I'm not clear on where I stand on that issue. I can't find a consistent position that I'm satisfied with. On one hand, it's none of my business because they're not my kids. Parents have authority over their children. But on the other hand, children are human beings, and human beings have rights. But children don't have the full rights of adults, do they? Parents have at least some authority to dictate what their children will and will not be allowed to do. They no longer have that authority when the children become adults.

So where do the parents' rights end, and the child's rights begin? That's the crucial issue, and I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line. I'd probably want to stop somewhere short of allowing stuff like baby sacrifice or mommy and daddy having a kinky menage a trois with their toddler. But otherwise I'd want to define parents rights as broadly as possible (without allowing the previously mentioned monstrous extremes). Lots of grey area here, but I'm still standing by my general position that I'd much prefer to trust the parents to do what's best for their children, and not invoke the authority of the state unless absolutely necessary. So basically unless the parents somehow show themselves to be complete monsters, leave them alone. But yeah, I don't have a nice neat conceptually clear solution to offer.

And I probably got overly exuberant with some of the stuff I said earlier about what parents should be allowed to teach their children. If I actually witnessed a parent telling their three year old that he could jump off a cliff and he'd be able to fly, and then the kid went and jumped off a cliff, I'd be hard pressed to see that as anything other than murder. So I guess I can't rule out all limits on parental authority in this area. That said, I can't imagine these extremes presenting a significant problem in the real world. Cases like that would be very few and far between.

The right you suggest would be mostly excercised by monsters. I've yet to see you demonstrate a single real problem with current system.

Um, that would be a very good thing, but it's more like, it would AMPLIFY these genetic lines of USELESS BUMS.

I think parents should have the right to decide how their children will be educated, even if the type of education they choose is clearly suboptimal. The plus side, from my perspective, is personal freedom.

For the parents. This is obviously abusive to the children's rights.

BTW I think the next quarter century is going to see a significant reduction of parental discretion in this regard.

Not at all since those children will one day grow up and be able to feel the joy of the freedom of being able to beat the **** out of their own kids. Seems like a nice world to live in, this libertarian one of ES'.

Yeah, and everyone is going to want to do as many terrible things to their kids as they can possibly get away with. You'd think most parents would want to treat their children well, that there might be some type of family bond, but that's a complete myth. Parents only take decent care of their kids if the state watches their every move like a hawk. Fear of prison is what makes a good parent. Only the state truly cares about the children.

Wow your sarcasm totally overrides the fact that parents frequently mistreat their children!

Strawmen ITT

Well, I'm sure fear of prison does stop certain people from doing it. But more than that, there is a system designed to prevent that type of behaviour when it does happen. A child can be noticed by a teacher, who talks to the principal, who talks to child protection services, etc.

I really can't see how this is a grey area.

Parents are 100% responsible to teach and train their children. That responsibility should be layed on the parents 100%. Public schooling is not the ideal situation for learning, although its the norm and the way it is.

The children biblically begin to be responsible for their own actions around the age of 12-14. This is the age when God considers their decisions/believing their own. Something happens inside mentally around these ages where they begin to make their own decisions, so the years before this are very crucial in teaching and training your children.

From that point on they begin to become more and more independent ect....

I still do not understand why a parent would think it would be anyone elses responsibility to raise their children. I think that our society is so lazy in that area. So many are more interested in making money to supposedly help their family lead better lives but they neglect the proper raising of their children which is really what needs to be done in order to have their children lead better lives.

Proper teaching of the simple biblical principles in life go a long way, such as a hard work ethic, thankfulness, honesty, giving, and many more. Most children now days are so damn spoiled ints amazing, I know its not 100% the parents fault, its our stupid fast paced, highly money oriented culture that isbrought up on MTV and Movies that really hurts the family core depending on what is allowed to be watched. These things shape all people, escpecially children.

well i consider that child abuse, so therefore it is not ok for parents to teach their kids whatever the hell they want. and when that kid then grows up and learns to think for him/herself and realizes that everything he/she learned as a kid was complete bull****, he/she is probably not going to be too happy about it. which will only result in problems for the parents. so it is actually harmful for both parties. and harming someone else is not allowed, even though it limits your personal freedoms.

Evident by the statistically proven much lower rate of crime, longer lifespan, higher satisfaction from life and higher contribution to charity among christians compared to atheists, amirite?

