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

I would like to start my rebuttal by reminding you that this debate is not about what parents can do, or what they in fact do, but instead what they should do. 1. "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. Beliefs > evidence" Mere beliefs do not qualify as evidence. So it does make all religions equal. It doesn't matter if the believer can't recognize that, outside parties can. Believers in the Christian faith claim to know that all other religions are of equal value, and that value is 0. Ironically a Muslim considers Christianity and all other faiths to be of no value either, etc. So it doesn't matter what the believer thinks. I'm very surprised that you have decided to make the case that belief supersedes evidence. Belief can't change reality. 2. "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." No it actually doesn't back up your point, you are mistaken about what part of this is arbitrary. What is arbitrary is the faith that they are ultimately brought up in. The child doesn't select which faith they are taught, and that is what is arbitrary in this situation. A young child can be taught to believe anything, and that is where the danger lies. That is why it is so important to instill a respect for evidence, and logic instead of following something blindly. When a 5 year olds parents inform them that the earth was created in 7 days are they going to contradict them? Will they go look it up for themselves? By the time they reach the age that they can start to grasp some scientific concepts they've already been told for their entire life that God did it. 3. "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." Again this debate is not about what parents are allowed to do, but what they should do. I'm sure you'll say that I shouldn't tell people how to raise their kids, but I'm not arguing in favor of this to please myself, but because I think it would make our society better if we cut out all the crap. So yes parents CAN teach their kids that their religion is true, or that homosexuality is wrong by fiat, or that men are inferior to women, or that blacks are inferior to other races. I know you think parents CAN teach their kids these things, but do you really think that they SHOULD? 4. "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." No they don't need the bible to do it, but many people do use the bible as a justification to deny gay people their rights as human beings. I don't want to get into whether people choose to be gay or are born that way. I am of the opinion that they're born that way, but that's just my opinion. Some science supports it and some doesn't. Most people don't realize that the bible reflects the views of a particular culture during a particular time period, and because of this cannot be expected to apply to all people, in all places, throughout all of history. The views of an ancient middle eastern culture are being extrapolated and stretched to govern the way enlighten people of the 21st century live their lives. We're simply better than that. 4b. On generalizing, misrepresenting views of religious people. A Gallup poll taken on May 15, 2008 found that nationally 56% of Americans were against legalizing gay marriage. This study was done by taking simple random samples and included religious as well as non-religious people. I doubt that in general Catholics (are more sympathetic to the gay cause than Americans (40%) in general. I think I'll trust a nation poll done by Gallup, and not a sampling of the Catholics you know. 5. On Classes... "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." Actually it wouldn't dismantle my argument because again I'm saying that a parent shouldn't indoctrinate their child, and if they aren't doing that then how can I be wrong? I'm not saying every believer indoctrinates their child, but only that those that do shouldn't. 6. "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." Again you are misrepresenting me. Whether they can or not is not the foundation of my argument. My argument revolves around whether they should or not, and I argue that they shouldn't because society would be better off without it. On divorce - Of course parents should be allowed to get divorced, but the affect that this has on a child is merely a by product. In contrast, a particular religion is taught to a child because the parent thinks it is good for them, when in fact it is not. Just because not every child grows up to be a religious fanatic does not mean that the teachings are virtuous. Does that mean it's ok to teach kids that blacks are inferior even though we have evidence that proves it's not true, because surely not every child will believe it? 7. Circumcision - I agree that it is prevalent in the US, and obviously sanitary conditions are much better here. When I raised concerns about the practice, and the health effects I was thinking more of Judaic and Islamic countries where it is mainly done for religious reasons and is not normally performed by a doctor. In Islam it is not uncommon for females genitals to be mutilated either, and for that I see no justification. 8. Regarding forcing kids to do things. I don't believe forcing children to study and work hard is comparable to indoctrinating them with views on morality for which they have no evidence. There is tangible evidence that a higher level of education is directly linked to better pay, and a better life in general. For one case there is evidence, and for the other there is none. So no the same logic does not apply. 9. "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." Yes they do have that right, but there are often no disclaimers that go along with these lessons. Disclaimers such as, this is just my opinion and I have no evidence for it. Instead they are taught that if they do not follow this set of laws that they will go to hell. I would prefer that they not be brainwashed by anyone. Why must a 9 year old be told what to think on abortion, or homosexuality? Shouldn't they be allowed to evaluate the evidence for themselves at a proper age? 10. "Further, this particular religion (Catholicism) denounces abortion, and you have no way of knowing how many lives were saved because of this." Yes life has been saved, the life of a group of cells which add up to no more than the number of cells in a fruit fly. Depends when and where you think it's a human life. I won't go there.