Religious Indoctrination of Minors

FunLover18

So I started a thread on this in AH and thought I might get the opinion of the LD forum.

Article 44, section 2.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states

Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practise of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen

So here's my query; could it be argued that the indoctrination of minors is a breach of these rights given that they have little choice in the matter?

I am aware that parents have a right to educate which I have absolutely no problem with but is there a legal line between education and indoctrination; because in my mind there is a clear line. Or does indoctrination of minors fall under the right to practise (which is surely a contradiction)?

I also want to point that as of this moment I have no intention to sue my parents for indoctrinating me it's just an issue I'm interested in

Pat Mustard

FunLover18 wrote: »

So here's my query; could it be argued that the indoctrination of minors is a breach of these rights given that they have little choice in the matter?

Well, it could be argued. But it's difficult to see the circumstances under which such an argument would succeed in Ireland at the moment, especially when you take into account the very pro-religion wording of Article 44.1 of the Constitution:

1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

Hopefully, somebody will come along to assist you who knows more about Constitutional law than I do.

catallus

Would indoctrination and education not be deemed to be the same thing, as in who is to argue the teaching of arithmetic is not indoctrination?

FunLover18

catallus wrote: »

Would indoctrination and education not be deemed to be the same thing, as in who is to argue the teaching of arithmetic is not indoctrination?

Well, this is the thing, maybe there isn't a legal line between education and indoctrination. In my view education would teaching minors that there are religions and teaching them about them; what they entail and their various beliefs. However indoctrination is actually teaching a minor to accept those beliefs and initiating them into a religion eg baptising, confirming, etc.
I would say that one can educate without indoctrinating.

catallus

I think the law/constitution very wisely gives freedom to the people to raise their children as they see fit and lets parents decide where to draw this "line".

FunLover18

catallus wrote: »

I think the law/constitution very wisely gives freedom to the people to raise their children as they see fit and lets parents decide where to draw this "line".

But from legal/constitutional perspective would the indoctrination of minors not interfere with their right to profess and practise their own religion?

catallus

FunLover18 wrote: »

But from legal/constitutional perspective would the indoctrination of minors not interfere with their right to profess and practise their own religion?

No. They're kids! Their parents own them.

bumper234

catallus wrote: »

Would indoctrination and education not be deemed to be the same thing, as in who is to argue the teaching of arithmetic is not indoctrination?

But you can easily prove that 2+2=4 but cannot prove that there is a god.

catallus wrote: »

I think the law/constitution very wisely gives freedom to the people to raise their children as they see fit and lets parents decide where to draw this "line".

I think this is about as correct a reply as you will get. I don't believe in the indoctrination of children into religion but at the end of the day children grow into adults who can make up their own minds if they decide to question their beliefs. I do feel religion shouldn't be taught in schools to young children but that's probably an argument for another thread.

Mikros

I don't think it can be much clearer:

Article 42

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

Parents have the natural right and duty to raise and provide for their children as they see fit, as long as they meet certain minimum requirements which the State will safeguard for the common good.

catallus

bumper234 wrote: »

But you can easily prove that 2+2=4

I would be reluctant to be so sure on that question.

bumper234 wrote: »

but cannot prove that there is a god.

A doubting Thomas! Burn him!

Ah no, seriously. Won't someone think of the children. :pac:

gctest50

catallus wrote: »

No. They're kids! Their parents own them.

Not quite - try teaching them an even more wonky religion and see what happens ....

Marcusm

bumper234 wrote: »

But you can easily prove that 2+2=4 but cannot prove that there is a god.

In river bifurcation the answer would be 3, in base 2 it would be 10.

FunLover18

Mikros wrote: »

I don't think it can be much clearer:

Article 42

1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

Parents have the natural right and duty to raise and provide for their children as they see fit, as long as they meet certain minimum requirements which the State will safeguard for the common good.

I see no mention of indoctrination though, that's the thing. Surely there's a difference between teaching a child about the Catholic religion and indoctrinating them into it?

I don't really understand how the constitution can guarantee a person their right to profess but then let their parents profess on their behalf. Is that not a huge contradiction?

catallus

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation, And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution."

Seems pretty clear cut to me, too.

ColdTurkey

catallus wrote: »

A doubting Thomas! Burn him! :pac:

I read this as:

A doubting Thomas! BUM him!

Pro Hoc Vice

FunLover18 wrote: »

So I started a thread on this in AH and thought I might get the opinion of the LD forum.

Article 44, section 2.1 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states



So here's my query; could it be argued that the indoctrination of minors is a breach of these rights given that they have little choice in the matter?

I am aware that parents have a right to educate which I have absolutely no problem with but is there a legal line between education and indoctrination; because in my mind there is a clear line. Or does indoctrination of minors fall under the right to practise (which is surely a contradiction)?

I also want to point that as of this moment I have no intention to sue my parents for indoctrinating me it's just an issue I'm interested in

Your idea is valid but who is going to vindicate the rights on behalf of the child. If a child does not want to be thought religion or indoctrinated, and the parents agree then no issue, if on the other hand the parents disagree then the issue is not a state one as the Constitution allows parents to decided whats in the child's best interest in relation to education.

The big issue with your case is locus.