Forced Faith is Child Abuse: The Case for Banning Compulsory Religious Rituals for Minors

Core Principle: Children May Learn Any Religion, But Practising It Must Be Legally Restricted Until Adulthood

• Children are fully allowed to get information about any religion. Similarly, parents are also allowed to share information about their religion and culture and morals. There is no problem with it.
• So, getting information about religion is not banned, or even accepting it also not banned (i.e. children may accept any faith on their own before 18), but ONLY PRACTICING it is banned till the age of 18. Neither parents have the authority to make children practice a religion nor children are allowed to practice it on their own.
• This restriction parallels the notion that children may develop romantic feelings for someone, including an adult, which is not deemed a crime. However, engaging in sexual activities with an adult is prohibited until the age of 16, and marriage is not permitted until the age of 18.
• This protection for children is enough that they get AWARENESS that parents cannot enforce their religion and religious practices upon them, just like they cannot enforce upon them a spouse of their choice. But sharing information and personal opinions about any potential future spouse with them is fully ok.

This notion is a misleading narrative that parents have the unrestricted right to enforce their religious beliefs, rituals and customs onto their children. Children are not their property. 

Parents are fully allowed to share information about their religion, culture and morals. However, there is a fundamental difference between sharing information and imposing it. Sharing allows the child to think, question, and explore. Imposing suppresses the child's autonomy and replaces it with obedience. Indoctrination occurs when parents repeatedly assert that the child is automatically a Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or Jew merely by birth. The next stage of this imposition is the enforcement of rituals, such as five daily prayers, church services, fasting, circumcision, or hijab. Children cannot meaningfully consent to any of these.

Kids cannot give their informed consent for religion, just like they cannot give their informed consent for marriage. So, why then impose religion on them by telling them that they have by default become a follower of a certain religion just by getting a birth into a family which follows that particular religion? No, but religion is a personal right of children, about which they have to make an informed decision only after turning 18, just like in the case of marriages they have to make such an informed decision themselves only after turning 18.

Just as it is both illegal and morally questionable for parents to coerce their children into marriages, it is similarly unacceptable for parents to enforce their religious preferences and practices on their offspring.

The undeniable proof of religious indoctrination in children is evident through the following examples:

• A child born into a Hindu family inherently embraces Hinduism.
• A child born into a Christian family automatically identifies as a Christian.
• A child born into a Muslim family also adheres to Islam.

Why Children Should Not Practise Religious Rituals Even If They Are Allowed to Choose a Religion

A Muslim wrote:

My fondest memories are of my father taking me to different mosques on Friday and having an imam come over to teach me the principles of our faith. I also enjoyed Ramadan fasting. We are a ‘secular’ family.”

A Christian wrote:

I've gone to church willingly and unwillingly as a kid and honestly it’s not bad, just boring sometimes. We even sing songs about Jesus when running around the Christmas tree. Should kids not be allowed to do that?

I’m genuinely glad you have happy memories . But that doesn’t change the principle of: Prioritizing Vulnerable Children while making Laws

Yes, laws are written to protect the vulnerable, not the fortunate.

While minor cultural aspects like celebrating festivals or giving gifts pose no inherent harm, mandatory participation in religious rituals and practices should be prohibited by law for all children. The key justification for this prohibition is the protection of vulnerable children:

The law does not exist for the lucky children who grew up in relaxed, secular-ish religious families. The law exists for the millions who did not:

• the girl who was beaten for refusing to pray
• the boy locked in a madrasa basement for poor Quran recitation
• the teenager who attempted suicide because she was told she would burn forever for being gay
• the child who had her genitals cut in the name of religious purity
• the child forced to fast, kneel, cover, confess, chant, or repent before they even understand the meaning of sin

We already accept this logic in every other area of child protection. For example:

• An underage girl may genuinely feel affection for an adult, and that adult may not be abusive. Even then, the law strictly forbids such relationships. Why? Because legalizing the practice creates a dangerous space where millions of vulnerable girls can be exploited through the same legal loophole. The law must be written to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

• Similarly, a 10-year-old can beg to work in the factory because “I want money for my family”, yet we still ban child labour for all. Why? In order to save other millions of vulnerable children who may be exploited through this legal loophole. 

The same principle applies here. 

