Should Religious based education be funded by government?

[CptStern]

wait for poll

 

[kirovman]

Absolutely not.

Why should I, the taxpayer, pay for indoctrination?

If religious schools deserve funding, then so do commie brainwashing schools (or whatever you call them).

 

[CptStern]

Absolutely not.

Why should I, the taxpayer, pay for indoctrination?

If religious schools deserve funding, then so do commie brainwashing schools (or whatever you call them).

but you do pay for religious educational schools atm, no? ..ok not really sure how it is in the UK but isnt christian schools at least partially funded by taxes? in canada catholic schools are



zombieturtle you are overexaggerating ..you're saying no new books, teachers in the entire US? they've been using the same books since the civil war? every year teachers retire and new ones take their place, they're constantly hiring teachers ..please do not over generalise

 

[CptStern]

I don't believe they are funded by taxes, I go to a catholic school, only to get a better education, because all the public schools do with all the money is piss it away.

please stop overgeneralising

..public schools follow government imposed guidelines ..catholic schools spend an inordinate amount of time teaching fantasy ...if you're referring to private schools where academia takes precedent over religious teaching (like my catholic highschool) then yes in that sense they are "better" but that's exactly what $10,000+ a year gets you: a better education ..at least supposedly so

I feel bad for the kids that go to public schools in my city because no one does anything with the money.

yes well unless you're currently living in the Sudan your city has to follow state laws ..the idea that "no one does anything with the money" is rediculous and completely untrue ..where does the money go? budgets are strictly accounted for

 

[Asknoone]

Absolutely not, no. It should also be monitored.

 

[Krynn72]

No, and with no say in what they do.

The Government shouldnt support any religion. But since they arn't supporting it, they have no right to say what can or cannot be taught.

 

[CptStern]

I have been living here for the majority of my life, my public school friends and people of my city would tell you the same thing I said, my city doesn't spend the money correctly, infact a lot of us are wondering what we spend it on, or why we spent it on a gawdy crappy gazabo next to a shitty man made pond in stead of dedicating that money to something important in the education system.

We are neighboring the poorest city in the country, public schools around here generally suck

go right now to the municaple library and ask the librarian for accounting records for the board of education's fiscal year ..it's all public record ..prove to me that they throw away money ..you're overgeneralising, admit it and move on, stop back peddling

 

[repiV]

Heeellll no...

It continues to puzzle me how the taxpayer can continue to pay for faith schools in 21st century Britain (and they actually want to create more of the bloody things).

Although it should be noted that they still have to adhere to the national curriculum, just like other schools.

 

[CptStern]

so you do pay for faith based schools ...protestant/catholic I presume?

 

[repiV]

so you do pay for faith based schools ...protestant/catholic I presume?

The vast majority are, yes - but we also fund a number of Jewish, Islamic and Sikh schools.

Clicky

 

[CptStern]

how is the fact that my friend shows me a english book from 1992 that is for 8th graders, when he is in regular 12th grade classes not evidence?

what? do you take me for an idiot? students in grade 12 use books written for 8th graders? and no one has noticed? not parents not teachers not the board ..every single student in your city is learning english at a grade 8 level ...why do I waste my time?

btw I used to be a teacher

Sure I can get records, but will that really show me suffiecient evidence? No, of course not

that makes no sense whatsoever ..how would you know if you havent seen the records?

they'll have that they spent it on this or that, or "new teachers" or "new courses" or "new material" but the fact is in what everyone sees, the fact is that we see so many drop outs and people who don't graduate.

I don't know why you think I would make this up about my city and the city neighboring. It's the poorest city for a reason, and a huge part of that reason is because people are uneducated

yet for some inexplicable reason your city falls well well below standards set by the state and no one seems to notice?

right

 

[CptStern]

The vast majority are, yes - but we also fund a number of Jewish, Islamic and Sikh schools.

