What is says in the title. Is it legal in your country for a parent to force a child to participate in religious practices against the child's will or would it be considered an abuse of parental authority and thus illegal?
For example, can a parent force a child to go to church? Or dance around a maypole?
Or more broadly, does your nation's law recognize that children have freedom of religion that is independent of their parents' religious beliefs? Or does it give parents a carte blanche, effectively depriving their children of the freedom?
Edit: To clarify, I meant older children, i.e. teenagers say above age of 12 or so. I didn't really mean stuff like baptism of infants.
If they can't, they should. Would reduce the amount of faggotry to a more palatable level, i bet. Great source for a new what-if topic where all polish homos are spitted and used for fertilizer with the added bonus of reduced co2 levels in the atmosphere. A veritable win-win-win situation.
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2009, 04:35:22 AM
What is says in the title. Is it legal in your country for a parent to force a child to participate in religious practices against the child's will or would it be considered an abuse of parental authority and thus illegal?
It is legal. I don't know what the law says exactly but the amount of kids who are taken to church for religious rites under protest when they would prefer to eat&sleep/play Playstation (depending on age) suggests that it is not illegal.
Baptism of infants is very common in Sweden.
If kids had grownup rights then good parenting would be impossible.
Of course. Religious practices are naturally part of children's upbringing. For most parts it only means going to church on christmas or when someone marries. Baptism of infants is the usual thing to do. It's just part of the culture.
To see it as 'being forced' generally would only mean that the 'poor child' belongs to a different religious group, e.g. Jehova's Witnesses. Heard more than one discussion that JW kids should and would receive blood transfusions even against the parents' will.
It generally doesn't require 'force' to get children to participate in religion. It's not until they are teenagers that they begin to question and perhaps rebel.
yeah of course, they can make them do anything.
I would imagine so. Parents can force children to go all sorts of places they might not want to go. The dentist, the grocery store, church. Anything else would be madness.
I know this will make you sad, but civilized societies make children slaves to their parents' wills, unless there's some pretty good reasons otherwise. "Mommy and daddy made me go someplace boring for an hour on Sunday" isn't a very good reason.
We have religious education (administered by state-employed but church-approved teachers) as a regular subject in schools in Germany. Parents generally decide on the participation of children younger than 14, however they have to find consensus with the children older than 12. Children older than 14 can decide on their own. Usually children that opt out of religious education will get taught in philosophy/ethics instead.
So to answer your question, parents can force their children to participate in religious activities until age 12-14.
They can, but few do. And those that were forced to attend mass and such as kids rarely do when they grow up.
:huh: This is a weird question.
Quote from: Caliga on April 25, 2009, 08:11:01 AM
:huh: This is a weird question.
LOOK AT THE SOURCE.
Quote from: Caliga on April 25, 2009, 08:11:01 AM
:huh: This is a weird question.
Not really - it is a topic that is now entering a public debate here in Europe, even though the answer used to be taken for granted. I predict it will go the same route as physical punishments against children - 30-40 years ago it was perfectly acceptable in the West to span children, now it is a crime in a growing number of countries in Europe.
Edit: For the record, while I see how it has not been said in my opening post, I meant generally older children, i.e. teenagers.
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2009, 08:24:12 AM
Edit: For the record, while I see how it has not been said in my opening post, I meant generally older children, i.e. teenagers.
Since you clarified your point, I have some experience with this. Once they hit 13, while you can force them to go, you might as well save your energy. :P
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2009, 07:14:36 AM
I would imagine so. Parents can force children to go all sorts of places they might not want to go. The dentist, the grocery store, church. Anything else would be madness.
I know this will make you sad, but civilized societies make children slaves to their parents' wills, unless there's some pretty good reasons otherwise. "Mommy and daddy made me go someplace boring for an hour on Sunday" isn't a very good reason.
Well, parents who are religious show already they are too insane to be able to provide proper guardianship for their children.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 25, 2009, 08:32:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2009, 08:24:12 AM
Edit: For the record, while I see how it has not been said in my opening post, I meant generally older children, i.e. teenagers.
Since you clarified your point, I have some experience with this. Once they hit 13, while you can force them to go, you might as well save your energy. :P
Your wife isn't very religious?
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2009, 09:21:59 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2009, 07:14:36 AM
I would imagine so. Parents can force children to go all sorts of places they might not want to go. The dentist, the grocery store, church. Anything else would be madness.
I know this will make you sad, but civilized societies make children slaves to their parents' wills, unless there's some pretty good reasons otherwise. "Mommy and daddy made me go someplace boring for an hour on Sunday" isn't a very good reason.
Well, parents who are religious show already they are too insane to be able to provide proper guardianship for their children.
