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

I like your format theLwerd so I'll stick with that. 1. "The main problem with Pro's case is that he is arguing from the standpoint that all religions are created equal. However, a believer of any religion would tell you that their religion is in fact the 'right' one. If they didn't feel that way, what would be the purpose of following a religion at all? Religion is not a fad... etc." You didn't seem to argue against my later statement regarding the lack of evidence for most religious claims so I'd like to restate that. Now with that being the case, aren't all religions created equal then? Regardless of how strongly one believes in their religion, it does not make a stronger case for that belief system. If they can't provide any evidence for their claims then we have absolutely no way of measuring the credibility of each particular faith. Also, since faith is not based on evidence and logic then the faith must be derived from their parents reinforcement and not any inherent truth. Some may say that there are other important factors, but I believe that parental reinforcement is the main cause. To illustrate, consider the growing numbers of Muslims in England. Muslims have become the largest practicing religious group in England, which is historically Anglican, and more recently quite secular. The Muslims in England have accomplished this in an environment which does not reinforce their claims by indoctrinating their children at home, and sheltering them. Religion may not be a fad, but one's beliefs are more arbitrary than you let on. Consider a child adopted from a Muslim family into a Protestant family in America. No doubt this child would have been a follower of Islam, but will now become a Christian, for better or for worse. It is no different than an American family adopting a Chinese child which will now speak English. Should someone's views towards abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, and the world in general be respected simply because their parents taught them to believe a certain way? It is one thing to develop a mature opinion on different topics based on logic and reason, but quite another to be brain washed into a world view based on faith. 2. I will stand by what I said regarding the requirement of a comparative religion class. Like I said the purpose would not be to advocate for a particular religion, but to examine each of the major religions claims on historical grounds. This does not violate the Establishment Clause in the constitution which clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This would not establish nor advocate one, only enhance the students perspective and understanding of other cultures. 3. "Pro is missing the point. Religion isn't about facts, evidence or logic. Religion is based on spirituality and FAITH. The whole concept behind religion is that you believe in something even if you cannot fully explain it." That's fine if you want to believe that purple is better than orange, or grapes are better than apples, but when their faith infringes on the rights of others it is wrong. Raising a child to think that homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so not only does a disservice to the child, but also infringes on the rights of another human being. If they had some evidence for this claim it would be perfectly legitimate, but you have already admitted yourself that their beliefs are not based on facts, but instead blind faith. 4. Yes it is about the parent/child relationship, but these views are instilled in them as children and can cause great harm to society when they become adults. My argument is based on the harm that religion can cause so I must be able to convey that using example from the real world. 5. "Circumcision is a medical procedure that is often performed for non-religious purposes. If Pro is attempting to argue that circumcision should not occur because of the potential dangers, this argument must extend outside of religious parameters and upon all of society." When is it performed for non-religious purposes? 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. Some studies have suggested that circumcision can reduce the chance of transmission of HIV during penile-vaginal sex, but this procedure could be undertaken at a later age when they are able to consent. 6. "There are many things that can inflict serious and long lasting mental trauma on young individuals. For instance, negative images in the media can trigger deep-set negative feelings regarding self-esteem. Does that mean that TV, newspapers and magazines should be banned?" This statement is ludicrous. No parent forces their child to watch violent movies, graphic television shows, or view negative content on magazines. Any exposure to negative, or harmful material of this nature is often unintentional and not reinforced on a daily basis. It is not a permanent mind set as the fear or hell. I was raised in a conservative protestant church and know the effects of this teaching. Every time you think of doing something that goes against the religious doctrine you remind yourself of the consequences of your actions. I sat in church an witnessed my 9 year old cousin cry when the minister spoke about the torments of hell, and I felt terrible that there was nothing I could do to help. It is not the same. 7. "Every parent has the right to raise their children the way they see fit (so long as it does not infringe upon a child's legal rights)." I would argue that their teaching should not infringe on the rights of others either. ex. Homosexuality, abortion, etc. 8. "While Pro chooses only to outline the negative teachings of certain religions, he ignores fundamental concepts like justice, forgiveness, charity and other moral teachings upheld by various faiths." The reason I am focused on the negative is because the concepts you listed exist outside of religious societies, and can easily be maintained in a secular society. 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. 9. "Religion has helped people cope with death and other life obstacles; there have also been many documented cases where a person's beliefs have been the reason for their ability to fight a disease or overcome other health battles." I'd bet on medicine and science every time over prayer or any religious placebo affect. Religion, especially in America, does more harm than good when it come to saving lives. ex. Stem cell research, and the Catholic church's stance on condoms. 10. "they (children I'm assuming) have the right and the opportunity to educate themselves on other beliefs via schooling, the internet, the library, open forums of worship, etc. Nobody is forcing an adult or even a child to believe in anything." This is quite a naive statement. Consider the growing number of conservative parents who choose to home school their children, or send them to a religious private school. Home schooling was virtually unheard of until the conservative revolution in America in the 1980's. Ever heard of parental controls? Most children's internet use is monitored. I don't know many children who tell their parents that they aren't going to church and get away with it. Most wouldn't even try, and if they did they'd most likely be told they're coming whether they like it or not.