[DRAFT]Repeal Family and Religion

[Bears Armed]

*(looks at the various delegations whose members have been insisting that children, of any age, are as capable as adults of making decisions about important matters)*

*(wonders whether parents within their nations are even allowed to house-train their children)*

^_^

[Quelesh]

Realistically, is an infant going to express opposition? An older child perhaps, but a baby? And in the case of an older child who does not wish to go, then the parents have no legal way to force her to go. Households generally find alternative solutions when faced with an issue like this, and it is not a serious problem. Perhaps the child can be convinced to go, or perhaps someone can be found to watch her. Perhaps, since she is at least old enough to elucidate her feelings in opposition to this religious service, she can go somewhere else herself where someone can watch her. Children in Quelesh often have multiple homes that they can go to. Or perhaps the adults can even leave her at home by herself for a short time. She's very unlikely to be harmed, and that in itself is not a crime. Quelesian communities tend to be small, open, trusting places, being on small islands.

Please stop changing your own goalposts. You referred to the infant. That was your inclusion into this debate. Deal with it.

You want me to explain what would happen in the case of an actual infant who is, somehow, capable of elucidating opposition to religious attendance? Very well. I will paste my previous response, with the word "infant" substituted as appropriate:

And in the case of an infant who does not wish to go, then the parents have no legal way to force her to go. Households generally find alternative solutions when faced with an issue like this, and it is not a serious problem. Perhaps the infant can be convinced to go, or perhaps someone can be found to watch her. Perhaps, since she is at least old enough to elucidate her feelings in opposition to this religious service, she can go somewhere else herself where someone can watch her. Children in Quelesh often have multiple homes that they can go to. Or perhaps the adults can even leave her at home by herself for a short time. She's very unlikely to be harmed, and that in itself is not a crime. Quelesian communities tend to be small, open, trusting places, being on small islands.

My answer, in such an unlikely event as an infant consciously expressing opposition, is the same.

No one can compel anyone to believe a certain religion (short of brainwashing), but it is certainly possible to compel the practice, the rituals and outward signs that demonstrate belief in a particular god or gods, even if those practices and rituals run counter to the beliefs that make the core of one's being. The Fae ambassador has pointed out that the proposal in question requires us to allow parents to "transmit" the practice of a religion, but not necessarily to "compel" that practice, and that is an interesting and useful interpretation. Still, the proposal is based upon a premise that children should be denied their rights, do not deserve their rights. Even though we are able to find an interpretation (a few, in fact) that allow us to completely ignore the proposal were it to pass, other nations may not be so perceptive.

The law means what the law says. The proposal in question would recognise the rights of parents to transmit knowledge of their religions to their children.

That. is. all.

That you need to create other issues, that are not referred to in the proposal itself, suggests that you do not actually have a problem with this specific proposal. Perhaps it even suggests that you do not care about the text of the proposal, in which case I suspect you would find yourself better placed away from the halls of power.

You suggest a premise to the proposal - but a premise is not a law. All that becomes law is the text of the proposal. One cannot argue a repeal based on things not present in the proposal itself.

I also find it quite bizarre that this discussion, here, in this repeal thread, is happening now. What, you're so self-important you need your own thread, rather than the debate thread itself for the proposal? If all that's happening is that we're repeating ourselves, in two threads, then it's quite ridiculous.

I oppose the proposal as written, even though it can be interpreted to have no effect. First, because a proposal that has no effect is worthless, and second, because I oppose the inclusion in the records of international law any statement by the WA that even implies that children do not or should not have freedom of religion, even if the operative clauses of the proposal do not mandate the stripping of that freedom. Law, including preambulatory clauses, has symbolic meaning, even though the ideas embodied in the preambulatory clauses are not binding.

And I see what you mean about the repeal thread, but I did not create it. I would have been quite satisfied to discuss this in the other thread.

I do not assert that an infant would object to religious attendance.

