Skeptics I no longer have any respect for.

[Shell B]

I fail to see why this is a bad thing. Sorry. That's EXACTLY where it belongs. Isn't the discussion here regarding whether private faith schools should be allowed?

Yes, it is. You took my comment out of context. I was replying to precisely what was posted by Raph.

I'm not convinced by the argument that its discriminatory against the religious by not allowing private faith schools.

Well, since you failed to quote and respond to my actual argument against not allowing private faith schools, I can see how it failed.

You aren't putting them at any positive or negative disadvantage to any other person by rights of their deeply held belief.

There is the rub. I don't have to. It can be a negative or a positive thing. Either way, it is a constitutionally held right. The government has absolutely no say in whether a private school teaches faith or not and with good reason. If you want to start combining church and state, you're going to have to be okay with all combinations of church and state.

Yes. It does imho. Unless the logic here is that if you tell anybody they cannot do something it is therefore intolerant.

No, the logic here is that telling people that they cannot raise their children according to their beliefs is intolerant. If you are going to say you have to raise your children according to our lack of belief, you have spit in the face of tolerance.

I can think of several reductio ad absurdium points on that immediately to say the least.

Have at it.

Schools have a responsibility to teach a fair and equitable viewpoint of philosophical matters including religion.

Public schools should do just that, yes. What does this have to do with private schools? Private schools are not for the government to dictate. Would you feel the same about a private school geared toward the sciences? I doubt it.

You breed intolerance when you have a "special" school which has an agenda of promoting only a single theological viewpoint, to the extent that it excludes, and warps subjects beyond the theological.

Perhaps, but it really does not matter in terms of whether it is justified to dictate what they teach. They are private schools. I know around here private schools must have a certain standard. The students must display certain aptitudes. Beyond that, and anything illegal, it is up to the schools, as they are private schools.

The popular and most obvious example is seen regularly in the debates over whether a creationist school can teach the creation myth as equally if not more valid than natural selection and evolution in science.

They don't have to. It's really quite simple. Teaching religion has nothing to do with the government, unless it is a public school, at which time it must be entirely absent from the curriculum so as to separate church and state.

It would be easy to look at this point of view and demand that this is just an opposing point of view that equally shouldn't have precedence, and that shows the very problem with theological thinking in terms of the above example of science. It denies the scientific method, and gives validity to opinion and strongly held belief as valid balancing views in ALL aspects of the curriculum beyond science, including history and religious study/philosophy.

We're in agreement on that. However, it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Creationism could teach children that they can only eat cheese on Fridays and it would be none of our fucking business if it is taught in a private school. Relief from religious and non-religious persecution is a simple concept. By persecution here, I mean legal and political action. Neither can come about in this country for teaching children religion or not teaching children religion.

Anyway, this is getting away from the point of this thread, which has been somewhat derailed by some spectacular and unwarranted personal abuse and worth looking at the points raised themselves. I just had some opinions I wanted to share on those comments, although that's all they are.

Yes, this thread turned to shit. At any rate, as an atheist, I agree that teaching Creationism is absolute shit. On the other hand, as an American, I refuse to take away parents' and private schools' right to do so. I would fight that with a vengeance.

[NoMoreFaith]

Yes, it is. You took my comment out of context. I was replying to precisely what was posted by Raph.

I apologise if that seemed to be the case.

Perhaps I should quote the whole post there, you responded to

---

"Separating church and education makes any religious teachings entirely optional, it makes it a choice in every sense of the word."

It does no such thing. Separating it from public schools ensures that the government has nothing to do with religious teachings. If parents were not allowed to send their kids to private religious schools, they would just teach their children their religions at church and at home.

---

My thoughts were that that is exactly where it belongs, and not given through the education system permeating several subjects, and deliberate falsehoods.

You aren't putting them at any positive or negative disadvantage to any other person by rights of their deeply held belief.