And parents who are gay will inevitably rape their children. Now we're having fun!
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2009, 08:24:12 AM
I predict it will go the same route as physical punishments against children - 30-40 years ago it was perfectly acceptable in the West to span children, now it is a crime in a growing number of countries in Europe.
:lol:
And look how well that worked out.
Go to church? Yes. Parents are responsible for supervision of their children, so they can enforce children going with them to church. Enforce active participation in religious rites? Probably not. On the last board, we had a thread about the "Mormon gulag."
Yes, as long as they're minors, children legally can be forced by their parents to do pretty much anything that doesn't involve any criminal activity. You can even have your minor children doing things to help in your family-owned business that it wouldn't otherwise be legal to hire children of the same age to do.
Of course, when you get to older teens, there is a difference between what they parents are legally able to do and what many parents are actually able to do, but unless you're going to change the age of adulthood, the parents should be able to legally determine where their children are going to go, whether it's to church, to a sporting event, or to visit great-aunt Amy.
Quote from: dps on April 25, 2009, 03:40:31 PM
Yes, as long as they're minors, children legally can be forced by their parents to do pretty much anything that doesn't involve any criminal activity. You can even have your minor children doing things to help in your family-owned business that it wouldn't otherwise be legal to hire children of the same age to do.
Of course, when you get to older teens, there is a difference between what they parents are legally able to do and what many parents are actually able to do, but unless you're going to change the age of adulthood, the parents should be able to legally determine where their children are going to go, whether it's to church, to a sporting event, or to visit great-aunt Amy.
I assume the age of adulthood in the US is 18, right? Can parents force their 17 y.o daughter to have an abortion against her will? Or get a sex change operation? Or force her to marry someone against her will? There is a number of things that parents cannot force their children to do, even though it is not a criminal activity in itself. I understand that according to your "parents should be able" idiocy, parents should be allowed to do any of these things I mentioned.
Quote from: Martinus on April 26, 2009, 03:19:21 AM
I assume the age of adulthood in the US is 18, right? Can parents force their 17 y.o daughter to have an abortion against her will? Or get a sex change operation? Or force her to marry someone against her will? There is a number of things that parents cannot force their children to do, even though it is not a criminal activity in itself. I understand that according to your "parents should be able" idiocy, parents should be allowed to do any of these things I mentioned.
In the case of an abortion, technically yes. However, you won't find a mainstream doctor who'd be willing to perform the abortion under those circumstances. In the case of a sex change, that could potentially be endangerment of a minor, as well as physical abuse. Also, forced marriage would constitute abuse, and could carry charges of child abandonment, kidnapping, and depending on the parents' cause for enforcing a marriage, potentially even racketeering charges.
Children may not have the individual freedoms of adults, but they
are protected by numerous laws regarding parental responsibility and responsible custodianship.
QuoteYes, as long as they're minors, children legally can be forced by their parents to do pretty much anything that doesn't involve any criminal activity.
This is a bit too broad. The actions the juveniles are "forced" to do must be plausibly in their own interest. I think a parent forcing a child to get a facial tattoo, for instance,would be considered abuse even if the tattoo is for "religious reasons." Ditto for such real-world examples as clitorectomies.
I'll force them to eat their vegetables, and GOD DAMN MARTINUS for trying to stop that. You godless communist.
Quote from: Martinus on April 26, 2009, 03:19:21 AM
I assume the age of adulthood in the US is 18, right? Can parents force their 17 y.o daughter to have an abortion against her will? Or get a sex change operation? Or force her to marry someone against her will? There is a number of things that parents cannot force their children to do, even though it is not a criminal activity in itself. I understand that according to your "parents should be able" idiocy, parents should be allowed to do any of these things I mentioned.
Sex change operations can be forced when it is n the child's best interests (there have been some examples of things along these lines), but I agree that there are things parents cannot do, even if they are technically legal in and of themselves.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 26, 2009, 08:59:18 AM
I'll force them to eat their vegetables, and GOD DAMN MARTINUS for trying to stop that. You godless communist.
Sorry, dude. Grumbler already neutered your ANGER on that one. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 08:57:35 AM
QuoteYes, as long as they're minors, children legally can be forced by their parents to do pretty much anything that doesn't involve any criminal activity.
This is a bit too broad. The actions the juveniles are "forced" to do must be plausibly in their own interest. I think a parent forcing a child to get a facial tattoo, for instance,would be considered abuse even if the tattoo is for "religious reasons." Ditto for such real-world examples as clitorectomies.
Sure, but "pretty much anything" isn't the same "absloutely anything".
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2009, 09:21:59 AM
Well, parents who are religious show already they are too insane to be able to provide proper guardianship for their children.
Since you already consider any religion that is not insane to not be a religion I guess I concede your point.
