Should religiously segregated schools be banned?

[mojorising]

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?

It is not segregation. Arts and science are an integral and central part of education. Religion is not any part of education. Education is about facts and skills not about mystical mumbo jumbo and proslytisation.

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?

Mate, you are not getting this are you (or are you trolling me?).

I will type this slowly for you.

Religion has no place in an educational institution.

Having an educational institution under the control of and aligned with a religion is even worse. It is morally reprehensible. It is segregation. It is segregation of the youngest members of our society during their formative years. It is obscene.

If you 'choose' to send your child to a religious school. You are 'choosing' segregation. Your 'freedom' to choose comes at an enormous moral cost. You are segregating children by religion. It is obscene. Wake up.

Which is a helluva less important than avoiding religious immersement.

Praise be to Allah, somebody gets it!

 

[Juma]

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.

My point is: Children should not be subjeted to religious separation or teachings.

 

[funinspace]

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.

Ah, a consensus...so how is that going? Are you finding many like minding skeptical thinkers?

Again, I’ll ask why not the below:
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?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Originally posted by mojorising

The idea is that schools are a place for children to acquire factual knowledge about the world.

No, this is your idea about what schools are for. They may have very different goals than yourself.

If it is not a consideration then there is no concept of forcing anybody to do anything.

But they do have other considerations. While we do not agree with them, it is their right to educate their children as they see fit, up to a certain point.

Judging from this and other threads I've seen you start, you seem willing to use the power of the state to curtail religious freedom, including what other religious people would wear, how they educate their children, and so on. While I agree with you on some points, for instance I do not agree with the indoctrination of children or teaching them incorrect religious beliefs as facts, I think the harm done in curtailing religious freedom would be greater than the harm being done currently.

I agree with you that religious segregation of children is wrong. See Ireland from the last few decades to see how that contributed to the Protestant vs. Catholic problems there. I think a better solution to the problem is changing attitudes about religion and child rearing as opposed to using the force of the state.

 

[mojorising]

No, this is your idea about what schools are for. They may have very different goals than yourself.

Sorry I do not accept this mealy-mouthed relativism.

Schools are places for learning factual information and skills.

I am proposing that it is fundamentally wrong to keep children segregated by religion during their very important and formative educational years when they form their peer group and their understanding of the world. It is damaging to our society to allow this misguided nonsense.

While we do not agree with them, it is their right to educate their children as they see fit, up to a certain point.

Yes, up to a certain point. I would argue that segregating children by religion goes beyond that point and it should no longer be allowed. In fact religion should have no place anywhere inside any establishment of education.

Ultimately this is what will come to pass, it is just a matter of time.

you seem willing to use the power of the state to curtail religious freedom, including what other religious people would wear

I cannot remember if you are one of the many punters who was trolling me with a 'legislation dictator' strawman on the 'religious clothing discouragement' thread but if you were it was getting old 2 days ago.

I agree with you that religious segregation of children is wrong.

So it seems that we agree on what matters.

I think a better solution to the problem is changing attitudes about religion and child rearing as opposed to using the force of the state.

Well I disagree. I think we should start setting an example to the rest of the world by saying no more religious segregation in our schools. Enough is enough.

 

[Bronzeage]

^Not outlawing religion. Just saying that children should grow up together, not in segregated factions. Religion is something that families can choose to practice in their free time but school time is when children should learn that we are a secular society and children of other religions are not different. Segregated schooling is the most pernicious way to inculcate a mindset of fear between religious tribes by separating people by tribe at their youngest and most impressionable.

The obvious objection to this sort of thing is usually along the lines of "Who died and made you king?"

In other words, why do you expect people to accept your ideas on child rearing? How far would you be willing to go in order to enforce this policy of growing up together and non-segregation? Would it go so far as to remove children from homes of parents who will not bring their children to the secular school?

 

[skepticalbip]

It is not segregation. Arts and science are an integral and central part of education. Religion is not any part of education. Education is about facts and skills not about mystical mumbo jumbo and proslytisation.

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?

Mate, you are not getting this are you (or are you trolling me?).

I will type this slowly for you.

Religion has no place in an educational institution.

It can and has also been said that sports have no place in an educational institution. I would agree that neither religion or sports have a place in an educational institution if they displace academic studies. If they don't then they are just additional activities that some people want included.

Having an educational institution under the control of and aligned with a religion is even worse. It is morally reprehensible. It is segregation. It is segregation of the youngest members of our society during their formative years. It is obscene.

If you 'choose' to send your child to a religious school. You are 'choosing' segregation. Your 'freedom' to choose comes at an enormous moral cost. You are segregating children by religion. It is obscene. Wake up.