[quote='Shell B']There is the rub. I don't have to. It can be a negative or a positive thing. Either way, it is a constitutionally held right. The government has absolutely no say in whether a private school teaches faith or not and with good reason. If you want to start combining church and state, you're going to have to be okay with all combinations of church and state.

*Sigh* That may well be, but it doesn't make it right that a child can be forced into education that favours a biased point of view, and taught vicious lies as fact to warn them against apostasy.

Education should be based upon the teaching of known fact, and the imparting of knowledge. Where knowledge is subjective, then opposing views should be considered. If this is unconstitutional, sue me, I wasn't stating opinion on the legal status, more my opinion on how it should be.

Yes. It does imho. Unless the logic here is that if you tell anybody they cannot do something it is therefore intolerant.

No, the logic here is that telling people that they cannot raise their children according to their beliefs is intolerant. If you are going to say you have to raise your children according to our lack of belief, you have spit in the face of tolerance.

Did anyone propose that? There was in response to the right to send to a private school.
It is a difference between intolerance on the right to send to a private school that proposes a world view and no others, and the intolerance to bring children up as you see fit as a parent.

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

Private schools promote the division and segregation of groups based purely on theological opinion. I can't agree with that.
People can have their theological opinions, and force them on their child, that's their parental right (although in some cases its tantamount to intellectual child abuse to do so, but that's a different discussion).

However, it does not serve for social cohesion to promote those divisions by physically removing whole sections of society from even having contact with someone who might think differently.

It seems the following points hinge on whether Private schools are a good or bad thing. I think they are 'bad' for the above reasons, however, you feel that you should defend their right to do so.

Should people have the right to send to a private school? I really don't think it should be an option personally.
Education should be governed centrally with the emphasis on the imparting of knowledge and facts as I said. Teach facts where we have strong evidence, teach subjective knowledge to include other subjective knowledges. It helps society function.

Separate children based on opinion and you breed intolerance.

Its idealism I know, :\

[Shell B]

My thoughts were that that is exactly where it belongs, and not given through the education system permeating several subjects, and deliberate falsehoods.

Either way, it does not make it optional. 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.

*Sigh* That may well be, but it doesn't make it right that a child can be forced into education that favours a biased point of view, and taught vicious lies as fact to warn them against apostasy.

It is certainly not right by our standards. 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?

Education should be based upon the teaching of known fact, and the imparting of knowledge.

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

Where knowledge is subjective, then opposing views should be considered.

Yes, again, ideally.

If this is unconstitutional, sue me, I wasn't stating opinion on the legal status, more my opinion on how it should be.

Yes, your opinion on how it should be. I've made it clear from the beginning that I am arguing from the position of separation of church and state and how I feel that should not be compromised. There is no reason to "sue" you, though I do enjoy a little histrionics now and again. If you would like, we could set up a mock trial sort of Monkey Trialish with the exceptions that the school in question be private and that the precedence brought up be modern.

No, the logic here is that telling people that they cannot raise their children according to their beliefs is intolerant. If you are going to say you have to raise your children according to our lack of belief, you have spit in the face of tolerance.

Did anyone propose that? There was in response to the right to send to a private school.

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.

It is a difference between intolerance on the right to send to a private school that proposes a world view and no others, and the intolerance to bring children up as you see fit as a parent.

No, there isn't. You tell a person where and what their children can learn, you are taking away their parental rights.

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.

Private schools promote the division and segregation of groups based purely on theological opinion. I can't agree with that.

You do not have to. Shit, it's not my favorite, either. I disagree with parents censoring books and television. I also realize it is their right to do so.

However, it does not serve for social cohesion to promote those divisions by physically removing whole sections of society from even having contact with someone who might think differently.

You do not think that allowing the government to dictate whether children can be taught religion in private schools would cause a social rift? Cohesion is not everything the same. It is everyone learning to live together. I know people who went to religious schools who came out atheist. I also have a cousin who went to Catholic school and came out totally sweet and understanding. She doesn't separate herself from people who do not believe as she does. What is your basis for this belief that they do not even come into contact with people of other beliefs?

