CreateDebate


Debate Info

113
103
Yes No
Debate Score:216
Arguments:182
Total Votes:234
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (87)
 
 No (86)

Debate Creator

JackassTruth(83) pic



Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?

Richard Dawkins has publically claimed that forcing a religion on a child is a form of child abuse. Do you agree?

Please Note - He did not saying teaching your child ABOUT religion is child abuse.
He said telling your child "You are a christian (or muslim or cathlic or jewish) child therefore this is your belief" is a form of child abuse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professor.html 

Yes

Side Score: 113
VS.

No

Side Score: 103
5 points

I completely agree with Mr. Dawkins. Not allowing a child to explore, is trapping him or her in a mindset. I think this is just as damaging as other forms of child abuse.

Side: Yes
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

I think this is just as damaging as other forms of child abuse.

Really, so taking your kid to church is a s bad a s the couple who killed their 5 month old by leaving them in a car seat for 8 days.... Taking your kid to church is as bad as molestation huh? Why don't you try thinking before you type.

Side: No
squibs(18) Disputed
2 points

http://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbydiocese.html

Don't know about leaving your kid in the car but the molestation thing, could have picked a better example..

Side: Yes
neros(9) Disputed
2 points

Taking a kid to church isn't child abuse. Forcing them to believe is. It isn't as bad as anything physical, but your above comment is like saying teasing isn't bullying because it's not as bad as punching. Young kids are often very gullible.

Side: Yes
LittleGirl(2) Clarified
1 point

It's not the same as murdering children, but it still forces children to believe something that they don't believe. For example: if two Christian parents had a child, they would want the child to be Christian. But the child might believe in science and logic more than religion. Therefore the parents are forcing their children to do something they don't believe in, which could be seen as child abuse.

Side: Yes
JackassTruth(83) Disputed
1 point

Smacking a kid in the head is child abuse.

Telling your kid if he doesn't conform to a books rules he will rott in hell for eternity is NOT child abuse.

They are both bad, but one is legal and one is not. That's my point, and I believe Mr. Dawkins point.

AngryGenX try thinking before you get angry.

Side: Yes
HumannamuH(209) Disputed
1 point

No, but I agree with the following points: it is to what extent and religion should not be forced upon. However, making a child do their homework for their own sake you could call trapping them in a state of boredom or unhappiness because they dislike doing it or even asking them to lose weight because they are too heavy.

It depends on how old and mature they are - a young child and adolescents require the most input from parents as studies have shown.

Side: No

It really depends on what you are doing to "force" them. Needless to say, you're a really poor parent if you can't accept that your child has different views than you.

Side: Yes

Number 1, your brain washing them. Number 2, your not allowing them to discover the world and religion themselves.

Their freedom is being token away. Also, they can't live their lives nor enjoy themselves because they live in fear. It's just another way to control people. We Need a law for this.

America gives Women, Blacks, and handicaps rights, but not children. The USA is getting less democratic.

Side: Yes
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Get back on here in 15 years... Tell me how wonderful and smart 13 year olds are and how they should be running the world.

Side: No
chadAI(4) Disputed
1 point

Children have no rights until they are legally an adult. The only right a child has is to be treated with dignity as a human being.

Side: No
2 points

That's really not fair. How a Lion is able to make choices for itself when he's only a few months, but a highly intelligent and mature 16 year old isn't able to make choices. Children are nothing but Slaves in the U.S Of A.

Side: Yes

If you tell them about god when they are a kid, and teach them about spirituality, then you are not really forcing them to believe in anything, you are teaching them what you know, and as long as you dont try to scare them into staying with your beliefs.

If you use fear in your teachings, that is psychologically damaging.

Side: Yes
2 points

What about teaching about hell?

Side: Yes
1 point

Its the same thing as teaching kids they will go meet "bubba" in prison if they dont do what someone else tells them to do.

Side: No
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

If you use fear in your teachings, that is psychologically damaging. that is what all religions stands on, scarying people by promising infinite pain forever if they do not donate to the church...

Side: No
1 point

What about teaching about the fear of going to prison?

You smoke a little plant, you go to jail.

Thats fear mongering, thats threatening my personal freedoms, my personal decisions as a conscious organism.

How is that any different than teaching about hell?

And just assume hell exists for this debate so we dont get into a pointless debate.