You got nothing but your prejudice. Some people choosing to add religious studies is no different than some people choosing to add ballet or football. If those choosing to study religion are "segregated" then those choosing ballet or football are "segregated". Hell, those who choose to study calculus in high school are "segregating" themselves from most of the student population.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Sorry I do not accept this mealy-mouthed relativism.

It matters not. We live in a representative republic. You have a voice (theoretically) but you cannot command others to your will simply because you believe you are right.

I am proposing that it is fundamentally wrong to keep children segregated by religion during their very important and formative educational years when they form their peer group and their understanding of the world. It is damaging to our society to allow this misguided nonsense.

I agree with you.

I cannot remember if you are one of the many punters who was trolling me with a 'legislation dictator' strawman on the 'religious clothing discouragement' thread but if you were it was getting old 2 days ago.

It's a simple matter to check. I read through that thread, but I didn't respond, so save your vitriol.

Yes, up to a certain point. I would argue that segregating children by religion goes beyond that point and it should no longer be allowed. In fact religion should have no place anywhere inside any establishment of education.

Exactly, up to a certain point, which is currently merely to ensure that children do go to school, not where with regards to religious affiliation. You see that's the problem. Different people are all going to have differing opinions on this. Again, we are in a collective society. We also live in a free society. This requires a certain amount of tolerance. It means that sometimes, people are going to use that freedom to do things you personally disagree with. We should be very, very careful whenever we discuss limiting freedom of any kind. Your good intentions could end up being abused. Your laws could end up breaking apart families, causing a schism in our society (which is what you are trying to avoid), or end up creating a backlash. It could cause misery, suffering and damage far beyond the damage we currently procure from a mis-educated populace. We have secular schools for this very reason, although it's under threat and takes constant vigilance to keep religion from encroaching in at every opportunity. You as a citizen of this free society can send your child to a secular school that you either pay for directly or through taxes.

Ultimately this is what will come to pass, it is just a matter of time.

That remains to be seen. Most of Europe is much less religious than the U.S. and yet religious schools exist there as well. They've not yet gone the way of the dodo.

For what it's worth I think most people here agree with your sentiment; they simply don't agree with removing the freedom of choice as to how to rear your own child. Myself personally, I don't think there should be such a thing as a Christian child, a Muslim child, a Jewish child, etc. Children don't know any better and have these labels and beliefs pretty much forced upon them.

How far are you willing to go to enforce such legislation. A fine? Taking children away from their parents? Jail time? What about schools that teach to very high standards, like many Catholic schools for example, that even teach evolution, and simply add a religious class and chapel? Since they pay for this school, do they not have a right to do so? What's the difference between that and going to school and then heading immediately off to church every day? Speaking of which, what about parents of children that go to church, and teach their children (as many protestant Christians do) to be in the world, but not a part of it? To eschew all things "ungodly". TV, Music and other aspects of our culture. I personally think they're doing their children a large disservice, but do I have a right to force them to integrate into our culture and to force their children to do so? What about non-Christians? How about Muslims, Jews, Native American ancestor worship, Hindus, etc? What about private secular schools that teach principles such as inclusiveness, honesty, kindness, tolerance? It could be argued that those are humanist values. Some think humanism is a religion. Hell, some think (wrongly of course) that atheism is a religion. Should we stop teaching those values as well?

What you seem to be suggesting is more like totalitarianism. I hold freedom of speech, conscience and religion to be much more important. I disagree with religion. On balance, I think it does far more harm to our society than good, but I cannot support measures to take away someone's choice to practice it as they see fit. Again there's nuance. Praying while a child dies, for example, instead of giving them real medical attention that would save their life should be illegal. This is much more harmful than attending a religious school.

Consequential ethics my friend.

 

[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."

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?

The problem isn't that banning things is inherently bad. The problem is that banning people's ability to do with their mind what they want on their own time, which has no direct harm to anyone is bad. The most harmful thing about religion is precisely that is uses force to prevent freedom of thought and private action. You are proposing just such a ban, so its as harmful as the most fundy orthodox authoritarian religion.

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.

Your proposal is very different. It isn't just the word "banned". You proposed people cannot, with their own money on their own time think about what they want to think about. My proposal says that they can think about anything they want most of the time, but during certain hours, a certain number of days prior to gaining full adult rights as a citizen, they must think about and learn various basic facts and ideas that are important for them to be capable of being something other than a harmful threat to the rest of us.

IT is the difference between requiring person to get training versus prohibiting them from using their mind to do anything but get that training. The latter destorys the principles of liberty and thus of reason which depends on it, the former does not.

