The Instigator
Pierce
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
mcala7
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

Should Children Forced Into Religion?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,501 times Debate No: 10827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (11)

 

Pierce

Con

Hey guys, first time posting here.

Anyways, to buisness. I disagree on the fact that children should be forced into religion based on their parents choices. I also disagree the fact of children being baptized when they are born. For one, it is a considered a commitment for the parents to teach them the Christian Faith, and the child cannot make his own choices whether he wants to join the Christian religion. Really, parents abuse their childs right to a religion.
mcala7

Pro

For starters a child is not forced into believing anything. A child can be led down the road of a religion but cannot be forced into believing it . It is the obligation of a parent to give a child the opportunity to learn and gain faith in a religion. As children cannot, or often do not make decisions that are in their best interest of themselves, therefore it is the parent duty to do so. While one might see this as being forced, this is the same idea as a parent forcing his child to eat vegetables, or behave in public.

Now being baptized is a tradition that the parent chose to have their child participant in. How would a child know that he or she wants to be baptized if they have never been exposed to the idea. How could a child chose to go to Church, or Temple if they are completely oblivious of the idea. Religion is not something that is taught in school so Parents are the only way that a young child could encounter a Religion and its traditions.

It is the right of parents to raise their children the way they see fit. If this means being pious than that is the decision of the parents. This is the same as a parent deciding that her child will work hard in school, if the child has been raised to believing that he or she should work hard in school the mentality of the child will as said.

Who is to say when a child is being forced into religion? While someone who does not care for religion might say that someone is being "Forced" another might not.
Debate Round No. 1
Pierce

Con

Perhaps I should rephrase my debate then. Should Children Be Forced To Practice Their Parents Religion?
I do not find your argument 1 with the vegetables very convincing, as it only sensible for survival, religion, not so much. I am not saying to leave your kids at the house alone, but you should at least look at it through their point of view.

Since you more or less agree with me, that you can't make your child follow your religion (Just looking at it from different views, more logical, etc.) This debate is not really going anywhere.

In the end, I think a parent does play a very important role if the child wishes to choose a religion or not. But, I do not think that they should influence their child's decision by their own religion and preferences. A good parent would give them the information necessary, and allow their child to choose a religion when the time comes.
mcala7

Pro

First I said you cannot force a someone to believe in a religion. Just because you go to Church everyday doesn't mean you accept Jesus as you Savior. Just because you are forced to pray 5 times a day doesn't mean that you believe in Allah or Muhammad. To truly believe in something like heaven or hell or God you must chose to accept these things.

Now because of this I do no believe anyone can force a religion on someone like you are suggesting. I will say that I do believe is that Parents have the right to teach their children what they want, including a religion. You than say parents shouldn't force their religion onto their kids. What religion should a parent teach? If not theirs. How could you expect a Catholic parent to teach their child Muslims beliefs. How could a Jewish man teach his children things he know nothing about. So it is only practical that a parent teach his or her own religion.

You than say a parent should only provide information for their child. How could you expect a child to chose a religion just based off only the info. How do you give a child, lets say 5 years old The Bible and expect him to understand Revelations. How do you give him The Koran and expect him to understand the story of Ishmael and Isaac. Religion must be taught to a someone so that they can understand the meanings behind the stories and traditions.

You also say when they time comes, when is this. When can a child chose for himself? In society we say a person has the right to make their own decisions when they are 18. They can vote, they can smoke, and by this time they have already made their mind up on religion. But this is not a child, a child cannot make these decisions for themselves so their parents must. So again it is only logical that a parent teach what they believe and know. Whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism or a traditional ethnic religion it is the parents decision

How could you expect a child not to be influenced by their parents beliefs. Just as when children learn anything they are influenced by their parents. They do as mommy does and Say what daddy said. You can not expect a child to only learn certain things. You cant say learn how to talk but don't learn how to pray. You cannot pick and chose what will influence or effect a child. If one is religious than their child will be exposed to their religion.

So it is only logical that a child be exposed to a parents religion or tradition
Debate Round No. 2
Pierce

Con

Excuse me, Mr Opponent Mcala7. You are completely missing the point of my debate. I am suggesting that parents shouldn't have the right to make their children practice their religion. I was more or less looking for someone to debate with me why children should not be forced to do their parents religion practices, when they have no idea what they are even doing. You instead just keep telling me that you cannot force someone to believe something. I am sure you are quite familiar with the Nazi Leader Hitler. How do you suppose he was able to make thousands of German citizens to believe that the Jewish people were the stain on the world? Perhaps it is that some people share the same qualities as, say- sheep. If a powerful enough figure tells them in a way they can understand, and all their friends, family members, and anyone with fame is doing it, then maybe you may just start doing it to.
Refer to any cult for more on this "brainwashing".
mcala7

Pro

OK Peirce now you say you are debating on the right of parents to "Force" religion, when really it is the matter of do parents have the right to "Teach" their kid what they want. You keep saying "force" when really that is not the situation. You cant be "Forced" to believe. As for your argument about Hitler and Nazi Germany, the German people were not forced. Germany was in shambles, their economy was devastated and people could not provide for themselves. Germans where looking for an answer to their problems and Hitler gave them one. They were looking for someone to blame and Hitler simply did what Europeans have been doing for the longest time, he blamed the Jewish community. Hitler blamed those who had money, had land and did not fight for Germany during WW1. The Germans where not forced but were ok with the idea that the Jews were the cause for their problems. This was no knew idea, during The Black Plague Jews were blamed for spreading the plague because they had the money and land. They were in a powerful position and those looking for an answer to the Plague had no problem blaming the man they owed lots of money to. An for your theory of cults if you were to actually look up the information the people joined openly and were not forced. Maybe after the ordeal they claimed to be forced but they at some point were ok with the idea.