A child may be curious about religion, may explore ideas, may even say they “accept” a belief. But practising religious rituals is a binding act of obedience often enforced through authority, fear, guilt, and community pressure. Without clear legal boundaries, states cannot prevent parents, institutions, or communities from imposing religious practices on children who cannot resist.

Secular families provide their children with joyful memories too: music, swimming, camping, art, friendships, sports, and discovery. Happiness is not created by rituals. Happiness is created by freedom.

The goal is not to stop children from learning about religion.

The goal is to ensure that no child is forced to practise a belief they are too young to evaluate.

This is not a punishment for happy religious families, but this is a shield for the millions of vulnerable children who grow up without the ability to say “no”.

HINDERANCE of a child's CAREER PATH due to any religious doctrine/activity is a CRIME

Japan already classifies HINDERANCE of a child's CAREER PATH due to any religious doctrine/activities as a crime.  

Forced participation in religious activities to be classified as child abuse in Japan

The law stipulates four types of abuse: physical, sexual, neglect and psychological.

Inciting fear by telling children they will go to hell if they do not participate in religious activities, or preventing them from making decisions about their career path, is regarded as psychological abuse and neglect in the guidelines.

Other acts that will constitute neglect include not having the financial resources to provide adequate food or housing for children as a result of making large donations, or blocking their interaction with friends due to a difference in religious beliefs and thereby undermining their social skills.

When taking action, the guidelines will urge child consultation centres and local governments to pay particular attention to the possibility that children may be unable to recognise the damage caused by abuse after being influenced by doctrine-based thinking and values.

In addition, there are concerns that giving advice to parents may cause the abuse to escalate and bring increased pressure from religious groups on the families. In the light of this, the guidelines will call for making the safety of children the top priority and taking them into temporary protective care without hesitation.

For children 18 years of age or older and not eligible for protection by child consultation centres, local governments should instead refer them to legal support centres, welfare offices and other consultation facilities.

This legislation does not portray Japan as an authoritarian state seeking to intrude into private family matters. Rather, it is enacted solely for the protection of children against "authoritarian parents". The State must interfere even in the private lives of families for the following 4 cases of abuse of children:

1. Physical abuse
2. Sexual abuse
3. Abuse of Neglection and
4. Psychological Abuses to indoctrinate children and imposition of religion and religious activities upon them forcefully. 

This legal framework finally recognizes something that millions of children suffer silently and religious pressure is not just a private family matter, it can be a form of abuse. 

The guidelines explain that frightening children with threats of hellfire, divine punishment, or eternal suffering if they do not follow religious rituals is a form of psychological abuse. Similarly, stopping children from choosing their career or educational path because “religion forbids it” is also a form of neglect. These harmful tactics crush a child’s confidence, damage their self-worth and take away their natural right to shape their own future.

The law also highlights additional forms of neglect. These include parents donating so much money to religious groups that they cannot afford food, clothing or housing for their children. Another example is preventing children from interacting with friends who hold different beliefs, which harms their social development and traps them in an isolated environment.

Importantly, the Japanese guidelines acknowledge a painful reality. When children grow up inside highly doctrinal homes, they often do not realize that they are being abused. Indoctrination itself blinds them. Because of this, child consultation centers are instructed to treat every case with extreme caution. They must consider the possibility that a child is unable to recognize the harm being done to them.

The guidelines also warn that giving simple advice to parents may not be enough. In some cases, such advice may even escalate the abuse. Religious groups may also pressure the family, making the situation worse. Therefore, the state prioritizes the child’s safety above everything. Authorities are instructed to take children into temporary protective custody immediately whenever they suspect psychological harm or coercion.

For those who are 18 or older and no longer eligible for protection by child consultation centers, the law still ensures support. Local governments must guide them toward legal aid, welfare offices and other support networks so they are not left helpless after escaping doctrinal environments.

None of this means that Japan is interfering in families to control beliefs. It does not mean the state is suppressing religion. It means the state is protecting children from authoritarian parents and harmful practices. Every modern state already intervenes in family life to stop physical abuse, sexual abuse and severe neglect. Japan simply added another truth that societies have ignored for too long. Psychological abuse through forced religious indoctrination is real, and it destroys lives.