Maybe you don't now, but you did. Let me show you your words from the transcript since you apparently have forgotten:

Are you asking if it is a crime in Quelesh for a parent to carry, for example, a young infant into church? If so, the answer is no, it is not. Assuming the infant has not expressed any opposition to attending the parent's religious service, there is no crime involved. As regards attending a religious service, consent is assumed in cases where the individual is not capable of expressing consent or dissent. That doesn't matter and is not what we are talking about here; it is not what the Family and Religion proposal addresses.

The implication of the wording in bold is that the infant CAN object, but as of yet has chosen not to. Whether you literally meant this or not, you brought it into the conversation.

My post that you quoted was in response to this post:

Unless your nation punishes parents who dare bring their child to church, I would suggest that the 'accepted practice' of 'parents bringing the child until they are old enough to say no' would still hold true in Quelesh. Of course if that is not the case, we sympathize with the many parents who are denied a right to their own child.

Vitaphone Racing said that it is accepted practice for parents to bring a child to a religious service "until they are old enough to say no," and assumed (why he used the word "suggest" there I do not know) that this is also accepted practice in Quelesh. My response, that you quoted above, was basically telling him that this is correct. When a child is young enough that they are truly incapable of "saying no" to a religious service (i.e. an infant who cannot talk or otherwise communicate ideas as complex as "I oppose attending this religious service" in a meaningful manner), we would assume that the child consents.

Honestly though, I could have worded my post better. I did not intend "assuming the infant has not expressed any opposition to attending the parent's religious service" to imply that any infant, or at least any infant that is not truly extraordinary, would do so or would be able to do so. I meant it as emphasizing that we're talking about a person who cannot express such opposition. Again, I could have worded it better.

If you do want to see my response to a hypothetical about an infant who actually can and does express such opposition, though, see my response to Enn above.

[Krioval]

First, yes, in your scenario, I would have been physically assaulted, and rather obviously. Why you somehow claim that "shov[ing pork] into [one's] mouth, holding [one's] mouth and nose in order to force [one] to swallow it" is not physical assault tantamount to torture - and illegal by current WA legislation - is unclear. I mean, this scenario actually involves the forcible insertion of some object (edible, in this case, but still) into a bodily orifice against the will of the victim. This is not the same as making a child attend grandma's funeral in a Christian church, or making a child see a Muslim prayer service in a mosque as part of a program on multiculturalism.

The closest thing this resolution *might* allow is the placing of the pork chops in front of a child who professes Judaism, in which case the child can refuse to partake. The end. If the parents physically force the consumption, that would be abuse by WA law. If the parents refuse to allow the child any other food, that would also by abuse by international law. Thus, the histrionics and ridiculous analogies are readily deconstructed and answered.

I used this example to illustrate the concept of "spiritual rape" and how someone who devoutly follows a religion can feel deeply, profoundly and fundamentally violated by being compelled to violate the tenets of that religion. Forcing one to attend a religious service that violate's ones beliefs, compelling one to take communion or to bow one's head in prayer and worship to what one believes is a false god may not seem as severe, but the violation can be just as real to one who holds her beliefs strongly.

I have taken care to preserve the entire conversation on this point because I don't believe that you can drop an "example" involving actual physical assault and then claim that it is the same as taking a child to a religious service. You actually denied that any real physical assault was taking place when an individual was being force fed, with another plugging the mouth and nose so as to force swallowing. The reason that this scenario is damaging is because of the physical assault. It wouldn't matter why somebody didn't want to eat the pork chop; nobody has the right to violate another person's bodily integrity. The aspect of spirituality is utterly irrelevant to the case, and I don't appreciate your waving it away as an "example" when it does nothing to reinforce your case.

And yet again, nothing says that the child must approach the service in anything remotely approximating reverence, let alone taking communion or bowing one's head in prayer. With teenagers, I expect eye rolling to the be main activity.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Meekinos]

The problem with the repeal and the proposal is this: the interpretation of what a child is. It seems to us that various ambassadors and delegates are using the terms "child" and "children" to refer to a whole spectrum of minors, including those near the threshold of majority. Some delegates see "children" as very young citizens, such as those who have neither reach puberty nor the "age of reason", while others use "children" in very broad contexts.

