Skeptics I no longer have any respect for.

[NoMoreFaith]

Children can still be indoctrinated at home and at school. Private schools are not part of the education system, per se. That is the point.

Exactly my point as well. Private schools, or to be more specific to this particular discussion, private FAITH schools are not part of the education system and promote isolationism which is detrimental to society as a whole.

Indoctrination at home may also do this, but a parent does NOT have the right to hide the world from their child. Thats intellectual abuse. At least given a non-faith specific education outside the home a child is at least exposed to alternative views.

Personally, I think the right to be exposed to people who do not share your ideology trumps the right to be isolated from them, and that is what we are talking about in respect to a Faith School.

Is it more right to deny parents the option to give their children religious teachings in private schools? Is it more right to bias the education system in favor of atheism? It is it more right to teach children of religious parents about evolution, if it goes against their religious beliefs? Would we tell Hindu children to eat cow because cows are not sacred?

Who said anything about bias in favour of atheism. Lack of belief in a God is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about inclusivity vs isolationism. No I do not think the parent has a right to inflict isolationism on their child. The fact of bringing a child into this world has no bearing on your moral right to dictate who they talk to, and what ideas they are exposed to. Thats abusive imo.
You are mistaking a ban on faith schools, and a ban on the faith itself. Nobody could possibly BAN a faith a parent wishes to impart upon their child, as much as we may wish to.
Using your example of a Hindu child, can you really tell me it is awful for a child to be exposed to the idea that other people have no objection to 'eating cow' as opposed to being kept in a private school which exclusively relates this as a fact. That the rights of a parent not wishing their child to be exposed to 'cow eaters' should supersede the right to an education?

Ideally, yes. I don't think that altering the separation of church and state is the right way to reach that goal.

What is your suggestion to reach that goal?

Is there a difference? If you say children cannot go to private schools where religion is taught, you are controlling how others raise their children outside of the scope of violence and neglect.

This is clearly the crux of our ideological difference. Removing your child from society to ensure the indoctrination of your specific views is tantamount to neglect and I could say some even more unkind phrases than that to say the least.
You seem to believe that the mere fact that bringing a child into this world gives you the complete and utter right to dictate what they think. On that I disagree wholeheartedly.
Where precisely does the parental rights end in this view? To exaggerate the point, if a parent has a world view that non-believers are subhuman, and deserve no rights, or should even be put to death, should we ensure the child has no opportunity to mix with those they are supposing to be putting to death?

I would even go so far to say that the continued growth of human civilization depends upon being exposed to the views of others. Its the only way you can learn to respect and accept without recourse to hate.

The more we allow and even encourage isolationism, the more trouble we are heading for imho.

]Nobody suggested the latter. We suggested the former. You're extrapolating to a ban on the whole world view.

No, I am not. Denial of rights in one respect is still denial of rights.

That sounds wonderful in principle. Perhaps we should stop charging parents with manslaughter when they declare their children shouldn't undergo surgery because it contradicts their belief. Are we not infringing on the parents right to choose for their children then?

Ah, hang on, must be a strawman, of course we don't condone the parents right to murder, and physically harm their children(not withstanding the genital mutilations we freely condon). That conflicts with the human right to live.

This is about intentionally ensuring limits on the childs education. Thats Ok.

I disagree. Its still tantamount to the denial of rights to the child to choose for their damn selves.
Brought up in isolation, and then TAUGHT in isolation from opposing views is tantamount to the denial of rights.

Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to be precise.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Faith Schools deny children this right through isolationist indoctrination. More to the point, a parent has no right to deny their child this right either.

Personal experience of children whom escaped or became atheist after being in a faith school is irrelevant. They were still subject to unreasonable peer pressure to conform to an ideology and that is as much a denial of rights as forcing parents to inflict their ideologies in their church and home only, instead of exclusively in every aspect of a childs life.

You used the example of banning science schools as if they are some sort of equivalent to faith schools, as if they are competing ideologys.
People need to get the idea that Science cares not one jot what you believe. Its a methodology not a philosophy.
Science and Faith Schools are not comparable, they aren't in competition regardless of what the religious extremists may believe. Faith may not care for when science shows falsehoods.. but that has NOTHING to do with science itself. Thats purely ideological discontent, and once again, science is not concerned with offending people, just fundamental emprical truth.

Its not a matter whether banning faith schools would cause a social rift greater than allowing them (although I would dispute that one would cause far more harm than the other).

Society exists by limiting the ultimate rights of individuals to do as they please, and especially inflict upon even their own progeny.

And that is what public schools are supposed to do. There is a distinct difference. You cannot masturbate in a public building. You can do it in your private home.

Private School, and Private Home, share the word Private, and very little else. You probably shouldn't masterbate in a private school either, at least not where you can get caught.

I know we've derailed the entire thread here, but what the heck, its a fun little discussion of views.

To some extent, as a parent, I agree. I should have certain rights over my child, however I really don't think any parent has the right to hide the world from their child. I'm just expounding my instinctual feelings on the matter, and I'm going to consider your points in more depth, because they absolutely have merit, and maybe I'm wrong. But thats the joy of skepticism and to bring the whole thread back on track with a crowbar with my next point.

We need to separate respect for a person and respect for someones contribution to a cause you believe in.
Its fair to say the majority of people on this forum support skepticism, and this thread was started to gripe about some skeptics that the OP found objectionable.

For instance, we can agree that Isaac Newton should be respected for his contributions to physics, but from personal accounts, I doubt many of us would respect him personally.
This distinction is starting to get a little wobbly at the seams, especially in regards to Dawkins, who as mentioned, has grown up in academia and evidently has some issues relating to a broad public, but I still do not believe this should detract from the respect due to his contribution towards public understanding of atheism and skepticism as a whole.