You can find more details about this policy change and its context in the following resources:

• Wikipedia (Shūkyō nisei - Context and Guidelines): Shūkyō nisei - Wikipedia

• News Summary (Policy Details): What's Right: Japan Declares Forced Religious Acts as Child Abuse - ARA City Radio

Religious Practices: A Nightmare for many Kids

We invite you to please also visit our exmuslim Subreddit and read stories about how we (ex-Muslims) had to perform daily prayer obligations five times a day, attend Quran school six days a week, and spend multiple hours each day studying and committing the Quran to memory. Imagine the overwhelming sense of oppression that children experience when forced to adhere to these rigid routines without respite.

Furthermore, consider the plight of young girls who are coerced into wearing the Hijab, even if they personally object to it. Families with strong religious beliefs often impose this attire on their daughters beginning at the tender age of two of three. This constant requirement can feel suffocating, especially when compared to the temporary inconvenience many experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic when masks were mandatory. Yet, these girls face the burden of donning the entire Hijab every single day. The lives of ex-Muslim girls are really miserable as they are forced to marry Muslim men and provide them with sexual services for the whole of their lives. The worst part is, they have to raise their own children as Muslims against their wishes.

Islam demands Muslim parents to FORCE their children to offer prayers and to BEAT them if they don’t offer their prayers at the age of 10 years.

Sunan Abi Dawud 495:  

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Command your children to pray when they become seven years old, and beat them for it (prayer) when they become ten years old;  

Although the Western States have already banned the beating of children, however, this is not enough. They should also ban parents from enforcing daily prayers or the Hijab even by using methods other than beating (like influencing them by shaming, bullying, blackmailing, harassment etc.).

Consider the hardship a child has to endure to fast the whole day. It is not only the pressure from parents, but the entire Islamic community exerts indirect pressure. 

There was a recent incident in the UK about lady principal Katharine Birbalsingh who had to ban Muslim kids from praying in school. Why?

• Because some religious kids were bullying other Muslim kids to join them in prayers. Those who refused were harassed, intimidated, and in some cases physically threatened.

• And those religious Muslim kids were also bullying girls to wear the Hijab. And if they didn't then they were guilt-tripped and they faced intimidation and harassment.

This incident shows a crucial truth. The source of coercion is not only parents. It comes from siblings, peers, religious groups, mosque networks, community elders, and neighbourhood pressure.

Given this environment, it becomes practically impossible to determine whether a child is praying or fasting or wearing a hijab by genuine choice or due to hidden pressure. No government can monitor millions of homes or schoolyards to detect subtle coercion.

The only effective solution is a clear rule: Children may learn about any religion they wish, but may not practise religious rituals until adulthood.

Only this approach protects vulnerable children. Only this rule ensures that no child can be used as a tool of indoctrination. It guarantees a childhood free from rigid rituals, fear-based obedience, and community-imposed conformity.

It allows children to grow in safety. When they turn eighteen, they can choose their religious path freely without pressure, fear, or coercion.

Difficulties in Escaping Childhood Indoctrination Even After Becoming an Adult

Religious indoctrination is not something a person can simply “walk away from” after turning eighteen. Its effects continue long after one has intellectually rejected the belief system. I learned this lesson through personal experience.

I grew up in a Muslim household where I was repeatedly taught that homosexuality was worse than committing incest with one’s own mother or sister, and that homosexuals were the worst creatures in the sight of Allah. This message was repeated so often and framed as divine truth that it became part of my emotional structure.

Years later, I left Islam. Science convinced me that homosexuality is natural for some people. Rationally, I understood that every human being deserves dignity and equal rights. But the emotional conditioning from my childhood did not disappear. Even after rejecting Islam, I still felt an instinctive disdain for homosexuals. It took years of conscious effort to uproot these feelings. The indoctrination had penetrated deeper than my beliefs. It had shaped my emotions, my moral compass, and my sense of disgust.

This experience revealed an important truth. Even a fully informed adult decision cannot easily undo beliefs and emotions implanted during childhood. That is why religious indoctrination that teaches hatred against homosexuals must be prevented at the earliest stages of life.

Now imagine the situation of homosexual children growing up in conservative Muslim or conservative Christian families. These children hear from their parents, their religious teachers, and their community that homosexuals are cursed, filthy, and destined for divine punishment. They are told that any homosexual feelings are evil and must be eradicated.

