we are talking about wo different things here. you're saying 'sanitizing' and i'm not.....
if someone is going to teach someone else about a topic, that person needs to start at the beginnning. the basics need to be taught first. you don't start teaching math by teaching algebra. you do it from the level of understanding that they already have, based on experience, age, and maturity. this has nothing to do with sanitizing. i don't leave stuff out, i teach at the level of the individual, and in an appropriate way for their cognitive ability. big difference.
While I agree with you that some things - obviously you can't explain sodomy or incest to a 6 year old and expect them to understand without a lot of questions you'd rather not deal with - need to be withheld from very young children, but there are plenty of other things about religion - good and bad - that can be discussed, even with young children. Even a 6 year old girl can understand if told that she is not as good as the boys because as a female, because Eve ate the apple, she's the source of original sin and why terrible things happen on earth.
That's pretty easy to understand.
I could certainly understand favoritism at that age.
So it makes no sense to keep that negativity from children under the auspices that they're not old enough to understand. They can and do and will understand some things. Older children can certainly understand that if they don't follow the rules of their religion, very bad things will happen to them in the afterlife as punishment - only it's forever. They get disciplined in this life when they don't follow the rules. Again, while negative, this is something easy for them to understand.
I see no reason to sugar-coat a religion. If children/young teens are going to make an 'informed choice' about religion, they need to know as much about it, warts and all, that they can absorb -
from the very beginning - not at some vague undetermined date in the future
after they've already been indoctrinated with all the 'good' stuff.
As
Jess pointed out, withholding such information leads to very boring church services where the sermons repeat the same material over and over and over again
ad nauseum because church leaders don't want to discuss the bad parts. So you have generations of people who don't read their bibles, are not encouraged to read their bibles, only know the 'good parts' and have no clue what their religion is telling them but call themselves Christians/whatever and are proud of it.
The church leaders are quick to draw in children, converts, baptize left and right, completely aware that their flock has little idea of what they've signed up for, so they avoid sermons that will cause doubt and controversy.
I find that very disingenuous, but of course, religious leaders are trying to make a living with a religion and have no reason to rock the boat.
