THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, ARTICLE 14, SUBSECTIONS 1 AND 2: A THREAD

DISCLAIMER: RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND LEGIT PHILOSOPHERS MAY BE OFFENDED OR OUTRAGED, SO I SHALL EXPECT TO LOSE FOLLOWERS...

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1988) was a welcome pan-national agreement on how children's rights should be endorsed and protected. I am not disagreeing with its existence

In 2010, after 1 year of teaching a children's literature module, on which I had many children's studies students, I was concerned about how they struggled with the module, being that they came from a social science background and were now studying literature

So, I decided to take up the generous offer of my institution, and study the Children's Studies module that those students did, to gain a greater understanding of their origins and pathway

One part of the module required me to write an essay on the UNCRC. I relished the challenge. But I had a problem with Article 14, subsections 1 and 2:

Article 14 subsection 1 states: "1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion". Like that other thread I wrote about from the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. So far so good

Subsection 2: "2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the PARENTS and, when applicable, LEGAL GUARDIANS, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving
capacities of the child"

"In a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". Parents and legal guardians. That's fine...I guess. So they're providing 'direction'. That can only be good, as long as the parents and legal guardians have child's best interests at heart

"Evolving capacities of the child", fine. This will obviously vary with every child and depend on their age, country of origin, socio-economic group maybe, level of education, and neuro-diversity (just learnt that word today, love it)

So, where my problem lies, and what I find troubling is that children don't have their own thought, conscience and religion. These are decided by their parents or guardians. For the most part, they are not old enough...

...nor do they have the required cognitive skills to decide this for themselves. So their ideologies are decided by their parents or guardians. I am not arguing against this. I would not ask my once 3-year-old "would you like to be a socialist like Mummy?"

But...what I find problematic is how long does a parent or guardian get to decide a child's religion or belief? I remember an interview with Richard Dawkins, arguing against imposing religious belief on children saying...

"You wouldn't say "I have a Conservative child, or I have a postmodern child, any more than you should be allowed to say 'I have a Christian child, or I have a Muslim child'. So although the UNCRC allows for the 'direction' of a child's carers...

It ignores the thoughts and voice of the child once (in its own words) its capacity has evolved. But when does that happen. I have an example. A Catholic friend of mine has 3 children. They were all baptised, first communion etc.

The middle child reached 15 and was due for his final communion. He now identified as an atheist and didn't want to do it. The parents were insistent, and quite aggressive about it. The child was also insistent.

Where does the child stand on this? As it turned out, they reached a compromise (with my help). The child would go through with the ceremony to appease the extended family, and never have to set foot inside a church afterwards

Sadly this dispute went on for ages, and caused some friction in the family. I, of course, supported the young man who identified as an atheist, even though it's none of my business, but the mother did seek counsel from me so I just told her how I felt

So my question is, how much should parents control their children's freedom of choice in this regard? Sorry it took so long. I await responses with a great deal of trepidation and fear.