Clicky

ya same thing in canada ..the reason I'm bringing it up as so many respondants to this thread are ademant that we shouldnt pay ...but we do pay


btw those voting "no government intervention at all" are voting against basic human rights ..everyone has a right to an education, would you rather they were taught that the world is 6000 years old or should government as is there duty impose minimum standards to ensure ALL children recieve at least the same curiculum?

 

[kirovman]

but you do pay for religious educational schools atm, no? ..ok not really sure how it is in the UK but isnt christian schools at least partially funded by taxes? in canada catholic schools are

I believe they are yes.

I went to a C of E school when I was young.

Nothing like a Catholic school, but still a lot of tedious stuff like Prayer and hymns and glory to God bible readings.

Luckily the schools after that were not faith based, but I remember I was yelled at, at the age of 11 for "mocking people's faith", in Religious Education class for whispering that Mohammed might have been a crazy man for telling the 100th nickname of God only to his camel.

edit: also, minimum standards of education set by the government is a different topic altogether. I think this government's education standards are way out of whack.

 

[repiV]

ya same thing in canada ..the reason I'm bringing it up as so many respondants to this thread are ademant that we shouldnt pay ...but we do pay

The vast majority of people in this country oppose the vast majority of things this idiotic government does. Alas, we have a democracy in name only.
Perhaps the most notorious example is the e-petition system they introduced on the Downing Street website to "foster democracy"...the anti-road pricing petition took 1.8 million signatures and they essentially replied saying tough shit, we're doing it anyway. It also allows no right to reply from the petition starter - seems to be nothing more than a tool to "convert" people who oppose them.
The only solution that I can see is to severely restrict the power of government.

btw those voting "no government intervention at all" are voting against basic human rights ..everyone has a right to an education, would you rather they were taught that the world is 6000 years old or should government as is there duty impose minimum standards to ensure ALL children recieve at least the same curiculum?

The problem is the precedent that government intervention sets. Since we have no framework in place for deciding when government intervention is justified and government basically has carte blanche to interfere in anyone's life in any way they feel like, you have to take the sensible decisions along with the authoritarian bullshit that shafts people.
"A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have" - very true of our current oppressors....who do both of the above to some extent...

 

[Glirk Dient]

I would say no. The government has no right in supporting the teaching of religions. The only regulation that should exist is if the school wants to be a credited education center and seen as such.

 

[repiV]

I would say no. The government has no right in supporting the teaching of religions. The only regulation that should exist is if the school wants to be a credited education center and seen as such.

Define "teaching of religions". I enjoyed learning about religions, from a purely academic point of view. Also, it was a great opportunity to be controversial.

 

[Sulkdodds]

In this thread I take 'faith-based education' to mean an education whose core precepts are religious. This is distinct from teaching about religion. I vote piss off to the former and hurrah for the latter. I voted option 3.

Perhaps the most notorious example is the e-petition system...

Not a brilliant example, since the percentage of people in the country that signed it was about 3%. Now, that may be a huge amount when all things - voter apathy, internet usage, computer literacy - are considered - it may be that 3% is a massive amount for an internet petition - but it doesn't actually constitute a demonstrateable majority.

It does constitute yet more evidence that the current government is only interested in enhancing democracy and in commucating with its people as far as these things enhance its brand image (the flaw above - that e-petitions basically cut no democratic mustard - is laughably obvious).

The problem is the precedent that government intervention sets. Since we have no framework in place for deciding when government intervention is justified and government basically has carte blanche to interfere in anyone's life in any way they feel like, you have to take the sensible decisions along with the authoritarian bullshit that shafts people.

I'm not quite sure this is sound - just because a government forbids teaching on religious grounds - ie, forbids groundless teaching - there's no necessary progression to, say, arresting you without charge. It approaches a slippery slope argument, except not that illogical, because there is at least a connection - the intervention of government in civil life - but that's so wide. I could just as easily claim that the government refusing to regulate education sets a dangerous precedent for them refusing to fund any schools at all.

