As I said, I don't think banning religious schools denies anyone the right to practice their religion.

Yes, I spose it does. I know you're going somewhere with this, and I don't pretend to always be right, I just don't think religious schools are necessary to practice your religion, they serve to divide and segregate and I don't think that's a good thing. If I may quote the great Tim Minchin -

" Yes, I have all the usual objections to miseducation of children who in tax exempt institutions are taught to externalize blame and to feel ashamed and to judge things as plain right or wrong."

Where I'm going is that freedom is meaningless if it only extends to what the government thinks you should be allowed to say, or to how the government thinks you should be able to practice your religion. It is for individuals to decide how to practice their religion. If that includes educating their children in a religious institution, they are free to do so.

Society should only deny people these basic freedoms where there is demonstrable harm. This is not the case with religious schools. In fact, by any objective measure, there is great benefit with most religious schools. Mozz for example only wishes to deny people their right because he disagrees with the choices they make. He thinks children would be better off in a secular institution, and thinks parents are 'evil' for not making the same choice as him. Likewise, you mention segregation as a downside. However, conformity for the sake of conformity is not a valid reason to deny people fundamental human rights. Segregation is actually an upside, in that the whole point of personal freedom is the right to be different, or the same, or segregated. It is an expression of freedom to choose.

If we were to argue that children should be raised in identical institutions for the sake of conformity, who's to say that secular schools would win? You could just as easily force all children into a religious school. Most religious institutions realised a long time ago that they have to give up on forcing people to conform. If they hadn't, all Australian schools would be overtly religious schools. Public schools still are in many ways. It is time for the secularists to extend the same courtesy.

I think there's been a bit of an over-reaction to the idea of religious schools... At least going by my own experience of them.

In the Catholic schools I attended (and in all the Catholic schools I've ever known of) we were educated in the 'faith of our fathers' (as the hymn went). At no time were we ordered to choose between that faith and science, in creationism versus the theory of evolution. We were taught the history, rites, doctrine and articles of faith of the Roman Catholic Church (albeit sometimes in excruciating and wearying detail) with the aim of making us informed and believing Roman Catholics. Never did we feel we were being boot camped into contorted militant soldiers of Christ or to despise those of other faiths (... well except for those dirty protestants - only kidding............. or am I? ).

It didn't stop us being kids at play, the odd fight in the playground, the faking the flu to get a day off, the dog eating the homework, the pranks, the practical jokes that went horribly wrong, the eventual and inevitable fascination with all things carnal, the smoking behind the bikesheds... all  the usual trouble that any band of kids anywhere in the country growing up together would encounter.

This debate is just ridiculous really.

If parents want to 'indoctrinate' their children, they'll do it at home anyway. Merely banning religious schools will do nothing. And actually, it's quite obvious that most of a child's religious education will come from home anyway, not from a religious school. The school might teach some of the academic aspects of the religion, but the bulk of it will come from a good, practising, believing home.

freediver wrote on Dec 30^th, 2009 at 9:00am:



What i going on about is that, i feel that children should be encouraged to think critically.

Education may be about learning facts, but it should also be about teaching students to be willing to, and to have the courage to, challenge those things [including currently accepted 'paradigms'], that [through the acquisition of new knowledge] they can see as illogical, irrational, or absurd.


The earth is flat.
The sun circles the earth.
Cholera is caused by bad vapours in the air.
Metal boats can never float.
Stomach ulcers are caused by stress.


Throughout man's history, it has been rebels, and those who have challenged authority and the accepted science of the day, that have always led us to new truths.

I think most people here agree that there should be some exposure to religion/s at school.

For one thing, religion is something that has shaped our culture, and it's important to get some grasp of religion for the same reason that we teach history.

I think it's important to focus on what is not acceptable, and for me an example might be religious or any other teachings that tell the students that they are some kind of elite -  For example, a Fundamentalist Christian school in which students were regularly instructed that faiths other than Christianity are to be despised as evil, or that adherents of other faiths, and indeed faithless atheists are doing the work of the Devil and must be shunned. This would be unacceptable in a school even if such doctrines were an integral part of the beliefs of the church that ran the school.

Why? - because it's working against the fabric of society, causing division.  We have to draw a line somewhere. It is unacceptable to cause division and prejudice in society just as it is unacceptable to teach kids that cannibalism is right, regardless of whether being a fervent cannibal is part of the parents' religion.  We have overriding standards in society, and it is appropriate that we do.

I've said this before, but there is a need for a totally impartial program  that promotes harmony within society, because it's in the best interests of society to understand the different groups.

Of course, that doesn't prevent religious groups from providing instruction in their own religion, as long as it's not done in a way that alienates other groups in society.

If you ban religious schools, FD is right in saying that you are limiting religious freedom, and Abu is right in saying that the religious indoctrination would just take place in another forum, such as home or  church/ mosque.

The best compromise is to allow religious schools, but insist on a curriculum that is not divisive. (Yes - it is possible)

Yadda has a good point about critical thinking. We should be providing an environment where the student can question what the teacher is saying (to a reasonable extent). We should focus on teaching kids how to think for themselves rather than what to think.

Such an environment has been shown to be more conducive to good learning habits anyway.