In fact, the whole problem stems from the proposal in question using the terms "adults" and "children" in very broad contexts. This is leading to a lot of contention. For example, we noticed that almost no one has differentiated infants, toddlers, kids, pre-teens and teens in terms of spiritual development. This is a problem because by pre-teens, some minors would have developed some of their spiritual sense. They may have already decided that they don't agree with the parents' choice, but given the wording, the proposal treats older minors as ignorant toddlers.

We believe it is reasonable for parents to bring infants, toddlers and kids (young ones) to their religious services. There would probably be little compulsion involved because they would not be as spiritually developed as older kids; pre-teens and teens. The proposal becomes unreasonable when dealing with older kids, especially those who are teens or are close to the threshold of majority.

We are always someone's "children" even as adults, just as our children when adults will still be out children.

[Krioval]

We are always someone's "children" even as adults, just as our children when adults will still be out children.

To be fair, parents of adult children should be able to discuss their religious views, even if nobody really wants to get all of those obnoxious chain emails.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Embolalia]

*supports without reading*

[Meekinos]

We are always someone's "children" even as adults, just as our children when adults will still be out children.

To be fair, parents of adult children should be able to discuss their religious views, even if nobody really wants to get all of those obnoxious chain emails.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

We aren't saying they shouldn't, all we're saying is we feel that the lack of clarity behind the use of certain terms has lent itself to this unfortunate scenario.

[Krioval]

*supports without reading*

You support a repeal of a resolution that hasn't come to vote, and without reading the repeal text? Is this another example of leading without reading?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Darenjo]

*supports without reading*

You support a repeal of a resolution that hasn't come to vote, and without reading the repeal text? Is this another example of leading without reading?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

It could simply be an example of 'i read that person's comment so i'll support this'

Anyway, i support the repeal, as does my region - MY REGION HAS UNIBOT, CANADIAN PACIFIC, HOLY ROMAN CONFEDERATE, ETC. WE ARE IMPORTANT!!!

ps - people on my regions comment board told me to go on some sort of mini rant. So there you go.

[Mousebumples]

You support a repeal of a resolution that hasn't come to vote, and without reading the repeal text? Is this another example of leading without reading?

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

Perhaps they simply do not care the means if it comes to their desired end.

I believe Ambassador Søgård's point was more that there is nothing to repeal as of yet. I can understand not wanting it to pass, but I - like many of my fellow ambassadors - feel that such energy would be better spent trying to make sure it doesn't pass than supporting a repeal of what is merely a proposal at this point.

[Embolalia]

Perhaps they simply do not care the means if it comes to their desired end.

I believe Ambassador Søgård's point was more that there is nothing to repeal as of yet. I can understand not wanting it to pass, but I - like many of my fellow ambassadors - feel that such energy would be better spent trying to make sure it doesn't pass than supporting a repeal of what is merely a proposal at this point.

If I may...
The ambassador from Canadian Pacific actually has it just about right. In the event that F&R should pass, I would support this repeal no matter what it says (because I disagree so strongly with F&R). As the ambassador from Mousebumples alluded to, there's really no point in getting too invested in a repeal debate for a proposal that hasn't passed yet. My previous comment was merely a showing of my dislike of F&R. If F&R manages to pass, I'll give the repeal a better read, and still support it.

[Enn]

So... you're just lazy? You don't care about the exact wording?

What precisely are you doing in this chamber then?

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn

[New Severania]

IT hasnt even been voted for yet!

[Krioval]

Here's our draft, in that case:

Repeal 'A proposal that hasn't been voted on yet'
Category: Ridiculousness, Strength: Ultimate

RECOGNIZING this category doesn't exist but should.

Moo oink squee squee. Hippos are very large. Max Barry Day II.

