Should kids be taught religion in schools

[ElanJo]

*facepalm*. First of all you're obviously not very familiar with the commandments, secondly, it's simply false to say that the laws are based upon them and thirdly, if they were this country would be a nightmare to live in. If you look for the worst cases of evil perpetrated in the world you will find that it is almost always due to religion or other similar states of supernaturalism. You only need look at the world today to find that the least religious countries are the most peaceful, both internally and with regards to relations with other nations. And this lack of religious belief also coincides with the increases in the quality of life in pretty much every other aspect, be it education, general happiness, security etc etc. This isn't my opinion. It's simply a fact.

That answer is a load of crap and that is my opinion!

And in my opinion vanilla ice cream is superior to chocolate ice cream. So what? It doesn't make it a fact.

Idiot.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:23 pm --

Yes, people should have the option of sending their children to Nazi propaganda school if they so wish. There's no way that I could accept a government telling us what cannot be taught in classrooms.

There's a huge difference by the way in demanding minimum standards of Maths and English and dictating the whole ethos of a school to people. As I've said, them telling us what should be taught is fine, them telling us what cannot be taught isn't.

Also, I never called anyone a dictator, I said their views moved towards dictatorial, but yknow, whatever.

With respect Damocles,that last paragraph is semantic sophistry of the highest order,and you,of all people,know that.
And I really cannot believe that you would sanction any crackpot setting up schools to educate impressionable kids according to their wacky worldview.
What if they wanted to include classes in paedophilia,bestiality,human sacrifice,necrophilia,how to assemble an AK47,how to shoplift,how to hotwire a car,or whatever mad whim took them,on the syllabus?
You keep saying that this boils down to religious freedom,but it doesn't - religious freedom is enshrined and protected on the statute book.
This is about protecting children from being taught something that could be profoundly detrimental to their well-being in an educational environment.
That is a whole quantum leap from denying the basic right to worship the deity of their choice,and,again,I think you realise that,and that you are trying to defend the indefensible here.
What you are seemingly saying here,(and forgive me if I have this wrong),is that anyone can set up a school anywhere teaching whatever they wish.
I think most reasonable people will see that idea as simply ludicrous and dangerous.

So should we only allow certain people the liberty of having and raising kids? No reasonable person would call on the state to dictate parenthood.
Infact parenthood is much more dangerous in the long term than someone setting up a school. At least a crackpot school would almost certainly die out if left free from state subsidisation etc. If after a few years no kid there can get a job other than cleaning toilets no-one, not even the strongest of religious believers, would want their kid to go there.

I agree that indoctrination of children (or adults) is morally wrong. But just because something is morally wrong it doesn't therefore follow that it ought to be outlawed. Sometimes there's no perfect solution and when there isn't we must go the way of least harm,, which invariably means taking the approach of freedom.

Besides there are infinite amount of things "that could be profoundly detrimental to their well-being"

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

ElanJo,
I have never,at any point,suggested that the state should decide who should and shouldn't sire offspring,and nor would I,so you can strangle that particular insinuation at birth,because the only place it has ever existed is in your (over) fertile imagination.
You cannot legislate criteria for breeding,and nor should you.
Have I now clarified my position on something that I never implied or suggested in the first place?
Good.
So we can now move on to what has actually been proposed.
I am well aware that several negative factors beyond state control can impinge negatively on the unbringing of a child.
It is no argument,however,to state that because other negative factors are in play,it makes no odds to add another one,namely the right of said crackpot to indoctrinate bile and hatred,be that in selective sectarian teaching of religion,or how to make an effective nail bomb.
Such schools may well die a death in the long run,but even in a short space of time they may well have caused a fair few young kids to think that discrimination and killing are acceptable in some warped religious cause.
Such as the despicable agenda of some Maddrasers,or Islamic religious schools,who teach that dying as a martyr is a glorious way to enter Allah's kingdom,and enlist kids to join a waiting list to become suicide bombers,or the Catholic priests who taught me as a child that the IRA were 'on God's holy mission',or zionist hardliners who teach children that Arabs are vermin.
I agree with you much of the time,and I am not looking for an argument here,but I see no possible justification for teaching children extremist views of any political,sexual or religious hue in the name of 'freedom'.

