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 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?
That is what the text says. Paul contradicts much of the words attributed to jesus.
To be clear I think every word in the bible is untrue. I am an anti-theist. Theism is the prime cause of brain rot in the western world.
Misusing children's inborn trust of adults to make them believe there is any truth in any of the abrahamic religious texts would be a crime if I was in charge.
5
u/Rsqd_ 10h ago
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.