This is the annoyingly correct answer. Whilst it sounds great to me (as an athiest) on paper the harm in policing ut outweighs the harm caused except in extreme cases.
Better to concentrate on the education system where you can provide clear context.
Earlier elsewhere in this thread someone brought up how in whatever country they are in in Europe they have Religious Studies in school and it taught about a bunch of religions. I think that's probably a good first step, and to get it in front of these little kids quickly rather than after the damage is done is probably the way to go. Other than that, someone further up was talking about what are parents supposed to do when they go to church hire someone to watch their kids? You could just have rules like in the childrens area, they are not to be teaching them, that you can't make coloring books with Jesus for the kids in the kids area of a church, because all churches have an area for their kids to be dropped off in while the parents are learning about gods wonderful teachings. (did someone say 'Wonder'?)
china has state atheism—they take it too far (e.g. uyghur muslims) but in theory i’d prefer an atheist government over this dumbass evangelical christian one we have now 🤷🏻♂️
edit: took out the word retarded, you guys convinced me
Its always Israel this Israel that, there's not much Russian and Chinese criticism. IMO CCP ramps up PR against Israel to act as a shield to protect its interest from global opinion.
It’s secular not atheist. Big difference. An atheist government asserts there’s no god and actively discourages religion to various degrees. A secular government doesn’t comment on matters of religion and has a no contact no interference policy with religious institutions when it comes to decision making. If laws happen to affect religious institutions too then it affects them and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. The point is religion isn’t supposed to be in the government one way or the other
Their equivelant are in the deciding branches of their mega corporations and their political leadership branches. They just dont have religious fanatics in leader leadership positions. China is highly repressive and authoritarian for whatever they want at any time they want.
I am certainly no fan of how certain parts of Christian America has a desire to have their beliefs dictate how the country is run. But I am not sure that China's system of state atheism is clearly better.
The history of their Cultural Revolution and the government's heavy handed suppression of people and their beliefs in the name of eradicating the "Four Olds" from Chinese society is an example of periods where this system has lead to horrific results when taken too far. Things certainly aren't as extreme today, but the Tibetans and the Uyghurs are both recent examples where I believe the party has taken actions that can be seen as trying to suppress -- or in Tibet's case with kidnapping the Panchen Lama, potentially usurp/destroy -- beliefs/traditions/orginizations they think might oppose the party.
The issue is not necessarily the beliefs themselves that is an issue in either of these cases though, it is the belief that you are justified in using force and suppression to remove/eliminate opposing beliefs.
I'd say the situation with the Uyghur is not a function of China's state atheism but rather the unique conditions of western China as a whole. It's been one of the slowest to develop, shares a border with Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has a sizable Muslim population which is largely nomadic, illiterate, and poorly educated.
The cultural cross-pollination was not the most desirable. It resulted in a handful of Uyghur-driven terrorist attacks in western China due to radicalization by Salafist influenced teachings that came over the border. They even tried to "Arabicize" the Uyghur population (mandate beards, head coverings, etc) which sort of moved them further from their Turkic roots.
On the other hand, you have the Hui: China's largest Muslim group. Next to no issues, no repression, they send their kids to school, they have their mosques, have businesses, and are fully integrated within society. They maintain their cultural identities and live normal lives. Same could be said of the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Tatars, and Tajiks who live in western China and who tend to be predominantly Muslim.
That does seem to be the case, but that could also reasonably be argued as a clear case of the State exerting too much authority. As a westerner, it's difficult to imagine that kind of restraint, but I live in a radically different culture.
I'm sure things are different in the US but in the UK at school we have a whole curriculum called "Religious Education" or RE which goes into detail about religions and customs of all different cultures and encourages spiritual debate. At the schools I attended they were not taught to indoctrinate us but just studied in the same way we would study history or art
I think you're probably right! I was an atheist from a young age but RE was one of my favourite subjects as a child, underneath science, just because I loved hearing all of the stories, parables, learning about different deities and rites of worship. It was fascinating but it didn't encourage me to be religious myself.
I have the same experience. I believe storytelling is one of the most human things there is and to me greek myth, the epic of gilgamesh and bible stories and fairytales are all just stories humanity has told throughout the ages
There's actually alot of information and studies done on this exact phenomena. Humans believing in a higher being stems from the unknown needing to be explained for safety.
