Children's Right to Religious Freedom

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
What purpose does forcing attendance serve if the adult/child doesn’t believe it? Just flexing your muscles?
[/QUOTE]

For some parents, certainly. My folks stopped taking me to church when I was 14 or so. I’ve never been back, except to sit in on services I happen to like, like a Full Latin Mass every now and then. But it is the duty of parents to see to their children’s instruction in religion if they are believers. When the child is old enough and mature enough to to coherently argue their position for not going, then you can leave it up to the kid. Before that, it’s your job.

42

[QUOTE=silenus]
For some parents, certainly. My folks stopped taking me to church when I was 14 or so. I’ve never been back, except to sit in on services I happen to like, like a Full Latin Mass every now and then. But it is the duty of parents to see to their children’s instruction in religion if they are believers. When the child is old enough and mature enough to to coherently argue their position for not going, then you can leave it up to the kid. Before that, it’s your job.
[/QUOTE]

But you said “as long as they’re under my roof” which is long after the age at which a child could coherently express that they don’t believe any of it. I would say most ten-year-olds could express their reasoning intelligently.

43

“Under my roof” means I make whatever deals I feel like, and the kids deal with it or leave. It doesn’t mean I can’t ask their opinions, take their thoughts into account and the like. But when push comes to shove, I win because I pay the bills.

44

[QUOTE=silenus]
When they move out. The basic rule has always been “Under my roof, you follow my rules.” If those rules include going to church, then you do it until you move out on your own, at which time it ceases to be any of my business. No matter how much I may force attendence, I cannot force belief. Every child will decide, when they are ready, whether or not they buy into what is being taught. This is a basic right as a parent, and no-one has any business messing with it unless it steps over the line into provable child-abuse.
[/QUOTE]

This particular sentiment will only serve to drive most children away from religion. The more you force something down someone’s throat, the more they will vomit it back up.

45

No argument. Heavy-handed indoctrination usually backfires badly. But the point I was trying to make was that it’s nobody else’s business if I force my kid to undergo religious indoctrination. I will probably drive the kid from the Church. But nobody else has any say in the matter.

46

[QUOTE=MGibson]
Is there any evidence that home schooled or private schooled children are somehow maladjusted or less knowledgeable than those who attended public schools? So long as they can pass whatever standardized tests the state administers to public schools I don’t see why it matters where they got their education.

Marc
[/QUOTE]

Lets get some of my perspective here. I believe I speak with some qualification on the issue.

I was raised in a very zealous religion connected to the Dutch Reformed Church in Canada. Up till the age of 14, I bought their bullshit hook line and sinker. We weren’t allowed to go to dances, movies, work on Sunday and join unions. We were taught to separate ourselves from the evil world.

Eventually in large part I owe the seeds of doubt and skeptisism that I had to my public school education. It freed me from slavery to ideology. To be fair to my father, (my mother died when I was 14) who jumped into a Baptist style religion following the death of my mother, he meant well.

I have a couple of dozen cousins who are still wrapped up in this stupid irrelevant ethnic based religion of Dutch Calvinism. They all spent their high school years in a Dutch Calvinist school. Why? their parents did not want them to assimilate with the evil society at large. True, they are no threat to Canada, but as long as they think they are better than the rest of us, I don’t think they are able to participate fully as Canadians.

47

[QUOTE=Anaamika]
This particular sentiment will only serve to drive most children away from religion. The more you force something down someone’s throat, the more they will vomit it back up.
[/QUOTE]

Do you think this is true in practice? Is there evidence that 50% or more of the children who are required to attend church with/by their parents are driven away from religion?

I know plenty of kids who were turned off, so I am not denying that this happens. I don’t agree with a heavy-handed approach, myself. But is it really true that this drives most kids away?

48

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
But you said “as long as they’re under my roof” which is long after the age at which a child could coherently express that they don’t believe any of it. I would say most ten-year-olds could express their reasoning intelligently.
[/QUOTE]

You could just as easily restate your question as “at what age should a parent stop getting a child to eat his vegetables” or “…brush his teeth” or “…get a reasonable amount of sleep.”

All parenting involves getting children to do things they don’t want to do, because the parent believes it’s good for them. There will always be a period of confrontation and negotiation when the child starts setting his/her own boundaries.

That’s the way parenting works. Religious training, or the lack of it, is no different, and is no business of the government.

