I think it's dishonest to describe trying to force someone else to follow your value system as you following your value system.The right to leave is not a right valued by the community of practitioners. By telling them that they have to value it, you are imposing your values on them. is that your intent? To tell others that they have no right to follow their value system because it doesn't conform to what you think is right?
I'm just one voice - and one vote - out of many.But I don't care if you honor my right to do anything. Unless you are a governmental representative (and my right to practice is conferred or denied by government) or your not honoring me infringes on that governmental right that I do have, then I have no interest in whether you honor what I follow.
But if you care what rights the government enshrines, understand that my government - like many others - does not recognize the rights of a "collective." The only rights a collective has come from the individual rights of its members.
It's one of them, yes.But you tie what is being taught (which is an extension of communal values) with the economic independence which you say is key to leaving.
No, failing to provide basic education to children is an infringement of their rights in and of itself, and it sets them up for coercion and abuse later in life.So educating people in a way which is of value to the community becomes tantamount to abuse because it doesn't give over the freedom to leave the system? I see that as a stretch.
You can teach kids as much about the Torah or the Talmud as you like; just don't neglect the fundamentals that any person will need to be a functioning adult.
Someone who has a PhD in literature got a high school education that included basic math, science, civics, etc., and decided for themselves to specialize.The modern biological system produces children who are prime candidates for abuse. Making a generalization like this is not particularly useful. Saying "they are well versed in something highly prized within the community" doesn't make them victims. In a system which values plumbing, a PhD in Literature has received substandard education.
And again: the victimization isn't from what you do teach them, but from what you fail to teach them.
On what grounds?I only think that the sub-society should be exempt from having certain larger values imposed on it.
... because of the impact on personal religious freedom if it were banned.We have a complex and highly argued area of law about exactly this. During prohibition, sacramental wine was allowed.
... because religious freedom has limits. It isn't license to do whatever you want regardless of its impact on others (whether animals or humans).But animal sacrifice is not.
You are the steward of your children's rights while they're too young to exercise their rights themselves. This is based on the presumption that parents have the best interests of the child in mind.I impose my values on my children all the time. I made them get certain shots, determined their dress code and controleld their diet because, as a responsible parent, and a member of a society which formed me and helped me determine what my values are, those variables because within my administrative purview.
This arrangement doesn't make your children your property, and it doesn't make it okay for you to try to deprive the adult that they'll become of choices they have every right to make.
Your right to practice your Jewish faith and your childrens' right to choose a different path, if that's what they decide, are the same right. It's hypocritical for you to deny this right for others while demanding it for yourself.