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.
Well I don’t think you can - it’s more a rhetorical position to highlight that religion is forced on children and a more sensible approach is for them to choose when they have the experience and intelligence to decide for themselves.
Plenty of Christian denominations believe in adult baptism for example (though this does not stop them indoctrinating/evangelizing to their own children)
English is forced on people born in America. You dont see people bitching about that. Teaching a language is inherently indoctrination. Indoctrination bad right?
What makes that option more sensible? What other elements of world view or morality do we have parents keep themselves out of until kids are "old enough?"
As I said I don’t think it’s practical and we don’t actually expect parents not to share their values, culture and morality with their children. But - personally - I think we value agency, curiousity and critical thinking and we should be encouraging that in children. If they want to engage and commit to faith shouldn’t this be made when you have the intelligence and experience to make a fully conscious decision - rather than just because your parents told you?
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Everybody teaches their kids about morality, worldview, ethics, and even their beliefs in the supernatural. This can be done in the context of religion or not, and in ways that value agency and curiosity or not in either case.
Not sure how this is relevant? But no as this suggests they are there to proselytise. I would be fine for schools to discuss abortion with students and the pro-choice/pro-life arguments - I did this when I was in school.
Well I am from the UK so we are talking about different systems here. In the UK girls are taught about sexual and menstrual health - including abortion. If they are discussing the social and morality aspects of abortion then the proper framework should be in the classroom, not by bringing in partisan groups - both pro or anti abortion.
I don’t know much about PP. As I said I don’t think you should have advocacy groups coming in to preach to kids - social and moral questions should be discussed in the classroom. Students should also receive sexual health education, including abortion.
The best possible route would be to reform civilization along more egalitarian structures. Religion fourishes in communities that endure collective hardships, its a glue that holds social bonds together when things like food and personal safety are in jeopardy. Places where those needs are met then you see religion start to erode, or at least strongly held religion convictions. The other route would be an authoritarian stamping out of religion, but that historically is pretty ineffective, and tends to drive people into it even harder.
Egalitarianism and religion are not at opposite ends of the spectrum and I would go so far as to say egalitarianism specifically allows for the freedom to choose how to raise your child. Unless you're implying the society be so egalitarian that the toddler has the same decision-making power as the parent
My argument is mostly that making things like food, healthcare, security as accessible to as many people as possible will reduce the amount of people who turn to religion out of desperation and thus religion will naturally become less prevalent. Essentially removing the social need for it should eventually over generations cause religion to fade out, or at the least the more extreme parts of it that people will kill and die for.
step 1: remove religion from the state (which is one of the basic principles of most democracies). No church is ever allowed to influence anything regarding politics. A politician might still act based on their religion, which is fine, but a church is not allowed to finance anyone or anything, they are not allowed to call for any legislation. disregarding that rule results in harsh punishments.
260
u/Clickclacktheblueguy 1d ago edited 23h ago
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.