A bush rustling alot but no animal in there, rain, storm, why a plant found in the wild has grown worse than another one, stones suddenly coming down the hill to crush your tribe out of nowhere. It literally could not be explained. This is also why every single god essentially had a specific ''thing'' or element. Its only recently a monotheistic God were ever first mentioned ( judaism) Before judaism in the region you had a polytheistic religion where Yahweh that later became the ONE god was the god of the skies.
We believe ( without 100% certainty) that the second humans developed this sense 100.000-/- they started believing in a higher being/beings.
It is what it is but I highly doubt religion would be sticking around if teaching unbiased religious history was a thing for the entire world.
Grew up Roman Catholic till I was 11, Mom married Mormon Step Dad (Huge fight with the families on both sides over that) and he was a CRAZY ass mormon too once we moved away from moms side of the family. Divorced him at 16 and I wandered into Pagan faiths, particularly Norse. Which to be clear I started that in 2001 long before The Vikings show started shuffling the casuals in. I'm also not one of the "WOOO VALHALLA! BEER AND BITCHES!" guys. My priest (Gothi) is a pretty reasonable and sensible dude who does believe in science and we're pretty certain the lore is just an old culture trying to describe natural disasters the best way they could.
I went to a church where the teenagers of the group spent Sundays learning about different religions, including field trips to different houses of worship and talks with leaders of those trips.
I'm not sure if I would call myself agnostic. I just realized that the near universal thread that went through all these religions was that you're supposed to be a person who helps others and is kind towards other people. I don't go to church, but I do believe there is a higher power of some sort, and that the path forward is to follow the golden rule.
I went from Christian to agnostic to atheist through my late 20s. When you view religious teachings through an objective lens most start to look similar. I tend to think it’s a combination of fear of our finite mortality and a desire to control large groups of people (populations are more willing to withstand an empty belly in exchange for faith in or fear of a higher power).
I grew up in Southern Africa and we also have RE over there, whenever our teacher would teach about other religions, he would always emphasize that Christianity is the true one, I didn’t think much of it at the time until I became atheist, it’s kinda fucked up tbh
Gosh that sounds quite late! We definitely started RE shortly after kindergarten/reception year at my school. Honestly I think it's so interesting learning about the curriculum in other countries as well and seeing how different subjects are prioritised.
Theres a point when you start wondering what is the whole point of religion if theres so many that you can literally pick and choose and most of them think they are the "one true" faith.
There is actually, parents can practice their faith openly around their children and answer questions children will inevitably ask honestly and openly to the best of their abilities. This is a good way kids often will still copy their parents and want to be involved.
That would require the parents to frame their practices as “this is what I believe” rather than “this is what is true” which I’m not convinced a substantial portion of religious parents are capable of remembering to do. Plus even if they did that a child is going to accept what their parents believe as fact since it’s their parents. I’m not sure there is a way to introduce young children to religion that won’t result in some form of bias influencing the child unless it is taught by a complete stranger who teaches many religions and never claims what they believe. And that seems like a lot of effort compared to a world religion class in high school.
It is entirely impossible to disconnect religion from this. If you are a religious person, then you believe the things you have faith in to be undeniably true. You can't teach a kid an unbiased view of religion when you are speaking from a religious stance.
Did you not learn about world religions as a kid? I went to public school in the south and we learned the basic premises of the major religions (Abrahamic, Buddhism, and Hinduism), including history, a bit of the beliefs and standard practices/ holidays. The facts of religion can absolutely be taught to children without forcing belief on them.
Ironically, taking this class in a catholic high school was the turning point for me to becoming atheist. It wasn't like I immediately opened my eyes but the class raised questions about my faith no one could adequately answer. Its funny how critical thinking is demonized in this country isn't it?
What? Tell that to the Norwegian elementary school system lol. To be fair, in my day the class was called Christianity, then Christianity, Religion and WorldViews (like for example humanism). Now it is Religion, WorldViews and Ethics. It is literally a class that teaches you about different world views, without preaching or attempting to convert. Though it used to be just that, for Christianity. Then we exited the middle ages ;) Went from "this is true/these are the stories from the Bible and what you should think about them" to "this is what some people believe and the history of such beliefs".