'All religions hate gays.'
'This one doesn't.'
'Yeah but that is not a real religion.'
Anything that does not fit Marty's insane and hateful bigotry of the religious is ignored.
Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2009, 10:19:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 25, 2009, 09:21:59 AM
Well, parents who are religious show already they are too insane to be able to provide proper guardianship for their children.
Since you already consider any religion that is not insane to not be a religion I guess I concede your point.
'All religions hate gays.'
'This one doesn't.'
'Yeah but that is not a real religion.'
Anything that does not fit Marty's insane and hateful bigotry of the religious is ignored.
Please do not feed the troll. :hug:
If Marty wasn't gay what would he post about?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2009, 10:49:30 PM
If Marty wasn't gay what would he post about?
How evil gays are for interfering in the sanctity of straightness, most likely.
What's a maypole?
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:07:59 PM
What's a maypole?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carryontours.com%2Fmay-pole.jpg&hash=60b369f54fa9bba28c8bf07b82c8494cd3746d61)
An old pagan ritual still in use in parts of Europe to raise a pole in May and have young women/girls dance around it.
In my area in Northern Germany there's many "Dance into the May" events on April 30th, where people light bonfires, dance, drink and be merry to hail the start of spring.
Quote from: Syt on April 26, 2009, 11:14:35 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:07:59 PM
What's a maypole?
An old pagan ritual still in use in parts of Europe to raise a pole in May and have young women/girls dance around it.
In my area in Northern Germany there's many "Dance into the May" events on April 30th, where people light bonfires, dance, drink and be merry to hail the start of spring.
You know it's always said to be "an old pagan ritual". But when is it first recorded? Looking around it seems the first descriptions of them are in the 16th century. Kinda late to be pagan.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2009, 12:29:51 AM
You know it's always said to be "an old pagan ritual". But when is it first recorded? Looking around it seems the first descriptions of them are in the 16th century. Kinda late to be pagan.
Neo-pagan, then. It's strongest recurrence in Germany was during the 19th century in the wake of re-awakened German(ic) nationalism. It's about as Christian as the Easter Bunny.
Quote from: Siege on April 26, 2009, 11:07:59 PM
What's a maypole?
It's like a gay Pole, only starts with "M".
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 08:57:35 AM
QuoteYes, as long as they're minors, children legally can be forced by their parents to do pretty much anything that doesn't involve any criminal activity.
This is a bit too broad. The actions the juveniles are "forced" to do must be plausibly in their own interest. I think a parent forcing a child to get a facial tattoo, for instance,would be considered abuse even if the tattoo is for "religious reasons." Ditto for such real-world examples as clitorectomies.
Why wouldn't the kind of "mormon gulags" (even if they did not commit some of the worst attrocities described, just pretty much held kids there against their will, and subjected them to strict discipline and cut off their contacts with outside world) be considered abuse too, if of the psychological kind, then?
Quote from: Syt on April 27, 2009, 12:36:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2009, 12:29:51 AM
You know it's always said to be "an old pagan ritual". But when is it first recorded? Looking around it seems the first descriptions of them are in the 16th century. Kinda late to be pagan.
Neo-pagan, then. It's strongest recurrence in Germany was during the 19th century in the wake of re-awakened German(ic) nationalism. It's about as Christian as the Easter Bunny.
I never said it was christian. I don't even know about Neo-Pagan since it was in England in the 17th century. They really weren't big on Neo-paganism then either. They could date back to pagan times but I just haven't seen any evidence of that. It could just have simply been a game some villagers came up with one day.
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2009, 01:33:07 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 08:57:35 AM
QuoteYes, as long as they're minors, children legally can be forced by their parents to do pretty much anything that doesn't involve any criminal activity.
This is a bit too broad. The actions the juveniles are "forced" to do must be plausibly in their own interest. I think a parent forcing a child to get a facial tattoo, for instance,would be considered abuse even if the tattoo is for "religious reasons." Ditto for such real-world examples as clitorectomies.
Why wouldn't the kind of "mormon gulags" (even if they did not commit some of the worst attrocities described, just pretty much held kids there against their will, and subjected them to strict discipline and cut off their contacts with outside world) be considered abuse too, if of the psychological kind, then?
Some people consider raising a child with gay parents is a form of abuse.
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2009, 08:59:30 AMSex change operations can be forced when it is n the child's best interests (there have been some examples of things along these lines), but I agree that there are things parents cannot do, even if they are technically legal in and of themselves.
There was a case in Washington state (IIRC) a few years ago where the parents of a profoundly retarded girl (her IQ was 20 or something like that) had her surgically 'neutered', I think so that health care workers would not be able to molest her, etc. It generated a huge amount of outrage.