Is freedom of religion paradoxical?

Question

When parents teach children to believe in a religion, they have the choice to reject it when they mature. However, by being indoctrinated, it becomes more difficult (especially in very devout and fanatical sects) to reject the religion. There are several reasons; rejecting a religion in more devout sects entails severe emotional, social, spiritual, and even financial consequences (disinheritance for instance!). Therefore that child can not be said to have genuine freedom of religion, as they are coerced into their so-called faith. One could tentatively say (and I say tentative to avoid abuse reports) that under coercion, faith can be interpreted as a rationalizing defense mechanism. On the other hand, so long as they live in a country with freedom of religion, they technically do have the legal right to make their own decision. Is this considered sufficient?

I am not asking about the governmental roler in religion, I am asking whether the term itself is paradoxical. If it is, then it would be inappropriate for any government to claim its citizens are entitled to such a right. Just as the bill of rights entitles U.S. citizens to the pursuit of happiness because it cannot grant happiness, so perhaps should it entitle us to the pursuit of religion, if that freedom is in fact paradoxical.

Answer 1

When it comes to children, yes it is. One could consider it to be child abuse to tell children what they believe (brainwashing).

Answer 2

It's not paradoxical because freedom of religion is a governmental right, meaning the government will not dictate or oppress any form of religion. It leaves those decisions to the individuals, which means it is not going to interfere with what is taught within the boundary of a family.

In some religions the family is firmly entwined in it's teachings, like Muslims and Mormons. Is this coercion or commitment? Children have strong influences by every aspect of their upbringing, not just religion. There are many worse patterns some must overcome than religious teachings.

We are all products of our upbringing. Whether it's positive or negative to us depends on our own perception and we do have the right to change those things we feel were negative. .

Answer 3

Thats all the involvement the government should have in the matter. The government should not sponsor a particular church or faith and should only set guidelines on what not to do when it comes to raising a child. By setting the freedom of religion, America's forefathers were saying that the government would not endorse any particular faith and that anyone was free to worship however they see fit, as long as it causes no harm to another. It is a good theory even if it doesnt always seem to work in practice.

Answer 4

Well, as a child they really need guidance that is why parenthood is a serious job, it's a huge responsibility. They cant really be serious about freedom for they are not still in capable of taking care of themselves nor make any major decisions. Kids are like a blank tape that records everything that is why it is important what you are feeding in especially teaching them about God. But as they grow old when they can already be responsible in their choices , then they can be totally free and of course their childhood has a great influence on the way they are thinking then. There is no paradoxity in here cause everything has an appointed time.

Answer 5

I have to agree with Jack. You're indoctrinating your children into "belief" as soon as they can understand "yes" or "no." Maybe you'd rather teach them nothing and let them "choose for themselves." Look into the statistics of individuals who were raised with some sort of religious beliefs compared to those who are not. There are higher rates of depression, suicide, etc, in the last group. People want to believe in the myth. It's a type of self-preservation mechanism apparently.

Answer 6

Freedom is an illusion. Humans are animals and compelled by the same biological urges as all other animals. One of those urges is to socialize with other animals who share the same ideas. It is a means of survival.

No one has freedom except on a very limited and temporary basis.

Answer 7

freedom of religion would go with the consequences of the actions. if someone feels as if they would lose a major part of them, then they have invested a major portion of their life into religion. I myslef grew up in a catholic household, but do not consider myself catholic at all. there are no lasting reprecussion for me and it was noterd in my upbringing. I decided to focus on secualr education as opposed to religious beliefs, but no one can assume freedom wihtout assuming resonsiblilty, so in losing the networks that are tied to the religion you are merely assuming the resonpsibilty of finding new networks that would support your newly choosen life.

Answer 8

Sad fact but you can't force people to treat people with open minded respect.