Should religiously segregated schools be banned?

[Keith&Co.]

I don't know of any religiously segregated schools.

The closest would be home-schooling.

We sent our kids to a Catholic (religion sponsored) school for a few years because that place had fewer shooting incidents than the public school for grades 5-8 in our district.

The closest they came to asking our religion was to determine if we were paying our fees as part of the tithe or by mail.

- - - Updated - - -

What about Muslim schools and Jewish schools which require religious affiliation for attendance.

Is that a requirement?
Or do they merely demand that anyone attending the school has to participate in the religious classes as if they shared that affiliation?

 

[ronburgundy]

Same answer as all of your polls, "No, it would cause more harm to secular values and society than the thing you are banning."

A more reasonable question would be "Should all kids be required to attend a secular public school, independent of any additional private instruction they choose to receive?"

Such a requirement is defensible on the same grounds that already justify the existing requirement that they be schooled at all, and requirements that schooling meet certain standards.

 

[laughing dog]

Just damned dude. The idea of reading for comprehension seems to have escaped you.

To be fair, there are religious schools that are not tolerant of other religions or secular views, but those schools tend not to be in the US.

 

[mojorising]

We should ban people who want to control other people, from well advocating banning....

Is it never OK to ban anything?

Is it OK to 'ban' murder, rape, incitement to racial hatred, racial discrimination in the workplace, theft, burglary?

Is it right that these things are 'banned' or is there something about the word 'ban' that is unnacceptable under any proposition?

I deliberately chose the word 'ban' for the poll just for fun as I knew it would rub all the libtards up the wrong way.

Anyway back to the OP.

We sent our kids to a Catholic (religion sponsored) school for a few years because that place had fewer shooting incidents than the public school for grades 5-8 in our district.

The closest they came to asking our religion was to determine if we were paying our fees as part of the tithe or by mail.

That all sounds very nice but what about the the general notion of religions running schools. Should religions run schools? Why? I think religions should not be allowed to preach and proselytise within the grounds of any educational establishment never mind actually be in control of those establishments.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to entangle religious practice with the education of our children. They do not belong together. The only moralistic thing we should be teaching children in school is how to analyse morality through philosophical methods.

Do you support the idea of religious organisations running schools or are you against it?

If you support it what advantages do you see in letting religions run schools and control the education process of young people.

Same answer as all of your polls, "No, it would cause more harm to secular values and society than the thing you are banning."

I have never done a poll on TFT before. Banning things is what we do when we make laws. You don't like the word ban but you accept that murder is banned?

A more reasonable question would be "Should all kids be required to attend a secular public school, independent of any additional private instruction they choose to receive?"

That is my proposal exactly. I just like the word BANNED so I worded it that way.

BANNED!
BANNED!
BANNED!
BANNED!

 

[braces_for_impact]

I will throw out a nitpick here. Some religious schools do effectively bar atheists from attending. Many require a signed statement of faith. One can fake it of course, but if you were found out not to be a Christian they can remove you from their school. How this is enforced can vary from school to school. The only schools in which I've seen this are protestant ones; I agree that catholic schools are not as discriminatory.

As to the OP, I agree with the sentiment, but I do not believe in using legal coercion to force children of religious parents together in school. I do have one caveat though, I do believe in minimum standards of education across the board - for public or religious schools.

 

[mojorising]

As to the OP, I agree with the sentiment, but I do not believe in using legal coercion to force children of religious parents together in school.

I don't see how it is 'forcing' them together.

The idea is that schools are a place for children to acquire factual knowledge about the world. Why should the religious affiliation of the child's family even be a consideration as to whether the child could/should attend any particular educational establishment?

If it is not a consideration then there is no concept of forcing anybody to do anything. They simply choose schools based on educational performance merits of the establishment. Religious organisations would not be involved in (or be allowed anywhere near) any of these establishments and religion would not be a subject that is covered in anything other than an anthropological academic sense as something curious and amusing to study under the microscope of rational moral and philosophical enquiry (all of which will be taught!).

 

[funinspace]

Is it never OK to ban anything?

Is it OK to 'ban' murder, rape, incitement to racial hatred, racial discrimination in the workplace, theft, burglary?

Sure, as all that stuff has a direct impact on others. I also believe property and privacy rights are important.

Is it right that these things are 'banned' or is there something about the word 'ban' that is unnacceptable under any proposition?

