Religious indoctrination of children

My response shall be organized thusly: 1. Definitions and parameters 2. In-Depth analysis of my opponent's opening post. 3. My argument against my opponent 4. Conclusion 1. DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS . http://dictionary.reference.com... Religion has many definitions and I find the following to be the most relevant: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion" My opponent argues that parents should be forced to wait until their children are capable of making "rational decisions" before introducing their own religion to them. My opponent is the Instigator and I am the contender. Although my position is that of PRO, as the contender, I simply argue against my opponent's proposal. I am not for religious indoctrination, but I am against my opponent's proposal. I argue that it is wrong for any limitations to be set on how early a parent can introduce religion to their child. 2. AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF MY OPPONENT'S OPENING POST "I argue that children should not be indoctrinated into their parents religion. While children are technically free to choose their own religion once they reach adulthood being raised in a certain religion can make the process biased, painful, and unnecessarily alienating. " My opponent is correct in saying that this "can" happen, but how often does it occur? He has already admitted that we all have the choice to abandon our religion in favor of others, and I find it absurd that he is suggesting that we limit bias so that the decision will be fair. In reality, bias exists whether we like it or not, unless we raise the children with robots. "It's wrong to imbue opinions on impressionable children who aren't capable of making informed decisions and accept what trusted adults tell them as fact. " I am unsure, but the way my opponent phrased this, it appears he finds the act of raising a child to be immoral. The sole duty of a parent is to guide such children through their trust in making the right decisions. Where does the line get drawn? Should a parent forgo lessons about the Golden Rule just because it appears in the Bible? "The best course of action would be to wait until a child is old enough to make rational decisions and then expose them to a wide range of religions and let them choose one, none, or a mixture of religious principles. " I find this suggestion to be utterly absurd, impractical, and poorly thought out. What my opponent suggests is that we devise a bias-free environment for children until they are 18-20 years old, then allow them to choose moral, cultural, and social values as if though they were picking out what to wear to the prom. I completely understand where my opponent is coming from. My opponent is concerned that religious indoctrination impacts a child's ability to make decisions in life because it would make their later decisions biased. However, even at the beginning of this debate, he has already admitted that we are capable of changing out religious views at any moment in time, just that it might occasionally, for one or two people, be a stressful and complicated process. 3. MY ARGUMENT AGAINST MY OPPONENT. This will be a two pronged attack. First, I wish to show the impracticality of my opponent's proposal, and secondly, I wish to show the danger and damage that implementing this proposal will do. To repeat again: My opponent proposes that we should encourage free decision by withholding the "indoctrination" of religion by parents until a certain age. 1. There is no practical way to enforce this proposal My opponent's suggestion, even if it were acceptable, would be impossible to implement and impossible to enforce. It is hard enough to detect whether or not children are being beaten by their parents, how are we going to deal with whether or not children are being indoctrinated by them? Install security cameras and listening devices in every home? 2. There is no clear distinction between culture and religion With the infinite number of "religion" existing today, how are we justified in barging in on how a parent decides to pass on cultural views to his or her children? Many cultural practices revolve around Religion. Are children then forbidden from attending Church? I am a Chinese male. Are my children then forbidden to light lanterns with me during the moon festival? Should Jewish children gorge themselves on shellfish and pork? Should Hindu children do the same with beef? 3. This proposal goes against the first amendment. America was founded on the principle that all religion would be tolerated. Since its earliest days, people have come to America to escape religious persecution. While I understand that my opponent is concerned about the freedom of religion for children, this point is completely moot because they always have the free choice to abandon their religion. I am concerned with the freedom of religion for the entire history of American immigrants who have come to this country to build a better life for their children, passing down their cultural values, and keeping the love of their homeland alive. One of the most painful things for a parent is alienation from their children, which is exactly what my opponent's proposal will do. 4. The morality of my opponent's decision in formulating this proposal is questionable. My opponent wishes to eliminate bias from a person's freedom of choosing religion. However, my opponent's proposal does not do this. In fact, it makes it substantially worse. His assumption is that by refusing to expose children to their parents' religion, it eliminates bias. All it does is make it a bias against the parents' beliefs. Children will be exposed to the beliefs of others, the typical American culture, values, etc. In short, bias is not eliminated in the slightest. It is heightened in favor of everything *except* the parents' culture. 4. CONCLUSION My opponent's proposal is very poorly thought out, and founded on several incorrect notions. We should not attempt to interfere with a parents' relationship with his or her child. Their culture, values, beliefs, etc. cannot be split from their religious beliefs, and there is no moral justification in forbidding a parent to pass on such an important part of themselves onto their children. It is cruel, unamerican, and inhumane to do so. Futhermore, even if it is implemented, this proposal will be completely and totally useless. It cannot be enforced and would waste taxpayer resources, and the motives/means are morally questionable. It does not eliminate bias, it only shifts bias around, while harming all parties. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.