Childhood Religious Indoctrination is Psychological Abuse

My opponent has miscomprehended the first paragraph. By "...the indoctrination practices common to all denominations within all the world's major religions", will my opponent please take note that this means indoctrination practices which are *universal* to those world religions *irrespective of denominations found within them*. For example, the doctrine that one must pray facing the city of Mecca is used by *all denominations of Islam*. Conversely, the strict seclusion of women from public places without a male to accompany them is only observed by more conservative branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect and is thus *not a universal doctrine* of the religion. I will now provide a rebuttal to my opponents points. "The unreasonable expectation here is not simply the threat of hell, but rather the expectation that a CHILD is willing and mentally competent to set aside their present hopes for a future that is years away. This is an abuse of the trust a child has in their parents - the child does not know better than to take their word as truth - truth that removes their ability to think for themselves without the terrible guilt of sin hanging on their conscience." 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. It is reasonable to assume that all caring parents wish for a good future for their children and will try to provide a good a good starting ground to ensure such a future. Sin is defined within the Christian subculture as immoral behavior. Guilt is the normal expression of a conscientious person having done something immoral. A child feeling guilty about having committed an act deemed immoral within their culture is thus a healthy expression of their conscience and is by no means "terrible". "It is clear my opponent does not understand the larger context of the argument. This is a specific case of the INDOCTRINATORS THEMSELVES admitting that they are walking a dangerous line beside unrealistic expectations, and that, sometimes, they DO ask unrealistic things of the children they are educating." The article provided was not written by those providing religious education but by a person commenting on those education providers. Thus the context of the article is his argument, which is not one of condemnation or dismissal of religious education/indoctrination. Secondly, the article is not indicative of all centres of religious education, and thus is irrelevant to this debate. 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 was unaware that commonly known current events needed to be "substantiated." Perhaps in another debate I should have to provide evidence of an oil spill in the Gulf? (http://en.wikipedia.org......) - This should satisfy you concerning the social problems in France, particularly in the schools." Regarding the topic of religious unrest in France, will my opponent please note that I asked not for the events in France to be proven to have occurred, but for a link between such events and religious indoctrination in childhood. Furthermore, I would again ask my opponent to provide evidence that religious indoctrination in childhood leads to religious discrimination in adulthood. "Except that religious intolerance is form of unacceptable or antisocial behavior, which my opponent's own source considers to be psychological abuse." Will my opponent please properly comprehend the source provided as it does not state that antisocial behavior is a form of psychological abuse, but that the *teaching* of such behaviors constitute psychological abuse. Please note that my opponent is yet to provide evidence for religious indoctrination in childhood leading to religious discrimination later in life. "I doubt this position will find much sympathy among the readers who were dragged to church as children." This is clearly speculation, not a rebuttal and is irrelevant to the debate. "Nooo... the resolution is at the top of the page. Religions are no more cultures than political affiliations. It is a deliberate misuse of terms." http://www.answers.com... The resolution that religions are subcultures, which are in themselves cultures, stands. In conclusion, my opponent has been unable to provide any evidence that religious indoctrination is a form of psychological abuse as he has chosen to define it with reference to the sources provided. My opponent makes many unsubstantiated claims and cites irrelevant sources and miscomprehends several statements, all undermining his argument.