My preference is to operate under the maxim of do no harm unto others and let people be free to live their lives as they see fit. That means I’m fine with gay marriage. I don’t care if you smoke pot, gamble, gulp a shot of tequila, or watch gay porn. I have no interest in controlling other people’s sex life, music preferences, affiliations, or beliefs. Nor do I have an interest in having our country (United States) playing military world domination games. I don’t care if you wear a Marilyn Manson Drugs T-shirt or a UMCOR T-shirt. But I will roll my eyes if you wear a Ted Cruz for Prez T-shirt.

I also agree with braces_for_impact, in believing in minimum standards of education across the board - for public or religious schools (or homeschooling). I also think parents should be legally obligated to make sure their children have access to proper medical care (prayer is not sufficient). I would be fine with churches having to pay property taxes like all other businesses. I would be ok with having exemptions for facilities that say spend over 66% of their funds actually helping (aka charity) people. I would be fine with preacher’s benefit packages being taxable.

I deliberately chose the word 'ban' for the poll just for fun as I knew it would rub all the libtards up the wrong way.

Nah, I’ve kind of already gotten used to your police state mentality. Besides I’m not a liberal retard, but a moderate libertarian, as far as short hand labels go…

 

[mojorising]

That is all very nice that you want to live and let live but what is your opinion specifically of children being segregated by religion for their education?

Segregation is bad for the cohesion of our society.

It inculcates distrust and fear between children because they come from different religious backgrounds.

What are the benefits of religious organisations controlling the education of children?

Are you in favour of it or against it?

 

[funinspace]

That is all very nice that you want to live and let live but what is your opinion specifically of children being segregated by religion for their education?

I’m not sure how you could not figure this out with my response….Yes, I am ok with parents choosing their children s educational provider, as long as they meet state educational standards (usually accomplished by standardized testing).

Segregation is bad for the cohesion of our society.

It inculcates distrust and fear between children because they come from different religious backgrounds.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease… Racial/ethnic segregation causes lots of issues as well, but I have no desire to force people to live where I tell them. Promiscuous sex causes lots of issues, but I don’t want any sex police. Drugs are a huge problem. Yet the half century war on it is a dismal failure.

What are the benefits of religious organisations controlling the education of children?

Well, to be anal, religious organizations don’t control the education of children, parents do. But parents have the freedom to spend their own money and educate their children outside of the tax supported systems. And the benefit of that is, that the Christian majority in this country also can’t tell me that my children have to believe in a sky beast. It is called freedom.

Are you in favour of it or against it?

Yes, I am favor of freedom.


“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
-- Martin Niemöller

 

[J842P]

You are offering a false dilemma. Religious schools do not ban those of other religions or even atheists from attending. Quiet frequently, non-Catholics choose to send their children to Catholic schools because they generally have higher academic standards and much less of the social problems seen in public schools. The primary difference is that religious schools are more highly structured and offer religious studies in addition to the standard academic classes.

There is a very large variety of religious schools. Catholic schools are perhaps the most benign example, except for maybe Quaker schools.

 

[mojorising]

I’m not sure how you could not figure this out with my response….Yes, I am ok with parents choosing their children s educational provider, as long as they meet state educational standards (usually accomplished by standardized testing).

I think you are not really getting the crux of the argument. The argument is that religious organisations should not be involved in the education process in any way for any reason. There should not be a choice to send your child to a religious school. It is plain and simple wrong to segregate children by religion during their formative years.

Racial/ethnic segregation causes lots of issues as well, but I have no desire to force people to live where I tell them.

There seems to a be a general irrational phobia on this forum about 'telling people to do stuff' as if this is is the arch-moral crime that trumps all other crimes. Do you not understand that laws are society's way of 'telling people to do stuff'. We agree democratically what are the best rules for society and then we codify them as laws and then we - shock horror - 'tell people to do stuff' !!

And the benefit of that is, that the Christian majority in this country also can’t tell me that my children have to believe in a sky beast.

No children anywhere should be being told about sky beasts as part of their education, The worst part is that churches segregate children by tribe in order to tell them about specific sky beatss. This is plain as the nose on your face morally wrong. I find it bizarre (and scary in a stepford wives kind of way) that nobody else can see this but you are all instead blindly chanting this mantra about 'freedom' regardless of how badly that 'freedom' impacts peoples lives and the health of society.

Yes, I am favor of freedom.

This argument does not fly. Are you in favour of people's freedom to murder other people because, hey, why should the law 'tell people to do stuff' ?

 

[funinspace]

I think you are not really getting the crux of the argument. The argument is that religious organisations should not be involved in the education process in any way for any reason. There should not be a choice to send your child to a religious school. It is plain and simple wrong to segregate children by religion during their formative years.

