Skeptics I no longer have any respect for.

[Shell B]

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.

Oh, semantics. You cannot legally do it.

I saw a kid OD this summer. Just a stranger I was walking by in the Boston Common, but it was horrible. I think the schlong would have been the most forgettable thing.

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

I live in a country where Church and State are not separated, and faith schools are a reality and are actually part funded by the government So I have more first hand experience of the effects of faith schools and their communities.
But how about the actual studies;

Identities in Transition: A Longitudal Study of Immigrant Children: University of Sussex and Kent
http://accordcoalition.org.uk/wp-content...ildren.pdf

Social Capital, Diversity and Education Policy - Irene Bruegal 2006
Although this isn't a criticism of faith schools, it shows more tolerance in children from mixed schools, than those from faith schools. The children themselves were opposed to faith schools and are happy for the opportunity to mix with different diverse groups.

If you are preaching "tolerance". It begins with education, not ignorance and segregation.

A report of the Education and Skills Select Committee in May 2003, stated: "In practice parents have found that the reality of school diversity and choice can act to limit rather than expand their options for their children's education."

Community Pride not Prejudice, Bradford Vision, 2001 shows among other supporting factors for mixed schools, observes greater fragmentation along cultural, religious and racial lines, making some secondary schools (high school to US) force virtual apartheids upon their students.

Finally, you must understand I'm not american, so your constitution is meaningless to me. I have a lot more faith in the human rights accords like this one;
"The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds." (Article 13, Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN, 1989).

Satisfying the demands of some members of minority groups should not take precedence over working towards a cohesive and tolerant society. Yes. This includes parents.

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.

So? Are you claiming that being able to play football with them allows for children to experience beyond a single faith teaching?

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

I'm calling BS on that. You are arguing that if a child receives a balanced knowledge of major religions, they are more likely to be atheist. Sorry, it doesn't even matter if that could be substantiated (which I'm not sure you can). Especially when they have ample church and parental bias in their lives.
It doesn't belong in a SCHOOL.

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

As above, this opinion that if a child receives an unbiased schooling, they are more likely to be atheist. Parental teaching and church teachings be damned, if they get a knowledge of other faiths, watch out.
Or, is it that a more EDUCATED child is more likely to be atheist.

If thats the case. You're arguing for a lack of education in children to preserve cultural differences. If thats the case (and I'm sure its not), things are gonna get ugly.

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.

If the concept of "Appalling" ideas includes the sharing of knowledge between different cultural groups, especially between children.
Then the parents should be ashamed of themselves. Bad Parents.

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.

What about the childs rights. Children have no religious rights?

While I broadly agree with much of the AIMS of your constitution, I am wary of blindly following any document and citing it as the sole reason for my views.

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.

Okay, I accept, its feasible to ban a religion. But it isn't what we are talking about out of context. Nobody is saying that you can't practice religion. What I am saying is that the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE teaching of a specific religion is harmful to society and promotes segregation.

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.

Private religious schools promote segregation and isolation. A couple of the studies I referred to, and there are more specific ones I may be able to dig out that show thats EXACTLY what private faith schools do.

I object most heartily to this idea that they have their ADULT life to change their mind. Religious Indoctrination works at a young age and damages their ability to integrate and associate with people outside of their faith. Fact.

A childs only hope to make their own decision is for them to be EDUCATED about the different views. Take away the right for a child to be informed that their parents world view is NOT the only one. Its just brainwashing.
Your entire argument hinges on the idea that its the parental right to abuse their childrens intellect by deliberately denying them experience of alternative views.
I disagree. Emphatically.

“Give me a child for the first seven years and you may do what you like with him afterwards.” - Unknown Source

I would disagree with this actually, I've seen evidence that minds can be changed easily up to the mid-teens.
Give someone a child for their entire youth in home, church AND education. They barely stand a chance Shell.

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

Who did? Are you suggesting that teaching a child about various OTHER religious views is the same thing?

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.

Well, there are cultural differences to take into account, UK vs USA. So I won't comment on this. But a regime that encourages isolationism through education, community and home without multiculturalism.. I've yet to see evidence that ends well.

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.

I think we have a fundamental difference on what it means to separate church and state.
You seem to think separating church and state means that the state does not interfere with how children are educated.
I understand it as meaning that separating church and state means that the church does not interfere with how children are educated.