REPEALS 'A proposal that hasn't been voted on yet'

I eagerly await the mass of approvals that is sure to come my way.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Mousebumples]

Here's our draft, in that case:

Repeal 'A proposal that hasn't been voted on yet'
Category: Ridiculousness, Strength: Ultimate

RECOGNIZING this category doesn't exist but should.

Moo oink squee squee. Hippos are very large. Max Barry Day II.

REPEALS 'A proposal that hasn't been voted on yet'

I eagerly await the mass of approvals that is sure to come my way.

Ambassador Søgård, you had my vote at "Hippos are very large."

*approves*

[Quelesh]

I used this example to illustrate the concept of "spiritual rape" and how someone who devoutly follows a religion can feel deeply, profoundly and fundamentally violated by being compelled to violate the tenets of that religion. Forcing one to attend a religious service that violate's ones beliefs, compelling one to take communion or to bow one's head in prayer and worship to what one believes is a false god may not seem as severe, but the violation can be just as real to one who holds her beliefs strongly.

I have taken care to preserve the entire conversation on this point because I don't believe that you can drop an "example" involving actual physical assault and then claim that it is the same as taking a child to a religious service. You actually denied that any real physical assault was taking place when an individual was being force fed, with another plugging the mouth and nose so as to force swallowing. The reason that this scenario is damaging is because of the physical assault. It wouldn't matter why somebody didn't want to eat the pork chop; nobody has the right to violate another person's bodily integrity. The aspect of spirituality is utterly irrelevant to the case, and I don't appreciate your waving it away as an "example" when it does nothing to reinforce your case.

And yet again, nothing says that the child must approach the service in anything remotely approximating reverence, let alone taking communion or bowing one's head in prayer. With teenagers, I expect eye rolling to the be main activity.

Are you really saying that a devout Jew, forced to commit an act that runs contrary to his most fundamental religious beliefs, would only be upset simply because someone held his nose and mouth closed? That forcing a person to commit a serious sin against his god is, in your words, "irrelevant"? Are you crazy? It is far more than a physical assault, it is an assault on a person's very being, on his religion, on his god, on his most fundamental beliefs.

Using coercion rather than physical force to make a devout Jew eat the pork would be just as bad from the Jew's perspective. Or coercing a Wiccan into taking Christian communion, or coercing a druid into bowing down in the direction of Mecca and at least pretending to pray to the Muslim god. If you don't see how that can be traumatizing for a person with deeply-held religious beliefs, of whatever age, then I don't know how you can be made to see it.

[Mousebumples]

Using coercion rather than physical force to make a devout Jew eat the pork would be just as bad from the Jew's perspective. Or coercing a Wiccan into taking Christian communion, or coercing a druid into bowing down in the direction of Mecca and at least pretending to pray to the Muslim god. If you don't see how that can be traumatizing for a person with deeply-held religious beliefs, of whatever age, then I don't know how you can be made to see it.

Where does this proposal talk about forcing dietary changes (i.e. Jews to eat pork) on anyone? [also, side note - not all Jews follow a Kosher diet, for whatever that's worth]

Where does this proposal state that anyone shall be forced to take communion - or even participate in a religious service?

You are reading more into the proposal than is present. If I'm incorrect - and there's some clause that authorized parental coercion of these activities, please let me know. However, the key clause (in my mind) is as follows:

MANDATES that neither the right of legal guardians to peacefully transmit the knowledge and practice of their religion, faith, belief, or philosophy, nor the right of legal wards to participate in the religious, faith, belief, or philosophical practices of their guardians, shall be infringed by the State.

I've emphasized the word that I think most effectively disputes your argument.

Please do quote whatever portion of the proposal that you feel illustrates the hyperbolic point you are trying to make. After all, the law is what the law says - not what you think/wish/imagine that it said.

[Embolalia]

So... you're just lazy? You don't care about the exact wording?