When nature inevitably draws some of these children toward homosexual orientation, they experience extreme fear and psychological distress. They believe that their own existence is sinful and that they deserve punishment simply for being who they are.

In many cases, their parents interpret signs of homosexuality as demonic possession. Instead of receiving understanding or mental health support, the children are taken to religious healers for exorcisms. They are subjected to rituals, shouting, physical restraint, and emotional terror. This is not spirituality. It is psychological trauma.

Such treatment places unbearable pressure on already vulnerable children. It destroys self esteem, breaks their sense of safety in their own homes, and produces lifelong psychological scars. No society that values human rights should allow parents to impose this level of emotional and mental harm on their children.

The solution is the same principle repeated throughout this article. The state must clearly recognise that indoctrinating children to hate homosexuals is a form of psychological abuse. Children deserve protection not only from physical harm, but also from damaging doctrines that destroy their sense of self.

A state should therefore adopt the following measures.

1. Children should be publicly educated that homosexuals have equal human rights and must be treated with the same dignity as people of all religions, ethnicities, and races.

2. Children should be explicitly informed that if their parents teach them to hate homosexuals because “Allah hates them”, it is classified as a crime.

3. Children should be informed that if their parents isolate them from homosexual peers or forbid them from socialising with them, this too is a crime.

These steps are not about attacking religion. They are about ensuring that no child grows up believing that they are cursed simply for being who they are, and that no young person is psychologically broken by doctrines they never chose.

Many Ex-Muslim Girls Cannot Escape the Hijab Even After Leaving Islam

On the ex-Muslim platform called “exmuslim subreddit”, I came across something that shocked me deeply. An ex-Muslim girl wrote that although she had already left Islam, she was still unable to remove her hijab in public. Walking outside without it had become a nightmare for her. She desperately wanted to feel the air on her hair and move freely, yet the moment she took off the hijab she felt as if she had suddenly become naked in front of the world. This intense shame and fear were overwhelming her, and she asked other ex-Muslim girls for advice on how to escape this psychological prison.

At first, I honestly could not believe it. I assumed she might be exaggerating or joking. In my mind, leaving Islam itself is the greatest and most terrifying step for anyone raised in a devout Muslim home. Challenging an entire community, breaking centuries of indoctrination, and risking social isolation is an enormous act of courage. So I assumed that compared to leaving the religion, removing a piece of cloth would be the easy part.

But I was wrong.

As I explored further, I realized she was not alone. There were countless stories from ex-Muslim girls describing the exact same struggle. Some said they felt intense guilt. Others said they felt exposed, dirty, or sinful without the hijab. Many were dealing with such severe psychological distress that they had to seek professional therapy. Their minds had been conditioned since childhood to believe that the hijab was their dignity, their honor, their only protection from moral corruption. Years later, even after rejecting the religion completely, that conditioning still held them captive.

I am also an ex-Muslim, but as a man, I cannot fully comprehend the suffocating psychological chains that ex-Muslim women have to fight. Their trauma is different, deeper, and far more personal.

The lesson is painfully clear. Religious indoctrination during childhood is not some harmless cultural activity. It shapes identity, self-worth, and emotional instincts in ways that last long into adulthood. Once these ideas take root in a child's mind, removing them later becomes extremely difficult and often traumatic.

Therefore, the well-being of humanity demands that children be protected through law from such early indoctrination. They must not be turned into vessels of religious fear, guilt, and psychological dependency. Children deserve a chance to grow with free minds, not with burdens placed on them before they even understand the world around them.

Excuse: How can children be left alone at home when parents go to mosque or church?

One Islamist objected:

You can’t realistically ban a parent from taking their kid with them to the Mosque or whatever other religious service. Parents have to go places and the kids have to come with them. It’s just a simple fact of life that children have to be dragged along with their parents wherever their parents go.

This objection misunderstands the purpose of protecting children from coercion in religion. The law does not aim to forbid parents from attending mosques, churches, or other religious activities. It aims to prevent the systematic imposition of religious practices and rituals on children who cannot yet give informed consent.

1. Children can accompany parents without being forced to participate:
   Just because a child goes with their parents to a mosque or church does not mean they must pray, fast, or engage in rituals. Parents can still fulfil their religious obligations while respecting the child’s autonomy. Separate areas for children, supervised recreational activities, or quiet spaces can allow children to be present without being coerced. This mirrors other real-life scenarios. For example, parents watching a movie in cinema or attending work-related events do not compel children to participate, but alternative arrangements are made. There is no moral or practical difference.