It seems the following points hinge on whether Private schools are a good or bad thing. I think they are 'bad' for the above reasons, however, you feel that you should defend their right to do so.

Yes, I do.

Should people have the right to send to a private school? I really don't think it should be an option personally.

No offense, but the very thought of removing these sorts of options makes my skin crawl. If they cannot have their religious schools, we cannot have science schools. That's pretty shitty, but it would be the only way to balance such a law. What end would that give us? Share facts. Share what you know about the world. Encourage people to think for themselves. Those are the only right things to do in order to reach the end you wish for, in my opinion.

Education should be governed centrally with the emphasis on the imparting of knowledge and facts as I said. Teach facts where we have strong evidence, teach subjective knowledge to include other subjective knowledges. It helps society function.

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.

[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.

[Cosmic Ape]

This guy gets it. Great post.

[Shell B]

I just literally lol'd.

Be back later, faith dude. Hold that thought.

[NoMoreFaith]

Will do, you're making me glad I signed up to the site, to read views that challenge my own and force me to reexamine my own conceived notions of "right".

[Shell B]

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.

You'll have to demonstrate how an isolated school promotes isolationism as a whole and how it hurts society for me to accept that argument. School is not life.

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.

To an extent, it is neglect. However, I know that some private schools compete in sports against public schools, children still have to go to other events, etc.

Who said anything about bias in favour of atheism.

If you do not allow religious teaching in private school, you are biasing toward atheism by default.

Lack of belief in a God is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm talking about inclusivity vs isolationism.

It's not irrelevant. It is the very reason I support isolationism, though I'm stretching to call it that.

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.

The same could apply to forcing children to be exposed to ideas you would find appalling. That's parenting. You have a right to raise your children as you see fit, barring violence and tangible neglect.

You are mistaking a ban on faith schools, and a ban on the faith itself.

I'm not. I'm sorry if I haven't explained this well enough. Banning anything to do with religion in regard to parents rights is doubly against the Constitution. In that way, I stand by it.

Nobody could possibly BAN a faith a parent wishes to impart upon their child, as much as we may wish to.

Oh, that's not true. Banning other faiths is the very reason we have widespread Christianity. I'm not comfortable with doing anything akin to that.

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?

Yes. Children have their entire adult lives to explore. Parents, if they have the child's best interests to the best of their knowledge, at heart, have a right to do as they see fit. Now, private religious schools are there so children can learn religion. It is not to separate children from others, in most cases.

I would never tell a religious child that his parents are wrong about religion.

What is your suggestion to reach that goal?

Well, tolerance. Meetings of minds. Continuing on the same road we are now. It seems bad, but it is much better than it was and it is getting better all of the time.

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.

It is their right. That is the bottom line. Whether we like it or not, we cannot have the government dictating this. It would be counterintuitive to our ends.

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.

Why would I believe something so utterly ridiculous. In case you have not noticed, children often think for themselves. It's high time people gave them some credit. An intelligent enough child will reject the lies.

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?

We persecute them should they attempt to or succeed at putting anyone to death. You cannot persecute ideas. We should do absolutely nothing.

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.

There will never be such a time, in my estimation. There will always be hate.

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

My problem can be summed up in the word "allow." Who are we to disallow?

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?

That's actual neglect that ends in tangible bodily harm and is distinctly unlawful. It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

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.

Correct.

Sorry, that's as far as I am getting right now.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You cannot masturbate in a public building.

Since when? You MAY not, but you'd be amazed what goes on in the toilets of public buildings.

My favourite is the time the tranny OD in ours; there she was,on the floor out cold, tits AND schlong hanging out.Not something one easily forgets.

[eseernosam]

My favourite is the time the tranny OD in ours; there she was,on the floor out cold, tits AND schlong hanging out.Not something one easily forgets.