Don't even you have to admit that the presence of some kind of (partial?) national curriculum or even guideline is preferable, in terms of the net liberty engendered, to none at all?

It continues to puzzle me how the taxpayer can continue to pay for faith schools in 21st century Britain (and they actually want to create more of the bloody things).

An ill effect of Tony Blair's Catholicism - an ideological dimension of his politics that's probably more central than most people think.

 

[Fliko]

..public schools follow government imposed guidelines ..catholic schools spend an inordinate amount of time teaching fantasy ...if you're referring to private schools where academia takes precedent over religious teaching (like my catholic highschool) then yes in that sense they are "better" but that's exactly what $10,000+ a year gets you: a better education ..at least supposedly so

Catholic schools teaching fantasy? Haha, Catholic schools teach religon you nut.

Catholic schools also follow government imposed guidelines AKA the curriculum, and from my experience, the most academic school I went to was a Catholic School, I recently switched over to a public school and the curriculum was the same, but I was taught everything pretty much a year ahead in the Catholic schools. (Not taught everything, but atleast 70% of what I learned this year in a public school was covered in the Catholic school I use to go to.), and no, this Catholic school I use to go to wasn't a private school.

Should Religion class be funded by the government? No, and it isn't directly funded by the government, correct? You pay taxes, taxes go out to schools, schools maintain themselves, right?

Oh, and on the subject of schools not doing much with their money, that was pretty much the case with the Catholic school I use to go to until they requested a few million dollars from the school board to add onto the school (And now the school has new textbooks, a whole new line of teachers, we no longer have roofs with leaking pipes, no more portables, and now their replacing the white boards with computer boards? I don't know what you call them, but they are like a whiteboard except a computer.)

Remember: Religon has always, and will always be in our history, so even if you're athiest you can learn some history from religon.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Catholic schools teaching fantasy? Haha, Catholic schools teach religon you nut.

I believe Stern finds 'fantasy' and 'religion' equivalent. As for "learning some history", there is quite a difference between studying religion and studying religiously.

 

[Higlac]

Religious schools in the U.S. are way better than pagan... err.. public schools because most public schools here suck.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That's not at all relevant unless their suckage is a direct result of their not being religious.

Similarly, saying "I went to a Catholic school and it was great" is meaningless unless it was great because it was Catholic.

 

[Fliko]

I believe Stern finds 'fantasy' and 'religion' equivalent. As for "learning some history", there is quite a difference between studying religion and studying religiously.

I was refering to studying religion (That's how we did it in the Catholic School. We also did Religious practices, but Religon class went on studying Religon)

EDIT:

That's not at all relevant unless their suckage is a direct result of their not being religious.

Similarly, saying "I went to a Catholic school and it was great" is meaningless unless it was great because it was Catholic.

Very good point too

 

[theotherguy]

Religious schools in the U.S. are way better than pagan... err.. public schools because most public schools here suck.

Which is a shame. Therefore the argument for funding religious schools is completely out of the question.

Instead, we need to be taxing these schools into the stone age and giving the money to public schools.

 

[PvtRyan]

Catholic schools teaching fantasy? Haha, Catholic schools teach religon you nut.

Fantasy, religion. That's just semantics tbh.

Catholic schools also follow government imposed guidelines AKA the curriculum, and from my experience, the most academic school I went to was a Catholic School, I recently switched over to a public school and the curriculum was the same, but I was taught everything pretty much a year ahead in the Catholic schools. (Not taught everything, but atleast 70% of what I learned this year in a public school was covered in the Catholic school I use to go to.), and no, this Catholic school I use to go to wasn't a private school.

Sure, they might be better schools in a lot of cases, but what is the cause of that? The fact that they're religious, or that perhaps it's because those kind of schools are a little more exclusive, receive more private fundings, are a little whiter and the type of parents that would send their kids there are generally from a better environment? It's those kind of factors that make some faith based schools better than the secular public schools, not because they teach religion.

Remember: Religon has always, and will always be in our history, so even if you're athiest you can learn some history from religon.

