Religious rituals involving children are bizarre. On one hand, they are how culture is communicated to children, but on another hand they are often just using the child as a prop and it is more about other people demonstrating their commitment to the group. Either way, it isn't like he is bound by this in any way so he is still free to choose his own religious perspectives later on, multiple times if desired.

People bizarrely making everything about politics (often American politics, for whatever reason) is getting really tiring and repetitive. I am pretty sure that they are just doing it to demonstrate their commitment to their version of tribalism, too, and not the study of rhetoric nor how they consider various talking-points and laws in light of their own priorities/views.

If that new congregation gives you value, that sounds good. Just be careful with groups which make a list of principles which extend beyond the list sufficient for the direct definition of the group, as words are easily twisted to bind well-meaning people to causes they want nothing of. For example, I suspect that we have both seen people use a militant love of "inclusion" to justify the specific exclusion of groups that they don't consider human. When someone makes a big point of loudly stating something obvious, they are typically actually stating something sinister.

Personally, I am still on the fence about whether I think that religiously-bound congregation can be useful for personal philosophical development or if it is mostly just a social thing (to be optimistic) or a control mechanism (to be pessimistic). I know that I have seen the latter 2 but I am not sure that I have seen the former 1.