Should Religious based education be funded by government?

[Atomic_Piggy]

No RE PERIOD. Why should I pay so I or my childeren have to have fantasy bullshit implanted into their minds.

 

[Warbie]

RE was more of a history class at my school. Our teacher was open minded and I think he quite enjoyed how most lessons degenerated into debate over the existance of god and how, when you think about it, religion is rather silly.

 

[Solaris]

I agree with Absinthe.

 

[The Monkey]

no faith based education period

Religious schools should be banned.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Funny, last year I had an athiest as my RE teacher. Having had a christian teacher all the time before then I can tell you it was very different.

 

[Stigmata]

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.

This is exactly my course of thought when I read the poll options.

 

[Vigilante]

Absolutely not.

 

[G-man]

No, it is a defect to impose or fund education that does not apply to the basis of all thought point.
I would impose an act of choice, for education in religous school. Such as, the idea of intelligent design verses Darwinism. I would rather them have a choice, in those systemsss.
Those institutions are capable of funding themselves.

 

[Ridge]

Hell no. Private schools that teach religion charge a freakin arm and a leg, why the hell should the feds pay, too? Seperation of Church and State!

I went to a christian school for the first few years of my education. I am better for it...I dont even want to know what kind of morals I would have now if I hadnt done the time there first...

Im atheist now, but I am happy I did that. I do plan on having my kid spend at least the first 3 years of education in a religious school, just so they have better morals and a sense of right and wrong, that is apparently lacking in today's youth that grew up entirely in public schooling...

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I would impose an act of choice, for education in religous school. Such as, the idea of disprovable bullshit verses Reason.

Fixed.

 

[Krynn72]

I never went to a religious school, but my morals are pretty good.

 

[Steel.Inferno]

If everyone walked around with the biblical idea of morality, I'd say upwards of 70% of the American population would be forced to stone themselves. EDIT: Really, it's probably more like 90. Pretty much all children, too, so the society would collapse in a few decades and rest of the world would be okay.

That was just a random thought, for the most part.

No funding, at all. If they get funding, even from a car wash they ran entirely themselves, even if it was an old ladies' choir bake sale, confiscate the money and put it to a useful use. Say, cancer research.

Meh. I should stay out of the politics forum.

 

[CptStern]

If everyone walked around with the biblical idea of morality, I'd say upwards of 70% of the American population would be forced to stone themselves. EDIT: Really, it's probably more like 90. Pretty much all children, too, so the society would collapse in a few decades and rest of the world would be okay.

I stone myself quite often however not with rocks ... :farmer: ..that must mean I'm a good christian <shudder>

actually I quite like that idea ..christians must stone each other because us non believers dont have to follow their rules but THEY do ....to all christians: please being to start stoning each other .....now

 

[el Chi]

I voted for the first option but actually I veer more towards the "No religious education" option.
However if we were to ban religious schools we wouldn't be living in a truly open society etc etc etc.

 

[Absinthe]

I voted for the first option but actually I veer more towards the "No religious education" option.
However if we were to ban religious schools we wouldn't be living in a truly open society etc etc etc.

If we were to ban Satanist schools we wouldn't be living in a truly open society.

Not my intention to sound snide, if that's how it comes off. I certainly see where you're coming from. But I think the education of children is one of those things that shouldn't be "open". At least not that much. There are many things we don't teach children on the grounds of being dangerous, unsubstantiated, or flat-out wrong. Religious education is just one of those very things that has miraculously endured when in all good sense it should have died long ago. When we're talking about life-altering material that's going to be pounded into your head on a daily basis, I don't think we can afford to allow religious dogma to be shoved into the curriculum.

I don't see any issues with the ideal. But I will admit it would face a lot of problems if ever put into practice. There would be a lot of kicking and screaming over supposed religious persecution, thrashing of rights, and so forth. I personally think that's all nonsense though.

 

[el Chi]

I wasn't defending religious schools, nor the idea that children's minds be warped by religious ideals from an early age (or indeed that religion should be allowed to perpetuate itself BY warping children's minds from an early age)

I think Religious Education as a subject should be in the curriculum (like it or not, it's an important factor in the world and it's important for people not to be ignorant of differences based on these beliefs) but religion should in no way infringe on the general education children receive.

 

[Absinthe]

Oh, I certainly have no problem with learning about religion. I thought you were referring specifically to faith-based education, as in teaching "religious truths".

Misunderstanding.

 

[Godron]

Voted option 3. Religious schools turn bad when they start denouncing evolution. The time and money can be spent much better on teaching something with value. You can play the freedom of religion card, but religious schools deny freedom of religion, because they teach that one religion is right as opposed to all others. Then again, I don't suppose freedom of religion actually means freedom to choose your religion

I'm all in favour of teaching about religion, of course. My RE teacher is an agnostic, and strongly encourages discussion about religion and philosophy, which is why I took RE for GCSE. I'm actually against the idea of teaching atheism and it's ideals, even though it's true. I'm much happier with the current ethos it my RE lessons of "think for yourself". It is relativistic, which is annoying, but I'd still prefer people to think for themselves, even if they choose religion.

 

[CptStern]

I think it's horrible at the percent that think their should be no religious education.