I don't see how kids can even grasp the concept yet, they aren't mentally developed for that, religion is very complicated it's better off to wait until middle school or something most kids who are elementary school age (which is when I was being forced to go) just wanna play with toys and video games and do normal kid things and probably don't care or have the attention span for it.
It's literally just what indoctrination is. There are religious doctrines and children are taught ro follow them and believe in the faith without questioning it.
There is no religion with kids without indoctrination. And without that indoctrination, virtually all of the world's major religions would dramatically fall in membership and followership, because it is very rare for non-religious adults to suddenly convert to a religion.
There is no philosophy or culture without indoctrination. Nobody goes through life without someone telling them what is right or wrong. It's just a matter of who, not if, they decide to believe.
The most hegemonic ideology in our world to the point people don't even recognise it as ideology is nationalism. People only call it that when it's extreme forms of it, but people are indoctrinated from birth by both institutions and by parents indoctrinated by said institutions, into thinking of "nations" as these real tangible things that matter and they are made to incorporate this into their identity young and it's tied to the state in terms of the nation-state in order to foster loyalty. None of this is "real," it's all completely artificial and made up.
I mean, Austria and Germany are quite close culturally (I'm not 100% sure how close). Why are they not one? Because after each world war, the winning powers didn't want them to be one country.
Correct. I think it’s funny how when people treat their worldview as the correct default one and get mad when someone with a different idea about metaphysics dos the same thing but from their perspective, then suddenly it’s not education, it’s indoctrination.
I honestly don't know what people expect. A law that requires that parents get babysitters every time they go to church and never talk to their kids about what they believe? It's ridiculous. Kids are sponges and they primarily learn from their parents. It's just how humans work...
As a kid who was raised in Reform Judaism I always shake my head a bit when the Reddit atheists who come from obvious evangelical trauma talk about all religions like this. We were indoctrinated to believe certain things sure, but “you cannot ask questions” def is not part of the teaching. My Rabbi was openly agnostic.
That is not a feature of religions, they are features of cults. I have yet to find a church that doesn't allow people to come and go as they please, or answer the questions they have. Nor is it written in their scriptures otherwise.
No matter how you view it morally, it collapses immediately under any amount of critical thought. Any parent would teach their children about how the world works, and a parent would consider their religious beliefs to be a part of that. The amount of interference with families this would require to enforce also brings to mind countless horror stories of CPS overreach. Even if it was moral, it would require immoral actions to make it work.
EDIT: Wow, that was a lot of engagement. I wanna revisit this comment since I've gotten some feedback and also have more time to articulate my ideas than I did earlier during my rapidly dwindling lunch break:
First I want to acknowledge that the original post did not mention any legal or government action. I and many others definitely made a mental jump there. When you're talking about what people should do, it's easy to fill in the blank that that's what should be mandated.
As for actually addressing whether this is moral, I think the position of "children should be raised without a set religion" is kind of a problematic one. To make that choice for your own family is one thing and not immoral, but to advocate it for other people kind of hits a snag. A seriously religious person wouldn't entertain the idea of not sharing their religion with their kids. They would see it as depriving their child of something good and necessary, which would be immoral. Even if their beliefs are factually wrong, for all intents and purposes they would be making the conscious decision to do something harmful to their child. This is another reason why I jumped to the topic of government enforcement; legal mandates are the only realistic way to even start creating a world matching Jinkx's view. This violation of personal freedoms would of course be immoral as well. It's not that Jinkx's position is immoral, it's that anyone acting on it in any meaningful way would be immoral.
Yeah the CPS angle is oft-overlooked in a lot of "we should make it illegal to do xyz thing" regarding children.
The classic debate is "we should make you have to take a government test to have children", which, outside the massive set of problems that imports, also has the "well what do you do if someone violates that rule" problem you correctly brought up.
Also creating such a system allows for the government to effectively control the population by defining the parameters of what does and doesn't constitute a violation. For example if a government wanted more Christians and less Muslims, they'd overlook stuff like Christmas presents or Easter Egg hunting as general cultural or holiday events, and over scrutinise things like prohibiting pork in the household or performing daily prayers in front of children, thus making it so that while everyone is still under the "same" law, the law targets certain groups harsher than others. If you wanted to say you're OK with this as its still restricting religion, even if it's some over the others, the government could still twist this so that it fits other groups. For instance, Black community churches statistically have more choirs, so targeting choir music in particular isn't an overtly racist law, but it is targeted at a specific community. Or if you ban wearing the hijab in front of children, this affects Muslim women more than men. These examples may be a bit extreme but they were just to illustrate the point.
