My mum and dad were from different branches of the church, my father had hell in a Catholic school, my mother didn't go to a religious school but grew up with a mother who loved gospel music... They both let me and my brother attend Sunday school for the social aspect and when we were old enough asked if we wanted to be part of it, we both said no and gave similar reasons, we didn't like parts of the texts (it was also frowned upon if you questioned it ESPECIALLY in front of other people), whilst other parts and the community side we loved. That's why I say I respect faith but not organised religion in the form of a book dictating what I believe.
I can question science, and I can choose to accept good people as good people regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion and at the base of it that is what the texts are supposedly saying, whereas a lot use it to excuse rejection of modern society and science. That's the bit I can't get behind. The cherry picking from the same text. Text is open to interpretation, and if something doesn't allow that, or encourage people to question and consider it a guide as opposed to a given, I don't want any part of it.
In terms of age restrictions on books, parental guidance would be the better option, and I'd hope parents would protect our youth from things until they were of age... But a baby cannot choose to read a Bible and accept Jesus as their saviour, nor can an 8 year old at communion without their parents telling them he is. Just as an 8 year old cannot pick up The 120 Days of Sodom and understand it in reference to what HR said. A child should be reading neither.
