Should faith schools/religious education be banned?

[Love]

No but when I get a kid he's not going to go in a religious school.

 

[flyingchicken]

Kids don't grow up to reflect and act on what their lives had taught them so far?

GASP I'LL BE LIKE THIS FOREEEVEEERRRR (i.e. until I die)

 

[plarq]

Simple question, really. Do you think, that a secular state should allow the existence of faith schools run by various churches/religious organizations? Also, do you think that voluntary religious education should be allowed on public schools?

First yes, and second no. Churches and religious education should not be banned. However, due to the secular nature of government, public schools and schools receiving government funding should refrain from religious preaching. Also, compulsory education should leave spare time for children to attend religious activity if they (or their families) choose.

Before answering these questions, ask yourself this - do you think, that it should be legal for parents to force their religion on their children with the support of a secular state? Is it any more acceptable than forcing their political ideology on them? And by extension, should there also be "political schools", where children would be taught to adopt a single ideology?

If we banned religious/political indoctrination, we are bleaching the freedom of expression. We might face random students and professors being fired and expelled for being socialist/communist/fascist/racist, which is too bad to see. All in all, let the market decide.--With the public school educating most of kids, I don't see some dangerous trend.

---

In my opinion, "religious education" (isn't that an oxymoron?) should be banned completely. If the parents wish to brainwash their children, there is no way in a democratic country to stop them from doing that, but no secular government should aid them in that. Forcing religion upon children is perverse and I believe it goes directly against basic human and civic rights (after all, children are citizens too).

Discuss.

Any public education should treat religions equally.

 

[downtown]

lol, errr With you guys having a officially state religion (Church of England, right), I guess that is a given. I should of asked what secular nations do this.

We sent public dollars to church schools too.

Honestly, in my country, Faith-Schools often do a much better job than regular public schools (although the reasons for this are long and more complicated than you think). Banning them would not only be stupid, but it would deprive many students of a quality education.

Parents should be able to send their kid to whatever kind of school they want, assuming that they can still read and write.

 

[bhsup]

I voted yes by mistake. You asked in your OP whether they should be allowed but used banned in the actual poll question. They should be allowed. In fact, If it were a choice between the public and the religious schools going bye bye, I'd say keep the religious.

 

[Brighteye]

I can safely say that a large portion of American academics would be crippled if private institutions were not allowed to operate due to the crappiness of mosthe public institutions

What I really want to say is that you are being horrifyingly presumptuous in your stating that religious education is any more indoctrination than an Atheistic upbringing.

You gave me a most amusing image of a load of professors on a very large plate hobbling around on crutches. But then you crossed it out.
I think that both religious and secular teaching can be indoctrination. However, whereas secular teaching can avoid indoctrination, religious teaching, by its nature, is indoctrination. Thus a secular attitude is necessary but not sufficient.

If we banned religious/political indoctrination, we would be bleaching freedom of expression.

Not at all, because indoctrination and expression are not the same.


Schools should all be forced to teach critical thinking, tolerance and to force open minds on children. Then when any other force, be it parental, religious or political, attempts to close their minds to other ideas and teach them about the one true path, they will be set up to resist this abuse. The children, once adults, can then decide for themselves.

These classes could use case studies: for example, one could teach about a time in history when bigots thought being gay was evil, rather than a natural and unavoidable thing (for the individual concerned), and how they blindly followed their beliefs without even considering whether these were justified, or whether it was justified to impose them on others. Having opened children's minds up to the possibility of openness, a religious institution might find it harder to keep them closed.

 

[PiMan]

My experience with religious education:
My older siblings and I are atheists and we were taught in public schools. We were all excluded from the non-compulsory RE class each week in primary school at our parents request.
My younger half-brother is a Mormon going to a Catholic primary school.

I see nothing wrong with this at all.


But clearly there seem to be some differences between religious education where Winner is and here. Here, RE teachers in public schools don't get paid, so the only cost to anyone is time taken out of the school day.
Religious schools do get public funding, but it also costs several hundred dollars in fees per year. I have no problem with this either, since all recognised religions can set up schools and several have.

