Beaching :
1-“Abusive” assumes distressing = harmful regardless of truth. We don’t call it abusive to warn a kid “don’t run into the street, you could die”, because it’s true and the stakes are real. Same logic applies if hell is real.
Also, no one teaches “sinner, hell” as the whole message, it’s always paired with “and grace is offered to fix that.” Leaving out the second half to make religion look cruel isn’t a critique of the doctrine, it’s a critique of a strawman. 2-“Let them choose” isn’t neutral, not exposing kids to faith is still shaping their default (that it’s optional/unimportant). Every parent forms a kid’s worldview, by instruction or by omission.
We don’t skip teaching kids math so they can “choose numeracy” later. Give them a foundation, then let them examine or reject it as adults,plenty do, and that’s the choice happening exactly as it should, just later than age 5. 3- That conflates hierarchy with inferiority. Most traditions with gender-differentiated roles explicitly teach equal worth and dignity, “different roles, same value,” not “women are lesser.” You can disagree roles should differ, but that’s not the same claim as misogyny.
It’s also not monolithic, plenty of denominations ordain women and reject role distinctions entirely. Treating “religion” as one flat system erases that range.
2026-07-31 00:23:32