They are not forcing you to do it, not forcing you to believe. I have gone to a catholic school since I was in kindergarten, I very rarely felt "forced" to believe. I am not even religious either.

so you chose a catholic school at the age of 4? btw how do you feel about abortion?

 

[The Monkey]

I voted for the first option but actually I veer more towards the "No religious education" option.
However if we were to ban religious schools we wouldn't be living in a truly open society etc etc etc.

A society is not open if children are forced into the believing whatever their parents believe.

The rights of the children to have an unbaised and objective education goes before the parents' right to brainwash their children.

 

[Godron]

I think it's horrible at the percent that think their should be no religious education.

They are not forcing you to do it, not forcing you to believe. I have gone to a catholic school since I was in kindergarten, I very rarely felt "forced" to believe. I am not even religious either.

How many other kids at your school ended up non-religious? Indoctrination is as good as forcing people to believe something. If you never show kids an alternative in a fair light, then they'll pick the only model you show them. However, if you say you never felt particularly pressured into a belief system, then maybe your school isn't the kind of school I'm thinking about. I take it you had Bible classes, Sunday School and suchlike?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I have gone to a catholic school since I was in kindergarten, I very rarely felt "forced" to believe. I am not even religious either.

Did you choose to go to cahtolic school?

On another subject, I was baptised when I was a baby. D: Thats right, no choice, I was branded with christianity from day one.

 

[CptStern]

I think this poll and topic is a little complicated because faith based education can mean anything ..teaching using the bible as the main text (creationism, young earth theories, etc) is not the same as teaching christian values in a school setting ..however only marginally so because christian ideology creeps in no matter how much you separate the academic from the spiritual (abortion, god over science etc)

..so a catholic school that teaches religious principles an hour a day may, on the surface seem less inocuous than say Jesus camp but the means to the end are stil there: teaching through religious principles

I support the right for parents to teach religious core values, and if that means they send their kids to a separate school board ..then so be it, however dont expect us to pay for it, and you'd better comply with the law of the land because anything else would be contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms

 

[Raziaar]

I think the only funding that should be given by the government is the money needed to be able to store religious books in libraries. That's it.

 

[Solaris]

I think state education should be mandatory and children should be banned from all religious events. Schools should teach: critical thinking, logic and reasoning and why atheism is the right choice. In fact on the GCSE Science paper their should be a question:

Is there a god?
Yes/no.

If you get it wrong, you fail.

 

[Solaris]

I think state education should be mandatory and children should be banned from all religious events. Schools should teach: critical thinking, logic and reasoning and why atheism is the right choice. In fact on the GCSE Science paper their should be a question:

Is there a god?
Yes/no.

If you get it wrong, you fail.

 

[PvtRyan]

So you were a clone account of Numbers all this time, Solaris?

I think you may have a split personality though, the one is a commie and the other is a fascist... o wait that's the same thing.

 

[PvtRyan]

So you were a clone account of Numbers all this time, Solaris?

I think you may have a split personality though, the one is a commie and the other is a fascist... o wait that's the same thing.

 

[Geogaddi]

Solaris is always good for a laugh.

 

[Geogaddi]

Solaris is always good for a laugh.

 

[Llama]

I think state education should be mandatory and children should be banned from all religious events. Schools should teach: critical thinking, logic and reasoning and why atheism is the right choice. In fact on the GCSE Science paper their should be a question:

Is there a god?
Yes/no.

If you get it wrong, you fail.

This has been talked about to death. You can't get that right or wrong.

there is a 50 / 50 chance that a god (or gods), in some capacity, exists. It's just that any god you think of only has an infinitively small chance of being the actual god (if said god/gods do exist)

Hell, for someone championing logical thinking, that's a very illogical thing to say :thumbs:

Fail, Solaris, Fail

 

[Jintor]

This has been talked about to death. You can't get that right or wrong.

there is a 50 / 50 chance that a god (or gods), in some capacity, exists. It's just that any god you think of only has an infinitively small chance of being the actual god (if said god/gods do exist)

Hell, for someone championing logical thinking, that's a very illogical thing to say :thumbs:

Fail, Solaris, Fail

Where the heck did this 50/50 chance come from? D:

 

[Llama]

Math and Mechagodzilla ^_^

Either god exists in some capacity or another, or he does not. The chance of either event is 50-50, because for each potential form, there is the potential for that form not to exist,

 

[Jintor]

Ohhh. So it's not a 'chance that God exists' but rather 'A chance that something humans define as a god' exists.

 

[Llama]

Yes ^_^

If by 'God' you mean the Christian version, then he would be one of the "1 / Infinity" versions.

 

[Solaris]

It's not 50/50 at all.

There is no reason to suppose a god exists.

 

[Lt. Drebin]

I have no reason to suppose a god exists.

Corrected.

 

[Solaris]

Math and Mechagodzilla ^_^

Either god exists in some capacity or another, or he does not. The chance of either event is 50-50, because for each potential form, there is the potential for that form not to exist,

That's terrible mathematics.

 

[Jintor]

Logical though.

Of course logic sucks, but there you go.

 

[Warbie]

It's not logical at all.

Either fairies exist in some capacity or another, or they don't. The chance of either event is 50/50.