The religious indoctrination of minors is a form of child abuse

I am sure my fellow members would join me in acknowledging that my opponent is a most worthy individual and, personally, I have no doubt that he is also an excellent father. With this in mind, I hope that nothing I write in this debate will be considered as a personal sleight against either him or any other members who adhere to a faith based belief. As it happens, this brings me neatly to my opponent's first alleged fallacy. "Fallacy" 1 – Generalisation. When debating one should never resort to generalisations, but since I did almost no research I had no choice! Actually, that's not true, I had videos of Orthodox Jewish schoolchildren and students of Islamic schools who were behaving in equally disturbing ways, I merely focussed on Christians because most members live in countries where Christianity is the dominant religion. "Fallacy" 2 - Observational Selection While I am perfectly willing to accept that Jesus camps represent the lunatic fringe of the Christian movement worldwide, they are still very popular, at least in the United States. "Fallacy" 3 – Poisoning the Well Please forgive my lack of debating etiquette – "debate" as a subject is not taught in schools here in the UK so my method of argument instead mirrors that of political debates whereby a common and accepted tactic is to ridicule your opponent's position using the most emotive language possible. Now, to address my opponent's argument: I would make a distinction between "indoctrination" which is usually seen as negative and "teaching" which is usually seen as positive. If a child is taught about the world's various religions at school, this is a good thing. However, if a child is forced to study only one and coerced into becoming a believer, that is indoctrination and not a good thing. Surely the child should be allowed to grow up and make an informed choice on which, if any, faith to believe in - based on the knowledge he or she has attained about all the various religions on offer? Meanwhile, however, teachers demonstrating Newton's Laws of Physics through classroom experiments, for example, cannot be described as "indoctrinating" children. Much as I like to use scenarios to illustrate my point in debates, they are usually picked apart very easily so I feel no guilt in exposing my opponent's scenarios as a false dichotomy thus: Children are considered either a blessing or a curse or a mixture of the two by all parents. A good father will cherish his children and be happy to make every sacrifice for them. He will provide for them as best he can, take an active interest in their education and instruct them to "to love others, especially the less fortunate" and teach "them the value of hard work. " However he doesn't need to be religious to do this. He may also ensure that his kids attend a good school and become members of sporting clubs or other non-denominational youth groups which will install other important principles such as fair play, personal responsibility, discipline, team work and respect for authority – these values are not exclusive to the church. On the other hand, a bad father is a bad father, religious or not. In fairness, my opponent did acknowledge this point but went on to claim that indoctrination was not abusive, depending on your"worldview". To be honest, I couldn't quite fathom the connection, though I do accept that parents who impose their religious beliefs on the children do it with the best of intentions and would be horrified if they realised that in so doing they could be causing long term damage to the very things in life which they hold most dear. Analogies are never perfect and I expect my opponent to duly attempt to demolish this one, I nevertheless hope this might illustrate my point: A doting mother feeds her child cheeseburgers, cakes, pizzas, candy, chips and everything else it demands, whenever it demands it and since the child doesn't like salad, vegetables and fruit and has a tantrum if it is asked to eat them, she never provides them. However as a result of this overindulgent and unbalanced diet, the child becomes obese and in later life develops health problems such as diabetes and heart disease. Strangely, like the religious indoctrination of children, this is not currently seen as a form of child abuse (at least in the US, though it is here in the UK). Now, if another mother neglected her child by not feeding it enough and it became malnourished as a result, she would, rightly be charged with child abuse. But what's the difference at the end of the day? Both kids suffered at the hands of their mothers. Although the first mother thought she was doing the right thing for her child by giving it everything it wanted, while the second simply didn't care at all, the net result was that both children were abused. In the final analysis, it is children's long term welfare, not their parents' supposed right to impose their religious beliefs on their offspring that should remain paramount at all times. Thank you.