Side: Yes
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

The problem is that the vast majority of religious parents/guardians do not simply teach their children that god is an idea that could exist, but that god is an absolute and incontrovertible truth. This view is imparted by the parent/guardian with a false air of legitimacy that abuses the trust and vulnerability of the child.

The scare tactics practically innate to all religion are just an exacerbation of what is already damaging to the emotional and cognitive maturation of the child.

Side: No

I know, i have a best friend whose parents were not as bad as THAT, but he was pretty indoctrinated it tookk me years to open up his mind lol, well he opened it up of his own accord but i think i helped him...

But yeah, its terrible i hate that.

Side: No
1 point

Child Abuse: "(1) Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation. (2) An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm. (The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g)

Force: "Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing." (Source)

Forcing a child to practice a religion implicates the act as one of coercion against the will of the child. This alone can be emotionally damaging, but is further compounded by the retardation that religion causes in emotional and cognitive development. Religion exists and is perpetuated as a consequence of emotional insecurity, and actively works against critical thought and emotional maturation. Further, this indoctrination is rarely done out of genuine interest in the welfare of the child but is a projection of the emotional insecurities of the parent(s)/guardian(s) onto the child and at the expense of the child.

Side: Yes
Atrag(5439) Disputed
1 point

I don't know USA law but I'd imagine that for the parents to be culpable the court would have to determine causality between the parents act and the harm. Part of this is would surely be reasonable (or actual) foreseeability. What a reasonably prudent parent have foreseen harm (perhaps the criteria would 'serious harm' ) caused by teaching the child religion? I think the answer would be no.

Side: No
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

Causality would need to be demonstrated (which I believe it can be) but to my understanding based upon the federal code cited above the reasonable foreseeability standard is not at issue in the United States. Such a standard though seems curious to me in light of the innate ambiguity it holds. While I can appreciate the intent to protect parents from being penalized for unforeseeable harms done to children, to attach the standard of foreseeability to the reasoning capacity of the average parent/person seems imprudent to me.

All of that being said, it is exceptionally unlikely that any court would ever rule against parents for teaching their children religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution secures freedom of religion, which people interpret quite generously and defend quite passionately in this country.

Side: Yes

Yes since being in a religion should be voluntary and being done out of passion for the movement. Being forced however to follow something you don`t even believe is torture in an intellectual sense.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes ur child should be able to belive and act as they want, its there life and its there choice

Side: Yes
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

Yet another extreme oversimplification argument from the left. If everyone just left it up to their child how to act how do you think children would behave overall? Would they go to school? Would they ever learn anything? Would they ever learn to be respectful or communicate properly?

Side: No
1 point

Forcing a child to have a certain religeon is take away their freedom of though. It's like forcing a child to believe that the moon is made of cheese.

Side: Yes
1 point

Now this is an interesting topic.

Personally, if I'd ever been born into a religious family, and christened (etc), I'd have been very annoyed. I believe that people should be free to make a choice, on whether to follow a religion (and if so, what one they wish to be a part of) or not. In no respect is it okay to force beliefs upon someone.

Christening a baby is not an acceptable act - you are condemning that child to a life of following a religion, that they've had no say it. If they want to take on a religion, fair enough, but forcing it upon them is never okay. That is not the freedom that humans deserve.

Whether it is child abuse, is difficult to say - making a child be a certain religion is unlikely to harm them, in any way than, perhaps, educationally (e.g. in Science).

Side: Yes
1 point

This comes to be the Major problem that a child is having from his/her background. Because, However, A child is willing to practice what is aiming to do and parent now be the one to be confusing him/her, this is Illegal and also Formally Child Abuse to every Societies.

Side: Yes

I completely agree with Mr. Dawkins. Not allowing a child to explore, is trapping him or her in a mindset. I think this is just as damaging as other forms of child abuse.

Side: Yes

This is a tuff one.. Mostly because a few religions are allot like ethnic back grounds. A Muslim is born "Muslim" a Jewish is born Jewish. In today's America most children are not born into a certain religious belief. All I have to go from is my own experience.

When I was a teen I met a guy who was a non practicing Jehovah Witness, while he still carried the teachings he was raised with he did not attend "meetings" and sinned against the teachings everyday. We later had two child and had been married. The marriage did not last for reasons outside of the JW factor. And ever since I have raised my kids to explore god and his teachings on there own free will. I have allowed them my oldest is now 15 to gain his own since of what is right for him. He has made wise choices, last year he was baptized and confirmed and I was so happy for him. He did this all on his own. His choice not mine.

