Do you think that freedom of religion (which includes the choice to not practice it) should be extended to minors? Say a kid who comes from a deeply religious family decides at age twelve or thirteen that he would rather not participate in his parents rituals of faith, should the law protect him from having to go along with it?

That's a good question. Some kids actually do have a good idea at that age what they believe & others are not as mature about things like that. As far as religion, I think generally kids are pretty much stuck with parental influence until they are of age. Religion can have a profound impact on a persons life, one way or the other. So it's probably best left to be a more adult decision. Twelve or thirteen is a little young but by the time a child is working & paying bills parents should respect their children's beliefs & wishes even if they're still living at home.

Shale wrote:

So in my mid teens I became an atheist and fortunately, no one tried to force me to go to church. Now my sister married a minister - so you can see it is an individual choice.

Being forced generally doesn't turn out well.

I don't think so. It comes down to "when you live under my roof, you gonna abide by my rules". People have the right to place certain expectations on members of their household. When someone has the means to support themselves, they can go off and do their own thing. Until then, go get ready for church.

Chris wrote:

Do you think that freedom of religion (which includes the choice to not practice it) should be extended to minors? Say a kid who comes from a deeply religious family decides at age twelve or thirteen that he would rather not participate in his parents rituals of faith, should the law protect him from having to go along with it?

Yes and I believe it already does. For instance, there have been several cases where a father wanted his son circumcised because it was a tradition or through religious beliefs. The son was already like 10 or 12 years old and didn't want that done. It went to court and the court decided that the child was old enough to decide for himself what he wanted and that the parents choice could not be forced on him.

http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/should-a-nineyearold-boy-be-circumcised-against-his-mothers-wishes/article173170.html

I'd say that if by like the age of 12 or so, the religous upbringing hasn't taken root, it's probably a lost cause and dragging the kid to church isn't going to change that but I can see many parents invoking the "my house, my rules" rule. Short of a court case as captainbryce mentioned, I don't think the kid has much of a choice.

Chris wrote:

Do you think that freedom of religion (which includes the choice to not practice it) should be extended to minors? Say a kid who comes from a deeply religious family decides at age twelve or thirteen that he would rather not participate in his parents rituals of faith, should the law protect him from having to go along with it?

Religion shouldn't be enforced on anyone....not even kids. I'm not saying that a parent shouldn't seek to raise their child within the confines of their faith, but it shouldn't be a 'THIS IS A MUST'. By the time a kid is old enough to pick out his own clothes, he should be allowed to decide if he wants to continue participating in his families religion.

AtownPeep wrote:

I don't think so. It comes down to "when you live under my roof, you gonna abide by my rules". People have the right to place certain expectations on members of their household. When someone has the means to support themselves, they can go off and do their own thing. Until then, go get ready for church.

I agree. Within reason, you abide by the rules of your legal guardian. That means going to church. If you think you're old enough to not go, support yourself and see how it goes.

I love how people want to stand up for letting minors do what they want but the parents are still expected to provide all food, clothing, and shelter.

Maybe there are exceptions such as refusal to undergo circumcision(although if you don't have it done to your kid in infancy but wanna do it later, you're just being an ass ), or something like that. But going to church on Sunday isn't torture.

Now, forcing is probably not the best or smartest method, granted. But it all comes down to "my house, my rules." If you don't like it, leave and see how you do.

This is a very hard one for me. I think that for the most part, such a law would only be utilized by kids like that kid who called 911 for not liking dinner. And not by kids who are suffering some how by being forced to practice as their parents do.

I think about that show with the guy with four wives. I know they have teens. I do tend to think a teen in a lifestyle like that should be able to go to another home if they feel they are against living as such.

This is an interesting question. I support a child knowing his own mind, but if religious observance is a house rule and the child is underage, then I'm going to have to ultimately side with the parents. Every roof has its "conditions".