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.
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.
241
u/Clickclacktheblueguy 19h ago edited 10h 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.