Thats how I've always understood and agreed with anyway. Despite religious schools, they are strict guidelines in the UK on ensuring children receive a fair and balanced PUBLIC education, even in public faith schools.

Once you put this in the hands of PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS as they have begun to do, that actively attempt ignore these educational guidelines and impose discriminatory policies. It makes me squirm inside.

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.

Please, you're talking as if I don't have children and its starting to get a teensy bit condescending.

An intelligent enough child will reject the lies? SOMETIMES. Its not a guarantee, and that is a fact. That's the rub. Even intelligent adults have psychological issues in separating indoctrinated beliefs imposed from a young age.
So damn the less intelligent ones?

Sorry. No. I firmly believe you are wrong in this. Mankind and specifically, society thrives on working together and the more you segregate and isolate children from challenging views, the more you see a rise in fundamentalism and a reduction in multi-culturalism and working together so essential for the success of society.

Its late, so I'm rambling a bit, I apologise.

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.

If you are at the point, where you have to 'persecute' them as an adult. You only foster resentment and that leads to extremism. I shouldn't even have to cite examples. Pick up a newspaper.

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

So we should do nothing, be apathetic about the causes of hatred. No, we can't wipe it out, but theres a few things we can do to reduce it. First step: Ensure children are educated about opposing subjective viewpoints in an unbiased environment

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

My problem is that without the word disallow, we have anarchy.

My problem is that we have to consider giving a unbiased global education of the world to children is considered DISALLOWING them from their parents teaching their own beliefs.

My problem can be summed in the word Discrimination. If I have to explain why its generally a bad thing. I will freely throw my hands in the air and give up.

Do single faith schools foster discrimination? Both in their selection of students, and sometimes, even the views they endorse? Discrimination against women and sexuality, its fine, because thats what the parents believe, and we shouldn't touch it.. its sacred.

You cannot, promote isolationist education with a focus on a specific religion, without promoting discrimination of some kinds. That to me, is the most central reason faith schools should not be allowed.

I do believe in the possibility of a less violent, more understanding society, and yes, my views are biased by secular humanism. I'll continue to promote the idea that children should be given the chance to learn about the world and all the angles it presents instead of a deliberately designed narrow viewpoint through a burka.

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, tangible bodily harm is involved and its unlawful. But tangible psychological harm. A-OK! Its the parents choice.

You missed the point of my example. There are levels of damage you can do to a child, that remains within the letter of the law, and no.. its just NOT the parents choice to inflict it. Give the child some credit? How about we give them a CHANCE to.

This goes a little beyond simple faith schooling as a point, I will point that out myself. its the fundamental principles behind it that concern me.

What we are talking about is the passive acceptance of a single world view being forced upon children.

The human mind is the source of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, and should therefore be the main target of any action to curb such behaviour. Education could be the prime means of combating discrimination and intolerance. It could make a decisive contribution to inculcating values pertaining to human rights and the development of tolerant and non-discriminating attitudes and behaviour, thus helping to spread the culture of human rights. The role of the schools in this educational effort is crucial.”

United Nations Commission on Human Rights (1995)

We should be promoting multi-culturism and understanding, not standing by as we use our children in a game of "who can affect their psyche the most".

Thats how I think we should be promoting a more peaceful society. Not by standing by and allowing deliberate isolation and segregation of different faiths and cultures.

This is a really messy post, and I apologise, my eyes are droopy. Let me finish my post with a quote from my college psychology textbook.


"Prejudice (unless deeply rooted in the character structure of the individual) may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e. by law, custom or local atmosphere)""
Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour" by Richard Gross (1996)

EDIT: Thanks for the fix

[Shell B]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You see it as separatist. I do not. I live in a state where there is separation of church and state and where I grew up with kids who went to religious schools. It's all about perspective, I guess.

[NoMoreFaith]

I don't think we are really convincing each other of anything, true. This is an issue close to my heart at the moment so I can be a little heated.

I apologise for the vast derailment, but this a much better way to derail the thread than the insults thrown previously anyway.

Much better derailment!

[Shell B]

I'm adamant about separation of church and state and this is one of the few things on which I am immovable. It's absolutely fine to disagree. I can see the point being made. I simply refuse to compromise on something very important for something that is just my preference.

Yes, the insults were a little out of hand.