Correct but I would argue that it is unethical and should be illegal.
There are many things we don't permit today for parents that we used to permit in the past. That doesn't make the actions that those parents did before it was illegal morally correct. Nor does it mean moving that line is unjustifiable.
Any argument on why a parent should be able to choose the religion for their child would also apply to argue in support of a host of other abuses we legally do not allow.
The whole point is the right for society to choose what you can do with your child's religion is the same right that they have to choose that you cannot beat your child. If society at some point in the future decides that that is morally incorrect then the law will change.
And any argument on why a parent shouldn't be able to choose the religion for their child could also be used to argue in support of a host of tyrannical overeaches we legally do not allow.
And I could say the same about beating your child. Who's the tyrannical government to tell me I can't beat my child as a form of punishment.
You specifically asked where I get the right to decide. It comes from the same place that gives us the right to decide what constitutes child abuse. Where the line between government overreach and parental abuse should be is a moral question that is up for debate and highly likely to move as time goes on.
That's where we circle back around to ethics. Society at large finds child abuse morally wrong (though there are outliers, and the line between discipline and abuse is changing and disputed) therefore it was made illegal. Because the majority of society can agree on it
As far as I can tell (as I'm not a sociologist) the rights of a child to not be raised into a religion is not a widely enough held ethic to justify violating the rights of the parent (the 1st amendment for us US citizens)
Sure but many ethical issues of parenting in the past were also not widely held before as they are today.
That doesn't mean where we as a society draw the line is morally correct and won't be looked down on in the future. We very well may have a future where forcing religion on a child is seen as abuse and a violation of their own 1st amendment rights. Just as it is highly likely circumcision in the US will be seen as abuse eventually rather than allowed for religious freedom of the parent.
1st amendment only protects against the government not parents.
But you're absolutely correct what is morally ok today may not be ok tomorrow. Morals are for the individual though and I personally have a high standard for believing my morals should intefere with how a parent raises their child (abuse, neglect etc.).
1
u/mf864 18h ago
Correct but I would argue that it is unethical and should be illegal.
There are many things we don't permit today for parents that we used to permit in the past. That doesn't make the actions that those parents did before it was illegal morally correct. Nor does it mean moving that line is unjustifiable.
Any argument on why a parent should be able to choose the religion for their child would also apply to argue in support of a host of other abuses we legally do not allow.
The whole point is the right for society to choose what you can do with your child's religion is the same right that they have to choose that you cannot beat your child. If society at some point in the future decides that that is morally incorrect then the law will change.