 

[mojorising]

Some people choosing to add religious studies is no different than some people choosing to add ballet or football. If those choosing to study religion are "segregated" then those choosing ballet or football are "segregated".

Total cobblers and off target by a mile and half. We are not talking about choosing to add religious studies to a balanced curriculum. We are talking about the segregation of children so that entire populations are kept apart for the entire duration of their educational years. It is patent nonsense as anybody can see, even you. Your embarrassingly weak analogy with sports only serves to show what a poor understanding of the problem you have.

 

[mojorising]

We live in a representative republic. You have a voice (theoretically) but you cannot command others to your will simply because you believe you are right.

Nobody is commanding anything. I am arguing that the damage done to our society by religious segregation of schoolchildren warrants legislation to prevent it. Legislation is how we enforce commonly agreed ideas about what is wrong and should not be allowed in society. Children should grow up together and learn that they are all humans. They should not be separated by tribe and have distrust and fear engendered in their world outlook.

The problem isn't that banning things is inherently bad. The problem is that banning people's ability to do with their mind what they want on their own time, which has no direct harm to anyone is bad.

Segregating children by their religion during their most formative years does do direct harm to those children and to the health of our society. In order for the barriers of distrust that presently exist between cultures children should be schooled in educational facts and skills together. They should not be kept apart and any religious 'education' should not even be allowed to occur on school grounds. If has to take place at all it should be outside school hours and on church grounds so that children do not associate religious 'teachings' with actual learning.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Segregating children by their religion during their most formative years does do direct harm to those children and to the health of our society. In order for the barriers of distrust that presently exist between cultures children should be schooled in educational facts and skills together. They should not be kept apart and any religious 'education' should not even be allowed to occur on school grounds. If has to take place at all it should be outside school hours and on church grounds so that children do not associate religious 'teachings' with actual learning.

So you want to dictate what can and can't be taught in privately owned schools? And you want to dictate official "school hours"? And you want the government to enforce these new laws by surveillance, surprise inspections, or by some other means?

 

[mojorising]

It is not up to private schools to have complete autonomy over what children should be taught. There is a core curriculum that should be taught at all schools. Some schools may specialise in other things out side the core curriculum. But these specialisations should be educational not religious.

It is quite appropriate for there to be governance of what a nation's children are taught in schools, even private schools.

One of the first things that has to go is religious teaching. It is not appropriate to teach religious beliefs in an educational environment. It lends false kudos to religion by conflating it with factual and skills related real education.

The more pernicious problem though is not the religious teaching but the segregation that goes along with that teaching. It is absolutely and fundamentally detrimental to the integrity of our society to have our children segregated at separate schools according to their parents religious traditions.

It is wicked, it is wrong, it is corrosive to the strength of our society. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

It should be stopped by legislation as this is simply too important an issue to try and sweep under the carpet.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The more pernicious problem though is not the religious teaching but the segregation that goes along with that teaching. It is absolutely and fundamentally detrimental to the integrity of our society to have our children segregated at separate schools according to their parents religious traditions.

Please provide documentation of the irreparable damage that Catholic elementary schools, high schools, and universities have caused over the past 100+ years.

 

[mojorising]

Keeping children separated by religion is segregation. Religious segregation of schoolchildren is wrong for the most painfully obvious reasons.

It leads to fear and distrust between those populations. It damages our society by having religious groups of children growing up thinking they are profoundly different to other children. It is one of the most bizarre and shameful aspects of modern western society that we have not addressed this anachronism. We should put a stop to religious segregation of children and put a stop to religion being preached in educational establishments.

Why do you think it is beneficial to keep children segregated by religion during their formative years?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Keeping children separated by religion is segregation. Religious segregation of schoolchildren is wrong for the most painfully obvious reasons.

It leads to fear and distrust between those populations. It damages our society by having religious groups of children growing up thinking they are profoundly different to other children. It is one of the most bizarre and shameful aspects of modern western society that we have not addressed this anachronism. We should put a stop to religious segregation of children and put a stop to religion being preached in educational establishments.

Why do you think it is beneficial to keep children segregated by religion during their formative years?

Please provide DOCUMENTATION of the irreparable damage that Catholic elementary schools, high schools, and universities have caused over the past 100+ years. (request #2)

 

[mojorising]

Hey ButtHurtinBuckaroo,

The 'plain as the nose on your face' argument has been laid on the table in all its simplicity.

The evidence that segregation leads to mistrust is obvious to anybody who underwent a religiously segregated education. I went to a catholic school. Everybody viewed protestants with a certain degree of mistrust at my school. It is an unhealthy attitude to breed in children and I have first hand experience.

