Thank god...erm....wait..what?
So long as they are not publicly funded it is their right to do so.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Sarge:
Religious freedom a problem with society? Religious schools do not “enforce” the teachings of their sacred texts, they teach them. Though in some instances there is a “closed community” in relation to a religious school, that is quite rare. Your posts contain quite a few incorrect assumptions. Religious schools are not a threat to a society that wants to be free of discrimination. Adhering to a set of standards does not make one discriminatory, though our modern society would try to tell us that. I submit that public schools cannot, by the very nature, teach religion perfectly well. They are funded by tax dollars and are not to advance or detract from any religion. As others have said, anyone that can pay the tuition can attend a religious school and by doing such they agree to what will be taught there. The vast majority of students in religious schools mix with society just like all other kids and are not separated from society in any way. If a parent wishes to separate their kids, that is their prerogative anyway. In the school I attended, we were not taught to befriend only each other. I had lots of friends in my neighborhood that went to public school and I played with them just like everyone else. To be completely honest, your assumptions are downright laughable.
Religious freedom a problem with society? Religious schools do not “enforce” the teachings of their sacred texts, they teach them. Though in some instances there is a “closed community” in relation to a religious school, that is quite rare. Your posts contain quite a few incorrect assumptions. Religious schools are not a threat to a society that wants to be free of discrimination. Adhering to a set of standards does not make one discriminatory, though our modern society would try to tell us that. I submit that public schools cannot, by the very nature, teach religion perfectly well. They are funded by tax dollars and are not to advance or detract from any religion. As others have said, anyone that can pay the tuition can attend a religious school and by doing such they agree to what will be taught there. The vast majority of students in religious schools mix with society just like all other kids and are not separated from society in any way. If a parent wishes to separate their kids, that is their prerogative anyway. In the school I attended, we were not taught to befriend only each other. I had lots of friends in my neighborhood that went to public school and I played with them just like everyone else. To be completely honest, your assumptions are downright laughable.
one of the ammendments in the Constitution says "Freedom of Religion", banning religious schools would be a violation of that......
Dont they make you take a religion in germany? Anyways i think it should be outlawed we get enough god at church (or in my case the synogauge)SargeV1.4 wrote:
debate: schools that are meant to teach one kind of religious people only should be outlawed (strict christian schools, islamic schools, etc.)
How do you feel about this?
you dont have to go to a religious school if you dont want to... if you get too much God, then go to public school...Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
Dont they make you take a religion in germany? Anyways i think it should be outlawed we get enough god at church (or in my case the synogauge)SargeV1.4 wrote:
debate: schools that are meant to teach one kind of religious people only should be outlawed (strict christian schools, islamic schools, etc.)
How do you feel about this?
Religion is not something that should be taught anywhere but in church/temple/bla, ever, period. Religious schools should be classed as brainwashing cults, cuz that's exactly what they are.SargeV1.4 wrote:
debate: schools that are meant to teach one kind of religious people only should be outlawed (strict christian schools, islamic schools, etc.)
How do you feel about this?
Tiger
The very first step to creating hatred towards any group is to 'teach' ie corrupt the young. If they grow up in it, live it and it becomes easy to disregard your humanity. Once extremists get hold of the curriculum, the damage can last for decades. How many of you have seen the video with the little muslim girl (5 or 6) yelling about her duty to kill infidels? FFS how cruel and inhumane to teach a child to hate. It is BARBARIC.
In our western society, we generally have separation of church and state. The muslim world generally does not. I feel the seperation is ESSENTIAL to our society and future well being. We don't live in a homogeneous society and this is our greatest strength. Therefore the 'state' HAS to strive to be non-denominational in order to prevent blatant bias.
The 'state' ie government is paying for the schooling, it has an obligation to ensure that ALL the children, regardless of race, religion etc., receive the same education. If a religious group feels the need to 'supplement' this state funded education, I have no problem with that as long as THEY pay for it and it must be seperate.
So to answer the OP:
Banning NO
Seperate YES
Funded by the state NO
Funded by their faith YES
We cannot afford, as a society, to lose our children to hatred. But is starting to happen.
Hatred is POWERFUL tool for extremists but it can NEVER win long term. It is easy to incite hatred of others when you an insular group. All it takes is one evil extremist who has forgotten his humanity. The Nazis did it.
