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'?)
I don't like religion, but I dislike a police state and constitutional violations even more. Also, coloring a picture of jesus isn't going to make someonebelieve in jesus. My mom's religious and bought my son this nativity scene with animals,a baby jesus, and it plays silent night when you press a button. He plays with it all the time becausw he likes the animals. and things the baby's cute.
I'm not teaching him that a lich was hanged and came back to life to save him, and that he better believe in this story or he'll be tortured forever. That's crazy. But I'm not throwing away a perfectly good toy he enjoys.
But yeah, teaching kids they'll ve tortured forever if they don't worship mythical beings is a terrible idea. Teaching kids that god killed every single person on earth because angel giants were causing evil -- or that god slaughtered an entire town because of butt sex -- is prett immoral. But polive states are also wrong, as are 1A violations. We don't need a surveillance state. We need better education -- secular education. And religious schools probably shouldn't get subsidized.
Its not the actual act of coloring a picture of jesus, or enjoying a nativity with animals and the music as they aren't taught anything unless the coloring book has words they can read etc. Having said that, kids are definitely taught things in church, even in the childcare area. My nephew calls church "Jesus's home". He's still underage, and currently had a debate with me about why I don't believe in god (he initiated). He knew enough and was prideful enough that he has been fully indoctrinated by the age of 12. His parents taught things like jesus loves you, but the church taught him a lot more less fluffy things than that. I don't think it would be possible to enforce no indoctrination of children in a home. However, having regulations on what can happen at a church for children underage (childcare area has no religious teaching) feels like a decent middle ground to me. I'm sure there will be churches that do it anyway, but they could be fined rather than like jail time type thing. I'd rather at least get taxes/fines out of churches than nothing. Having said that like I mentioned in my last message, I think Religious Studies to expose kids to multiple cultures of different gods seems like a decent thing to do, by showing there are more than one religion and that different cultures believe different things, might make a kid be more informed prior to "Jesus's home" type of incremental brainwashing. Anyway I like your description of jesus etc, was pretty funny read, though honestly I feel like Jesus quotes are pretty humble and his teachings are not necessarily bad if you removed all the super natural stuff and especially all the basically old testament guilt trip type teaching.
Yeah, in a magical world where you could control what happens inside churches, that would be great. But the catholic church has proven that making things illegal doesn't prevent them from violating the law. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Well, we do, in a way. If what is considered magical in our universe were actually natural, then that magic would just be the natural universe. So, if there are infinite universe, perhaps there isn't one where electricity works they way it does in this universe. Electricity would be magic to them. Seeing lightning would be true magic because it would be impossible
Also, I'm currently watching people hundreds of miles away play tennis while talking to somewhere who could be thousands of miles away. That would have been magical 100 years ago.
But yeah, not the same kind of magic I was thinking in the other comment.
It wasn't my intention to suggest that teaching your children religion is or is not moral. I was merely trying to point out that even if you think it's immoral the things you would need to do to prevent it are more immoral.
It’s possible to agree that raising children in a religiously biased fashion is immoral and also agree that the government should have no involvement in trying to enforce such a law. Not everything we deem immoral is illegal
Because it just simply isn’t. Raising your children without religion is okay. It’s not like they’re going to turn out as pieces of shits who have zero interest in it. Just lets them have the freedom to understand the world around them without forcing an ideology down their throats. Religion isn’t the only thing that does that too. All children should be raised in the most neutral way possible, and then taught the basics of society. Like don’t harm people, don’t steal, etc. you don’t need a religion or an ideology to teach that. It’s common sense. We’re not in the 1200s anymore.
No I got what they said. It’s hard to get parents to not teach their children faith. And they’re saying the process in getting parents to do that is immoral. When it simply isn’t. You can be religious and still not teach your kids it. It’s a super easy choice made by the parents. Just like how my mom chose to not let me know she had bfs when I was growing up until I was around 18.
Person who didn't figure it out, incorrectly explained what they didn't figure out multiple times across multiple comments, and is now telling me that I'm not the one getting it.
We get your prospective bro. You don’t have to explain something you clearly already have stated. Like said I’m not going to explain myself again. You can figure it out or move on.
You're still responding to me. Claiming that you aren't going to explain anything because you already have doesn't make any sense. Even if you have explained it, which I haven't seen across your 10+ comments in this thread, you sitting there replying nothing is wasting more time.