This exactly. What you propose, EvilSteve, is only for the benefit of the parents and is completely against the children's interests.

Children will have significant limits on their personal freedom no matter what. Either their parents will make decisions on their behalf, or the state will make decisions on their behalf, or some combination of the two. Some forms of parental indoctrination may be harmful to them. But the same is true of state indoctrination. So the choice is between parental indoctrination or state indoctrination, not parental indoctrination or no indoctrination. If you think state indoctrination is preferable, fine. Obviously I disagree.

As will adults. This isn't a valid argument

And we can make rough estimations of which option is preferable in certain instances, and which option is more likely to cause damage or unnecessarily limit the rights of those involved, etc. The state is not, of course, making decisions on anyone's behalf, it is trying to place laws down that assist in the protection of the rights of the child. Any and all laws against abuse operate on this principle.

At any point during a debate between one person arguing for state intervention on a certain matter and another arguing against it, the person opposing will make this mistake. Using the phrase "the state" is almost always excessively simplistic, and in cases like this basically tows the line toward being simply disingenuous.

First, the reasonable alternative to parental indoctrination is not state indoctrination, it's NO indoctrination, at least on a given issue.

Second, and more towards my earlier point, "the state" is not an entity making unilateral decisions. At its best and most effective, it is simply implementing what can be reasonably assumed to be the lessons of society. While the common argument would be that this simply does not happen, it quite frequently does. I'm very skeptical of the state when one action or the other is very clearly in its own self-interest (think taxes). I'm also skeptical of state action in situations where the intent is not to protect rights that are clearly being threatened. In situations like this one, the same arguments cannot be used.

Nanny state overreach is possible and common, frequently to protect rights that many people don't think exist (the right to attend a bar and avoid cigarette smoke, for example). But the state frequently, and justly, steps on the rights of some if the flexing of those rights is infringing upon the rights of others. When the protection of the latter rights is more important than the former (and in this case I think it clearly is), I have no issue with it.

Once again, false dichotomy.

Yeah, but they aren't. My daughter had some idiot tell her that the Neanderthals did the cave paintings. It was on a test. I've taught teachers, seriously, they can barely keep up with the myriad state requirements and they don't understand much of anything, anyway, on this topic.

Let's ban it all. Then reintroduce music, logic, philosophy. Could we just teach 'em to read and think and ask questions? Let them debate it amongst themselves. Graduate them at 16 and "uninvent" adolescence.

Has anyone looked at the literacy rate amongst high schoolers in this country lately?

Hey, teach the Bible, for all I care, just make 'em all read it - or anything.

Except that there are some really abusive parents out there with innocent children.

You might want to revise that 100% to a lower number.

There is plenty of time to talk to the children about dogma at church on Sunday. Although America is predominently a Christian nation we respect diverisity as a state. Teaching creationism in public schools should be a non-issue, just the same as founding 'The Church of America' as the official state church is a non-issue.

As an aside, does anyone know why philosophy is not thought in public school? I'll post the response I got from one of my professors later.

For the third or fourth time, I request an example of where "the state" delivers harmful indoctrination in modern developed countries.

The only "indoctrination" I can think of goes like this:
*) democracy and human rights are good
*) hate, racism, intolerance is bad
*) you are not the smartest person on earth
Poor brainwashed children, what has become of our world.

As it goes around here politicians would for the most part defer to a panel of experts, the experts would lay a broad framework for what could be taught and the individual would move within these limits. This suggestion would be reviewed by a panel of different experts and any controversial material would probably be brought in the representative assembly and inquiries be performed by a control commitee which again would probably get an independent panel of experts to aid them. Other control mechanisms would be the media and bringing the case up to international courts (this has been done in my country and changes were made).

The experts would be educated in universities and colleges, and the curriculum at universities/colleges is outside political control.

I don't know how it is in other parts of the world, but I can't imagine this model is unique. I find it naive to portray the reality like anyone who happens to be voted to power can give the order to schools to teach that the prime minister is the big father and songs must be sung in his praise.

DARE

...

I know it's not required indoctrination but i believe it's harmful indoctrination.

If that's the worst example you can come up with, I rest my case.

If you think DARE isn't harmful you have no case.

I rest it anyway.