11 of 70

Write now Article Tools

We would be horrified if our laws permitted one adult to force their religion on another adult without their consent. Why are we not horrified that our laws say parents can force their religion on their hapless children? The Supreme Court gave parents the right to teach children the tenets and the practices of their faith back in 1944. (Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 164 (1944).

The facts about early childhood development are fairly well established. Children's little minds are like sponges and they have no critical defenses. Indeed this is what makes the practice of religious indoctrination so morally objectionable. Religions that officially sanction the practice do so because they know the earlier they start on the tots the better. The practice is calculated, devious, and unfair. Leave aside parental motivations, which I must stress I am convinced are probably noble and well intentioned. However, I am troubled by institutional motivations - since they have to maintain membership rolls they have vested financial interests. Can no one see this?

If parents consign their children to religious indoctrination out of love and it is harmful how are we to consider this? It matters not if a careless driver loves you or hates you when he crashes into you. The result is the same, and the result of a careless driver's actions are what society goes after them for. But people who defend early childhood religious indoctrination claim no harm is done by the practice. Children once grown can always switch religion or drop it all together. Oh, yeah? Try running that by grandmother. Consider one of the most devious slogans every devised by an adman: the family that prays together stays together. In heaven, we are to suppose.

There is this myth that religions can only do good, but this is trivial to dispel if one is open to searching for the truth. Religion divides people into little cages and then attempts to lock the cages so no one can escape. Families, communities and nations pay the price. Once imbued with the idea that we humans are ruled by a powerful supernatural being that can even read our thoughts who would want to buck up against such a being? Even worse, some fundamentalists plant the notion that the supreme ruler of the universe is devious to boot! This is psychological abuse of children and has no place in a society that advertises itself as a defender of human rights. Don't children have human rights?

Religions have been given carte blanc in our country to do as they please. Now it is time we take stock and examine where we are. And yes I said the Supreme Court has decided parents can instruct their minor children in whatever religion they chose. This practice is legal so how can it possibly be wrong? (Pierce vs Mass 1944). But, please recall the supreme court gave approval for racial segregation in housing, employment and education, and to laws against miscegenation, so that's certainly not an iron clad argument. The supreme court also decided against women's suffrage. In Myner v. Happerstett the US Supreme Court ruled that being a citizen does not guarantee suffrage. It was not until the 1920s that women finally had suffrage granted to them.

Times change, Pierce was decided 64 years ago. We move on, our understanding improves, and we should continually strive to make better choices that do not disadvantage one group with respect to another. Particularly, in this case disadvantage children's interests versus their parents free exercise of religion interests. Why should the free exercise clause be so broadly interpreted? Children have rights, or they sure ought to have them by now.

Learn more about this author, Richard Collins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Pushing your religion on others?
We want to hear your view. Write now!