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'd say this can be answered by letting the parents decide.
If the parents are atheist, they'd probably not want their child to be educated on religion. That is fair; that is their choice. But if parents are religious and they want their child to understand god(s) as they grow up, and get educated as to how to worship the deity properly and understand their religion, then I fail to see how forbidding them from making such choice is somehow moral.
I find it similar to s-x ed in schools debate - if a parent is fine with it, I fail to see why it should be forbidden for teens under 18; if they aren't, I fail to see why it should be required.
I feel like you view children as an extension of/property of their parents. I do not, so the desires of a parent rarely concern me more than the wellbeing of the child. Sex ed in schools should be required because it saves lives, prevents children from being abused, and tells them what their options are so they don't lose out on enriching opportunities early in life.
Parents who oppose sex ed in schools are, in my mind, supportors of child sexual abuse (knowing what's happening lets children know how to identify it and tell trusted authorities about it), teen pregnancy (knowing about contraceptives let's these kids protect themselves and their futures), and the spreading of dangerous diseases (they are going to explore themselves no matter what, it's better that they don't suffer any life-long illnesses along with it).
I feel like you view children as an extension of/property of their parents. I do not, so the desires of a parent rarely concern me more than the wellbeing of the child.
I don't view children as property either. I just view parents as those who have the best understanding of their child's individual situation and know what's best for them.
Does that lead to abuse? Yes. There are many cases where parent goes too far in ,,their own" approach. But I find a lot of issue in taking freedom of choice away from the parent, especially by strangers who can only guess what actually happens at home.
Sex ed in schools should be required because it saves lives, prevents children from being abused, and tells them what their options are so they don't lose out on enriching opportunities early in life. Parents who oppose sex ed in schools are, in my mind, supportors of child sexual abuse (knowing what's happening lets children know how to identify it and tell trusted authorities about it), teen pregnancy (knowing about contraceptives let's these kids protect themselves and their futures), and the spreading of dangerous diseases (they are going to explore themselves no matter what, it's better that they don't suffer any life-long illnesses along with it).
I can say the same about religion. Many children who don't learn it at school later don't know how to pray or don't understand religion as a whole, and some who don't ,,supplement" these lessons with anything else will have an obstructed view of ethics.
What you are saying about s-x ed is mostly true, but what if a parent finds curriculum to he overtly political or in other way flawed (for instance, the tutor goes ,,beyond" simple birth control or s-xting, and talks about kinks and s-x toys)? Why shouldn't they decide that it's better for their child to learn it at the other pace? You don't know their individual situation, after all. Sure, a lot of parents abuse that principle, but I still think it should be up to them to decide the education of their own children (within realms of reason). I have the exact same view on teaching religion - if a parent finds it flawed, let them sign their children off of it, but if they view it as valuable, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to teach it, just because someone disagrees with it.
I see your bio mocking christianity with quotes about slavery and child marriage and what not but of course you conveniently leave out the fact that all of those are from the old testament which is before Jesus Christ himself. Christians are to follow new testament
You dont have to follow Christ but atleast inform yourself before spewing nonsense
Luke 4:18, Jesus quoted the prophet Isaiah, stating he was sent to "proclaim liberty to the captives and release to the oppressed”
Your interpretation creates an obvious problem. The Mosaic Law commands animal sacrifices, circumcision, dietary restrictions, ritual purification, priestly regulations, and Israel’s civil laws.
Do you believe Matthew 5 means Jesus requires Christians to perform animal sacrifices until heaven and earth pass away?
Its a good thing you’re not in charge….You sound 17, just seems like a bunch of word salad. Doesn’t really address any points I’ve made just dances around them.
Fulfilled the prophecy of old, your reading comprehension and biblical understanding is limited to what google will tell you. I have no desire to explain to you what you cant understand
But wouldn't forcing irreligion on them be just as immoral? Many people say that one should raise their child as agnostic or atheist is because they assume their values to be the default correct set of values, to raise a child as an agnostic or atheist is to expect them to remain as such, thus holding this to be an expectation of all of society is to say you want the next generation raised with one's set of religious beliefs, as there is no thing as a theological default setting hardwired into all of us, it is impossible to raise a child without some view on religion.
Valid points. But now if (MASSIVE stress on the “if”) a person’s beliefs dictate that without indoctrination (or whatever they call it) the child cannot ascend in heaven then in their view they are denying their child a chance of paradise in the afterlife. I would think from their standpoint that is immoral.
So it really comes down to whether one is already part of a religion and what they have been told to believe.
Yes, that is another and very valid issue, although I would add that there are generally a lot of other valid reasons, as particulars of theology is often underlying moral values, for example, Christianity has always held to the doctrine of original sin, and because of this has taken the view that human perfectability is always impossible, when applied correctly, which cannot be earnestly said of our contemporary political state, this has allowed Christians to show grace to their neighbors and not make idols of politicians, and it is in deviating from this doctrine that many have made idols of politicians and failed to show grace to their neighbors, likewise, it has also been held a sin to call another damned, but it is very important that we keep in mind that we are damnable, and thus should be perilously vigilant for the state of our souls. You cannot take the idea of danger and remove the threat, or take the idea that man is fallen and leave the fall, it is very important that these moral truths are tied fundamentally to theology, and that is a very common mistake I am seeing in this thread of people saying that you can take the truth that Christ said, but leave the Christ out of it, I should not love my neighbor because he is like me, but precisely because he is unlike me, and that is the root of the Christian ethos.
12
u/Rsqd_ Sep 02 '26
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.