I never grew up in a strict religious house hold, so I didn't feel that my kids should either. But back to Muslims and Jewish people, this is like I said something the kids are born into. And until they are older and can reflect on the teachings on there own, I don't see any problem with passing down this tradition and beliefs that they have. Unless it is harmful to the child.

I feel that JW's and Mormons are a type of cult, and there fore I would never ever introduce this to my kids. Just as I wouldn't introduce them to any other religious belief. But as for it being child abuse because the parents take them to church of there choosing and raise there kids in such church.. No I don't think it is. It could become abuse if this religious view hurts or damages the children in ways that we would describe as a cult. Where sexual and or physical and mental abuse took place.

So I guess I would have to say no, that most of the time this is not abuse, it is raising a family in the light of faith. That has been done for many many years and generations before.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes if you belive somthing why should they. They are not you they can have their own opinions. How would you feel if your parents were for example Jewish and you belive in christianity and they forced you to belive in somthing you don't. Be cannot be forced they are created by yourself trying out different things and figuring out from there what you like andto belive in

Side: Yes
0 points

So is raping them.

Side: Yes

You do not own your children. Children are their own people, many of whom can think for themselves. Let them decide things for themselves.

Freedom of Religion is a human right and just because they are you Children doesn't mean you can take that right away from them.

Side: Yes
Paradox44(736) Disputed
2 points

I like the way you phrase "own". Instead I shall use ownership or custody since I don't really prefer to use "own".

How do I not have ownership of my child? It is my creation. Even then why can I not teach my child my religion if my religion tells me too? What harm is done? Shall the child quiver in fear and suffer psychological trauma?

Side: No
Jace(4696) Disputed
0 points

How do I not have ownership of my child? It is my creation.

Any parent exerts influence over their children, but it is an absolute fact that the child does operate as its own autonomous entity (particularly as it grows older). There is only so much that a parent can do to regulate their child, and eventually most children will assert themselves as autonomous adults in their own right.

You may argue that you have a natural or legal right as a parent to indoctrinate your child, and perhaps you do, but this does not actually change the abusive nature of that indoctrination.

Even then why can I not teach my child my religion if my religion tells me too? What harm is done? Shall the child quiver in fear and suffer psychological trauma?

The harm is to the emotional and cognitive development and maturation of the child. Religion teaches an absolute and incontrovertible truth, which conditions a child to close their mind to alternative perspectives and possibilities. Religion is also founded upon the emotional insecurities of people, and a child who learns to lean on the emotional crutch of religion is unlikely ever to learn to walk on their own (i.e. they will struggle far more to confront and resolve their emotional insecurities, instead turning to superficial religious explanations).

In some cases where religion is forcefully imposed upon a child, against the wishes and interests of the child, the harm can be even greater. The threat of being cut out of the family or physically harmed for not conforming to religious views of the parent/guardian is very real for too many children. Arguably, though, this falls within the prerogative of the parent if they do in fact have ownership of the child.

Side: Yes
0 points

Religions should be same as alcohol an cigarettes from 21+ .

Side: Yes
0 points

Especially if it's a bad one, like Christianity

Side: Yes
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
0 points

Especially if it's a bad one, like Christianity

Yeah, because the number two religion in the world is oh-so-tolerant of different ideas right?

Side: No
0 points

Just as a form of mental abuse - something like this, a belief is an intrinsic part of someone and it is unfair to use force to get someone to do something. In the end, it is the child's choice - disparate from asking a child to do his/her homework. Religion is a commitment and forcing your child to conform to someone else's personal beliefs should not be tolerated. How is it not different from a form of suppression?

Even though your child will come to harm from having a religion you may not agree with - forcing them to conform to your way, although it might be better for them shouldn't be the response. Clearly the child would need guidance and support but never be forced into something. This will ultimately have a negative effect, especially upon a relationship.

Side: Yes
3 points

Is forcing your child to subscribe to political viewpoints, like supporting feminism, child abuse?

Side: No
blacklab2287(34) Disputed
2 points

Political viewpoints such as feminism is about improving and equalizing the human race. Religion/faith does none of that. Forcing a child to believe in something that you do, regardless is a form of child neglect.

Side: Yes
3 points

Wow, if you honestly believe that then you have been brainwashed by fear mongering and propaganda and you dont think for yourself, how does religion not do that?

Anyone who uses religion as an excuse for violence is extremely misled and should rethink their views, that doesnt mean religion itself is bad.

