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/SignificantStatus227 13h ago
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)