Childhood Religious Indoctrination is Psychological Abuse

Responses: >> "will my opponent please take note that this means indoctrination practices which are *universal* to those world religions *irrespective of denominations found within them*." To accept this principle in reading of the quote "the indoctrination practices common to all denominations within all the world's major religions" would be to look for those practices that are common to all denominations in all religions... which would be very, VERY few practices. My apologies, but my opponent is bound by his unfortunate wording. It seems that my opponent would like to limit this debate by plays of phraseology to only those incidences of indoctrination that are convenient for his argument. Perhaps he should have said "Writ large, religious indoctrination is child abuse." >> "Will my opponent please provide evidence that children are commonly required to consider their future prospects whilst disregarding current goals or aspirations and that such a requirement to think ahead constitutes an abuse of trust as it relates to the definition of abuse provided." This is getting ridiculous... do the readers expect a study that produces this exact requirement? Obviously, one can think of a situation wherein a child may be asked to give up a present want in the name of religion... like, say, LENT? There is no "source" needed to recognize an abuse of trust present in the request that a child take the parent's word for something they are incapable of thinking through for themselves that will bind them until their late teens. It is no coincidence that religious doubt occurs as the brain matures. >> "The article provided was not written by those providing religious education" Incorrect. Rossiter is a professor at Australian Catholic University. >> "Secondly, the article is not indicative of all centres of religious education" Immaterial, as we are still concerned with all forms of religious indoctrination. >> "Will my opponent please note that from this point onwards all arguments made in regards to indoctrination practices which do not comply with parameters set in my last round and explained in this round will be considered irrelevant to the debate and thus ignored." I'm all for my opponent ignoring arguments, but the point I made at the beginning stands. It is unfortunate that he has chosen to ignore these points in the final round. >> "I asked... for a link between such events [in France] and religious indoctrination in childhood." If there are problems arising because of religious differences in children at schools, then religious socialization is obviously part of the cause. >> "the source provided [states that] the *teaching* of such behaviors constitute psychological abuse." If the children exhibit religiously antisocial behavior, they obviously learned it from somewhere. >> "The resolution that religions are subcultures, which are in themselves cultures, stands." This is quite humorous - apparently subcultures are themselves cultures. If a subculture had all the necessary requirements to be cutures, they would be. *********************************************** Throughout this debate, my opponent has continually asked for "substantiation" of my claims. I have given such substantiation where required. It is not a hallmark of intellectual honesty to ask for substantiation of common knowledge or studies and articles to confirm what is easily deduced. I should also remind the readers that my opponent refused to address my point about child soldiers, the social abuse of Muslim children, and most importantly, terrible neglect visited upon children in the form of "faith healing." If these atrocities are not "psychological abuse," which they clearly are, then it is hard to imagine what WOULD be abuse. Further, if we accept my opponent's ludicrous redefinition of what constitutes a viable culture, and what abuse itself is, then it would be impossible for religious parents to abuse their children because whatever they did would be common to their tiny sect of a subculture. Readers, this debate is clear. The resolution stands AFFIRMED.