Side: No
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

Yes. Forced indoctrination of a child into any ideology is abusive. However, that secular indoctrination can occur is in no way a negation of the reality that forced religious indoctrination is still also a form of child abuse.

Side: Yes
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

So, if we can't "indoctrinate" children with any viewpoint, how do we teach them?

Side: No
1 point

No, but is supporting feminism potentially life - changing or irreversibly damaging?

Side: No
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Potentially, yes.

Side: Yes
3 points

No. Why would it be? Does the child scream and cry for help when you teach him a particular religion? No. I don't see how it could ever be child abuse. If it is then teaching your child anything and not letting them find out for themselves is child abuse.

Side: No
Atrag(5439) Disputed
2 points

Nor would a child scream and cry for help if you were to sexually touch them. The point is whether 1) it infringes a child's right to autonomy 2) it causes long term harm.

Side: Yes
Paradox44(736) Disputed
1 point

Nor would a child scream and cry for help if you were to sexually touch them

I'm fairly positive the child will say something if the parent is doing something of this nature. Either that be a scream, shout, or a yell.

it infringes a child's right to autonomy

Who says that right exists? Rights are simply mental constructs for the benefit of those that fit under it description. I don't think rights exist at all. Humans just share ideas and argee or disagree on what they find to be beneficial. Even if the right to autonomy is granted what about the parents right to autonomy by wishing to indoctrinate her child? Shall you prohibit one to allow the other?

it causes long term harm.

What is the long-term harm of teaching a child a religion?

Side: No
Nox0(1393) Disputed
0 points

Yes they do refuse, scream and ignoring it. That why you deny them desert if they do not do some rituals. Scaring them with infinite suffering in hell if they don't do another ritual .Lying them, telling them that Bible is like a real textbook...

This is core thing of all religion, scaring kids to make sure that you will have enough drones in future.

Side: Yes
Paradox44(736) Disputed
2 points

Show me an instance where someone was teaching their child their religion and the child was screaming in fear and pain. Please link me to some evidence to support yourself.

Scaring them you say? How so? Can a religious child not grow uo to be an astronaut? Doctor? Athlete? Lawyer? Police officer? Scientist? What scaring will occur? It's no different from me telling my child that when he dies he will no longer exist and everything will blow into oblivion with nothing left in existence.

Side: No
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
2 points

This is core thing of all religion, scaring kids to make sure that you will have enough drones in future.

Religion must really be a problem where you come from.

Side: No
2 points

But you will teach them about evolution and other science-y things. That's kinda the same thing. Instilling in them a mindset. Otherwise they won't know anything. They need a foundation to grow as a person however they want.

Side: No
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

But you will teach them about evolution and other science-y things. That's kinda the same thing. Instilling in them a mindset. Otherwise they won't know anything.

Teaching children objectively probable truths is not remotely comparable to teaching them subjective, unsubstantiated opinions.

They need a foundation to grow as a person however they want.

Yes, but some foundations are objectively better than others.

Side: Yes
2 points

Generally, a child's religion is determined by the parents by default. With that model in mind, there's loads of ways to look at this:

1. "Child abuse" refers to going against the child will and forcing him/her to do something the child would not want to do. According to the model, the child's religion is decided the very moment he/she is born, and at this point the child is a little too young for this planet to imply that he/she has an opinion about something as complex as religion. So if the child has free will, parents hold the right to decide what is good and bad for the child, and it is in the proposers' interest to believe that parents will be sane enough to do the right thing.

2. Say the child grows into a 9 or 10 year old, maybe even a teenager. He/she will not have the required maturity to decipher which religion echoes his/her internal thoughts. Instead, they'll like a religion that is less demanding in terms of time and energy rather than one that defines them. I believe that a decision based on practicality and ease cannot be the best decision to make when choosing a religion, not only because the teachings of the religion and what religions stand for is more important, but also because choice of religion sends out a firm message of how somebody thinks and a carelessly chosen religion will, therefore, have detrimental effects on a person's image in society.

3. Most religions preach the same thing: to be good human beings. Yes, the ways are different. But the idea is the same. The differences in religions, therefore, are too minute for children to decipher. When they grow old, they certainly have the freedom to change their religion because that's when they have the mental maturity to understand the slight differences in the various religions.

Side: No

I know that it isnt right, but I dont think it can be considered as child abuse.

