Where freedom of religion ends

[Trey of Diamonds]

Not any more complex than when religion isn't a factor.

I know you wish it to be so but that just isn't the case, sorry if reality is raining on your parade. Of couse we could just impose a totalitarian form of government, remove all citizens rights and life would be simple indeed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I know you wish it to be so but that just isn't the case, sorry if reality is raining on your parade.

Ooh, ooh, let me try that.

"You're wrong - nanny nanny boo boo!"

 

[Levite]

So then you're calling for a general relaxation of these sorts of laws? I mean, there's another thread here on RF about a case where a woman has gotten into trouble for allowing her 10-year-old son to be tattooed; you would have these sorts of laws repealed?

My main point is just that under the status quo, things don't generally work the way you suggest... except when it comes to religious practices, so it seems like you're advocating a rather marked change from the current state of things.

I disagree. I think that what I am saying is fairly reflective of the status quo. Parents are generally allowed to make decisions for their kids, and the government steps in and overrules them very rarely, and usually only when there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the child is in serious danger.

As for the boy being tattooed, I would probably want to know context. If it's just because the parents enjoy tattooes and think it would be adorable to tattoo their son, then yes, I would probably say that it should not be allowed. Since it bears no relevance to their culture, religion, or philosophy of life, and there is no compelling reason the child cannot wait until he is older to get a tattoo, then the parents should restrain themselves, and if not, then tattoo artists should be prohibited from tattooing the kid. But if it did happen, and the kid got tattooed anyway, I wouldn't think it was a particularly deep breach of parental ethics. They should be cautioned from doing it again, but it's not like the kid should be taken away from them or anyone should go to jail.

If, though, they were (for example) Maoris, and ritual tattooing is a deep-seated part of their culture, and the first tattoos are a major rite of passage, then I think they should be permitted to get the boy tattooed if that is the age at which Maoris are traditionally first tattooed.

The OP talked about medical decisions. I consider any decision about whether or not to have surgery - even minor cosmetic surgery - to be a medical decision.

Yeah, I hear that. And in a certain technical sense, I don't dispute it. I just think there is a very large gray area, and much of it is not worth society intervening in home life, and a fair part of it is just not worth society getting its knickers in a twist over. There are way too many other things of more importance to worry about.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

"You're wrong - nanny nanny boo boo!"

Touche

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree. I think that what I am saying is fairly reflective of the status quo. Parents are generally allowed to make decisions for their kids, and the government steps in and overrules them very rarely, and usually only when there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the child is in serious danger.

In the specific cases we're talking about here, I don't think so. The most glaring example is that some states still have religious exemptions from the normal medical care requirements for children.

And in the case of admittely less life-threatening practices, religious circumcision is allowed but not generally practices like tattooing, scarification or branding. I mean, the pain or lasting damage of a cigar burn would probably be less than that of circumcision, but it would probably be grounds to immediately remove a child from a home while the religious ritual is acceptable.

I mentioned earlier the case of vegan (and stupid) parents who killed their baby by malnutrition by feeding him soy milk instead of breast milk; they went to jail. Many, many similarly stupid (IMO) parents who killed their sick children by treating them with prayer instead of medicine are still at large, since they aren't guilty of any crime where they live.

Also, it's going a bit beyond the scope of medicine and treatment of children, but IIRC, a soldier can get reassigned from combat duties if he converts to a religion that teaches pacifism, but not if he arrives at pacifism as a non-religious conviction.

IMO, religious practices generally more leeway than other practices do... even ones that are deeply held.

As for the boy being tattooed, I would probably want to know context.

Here's the thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/current-events/127162-mom-arrested-allowing-10-year-old.html

Since there's already a discussion going on about it, I don't want to pull things off-topic with it here.

Yeah, I hear that. And in a certain technical sense, I don't dispute it. I just think there is a very large gray area, and much of it is not worth society intervening in home life, and a fair part of it is just not worth society getting its knickers in a twist over. There are way too many other things of more importance to worry about.

But my point is that in a lot of areas, we already "get our knickers in a twist" about less important things. A consistent approach would either be to concern ourselves with these religious things as well, or to give similar non-religious practices a free pass too.