In our western society, we generally have separation of church and state. The muslim world generally does not. I feel the seperation is ESSENTIAL to our society and future well being. We don't live in a homogeneous society and this is our greatest strength. Therefore the 'state' HAS to strive to be non-denominational in order to prevent blatant bias.
The 'state' ie government is paying for the schooling, it has an obligation to ensure that ALL the children, regardless of race, religion etc., receive the same education. If a religious group feels the need to 'supplement' this state funded education, I have no problem with that as long as THEY pay for it and it must be seperate.
So to answer the OP:
Banning NO
Seperate YES
Funded by the state NO
Funded by their faith YES
We cannot afford, as a society, to lose our children to hatred. But is starting to happen.
Hatred is POWERFUL tool for extremists but it can NEVER win long term. It is easy to incite hatred of others when you an insular group. All it takes is one evil extremist who has forgotten his humanity. The Nazis did it.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
I'm curious why you're so quick to link hatred with religious schools. Certainly there are nutters out there that have cut themselves of from society and follow their self-proclaimed leader that labels the rest of the world as evil. Please don't lump all religious school students in with that extreme element.
Have you been to one?TigerXtrm wrote:
Religion is not something that should be taught anywhere but in church/temple/bla, ever, period. Religious schools should be classed as brainwashing cults, cuz that's exactly what they are.SargeV1.4 wrote:
debate: schools that are meant to teach one kind of religious people only should be outlawed (strict christian schools, islamic schools, etc.)
How do you feel about this?
Tiger
Agree. Don't like them, don't go there.Kmarion wrote:
So long as they are not publicly funded it is their right to do so.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TigerXtrm wrote:
Religion is not something that should be taught anywhere but in church/temple/bla, ever, period. Religious schools should be classed as brainwashing cults, cuz that's exactly what they are.
Tiger
Last edited by Ilocano (2007-04-03 10:58:30)
I went to a private Catholic High School for a few years (as did my brother). My experience there was that it wasn't so much religious as elitist. Sure, we had a religion class every day that we had to go to, where Roman Catholic ideas were taught, but that didn't stop Jews, Muslims, Jehovah, Hindus, etc. from going to the school.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Have you been to one?TigerXtrm wrote:
Religion is not something that should be taught anywhere but in church/temple/bla, ever, period. Religious schools should be classed as brainwashing cults, cuz that's exactly what they are.SargeV1.4 wrote:
debate: schools that are meant to teach one kind of religious people only should be outlawed (strict christian schools, islamic schools, etc.)
How do you feel about this?
Tiger
Personally, I believe that if you want to start a school based on religious teachings, fine. That would be a PRIVATE school. Religion does not belong in public education, unless it is being taught as a philosophy - I would not want a child of mine to be taught ANY religion as the end all be all truth.
On the subject of Madrassas, these should not be outlawed. However, certain elements within the worldwide Muslim community must make sure that these schools aren't using the religion as a breeding ground for hatred and violence.
Just like the Westboro Baptist Church gives Baptists and Christians a bad name, these extremist Madrassas taint all peaceful teachings of Islam. The difference is that there is a large proportion of Christians in the mainstream to counter what those wackos say. So far, there is little coverage/criticism of these Madrassas by prominent Muslim leaders.
This thread reminds me of the media attention my college received
http://www.secularism.org.uk/catholicsc … ingfo.html
I am in the sixth form, they let me in even though i am an atheist. They are mostly funded by the state, only about 15% of their budget is from the church. But they are the best college in the area so i can't really complain.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/catholicsc … ingfo.html
I am in the sixth form, they let me in even though i am an atheist. They are mostly funded by the state, only about 15% of their budget is from the church. But they are the best college in the area so i can't really complain.
What are we to do with Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard. Oh, the horror of these brain-washing establishments.
One could probably sucessfully argue that Yale and Harvard do much more brainwashing than any religous college could do (well maybe not Oral Roberts or the like).Ilocano wrote:
What are we to do with Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard. Oh, the horror of these brain-washing establishments.
And the fact that they tend to breed many politicians. Release the dogs of war. Riot. Burn them down.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
One could probably sucessfully argue that Yale and Harvard do much more brainwashing than any religous college could do (well maybe not Oral Roberts or the like).Ilocano wrote:
What are we to do with Notre Dame, Yale, Harvard. Oh, the horror of these brain-washing establishments.
