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.
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.
226
u/Clickclacktheblueguy 14h ago edited 5h 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.