I get your argument just fine. However, I find your argument for controlling other people to be poorly articulated, poorly thought out, and missing the whole point of what basis our country was founding under. YOU deciding something is “wrong” should not be the basis for organizing society. YOUR obsession, should not dictate to others how they should live their lives…and thank Zeus for that.

Racial/ethnic segregation causes lots of issues as well, but I have no desire to force people to live where I tell them.

There seems to a be a general irrational phobia on this forum about 'telling people to do stuff' as if this is is the arch-moral crime that trumps all other crimes. Do you not understand that laws are society's way of 'telling people to do stuff'. We agree democratically what are the best rules for society and then we codify them as laws and then we - shock horror - 'tell people to do stuff' !!

It is not irrational nor a phobia to insist on solid reasoning and justification before telling other people what to do. Yes, we have lots of laws that tell people what they can and cannot do. You don’t seem to comprehend that lots of laws are simply about managing what we call crimes against other people who don’t want those crimes committed against them. It really isn’t that complicated. We have many other laws in place to help manage property rights in a civil way. And we even sometimes tell them that they have to do XYZ, like wear a helmet while driving a motorcycle.

It gets fuzzier when people have chapels for marriage ceremonies, but don’t want to provide services to a couple who are legally allowed to get married. If they are a business, we have as a society decided that businesses are not allowed to discriminate. At the same time, we do make exceptions for religious groups to be bigots within the confines of their non-profit organization. As a society, we struggle to find the appropriate boundaries of where one person’s rights interfere upon the rights of another; or the benefits of society. Helmet laws are partly about dealing with the medical costs to society caused by idiots not wanting to protect themselves in an accident. We require drivers licenses and car insurance as part of the arrangement to drive cars on public roads. We do this to protect people in general from the stupidities of others.

Why do you not want sex police controlling people’s sex lives, so we can reduce harm of STD’s to society?
Why do you not want to tell people where to live, in order to reduce the harm of racism?
Why do you not want to ban the sale of alcohol, in order to reduce the harm of alcohol abuse?
Why do you not want to ban the ownership of guns, in order to reduce the harm of gun violence?

And the benefit of that is, that the Christian majority in this country also can’t tell me that my children have to believe in a sky beast.

No children anywhere should be being told about sky beasts as part of their education, The worst part is that churches segregate children by tribe in order to tell them about specific sky beatss. This is plain as the nose on your face morally wrong. I find it bizarre (and scary in a stepford wives kind of way) that nobody else can see this but you are all instead blindly chanting this mantra about 'freedom' regardless of how badly that 'freedom' impacts peoples lives and the health of society.

Yet, we live in a society that is still predominately Christian, and even within a super majority religious (Chrisitan, deist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, et.al.). I find the harm you perceive to be greatly exaggerated, and also ignores all the good things that Christians do every day within their charitable organizations. Faith in this country is slowly fading on its own. Society will evolve and shift on its own with time. Your rush to change it with YOUR fascist notions would in all probability cause the inverse of your intent.

Yes, I am favor of freedom.

This argument does not fly.

Yeah, I think it does. It is your turd of an idea that isn’t flying, let alone even floating within the confines of a largely non-theistic group people. Think about it just for say 10 seconds. Maybe it is your problem, and not everyone else’s….

Are you in favour of people's freedom to murder other people because, hey, why should the law 'tell people to do stuff' ?

I’ve already answered this in very clear terms. Please just re-read what I already said.

 

[mojorising]

I get your argument just fine. However, I find your argument for controlling other people to be poorly articulated, poorly thought out, and missing the whole point of what basis our country was founding under. YOU deciding something is “wrong” should not be the basis for organizing society. YOUR obsession, should not dictate to others how they should live their lives…and thank Zeus for that.

It is not ME who decides and and idea is not an necessarily and obsession. WE decide things are wrong by democratic agreement. then WE enact laws. Then WE....'tell people what to do'... (oh no!)

That is how society works.

I am currently in the process of trying to gain consensus for the idea that segregating children by religion at school is wrong.

I am sorry to have to admit that if WE were able to reach consensus on this then the next step might be to.... enact laws and then.... 'tell people what to do'.... (aaagh!)

I deliberately used the word ban in the OP just to have a bit of fun but in the interests of intelligent discussion lets pretend I didn't. Lets pretend that the OP just said 'Is it wrong to segregate children by religion at school?'

What would your answer be?

(remember at this stage no-one has said the evil 'ban' word so there is no need to get in a tizzy, and you are still free to think rationally)

 

[skepticalbip]

I get your argument just fine. However, I find your argument for controlling other people to be poorly articulated, poorly thought out, and missing the whole point of what basis our country was founding under. YOU deciding something is “wrong” should not be the basis for organizing society. YOUR obsession, should not dictate to others how they should live their lives…and thank Zeus for that.

