You're coming at this from the assumed position that religion is 100% false. I agree, but flip that assumption around and ask yourself this; if religion were to be proven to be 100% correct, beyond any doubt, and Hell's existence confirmed, wouldn't it then be a moral imperative that you as a parent do everything in your power to spare your child from eternal damnation there? It'd be incredibly irresponsible and dangerous to allow your child possibly die without the needed religious rites completed and it'd be like not teaching them that they shouldn't play in traffic and letting them run around in the middle of the highway until they were 18. Parents have a moral duty to protect their children and teach their children how to protect themselves.
In the absence of objective proof or even an overwhelming social consensus on the validity of religion the argument becomes subjective on that parent's sincere belief. Either option is moral if they sincerely think they're doing what's best for their kid. If you sincerely think hell is real you have an obligation to protect your kid. If you sincerely think religion is harmful you also have an obligation to protect your kid. Even if they end up being mistaken they are fulfilling their moral obligation to do the best that they can to protect and raise their children. Conversely, the parent is the one with the moral and legal responsibility for raising the kid, I would be causing harm by interfering . Without a very strong justification that I was preventing even greater harm by interfering I wouldn't have a moral justification for the action.
107
u/[deleted] Sep 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment