Which is fine. Families have the right to criticize each other for how they raise their children and to enforce common norms, where they genuinely believe decisions to be harmful. If my brother was raising my nephews/nieces in a way that I felt was harmful you bet he’d get an earful. Families aren’t just federations of sovereign individuals. Kids are community property.
I'm not sure why you think the genuineness of a belief is relevant when it comes to scrutinizing harmful actions based on those beliefs. Lots of people genuinely believe in a lot of harmful things. Some people genuinely believe they need to kick their gay kid out on the street in order for them to learn what's good for them. Some people with great political power genuinely believe that starting an apocalyptic war in the Middle East will usher in the glorious return of their deity. You can genuinely believe that smoking is harmful to unborn children, and you can genuinely believe that leaving the Mormon church will damn your family forever. One of those beliefs is warranted.
Kicking a gay kid out would be a reward compared to those conversion camp things that are so horrible... at least on their own they don't have to put up w/ the parent's abuse, neglect etc... they should though be required to pay the kid child support until they're 25, to make up for being an asshole parent.
> I'm not sure why you think the genuineness of a belief is relevant when it comes to scrutinizing harmful actions based on those beliefs.
Because the substantive truth of the theology isn’t dispositive of whether family members have a right (in the social, not legal, sense) to criticize each other from departing from certain norms and practices.
For example, there is a lot of evidence showing that the supposed harms of moderate drinking during pregnancy are overstated, and the benefits of breast feeding are overstated. The effect of screen time on kids is also overstated. Just because someone might conclude that advice is wrong, does that mean family members are out of bounds for giving that advice? Or that people shouldn’t have to graciously accept it? There are boundaries, sure, but family members are entitled to express their views on how each other live their lives.
Beyond that, there are objective benefits to religion apart from the truth or falsity of the theological doctrine. Studies show that actively religious people tend to be significantly happier and more socially involved: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religio.... Is that a sufficient basis for family members to encourage each other to raise their kids within the community religion, irrespective of the truth of the theology?
Also, there are non-falsifiable moral judgments that are independent of but associated with religion. Secular US culture emphasizes individualism, self expression, and personal fulfillment. Many believe that kids should be raised with a strong sense of duty to family, and the expectation that their purpose in life is to work hard and raise families of their own. These ideas are independent of theological truth. Many non-religious people believe these things too. But if you think it’s important for kids to be consistently exposed to those ideas, you’ll find that most of the people who have those beliefs just happen to be either religious (or Asian, or both). Is it out of line for communities to encourage their members to conform to values that they believe are more conducive to a better world? Whether the underlying theology is true or false doesn’t change the answer.
> Because the substantive truth of the theology isn’t dispositive of whether family members have a right (in the social, not legal, sense) to criticize each other from departing from certain norms and practices.
Yes, it most definitely is!
> Just because someone might conclude that advice is wrong, does that mean family members are out of bounds for giving that advice?
No. But "just" because your "advice" is completely unsubstantiated, which you would notice if you cared to exercise a minimum of skepticism, that does mean that giving that advice is out of bounds.
The equivalent of pushing religion is not "breast feeding is healthy", the equivalent is "you should not vaccinate because that causes autism". Outright bullshit is not the same thing as possibly not 100% perfectly reliable science.
> Or that people shouldn’t have to graciously accept it?
We are obviously talking about a situation where someone in the family has made a conscious decision to leave the religion behind. That is obviously not a situation where they should be expected to graciously accept any further pestering on religion, because that is obviously overstepping a known boundary of that person.
(Note that that is different from trying to talk to them about religion, where there is genuine interest in understanding their position, rather than just the intent to convince them to come back--that is perfectly fine as long as the person does not explicitly state otherwise.)
I’m thinking you’re reading “community property” more literally than I intended it—with the focus on “property” and not “community.” Obviously children are not property. But children are also not independent adults. They must be socialized. Legal codes all over the world, including the UN Declaration of Human Rights, recognize that parents have a right to choose how to socialize their children. My point is that communities are also entitled to have a say, or at least express their views, in how children in their community are socialized.
(“Community property” is a legal concept in the US where assets belong to both spouses simultaneously, with each spouse having a full, undivided interest. The metaphor is to express that family and the community has an interest in each child, not that children are property.)
I think the words you're using here are --- if not unclear, then at least "not carefully chosen to avoid offending this particular audience", but the point you're making is pretty straightforward, and it's not hard to think of comparable secular parenting decisions that we generally have no trouble criticizing parents over.
But there's also a subtext here, which is that there's a distinction to be made between good-faith, substantive parenting critiques and externally-mandated arbitrary critiques. If there's institutional pressure to ostracize former members of a community, that's problematic. I think you probably have to acknowledge that subtext to really engage on this topic --- which, who could blame anyone for not wanting to really engage on religion on HN?
> If there's institutional pressure to ostracize former members of a community, that's problematic.
I’m not sure, in 2020, I agree. I’m sensitive to the issue. The penalty for apostasy in Islam is death. But I don’t begrudge all the Pakistani cab drivers who try to convert me. They believe they’re doing me a favor. (I’m never the one to bring it up obviously. It always arises awkwardly when I mention that I’m from Bangladesh and then they assume I’m Muslim.)
Leaving religion out of it — nobody has a right to be accepted by a community. In a free society people can leave, but can they really demand a particular sort of treatment?
It’s a minority view that is of little relevance today and which will become even less relevant as Asians, Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, and Indians rise to cultural and economic dominance.
> It’s a minority view that is of little relevance today
It's the majority view where I live (European Union) and it is also the law here, and there is little reason to think that this will change in the foreseeable future, so pretty relevant to me, I would say.
> and which will become even less relevant as Asians, Africans, Chinese, Latin Americans, and Indians rise to cultural and economic dominance.
Why does there have to be "dominance"? Can't we all just get along and respect each other? Including our children?
> We’re talking about a social rule here, not a legal one.
Legal rules don't exist in a void, they usually originate from social norms. Of course, social norms evolve, and so do laws.
> Is your family or community entitled to tell you you’re raising your children wrong,
Entitled? Of course not.
> and must you graciously accept that criticism?
Must? No. It is wise of me to consider the criticism of those that earned my respect, as well as it is wise of those whose respect I earned to consider mine. But again, respect is earned. My parents were very nice to me and deserve all of my respect, but unfortunately I have witnessed many situations were parents do not deserve the respect of their children. It's not an automatic status that comes from procreating.
> In almost the entire world, including much of Eastern Europe, the answer is “yes.”
Also in my own culture (Southern Europe) until not so long ago. I know of cases of children being driven to suicide because of such norms. No thanks, I prefer the new norms here.
> That is the better answer.
That is your opinion, but if you care to provide an actual argument I am willing to listen.
> The places where that answer is not true are not only a minority, but are declining in cultural significance. (Arguably, the dead-end detour into a highly individualistic culture is partly responsible for that decline.)
You seem to be obsessed with the collapse of western culture. I'm not sure what this even means. We are all confronting a global existential crisis (climate change), perhaps time to let go of these petty conflicts?
We’re talking about a social rule here, not a legal one. Is your family or community entitled to tell you you’re raising your children wrong, and must you graciously accept that criticism? In almost the entire world, including much of Eastern Europe, the answer is “yes.” That is the better answer. The places where that answer is not true are not only a minority, but are declining in cultural significance. (Arguably, the dead-end detour into a highly individualistic culture is partly responsible for that decline.)
