Hi, I am Damien Marie AtHope an axiological atheist and I am against Hereditary religion?

Here is what Hereditary religion means to me, a general expression of what I see as hereditary religion is a parent telling a child their religion is “ABC-whatever” and forcing this unchosen belief by the child on the child until they too say they believe as told. You know, like almost all religious parents do all over the world, all the while claiming the religion and or god(s) are a chosen belief when it’s just agreement to ones in power they accept as their own with little thinking in general but most defiantly if said religion is pushed on the magical thinking minds of children under 7 who tend to appeal to animism thinking, hypothesis, and conclusions when they are unsure or being creative.

Oppose the Force of Hereditary religion!


“Children usually acquire the religious views of their parents, although they may also be influenced by others they communicate with such as peers and teachers. Aspects of this subject include rites of passage, education and child psychology, as well as discussion of the moral issue of religious education of children. Some Christian churches practice infant baptism to enter children into the faith. Ritual circumcision is used to mark Jewish, Muslim, some Christians especially Coptic Christian and Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, whos infant males as belonging to the faith. Jewish boys and girls then confirm their belonging at a coming of age ceremony known as the Bar and Bat Mitzvah respectively. Some religious adherents have a form of confirmation ritual that occurs when the child has reached the age of reason and voluntarily accepts the religion.“ Ref
While these latter confirmation rituals occur when the child has reached the age of reason and voluntarily accepts the religion, it may not be all it seems within hidden dynamics of coercive religious indoctrination. So, while is not forcing Hereditary Religion to me as a general rule, but if there is heavy coercion, such as shunning (persistently avoid, ignore, or reject someone), then it still may be Hereditary Religion.
 
“Shunning can be the act of social rejection, or emotional distance. In a religious context, shunning is a formal decision by a denomination or a congregation to cease interaction with an individual or a group, and follows a particular set of rules. It differs from, but may be associated with, excommunication. Social rejection occurs when a person or group deliberately avoids association with, and habitually keeps away from an individual or group. This can be a formal decision by a group, or a less formal group action which will spread to all members of the group as a form of solidarity. It is a sanction against association, often associated with religious groups and other tightly knit organizations and communities. Targets of shunning can include persons who have been labeled as apostates, whistleblowers, dissidents, strikebreakers, or anyone the group perceives as a threat or source of conflict. Social rejection has been established to cause psychological damage and has been categorized as torture or punishment. Mental rejection is a more individual action, where a person subconsciously or willfully ignores an idea, or a set of information related to a particular viewpoint. Some groups are made up of people who shun the same ideas.” Ref
I am Anti-Hereditary religion and to me, a general expression of what I see as hereditary religion, is a parent telling a child their religion is “ABC-whatever” and forcing this unchosen belief by the child on the child until they to say they believe as told. You know, like almost all religious parents do all over the world, all the while claiming the religion and or god(s) are a chosen belief when it’s just agreement to ones in power they accept as their own with little thinking in general but most defiantly if said religion is pushed on the magical thinking minds of children under 7 who tend to appeal to animism thinking, hypothesis, and conclusions when they are unsure or being creative.
 
Marquis Amon: “A child can not understand religion until the age of 7 when the mind is developed enough to distinguish reality from fantasy. So before then, a child could not distinguish between any religions before then, so it can not be a part of any religion truly by choice until it can. Then there is the intellectual requirement of religion. It would take delving into religious history, linguistics, and archaeology and other sciences to make an informed choice. The legal rights of children are often neglected. There are arguments where private institutions can limit rights, through the use of rules. In school systems, the first amendment is often limited. However, even if we take this into consideration no child could be forced to choose a religion. The part of the first amendment that reads Congress shall make no law respecting or prohibiting an establishment of religion means legally and philosophically there is no justification requirement for having or lacking any religion. That one cannot enforce religion on another human being because it is legally non-binding. So hereditary religion is in violation of U.S. law. The tax-exempt status is not exclusive to churches, there is no legal establishment of what a religion is in the U.S. nor can there be legal affiliation for that reason, so religion rightfully is to any U.S. citizen freely in this country. Child are citizens, they have rights, those rights should be protected.” – Marquis Amon
 
“Many legal experts have argued that the government should create laws in the interests of the welfare of children, irrespective of the religion of their parents. Nicholas Humphrey has argued that children “have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas,” and should have the ability to question the religious views of their parents. “Parents’ religion and children’s welfare: debunking the doctrine of parents’ rights, Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer spoke of the subject in the 19th century: ‘And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one’s own existence.’ — Arthur Schopenhauer, On Religion: A Dialogue. Several authors have been critical of religious indoctrination of children, such as Nicolas Humphrey, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins use the term child abuse to describe the harm that some religious upbringings inflict on children. A. C. Grayling has argued “we are all born atheists… and it takes a certain amount of work on the part of the adults in our community to persuade [children] differently.” Dawkins states that he is angered by the labels “Muslim child” or “Catholic child”. He asks how a young child can be considered intellectually mature enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity’s place within it. By contrast, Dawkins points out, no reasonable person would speak of a “Marxist child” or a “Tory child.” He suggests there is little controversy over such labeling because of the “weirdly privileged status of religion”. On several occasions Dawkins made the claim that sexually abusing a child is “arguably less” damaging than “the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up a child Catholic in the first place”. As a means to transmit his opinions directly to children Dawkins wrote a profusely illustrated book of scientific divulgation, The Magic of Reality, in which some natural phenomena that’s usually left explained to them by means of the action of gods or other mythical creatures are demystified. Each chapter book is devoted to a single natural phenomenon, such as earthquakes, always starting with a myth or folklore of world’s major religions followed by an actual scientific explanation that debunks the latter.” Ref