49

[QUOTE=silenus]
For some parents, certainly. My folks stopped taking me to church when I was 14 or so. I’ve never been back, except to sit in on services I happen to like, like a Full Latin Mass every now and then. But it is the duty of parents to see to their children’s instruction in religion if they are believers. When the child is old enough and mature enough to to coherently argue their position for not going, then you can leave it up to the kid. Before that, it’s your job.
[/QUOTE]
But what do you mean by ‘coherently argue their position’? When I was around ten, I argued that I didn’t want to go to church because it was boring and I hated wearing a suit. Their response (and I’m certain that my don’t-care-much-about-religion-but-we’re-still-the-boss father thought this up) was to allow me to choose between going to church and a situation that was designed to be even less fun: locked in a small, unadorned bathroom for the duration. (Oh the abuse! :eek: Well, in actual fact I made use of the fact they hadn’t stripped the patterned wallpaper to teach myself to cross my eyes and play depth-perception games for three hours. As a result I can now do those magic-eye images like a pro.) After doing this a couple of times I switched back to donning the lousy suit, grabbing one of my non-religious fiction books, and reading for the spans of time I was forced to be there. (At no point had I been a believer in any practical sense of the word.)

When I was eighteen (still living at home), and as usual griping about the suit as I collected my fiction book and prepared to attend church, my mom finally informed me that if I didn’t want to go, I didn’t have to. My response was near-instantaneous, and that was that. Note, though, that I wasn’t arguing anything different than when I was ten. Actually I argued harder when I was ten; as I got older there clearly wasn’t any point in fighting it anymore.

So, my point in this rambling post is, what constitutes “coherently argue[ing] their position for not going”? Quoting Aquinas? Venomously criticising your parents’ heartfelt spiritual beliefs? Having a very important Playstation game to finish? What?

50

[QUOTE=jsc1953]
You could just as easily restate your question as “at what age should a parent stop getting a child to eat his vegetables” or “…brush his teeth” or “…get a reasonable amount of sleep.”

All parenting involves getting children to do things they don’t want to do, because the parent believes it’s good for them. There will always be a period of confrontation and negotiation when the child starts setting his/her own boundaries.

That’s the way parenting works. Religious training, or the lack of it, is no different, and is no business of the government.
[/QUOTE]

I never said it was the business of the government. It also isn’t the business of the parent of a child who can make a reasonable decision on the subject. Would you say the same thing if the parents wanted the kid to handle poisonous snakes as part of their religious training? How about eating peyote? Just because they believe it doesn’t mean it’s relevant to (or necessarily good for) the child, regardless of how much they want the child to believe. Can you conceive of forced religious indoctrination as being emotional/mental cruelty to someone who doesn’t buy it?

51

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
It also isn’t the business of the parent of a child who can make a reasonable decision on the subject.
[/quote]

Well, there’s the rub. Is “I don’t wanna!” a reasonable decision on the subject?

If you equate religious education with child abuse, you’re certainly entitled to raise your child that way. But I don’t think this POV would pass any kind of “reasonableness” court test, if it ever came to that.

52

[QUOTE=jsc1953]
Well, there’s the rub. Is “I don’t wanna!” a reasonable decision on the subject?

If you equate religious education with child abuse, you’re certainly entitled to raise your child that way. But I don’t think this POV would pass any kind of “reasonableness” court test, if it ever came to that.
[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, “I don’t wanna!” is absolutely a good enough reason. I realize most people will exercise their parental rights and force their beliefs onto their children, but that doesn’t make it right.

I’d venture to say there are plenty of people right on these boards who consider forced religious indoctrintation to be abusive. There is one example in this very thread:

I consider forced separation from the rest of society to be very abusive. You didn’t state your opinion about the poisonous snakes or the peyote, but I assume you wouldn’t think those religious practices were such hot ideas, either.

53

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
In my opinion, “I don’t wanna!” is absolutely a good enough reason. I realize most people will exercise their parental rights and force their beliefs onto their children, but that doesn’t make it right.
[/QUOTE]

BS. It doesn’t make it right in your eyes. Billions of people on the planet would disagree. A child is just that - a child, and incapable of making a reasoned decision about their upbringing. It is the duty of a parent to make those decisions. If a kid doesn’t want to eat her vegetables, are you going to accept “I don’t wanna!” as a reason? How about “Don’t play in the street?” Is “I wanna?” a good enough reason to let them do something dangerous? Mind you, to religious people, failing to adhere to the tenets of their religion can be very dangerous to the child’s immortal soul.

Or is it just because you think religion is silly, therefore nobody should be able to raise their children in one?

54

They’ll try, but may not succeed. They can force their kids to participate in religious activities, but forcing someone to believe something is a heck of a lot harder.

[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
I was raised in a very zealous religion connected to the Dutch Reformed Church in Canada. Up till the age of 14, I bought their bullshit hook line and sinker. We weren’t allowed to go to dances, movies, work on Sunday and join unions. We were taught to separate ourselves from the evil world…

I have a couple of dozen cousins who are still wrapped up in this stupid irrelevant ethnic based religion of Dutch Calvinism. They all spent their high school years in a Dutch Calvinist school. Why? their parents did not want them to assimilate with the evil society at large. True, they are no threat to Canada, but as long as they think they are better than the rest of us, I don’t think they are able to participate fully as Canadians.
[/QUOTE]

I sympathize- I was raised Methodist, figured out I didn’t believe in it, and ended up watching kids during church services to avoid feeling like a hypocrite for going to church when I didn’t believe any of it. After I moved out, I never went to a church again, except for a wedding or something like that. I eventually ended up converting to Judaism.