We both know that you have no reasonable or rational response to defend the immoral practice of religious segregation of school children.

Try and give me an explanation of why you think it is a good idea to keep children segregated by religion... you can't because you know it is morally wrong in a secular society.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Keeping children separated by religion is segregation. Religious segregation of schoolchildren is wrong for the most painfully obvious reasons.

Your definition of segregation seems pretty broad, as in, "I segregate my frozen foods from my canned foods."

And what are these "painfully obvious" reasons? They are utterly lost on me, and apparently everyone else here. What legitimate studies can you point to showing a longterm harm to the individual or society? What court cases have been brought and won by an individual or group due to harm suffered by private religious schools? What new laws resulted from that case or cases?

Be specific.

It leads to fear and distrust between those populations. It damages our society by having religious groups of children growing up thinking they are profoundly different to other children. It is one of the most bizarre and shameful aspects of modern western society that we have not addressed this anachronism. We should put a stop to religious segregation of children and put a stop to religion being preached in educational establishments.

Those are all conclusory claims with nothing backing them up. Religion is part of the curriculum in private schools and people pay good money to send their kids there. If one does not want their child to have a religious component in the curriculum, then they don't have to send them to a religious school.

What you don't seem to understand is that free association, speech, and religious laws exist not to protect the majority from the minority, but quite the opposite. They exist in order to provide the individual protection from the state so that they may live their lives as they wish. Believe it or not, the right to send one's child to a private Christian school is an exercise in free choice that works to preserve that same set of rights for you, me, and everyone else.

Why do you think it is beneficial to keep children segregated by religion during their formative years?

This^ sentence should read, "I don't think it's beneficial for kids to go to private religious schools, what are the harms that can come from it?"

You make a lot of naked assertions and assumptions. If you're going to take a position, you have to be able to explain with specificity and some amount of certainty why you hold the position that you do. Repeating yourself doesn't make a thing true and it isn't persuasive. And when it comes to advocating that the government deny the most important rights we have to a very specific group of people, you better roll with some serious analysis and explanations.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Hey ButtHurtinBuckaroo,

The 'plain as the nose on your face' argument has been laid on the table in all its simplicity.

Argument is not proof. You're simply making assumptions based on your own prejudices and anecdotes. If it's as detrimental as you claim, it should be easy for you to back up your argument with facts. Instead, you resort to name-calling.

You're approaching troll status.

 

[mojorising]

Your definition of segregation seems pretty broad, as in, "I segregate my frozen foods from my canned foods."

The argumentation by analogy coming out of you fellas is the most scatter-brained stuff I have ever heard. First Bip was comparing religion to sport now you are comparing children to frozen vegetables!

And what are these "painfully obvious" reasons? They are utterly lost on me, and apparently everyone else here.

The evidence is all around you in the problems that religious segregation in general causes in the Northern Ireland, the middle east to take 2 obvious examples.

e.g.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ern-ireland-segregated-schools-peter-robinson

What legitimate studies can you point to showing a longterm harm to the individual or society? What court cases have been brought and won by an individual or group due to harm suffered by private religious schools? What new laws resulted from that case or cases?

What a bunch of cobblers. You would insist that slavery be kept in place because people who discussed it in the 19th century and came to the conclusion (just by discussion) that it was maybe not the best way to organise society did not present any successful court cases brought by black slaves!

What we are doing here is discussing by argumentation the merits of religiously segregated education. Well at least I am discussing it and you are sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting that you don't want to discuss it you want to see court case evidence. What can't you give a single reason in support of segregated education? You have only offered vague complaints about 'freedom' but nothing specifically about segregation of children. What is good about it?

What you don't seem to understand is that free association, speech, and religious laws exist not to protect the majority from the minority, but quite the opposite. They exist in order to provide the individual protection from the state so that they may live their lives as they wish.

It is not up to individuals to make their own rules according to their religious beliefs in preference to the democratically agreed rules of the state.

And when it comes to advocating that the government deny the most important rights we have

The right to keep children segregated so that they grow up full of fear and distrust of other groups of children is 'the most important right you have' ?

It is not a right at all. It is a wrong.

Argument is not proof.

I am not here to prove. I am here to argue.

One of the valid ways that we decide what is right and wrong is simply by discussion and thinking about things and how they could be improved and then exchanging ideas with our peers.

You're approaching troll status.

I think you are the one who are trolling me with crass stupidity.

Not a single one of you has yet given any reason why segregating children by religion is a good odea. We know why that is - because it is a terrible idea!

It is embarrassing to see so many 'adults' wilfully ignoring the obvious wrongness of religious segregation of our youngest citizens.