What If Kids Said "NO"?

We know that one of the most effective attractors of colonial America was the freedom of religious expression.  Puritans, Quakers, Calvinists, you name it - all were welcome.  This doesn't really appear to have been tested to a great extent by those of Jewish and Islamic faiths, but there does not seem to be any record of persecution of these groups, so it would seem the only serious "religious" persecution was centered around the Salem witch trials (which were actually probably politically and civilly-motivated, but spun to make it an issue of witchcraft and Satanic dealings to get the public behind it).
In any case, as my wife and I prepare my own children for their own formal religious education (we're Catholic), and as I continue my philosophical and religious explorations throughout my adult life, I'm wondering what would happen if my kids said "no" to church.  Would they have the protection of the Constitution on their side?  What would the Supreme Court hold, assuming the sensational case would eventually ascend to their wise judgement?  As their parents, we are responsible for their physical, educational, and moral upbringing, and though moral behavior exists with or without religion, the two are frequent companions.
So it would seem that it would be well within our parental rights, even responsibilities, to expose them to, or force upon them, whatever religious indoctrination that we deem appropriate.  If this seems like a harmless supposition (after all, Catholics as an organization haven't brutally harmed other groups en masse in CENTURIES, or at least decades, not including defenseless child victims of sexually abusive clergy), then take it a giant step further:  what if the parents were not Christian?  What if they weren't monotheistic?  What if, even more shocking, they were Satanists?  Would you then afford those parents the same "religious freedom" protection to force that indoctrination onto their 5, 6, or 7 year old children?  Of course not.  But what about a gray area that exemplifies the non-black and white term perfectly for most of us, since we don't really know anything about it:  what about Scientology?  Many people think it's a bit nutty, maybe even financially harmful to its adherents, but not associated with illegal physical harm or anything of that nature.  Are those parents allowed to force their beliefs on their children, against their children's will?
Fortunately, my wife and I share a strong religious faith and it is very appealing to our children at this point in their lives, so there are no conflicts.  But what if they refused to believe?  What if they refused to even enter the Church?  Who could they turn to for help or protection, and what would that authority say to them?  What would our courts say?

Comments

[Shefaly]

".. Jewish and Islamic faiths, but there does not seem to be any record of persecution of these groups.."

Worth: do you really believe Jewish people have not been persecuted for being Jewish? 8-) I think persecution underlines much of Jewish history.

"... after all, Catholics as an organization haven't brutally harmed other groups en masse in CENTURIES, or at least decades, not including defenseless child victims of sexually abusive clergy..."

Oooh.. I hope none of the protestants in Northern Ireland is reading this (although history does tell us about how it all started); What about the girls in the Magdalene laundries? And the involvement of the Church in a civil war in Rwanda by siding with the Hutus?

I am only asking. I have no axe to grind agaist any religious group. I am still learning about the many sects in Christianity in Europe and how they shape people's behaviours.

As for your question re parents' role and religious education of children: I imagine that both under international convention and the US bill of rights (or equivalent), they would be free to turn their backs on any religion or enter any other religion.

In today's PC world - and because of a minority out to harm rather than care for children - children have more rights than parents do, in some societies and I think you and I both live in such societies.

I think the deeper question is: who has authority over children? The parents who carry out their responsibilities well? Or the remote, uninvolved State?

[worth]

Thank you, as always, for your international point of view. Of COURSE Jews have always been persecuted around the world throughout their history! My post was intended to be relegated to the state of affairs, past and present, in the U.S. Yes, there is more than enough anti-Semitism to go around, even in the U.S., but we don't have the kind of headline-grabbing "events" in that realm that many other parts of the world do.
There is the deeper question of who has authority over children, and there is also the question of how much religion would there be in the world, and what would the distribution of each sect be, if not for parental influence over their children's faith (what I refer to as "indoctrination")? I think it odd that in a matter as important as this, the very eternal soul of the child (if that is your belief), it is largely the parents' choice with regard to what becomes of that soul. I'm not advocating anything here, but merely wondering, what if children were "taught" a wide variety of very different religious philophies and histories along with their words and numbers, then allowed to choose when they reached the age of "maturity" that some religions recognize (for Catholics, called Confirmation, at around age 14, and for Jews, the Bar and Bat Mitzvah, I believe also around that same age)? Which would "win"? I would think those that spread through military expansion/empire and forced coercion, i.e. Christianity and Islam, may not fare as well as Judaism or Buddhism or many others that aren't even on our radar.
Thanks Shefaly, and that British/European & Indian perspective is enouraged whenever you find the time!

[Sandy]

Catholics as an organization haven't brutally harmed defenseless child victims - certain sexually abusive members of the clergy have!!!

[worth]

I'm sorry Sandy, but I must disagree. If an organization knowingly allows proven pedophiles to interact in an unsupervised setting with children, and goes to every length to ensure that the individual's history of pedophilia remains a "private" matter and hides it from unsuspecting children and parents, then that organization is brutally harming defenseless children. If, on the other hand, they actively and transparently attempt to root out all clergy members with documented (by the Church in the form of complaints by parents who are sworn to secrecy in exchange for their settlements from the Church) incidents, then I would agree that the organization should not be (as) at fault. Unfortunately, we don't have that happier situation to deal with at this time.

[Sandy]

so every church in every parish in every state is guilty of what you say? then and only then can you call out the entire Chatholic Church, no?

[Shefaly]

Worth: Seems the pingback did not work. Anyway you may be interested in this inadvertent meme on parenting and religion that seems to be making its way through my end of the blogosphere:

http://laviequotidienne.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/a-chain-of-posts-parenting-religion-and-a-childs-perspective/

This is of course my post but it refers to the others that discuss the same thing.

Thanks.

[Shefaly]

I know it is a bit cheeky but do you plan to implement a search function on your blog?

Sometimes I want to cross-ref but find it a bit difficult to refer to specific posts because I cannot find them. :-(

Thanks

[worth]

Shefaly: search functionality, coming right up (I've had the same issue on my own blog, I'm ashamed to admit)! I have had a search box before, but it slowed down the site. That was several months ago, so I'll go find some more candidates and try them out. Suggestions?

Also, I did read your long post that you mentioned in your Comments here today. I only wish it were longer. Truly great stuff, in my opinion. I have lots to say about some of what you wrote, and I'm torn between responding in these Comments, or in Comments at your blog, or in an entire long post of my own. I believe I'll go with posting them on your blog's Comments, once I get a few more uninterrupted moments.

[Shefaly]

Worth: Thanks.

The comments are following in many places - on AUM, on TRF and on mine. I had so little time y'day that I did not read all the comments on my own blog and did not respond to them. They need serious time, not my stretch-break minutes. At this stage of the thesis, I am not taking serious time out... :-(

Looking forward to your comments. Thanks so much.