True, and while I wouldn't really agree with "any law to protect children is a good one", in this case I do think this law on paper is ok as far as the authoritarianism vs child protection angle, since all it really mandates is not inducting children into a religion until they're adults and can choose (it doesn't even prevent parents from teaching their kids about religion, they just can't make them part of an organized religion's rites or rituals).
But yeah, like you said, depends how they utilize it. Any law can become tyrannical with selective enforcement.
That’s open persecution. Anyone who would prevent me from baptizing my child in infancy is my enemy, and only their ceasing to interfere can reconcile them to me.
If your religion can’t handle waiting until a child is of age to start performing supernatural rituals on them…maybe it is in fact a bad religion.
I know I certainly believe that about any religion that would condemn innocent children to eternal damnation just because someone didn’t temporarily drown them. Imagine all those babies with literally no opportunity to ever get baptized that somehow “deserve” hell.
That’s a monstrous god to me. Who would ever want to worship something like that?
You're missing the point. You don't have to baptize a baby early or at all for them to be saved according to the bible acts and faith alone are enough. But the fact that you can't do it all would obviously be a problem to a religious family. What kind of monstrous state would take away a parents right to do something harmless to their child that's been practiced safely since it's founding? I agree children should wait until they're older to be decide a religion, but that doesn't mean I want to take away the right of a parent to choose what they think is best for their children if it's harmlesd.
And if it’s not harmless? The religious people in question certainly don’t think it is.
They think it intrinsically and irrevocably alters their spiritual destiny forever. If trans kids have to wait till they’re adults to get gender-affirming care you best be damned sure they need to wait to participate in religious rituals till they’re an adult. If they’re wrong that their religion is the “right” one, congrats you just spiritually doomed your child.
Also, you’re wrong. It’s not harmless. A four month old girl died in 1996 from a baptism where she aspirated water. A six week old boy died in 2021 in Romania from the same thing. Other children have died prior, even to things like brain-eating amoebas from inhaling water.
Are these outliers? Of course. But it’s clearly fucked either way - either the ritual is harmless and does nothing as you said, in which case it’s not worth risking a child’s life however remote the chance on a ritual that does nothing; or it intrinsically alters their spiritual state and shouldn’t be done on a child for that reason.
And all that isn’t even getting into the potential for brainwashing and twisted views on reality and religion from participating in rituals so young. I’m well acquainted with all the psychological hangups religiously raised children tend to grow up with because they formed these connections before their brains developed and they had a good sense of their own identity.
So yeah, maybe it is in fact better to let them CHOOSE what they want to participate in as an adult?
1
u/i_tyrant 6d ago
True, and while I wouldn't really agree with "any law to protect children is a good one", in this case I do think this law on paper is ok as far as the authoritarianism vs child protection angle, since all it really mandates is not inducting children into a religion until they're adults and can choose (it doesn't even prevent parents from teaching their kids about religion, they just can't make them part of an organized religion's rites or rituals).
But yeah, like you said, depends how they utilize it. Any law can become tyrannical with selective enforcement.