Labeling children as any religious denomination is wrong

Thanks to con for the reply. I. I would like to begin by pointing out that con reinforced my point by stating thatï¿½ "children are not always informed enough to compare and make a choice". ï¿½This is exactly the issue. Children are not capable of understanding ideas of this level of complexity, and to "label" them as being part of this or that belief system without that very understanding is what I am pointing out as wrong. Con also claims that understanding is not a pre-requisite to religious belief and practice. Which is true if the individual "chooses" to remain ignorant and still adhere to a belief or practice. Children are incapable of making this choice since they don't poses the core understanding in the first place. Con also claims that religion provides a moral "structure". I refute this by claiming that an individual does not require religion as a "structure" to be a moral individual nor to teach morality to others. The point remains that if the individual is incapable of understanding the idea, he/she should not be labeled as being an affiliate. ï¿½ "Furthermore, no one but the parents should decide what is 'wrong' or 'right' to label their own child" Parents shouldn't be labeling an individual anything that they are too young to understand what it is they are being labeled, especially religion.ï¿½ My opponent states that to be a political denomination one must simply register as such, and may remain ignorant of the ideas and beliefes that go with the package. Clearly this is true, but yet again children are incapable of making this informed decision. The claim thatï¿½it's a "cultural" thing is no different, and refuted in te same breath. II. "The question of whether or not a child can understand the complexities of religion is not as foolish as the implication that they cannot simply believe these ideas if they are taught." Teaching children "blind faith" is teaching them to be ignorant of fact. Yet again "You don't have to understand to believe" is perfectly fine, so long as you are capable of making that decision understanding what it is you are doing. This children are incapable of. "Parents reserve the right, and bear the responsibility of teaching their children. If they choose to raise them as liberals, conservatives, atheists, Buddhists, Christians, etc., it is their choice." Parents reserve the right to believe what they want to believe, this is perfectly fine. To impose those beliefs upon a mind incapable of understanding the beliefs is exactly the point I'm making, it's wrong. And if adults are incapable of understanding their own beliefs, as con states, they should not be imposing the same ignorance upon innocent minds. III. Con makes the point that religion teaches it's adherents to teach their children their religion. This is not justification for doing so. This assumes that religion is ultimate authority in regards to truth, which is surely not the case. I wish to point out that labeling children will lead them to believe they are what they are being labeled. Such as someone who is told they are stupid over and over will begin to believe it. This holds especially true for children, even more if it be the parents doing the labeling. Parents are like gods (no pun intended) to their children.ï¿½ I want to make clear that there is nothing wrong with teaching children to be moral individuals, and yes the parents should do so in order to prevent others from doing so, who may do so with I'll intent. I never made the claim that children should be sheltered from attending funerals, weddings, etc, as this does not impose a label upon them and is not labeling. Telling children they are "atheist", "Christian", "Muslim", etc is labeling. Refer to the definition I provided in my first argument. The fact remains that religion is not something easily understood, as con also pointed out. Labeling a child a religious denomination who is incapable of understanding it is still wrong. ï¿½