Labeling children as any religious denomination is wrong

Before I begin my second round arguments, there are two things I want point out: This is my opponent's definition of wrong: "Wrong: Not in accordance with what is morally right or good." And this is what it means to refute: Refute: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous http://www.merriam-webster.com... These definitions are important to the points I am about to make. I: First off, my opponent agrees that children are at least sometimes informed enough to compare and make a choice. My opponent twists my statement a bit about understanding not being a pre-requisite to being an adherent. He quotes me as saying "understanding is not a pre-requisite to religious belief and practice". This was not in fact my statement, rather it was "being labeled an adherent of a religion only requires that you follow the traditions, teachings, partake in the rituals, etc. of that religion". This fact he does not argue, and my point stands. He says children are incapable of making the choice as they do not possess the core understanding of a particular belief system. May I point out that if a child simply does not have the capacity to choose whether or not they believe in God, and is not taught anything about God, they are by definition Atheist. Remember his Round 1 statement: "including labeling them "atheist" (ie "Christian Child, Buddhist Child)". If the children at school speak of a christian God, and the child knows not of this invisible being they speak of, he may think them silly and say "there is no god; you're silly", and thus he is rightfully labeled an atheist. On the other hand going back to my first statement in this argument, children sometimes ARE informed enough to compare and make a decision. In fact, to make a quick semantic argument, by my opponent's definition of "child": Child: A person between birth and full growth, he is one as males reach "full growth" between the ages of 25-30. In any case, this is not a semantic debate. However, even if we consider a 12 year old a child some are much more "informed" than many adults. I never argued that children should be labeled by political parties, rather I said they cannot be for they cannot register to vote. Registering to vote is the only way to be officially labeled as belonging to a party. He does not argue about my cultural points, and yet claims they are "refuted in the same breath". You cannot refute a point without presenting an argument or evidence against an argument, and so this point stands. II- My opponent argues the strawman here. I have not said anyone should teach children "blind faith". This argument is about labeling. If a parent chooses to be Christian, and their children- even their 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 year old children- follow the rites, traditions, practices, and even profess the beliefs of the religion they are rightfully labeled as such. Being capable of making the decision is ultimately the child's choice. Indeed a 5 year old is fully capable of telling his/her parents that he/she is sick of Sunday school and doesn't believe in this "Jesus" character. If they are incapable of choosing a religion on their own, then they are also incapable of rejecting the religion of their parents. Who is to decide the capacity of the individual child if not the child? My opponent makes the following statement about parents: "To impose those beliefs upon a mind incapable of understanding the beliefs is exactly the point I'm making, it's wrong." He apparently feels that children should be left out in the woods to learn on their own. Otherwise, anything taught to the child by the parent would be an imposition of beliefs upon a mind incapable of understanding ANYTHING. Teaching the child ANYTHING would be wrong, as a child is incapable of understanding until the child is taught. III- My opponent claims that belief in a religion is not justification for teaching this religion to your children. I counter that being the parent is justification enough. http://en.wikipedia.org... Teaching moral, social, and spiritual development are functions of parenting, and the structure the parent chooses is a right reserved by the parents. These choices are a fundamental right. http://www.rutherford.org... My opponent argues that this assumes that religion is the ultimate authority in regard to truth, and claims this is surely not the case. In a debate about logical choices, or a question of truth about religion this statement would matter, however, because we are talking about what's "Not in accordance with what is morally right or good", truth is subjective and a personal choice. With regards to children, I have already shown this is a parental right. I am not arguing that religion is right. That point is irrelevant. Any two parents can look at another pair and say "this is wrong", however, that opinion would also be subjective. With regards to subjectivity, the opinion of the parents is what is ultimately important. My opponent says that labeling a child will lead the to believe what they are being labeled. This is a general statement that is A- not always true, and B- irrelevant to whether or not it is "Not in accordance with what is morally right or good" to label them. The label itself is what can be considered "Not in accordance with what is morally right or good", like my opponent's example of labeling a child as "stupid". Labeling a child as Christian is hardly "Not in accordance with what is morally right or good". My opponent makes the claim that there is nothing wrong with teaching children to be moral individuals. He contradicts himself in saying that parents should do so in order to prevent others from doing so, as this is fundamentally contrary to his position. Under his dictatorship, parents who follow a religious or anti-religious moral code would not be able to teach their kids this moral code. Indeed children are astute enough to deduce that if they are taught the moral code of Jesus, and others say they are "Christian", and their friends who follow the moral code of Islam and call themselves "Muslim", the label applies. My opponent also says that children should not be sheltered from weddings, funerals, etc. "as this does not impose a label upon them". I disagree. A Jewish child who attends a Jewish wedding inevitably understands that he/she is Jewish. All his cousins wear the yamaka, his father wears the yamaka, a rabbi presides over the nuptials, and the term "Jew" is thrown around during toasts as they make jokes about each other. So let's say no one ever "labeled" this child a Jew. Is he not rightfully a Jew if he has Jewish parents, learns the Torah, and has a Bar-Mitzvah when he is 13, at which point he decides he is happy and proud to be labeled a Jew? In conclusion, my opponent has failed to prove that labeling a child as an adherent of a religion, ie. calling him a atheist, Jew, Christian, etc. is "Not in accordance with what is morally right or good". It is the parent's choice to determine what is "in accordance with what is morally right or good". Even taking a completely objective point of view, like that of the Supreme Court, it is ultimately the parents fundamental right to do so.