Religion as a subject of historical and sociological study in class = fine. A certain type of religion being presented as truth to children = very wrong.

You can study religion in a secular school, which does not impose a certain brand of it on kids.

Education based on religion is so very wrong that it's amazing we still tolerate it. Sure, these days they're all very secular and you'll perhaps be hard pressed to find much subjective religion in them and it's all pretty innocent, but still it's there. Branding your children with a religion because YOU follow it is no less crazy than sending your kid to a "communist school" or raising your kids with the explicit teaching that the Beatles are the greatest musicians ever, or that it must take up your hobby of stamp collecting. Religion is personal opinion and you shouldn't bother children with it. You can't practically force parents to raise their kids in a certain way, but at least keep the schools religion free.

And this kind of indoctrination works, case in point: there are 2 billion Christians. How many of them would be Christians if they were not raised in a Christian environment where the choice was made for them? Hell, would the religion even still exist?

It's fine to know your facts on religion or to study the scriptures in an objective way in school, but it's absolutely not OK to be presented the existence of God as truth and that you must believe in him.

 

[Qonfused]

The taxpayers should not fund a religious school.

 

[Fliko]

Sure, they might be better schools in a lot of cases, but what is the cause of that? The fact that they're religious, or that perhaps it's because those kind of schools are a little more exclusive, receive more private fundings, are a little whiter and the type of parents that would send their kids there are generally from a better environment? It's those kind of factors that make some faith based schools better than the secular public schools, not because they teach religion.

Haha, my school was full of methheads, the other public highschool generally had a better crowd.

 

[theotherguy]

Religion as a subject of historical and sociological study in class = fine. A certain type of religion being presented as truth to children = very wrong.

You can study religion in a secular school, which does not impose a certain brand of it on kids.

Education based on religion is so very wrong that it's amazing we still tolerate it. Sure, these days they're all very secular and you'll perhaps be hard pressed to find much subjective religion in them and it's all pretty innocent, but still it's there. Branding your children with a religion because YOU follow it is no less crazy than sending your kid to a "communist school" or raising your kids with the explicit teaching that the Beatles are the greatest musicians ever, or that it must take up your hobby of stamp collecting. Religion is personal opinion and you shouldn't bother children with it. You can't practically force parents to raise their kids in a certain way, but at least keep the schools religion free.

And this kind of indoctrination works, case in point: there are 2 billion Christians. How many of them would be Christians if they were not raised in a Christian environment where the choice was made for them? Hell, would the religion even still exist?

It's fine to know your facts on religion or to study the scriptures in an objective way in school, but it's absolutely not OK to be presented the existence of God as truth and that you must believe in him.

Yes yes and more yes. These are exactly my sentiments. Indoctrinating children into a particular religion is downright immoral. It really should be a taboo. The problem is, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any theistic parents feel they are truly doing the right thing by indoctrinating their children and labeling them with a certain faith because they think that they are ensuring eternal salvation, when in reality they are perpetuating ignorance and fundamentalism by programming their children from an early age to blindly accept nonsense.

I realized this at the age of 8 when my parents were forcing me to go through confirmation (basically a veiled attempt to make children "choose" to be Christians). The entire thing was a long, drawn out process where you took oaths to confirm that you believed in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and other such nonsense, and you then had to promise to teach these things to your children. At the end you were baptized and officially became a Christian.

I asked my parents, "But what if I don't want to be a Christian? What if I want to be a Buddhist or a Muslim or an Atheist or something? Why does this have to be so final, why don't I have a choice?" And they were completely appalled and made me do it anyway. And I tried to get away from it by saying "no" to the final question "Do you accept Jesus into your heart and promise to be a good Christian so much as your ability will allow?" But the pastor didn't care, and baptized me anyway.