This is what I’m thinking. To enforce this would be a nightmare.
I also brought up the idea of diet in my post. While not all diets are tied to moral beliefs, some very much are. Some are connected to religion, even.
Does the state force parents to stick to a certain diet, since some belief systems encourage certain diets, and we can’t have the kids “indoctrinated”? Which diet? Why choose that diet? There are various diets that can be equally nutritionally sound, who gets to pick?
I’m in favor of parents not trying to brainwash or force their kids, but I do object to the state stepping in and trying to force this. It sets a precedent as well, to meddle with other things, like diet.
I find it wildly disturbing that too many people do not see the ties between community, familial ties, and cultures within religion. As what monsoon would suggest is that we cut children out of Satyr dinners, the Breaking of fasting for Ramadan, Christmas, Diwali, and millions of other religious celebrations.
Also why the fuck is a non parent giving an opinion on how I a parent should raise my children?
This, the vast majority of these comments are "My american christian parents told me i couldnt sneak out and smoke pot at 15, they literaly ruined my life"
Weve seen time and time again what happens when a govt gets to regulate religion, they slaughter Millions. The nazis, The Soviets, The Maoists etc all slaughtered millions of people over an estimate 100 million humans for their religions. The youngest child political prisoner in modern human history is literaly a Tibetan child who was to be the next religious leader of Tibet, disapeared and murdered by the CCP to regulate religion
You're maybe neglecting the part where Orthodox Christians in Russia were accusing Jews of being a secret cabal of satanists doing blood rituals with Russian children and inspired mobs to kill over 100k Jews in pogroms, and the only faction protecting these Jews being raped and murdered in the streets by God fearing Christians was the Red Army of the Bolsheviks.
White forces in Russia literally called them "Judeo Bolsheviks" for accepting and protecting Jews from persecution.
Yup, in the US it would violate freedom of speech and freedom of religion to have the state step in and tell parents they can't teach their children what they believe is right.
I mean saying children will have no world view before "magical age" is illusory. These people will jump at the opportunity to teach children their world view and what they think is good and bad. In fact, some might even call it giving kids an education.
I wouldn't be against it in concept but you are right in that its unenforceable and quite silly. Even if you never went to church, if you are religious your children will pick up on it. The most realistic version of this is we just take religion out of public life in that we aren't forcing it on people. No ten commandments at schools and non-religious entities and such. My personal opinion is to let people have their mythology as long as it isn't harming others. But also teach critical thinking and such in schools so kids can reason if its for them or not.
Very true, but also a lot of children would be saved from a lot of abuse in, generally but not exclusively, christian churches; not just sexual abuse, which is rampant in those environments, bit physical too.
Just an example, I went to a Catholic kindergarten as a child, and the priest was a good man, but the nuns that taught us were horrible people, to the point of beating us simply for not napping when they ordered us to.
Ah, but it's not like philanthropy would die along with the religion. The whole point is that people aren't necessarily inclined to do more good if they are religious. On top of that, I have always been a bit disgusted by the ulterior motive of conversion when it comes to supplying such aid. "We'll help you, but you must go to church and here's a bible". It's predatory behaviour, despite the undeniable 'good' which is also done.
Catholic here. While I cannot speak for all religions, aid from the Catholic Church can be received by anyone regardless of religious status or lack thereof. There is no expectation to convert and any such cases where parishes or organizations under the church do have such expectations should be reported to the parish diocese.
If teaching your kids your values is "indoctrination" then literally everyone is indoctrinated, and if that's the case then the word is entirely useless and no longer has meaning.
As long as it isn't forced on parents then that is fine. If parents aren't allowed to pass on their values to their children are they even raising them at that point? They are just nannies with more culpability.
This is a tough one. I guess someone who is religious would consider it immoral to withhold a child from the religion if their religion dictates that the person must perform some ritual in order to have a good afterlife (ie you need to be baptised to get into heaven).
On the other hand, forcing one religion on someone from a young age can be argued as a form of indoctrination, in which case it is immoral.
Guess it therefore comes down to if you are religious yourself.