 

[classical_hero]

If only the irreligious would practice what they preach. They say that they are very much about being an open mind, but when such a thing does happen, especially to the sacred cow, evolution, they are up in arms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17boycott.html?_r=1
Not once do you see the law promoting creationism of even ID, but because it allows critical thinking of evolution, therefore it is wrong.

 

[azzaman333]

So should there be political schools for Democrats/Republicans too?

If people want them, sure, why not, as long as they don't interfere with the mandated curriculum.

Children are not a property of their parents. Parents of course have a right to raise their children as they see fit, but why should the state which is supposed to be secular sanction religious education for minors?

Note that I never said anything about public schools, thus not being funded by the state.

Once you turn 18, you should be free to poison your mind with whatever you want, including religion, but children should not be forced to adopt a particular political/religious ideology.

It doesn't matter what you're taught, people will still rebel if they want to. Just look at how full various gaols around the world are.

 

[azzaman333]

If only the irreligious would practice what they preach. They say that they are very much about being an open mind, but when such a thing does happen, especially to the sacred cow, evolution, they are up in arms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17boycott.html?_r=1
Not once do you see the law promoting creationism of even ID, but because it allows critical thinking of evolution, therefore it is wrong.

Not relevant to this thread.

 

[Rashiminos]

Eventually it comes down to the pupil being able to decide for himself/herself.

 

[Cutlass]

So long as they don't ask for public money, and provide a sound education, they're fine.

 

[Shekwan]

Most schools are religiously run here, and they hardly "indoctrinate".

But yeah, I voted no because I don't hate freedom.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's like asking if poetry should be banned. If a school generates kids who stay out of welfare and out of jail, I'm not going to demand much more than that. Now, obviously, I want schools to generate productive and worthwhile citizens, but you can't force that on people very easily. Anyway, it allows viewpoints to foster which then allow lateral-thinking.

Now, if a school is pumping out students that are so useless that they cannot work in modern society, then that's a real problem. But frankly, I don't see that too often from religious institutions. I'd have a problem with specific situations where it did occur, obviously.

 

[Shekwan]

Well child abuse is the problem I'd worry about in religious schools, especially Catholic ones.

 

[Perfection]

What about the Catholic School Girls?

 

[RedRalph]

Most schools are religiously run here, and they hardly "indoctrinate".

But yeah, I voted no because I don't hate freedom.

Considering the history of Catholic schools in this country I cant understand this logic...

Edit: whoops

 

[Shekwan]

Considering the history of Catholic schools in this country I cant understand this logic...

Edit: whoops

Didn't it happen in the states a good bit too though?

 

[RedRalph]

Didn't it happen in the states a goof bit too though?

In religious schools? I think so, yeah

 

[Traitorfish]

Ummm what western nations give aid to religious school?

The UK, as Brighteye mentioned, funds faith schools. Apart from the Academy system, which allows private supporters partial influence over the curriculum, faith schools in England and Wales are partially funded by the government, partially by religous institutions. For example, a Catholic school will be jointly funded by the government and the Church. Scotland, for historical reasons (i.e. religously-based segregation), allows the complete funding of Catholic schools by the government.
However, this sounds worse than it is. A general trend seems to be that the more a government supports a school, the more control it exercises upon the curriculum, so a Scottish Catholic education (which I had the questionable fortune of enduring)( is more or less the same as a secular one, with most of the religion being pushed into a twice weekly Religous Education class. The only real difference in the education is the lack of any effective sex education programs, as they insist upon an abstinence-only agenda and deal with the social and emotional elements clumsily, if at all.

I'd probably say that we should tolerate them, under the condition that they give an equal level of education, which most of the ones in the UK largely seem to do already. A few half-arsed attempts to promoted ID as a viable alternative in RE hardly destroys your education.
Of course, this runs into complications in areas like sex education, which is both a practical and a moral issue, but I think some form of compromise can be reached, such as educating on all forms of contraception, but emphasising abstinence as the most effective (which, let's be honest, it is), rather than the somewhat flawed approach that the UK takes at the moment.