The religious indoctrination of minors is a form of child abuse

Brian has brought a sensitive subject to our attention. I look forward to a rational and engaging discourse over the matter. I will start by cross-examining his opening statement, then move on to my counter argument. REBUTTAL As much as I respect Brian as a rational thinker, I must express my disappointment in the number of fallacies committed in his opening statement: Fallacy 1: Hasty Generalization He starts by asserting that all religious indoctrination amounts to emotional child abuse, yet he offers very little evidence to conclude that much. We are only given two videos, hardly a representative sample of all religions and denominations therein. Fallacy 2: Observational Selection While I cannot assess the first video, I can say with certainty that the second video (upon which Brian's case relies) suffers from the observational selection fallacy. The complete documentary includes interviews with other Christians that oppose the methodologies and doctrines of the Jesus Camp. Perhaps Brian has a better explanation as to why two carefully selected videos should not be constituted as bias on his part and should be permitted as any sort of valid evidence for his case. Fallacy 3: Poisoning the Well My opponent says, "the Christian fanatics behind this type of brainwashing deliberately prey on children because they know that most rational adult would not swallow a tale…" Statements like these are preemptive ad hominem attacks against any would be opponent and is better known as "poisoning the well." This is like saying, "Anyone that accepts my challenge is taking a ridiculous position, as every rational person knows." It's not an argument and is poor conduct. Taking these fallacies into account, I submit that Brian's opening case amounts to nothing more than an emotional plea. The videos would make anyone cringe, many Christians included, but this is hardly enough evidence to support the resolution at hand. MY ARGUMENT Brian has made it clear in both the resolution and his opening statement that he considers ALL religious indoctrination to amount to child abuse. Therefore, I just need to show that at least some religious indoctrination is not child abuse. Indoctrinate - 1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles. 2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view. [1] Doctrine and principles can be aptly summed up as one's worldview, and since all people have a body of worldview assumptions, it is rational to conclude that all people engage in indoctrination when they teach their worldview assumptions to others. Whether a naturalist teaches his son that there is no God or a Christian teaches his son that there is, both are caught in the act of indoctrination. I highly doubt Brian intends to argue that ANY indoctrination is abusive since this would mean non-religious indoctrination would be considered abusive as well and everyone on the planet becomes a child abuser. It is clear Brian takes issue with parents teaching their children that God exists. The only reason he offers is that doing so is (a) ridiculous and (b) has the end goal of maintaining recruitment and funding. He offers no reasoned analysis or evidence to support these assertions. Indeed, there's a very good chance that religious people indoctrinate their children because they (a) believe it to be really true and (b) because teaching their children the opposite of their strongest beliefs is irrational. What atheist strongly urges their kids to believe in God and vice versa? At any rate, we need criteria to determine when abuse occurs. Brian gives us the following: (1) improved mental health, (2) ability to become well-adjusted and emotionally stable adults, (3) capable of distinguishing between scientific facts and "ecumenical myths." These criteria are completely arbitrary. Perhaps more clinical criteria would be more persuasive? Consider the following two scenarios: Scenario A: A Christian father teaches his children that God exists and Christ is the Savior. His children are, in his mind, a gift from above. He teaches his kids that others have intrinsic value being made in God's image. He teaches them to love others, especially the less fortunate. He teaches them the value of hard work. His own beliefs prohibit him from hitting, belittling, neglecting, or overprotecting his children. Scenario B: An atheist father teaches his child that God does not exist. Having been saddled with this kid after a one-night stand ten years ago, he views this child as a burden. Unable to deal with his own emotions, he's usually under the influence of alcohol. As such, he regularly insults his son and reminds him of the burden he is. His behavior towards his own son sends him deeper into depression, thus creating a cycle of guilt and abuse. Both scenarios indoctrinate (pass along worldviews). The fact that both scenarios are plausible should be sufficient in showing that religious indoctrination, in and of itself, is not abusive. It is the subsequent parental behavior in which abuse enters the picture. It is quite plausible that scenario A results in a mentally healthy, well-adjusted, and emotionally stable adult capable of distinguishing between scientific facts and philosophical assertions, whereas scenario B does not. The scenarios remain equally plausible when worldviews are swapped. That is, a religious person is capable of addiction and abuse while the atheist is capable of raising their child to be a caring humanist. The point is, worldview is ultimately irrelevant. CONCLUSION I urge the readers to consider the logic of this debate, not merely the emotionally charged content. My opponent has one more round to show why his generalization is true. To do so, he must show how all religious indoctrination is child abuse and why irreligious indoctrination is either not abusive or not to be considered indoctrination at all. In the meantime, I have shown that at least some religious indoctrination is not abusive, and that is all that is necessary to negate Brian's all-inclusive resolution. It does not matter if we all agree that the kids depicted in Brian's videos are textbook cases of child abuse as they are not sufficient to reach Brian's conclusion. SOURCES 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...