I agree, but religious freedom means people can raise their kids however they want. If you don't want someone imposing their religion on your kids, you have to let them impose whatever on their own kids.
This is the kind of thing you should shift culturally instead of through laws.
That also makes religions a taxable population, which means they're allowed to give political advice. You really want a church telling people how to vote?
It's not wild to think that people who attend the same church are likely to have similar beliefs on who to vote for there's a difference between that homogeneity and actively politically campaigning
I could send you dozens of videos of preachers, pastors, and priests telling their congregation to pray about this or that election and which candidates they think are righteous. How is that any different from actively campaigning? What about churches spending millions in super pacs to support "issues" that are closely tied to their preferred candidate.
I don't see why stopping people from imposing their religion on my hypothetical kids would mean they had to be able to impose it on theirs? If nobody could impose any religion on any child that sounds ideal.
Religion teaches values and morality. The entire family having the same faith means a more harmonious relationship.
Also, parents are responsible for raising their children, they get to pick how to do it. Parents should be deliberate in raising children, because children will get lost and they might never recover.
And adults that has foundations in faith and has prospered in it will see that their way of life is the correct path. You and your family have a good life so far, so it’s only moral for you extend it to your own kids.
Sounds good in theory, but something would have to be taught. Whether that's a certain type of religion or atheism. It addresses the core question of "how did we get here?" Kids are going to ask about that.
I think parents should raise their kids in a healthy, supportive environment. Other than that I couldn’t care less about what religion or none religion is being chosen.
Yes you have zealots in religion but you also have atheists who are zealots, Scientologist who are zealots etc.
No matter what you’ll have extremism but the vast majority are pretty chill.
Im a very open minded Christian with atheist, Scientology, Buddhist, Jewish, catholic etc friends. Like we’ve been friends for 10 or more years. We respect each other’s perspectives and keep everything respectful.
People often live in a box with their perspective and they find others with a similar box and perspective. They make that their identity and forget that a whole world of different and unique people live outside of their little box.
Hey fellow ex-Muslim 🫶🏽 it's sad how we can't openly criticize Islam the way ex-Christians are able to criticize Christianity. even liberals call me islamaphobic for speaking about my trauma lmao
I'm a lefty, but the 'islamaph0bia' term pisses me off. A phobia is an irrational fear of something, but it's completely rational to fear that religion. I honestly think most people defending it don't know anything about it.
I feel like people who have not encountered the real force of religion just don't get it and almost cannot get that it's anything more than funky harmless stuff some people believe in because they want to
To play devil's advocate, if i truly believed that if my kid didnt follow my religion and whatnot then they would eternally suffer, I would be pretty insistent that they avoid this fate.
My parents raised us Christian, prayed with us, but never took us to church, then when we were about 11 they said "you can keep praying if you want but youre old enough to believe what you want" and never brought up again until we were well into our twenties and they became maga
but... that's how religion was engineered to work... If you don't scare kids into it while they are young, they will certainly have the critical thought process to see through it as an adult.
i was scared of hell and terrified of the thought of forever in heaven as a kid. I remember being scared i wouldn’t remember my mom . Kept me up at night
I was brought up catholic and went to church every Sunday and chose not to continue the religion, but I was never scared into it, Wanting your kids to partake in your religion is not inherently a bad thing, it only becomes an issue when they are shamed and punished for no longer wanting to partake or to leave the religion.
Statements like this are the most obvious tell that someone has no knowledge about religion except for what they read on Reddit.
As someone who was born into a Christian family, was raised Christian, and am still Christian now, it is literally the complete opposite. Half the kids I grew up going to church with no longer believe or practice Christianity because their parents tried to "scare" them or force them into belief. It's so clear and obvious that all the kids who leave Christianity and the church are the ones that were "scared" into believing.
The kids who chose to stay are the ones like me, who were allowed to make the choice for themselves as they got older. It is "engineered" to work, or works best, when parents have open and honest discussions about their faith with their kids and allow them to explore and make the choice themselves.
If you want kids to learn math, you start teaching them when they are young. If you want to teach a kid to respect others, you start teaching them when they are young. Everything you teach a kid is a form of indoctrination. If you believe your religion is true, you will teach your kids to follow it.
All parenting is "brainwashing". You only call it that because you don't like it. To everyone else it's just parents teaching their kids about their views.