The responsibility of the parent is to guide their children towards the right path. They are only sharing to their children what works for them. But of course, children should have the rights to refuse

Side: No
2 points

I believe sharing is different than forcing. I can share you some food but I can`t force you to eat it, you`ll have to eat it willingly. This analogy may apply to the case presented. I can share to my children my beliefs and if sometime they grow weary of it, then I think it would be alright for them to follow their own.

Side: Yes
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

There is forced indoctrination and there is expression of personal belief, but there is also a coercive in-between. Most religious indoctrination is not outright forceful, but is coercive as a consequence of the assertion of religion as an absolute and incontrovertible truth by parents/guardians who by nature of their relationship with the child exert incredible authority. This imbues religion with a false legitimacy, and persuades vulnerable children to believe in something which is harmful to their emotional and cognitive maturation.

Side: No
Centifolia(1318) Disputed
1 point

Well, they can always leave the group when they grew up.

I see no problem in parents nurturing their child to be someone similar to them

Side: No
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Most children are not intelligent enough to make such choices. Unless they're being abused, they follow the rules.

Side: No
2 points

I started making my own decisions about wherever God existed or not since the age of about seven. I agree Children should have to follow the rules there parents set like what time they go to bed, how long they watch T.V. etc. but it is stupid parent's have no right to force them follow their religion. You do not own your kids, they can choose for themselves. "They aren't clever enough" is not a good enough reason. Their are plenty of adults who are less intelligent than certain Children. Should they have less rights because they are unintelligent?

Side: Yes

I support it mostly. I think it would be a form of neglect. If a person is so obtuse that they need a book to help them be a good person, they shouldn't be teaching anybody anything. They should be the ones being taught.

Side: No
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

But it is important to tell them that Bible is not encyclopaedia or textbook they need to know that it is purely based on mixture of bronze age myths.

Side: Yes
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

In the vast majority of cases they are not just sharing their views with their children. They are telling their children that their religious beliefs are absolute and incontrovertible truths, at a point when their authoritative relationship with the child imbues these views with a false air of legitimacy. In most cases, the child is also informed repeatedly that if they do not adopt the same views they will live in eternal suffering. This is an abuse of authority, and it is harmful to the emotional and cognitive maturation of the child.

Side: Yes
Centifolia(1318) Disputed
2 points

Religion being abused by the majority doesn't mean that it is wrong.

I can use the gun laws as an example here.

Side: No
1 point

Raising your sons to believe it is ok to be gay when it increases your odds of getting HIV 50 fold is child abuse.

Valuing dual income over having someone there for your children is child abuse

Thinking divorce is ok and raising a kid without their father is child abuse

Raising your boys to be something other than a man, or raising your girls to be something other than a woman is child abuse.

Raising your children to be open to influence from a world without respect for life, decency, or honor is child abuse.

Side: No
Jace(4696) Disputed
3 points

Fallacy 1: Indicating other instances of potential child abuse does not prove that forcing a child to be religious is not child abuse as well.

Raising your sons to believe it is ok to be gay when it increases your odds of getting HIV 50 fold is child abuse.

Fallacy 2: Teaching respect and acceptance to children does not predispose them to be homosexual.

Fallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.

Fallacy 4: Transmission rates for other STIs are actually higher in heterosexual populations than in homosexual populations. Picking one STI to defend your point provides an incomplete picture.

Fallacy 5: Not all religious indoctrination condemns homosexuality. Religious persons can force their child into religious practice/belief while also teaching acceptance of homosexuality.

Valuing dual income over having someone there for your children is child abuse.

Fallacy 6: Homosexual couples do not place dual income over supporting their children any more than heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples can also have a stay at home partner, just as heterosexual couples can both be working partners.

Thinking divorce is ok and raising a kid without their father is child abuse.

Fallacy 7: Divorce can be damaging to children, however in some contexts divorce can actually be the better choice for a child. Examples include instances of domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic unrest from bad marriages.

Raising your boys to be something other than a man, or raising your girls to be something other than a woman is child abuse.

Fallacy 8: Whether you are referencing "traditional" gender roles or transgender identities, you have no basis for your claim.

Fallacy 9: Actually, raising children to conform to "traditional" gender roles is harmful (not the other way around). For instance.

Raising your children to be open to influence from a world without respect for life, decency, or honor is child abuse.

Fallacy 10: Religion is not the only source (nor even the best source) for raising a child with respect for life, decency, and honor.

Side: Yes
thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

Fallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.