2. The law targets major abuses, not minor cultural experiences:
   The goal is not to remove every religious experience from childhood but to eliminate coercion that can cause psychological harm. Major abuses include forcing children to memorize the Quran for hours, perform five daily prayers, wear the Hijab, or undergo circumcision. These are not optional cultural experiences, but they are ritual obligations imposed by authority. Secondary or minor experiences, like attending a service, are harmless and do not require legal prohibition.

3. Education and awareness are powerful tools.
   Even simply informing parents and children that no child can be compelled to practice religion or rituals is enough to create substantial change. The law does not aim to micromanage families but to protect the vulnerable, giving children the right to develop their beliefs safely. By clarifying boundaries, the state can prevent systemic abuse while allowing families freedom in cultural and recreational matters.

4. Minor inconveniences do not justify major harm.
   No law achieves perfection. Some parents may need to make logistical adjustments when attending religious services. This minor inconvenience is negligible compared to the lifelong psychological damage caused by forced religious indoctrination. Protecting children from coercion must take precedence over convenience.

Saying a short grace before meals, singing a religious holiday song together, or casually attending a place of worship with the family are low-stakes, often culturally enjoyable activities. They do not, by themselves, require a heavy-handed legal ban. In most cases, simple parental guidelines and public-education campaigns are enough to prevent them from sliding into coercion.

These minor practices must never be used as a Trojan horse to block the core law altogether.

The primary, non-negotiable rule remains that no child may be compelled or subjected to significant pressure to perform religious rituals, wear religious clothing, undergo religious body modification, or adopt a religious identity before the age of 18.

If a child is happy to join in a song or a meal prayer, that is fine. No state intervention is needed. If, however, any religious or cultural practice causes a child distress, fear, shame, or a sense of obligation (whether it is daily prayer, fasting, veiling, circumcision ceremonies, or anything else), the child must know:

• This is a violation of their rights.
• They have the legal right to refuse.
• They can report it anonymously and the law will stand on their side, not the parents’.

Minor harmless traditions are not the target. Coercion and control, in any form and to any degree, are. We do not throw out the entire child-protection principle just because some practices are mild, but we draw a clear line and give every child a guaranteed way out when that line is crossed.

Similarly, another Islamic preacher objected:

How can you differentiate between religious practice and culture? Are you going to make it illegal to give gifts on Christmas?

Firstly, since when does giving gifts come under the imposition of religious rituals? Is it an obligatory religious ritual in Islam or Christianity to give gifts? Even people of other religions can also give you gifts on Eid and Christmas and Diwali etc.

Secondly, the answer is the same. We are not living in a 100% perfect world. It is enough if laws serve the purpose of stopping the major abuses, which are like compelling girls to wear the Hijab in public, or compelling kids to go to Quran Madrassas or circumcision of male children etc.

Even simply educating children that parents are not allowed to impose religion or religious rituals is enough to bring big changes and stop major child abuse. 

Excuse: How are you going to POLICE it?

Response:

There are 2 issues here.

• Hidden enforced religious practices on children inside the house
• Openly enforced religious practices on children in public

As far as the first issue of hidden enforced practices inside the house is concerned, then it is the same as a child's beating inside the house. Either the child is himself able to report such enforcement of religious practices, or his siblings or relatives or friends or neighbours can report it.

The main issue is giving this awareness to both children and parents that children have rights, and parents cannot impose such their religion and religious practices upon them. It is the same about giving awareness to both children and parents about beating. Although this awareness about beating was not able to stop abuse (beating) of children 100%, but still it brought a lot of success.  

As far as openly enforced religious practices are concerned, like enforcing children to go to mosques and pray, or going to Madrassahs is concerned, then they can be easily controlled. Similarly, enforcing the Hijab on small girls in public can also be easily controlled.

Excuse: It is an Injustice against Muslim parents

Response:

It is not an injustice against Muslim parents specifically because the ban applies equally to all parents regardless of their religious affiliation. 

This ban does not include ONLY Muslim parents, but ALL parents. This means Atheists, ex-Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. all of them are banned from indoctrinating their children and imposing their ideology/religion and its practices upon children. 

