Right of freedom of religion should not be a human right

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's try it out.

Say I described a religion of nature to my children. No god, gods, or animating spirits of any kind. A religion in which nature is metaphysically ultimate and our primary responsibilities are to each other and our planet.

Why would I need to brainwash a kid for them to believe that, couldn't they come to it themselves, what right am I violating in the expression of this religion...and, importantly, do minors actually enjoy the legal protection of any such right?

[Mister Agenda]

And imagine the state apparatus it would take to enforce keeping parents from teaching their children religion. It would require parents with children to be constantly monitored when in their child's presence so law enforcement can show up if they dare try to teach their children something religious. Sometimes the cure really is worse than the disease.

[Drich]

Let's try it out.

Say I described a religion of nature to my children.  No god, gods, or animating spirits of any kind.  A religion in which nature is metaphysically ultimate and our primary responsibilities are to each other and our planet.

Why would I need to brainwash a kid for them to believe that, couldn't they come to it themselves, what right am I violating in the expression of this religion...and, importantly, do minors actually enjoy the legal protection of any such right?

  because that's what children naturally do.. they rebell and shit on what their parents believe and try and figure things out for themselves having history repeat it self over and over. lest you introduce a supreme authority which has all the generational traps and pit falls already identified and laid out. once they can see life doesn't have to be lived making the same generational mistakes then the reasons why click in

[brewer]

The proper right should be: right of freedom of thought. Which is then, contrary with the freedom of religion, as religion is forced upon children.

It is also a right that benefits the church, as it indoctrinates people legally and under the “right of freedom of religion”. A human right should not benefit any type of institution, much less one as the church.

re-tart. freedom of religion is also freedom from... religion. the admend reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. which means the government should have no say in what ever you do or do not believe. how is that not a right?

I don't think Maco's in the US, but I doubt that matters to you.

[Belacqua]

And imagine the state apparatus it would take to enforce keeping parents from teaching their children religion. It would require parents with children to be constantly monitored when in their child's presence so law enforcement can show up if they dare try to teach their children something religious. Sometimes the cure really is worse than the disease.

I think this is what those "Alexa" machines are for.

Constant live feed straight to the FBI.

[Macoleco]

And imagine the state apparatus it would take to enforce keeping parents from teaching their children religion. It would require parents with children to be constantly monitored when in their child's presence so law enforcement can show up if they dare try to teach their children something religious. Sometimes the cure really is worse than the disease.

I refer mainly to institutions. For example, no classes of religion in school. 
Even though I think parents teaching their children religion is abuse, I agree it is very hard to stop. We would have to analyze what we can do reasonably.

[The Grand Nudger]

What institutions? If there were an institution of the religion of nature described, what would the issue be? Do you think that the right to freedom of a particular religion (or type of religion) should be abolished

- or the right of free association in general?

[Macoleco]

What institutions? If there were an institution of the religion of nature described, what would the issue be? Do you think that the right to freedom of a particular religion (or type of religion) should be abolished

- or the right of free association in general?

It’s very important to understand what I refer to when I say religion. Mainly the biggest religions (Christianity, Islam, etc), which know have caused immense damage to humanity and have no evidence for what they claim.

In your example, I guess it would depend on what is taught. But what you described looks more like a philosophical point of view, not a religion. Therefore, limiting education to only that philosophy of nature and not exploring different point of views would be bad too. It also should be subject to criticism.

What should be taught is science and humanities, as both encourage questioning and are based on logic and evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

  because that's what children naturally do.. they rebell and shit on what their parents believe and try and figure things out for themselves having history repeat it self over and over. lest you introduce a supreme authority which has all the generational traps and pit falls already identified and laid out. once they can see life doesn't have to be lived making the same generational mistakes then the reasons why click in

Are you saying that as a man with many children who rebelled against the things you taught them or claimed to be true?   I have five, none of them have ever disagreed with the contents of the hypothetical religion described.  Children rebel against some beliefs and not others.  Perhaps the general impression of the rebelliousness of children has to do with the risible absurdity of some specific collection or type of beliefs?  Nature as metaphysically ultimate and responsibilities to our fellow man and our planet vs sky wizards who watch you while you pee.

It’s very important to understand what I refer to when I say religion. Mainly the biggest religions (Christianity, Islam, etc), which know have caused immense damage to humanity and have no evidence for what they claim.

In your example, I guess it would depend on what is taught. But what you described looks more like a philosophical point of view, not a religion. Therefore, limiting education to only that philosophy of nature and not exploring different point of views would be bad too. It also should be subject to criticism.

What should be taught is science and humanities, as both encourage questioning and are based on logic and evidence.

Religion isn't incapable of being based on the same, insomuch as it isn't - that's optional.  Your issue is with particular expressions or types of religions, not religion et al.  It might be more accurate to state that you don't believe that people should have the right to a predatory form of abrahamism rather than the notion the people should not have the right to freedom of religion.

FWIW, I agree with that sentiment. I think that any predatory anything has passed the boundary in which individual liberty is the relevant metric. I don't think that people should be free to fuck with people or con people or abuse people. If a particular religion or form of religion depends on these things I believe that it's gone beyond the freedom that any right might afford it. The us government agrees, officially, though it doesn't necessarrily consider the list of such religions to be equivalent to your own. That probably has something to do with a bunch of americans being dominionist christians who would agree with you in every particular until you applied it to christianity- who knows.

[Belacqua]

It’s very important to understand what I refer to when I say religion. Mainly the biggest religions (Christianity, Islam, etc), which know have caused immense damage to humanity [...]

You've left the subject out of that second sentence. What word should go between "which" and "know"? "I"? "People who share my ideology"? 

I am not convinced that the biggest religions have caused more harm than good in the world. What logical, evidence-based data can you produce to show that this is so? 

 and have no evidence for what they claim. 

It would be more correct to say that there is no evidence of the type that you accept. Other people, with different standards of evidence, find adequate amounts of evidence for their religions. 

What logical, evidence-based argument can you offer to show that only institutions which accept your standards of evidence should be allowed to operate?

What should be taught is science and humanities, as both encourage questioning and are based on logic and evidence.

What logic and evidence-based proof do you offer to show that only science and the humanities should be taught? I'm not looking for personal opinion here. 

More importantly, what logic and evidence-based standards can you point to to prove that government should rule on what evidence people should find acceptable, what conclusions we should draw about history, and what subjects taken seriously by millions of Americans should be banned?

Since the opinions you express here are in the minority, especially in the US, what qualifications should we demand of the elite minority group which enforces these unpopular laws on an unwilling populace?