What an awful practice. After that I began to see how wrong the whole process was. Babies are started off immediately through baptism being labeled with certain theological opinions, then rigorously attend Sunday school from the age of 4, and are totally indoctrinated in the Christian dogma, and by age 8 they must take an oath to do the same to their children. All this does is breed ignorance, fundamentalism and fear in children. It is psychological abuse.

Imagine if we indoctrinated children like this into other opinions. If, for instance we went to "republican" or "democrat" school, or taught our children from an early age that chocolate ice cream was the best, and then made them swear at age 8 to accept this as truth and teach it to their children? Why are these things taboos, but not indoctrinating children into an opinion about the entire universe?

A much better method would be teaching about religion, and not teaching religion itself. We must present children with statements like, "these people believe this, those people believe that, your mother and I believe this, and you can believe whatever you want." Teach them the doctrines of every religion, but most importantly, teach them the facts about the world. Teach them the real evidence, the real sum of human knowledge, and let them decide their theological opinions when they are adults, and not when they are children.

 

[Geogaddi]

When you you say government, do you mean federal or state?

 

[15357]

Hell no. I vote to close down all/any schools that are based primarily on religious education.

 

[DeusExMachina]

What is this a serious question? Of course not.

 

[leib10]

Faith-based education is okay, as long as no extremist ideals are taught and they meet government standards. And no, the government should not fund faith-based schools, lest it violate separation of church and state.

 

[15357]

That's not biased at alllllllllll............. -_-

Of course it isn't. Anybody who engages in faith based education will be put into concentration camps and will work without light for the rest of their pitifully short lives in the salt mines.



Mwhahahaha.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I suppose it's fine unless they are tax-payer funded religious concentration camps.

 

[15357]

Of course not. They will be owned (but regulated by the goverment... somewhat) by large (salt-mining) corporations who will use this new free labor to enrich the national economy.



Mwhahahaha.

 

[sinkoman]

That's not biased at alllllllllll............. -_-

He never said it wasn't.

Admit it, you're just stupid.

Everything you've said so far has played on the anecdotal evidence logical fallacy, and is therefore about as logical as saying "a rock is grass".

Burden of proof burden of proof burden of proof burden of proof.

 

[Jintor]

Where is the fund every single religion ever option?

 

[sinkoman]

Where is the fund every single religion ever option?

Up my ass.

Don't use any lube when you reach up there, it makes things more fun :naughty:

 

[Mr Stabby]

Any religious views should not be encouraged at all. To learn about religion impartially is another matter, but I would say don't bother. If it has a significant historical or political relevance teach it in the history or politics classroom where relevant.

I went to a grammar school, with a strong 'Christian ethos'. We had biblical readings, prayer and other such drivel every day.

We had to take a GCSE in 'Religious studies', which from memory consisted of Christian morality, Christian baptism and the resurrection of Jesus all for which there were correct answers in a theological sense, probably why I failed it. I also once got a detention for calling my RS teacher's creationist religious views nonsense.

 

[Absinthe]

I initially intended to vote for allowing it to exist albeit with no federal funding and in accordance with educational standards. After thinking for a bit, I'm going with no faith-based education period.

It's brainwashing. It forces an ideological framework on children that have no way of deciding for themselves and it dilutes critical thinking with a double standard for religious superstition. I find that to be strongly immoral and unacceptable.

I encourage learning about religion in the same way I encourage learning about Greek gods. The subject matter has pertinence in studies of history and literature. But the beliefs and inane assumptions of these faiths have no business being taught as fact.

 

[Tyguy]

I initially intended to vote for allowing it to exist albeit with no federal funding and in accordance with educational standards. After thinking for a bit, I'm going with no faith-based education period.

It's brainwashing. It forces an ideological framework on children that have no way of deciding for themselves and it dilutes critical thinking with a double standard for religious superstition. I find that to be strongly immoral and unacceptable.

I encourage learning about religion in the same way I encourage learning about Greek gods. The subject matter has pertinence in studies of history and literature. But the beliefs and inane assumptions of these faiths have no business being taught as fact.

Well put, and i would agree completely