Ask Lemmy

It depends on how you view the parent/child relationship. In most countries parents have a sort of "ownership" role of their child. A right to raise them in their own way, religion and traditions. It is THEIR child to teach, and raise.

This has become pretty contentious in Norway, and Norway has lost cases child protection cases regarding this in international courts. Our child protection services has taken children from their parents and that has ended up in international courts in some cases. This is due to a difference in opinion in what is acceptable and OK ways to raise a child, and what constitutes the rights of the parents and the rights of the child. In some of these cases Norway have rightfully been convicted. But you won't lose the ability to raise your child in Norway over nothing, as some people will have you believe. The child protective services can't explain why to the public, and the parents can pretend to be innocent.

Personally I believe parents do not own their child. I believe parents are in a privileged position and lucky to be allowed to raise a human (yes, also biological), and that the privilege should be revoked if the parents are not sufficiently fit to raise the child.

The perspective of ownership is harmful in my opinion and does often conflict with the interests of the child in my opinion.

Should the child get vaccinated? Yes, exceptions are only allergies.

Should the child be home schooled? No.

Should the child interact with peers at the kindergarten and school and get the social skills they need? Yes

What sorts of punishments are acceptable?

Should the child be heavily involved in religion? No, but should learn about it, and can in a limited degree practice it. But no religious schools, or religious camps. Genital mutilation should not be allowed for boys either. If they want to, they can do it as adults. Doing unnecessary surgery on a defenseless child due to religion is in no way acceptable.

If the parents are neglecting their child, how much neglect is okay before the right/privilege is revoked?

If the parents are addicts, what then?

Etc.

The fundamental difference between religion/spirituality and science/reason, as far as I'm concerned is this: religion demands that you accept something as an indisputable truth and that questioning it is not only discouraged but forbidden and will be met with an arbitrarily horrific punishment (eternal damnation, etc), with what the specific something is dependent on the teacher, their interpretations and their intentions. As a mental framework, I don't think it's healthy for either individuals or societies to unquestioningly accept - or be made to accept - that any ideas are defacto sacred.

I'm with Terence McKenna here: Culture is not your friend

Imagine how different society would be if people weren't introduced to religion until they were 18.

it's nice to have culture or whatever, but practicing a religion is inherently unethical as it is giving legitimacy to a scam and perpetuating objectively bad ideas

It's not ethical to train your child's brain to believe fairytales. It's like foot binding, forcing an unnatural form on their growth. They grow up handicapped.

Yes, it's their familial culture and it's up to the kid to decide whether to break out from that or not later

I think the ethics mostly come into how you raise them, religion or not. It's ethical to teach kindness and empathy. It's ethical to allow your kids to explore while asking them questions that help that exploration. You can do those kinds of things no matter what faith (or non-faith) you practice.

Speaking as someone who was raised in an environment that gave lip service to kindness and empathy but was really very harsh, judgmental, and rigid, only one of my siblings kept something reasonably approximating my parents' faith. The rest of us are mostly some variety of pagan. Each of us had a painful journey out of our parents' faith to something. No matter how you raise your kids, they are their own people and will come to their own conclusions. You can make the path much more difficult than it needs to be or you can set them up for a much less traumatic journey.

I think it can be done ethically to the extent that the children are presented with the faith of their parents, but when they reach an age of maturity (which will be different for each child), they will be free to pursue their own faith practices.

Ideally when properly understood each religion usually means well and enhances oneself in some way, from my little studying into a couple popular ones they seem to be aiming for similar things so I'm less and less convinced of inherently biased religious practices and more and more convinced of sucky people.

I think spirituality goes hand in hand with mental health and when we understand it badly we dig ourselves into deeper holes or when we understand it rightly we keep ourselves from falling in holes.

If what you teach someone helps them, that is good, otherwise just leave them alone.

The problem with "faith" is its literal meaning: belief that is not based on evidence.

A society based on faith can only work is everybody has the same faith (think: Ancient Rome, theocracies, communist countries). The only reason modern Western democracies work is precisely that they are not based on faith but rather on evidence, on reason, on truth-seeking. This is the amazing and historically anomalous heritage of the enlightenment and it's looking more fragile by the day.

Teaching kids fairytales and calling it truth is the reason religion exists. It's the reason it's so hard for adults to leave the religions they assimilated as children. And in a free society where we have to find a way to live together, it's profoundly dangerous.

So my answer is: no.