It is not ME who decides and and idea is not an necessarily and obsession. WE decide things are wrong by democratic agreement. then WE enact laws. Then WE....'tell people what to do'... (oh no!)

That is how society works.

I am currently in the process of trying to gain consensus for the idea that segregating children by religion at school is wrong.

I am sorry to have to admit that if WE were able to reach consensus on this then the next step might be to.... enact laws and then.... 'tell people what to do'.... (aaagh!)

I deliberately used the word ban in the OP just to have a bit of fun but in the interests of intelligent discussion lets pretend I didn't. Lets pretend that the OP just said 'Is it wrong to segregate children by religion at school?'

What would your answer be?

(remember at this stage no-one has said the evil 'ban' word so there is no need to get in a tizzy, and you are still free to think rationally)

You are intentionally poisoning the well by calling different children going to different schools "segregation". Is it "segregation" if children who live on the East side of town go to a different school than those who live on the West side? What if there are two public schools in the town and some parents choose one to send their children to because it has a better science program and some choose the other because it has a better arts and/or athletic program... is that "segregation"?

Other than that your cavalier use of "wrong" is a nonsense value judgement based on nothing but your prejudices.

 

[mojorising]

You are intentionally poisoning the well by calling different children going to different schools "segregation". Is it "segregation" if children who live on the East side of town go to a different school than those who live on the West side?

If children go to the east side school because it is the nearest then that is not segregation it is geographical convenience.

If children travel to the Catholic/Jewish/Muslim school to be exclusively with other Catholic/Jewish/Muslim children because of their family's religious identification that is segregation.

It really is pretty simple. Plain as the nose. Black and white. etc.

Segregation is morally wrong. Separating children by religious tribe for their education (which is where they form most of their peer bonds) is morally wrong. It is a no-brainer. I know the poll would have gone the other way if I had been able to resist the fun of dangling the word 'ban' in front of the audience to make the choice more challenging (and perhaps if I had created a new login so you would not have to associate yourself with a proposal from 'mojorising') but if you can't have a bit of fun in life then things have come to a sorry pass.

Maybe we should ban the word 'ban'?

 

[skepticalbip]

You are intentionally poisoning the well by calling different children going to different schools "segregation". Is it "segregation" if children who live on the East side of town go to a different school than those who live on the West side?

If children go to the east side school because it is the nearest then that is not segregation it is geographical convenience.

If children travel to the Catholic/Jewish/Muslim school to be exclusively with other Catholic/Jewish/Muslim children because of their family's religious identification that is segregation.

It really is pretty simple. Plain as the nose. Black and white. etc.

Segregation is morally wrong. Separating children by religious tribe for their education (which is where they form most of their peer bonds) is morally wrong. It is a no-brainer. I know the poll would have gone the other way if I had been able to resist the fun of dangling the word 'ban' in front of the audience to make the choice more challenging (and perhaps if I had created a new login so you would not have to associate yourself with a proposal from 'mojorising') but if you can't have a bit of fun in life then things have come to a sorry pass.

Maybe we should ban the word 'ban'?

You clipped and didn't respond to the applicable part of that post.

The part you clipped:

..... What if there are two public schools in the town and some parents choose one to send their children to because it has a better science program and some choose the other because it has a better arts and/or athletic program... is that "segregation"?

Other than that your cavalier use of "wrong" is a nonsense value judgement based on nothing but your prejudices.

Would you say that some parents choosing to send their children to the school with a better science program and some choosing to send their children to the school with the better arts and/or athletic program was "segregation"? Or is this just a matter of choice?

Now lets throw in parents choosing to send their children to the third school that has as good or better scholastic programs as those other two overall but has a better religious program. Is this choice?

 

[Juma]

A government ban on religious schools is absurd in a "free" nation.

Fir the children religious schools is not freedom.

 

[skepticalbip]

A government ban on religious schools is absurd in a "free" nation.

Fir the children religious schools is not freedom.

Children have no free choice about almost anything in their life - even what they have for dinner.

 

[Juma]

Fir the children religious schools is not freedom.

Children have no free choice about almost anything in their life - even what they have for dinner.

Which is a helluva less important than avoiding religious immersement.

 

[skepticalbip]

Children have no free choice about almost anything in their life - even what they have for dinner.

Which is a helluva less important than avoiding religious immersement.

I have no idea what your point is. Children have almost no freedom or the companion of freedom, responsibility. Responsibility for decisions require maturity. A child's brain isn't yet developed -even into the teens. That is why the law does not hold children to the same standards as adults.