Have you been paying attention? What I actually said was, given the fact that this hasn't been passed yet, the repeal doesn't yet warrant a full analysis. If the actual proposal passes, I'll give this a further looking-over. My support wouldn't change (since a cursory glance tells me that it's not terrible), but I may or may not suggest alternate wordings.

[Krioval]

Are you really saying that a devout Jew, forced to commit an act that runs contrary to his most fundamental religious beliefs, would only be upset simply because someone held his nose and mouth closed? That forcing a person to commit a serious sin against his god is, in your words, "irrelevant"? Are you crazy? It is far more than a physical assault, it is an assault on a person's very being, on his religion, on his god, on his most fundamental beliefs.

Are *you* really saying that the physical assault is *secondary* in your scenario? Yes, I am saying that a devout Jew is going to react first and foremost to the violation on his or her bodily integrity. Are you somehow implying that being force fed a banana would lack the same sense of violation? Seriously? I can't speak for everybody here, but I can certainly say that if I am physically (or sexually) assaulted, I'm not thinking first and foremost about the ethereal realms.

Besides, this resolution doesn't go anywhere near force feeding people, since, as the author has repeatedly pointed out, it requires the transmission of religious information to be *peaceful*. Go figure.

Using coercion rather than physical force to make a devout Jew eat the pork would be just as bad from the Jew's perspective. Or coercing a Wiccan into taking Christian communion, or coercing a druid into bowing down in the direction of Mecca and at least pretending to pray to the Muslim god. If you don't see how that can be traumatizing for a person with deeply-held religious beliefs, of whatever age, then I don't know how you can be made to see it.

Since this resolution doesn't authorize "coercion", I don't know what your concern is. No Jews are compelled to eat pork. No Wiccans are made to take Christian communion. No druids are made to pantomime Muslim worship. You're making an issue out of something that isn't part of the proposal.

Besides, kids can be assholes, and I'd like some people to recognize that a child claiming that "my religion forbids everything I don't like", and using that as a cudgel against his or her parents can be a problem, and flogging the "children's rights" meme to its logical extreme requires either: anarchy or state control of minors (and adult parents). Krioval doesn't think that either is appropriate.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Mousebumples]

It authorizes coercion by removing the state's ability to stop coercion.

How? Quote to me the part of the proposal that does this.

[Enn]

So... you're just lazy? You don't care about the exact wording?

Have you been paying attention? What I actually said was, given the fact that this hasn't been passed yet, the repeal doesn't yet warrant a full analysis. If the actual proposal passes, I'll give this a further looking-over. My support wouldn't change (since a cursory glance tells me that it's not terrible), but I may or may not suggest alternate wordings.

You indicated you would give blind support to this repeal, without reading. That strikes me as laziness, and unbecoming of a representative to this body. For if we do not consider the exact details of wording, why are we even here?

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn

[Quelesh]

Using coercion rather than physical force to make a devout Jew eat the pork would be just as bad from the Jew's perspective. Or coercing a Wiccan into taking Christian communion, or coercing a druid into bowing down in the direction of Mecca and at least pretending to pray to the Muslim god. If you don't see how that can be traumatizing for a person with deeply-held religious beliefs, of whatever age, then I don't know how you can be made to see it.

Where does this proposal talk about forcing dietary changes (i.e. Jews to eat pork) on anyone? [also, side note - not all Jews follow a Kosher diet, for whatever that's worth]

Where does this proposal state that anyone shall be forced to take communion - or even participate in a religious service?

You are reading more into the proposal than is present. If I'm incorrect - and there's some clause that authorized parental coercion of these activities, please let me know. However, the key clause (in my mind) is as follows:

MANDATES that neither the right of legal guardians to peacefully transmit the knowledge and practice of their religion, faith, belief, or philosophy, nor the right of legal wards to participate in the religious, faith, belief, or philosophical practices of their guardians, shall be infringed by the State.

I've emphasized the word that I think most effectively disputes your argument.

Please do quote whatever portion of the proposal that you feel illustrates the hyperbolic point you are trying to make. After all, the law is what the law says - not what you think/wish/imagine that it said.

