Do people who are under age 18 have, under the law, freedom of religion?

[Boojatta]

Should they?

If they shouldn't, then it seems that there should be some legally mandated period starting at age 18 when people are free to explore religion, but cannot make any legally binding commitment to a religion. For example, the period might be from age 18 to age 30.

If religious institutions today rely upon donations from people who are between 18 and 30, then they should advise their followers who can afford to have three children, and who would normally have used some combination of reproducing and adoption to have three children, to instead have two children and donate the savings to religious institutions.

[cleanhippie]

1. They SHOULD, but they don't for the most part. They have a religion forced upon them.

The strong argument could be made that doing such a thing is akin to child abuse.

[Boojatta]

2. Guess who wrote this ...

And whether or not they will believe it, there are greater judgments hanging over the Christians for their remissness than ever the Jews felt. But the world loves to be deceived; they will not understand; they never consider equally, but are wholly led by prejudice, self-interest, the praise of men, and the authority of the Church they live in: as is plain because all parties keep close to the Religion they have been brought up in,

From:
Untitled treatise on Revelation

...


...


...


...


...


...


...


...

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00135

[Mariana]

3. What would constitute a legally binding commitment to a religion?

Is there even such a thing?

[Boojatta]

4. Is some countries, apostasy is a crime.

Unless I am mistaken, apostasy is renouncing one's commitment to a religion that one was committed to. However, there are commitments to religion that aren't as strong.

Any legal contract is legally binding in the sense that the law provides remedies for breach of contract. The transfer of money is a kind of event that the law recognizes, and the transfer of money usually occurs subject to the terms of some implicit or explicit contract.

Perhaps I should have started by asking whether or not it should be legal for people who aren't adults to donate money to a religious institution. That question arises before we get into the idea of a cooling off period with respect to religion that could start when somebody reaches legal adulthood and begins to have a legally recognized right to make decisions with respect to religion.

[ButterflyBlood]

5. I know a guy who is 29 and starting a church, so what?

Since this proposal would make what he's doing illegal, how could it even be constitutional? And for that matter does everyone who wishes to go into seminary have to wait until they're 30 after finishing an undergrad too under this proposal?

[Boojatta]

6. Your questions are good.

My answer is that this thread was probably a bad idea.

[Deep13]

7. Yes they do, but with a gigantic caveat...

...since they are minors, their parents speak for them on religious matters.

[skepticscott]

8. They have the same freedom of religion

that the law guarantees to everyone else, the right not to have government compel or restrict their religious beliefs or practices.

[Boojatta]

9. I disagree.

The government gives custody rights to biological parents, and in so doing the government is the enforcer that allows parents to impose their religion on their children.

[skepticscott]

10. Your own language bankrupts your argument

If the government only "allows" parents to do something, they are not acting as an "enforcer". Laws granting custody rights are no more a government restriction on free exercise than laws granting private property rights constitute a government restriction on freedom of movement or free speech on that property, even if the private owner chooses to exercise their right to impose those restrictions.

[Boojatta]

11. Placement of the word "only" before the word "allows" is your contribution.

Enforcement occurs when a child has gotten away and the government brings the child back. In doing that, the government isn't merely allowing something. The government is preventing the child from staying away from the parents.

If the law allowed every public school teacher to attempt to indoctrinate students with the teacher's religion, then the law against truancy would be the basis for enforcement. Parents who were upset about such indoctrination attempts wouldn't be satisfied if it were demonstrated that the religion of people who apply for jobs as teachers has no influence over the hiring decision. From the point of view of parents, that would simply mean that the law is creating situations that allow some randomly chosen religion to be imposed on their children.