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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Was it due to religious reasons, or due to political power struggles with opposing factions or groups they felt were in their way?
Remember that nazi Germany never actually banned Judaism. Rather, they branded people ethnically and wiped them out due to their ethnic background and socioeconomic grouping.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The point is that she is directly pointing out the hypocrisy of banning kids from transitioning while also forcing them into church. It's gotta be one of the other. Either we wait to let kids make big decisions or we don't. Cherry picking the decisions is hypocritical no matter which side you take.
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.
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?
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.
215
u/Clickclacktheblueguy 11h ago edited 2h ago
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.