The main reason why I oppose the religious teaching of young children (and just the young), especially in faith schools, is because, to me at least, it is a denial of their basic human rights - to grow up free from any particular bias or influence that is not proven to be based in reality or that has rather dubious claims to authority. I think few would not see that things like denying a child an adequate education (although poverty often prevents this), child marriage, FGM and perhaps male circumcision, child prostitution, child workers (although mostly done because of the poverty aspect again, so I could exclude this), and paedophilia, were negations of the basic human rights of any child when they are just not in a position usually to combat such situations. I would propose that religious teaching - although this will vary enormously on a spectrum from mild to obvious abuse (as in strict indoctrination) - falls into this same class of abuses, even if done for quite positive reasons. The main difference being that religious teaching exploits the ability of a child to comprehend and/or combat the ideas and concepts put forward, whereas the others usually do this but also abuse various essential freedoms too - usually of bodily integrity or inappropriate behaviour for their age, amongst others. And of course I do know that much religious teaching would hardly be seen as such and mainly being about giving a historical context for such things as moral behaviour for example.
The obvious complaint might be made that it is a parent's right to educate their child as they see fit, and that what is imbued in the child will usually enhance their life - even just by way of the moral values usually attached to any particular religious belief. But this latter can be done without recourse to religion - as my mother did, setting the perfect example without hardly a mention of religion if she actually had any religious belief, which I'm not really sure she ever did have (never really discussed). It is quite possible to introduce religions later in life when any child will have sufficient ability to comprehend any teaching and to assess it appropriately, so why do it when a child is much more vulnerable to such ideas? I think many will know one reason at least. It is usually so because unless they are captured when young it is highly likely that they might not take to any such belief - ever - judging by the current decline in religious beliefs all around the world. It's still a deceptive practice though.
I know many will be outraged that religious teaching could in any way be included in a list alongside paedophilia, child marriage, or child prostitution, but the first is often done (by the more thinking types at least) because of some belief that children are born naturally sexual and/or that the love between a paedophile and a child is just as legitimate as any other love - delusional as this might be. Similarly, child marriage is often done in the belief that the parent is looking towards the future welfare of the child. I actually came across one person insisting it was his right to arrange child marriage for his eight-year-old daughter - with him possibly being a paedophile actually - since he insisted she was his property. Child prostitution often occurs for the same reason - although again, poverty is often a factor - in that any care-giver(?) perhaps sees the child as a resource to be exploited, particularly when the child might make more money than any employment by the adult. All three generally involve a delusional belief as to what is appropriate for a young child.
Apart from where cultural inertia is an issue or where religious enforcement is the norm, it seems that in many countries (usually the more technologically advanced and/or educated) religious beliefs are declining by at least 1% per year, so one can see that if this carries on, religions might just fade out of existence quite naturally anyway.
Do any here feel they have a right to dictate what their child should believe concerning such matters - leaving out any teaching of morality, since I think mostly a consensus view on this tends to prevail anyway? I mean, many will have some doubts about their belief with many having no doubts at all, but do you think you have the right to usurp the choices of your child in such matters when they are essentially not capable of doing so if religions are taught at such a young age?
