Atheism

Their perception isn't reality. A parent can literally believe whatever they want and we don't allow them to physically harm their child for it. This is a simple extension into the psychological.

If that’s the parents’ actual convinced belief then the parent should have all right to tell that to their child for the exact same reason that a parent can tell their child that they will get run over if they play in the middle of a busy road.

"The exact same reason?" That reason is that getting run over is a real, provable danger.

Intent is not what determines whether something is abuse.

Sincere belief in some shit you have no evidence for does not justify any action at all, ever. It's that simple.

There should be no religious exemption for child abuse

…However in this case the parent may literally believe that if their child does not go to the religious activity that child will go to hell. If that's the parents' actual convinced belief then the parent should have all right to tell that to their child for the exact same reason that a parent can tell their child that they will get run over if they play in the middle of a busy road. Both things are, to the parent, true dangers that they are conveying to their child.

The key distinction between these 2 examples is the former is a subjective, intangible belief; and the latter is an objectively tangible, disprovable possibility.

A delusion should never be permitted as justification for harming anyone, especially of a child in one’s care.

I understand that Japan has had problems with crazy cults recently

Brother, they've been having problems with crazy cults since the 80's.

This is a good comment and it forced me to really think about this. So here's my try:

Firstly, regarding the "social" position of different beliefs. The danger of playing on the road is as close to objective and universally accepted as it gets (that's why the state made laws against playing on the road); the belief of going to hell for whatever is usually instilled by a particular institution/community, which is aware that their belief is not accepted as true or relevant by many, including the state (otherwise, the state would make laws in accordance with that belief).

Secondly, the parent might also have delusions and hallucinate nonexistent dangers, thereby harming the child similarly as the religious cases, just limited to an individual situation. In such cases the parent is also completely convinced of the danger, just like how a religious parent is convinced of the danger of hell and practically everyone of the danger of playing on the road. But the state can't view all these beliefs as the same. In the case of insanity, it would be expected for the parent to lose custody of the child, so it seems logical to punish the same outcome with different motivation, i.e. religious. Or do we permit ridiculous and possibly harmful belief as long as it is religious, i.e. communal?

I do however agree that the religious limiting of career paths shouldn't be focused on. I think that a law against such limiting should be general, assumimg it is tenable at all. I am not aware of the exact situation in Japan, how the Unification Church affects people's beliefs regarding career paths, which that might help understand this law better.

for the exact same reason that a parent can tell their child that they will get run over if they play in the middle of a busy road

I'd say that this is actually a pretty good comparison. Like, I wouldn't say parents should be banned in discussing concepts like hell just like they shouldn't be banned from discussing people being hit by a car. At the same time, there is a huge difference between talking about death or suffering in a kid-safe way and scaring them - that should be where the line is drawn. If a parent tells their child that running into the road will have their body painfully crushed and smeared down the road, it doesn't matter if its secular, its psychological abuse, and conversely, if a parent says their child needs to go to services to protect them from hell, its not inherently abuse just because its religious. Ultimately, religion is just a collection of ideas/beliefs, and they shouldn't have more or less privilege based on the label applied to them.

You raise some good points and I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted.

I think, while it’s been exaggerated, getting eaten by a wolf/coyote/dingo/bear/whatever in the woods/your sleep etc are based on things that have happened or are seen at least as a possibility.

I feel the same can’t be said about people’s interpretations of the contents of one book, edited many times over the centuries to suit whichever rulers agenda, and based on ideals from the late Stone Age to be any basis for modern life.

I support religious freedom for adults when it’s their own choice. I can’t support it when it’s inflicted on impressionable minds when the alternatives aren’t discussed.