Next yes a parent has the right to Teach a religion to their children. It is "Their" child. It is the responsibility to teach and raise their child to grow up to become successful, productive, law abiding citizens. It is their right, and duty to raise their child and while society can help bring up the child the responsibility does fall on the parents. So with the idea that a parent has the right teach their child what they want, you cant than say that you cant teach religion. They can teach religion because it is "their" child.

All though you have done nothing to prove you point and that is what the affirmative must do. I have on the already hand been proving that one, it is impractical to not let parents teach their religion, two it is the parents aren't forcing children because they make decisions for their children, and three you cant force someone to believe something if they do no want too.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dollydo 7 years ago
dollydo
Society has deemed that any child under the age of 18 is the direct responsibility of the parents. Parents are responsible for providing, raising, nurturing, and teaching their children. The only time these responsibilities are revoked from the parents are when the child is not being sufficiently cared for. This lack of care is usually only observed through physical abuse of the child, or reported to Child Protective Services by close family or friends, who have the ability to evaluate the child's home life. Psychological abuse is hard to prove, and many children suffer even through their adult years because of this. It seems like, by what I read in the debate, that you are classifying a child's religious upbringing as a form of psychological abuse (harm and/or destruction to a child's psyche). If religious teachings can be classified as psychological abuse, it leaves the door open to being able to classify any teaching as psychological abuse. I agree with the example Pro gave in regards to the child being forced to eat vegetables (although there are better examples he could have given), but the reasoning is all the same. If parent's can't teach a child religion, then they can't teach them anything. They can't teach a child to like a certain style of music, dance style, sports, etc. because these are all preferences predetermined by the parent's. A father who is a huge football fan and encourages his son to play football after school, is the same as a mother who takes her children with her to church on Sunday's. When a child begins to reach the age of moral reasoning, they then have the rational ability to make decisions about their future. We have all been preconditioned, even as adults, by our parent's, friends, culture, society, demographic position, etc. to be pushed and pulled in all kinds of directions, it is still ultimately our choice to decide how we live our lives. I will have to agree with Pro on this issue, I believe he had a better argument.
Posted by the-good-teacher 7 years ago
the-good-teacher
It really doesn't matter what religious teaching a parent provides for their child, the scriptures teach that those who will be saved have already been chosen before they were born.

We have a perfect example in Romans.-

Rom. 9:13 "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated". In this same context, in Rom 9:11, God's decision concerning Jacob and Esau is stated to have been made before the two were born, and not on the basis of "their will", or "their works", but on the basis of God's "election", or His "choosing out from among" the two brothers.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
I think the fatal flaw in the resolution is that Christianity is no longer forced on people at all. Christians will no longer burn your house, rape your wife, and kill your children if you fail to convert. Children are never actually forced into it, they are just given information that eventually leads them to the conclusion that there is a God and he has a special team for you to play on. Like the previous post said, the resolution really never had a chance.

PS Pierce: get used to people NOT debating your topic the way you are intending them to. (hint-hint)
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Pierce, I agree that children should not be forced into a religion. However I disagree with your implications that baptizing and taking them to church is "forcing" them.

so, I'll have to vote for Pro. But welcome to debate.org and hopefully we'll see many more debates.
Posted by Pierce 7 years ago
Pierce
And It is morally wrong to manipulate your child's beliefs just based on what you think is right. You say that it is THEIR child and they can do what they want, but just because they are your child, does that give them the right to reprimand them by physical force? No it does not. Also I am talking about CHILREN here. You are saying no one can have their beliefs changed. Maybe for a jaded teenager or adult, but This is infact wrong for children. Children will believe in something preposterous as Santa Clause, so don't tell me that children think in logic when they are deciding what is real or not.
Posted by Pierce 7 years ago
Pierce
Mcala you still never really went against my opinion, you just talked about other crap. Honestly, how can I have a debate if you more or less debate about how I phrased the question?
Posted by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
Resolution should have been phrased as such.

Resolved: Indoctrinating children into a religous belief system is morally reprehensible.

More debatable and actually a resolution.
================================================================Not voting as this debate was poor at best. No one debated the core issue, just the meaning of the resolution.
Posted by ciphermind 7 years ago
ciphermind
Resolution should have been phrased as such.

Resolved: Indoctrinating children into a religous belief system is morally reprehensible.

More debatable and actually a resolution.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
*forced
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
My mom is strongly against the religious indoctrination of children from a young age. She always encouraged me to explore various faiths and such in order to come to my own conclusions. I think it's better that way as the child can follow something that they actually believe in rather than just having their parent's faith force on them.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cat47 5 months ago
Cat47
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I honestly don't know what Pro was trying to do. He thinks children should be forced to believe but says they can't. Pro said that parents should guide their children and thinks they should be forced into religion... There are a ton of other contradictions in Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by wildcard173 4 years ago
wildcard173
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro continually got stuck up on arguing that a child cannot be "forced to believe," but the stating is "forced into religion." A child can be forced into the following of the religion. Also, Pro argued that it is the parents' duty to guide their children to what is good for them, but did not present an argument stating why religion is good for children. Atheism is good for children, too. It's good for science and technology. It is good to QUESTION EVERYTHING!!! Also, pro tried to argue that children are not forced into it, but I can't think of many kids in my sunday school who would have been allowed to skip or quit going. Parents for them to attend churh and sunday school, thus forcing them INTO religion, but obviously not able to force them to BELIEVE in that religion. I would have to say overall that Con spent more time on the argument at hand and was more convincing.
Vote Placed by KelchUSMC 6 years ago
KelchUSMC
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by mb852 7 years ago
mb852
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Procrastarian 7 years ago
Procrastarian
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by mcala7 7 years ago
mcala7
Piercemcala7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07