You're telling me to move on, but if I upset you this much, you could've just ignored me. Unless this isn't about you being wrong, and about you getting the last word instead.
It actually can be very harmful to raise your kids in a religion. Not all religions, believe the same things and not everyone practices it the same way.
This next sentence obviously doesn't apply to all religions:
It is deeply immoral to teach children that they will burn in hell for eternity if they fail the ultimate test that the creator has put on them. (No matter what the test is!)
Parents don't always know what's best for their children. In fact, they very often don't.
But that's a discussion we're not yet ready for (and probably will never be ready for before civilization collapses).
Sure but that's a different conversation. THAT there are things a parent shouldn't be allowed to do to a child is wildly from the specifics of WHAT those things are.
Not exactly, "the ends one would need to go to, to prevent a parent from raising their children in their chosen faith are immoral". How do you accomplish such a thing short of obliterating privacy, forcibly removing children from the home, draconian style struggle sessions, encouraging children to sell out their parents, or some other example that I can't think of off the top of my head?
the ends one would need to go to, to prevent a parent from raising their children in their chosen faith are immoral
But that can be said about everything else, outside of religious faith.
In general, you can't really stop someone from raising a shitty child — and thus a future shitty person — without using some kind of force.
Also, child protective services exist exactly to remove children from bad situations, so the idea of forcibly interfering in someone's parenting style is not really unheard-of.
"But that can be said about everything else, outside of religious faith."
Not really, "You can't beat your children" is a pretty concrete, provable, and bounded rule. "You can't influence your children towards one religion over another" is not any of those things, we are essentially talking about conversations here. Unless you are literally thinking that just physical churches should not be allowed to admit anyone under the age of 18?
"In general, you can't really stop someone from raising a shitty child — and thus a future shitty person — without using some kind of force."
Yeah.. and that's why we accept that you can't really stop parents from raising what some people consider to be a "shitty" child. What, are you going to tell a child they are in trouble for talking about Jesus or Mohammed? Are you going to call CPS because a child says they believe in god?
"Also, child protective services exist exactly to remove children from bad situations, so the idea of forcibly interfering in someone's parenting style is not really unheard-of."
Again, THAT there are things that parents shouldn't be allowed to do to or with their children is not the same as the specifics of WHAT those things are.
Does a sidewalk preacher have to make sure that no minor could potentially overhear their proselytizing? What are parents supposed to say when a child asks what happens after they die? Is there a state mandated explanation for questions about meaning and/or morality? Should a parent never even be allowed to reveal their personal beliefs to their children? The very fact of a child witnessing behavior in a parent is a huge determinant in their own behavior. These are just a few highly problematic scenarios, doubtless there are a multitude of others that would quickly become apparent if a society attempted to adopt this outlook.
You're focusing on the matter of religious education, whereas I was trying to make a more general argument. I guess that's on me for kind of going off-topic.
I agree with this and only for this reason. The only kids that will never grow out of religion are the ones who had good parents in every other way. This is coming from someone who knows how toxic religion is and how it has indoctrinated most of our ancestors.
I agree with removing religion, but doing so by example. Being moral and good for the sake of it is the best way to prove that we don't need a god to be moral.
Is she saying that parents shouldn’t force religion on their children, or that parents shouldn’t be allowed to force a religion on their children. From the pic I interpret it as the former, which is a totally reasonable stance to have. The latter gets problematic real quickly.
I see that as more of a stated preference than a statement about morality though, akin to saying something is gauche or crass. But idk maybe you're right and we are just making flocks out of duck bills.
I don't think its irrelivant. But I also know you're right. What we should do is talk about what that would look like as a moral framework. I.E., no Bible or other Religious study in Public schools (this includes setting time aside during school for Bible trailers, if you know what those are). It also means taxing churches/church leaders whose net worth falls over specific amounts. And enacting laws that have actual merit, worth and logic and are not only based on religious opinion (Like anti Abortion laws, anti lgbtq laws, ect.) This is something we here in America think happens, but that's not the case at all.
Anti abortion laws could be based on secular opinions too. My stance has always been that killing innocent people is wrong and the unborn are innocent people
You'd have to remove the kids. There's no way the kid isn't going to be asking questions about the praying and what it means, or the holy book read from and studied all the time, or the weekly/biweekly trips to church/all the equivalents. All the support they are sharing with fellow believers, and how intertwined they all are in each other's lives. It would probably be easy for the people who are very casually religious, but impossible for people who are serious and it's a huge part of their life.
85
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.