I don't actually want to support the idea that it's child abuse to tell your son it's ok to be gay (hence why I'm clarifying rather than disputing), but your statement here is rather misleading. Anal intercourse with an infected partner does, in fact, carry a higher risk of transmission than vaginal intercourse with an infected partner, for several reasons(1). Similarly, vaginal intercourse with an infected partner carries a higher risk of transmission than oral sex with an infected partner. Furthermore, there is, as you noted, a higher incidence of risky behaviour amongst homosexual males than amongst heterosexuals, and a larger proportion of infected homosexual males than heterosexuals, as a result of all factors involved. I also believe that the lack of pregnancy risk is an additional contributing factor to risky behavior amongst homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals.

Now, it's true that anal intercourse is not exclusive to homosexual males- heterosexual couples are known to indulge as well. However, anal intercourse is far more prevalent amongst male homosexual couples. All else being equal, a homosexual male is at a higher risk of contracting HIV than a heterosexual individual. It should also be noted that a heterosexual individual is at a higher risk of contracting HIV than a homosexual female. Still- stating that being a homosexual male does not increase an individuals risk of contracting HIV is blatantly false.

This does not mean children should be encouraged not to be gay- that is an exercise in futility, as sexual orientation is not chosen consciously. Telling your son that it is not ok to be gay is extremely flawed and damaging, regardless of the reasoning behind it. But we shouldn't be making misleading statements because they are politically correct- homosexual males, heterosexual individuals, and homosexual females all have different overall risks of contracting HIV, due to the nature of each demographics proclivities towards various sexual activities- all else being equal, of course.

(1)- Anal intercourse is riskier for several reasons. Firstly, the tissues of the intestines carry the specific function of absorbing nutrients and moisture from their contents into the bloodstream. Even without damage, it is significantly easier to contract a disease when body fluids are deposited in the intestines as compared to the vagina for this reason. Secondly, the large intestine does not lubricate naturally, nor is it as elastic as vaginal tissue. This both increases the prevalence and severity of microtears forming on both partners, as well as the likelihood of damage occurring to a condom when it is used.

Side: Yes
1 point

I agree that religion is not the predominant source of child- abuse and yes, much of what you say is true e.g. fallacy 2 - divorces, values are what matters but I must disagree with Fallacy 9: traditional has much credibility, it was formed over generations for a sound reason - it is not to be mistaken as 'the out-dated and suppressive way'. It wouldn't do well to simply ignore the fact that your ancestors and many generations preceding you followed this 'traditional' way of life.

Everything is subject to change and a very definite example is our VALUES.

I believe you should not condemn homosexuality and that there is ALWAYS more than one side to every story. Yes, not all religious doctrines condemn this, but isn't religion ultimately how we perceive it? Why is it that when Islamic religions ( as an example) are in favour of world peace and honour there exists who attribute their actions to religion- the 'extremists and terrorists?'

They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone else despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable.

Really, the biggest fallacy of all is saying we can all agree where to draw the line for abuse and our personal beliefs.

Side: Yes
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
-1 points

Fallacy 1: Indicating other instances of potential child abuse does not prove that forcing a child to be religious is not child abuse as well.

True, but it illustrates how liberals indoctrinate their children into their worldview as well, even when it directly harms them.

Fallacy 2: Teaching respect and acceptance to children does not predispose them to be homosexual.

POSSIBLY, but teaching that homosexuality is a sin can discourage them from becoming an active homosexual

Fallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.

Give it a rest, being an active homosexual is only possible by either deluding or discarding any faith in an Abrahamic religion. In the west, religion is what discourages people from promiscuity. Being a homosexual DOES increase your risk of HIV, even if it is a secondary effect. It has nothing to do with stigma, sex education, or healthcare discrimination, which have been pretty much eliminated in the last 20-30 years... If there was even the slightest indication removal of those factors decreases the infection rate among homosexuals, the entire country would erupt in a super volcano of academic papers shoving it in everyone's face. 5 seconds on google shows homosexuals in Europe face similar infection rates as the US.

Fallacy 4: Transmission rates for other STIs are actually higher in heterosexual populations than in homosexual populations. Picking one STI to defend your point provides an incomplete picture.

source

Fallacy 5: Not all religious indoctrination condemns homosexuality. Religious persons can force their child into religious practice/belief while also teaching acceptance of homosexuality.

