That depends on how it’s being used… trying to intimidate a child with objective facts can be equally manipulative to asserting they will go to hell if they do not follow your commandments. On the other hand, earnestly stating you believe their actions are going to set them on the course to fire and brimstone is not manipulative or coercive. The scientific veracity of the fact in question is irrelevant to how the speaker is using it. A true Christian will not intend to manipulate the child - their goal is to get it to believe as well, and this is no different from trying to socialize the child into adhering to the NAP.
Ok, so take it as a given that I believe some variation on this hell thing. Do you expect me not to warn my children about this situation? Am I helping them by neglecting to inform them of what God expects of them?
Problem is, at this point we part ways. You’re talking about supernatural things as if they were objective facts, but they are not. Of course, you’re free to say to your children whatever you want. And I’m free to think that religious indoctrination is a bad idea.
True enough, and you can talk about being the product of the union of monkeys as if it were an objective fact. But you haven’t really dealt with the question. Will you have me prosecuted for teaching my child what God wants of him? Will you try to have my children taken away from me?
Why is the question silly? You’ve referred to such teaching as coercion, to coercing your children as child abuse, and maintained the rights of children to not be coerced. I don’t see its silly, and I don’t see how you can consistently say no. You agree that children aren’t property, right? And that they shouldn’t be coerced? Then you add that religion is coercion.
Which is the crux of so many arguments here. There is what is rational, and then there is what it is. Life is not played out with pen and paper like D&D. Maybe it should be, but it is not.
It might be an Ad Hom, but it is hardly irrelevant. Unless the goal is to preach to the converted. Which is a very incestuous way to make sure change doesn’t happen.
That’s not the point he’s making. Children have to be told what to do. Otherwise they stick their fingers in electrical outlets, fall into standing water, eat nothing but candy, and play with matches. When you bring a child into the world, you accept the obligation to protect them from harm that they lack the intellectual ability to protect themselves from. At this point, they are certainly not at liberty, and otherwise they would be dead as a direct result of your neglect. When the child develops to the point of rational decision-making instead of just acting on impulse, your duty to your child has been discharged.
This development is fostered by the family structure, supported by the extended family and advised by religious faith. Our current system substitutes the state for these pre-state institutions, and the outcome is what you would expect: the job is never finished and you end up with adults who are actually children. Legal and governmental structures that originally presupposed citizens who were adults have been stretched and distorted far beyond what anybody originally intended in order to protect people who are otherwise unable to hold gainful employment, negotiate an arms-length business transaction, or safeguard their health. The system is of course parasitic on the productive efforts of the actual grown-ups, who cannot be allowed to secede.