One Islamist wrote:

It is unjust, while atheists have no rituals. Thus such a law will only affect Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Hindu families

This objection misunderstands the principle. If any religion or ideology is authoritarian and imposes rituals on children, it is that religion’s or ideology’s responsibility, not a fault of atheist parents or the law itself. The rule is simple that children cannot be forced to practice religion or ideology. The law protects children, not religions or the adults enforcing them.

Excuse: It sounds like an Authoritarian State and this is how the Genocide begins

Response:

Some critics claim that laws banning the imposition of religion on children make the state authoritarian or risk controlling people’s lives. One Islamic apologist even argued that state intervention in homes, policing thoughts, speech, and family interactions could lead to genocide.

This is a flawed argument. The state is not imposing beliefs on children. Its only role is to protect children from authoritarian control by religious parents. True authoritarianism occurs when parents force their children to follow specific religious practices, such as attending Madrasa, performing daily prayers, reciting scripture, or wearing Hijab and Abaya, against their will. These actions violate the children’s human rights.

The state intervenes for the same reason it protects children from physical abuse. For example, Japan has identified four clear areas of child abuse where parental authority cannot remain unchecked:

• Physical abuse

• Sexual abuse

• Neglect

• Psychological abuse, including religious indoctrination and forced religious practices

In these cases, claims of privacy violation, state overreach, or even genocide are often raised by religious groups simply to defend and continue abusive practices under the guise of parental rights. These fears are a form of fear-mongering, or Statephobia, used to justify the imposition of religion on children.

Just as society accepted laws banning child beating despite similar complaints about state intrusion, rational legal protections for children’s religious freedom are aimed at safeguarding vulnerable minors. The state’s intervention is not authoritarian; it ensures that children have the freedom to explore, accept, or reject beliefs only when they reach an age where informed decisions are possible.

Why stop at religion? Why not ban politics for children

Just as children should not be forced to practice religion until they can make an informed decision, they should not be involved in politics until they reach the age of 18. At this age, they are considered capable of evaluating ideas, forming opinions, and making fully informed choices. This is why there is already a legal age limit of 18 for voting.

Children, however, are free to show interest in politics, listen to political discussions, explore ideas, and even favor any political opinion or party. The restriction only applies to formal participation, such as voting or holding official positions, until they are legally mature enough to make independent decisions.

Islamic preachers often display a contradictory logic. They insist that a person must complete advanced education, such as a PhD, before they can criticize Islam or freely leave Islam. Yet, they simultaneously introduce small children into religion, imposing beliefs and practices on them without informed consent. 

Excuse: It is against the PRIVACY of families to be punished for things that are not harmful

Response:

Of course, these are harmful practices, when:

• A child is forcefully circumcised. 
• A child is forcefully compelled to go to the Quran school and to pray five times a day, and fast. 
• A girl is forcefully compelled to take the Hijab and Abaya against her will. 
• When a kid is taught hate speech.
• When a kid is pressured to enter in faith of his parents and all other choices are blocked for him. 

At present, parents are fully in a position to influence and impose their DEMANDS upon children forcefully, and there are consequences for children if they don't fulfil their demands. 

There are tons of evidence and thousands of witnesses present in the stories of ex-Muslims (on Exmuslim Subreddit), when girls didn't wear the Hijab, or didn't go to Quran school, or said that they didn't want to be Muslim, then their parents made them suffer in one way or the other (if not physically, then mentally they abused their children). Or what homosexual children have to endure in a religious family, is horrible. 

When it comes to the rights of children, then there is already no privacy involved. The State of Japan has already identified those four issues, where the so-called privacy of family doesn't matter as this privacy is only misused to protect child abuse. These four issues are:

1. Physical abuse
2. Sexual abuse
3. Abuse of Neglection and
4. Psychological Abuses to indoctrinate children and impose religion and religious activities upon them forcefully. 

If parents are not allowed to beat children privately at home, then forcing them to learn the Quran and to pray five times at home privately should also be a crime and investigated upon report.

The state is not enforcing anything upon the children, but it is prohibiting the parents from imposing and enforcing abuses upon their children as if children are their private property.

Excuse: It is impossible to implement it while Religious communities will bitterly oppose it

Where there is a will, there is always a way.

