Parents shouldn't indoctrinate their children to believe that one particular religion is superior.

1A. RE: Lack of Evidence --> Religions DO consider instruments such as The Bible a piece of evidence. --> Again, religion is not based on evidence! You ask if that's the case, wouldn't that make all religions equal. The answer is no - not to a believer. The inherent belief itself causes you to denounce all other faiths. It's not based on which group provides more evidence but rather comes from the notion that mine is right so all others automatically have to be wrong, regardless of whatever 'evidence' they provide. Beliefs > evidence. Remember that if someone believes in something 100% then it doesn't matter if it's real or not. What matters is the fact that they THINK it's real. 1B. RE: Since faith is not based on evidence and logic then the faith must be derived from their parents reinforcement and not any inherent truth. --> See above. Also, regarding your point that beliefs are quite arbitrary, this logic actually backs up a previous point of mine where I said that people do not have to believe what their parents tell them to. They can take their parents advice; however, they have the right and the ability to change their minds or live/believe how they please... at least after aged 18. 2. RE: I will stand by what I said regarding the requirement of a comparative religion class. --> Parents have a right to raise their children however they please (within legal parameters). Today, if a parent does not want their child being taught about such natural things such as puberty and sex, then a parent has the right to deny permission for their child to be exposed to such subjects in school. The thinking behind that is that a parent will teach or deal with these issues however they see fit without leaving it up to the school. Similarly, if a class like this were required, apprehensive parents may deny their child the opportunity of taking such a class. This would defeat the entire purpose of your proposal. It would also prove nothing other than the fact that a parent wishes to monitor their children and what lessons they are taught. They may not want their children being exposed to conflicting ideals, which doesn't reflect ignorance, but rather indicates a parent's concern about what their children are being taught and by whom. Remember: everyone has an agenda. Further, if a parent DIDN'T object to a child taking such a class, this would dismantle your whole point about parents indoctrinating their children. Why? Because this demonstrates that even if parents indoctrinate their children to believe one thing, they are still open to their children learning about other cultures. 3. RE: Raising a child to think that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so... infringes on the rights of others. --> A parent does not need a Bible to teach their child that homosexuality is wrong. Children tend to emulate their parents' beliefs in general with or without the presence of religion. If a parent feels that abortion is wrong, even if they are atheist, then presumably this parent will pass that notion onto their child as well... and why shouldn't they? Like I said, a parent's JOB is to teach morality to their children. If religion is a corner stone of morality for them, then they are undoubtedly going to include/consider that when raising their children. Additionally, a major discrepancy here is that you're making assumptions and greatly generalizing religion in a way that is incredibly misleading. For instance, I know many Catholics who support the legalization of gay marriage even if their Holy Book claims that homosexuality is a sin. You cannot prove that one will feel a certain way about all moral issues based on the religion they practice alone. Another example is the Death Penalty. Catholics are generally split 50/50 on this moral dilemma. 4. RE: The result of this parent/child relationship can harm society. --> The key word here is CAN. Further, this cannot be the basis of any real argumentation. For instance, divorce is another aspect of home-life that can have an affect on a parent/child relationship. A child from a broken home may have skewed ideals about love and marriage which can also harm society. However, are you suggesting that divorce not be allowed either? Of course not. Thus this idea is not a good foundation for your argument. 5. RE: Circumcision --> 60 - 65% of American males are circumcised at birth (it used to be 90%). This indicates that it is not for religious purposes, as the Jews do not circumcise their young at birth (in the hospital). People choose to circumcise their children because it is believed to be more sanitary. It was also a cultural thing for awhile, i.e. the majority DID circumcise their children, so most people followed suit. --> The main point here is, "I do not believe that children should be having surgery to remove anything if it is not going to benefit the child by making them more healthy." That's great. And if/when you become a parent, you can apply this concept to your choices. HOWEVER, you cannot speak for every other parent in the world. Your downfall in this debate is relying too much on your personal opinion. 6. RE: Children being exposed to things that scare them. --> Ok, if a parent believes that it is imperative that their child succeed academically, and every single day they essentially force their child to study (over other social hobbies), they are actively sending their child down a path that he or she may not want or agree with. Perhaps by nature the child is a more artistic person rather than into their studies. It doesn't matter - the parent believes that they are greatly benefiting their child by introducing such a strenuous work ethic, and so nobody can say that they SHOULDN'T be encouraging such good study habits, because overall people believe that the child will benefit from such urgency. And maybe they will. This same logic applies to religion. Again, parents feel that by including religion in their children's lives, they are not only fulfilling their parental role and giving their children the gift of faith, but to believers this is also a moral obligation - one that cannot be reasoned with. Again, God's word > yours. 7. RE: Parents should not teach their child anything that could infringe upon the rights of others, i.e. homosexuality or abortion. --> IS THIS FOR REAL? Parents have a right to teach their children about right and wrong! Just because you may disagree with their opinions does not mean that they do not have the right to pass on their moral inclinations. If you were pro-choice but 90% of the country was pro-life, and you had children, would you rather them just be culturally brainwashed by the majority OR pass on your own beliefs in addition about what you think is morally permissible, in order to give them a better platform of ideas? Hmm? 8. RE: Teach your child to be just not because they'll go to hell if they aren't, but instead because it is a good thing. How about you not tell me how to raise my kids and I won't tell you how to raise yours. Plus, not every religion relies on Hell as a scare-tactic. 9. RE: Religion does not save lives. --> Just because Catholicism may not support stem cell research or the use of condoms does not mean that people won't use condoms anyway. Further, this particular religion denounces abortion, and you have no way of knowing how many lives were saved because of this. 10. RE: Subject to change. First you said that religion was arbitrary, and now you're arguing that children don't have a choice... well make up your mind. I know that my personal religious beliefs have done a complete 180 since the time I was 15 (I'm 21 now). Further, for you to suggest that home-schooling was unheard of until the 1980s is absurdly ignorant. Even today only 2.4% of children are home-schooled. * Unfortunately I'm out of characters...