• @atomicorange
    link
    English
    883 months ago

    Implied fact: a baby is capable of having a religion, despite its inability to comprehend the concept.

    • HonkyTonkWoman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      103 months ago

      Implied fact: by distinguishing the baby as Christian, there must be non-Christian babies in close proximity.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        163 months ago

        Actual Implication: You’re supposed to care more about the Christian baby than a non-Christian babies.

        • HonkyTonkWoman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          123 months ago

          Unintended Implication: non-Christian babies are less likely to be hurled.

          • @Whats_your_reasoning
            link
            English
            43 months ago

            Unimplied fact: all babies in this scenario are likely to hurl, regardless of their (parents’) denomination.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      83 months ago

      I mean, Jewish boys go through a ritual to mark them as part of the religion and christening occurs early too, so I would say that religious people usually assume the baby’s religion.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        123 months ago

        Non-jewish boys often go through the same ritual, even in a jew-hating religion, because of “tradition”.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          Not in my country. But my point still stands as long as there is religious significance to the ritual for some.