You make a good point here about what Family and Religion actually mandates (which is nothing). In case I haven't conceded the point clearly enough: Family and Religion, as currently written, would not have any effect in Quelesh, and would not have any effect in any nation that did not want it to have an effect.

"Transmitting the knowledge and practice" of a religion is already protected by GAR30 (since "transmit the practice" can be interpreted to mean simply writing down the practice and giving the piece of paper to the child, not coercing the child into actually following the practice, and that kind of parental expression (transmission of the practice) is protected by GAR30). GAR30 also protects the rights of children to express their own religion, and the last clause of Family and Religion, which seems to have been added shortly before submission, makes clear that already extant rights under international law (including children's freedom of religion under GAR30) still apply.

Basically, Family and Religion can be interpreted in such a way that it has no effect whatsoever, which (1) should make it illegal as a duplication of GAR30, (2) fully justifies opposition to its passage and (3) fully justifies support of a repeal were it to pass.

In addition, though, as I have already said to the delegate from Enn, the law has symbolic meaning beyond just what the operative clauses mandate. The operative clauses of Family and Religion would not be interpreted in a court of law as mandating any change in Quelesh or any other member state. However, if the World Assembly votes on this proposal and passes it, the WA would be agreeing with the entire text of the proposal, including the preambulatory clauses that are not legally binding. The preambulatory clauses of Family and Religion clearly say that children should not have freedom of religion, because they (up to the age of majority, apparently) are not capable of exercising it. The World Assembly, if it passes Freedom of Religion, would be agreeing symbolically with this assertion that the Kawaiian ambassador is making in the preambulatory clauses.

I oppose etching such an idea, even symbolically, into the annals of international law.

Also, my discussion of forcing a devout Jew to eat pork, against his religious beliefs, was in response to another ambassador's incredulity at the idea of "spiritual rape." It was meant to illustrate that compelling someone to violate their deeply-held religious tenets can be a very profound violation.

Are you really saying that a devout Jew, forced to commit an act that runs contrary to his most fundamental religious beliefs, would only be upset simply because someone held his nose and mouth closed? That forcing a person to commit a serious sin against his god is, in your words, "irrelevant"? Are you crazy? It is far more than a physical assault, it is an assault on a person's very being, on his religion, on his god, on his most fundamental beliefs.

Are *you* really saying that the physical assault is *secondary* in your scenario? Yes, I am saying that a devout Jew is going to react first and foremost to the violation on his or her bodily integrity. Are you somehow implying that being force fed a banana would lack the same sense of violation? Seriously? I can't speak for everybody here, but I can certainly say that if I am physically (or sexually) assaulted, I'm not thinking first and foremost about the ethereal realms.

Yes, I am most certainly saying that the physical aspect of the assault is secondary here. It would not be secondary to me, because I have no religious objection to eating pork. Being force-fed a banana would be just as objectionable to me personally as being force-fed pork chops. If, however, a prohibition on consuming pork were a part of a religion that I held very dear, that was thoroughly intermeshed with the very fiber of my being, if I saw any consumption of pork as a serious sin against my god, then yes, I would definitely be traumatized by being made to eat pork specifically. I would still see being force-fed a banana as a physical assault against me, of course, and would be upset by it, but that wouldn't force me to commit an act that I believe is reprehensible to my god and makes me unclean in his eyes.

If I were of this religious persuasion, being compelled to eat pork in particular would make me see myself as unclean, a dirty, disgusting sinner in the eyes of my god. Much worse than a simple physical assault. Again, I do not understand how you do not see this.

[Enn]

[edit] double post! Board screwing up again. Sorry!