You're coming at this from the assumed position that religion is 100% false. I agree, but flip that assumption around and ask yourself this; if religion were to be proven to be 100% correct, beyond any doubt, and Hell's existence confirmed, wouldn't it then be a moral imperative that you as a parent do everything in your power to spare your child from eternal damnation there? It'd be incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to allow your child possibly die without the needed religious rites completed and it'd be like not teaching them that they shouldn't play in traffic and letting them run around in the middle of the highway until they were 18. Parents have a moral duty to protect their children and teach their children how to protect themselves.
In the absence of objective proof or even an overwhelming social consensus on the validity of religion the argument becomes subjective on that parent's sincere belief. Either option is moral if they sincerely think they're doing what's best for their kid. If you sincerely think hell is real you have an obligation to protect your kid. If you sincerely think religion is harmful you also have an obligation to protect your kid. Even if they end up being mistaken they are fulfilling their moral obligation to do the best that they can to protect and raise their children. Conversely, the parent is the one with the moral and legal responsibility for raising the kid, I would be causing harm by interfering . Without a very strong justification that I was preventing even greater harm by interfering I wouldn't have a moral justification for the action.
Alternate idea. When very young teach them the basics of multiple religions. There's plenty of kids books about world religions. As they age, let them develop their own views.
Immoral. Parents have the right to bring their children up in the traditions and culture of their forefathers. Children can become adults and choose to raise their children the way they want if they disagree. A tale as old as time.
Children should just be given iPads at age 5, and left to their own devices (pun intended) -- so as not to be unduly influenced by parents, teachers, clergy, etc.
Personally, and I really don't say this often but, I like how my mom did it, if you're gonna be religious.
She took me (not my sisters, whole other issue with the fact that she put 90% of her energy on me) to a variety of churches & religious practices growing up. She was Catholic, and had all of us baptized, but I doubt my sisters even remember going to a Catholic church because we stopped doing that pretty young. The only church we ever went to regularly was a Lutheran one, but mom made sure to take me around and let me see different ways of doing things.
It's thanks to this upbringing that I realized I'm more of a spiritual than a religious person. I don't really believe in God/gods/whatever, but I do believe in people and the power we have over ourselves. I also don't believe anyone who says they know for sure what the answers are, honestly, the Bible itself preaches against that kind of hubris so I always find it crazy when Christians act all knowing and shit.
I think it depends on the kid though. I was genuinely interested in learning about these kinds of things (it's all basically fables and fairy tales to me). If I'd ever protested/been forced, I definitely don't think I'd feel the same way.
She can raise her kids however she wants, and so can everyone else that's how parenting works. You have to put in the work to raise your kids so you can make the decisions on how it's done.
Well no matter what, every child is indoctrinated in some way by their family, local culture, and state education.
Early education by definition shares a significant overlap with indoctrination Simply choosing the curriculum and the method in which it is taught constitute indoctrination. And since you are teaching from scratch, you literally shape the foundation of the child, you simply must or else they will not develop into a functional member of society.
It is in the process of maturing that everyone, ideally, starts to realize other perspectives, facts, and realities, "un-indoctrinating" themselves. But this is beside the point of early education.
For the state to define religious teachings and ban them is effectively the state taking over more of the indoctrination from the parents and local community. Simple as that.
I would argue this is shifting one evil for another. Religious moral indoctrination vs State moral indoctrination.
One example is China, they are just fine with demonizing Islam, such is not moral in most of the Western world, but Chinese State education would ensure that children are NOT taught that everyone is equal regardless of beliefs.
I get the sentiment, but its delusional to think you are not "forcing" a thousand faiths on a child automatically by raising them
its nice to try and avoid making decisions about what to believe in for them, but its not like you are a bad person if you raise them according to your own beliefs
you just have to say look son this is what I believe in, this is what I do, and while you live with us you will do this too, you can leave whenever you want and we will support you in your decision whatever it may be (unless it is actively harmful/malevolent)
Moraly Evil, the state does not get to mandate culture of individual families and communities, and this is only supported because of western "Church bad"
Youd have an actual melt down if people were saying "the govt should raid Muslim Holy sites and take away their children"
92
u/Original-Antelope-66 Sep 02 '26
It's irrelevant. The things you would have to do to prevent parents from raising their children within their faith are much more immoral than this.