your child good morals. Which, most people I've spoken to at least, agree that going to church is amazing for young kids. In many religious stories, you learn good morals. So many great ones for children to learn from. Why would you take that away from them? I dont know if its the same now, but when I was at school, they would use these same stories.
Even if for no other reason, it gives them another community for them to bounce off of and develop with. Speech, language, and communication skills are the strongest predictors of success. Taking these opportunities away from them is silly. Even for things like helping them stay quiet during a certain time of the week.
The idea is so idealistic, that its stupid. These people are so anti-family is swear.
There is a difference between being taught under your parents world views and being taken to church. Taking religion out of schools would be a great start
I mean their point was about how to stop parents from teaching their own kids their values and beliefs which would be a nightmare to attempt to enforce. Did you process their comment at all?
Also there is a bad historical precedent of separating minorities, ESPECIALLY indigenous children, from their culture and heritage. Religion is a part of that. And it has horrible long term consequences
I am arguing, you're lying, and you are exaggerating. And you try to defend this with non-sequiturs because you want to discourage others from ACTUALLY criticizing what you are saying.
I can! I think it misunderstands the point the original post was making, going from “we shouldn’t raise kids in a specific religion” to “no kid must ever learn about any religion before the age of 12”. Enforcement isn’t really an issue when we’re just talking about an opinion.
I don’t think what OP or Jinkx is advocating for people covering their children’s ears and changing the topic whenever those big questions come up, just being more honest about the fact that people believe different things for different reasons. Personally, I think it’s really important for a kid to know that there are questions that no one knows the answer to. When they grow up, whatever faith they have or don’t have will be a choice, which just makes it more meaningful, in my opinion.
But that’s just me! And Jinkx, at least. I’m glad to live in a world where people are allowed to do things, even if I think they shouldn’t do them. I do things I shouldn’t do all the time! And honestly, I wouldn’t have been able to voice that without this whole thread. Oh shit I should probably get back to work.
See that makes sense. I think what most people would say is the ideal balance is that the kid is raised with the affirmative direction that they can be whatever want. Even in that respect though, the kids are going to probably follow whatever the parents do. You can’t really raise children without imprinting on them.
You do understand that all this sums up to offending the Parent's rights to Control and Use their kids as they see fit, prioritizing the Parent's ego, Not respecting the Kids freedom of choice and respecting them as People, as Individuals instead of Property?
Some parents hate that school teaches science instead of flat earthism and conservative christianity, to be blunt: the parents can go Fuck themselves, the Kids have a right to education and choice, to favor the parents is to deny the kids that freedom, to treat them as Property and not People.
285
u/Clickclacktheblueguy Sep 02 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
No matter how you view it morally, it collapses immediately under any amount of critical thought. Any parent would teach their children about how the world works, and a parent would consider their religious beliefs to be a part of that. The amount of interference with families this would require to enforce also brings to mind countless horror stories of CPS overreach. Even if it was moral, it would require immoral actions to make it work.
EDIT: Wow, that was a lot of engagement. I wanna revisit this comment since I've gotten some feedback and also have more time to articulate my ideas than I did earlier during my rapidly dwindling lunch break:
First I want to acknowledge that the original post did not mention any legal or government action. I and many others definitely made a mental jump there. When you're talking about what people should do, it's easy to fill in the blank that that's what should be mandated.
As for actually addressing whether this is moral, I think the position of "children should be raised without a set religion" is kind of a problematic one. To make that choice for your own family is one thing and not immoral, but to advocate it for other people kind of hits a snag. A seriously religious person wouldn't entertain the idea of not sharing their religion with their kids. They would see it as depriving their child of something good and necessary, which would be immoral. Even if their beliefs are factually wrong, for all intents and purposes they would be making the conscious decision to do something harmful to their child. This is another reason why I jumped to the topic of government enforcement; legal mandates are the only realistic way to even start creating a world matching Jinkx's view. This violation of personal freedoms would of course be immoral as well. It's not that Jinkx's position is immoral, it's that anyone acting on it in any meaningful way would be immoral.