Ban

[Purple Rabbit]

No, parents do not have ownership of their children, but they are guardians; they do look after them, and in modern society we still (thankfully) leave much of the decision making up to the parents. Parents decide what schools their children should go to, which friends they play with, and what their children wear. Parents also have a right to teach their children things,..

I do not deny that parents have those rights only the hopelessly naive assumption that they should be without limits.

...and teaching them about their own religious beliefs is one of the things that parents teach their children.

That is just restating the current factual situation, not an argument itself.

I don't see why the government should stop parents from teaching their children specific religious beliefs; parents tell their children all sorts of nonsensical things, so are we going to crack down on bedtime stories as well? You are trying to interfere with someone else's kids, and that is where I see a violation of rights. I don't see why government should mandate what our children learn, especially in this highly diverse and multicultural world.

You allow without limits that parents may have a strong negative effect on the future chances of young people. Stepping in there is ensuring rights of the kids rather than denying them rights. Implicitly you favor the rights of parents over the possible negative effects on the kids, not a very libertarian view on the rights of kids to prepare for adult life. The government already has a vote on what our children should learn because it decides about the school curriculum. Denying the necessity of this demands a twisted view on today's reality.

Your libertarian take on this totally passes over the rights of individuals that not or not yet can make their own decisions. Secularism entails the right to be free from religious rule and teachings and free choice on this must be guaranteed for children as well. Freedom of religion is easy to understand for adults, most of us are repulsed at the thought of someone forcing religious views on us. But what choice do we leave for children if we follow your libertarian advice?

No, secularism entails us the right to be free from a government that interferes with religion, and religions that interfere with government. It does not guarantee a free choice in any private way, only public. What people believe in the privacy of their own homes (or at private churches / gatherings) is entirely up to them, and if you are a child and are brought along to one of these events, it is your parent / guardian's decision.

Secularism according to my sources also is about freedom of religion. How can kids consumate this right if they have been indoctrinated before they are able to make that decision?

You accuse me of passing over the rights of individuals, but raising your own child is a right in itself.

I don't deny that, but there are obligations (to the child) that come along with it.

I don't want the government telling me how to raise my children. As long as I don't cause them any harm, or put them in harm's way, I should not be breaking the law.

Am I not talking about harm done to kids? That's precisely my point, in some cases harm is done to the child by excessive indoctrination.

Teaching them my religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) is something I should have every right to do.

Don't worry, I don't deny these rights. But again, there are limits.

Since children at a young age cannot overlook consequences of specific religious upbringing and how it affects their potential, their right on freedom of choice as an adult is impacted by decisions made by others when they are young . Also even when a child is capable of formulating opposing views there is the dependency on parents for social security that leaves little room for free choice. This means that extreme caution for the possible occurrence of a situation of early indoctrination is necessary. If the parents fail to recognize this, the state should interfere. Not interfering would mean favoring the religion of the parents over free choice of the adult that grows out of the child. In the case where religious upbringing clearly inhibits the potential of the child, as is the case with muslim schools, the state cannot be passive. Not to mention the physical abuse that is common all over the world in muslim schools.

It has been shown time and time again that people can escape the clutches of religion, and if an adult really wants to, they can make the free choice to do so. Nobody is stopping them from doing that. What you are doing is making the large assumption that all religion is evil, and so we shouldn't teach it to any child, lest they become a believer. If we take your ideas to the extreme, we shouldn't be teaching children any ideologies, since they are "too young" to comprehend them properly and make reasoned decisions on them. That sounds like a very boring childhood to me.

That's a very weak argument IMO. Because some people can escape religion we should sit back and relax. The statistics clearly show that there is a strong correlation between religious upbringing and adopted religion at adulthood. I do not make the assumption that all religion is evil I have stated over and over again that I am addressing extreme situations where the rights of chilren are severely at risk. If we take my ideas to the extreme we should be teaching children about ideologies just the same but we should be reserved with embedding them in religion doctrine before the age at which they are able to decide. I think it is a rather sick idea to suggest that a happy childhood is a childhood a child should want to escape from.

Bringing up religious child abuse is a pretty low thing to do by the way. As you are probably well aware from other conversations about politics, I don't consider business (that includes faith schools) to be beyond the laws of people. If a business abuses children, they should be prosecuted, simple as that.

I brought that up to show that we have a pretty common standard for physical abuse in place. So why should mental abuse be off limits for government interference?

When are civil rights more broken? Are they broken when we put a limit on how parents and religious institutes can indoctrinate young minds or are they broken when we allow that young minds can be fucked up by any religion or sect that can lay its hands on them? Your problem is that you adhere to a rather romanticized version of libertarianism and shut your eyes for the consequences for young people that are the adult citizens of tomorrow shaping the secular society. In the end you may find no secular society left to fulfill your ideas in, since libertarianism can only be sustained by free minds.

The obvious fallacy in the above is of course your assertion that religious people cannot have "free minds".

It is not an assertion I've made and therefore it is just your straw men. I am asserting that there is a balance to monitor, the balance between the rights of kids on decent chances in life and the rights of parents to influence this process. The balance can be broken. In extreme situations government interference is allowed. You are stuck and without remedy for these situations for the sole reason that you have elevated your libertarian principle to holy dogma.