 

[ElanJo]

ElanJo,
I have never,at any point,suggested that the state should decide who should and shouldn't sire offspring,and nor would I,so you can strangle that particular insinuation at birth,because the only place it has ever existed is in your (over) fertile imagination.
You cannot legislate criteria for breeding,and nor should you.
Have I now clarified my position on something that I never implied or suggested in the first place?
Good.
So we can now move on to what has actually been proposed.
I am well aware that several negative factors beyond state control can impinge negatively on the unbringing of a child.
It is no argument,however,to state that because other negative factors are in play,it makes no odds to add another one,namely the right of said crackpot to indoctrinate bile and hatred,be that in selective sectarian teaching of religion,or how to make an effective nail bomb.
Such schools may well die a death in the long run,but even in a short space of time they may well have caused a fair few young kids to think that discrimination and killing are acceptable in some warped religious cause.
Such as the despicable agenda of some Maddrasers,or Islamic religious schools,who teach that dying as a martyr is a glorious way to enter Allah's kingdom,and enlist kids to join a waiting list to become suicide bombers,or the Catholic priests who taught me as a child that the IRA were 'on God's holy mission',or zionist hardliners who teach children that Arabs are vermin.
I agree with you much of the time,and I am not looking for an argument here,but I see no possible justification for teaching children extremist views of any political,sexual or religious hue in the name of 'freedom'.

You said it when you said "This is about protecting children from being taught something that could be profoundly detrimental to their well-being in an educational environment"

 

[Fame Monster]

There's too much nonsense in this thread. Thankfully, Nijinsky's Fetlocks and Lloydie
have brought reason to such unreasonable argument.

Concerns about the extension of the state are negligible (or non-existent) when looking at the possible damage faith schools can cause. These same arguments could justify infanticide if committed by the parent.

For those who believe in the existence of faith schools, may I ask, in your opinion, what should be the function of the state?

 

[Rahart]

Ya I normally would say yes, but after hearing what has been in the news today and yesterday has actually made me want to vomit all over the catholic priests in general. The most disturbing thing I have heard in a long, long time. Makes it very hard to even promote religion.

Though both things aren't the same as such, and I genuinely think that it should be taught. Just very hard to find something positive to say about it. I guess the religion and a select few who represent that religion are two completely different things.

EDIT: It's totally different subject and it's probably shouldn't discussed here, probably shouldn't have brought it up.

 

[ElanJo]

There's too much nonsense in this thread. Thankfully, Nijinsky's Fetlocks and Lloydie
have brought reason to such unreasonable argument.

Concerns about the extension of the state are negligible (or non-existent) when looking at the possible damage faith schools can cause. These same arguments could justify infanticide if committed by the parent.

For those who believe in the existence of faith schools, may I ask, in your opinion, what should be the function of the state?

If you think that then you've certainly failed to understand the argument.

As for your question. I don't personally believe in the existence of faith schools, I don't want there to be any (I'd prefer it if there were no religions for that matter), but I believe in the right of free association and the potential for faith schools to exist. As long as they aren't initiating force - directly or in the way of state funding - I cannot justify using force against them.

You won't find many people more anti-religion than myself but you won't see me trying to use force (not that it even works - Stalin didn't rid the region of religion) to reach such a preferred state of affairs***. The only way to do that (both ethically and with lasting effect) is to change people's minds. Laws and police batons won't help.

*** and that's not me trying to sound holier than thou, we all act in this way in almost every facet of our lives. There is a tendency to overlook this fact however when Government enters the conversation

Putting my Statist hat on for a minute, the role of the State in faith schools should be the same as the proper role of the State in your household. To prosecute acts of violence and to act as a mediator for legal disputes.

I completely acknowledge the difficulty of issues regarding children, such as religious indoctrination etc. but it's one of those problems that's best left to an "Enlightenment" rather than brute force.

 

[Fame Monster]

I've just typed out a long response to you Elanjo but I was logged out so forgive me for not going into detail.

Though probably too extreme, the basic point I was making about infanticide is that the state does have an important place in a child's upbringing and it should ensure that the child is not harmed physically or mentally. Faith schools and religion in general have a propensity to inflict psychological damage with their teachings of hate, segregation (the very existence of schools for those of a certain faith confirms this), and self-loathing. This is without mentioning the questionable veracity of teachings which contradict science.

Also, I disagree with your point about free association. I just don't think it's moral to label a child a certain faith when they have not got the ability to decide for themselves.

You should probably note that, at present, I think it would be nigh-on impossible to abolish faith schools. My argument is of idealistic nature.