I understand it is a Fallacy (No true Scotsman), but you can generally assume I'm excluding liberal Christians when I say "Christians"

Fallacy 6:

I was not talking about homosexuals. I was talking about heterosexuals.

Fallacy 7: Divorce can be damaging to children, however in some contexts divorce can actually be the better choice for a child. Examples include instances of domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic unrest from bad marriages.

...and infidelity, yes I agree. I'm not supporting domestic violence, I'm addressing an apathy towards fatherhood.

Fallacy 8: Whether you are referencing "traditional" gender roles or transgender identities, you have no basis for your claim.

Yes I do, It is a disease. Denying medical treatment for a disease is abusive. Mutilating someone's body, literally selling them false hope that they can change genders, is abuse.

Fallacy 9: Actually, raising children to conform to "traditional" gender roles is harmful (not the other way around). For instance.

A. explain how

B. Your link didn't work

C. You can pretty well assume I'm not going to see things your way because of an article from a California university, just like I know full well you are not going to see things my way if I just trow Bible verses at you all day. I have more respect for peer reviewed journals, but only if they contain statistics that actually support what you are trying to say. Maybe you should look up the suicide rates of housewives vs transsexuals.

Fallacy 10: Religion is not the only source (nor even the best source) for raising a child with respect for life, decency, and honor.

Another instance where you and I will just disagree on what is good and what is bad, but just for fun, why don't you go ahead and tell me what that better source is.

Side: No
knowthyself(35) Disputed
1 point

Lets look at these one at a time.

You are assuming that "gay" is a choice and that it is something you are taught. You probably also believe you can "Pray away the gay".

The "go forth and multiply" is an easy way to have too many children to the point that dual incomes are needed.

This statement insinuates that anyone with gay children has raised them to be gay. This is not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, but it's close.

Children should be raised not to be influenced by anyone. Especially people who believe in things that are based on faith. They need to be taught critical thinking skills and come to their own conclusion on how the world works.

Side: Yes
AngryGenX(463) Disputed
1 point

You are assuming that "gay" is a choice and that it is something you are taught. You probably also believe you can "Pray away the gay".

If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference. -thousandand1

The "go forth and multiply" is an easy way to have too many children to the point that dual incomes are needed.

So if I go out and have 10 kids... wife gets pregnant and says "well we just don't have enough money, I have to work." So I put 10, going on 11 kids in daycare... what is my net gain (assuming my wife isn't a neuro-surgeion, rocket scientist, or professional athlete) ?

This statement insinuates that anyone with gay children has raised them to be gay. This is not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, but it's close.

No, but there are parents who refuse to embrace gender norms, and inadvertently push gender disorders. I have no doubt there are a lot of well meaning Christian parents out there who have been blind-sided by one of their kids coming out.

Children should be raised not to be influenced by anyone.

Correct, optimally children should only be influenced by God.

Especially people who believe in things that are based on faith.

Correct, so next time there is a discussion on teaching evolution, I expect you to stand against it.

They need to be taught critical thinking skills and come to their own conclusion on how the world works.

You know, my wife doesn't understand why I'm always having these arguments online... There is even a pretty clear biblical prohibition against it, (Proverbs 26:4, 2 Timothy 2:14). I just consider it proselytizing and feel justified. But what I really feel I get out of it is every time someone challenges my faith and pushes me into a conflict, my faith is vindicated. I have no desire to be a Christian if someone can prove it is wrong... but you can't... what I find is usually the opposite.

It is an incredible act of arrogance to assume everyone who holds a different opinion than you is guilty of not using critical thinking. It shows a shameful level of pride in the atheist community to assume they have a monopoly on thinking objectively.

Side: No
1 point

Should atheist parents be forced to take their kids to church so that they can't be accused of trying to indoctrinate their children?

Side: No

No. That would be tyranny. While I prfer that children be taught plurality and comparative religion and spirituality, the gov has no right to force that on people and who gets to decide? The rule of law should be enforced, not mob rule.

Side: No
AngryGenX(463) Clarified
2 points

I know I was taught world religions in elementary school, weren't you? I was repeatedly informed that we live in a country with freedom of religion and it was my choice what I wanted to believe. But my parents raised me in their belief system just like all parents do. I was actually raised catholic and have "rebelled" against that and am a protestant (not sure which kind yet, might need to start my own denomination to be happy). My sister was raised the exact same way and is either an atheist or an extremely weak Christian.