I wouldn't get too high up on my horse about other people's debating skills. Your opening statement is really poor, and you should have supported it with some reasoning. Instead you chose the all too popular (particularly on these forums) "Statement intended to rile people up that has no explanation of my feelings, just a show of my convictions: Debate!!!!" format.SargeV1.4 wrote:
somebody needs to learn how to debate: Provide arguments, and respond to mine
Last edited by Chuckles (2007-04-03 11:58:08)
No, actually, it would not. It would be a violation to ban certain religious schools, but not all of them. However if you just ban all religious schools you're not picking on one in particular. People can still go to church and worship as they please, there just wouldn't be religious schools.Smitty5613 wrote:
one of the ammendments in the Constitution says "Freedom of Religion", banning religious schools would be a violation of that......
Last edited by Chuckles (2007-04-03 11:58:54)
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Kim/
One out of four Evangelical college students at New York City colleges and universities are Asian American (Carnes and Yang 2004; Sax et al. 1997). At Harvard, Asian Americans constitute 70 percent of the Harvard Radcliffe Christian Fellowship, and given the popularity of Evangelical Christian fellowships, one can easily spot students who proudly don t-shirts with phrases like “the Asian Awakening” (Chang 2000: 1). At Yale, Campus Crusade for Christ is 90 percent Asian, whereas twenty years ago it was 100 percent white. On the West Coast, the Asian American membership at Stanford’s InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) from 1989 to 1999, increased by 84 percent, compared to a 31 percent increase in its overall membership (Busto 1996). Meanwhile, UC Berkeley and UCLA have more than fifty Asian Christian fellowships and most of their members are Asian American (Busto 1996; Chang 2000; Hong 2000). UCLA alone has more than ten Korean Christian related fellowships. On most college campuses, you have a far better chance of finding a Chinese Christian fellowship than a Chinese Buddhist club.
Responding to this growth, some in the evangelical community have dubbed Asian American evangelicals as “God’s new whiz kids,” who not only excel in school, but are exemplars of evangelical piety and devotion (Busto 1996; Jeung 2002). Asian Americans are stereotyped not only as “the model minority,” but “the moral minority,” which other evangelicals would do well to emulate. While Asian Americans are being touted as the model moral minority, Asian American evangelical leaders note that being involved in campus ministries has become a “cool” thing to do for Asian American college students.
On a serious note, like in every organization, not just religious, there are a few nut cases. Some just take it to the extreme. Like Ken-Jennings noted, Christianity is fairly safe because there are enough who will speak against the antagonist. Problem with moderate Muslims speaking out against ancient context is fear of reprisals.
One out of four Evangelical college students at New York City colleges and universities are Asian American (Carnes and Yang 2004; Sax et al. 1997). At Harvard, Asian Americans constitute 70 percent of the Harvard Radcliffe Christian Fellowship, and given the popularity of Evangelical Christian fellowships, one can easily spot students who proudly don t-shirts with phrases like “the Asian Awakening” (Chang 2000: 1). At Yale, Campus Crusade for Christ is 90 percent Asian, whereas twenty years ago it was 100 percent white. On the West Coast, the Asian American membership at Stanford’s InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) from 1989 to 1999, increased by 84 percent, compared to a 31 percent increase in its overall membership (Busto 1996). Meanwhile, UC Berkeley and UCLA have more than fifty Asian Christian fellowships and most of their members are Asian American (Busto 1996; Chang 2000; Hong 2000). UCLA alone has more than ten Korean Christian related fellowships. On most college campuses, you have a far better chance of finding a Chinese Christian fellowship than a Chinese Buddhist club.
Responding to this growth, some in the evangelical community have dubbed Asian American evangelicals as “God’s new whiz kids,” who not only excel in school, but are exemplars of evangelical piety and devotion (Busto 1996; Jeung 2002). Asian Americans are stereotyped not only as “the model minority,” but “the moral minority,” which other evangelicals would do well to emulate. While Asian Americans are being touted as the model moral minority, Asian American evangelical leaders note that being involved in campus ministries has become a “cool” thing to do for Asian American college students.
On a serious note, like in every organization, not just religious, there are a few nut cases. Some just take it to the extreme. Like Ken-Jennings noted, Christianity is fairly safe because there are enough who will speak against the antagonist. Problem with moderate Muslims speaking out against ancient context is fear of reprisals.
