[giantg2]

"an ideology that will not seek consensus with his values"

This just seems normal and expected.

Kids are raised by their parents. Parents try to impart their wisdom on their kids, often in the form of rules meant to protect them. These rules are necessarily over restrictive due to simplification during various ages. These rules are also out of date with the new generation.

It's always a right of passage for children to find their own values and how they align with ideologies they have experienced or discovered in the world. And kids thinking their parents messed them up is really just an expression of value mismatch.

[saghm]

> Kids are raised by their parents. Parents try to impart their wisdom on their kids, often in the form of rules meant to protect them. These rules are necessarily over restrictive due to simplification during various ages. These rules are also out of date with the new generation.

> It's always a right of passage for children to find their own values and how they align with ideologies they have experienced or discovered in the world. And kids thinking their parents messed them up is really just an expression of value mismatch.

Right, but not everyone has the same reaction to members of the new generation who don't conform to their values. When my brothers and I didn't end up participating in organized religion as adults, even though my parents still are fairly religious, their reaction was basically "oh well" and to never bring it up again, and we all still have great relationships with them. There are people whose react to their kids not wanting to participate in the same organized religion much more aggressively, and if their kids have "lifestyles" that they consider immoral like being gay or trans, you can forget about any chance of a healthy adult familial relationship between them.

You're not wrong that at a high level, the patterns are somewhat similar, but not all of them are the same magnitude. The values themselves will impact how volatile the conflict is because they're self-describing; parents who highly value tolerance will by definition not be as upset at having kids who don't agree with them on everything, whereas parents who instead place a higher value on conformity and adherence to tradition are going to be a lot less happy with kids who don't end up agreeing with them about that.

[giantg2]

"you can forget about any chance of a healthy adult familial relationship between them."

Such is life. Not everyone has a family to begin with.

[saghm]

You called it "normal and expected". When not everyone has it happen to them, that's not "normal and expected". (It's not necessarily abnormal, but "expected" at the very least is a stretch).

[lkey]

"becoming an adult" is a thing people do, this will include no longer agreeing with everything your parents taught you. This is mundane and what you have described.

"my parents are/were abusive" is something a plurality of people (and especially those raised in evangelical churches) experience.

Within that dynamic, the 'value' at issue here is 'Do I, your child, have a right to my own body and choices?'; Too often, the reply to that is 'no, we expect obedience and obeisance to God, your father, and your mother, in that exact order, because that is the one true way'.

This is a form of domination, not well-meaning 'protection'. It does, in fact, 'mess people up', in their intimate relationships most of all.

[giantg2]

"have a right to my own body and choices?"

Not sure exactly what you mean by own body. However, under the law children generally do not have a right to their own choices and are expected to be controlled by their parents (really look at the stutes around this stuff and you might be surprised). After all, parents are held responsible for their child's actions under the law.

[mdgld]

I recommend you spend more time reading about jurisprudence. I’m not sure where you’re based, but in the US, for example, children below even age 13 can make autonomous decisions about their health when it’s determined that they have the capacity, even when the consequences may be life-ending. And, less relevantly, I personally believe this is the most moral option in such situations. If you have a 15% 1-year survival rate, all treatments either come with a small decrease in mortality, a large increase in risk for detrimental side effects, or both, and you can demonstrate to me that you understand the interplay of these factors, I don’t care if you’re 10 or 100, I believe you should have the right to bodily autonomy.

[lkey]

I am not surprised. I'm aware that the US never adopted:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

You have stated an unfortunate fact while hiding your value judgement. Do you think the laws you reference are correct, or no?

Do you understand the difference between having a responsibility to prevent your child from law-breaking and having absolute control over their life in general?

If you have children, or plan to, do you want to control every action they take to protect yourself from hypothetical legal consequence? Do you think you have the right to do so? Do you think you should be able to control what they think and express as well?

These questions are not hypothetical, as an answer in the affirmative is precisely what creates the type of abuse I described above.

[giantg2]

The laws are to complicated to go into a full yes or no. But they mostly are. There are some things not covered by law which generally are controlled, such as the clothes, toys, and food bought for the kid.

[Lerc]

Why do we allow people to teach a religion that requires someone to be old enough to have informed concent before they can decide to follow it for themselves, when at the same time we disallow sexual activity with those same individuals because they are not old enough to offer informed consent.

[mdgld]

Except conservatism, religion, and religious conservatism in particular do not seem to value open-mindedness, discussion and consensus, or a non-judgmental stance.

It’s one thing to try and impart your values onto your children—that seems like what most parents would want to do, although I wouldn’t go so far as saying it’s what they should do. It’s another to say, for example, “you were born with a penis and so if I see you wearing a dress I’ll beat you and send you to a camp where people demean you and question your innermost feelings until you change them or pretend to do so”, instead of having a conversation about gender vs sex vs sexual orientation, gender roles, society, and culture, and “nature vs nurture”.

[wisty]

Which religion?

Christianity is arguanbly the irritating grit that created the pearl of modern science. A strict text that had to be taken literally ... this led to great intellectual progress in order reconcile it all. Bacon, Darwin ... lots of science was done by Christians.

Christianity isn't the only example. Islam and Judaism also have been heavy hitters. As have other cultures but I don't understand enough about them to comment.

[JackMorgan]

I'm not sure the cause and effect are accurate here. It's very likely more the other way: that folks curious about the world and how it works did that research in spite of religion which often attempted to suppress new findings that countered church doctrine or beliefs. Or even suppress findings that happened to be different from earlier mental models.

To be fair, other scientists sometimes do this to. However most begrudgingly accept new findings if they hold up to the scientific method.