So if we live in a country where people are given a choice in what they want to believe, and routinely do chose differently than how they were raised, why do we have to go out and insult parents who are doing what they think is best? "Brainwashing" would almost necessarily require threats or violence which are already illegal anyway.

Anyways, if the government were to take Dawkins' advice and label teaching a child religion as abuse, how is that not tyranny?

Side: Yes
Atrag(5439) Disputed
2 points

What does 'rule of law' mean to you?

Side: Yes
Jace(4696) Disputed
1 point

All parents should be expected not to indoctrinate their child into any perspective, but to equip their child with the means to think critically and formulate their own opinions. This includes parents who are atheists, but it does not follow that the way to do this would be for those parents to bring their children to church.

Side: Yes
1 point

Child abuse is an act of child endangerment, such as molestation, physical harm and mental bullying. If something does not harm a child or harm his/her wellbeing, it is not a form of abuse.

Side: No
1 point

What a silly question. My dad tried to force Catholicism on me when I was little. It didn't work. I developed my own beliefs as I grew up. This is NOT child abuse. When children grow up they have their own mind. How can it be child abuse?

Side: No
1 point

I don't believe it is necessarily "Child Abuse." I would call it "Indoctrination." Every child to an extent is indoctrinated with their parent's beliefs, whether it be Theism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist. Now if you are talking about the parents FORCING them to believe something, that is an infringement on freedom and rights. Also it depends on what you call "religion."

A Theist will teach their child to be Theist, and an Atheist will teach their child to be Atheist. Children have always and will always lean toward their parent's belief, it's a natural tendency.

However, if you must call it Child Abuse, to be fair you must put Atheism under the label of "religion" for the sake of the debate.

Side: No
Jace(4696) Disputed
2 points

Indoctrination commonly refers not just to the teaching of ideas but to the representation of those ideas as inherently true. Such absolutism is effectively a prerequisite for religion to exist; it is not equitably necessary for atheism and is not especially applicable to agnosticism. Even were theism and atheism equitably parallel in this respect, your argument does not disprove that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse but rather expands the terminology to include atheistic indoctrination as well.

Side: Yes

Note: I'm ignoring the description of the debate by posting this, so apologies there.

I will even say that actually forcing your child to be a member of your religion, or to subscribe to any of your beliefs, is a form of child abuse. But by that same token, forcing a child to abstain from religion altogether, telling him he is an atheist, and not allowing him to investigate religion on his own terms is child abuse for the exact same reason.

The reason that I voted 'No' after noting the above, and the reason that I am ignoring the description, however, is because of what the generally accepted definition of 'forcing religion' is said to be. What most people call 'forcing religion' is not in fact forcing religion of any kind. Someone wearing a crucifix at work- even if they work for the government- does not constitute forcing their religion on you. Someone praying in a public place- even if it's government property- does not constitute forcing their religion on you.

I acknowledge that this diverts significantly from the subject at hand, so I'll leave it at that. I would like one person to dispute this to balance out the votes in the debate- any others, please choose clarify, as this is somewhat tangential to the debate topic. I will take your argument as a support or dispute based on its contents rather than the word next to your name; there is no need to artificially skew the vote either way.

Side: No
1 point

You can't exactly "force" it. Otherwise, I'd agree .

Side: No
1 point

How can you force someone to hold to a particular religion? It's a personal choice. Anyway, when the child is grown, they can make their own decision. And I would think that they would abandon the religion that was forced on them. On the other hand, if their parents did not instruct them in their religious beliefs, wouldn't that be even worse? It would mean that the parents did not care about their child's eternal soul.

Side: No
1 point

It is true that a child has the right to believe/ dispute certain beliefs and to choose from the diverse branches of religious philosophy and to a certain degree, a parent as the responsibility to guide their child in the right direction to learn the fundamental moralities of humanity. However, there is no quintessential set of values or book instructing parents on how to raise their children developing into a 'perfect adult' as no book exists and this is parallel to how there is no such quality/ state of being 'perfect'. Children who are sent away to a different country or in the past wars, would have left the security and guidance of their parents/ family, it doesn't mean they are completely clueless as how to act as a human or to care/ love/ honour others. Conversely, children need to experience and learn from their experiences to make these judgements for themselves. However, it is true that some things are hard -wired/ inherent to us from the start such as turtles when born know instinctively that they need to go to the water, it may be product of evolution for survival, but children also seem to understand the concept of death before someone has explained it to them.

Side: No