I believe that Sprints point is valid, this whole issue would probably have been left in the too hard basket, were it not for the need to counter growing division and extremism because of Islamic migration into europe.

I also believe that other religions' attempts to influence legal aspects of a societies moral  standards has been of concern, and it is a clever way to minimise opposition from christian groups by making it a universal ban on teaching religion in schools.

School should never be a place for proselytising with inaccurate information, irrespective of the religion involved.

I also agree with sprint that I cannot imagine any Islamic school complying with these laws.
Neither could I imagine any evangelical christian school complying.

This raises the point of what do you then do when they do not comply?

Obviously they should not be allowed to teach children.

Personally, that is an outcome that would not disappoint me, on the balance scales, the harm done to young minds is far greater than the good that these sorts of schools can do.

Like Locutious said, remove funding from private schools, and raise the quality of state run schools to a level we can all be proud of.

School for Education.

Church and family for brainwashing your kids to blindly follow your personal doctrine.

Very few, if any, private schools, do not have a religious component to them, and this intertwining of religion with education is an evil thing that deserves to be stamped out.

If people want to choose a religion then they should be free to do so, but that should not extend to having it imposed on children as part of their education.

The basis which so many people defend private schools is upon the fact that they provide a better standard of education, but we should question whether that is something we wish to see continued by providing government support for these private schools.

I would prefer to see a public school system invested in, which offered the best education for our children, accessible by all, and free from individual religious dogmas.

If it means removing funding from private schools to help achieve that goal, then I would be all for it.

Public schools should not be relegated to the position of the perennial poor relation.
Social standing, and financial advantage are currently the primary determining factor for what opportunities our youth may be permitted to access, and in much of society that will never change, but education should be an exception.
All our kids should at least have the opportunity of receiving a first class education, and it should be public schools providing that.
If you look at how many of the scandanavian countries structure their education system, you can see that public education can be world class, it just takes the political will to make it so.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Quote:


Denying parents a choice in how to bring up their children is not supporting freedom of religion, it is denying it. You are the only one here suggesting that the government forcibly impose anything. Religious schools do not 'forcibly impose' religious dogma on children. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to send your child to a school of your choice. Freedom of choice does not mean the government says all children have to be brought up exactly the same way in exactly the same school. That is the opposite of freedom.

Quote:


Where children are too young to choose for themselves, the right is always that of the parent, not of the government. Your claim is no less absurd than the government claiming that in the interest of freedom of consumer choice, all parents must be forced to dress their children in white until the child indicates a choice of their own. It trivialises the relationship between parent and child, it trivialises personal choice about spirituality, and it reverses the fundamental nature of freedom. Furthermore, your absurd claim relies on an assumption that denying a child a right to a religious education means that no choice has been made for, or imposed upon them. It has. Freedom of religion does not begin at 18. It begins at birth. Children do not belong to the government until they are 18. Freedom of religion includes the right to bring your children up in a religious environment. By denying this, you deny what freedom of religion really is.

Quote:


That is exactly what you are doing now mozz.

Quote:


Mozz, getting your way and taking children away from their parents to 'protect' them from a religious education is not genuine protection. It is a denial of basic human rights. These rights do not begin at 18, allowing the government to choose until then. They begin at birth, and default to the parent, not the government, when a child does not make a choice. Your approach is no less condescending, and no less evil, then historical attempts to steal children from their parents and indoctrinate them into the government approved dogma. That you cloak it in a misrepresentation of freedom just makes it more evil, not less. groupthink and freedom of thought are not the same.

Quote:


Here's the problem Mozz. You replace the choice of the parent with the choice of the government, not that of the child. If the government decided that all children must recieve a Christian education instead, would you consider this just? Why do you think your version of government imposed 'choice' is any less dogmatic?

Quote:


Prove it.

Quote:


LOL Mozza, this does not mean a thing. The rate of completion of tertiary degrees depends far more on the extent of funding of tertiary degrees than on the secondary system.

Quote:


So you think it would be possible to give all students the best possible education under a government system? Are you aware of the costs involved?

Quote:


I see a remarkable parallel with your distorted notions of freedom of choice. Rather than judging private schools on their merit, you think we should abolish them, replace them with givernmenment schools, then decide whether they are necessary? Wouldn't it make more sense to decide whether private schools are a good thing before you abolish them?

Quote:


Actually, Australia allows Muslim schools as well.

Quote:
.

Mozz, you are the most prejudiced of all in this debate. You would deny people freedom of choice because you think that the choice that most parents make for their children is 'evil' (your own words). This is nothing more than an attempt to intrerfere in the way other people choose to bring up their children in order to impose your own views upon them.

Well if you guys really believe that rubbish, then it is indicative of how little faith you really have in your religions, that you need to seek to impose ot onto children, rather than letting them make their own choices when they reach an appropriate age.

Having children born negro, or asian, or caucasian is natural, having a child born as a muslim, or catholic is sick, and it is merely a perverted way that religion tries to grow it's numbers, in total disregard for human rights.

As for Freediver having the cheek to move my post because he cannot accept my inclusion of the religious element of private education into the debate on public vs private, well that is an offensively stupid attitude to take, as my posts were totally about the topic, and the fact that private schools also run a religious agenda is very much a part of the debate that needs to be considered.
If he also wanted to include my posts in this topic, he could easily do that, but to just move them because he does not agree with their thrust is petty minded.

Well why stop at education then?
We could tattoo the parent's religion of choice onto the babies' foreheads when they are born, that why they can have their faith affirmed every time they look in the mirror.

I also think we need to introduce a rule for sports and playtime as well, we would not want to miss out on a chance to reinforce the accident for them of having their parents' choice of faith rammed down their throats when they are playing, we should have denominationally appropriate clothing and equipment only allowed to be used.

It is obviously not good enough for the religious in the community to have the chance to imprint their faith onto their kids at home, and during the 135 odd hours a week that the kids are not in school, it is imperative the faith is reinforced relentlessly, and giving up 32.5 hours a week for secular education is just too much to expect any decent god fearing person to put up with.

The nerve of these militant atheists, trying to have education time actually reserved for education, they are sick I tell you, sick.

Quote:


Surely it is the outcome that matters, not what other things are tought alongside the standard curriculum? I am not aware of any religious schools that get religion mixed up with maths, or woodwork. Children taught in modern religious schools are no less capable academically, morally or socially than their public school counterparts. If anything they tend to come out on top. You are trying to turn religious schools into something they quite clearly are not mozz, in order to further your denial of basic freedoms.

Do you still seriously think that banning religious schools protects freedom of religion? Do you think that religion is nothing more than a decision a person makes at a government approved age?