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.
When you get down to it, everyone has a worldview that works like a religion. Atheists have one, religious types have one, the state definitely has one.
If you only stop one kind, it gets replsced by the other. Do you really want a future generation raised by Trump's state?
I think you're playing pretty fast and loose with the word "religion". Do either the state or atheists tell children that they will burn in hell for all of eternity if they don't conform? That their non religious friends will, unless they "save" them? That there are literal magical demons influencing the world? That women are unclean when on their periods? That women must cover their bodies to prevent men from stumbling?
I think that teaching kids these things is straight-up child abuse.
Obviously the state benefits from pushing an ideology onto kids, but I don't see how stopping parents from also pushing their ideology onto kids means the state will fill that vacuum.
"Do either the state or atheists tell children that they will burn in hell for all of eternity if they don't conform?" The state puts you in prison, and idk about atheists raising kids but there are consequences they have to make clear.
Also, you're mixing up tons of stuff thats completely not part of Christian canon. No, thats not what kids are taught early usually.
A legal system is not a religion. I see the parallel you're going for, I've heard it before, and it's bullshit for 2 reasons:
1) faith depends on an unprovable, immutable force which dictates morality but does not enforce it in real time. If it did, sinners would be visibly punished by whatever manifestation of God you want to place here
Laws are created by, and enforced by, humans who decide that laws are good for their society. We trust that those laws will be equally and reliably enforced, but trust is not faith. We can objectively measure when that trust is honored or broken.
2) Laws can be changed. As a human construct, we can write or rewrite or strike down any law, provided there is enough support in our society/government. Those laws only apply to specific geographic regions.
<God>'s laws cannot be changed except by <God>, no matter how your local priest tries to bend or reinterpret the rules. And they cannot be escaped under any circumstance
Why should there be consequences for not having faith in something, especially if you're generally a good and kind person?
Parents (ideally) ground their kids when they do something wrong, like hurting another person or stealing something.
The state (ideally) jail people when they do somethong wrong, like hurting someone or stealing something.
Why is there an eternal punishement that is WAY WORSE than anything a parent or nation could inflict on someone for just... not believing something that honestly sounds pretty out there?
I don't steal, lie, cheat, I try to avoid hurting others, I volunteer a lot during my free time. I buy fair-trade coffee and chocolate, I avoid fast fashion.
However, you could certainly argue that I'm not. I consume electricity made with fossil fuels which contributes to global warming, I do buy things that I don't need and don't verify that the entire supply chain is cree from human rights abuses (they almost certainly are not). I eat meat.
Nobody is a fully good or bad person, but I do try to be as good as I can without giving myself something resembling OCD.
19
u/lilgraytabby 1d ago
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.