Religious indoctrination of children

I'd like to run through the comments in order and in the process clarify my position. "My opponent is correct in saying that this "can" happen, but how often does it occur? He has already admitted that we all have the choice to abandon our religion in favor of others, and I find it absurd that he is suggesting that we limit bias so that the decision will be fair" I'm glad my opponent acknowledged that changing or rejecting religion can be stressful but I fail to see the relevance of the question of "how often does it occur? ". This of course hints at practicality, implying that although cases may occur they might be so few in number as to not warrant any attention. There is really no statistical data for this sort of thing so I can't even begin to hint at a need to impliment any sort of system based on need. However in my original statement I am not arguing the need for a system, I state that I believe it to be the ideal system. I'll touch on my opponent's statements regarding a system for this later on as well as the existence of bias. "Where does the line get drawn? Should a parent forgo lessons about the Golden Rule just because it appears in the Bible? " I guess I failed to make that statement fully clear, it was rather short. I have no problem with the act of raising children and I agree that a parent's job is to guide their children, but in what ways are beneficial and healthy. For example, my opponent implies I call into question teaching the golden rule because it appears in the bible. The mistake my opponent makes is in implying that morailty can't exist with religion. I think that teaching facts to children is perfectly fine, the problem I have is with teaching opinions, I think opinions should be formed and not taught as facts. I'll clarify, teaching that the earth revolves around the sun, I think everyone would agree, is perfectly acceptable. However, few people nowadays are comfortable with the idea of teaching a child to hate a particular group of people for any reason. One is fact and the other is an opinion, these of course are extreme examples although there are some examples in which that sort of thing is done. Now going back to morality, I consider that to be within the realm of fact and as such should be taught to children. We all live within a society that has rules and it's important to follow those rules, likewise if you don't treat other people well then you've got no reason to expect them to treat you well. Now it's true that "facts" like these regarding conduct do exist within religion there are things that can only be regarded as opinion that also exist, various myths and such that are taught as fact. "I find this suggestion to be utterly absurd, impractical, and poorly thought out. What my opponent suggests is that we devise a bias-free environment for children until they are 18-20 years old, then allow them to choose moral, cultural, and social values as if though they were picking out what to wear to the prom. " My opponent suggests that I think people are only capable of making decisions at ages 18+. I simply said an age capable of rational decision, however I did not specify what I thought the age range was so I can easily see the logic in the mistake. I personally would consider this age to range to be at the very earliest 6 or 7. My opponent suggests I equate moral, cultural, and social values to picking out clothes. I do equate them to that in the sense that it should ultimately be the child's choice but I in no way equate them to picking clothes in the sense that it's something simple and of little consequence. I in fact imply that opposite wanting the child to be exposed to a broad range of religions and values and be of rational mind because it's that important. Now before my opponent attacks the argument I just made, I stated that I believe 6 or 7 to be an age of rational decision making for the big decision I'm making this out to be. I'm sure my opponent would because I would. I don't believe that children should be free to make large decisions that could negatively impact their future health or future in general. As stated before a parent is supposed to guide a child and ensure their physical and mental health. I believe that beginning at the ages of 6 or 7 a child should be exposed to different religious systems (opinions), namely the mythology because they are more capable of understanding and likely have a more solid model of reality than say a two or three year old. Keep in mind I made the distinction between religion and morality. Since there is no specific data indicating that it is simply one or two people undergoing mental distress there is likewise no date indicating it's not hundreds or thousands. However upon further research the penalties can be quite severe including kidnapping or even death. . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Now moving onto my opponent's argument of practicality, there is no argument from me. In my original statement I never say that a system of enforcement is practical. No such system is practical, we can no more enforce parents to ensure that their children get a fully nutritious well balanced diet let alone enforce them to restrain themselves from forcing religion on them. However we absolutely do encourage parents to give their children a well-balance diet. Enforcement can't work, encouragement has a chance atleast, and I content that restricting teaching opinions and teaching myths as fact is as mentally beneficial as a balanced diet. As my opponent states there are many religions. I am not proposing "barging in" or forbidding and while many cultural differences and practices do revolve around religion as I stated before there is a difference in teaching fact and opinion. In fact, one of the things I AM proposing is exposing children to different religions and therefore different cultures which could promote more understanding across cultural boundaries and encourage the decision making in children. I've got no problems with kids going to church or festivals, it's a family activity, but telling a child that things depicted in myths and ancient text are a certain way when there are some many religions that say differently is what I take issue with. On shellfish and pork with Jewish people and beef with Hindu, I'll take the Amish as an example. Amish children are free to use technology and at a certain age can make the choice to stay and become Amish or to leave and embrace technology and the modern world. There are still Amish people around even though their children have access to things which are taboo for their culture, why not extend choice to other cultures? I'll try to keep this part short. I suggest the exposure of many religions to children (the most likely method being through school) which in turn does not heighten everything else except the parents beliefs because the parent's beliefs are of course included in that exposure, it levels the playing field a little. Bias of course can never completely be eliminated, however that does not mean that attempts to reduce it should not be made. My opponent mentions pain of alienation of children moving away from parent's religion and or culture, which is moot since there could be cases of the pain of children being forced to stay when they want to move. Also just because a child has a choice to accept another religion other then their parent's doesn't mean they will. Having the freedom of choice made easier would be beneficial in teaching them to be independent and make decisions on their own. Being taught certain things at an early age ingrains those teachings very securely and makes that more difficult from the start.