[Enn]

Yes, I am most certainly saying that the physical aspect of the assault is secondary here. It would not be secondary to me, because I have no religious objection to eating pork. Being force-fed a banana would be just as objectionable to me personally as being force-fed pork chops. If, however, a prohibition on consuming pork were a part of a religion that I held very dear, that was thoroughly intermeshed with the very fiber of my being, if I saw any consumption of pork as a serious sin against my god, then yes, I would definitely be traumatized by being made to eat pork specifically. I would still see being force-fed a banana as a physical assault against me, of course, and would be upset by it, but that wouldn't force me to commit an act that I believe is reprehensible to my god and makes me unclean in his eyes.

If I were of this religious persuasion, being compelled to eat pork in particular would make me see myself as unclean, a dirty, disgusting sinner in the eyes of my god. Much worse than a simple physical assault. Again, I do not understand how you do not see this.

And yet you fail to grasp that the physical aspect is part of the act itself. You cannot compel someone to eat pork if they do not wish to, unless you use physical force. Without the physical force, your example is meaningless, as it would not occur. And once physical force is added in, then a clear example of abuse occurs.

Until you realise your example shows the bankruptcy of your ideas, I believe there is little more to say here.

Stephanie Fulton,
WA Co-Ambassador for Enn

[Quelesh]

Yes, I am most certainly saying that the physical aspect of the assault is secondary here. It would not be secondary to me, because I have no religious objection to eating pork. Being force-fed a banana would be just as objectionable to me personally as being force-fed pork chops. If, however, a prohibition on consuming pork were a part of a religion that I held very dear, that was thoroughly intermeshed with the very fiber of my being, if I saw any consumption of pork as a serious sin against my god, then yes, I would definitely be traumatized by being made to eat pork specifically. I would still see being force-fed a banana as a physical assault against me, of course, and would be upset by it, but that wouldn't force me to commit an act that I believe is reprehensible to my god and makes me unclean in his eyes.

If I were of this religious persuasion, being compelled to eat pork in particular would make me see myself as unclean, a dirty, disgusting sinner in the eyes of my god. Much worse than a simple physical assault. Again, I do not understand how you do not see this.

And yet you fail to grasp that the physical aspect is part of the act itself. You cannot compel someone to eat pork if they do not wish to, unless you use physical force. Without the physical force, your example is meaningless, as it would not occur. And once physical force is added in, then a clear example of abuse occurs.

Until you realise your example shows the bankruptcy of your ideas, I believe there is little more to say here.

You can compel someone to eat pork without using physical force. To return more closely to the issue at hand, let us say that the devout Jew here is ten years old, and the people trying to get him to eat pork are his atheist/Christian/Pastafarian/whatever parents.

One option the parents have to get the child to eat pork, short of outright physical force, is simply withholding any other kind of food. They're providing food (pork) to the child, thus meeting their requirements under a nation's law to provide for the sustenance of their offspring. It's the child himself choosing not to eat it, getting weaker and weaker as he goes without nourishment. That's abuse, right?

Now a nation could outlaw that, of course (never mind that outlawing that treatment is interfering with the parents passing on religious beliefs to the child). But the parents have other methods of coercion at their disposal too. They can, for example, ground the child indefinitely until he eats pork. They can confine the child to his bedroom, with no books, TV or anything else to do except sitting on his bed and daydreaming. They'd let him out to go to school, sure, but afterwards right back in the room. Can't go hang out with friends, can't go see a movie or a play, can't go anywhere but school and his bedroom until he eats pork. Can't have anything to read, anything to watch, anything to do otherwise, until he eats pork. This could go on for four, six, eight years, however long it takes him to reach the age of majority where the state will allow him to move out of his parents' home. Is that abuse? I say most certainly yes.

Or, in nations which allow this, they could simply use corporal punishment. Every day that goes by where he doesn't eat pork, he gets a spanking. That's a form of physical assault that is legal in many places (legal to inflict upon children, at least). Imagine getting a spanking every day for four, six, eight years because of your refusal to sacrifice your religious beliefs. Would that be abuse?

Yes, it is certainly possible (and very possible in many nations in the case of children) to compel someone to violate their religious beliefs, and punish them when they do not do so, without using outright physical force.