Hell yes. The parent is responsible for the child's welfare. An adult of sound mind is free to refuse medical treatment on religious grounds, but they have NO right to make that decision for a minor.

Same logic ought to apply to circumcism.

BTW, please  use a visibgle font color in the futture.

I can barely spell oto begin with, much less so when I cannot see what I'm typing/.

Fortunately here in Canada there have been a few cases of the state removing custody of the child from the parents to perform life saving medical procedures on the child in opposition to religious beliefs held by the parents. More steps in this direction I fully support.

Interesting...  if this is so, and parents should not enforce their religion on a child when their life is in danger, does it not also follow that they shouldn't baptize their children, or have them take communion, or accept Jesus, until they're old enough to decide for themselves which religion they will choose?  After all, if the Muslims are right, they're going to burn in hell for something their parents did to them when they were not old enough to decide for themselves.

This is a pretty big thing, after all.  They're going to spend somewhere in eternity, right?  And there are more Muslims in the world than Christians... so maybe the Muslims are right...

Considering how much is at stake, I don't see how any parent could be loving and force a religion on their child.

I'm not suggesting I think the government should do it.  That would be kind of... horrible.  I just think that any theist who agrees with the position that children ought to be protected from consequences of religious ideas they can't understand has no logical choice but to allow their child to decide between religions when he/she is old enough to understand.  Any indoctrination at a young age endangers a child's mortal soul!  After all, there are competing religions which each claim exclusive rights to the afterlife, and Christianity isn't the biggest one!

It seems clear to me, razor.

Let's assume that there is a god, and there is a heaven and a hell. There's no mystery that close to 100% of religious people choose the religion of their parents. Even if it's only, say 80%, that's still an enormous percentage. There's just no way to say that parental influence doesn't have almost EVERYTHING to do with what religion a child chooses.

So, here's the thing. There are two major religions out there that each claim that their religion is the only way to heaven. Let's assume that this god who's put this "One True Religion" on earth has also told people about it... communicated it in some way. Well, there are more Muslims out there who believe they're right than there are Christians. Clearly, feeling certain isn't an infallible judge of which one is right. So, if a Christian raises a child as a Christian, knowing full well that the odds are close to 100% that the child will be Christian, the parent is preventing the child from making a choice which will determine the eternal destination of its soul!

Yeah, I know, Christians are raising their children in the way they believe, with 100% certainty, is correct for their souls. But, there are so many other people with 100% certainty that Islam is correct, that in itself ought to be sufficient evidence that 100% certainty is not... certain.

Imagine raising a child as a vegan, and never even letting the child learn that there are vegetarians out there, and that there is some debate as to whether veganism, vegetarianism, or outright omnivore... um... ism.... is the most healthy way to eat. Most anyone would say, "For Pete's sake! At least let the child make his own decision when he gets old enough... don't shield him from the other choices, just because you've made the choice for yourself."

So, how much more important is it to let a child have an unbiased chance to decide where his soul will go!

Wasn't to me and it still isn't.  Please say it in plain English for all to see. 

I have to disagree. If what you say is true, then all straight couples would have straight children.  If what you say is true then Ted Bundy's daughter or John Wayne Gacy's kids should be locked up because she would receive her influence for murder and rape.  If what you say is true then Garth Brook's kids should already be signed for country music deals.  The lives of children's parents does not mean the lives of the children will be repeats.  Whatever religion the parents are, the children will or will not follow because their minds as well as their souls are unique. 

Some will believe what they will and to say that it is 100% because of their parents shows you have no interest in believing anything else because of your own experience...and I'm truly disappointed to see that from someone who is "open minded".

They are certain to their own experiences but that child will grow up to have his or her own "certainties".  The only thing you can be certain about is what you experience for yourself.

Not every set of parents are going to be so strict to discourage free thought but that should not be any reason to call it child abuse.  I don't agree with some things on how my mother raised me but I know what those were and it is for me to correct them if I become a father in the future. 

It's not that inconceivable, even in America...

Consider someone raised by, say, a fundamentalist family, taught only creationism, who takes an entrance exam for a college and fails miserably. If he was never given the chance to learn normal science, and then finds himself unable to get into a college, he could demonstrate that his earning potential was limited by the non-scientific teaching imposed by his parents. A clever lawyer could give the court an IQ test result for the guy, along with data on what kind of earning potential he could have with a degree, how long it would take for him to take remedial classes, data on age bias in hiring for different positions, etc...

Hamby said it as well as I could.

I can think of a number of different scenarios beyond this where such a law suit would be more justified than the majority of those which take place in the US. In fact, I can even see people unrelated to a family suing the family for their religious indoctrination causing the unrelated people harm.

Oh yeah, I forgot that you think sexual orientation is a choice despite the overwheliming evidence that it's largely genetic. I can see why you would think this analogy is legitimate.

As it turns out, statistically speaking, children of criminals are much more likely to become criminals themselves. Fortunately, in America, we seldom lock people up before they commit crimes.

I didn't know that all children chose their parent's job. Are we talking about making a living or teaching life philosophy? Are you incapable of understanding how big the differences are?

So, you're happy to use probability to your advantage here... It doesn't happen all the time so we can completely discount parental influence. I see where we're going.

So now, parental influence has nothing to do with the child's religion, even though statistically, it's overwhelmingly obvious that people almost always choose their parent's religion.

I don't see how this has anything to do with anything... or for that matter, that you're even saying anything.

I guess you're confusing personal "certainty" with absolute reality. I know you'd have to for this argument to make any sense. If you're right about the existence of god, then either Christianity or Islam is right, and the other is wrong (if we only consider those two because they're the 2 biggest "hell" religions). Your individual perception of certainty has nothing to do with the reality of which one is correct. If you know your child has, say an 80% likelihood to choose yours, you're potentially condemning his soul by not letting him choose on an even playing field.

So, since some are not strict, we shouldn't worry about the ones who are?

ROFL  THank you for clearing that up.

Sorry you don't like when I go point by point and show you that you contradict yourself.  I am, however, glad to know that you both agree and disagree with me.

Thanks for being as precise and logical as ever.

I agree. Also I wanted to add that I was exposed to many religions as a child.  result: agnostic. but the other result is I don't hate religion b/c I never had it forced on me. I only hate it when it has government sponsorship, gets in the way of things like medicine, knowledge, and science, and gets in my face (well and cause wars but lots of stuff causes wars I hate it all). I live in a blue state so it's not often a problem here. I think exposing your kids to everything and letting them choose is a good idea.