Yes, it may seem difficult now, but consider history. When the French government first decided to ban the Hijab and other religious symbols in schools, many believed it was impossible. Yet the government and the people implemented it successfully.

Similarly, banning child beating was once considered impossible. Today, laws against it exist and are enforced effectively.

We have both morality and reason on our side. With determination, it is entirely possible to protect children’s rights from coercive religious practices, regardless of opposition from religious communities.

Excuse: This is a conspiracy to drive Muslims out of the West

An Islamist claimed that this law is a conspiracy designed to force Muslims to leave Western countries so they can raise their children with Islamic education. According to this argument, the law aims to create irreligious societies by preventing children from practicing religion until they turn 18.

Response:

No, this is not a conspiracy to expel Muslims from the West. It is a child-protection principle that applies to every religion and every family equally, regardless of whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Scientologist, or ultra-Orthodox anything.

1. Moderate, secular-minded Muslim families who do not coerce their children have nothing to fear and no reason to leave. They are (and always will be) welcome. Millions already live happily in the West while raising their children with cultural traditions, festival celebrations, and voluntary faith, exactly the model we are defending.

2. The only families who would feel compelled to leave are those who believe they must beat their children for not praying, force girls into hijab before puberty, or subject sons to religious circumcision ceremonies against their will. If someone insists that their religion requires them to do these things to a child who cannot consent, then yes, they will find the West incompatible, just as someone who insists on marrying off their 14-year-old daughter finds the West incompatible. That is not persecution, but that is the natural consequence of refusing to respect universal child-rights standards.

3. If a religion depends on indoctrinating small children to survive and fears that waiting until children are 18 will make its future followers vanish, the problem lies with the religion itself, not with secular laws. A truly strong belief system should be able to attract informed adults, not rely on coercion of minors.

We do not “want Muslims to leave.” We want every child, including every Muslim child, to grow up free to choose or reject any faith at 18 without fear, violence, or irreversible childhood branding.

If a parent’s version of Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism) cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas among free adults, that is not the West’s fault. It is the clearest evidence that their version needs childhood coercion to survive, but childhood coercion has no place in a civilised society.

Excuse: We lack the funds to implement a law that may not achieve complete success

Some argue that children’s services and foster care systems are already underfunded and struggling, so implementing a law to protect children from forced religious practices is unrealistic. They claim that, in many cases, children may face equally bad alternatives if removed from abusive situations, making enforcement too expensive and potentially futile.

Response:

No child-protection law in history has ever been rejected because the state lacked the money or the ability to enforce it 100 % from day one.”

• Laws against beating children were introduced in Sweden (1979), Germany (2000), and 65+ other countries even though everyone knew most early cases would still happen behind closed doors and child services were already overwhelmed. And the result after 20–40 years show that corporal punishment dropped 80–95 % in every country that banned it, without any magical increase in funding. Awareness and the change in social norm did most of the work.

• Laws against child marriage, child labour, and female genital mutilation were all passed while critics said exactly the same thing: “We can’t police every village, we don’t have the budget, many girls say they want it.” But the results show that millions of girls protected, massive cultural shifts, and the laws are now seen as historic victories.

• Age-of-consent and anti-paedo laws are violated every day, and child services are still underfunded in almost every country. But nobody seriously argues we should therefore legalise sex with 12-year-olds “because enforcement is imperfect.”

The pattern is always identical:

1. Pass the clear legal prohibition + run public-awareness campaigns.

2. Social norm changes faster than anyone predicts.

3. Reported and unreported violations plummet over one generation.

4. Funding and enforcement capacity gradually catch up because the new norm makes intervention socially acceptable.

Demanding perfect funding and 100 % enforcement before you even write the law is the oldest trick in the book to kill any reform without openly defending child abuse.

We don’t need a utopia. We need the same courage that every country showed when it finally banned beating children, child marriage, or FGM. Please declare the practice unacceptable, educate the public, and let the cultural shift do 80 % of the work while the state slowly improves enforcement.

A law that says “no child under 18 may be compelled or strongly pressured to perform religious rituals or wear religious dress” costs almost nothing to put on the books, and the awareness it creates will protect millions long before child services are perfectly funded.

History proves it works. The only question is whether we have the moral clarity to start.

Dr. Dawkins on the Rights of Children

Please also watch this video of Dr. Dawkins, which will make this issue clear.