Or, another case for "No Compulsion in Religion"
Or, another case for "Independent Investigation of the Truth"
I have questioned in an easrlier post whether it is satisfactory to base one's religion on what I call accidents of time and place:
"... the question of whether it is as valid as anything else for one's choice of religion to be determined by factors such as place of birth, the time of birth (which century), and the religion of the parents (either natural, or adoptive). For example, growing up Muslim if you were born in Saudi Arabia, Jew if you were born in Bethlehem in the year 50 B.C. (but Muslim or Christian if you were born in 1930 A.D.), Lutheran if you were
born in South Korea and were adopted at age two and a half by a family from Minnesota, U.S.A., but Catholic if your new parents are from Argentina."
Today, I read yet another story on the BBC news web site about parents sent home from the hospital, with a child who is not their own, because of a mix-up (30 years ago).
The story is about a Malaysian Chinese couple who are considering taking legal action against a hospital for sending them home with the wrong baby. Of course this means that another couple were also sent home with the wrong baby. This other couple happens to be Muslim. It's an interesting
story that you should read for yourselves. The point that attracted my attention even more about this story, is -- now that the Chinese boy (man) is re-united with his natural parents, he wants to change his name to a Chinese name, and no longer wants to remain Muslim.Should he be allowed to choose his real parents' religion for himself (or any other religion for that matter)?
Or, should he be forced to keep the religion he was raised with, in order to avoid complications and possible negative consequences associated with "apostasy" ?