But how far out of the mainstream are you allowed to go before you aren’t able to participate fully as an American (or Canadian, or Australian, or whatever)? You could argue that Christmas is a major American holiday, so anyone like me who doesn’t participate in it isn’t participating fully as an American. Americans who are vegetarians do participate in Thanksgiving, but not in all the rituals associated with it (because they don’t eat turkey). Are vegetarians and people who don’t celebrate Christmas not participating fully as Americans, and separated from society? Is it forced separation from society if non-Christian parents don’t celebrate Christmas in their homes with their kids, or if parents who don’t eat meat don’t provide turkey for their kids at Thanksgiving?

My point is, it’s hard to draw a bright line here, and we certainly don’t want to make it illegal for parents to teach their kids any beliefs that aren’t shared by the majority of Americans- that would make life difficult for all non-Christian parents.

I think that forcing kids to go to church does make it likely that they will reject your religion once they get the chance. On the other hand, if you never share your religious beliefs with your kids, they obviously won’t end up with the same ones. I think there’s a happy medium somewhere in between those two (which might well be different for each kid), and when I have kids, I’ll be working hard on finding it. I’ve actually given this some thought already, even though kids are still a few years off for me.

55

[QUOTE=silenus]
BS. It doesn’t make it right in your eyes. Billions of people on the planet would disagree. A child is just that - a child, and incapable of making a reasoned decision about their upbringing. It is the duty of a parent to make those decisions. If a kid doesn’t want to eat her vegetables, are you going to accept “I don’t wanna!” as a reason? How about “Don’t play in the street?” Is “I wanna?” a good enough reason to let them do something dangerous? Mind you, to religious people, failing to adhere to the tenets of their religion can be very dangerous to the child’s immortal soul.

Or is it just because you think religion is silly, therefore nobody should be able to raise their children in one?
[/QUOTE]

Uh…that’s what I said…“In my opinion” means it’s not right “in my eyes.” And a big bullshit back to you. A child is indeed capable of making a reasoned decision regarding religious upbringing. Don’t compare a religious belief to allowing a kid to play in traffic. It’s apples and oranges. Until they have proof of a soul and until they have proof that non-compliance to a particular faith is dangerous, it infringes on the kid’s religious freedom.

Yes, religion is silly in my opinion, but parents have every ethical right to raise their children with religion as long as the children don’t object.

56

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Uh…that’s what I said…“In my opinion” means it’s not right “in my eyes.” And a big bullshit back to you. A child is indeed capable of making a reasoned decision regarding religious upbringing. Don’t compare a religious belief to allowing a kid to play in traffic. It’s apples and oranges. Until they have proof of a soul and until they have proof that non-compliance to a particular faith is dangerous, it infringes on the kid’s religious freedom.

Yes, religion is silly in my opinion, but parents have every ethical right to raise their children with religion as long as the children don’t object.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is, a 10-year-old doesn’t object because they really care one way or another about what they believe…they object because they don’t think church is fun, and there is something else they would rather do (like watch TV). In my house, we all attend church together, and there is no way on earth I am going to change such a family activity so that a 10-year-old doesn’t have to “suffer” through an hour of boredom. It would involve either my husband and I not attending together, or getting a babysitter…there is just no way I am going to accomodate this. Even when they are young teenagers, there are going to be things they have to do that they don’t want to. If it is a family activity that we all do together, then they will do it…going to Church will not harm them in any way, no matter what they believe or don’t believe. As I have said before, once they are 16 or 17, if they can give a reasonable argument, I might consider letting them do something else worthwhile with the 1 hour a week they would otherwise be in church…but you can be sure that activity will not be sleeping late.

Where I grew up, most kids were forced to go to church, and some still attend regularly, and some attend sporadically, and some don’t attend at all…I don’t think being “forced” to go makes much of a difference.

57

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
The problem is, a 10-year-old doesn’t object because they really care one way or another about what they believe…they object because they don’t think church is fun, and there is something else they would rather do (like watch TV). In my house, we all attend church together, and there is no way on earth I am going to change such a family activity so that a 10-year-old doesn’t have to “suffer” through an hour of boredom. It would involve either my husband and I not attending together, or getting a babysitter…there is just no way I am going to accomodate this. Even when they are young teenagers, there are going to be things they have to do that they don’t want to. If it is a family activity that we all do together, then they will do it…going to Church will not harm them in any way, no matter what they believe or don’t believe. As I have said before, once they are 16 or 17, if they can give a reasonable argument, I might consider letting them do something else worthwhile with the 1 hour a week they would otherwise be in church…but you can be sure that activity will not be sleeping late.

