Generalities

Part of the problem discussions such as this one (which is a good one) is that the debaters often overlook that most statements are made in general terms. So, when I say, "The parents rules are what I would go with," it is incorrectly interpreted as having no exceptions. This works both ways, and our "disagreements" may not be as "disagreeing" as they appear when the big picture is viewed.

For the record: If I genuinely believed that a parent's rules were significantly harmful to a child, I would undermine those rules. If the rules are something I disagree with but are not harmful to the child, I would do all I could (without being dishonest) to NOT undermine the parents.

There is not clear cut black/white line that is crossed when judging systems of raising children: Everything must be evaluated as on a spectrum, and every individual situation must be evaluated individually.

Extreme example: If the parents' rules said the child must enter into self-flagellation (where they beat themselves with whips), I would report them to the police and do what I could to save the child.

A not so extreme example dealing with religion: If I were an Atheist, and a five year old child (whose parents are devout Christians) asked me about God, I would most likely support the parents view and not cause confusion for the child. But if that same child asked me again at age 10, I would likely present my views to the child, but by no means badger them. I would still encourage them to discuss what I told them with their parents. At age 15, I would probably try for more convincing arguments, as they are more able to think for themselves. By the time they are around adult age, full fledged debate would ensue. And of course, every child is different at every age.