Religious indoctrination of children

Before I begin, I would like to make something clear. This debate is about moral imperative towards a course of action in order to remedy what my opponent believes to be a transgression of morality. The issue at hand, as my opponent has clarified, is that parents (in raising their children) subject them to bias that hinders their ability to choose both as children and as adults later on in life. Since my opponent has already admitted that he is *not* suggesting a course of action, a change, the implementation of any sort of rule, or the enforcement of anything as such. In fact he conceded all the points I brought up on impracticality in his last round. Thus, I will treat this debate as one where we argue the morality of my opponent's concern. My opponent's responses were quite scattered and thus, I am forced to abandon the structure of my first round to suit my opponent's response. In addition, my opponent's counterpoints did not hit their mark, I personally found that my opponent did not understand my focus at all. Thus, I will begin with a short rebuttal of each point, then a longer argument. 1. My opponent has stated that he agrees that any sort of enforcement is impractical and thus, this debate will be limited to the morality of the issue. As such, I will ignore all counterarguments directed at my assertion that his proposal is impractical. 2. My opponent has failed to understand my point regarding "where the line gets drawn". My opponent reiterates that children should only be taught facts and clearly told when things are opinions. This robs them of a cultural upbringing because the line between cultural practices/values and religion is quite blurred. If I wish to show my child the importance of family values and respect for our elders and ancestors by burning incense and praying, then pouring wine and bowing to show respect (as per Chinese custom), must I then go over the cultural practices of every other culture known to man and follow with the addendum that spirits may not exist at all and I am just doing a show for no logical reason? 3. My opponent misses the focus on my 18+ remark. I was drawing attention to the absurdity of leaving a child with no spiritual or cultural upbringing for the X amount of years before "rationality", which will more often than not, be puberty. My opponent's obsession with ensuring that children have "free choice" and an unbiased upbringing has blinded him to the fact that culture and spirituality should be fostered at a young age and into adulthood. My opponent has conceded that we should not interfere with the way a parent raises a child. If the parent believes that nudging his child towards his own religious path is the best for the child, then my opponent's argument fails. 4. Flawed source. I ask that the audience reject the source that my opponent submits on the grounds that it has no bearing on this debate whatsoever. This source details the religious "punishment" that Islam proposes for those who reject the Islam faith, something that is antiquated and no longer practiced, not to mention an act that goes against the Muslim freedom of religion doctrine as stated further down in my opponent's own source. . http://en.wikipedia.org... That having been said, I will comment on the rest. The question now, since my opponent has conceded that his proposal is impractical, is whether or not there is a moral imperative for us to change the way things are. My opponent has failed to do so. He has failed to outline a specific reason why it is immoral for a parent to guide his children down a cultural and religious upbringing that the parent chooses. What my opponent does not understand is that the moral values by which he is weighing this decision, liberty, freedom of choice, etc. is taken too far out of hand. My opponent, by the stance he portrays, would stand against a parent who is telling his child that his great grandparents are in heaven, and would instead prefer that the parent confuse the child by telling him the opinions of a dozen other religions. This obsession with being fair to everyone, this obsession with making sure that everything is on equal playing ground, it borders on absurdity. There is absolutely no plausible benefit in granting a child an education such as this because it is redundant, unnecessary, and possibly detrimental to his upbringing. Not only that, but any advocate of this type of confusing overexposure during the formative years would be contributing to driving a schism between parent and child. The parent has no moral imperative to teach the opinions of other people if he believes that he is raising his child the right way. I will say this once more: The parent has no moral imperative to teach the opinions of other people if he believes that he is raising his child the right way. As of now, I still don't see a proper argument from my opponent's side. What I do see is a vague and malleable position that says the extremes of religious indoctrination are bad. This goes without saying. The extremes of *anything* is bad. It is my opponent's burden to show that it is a moral transgression for a parent to mold his child's values and religious/cultural upbringing before the child can think for himself. It was very difficult for me to structure this argument because my opponent's response was not in a step-by-step response to my points. Since there are two rounds left, I respectfully request that my opponent forgo a response to my rebuttal here and instead, offer an organized, step by step, bullet-point or numbered list of arguments pertaining to his point so that I may argue in sections instead of encompassing walls of text. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.