Where I grew up, most kids were forced to go to church, and some still attend regularly, and some attend sporadically, and some don’t attend at all…I don’t think being “forced” to go makes much of a difference.
[/QUOTE]

You’re assuming they object because they’re bored. It could just be utterly pointless to them. I’m sure you will demonstrate your might with regard to your kids attending. I’m just saying that the concept of religious freedom and respect for a person’s beliefs should begin at home.

Would it be ok for a child who objects to simply attend without partaking in any of the ritual (confirmation, communion, kneeling and praying, etc.) or would you also make them go through the motions?

58

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
You’re assuming they object because they’re bored. It could just be utterly pointless to them. I’m sure you will demonstrate your might with regard to your kids attending. I’m just saying that the concept of religious freedom and respect for a person’s beliefs should begin at home.
[/QUOTE]
And the boredom comes from it being pointless…most 10 year olds need a little more stimulation to entertain them besides a sermon they don’t understand that well. I totally get that. But I think overall, what my children learn in church will be good for them in the long run.

“Demonstrating my might” is actually not a big thing with me…I grew up in a house with few rules, and I am not much of a stickler myself, at least so far. But I believe that some family activities are important, as is respecting your parents. There are a few expectations I WILL have. Attending school, making a reasonable effort with schoolwork, and attending church are a few of these. You can think that a house rule that everyone attends church is incredibly draconian, but you have not really given any evidence of how it is harmful to them in any way.

I wouldn’t force anyone to go through a sacrament if they objected…it is kind of pointless to do so (in confirmation, the entire point is to take an adult responsibility for your religion). I can’t force them to kneel, and how would I know if they are praying?

59

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
And the boredom comes from it being pointless…most 10 year olds need a little more stimulation to entertain them besides a sermon they don’t understand that well. I totally get that. But I think overall, what my children learn in church will be good for them in the long run.

“Demonstrating my might” is actually not a big thing with me…I grew up in a house with few rules, and I am not much of a stickler myself, at least so far. But I believe that some family activities are important, as is respecting your parents. There are a few expectations I WILL have. Attending school, making a reasonable effort with schoolwork, and attending church are a few of these. You can think that a house rule that everyone attends church is incredibly draconian, but you have not really given any evidence of how it is harmful to them in any way.

I wouldn’t force anyone to go through a sacrament if they objected…it is kind of pointless to do so (in confirmation, the entire point is to take an adult responsibility for your religion). I can’t force them to kneel, and how would I know if they are praying?
[/QUOTE]
Well if it’s pointless and boring, why not choose another family activity that all the family members actually want to partake in? The kid has his entire life ahead of him in which he’ll decide for himself what faith, if any, he’ll adopt. This has nothing to do with “respect for parents” and everything to do with respect for your children. You’ve said on numerous occasions that your faith is a big deal for you. Wouldn’t it cheapen it to force someone to play along who’s secretly rolling their eyes behind your back?

60

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Well if it’s pointless and boring, why not choose another family activity that all the family members actually want to partake in? The kid has his entire life ahead of him in which he’ll decide for himself what faith, if any, he’ll adopt. This has nothing to do with “respect for parents” and everything to do with respect for your children. You’ve said on numerous occasions that your faith is a big deal for you. Wouldn’t it cheapen it to force someone to play along who’s secretly rolling their eyes behind your back?
[/QUOTE]
Kids think school is pointless and boring, too. I thought algebra class was the most pointless and boring thing I ever lived through. Should I have just not gone to algebra class?

I think attending church, an activity that a parent thinks is important has everything to do with respecting that parent. I’m sure we will have one or two family activities that everyone enjoys, and that will be great…when it comes to “fun” activites, I will be happy to take everyone’s ideas into account. But the point of church is not to be entertained, and I don’t intend to take a vote from the kids on whether it is worthwhile to attend…because I don’t think a 10-year-old is capable of making that judgement.

When the kid turns 18, you are right, there are many many years ahead of them where they can make these choices. But let’s face it, parents make lots of decisions for their underage children that could be considered violating their rights or freedoms. What makes going to church any different from forcing them to do anything they don’t want to do because you, as the parent, think it is good for them? My take on your position is that YOU do not believe it is good for them, so you refuse to give parents the same support with this as you would with forcing them to go to school or eat their vegetables. Frankly, that seems to just come from prejudice on your part.

And, no, I couldn’t care less if my kids are rolling their eyes behind my back…I’m sure they will do so over lots of issues that have nothing to do with church. If I decided to raise my kids based on what they roll their eyes at, I would be a pretty bad parent, IMO.