Last edited by Ilocano (2007-04-03 12:06:38)
" . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." seems to contradict your position.Chuckles wrote:
No, actually, it would not. It would be a violation to ban certain religious schools, but not all of them. However if you just ban all religious schools you're not picking on one in particular. People can still go to church and worship as they please, there just wouldn't be religious schools.Smitty5613 wrote:
one of the ammendments in the Constitution says "Freedom of Religion", banning religious schools would be a violation of that......
No to banning it because it is a freedom. But i think that it should not be a choice to go there as opposed to a public school. Everyone should be getting the same base education and if they want to go to a religeous school it should only teach about religeon and it should be after public school hours.Ryan wrote:
I think if they want strict schooling for specific religions, then they should just go to church everyday if they really want to learn.
Religeons dont have a place to teach science because it contradicts their religeous beliefs. If you want to learn religeon from your organized religeon thats cool, but how can christians teach about evolution without putting their bias on it. It makes christianity obsolete and therefor coud not be taught by a christian without them trying to teach that Intelligent design was right and evolution is wrong. Neither are completely proven, but if you ask a christian, evolution has not occurred. That is not educating that is keeping people in the dark.
I dont believe in private education, i think it creates an elitist society and grows the gap between rich and poor. Cant afford a good university, cant get a high paying job, cant send kids to a good university and the cycle begins again.
Didn't want to get into a bush thing but he got into Harvard with a 70 something % average. "Best and brightest" HAH!! More like "rich and richest".
exactly.Stingray24 wrote:
" . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." seems to contradict your position.Chuckles wrote:
No, actually, it would not. It would be a violation to ban certain religious schools, but not all of them. However if you just ban all religious schools you're not picking on one in particular. People can still go to church and worship as they please, there just wouldn't be religious schools.Smitty5613 wrote:
one of the ammendments in the Constitution says "Freedom of Religion", banning religious schools would be a violation of that......
The amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting a religion or prohibiting the free excersise thereof." Banning religous schools of any kind is against the law. Promoting a certain religion over another would be overstepping the first amendment. It seems like you guys don't understand that the law applies to the public forum. If I wanted to create a school that strictly practiced Sikhism, I could. It would be legal.
The law states that it cannot prohibit the free excersise thereof. How would banning all religous schools not violate that?
There is a difference between public and private schools. Privately funded schools can teach whatever they want.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-03 12:31:46)
Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Steve Jobs was a college dropout too.PluggedValve wrote:
Didn't want to get into a bush thing but he got into Harvard with a 70 something % average. "Best and brightest" HAH!! More like "rich and richest".
IMO Private schools are what should be banned, not "religeous schools". It just so happens that all religeous schools are private. Its not even that they should be banned, but they should not be the equivelant of public school. It should be an after school class for those who want it. If you want to know about your religeon use your time to do it, not the time when science or math are being taught.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
exactly.Stingray24 wrote:
" . . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." seems to contradict your position.Chuckles wrote:
No, actually, it would not. It would be a violation to ban certain religious schools, but not all of them. However if you just ban all religious schools you're not picking on one in particular. People can still go to church and worship as they please, there just wouldn't be religious schools.
The amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting a religion or prohibiting the free excersise thereof." Banning religous schools of any kind is against the law. Promoting a certain religion over another would be overstepping the first amendment. It seems like you guys don't understand that the law applies to the public forum. If I wanted to create a school that strictly practiced Sikhism, I could. It would be legal.
The law states that it cannot prohibit the free excersise thereof. How would banning all religous schools not violate that?
There is a difference between public and private schools. Privately funded schools can teach whatever they want.
Where i live the catholic schools are generally considered a bit better education but you ave to be a catholic to attend. That creates a society where the religeous get a better education than the non religeous(an elitist society). No wonder there are so many followers, its the best way to go to a good school and then get a good job. So really, these religeous schools are 12 year sales seminars.
But Gates had a product that everyone wanted, education or not. Hell, i would be pretty rich too if i stole that OS and i didn't go to Uni. I had an 85% average and harvard would not give me a sniff.Ilocano wrote:
Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard. Steve Jobs was a college dropout too.PluggedValve wrote:
Didn't want to get into a bush thing but he got into Harvard with a 70 something % average. "Best and brightest" HAH!! More like "rich and richest".
Sorry i dont know of that Steve Jobs fellah.
Bill Gates doesnt have to have a degree in anything, he has a product. But if you wanted to be a CEO or VP or any kind of high paying job in Microsoft, you have to have a great education, not a brigham young degree.