Many atheists make me laugh, they always rant on about how even saying you believe in God is tantamount to ramming religion down their throats but in the same breath will aggressively insult you and ridicule you for believing in God in the first place.

But back to the idea of religious schools being banned. I disagree, we have freedom of religion in this nation and it's not for the government to tell people about how they should learn their religion, if the parents want to send their children to a religious school and they still receive a contemporary education at the school then it's noone elses business..

I also do not think however that government should be using taxpayers money on schools outside of the public system.

It is true that most modern religious schools deal distinguish between academia and religion. However religious stuff is dealt with within school hours - whether it be through regular chapels/services, specific compulsory subjects dedicated to learning about said religion, as well as things outside of hours such as camps and bible studying for instance for those more keen on the topic.

And yes, banning religious schools can be seen as being anti-democratic, but I think not having religious schools would promote a much more democtratic society, in that religious tolerance (a vital part of democracy) would be promoted.

"...The only difference your suggestion would make would be to make it far less convenient for them. " I say what I said before - I think that on a broader social level it would go a long way towards building a much more open-minded, less segregated society. In reference to your claim that it would be much less conveniant for those who just want a typical private school education, I've not said I'm against private schools themselves, only that most private schools are religious. I guess you could argue that what's the difference between being against religious schools and being against private schools, as both can create segregations in society, which has been my main argument against religious schools. And to address this, all I would say is that if the public school system was a whole lot better, there would be no need for private schools.

It's not really anything to do with democracy. Democracy is the will of the majority being imposed on the minority. It's about freedom and personal rights.

Freedom and personal rights go hand-in-hand with democracy. A democracy’s aim is to protect these rights through a system in which the power is in the hands of the people.

Maybe in some private schools, but none that I am aware of.

That’s weird, because most religious schools I’m aware of practice such things.

You can't promote religious tolerance by imposing arbitrary restrictions on religion. It defeats the purpose. If you tolerate a religion, tolerate their right to a religious education.

In no way did I advocate imposing arbitrary restrictions on religion. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to give their children a religious education. But does said religious education have to be within schools of the same religion? And comparing banning religious schools to forcing all religions to worship together is ridiculous metaphor to use. Worship is the act of religion. Education is learning, in this case about religion.

You claim that religious tolerance means accepting the choices others make for themselves. This is true. But do you really think that religious tolerance is best gained by segregating children into religions for up to 13 years of their lives is the best way to go about developing this? Tolerance doesn’t just happen. My main point is that by having people of all religions attending the same school, students would be able to mix with those of a different belief system to their own, thus promoting and encourging tolerance. An increasing trend of religious divisions doesn’t seem to be doing the trick at the moment, does it?

To some people, a religious upbringing for their children is what religion is all about. Just as for others, it is about proselytising. A society is not truly tolerant of religion if it does not let people choose for themselves how to practice their religion.

Once again, my argument against religious schools is in no way against religious practice of any kind. In what religion is a religious upbring at its core? I would have thought that in most religions, it is the actual faith in a certain set of beliefs, and the practice of said faith, that is what it’s all about. All of which would not be restricted by outlawing religious schools. There are other ways of gaining an education on certain religions without going to a school dedicated to that religion. Sunday school for example – it’s whole purpose is to provide children with an education. Parents seeking to educate their children on religion outside of school would in no way be restricted.

And the flaw in your argument is that you say that most religious schools you know of only offer actual religious activites outside of school. If that’s the case, what would be different about going to a school that isn’t fundamentally religious? It would be the same – religious teachings could be sought outside of school. In fact, if religius schools were to disappear, places that teach certain religions to children outside of school would inevitabley pop up as there would be demand for them. Thus, no child would be denyed the right to being educated in a certain religion. It would still be up to the parent to make choices about their children’s religious education, and with the added bonus that their children would get a taste of what life is like after school: a diverse society.

Changing religion to suit them better would not make them more tolerant of it, it would just make them want to impose more and more restrictions on religion until it is 'tolerable' to them.

You wouldn’t be changing religion. Nor would there be impositions put on the practice of religion. The point is that by exposing students to a variety of religions would allow a deeper understanding and thus acceptabce of them. Schools of the religious variety does nothing to promote tolerance. In fact it sometimes does the opposite – it encourages children to stick to people of a similar religious background as that’s all they’ve been exposed to, and allowing them to develop in an environment that is in no way reflective of the society they’ll end up being a part of.

Neferti wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 7:16pm:

Case and point.. Atheists ramming their disbelief down our throats..

We can believe whatever we want.

Here's the trick though, you can't be sure that God doesn't exist because you cannot prove that He doesn't.. you can only say that there is no proof that He does exist. But I'm afraid that there not being 'proof' of His existence doesn't automatically mean He doesn't exist.

So here it goes further, based on that logic, that you cannot conclusively prove that we were not created by a higher being, a being obviously more powerful than us, thus worthy of worship. We are all making a big gamble here, but Sprint and I have the odds and risk in our favour. You see, even though we may disagree, both Sprint and myself believe in God and worship him. That means that if we live this life worshipping Him, and die and find that he doesn't exist then no big deal, you can't rub it in our faces because we're dead and will have no consciousness, so we lived good lives with the best intentions. But if we are right, and we spent our lives worshipping Him. Then we will be rewarded God willing.

Now your gamble here has the odds against you and has far more risk associated with it, because you're assuming that God doesn't exist, if you die and He doesn't then no big deal. You were right, but you can't brag about it because your dead. But if He does indeed exist, you're left without anything to back you up.. Because in your whole life were so arrogant in thinking that this world and we were created by accident and thus had no reason to worship anything that could have created you.. So for your arrogance, you will be punished.

I like my odds.. Do you like yours?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 11:36pm:

no.. im not believing in God because its a no lose idea.. I believe in God because it is obvious to me that the fact that we are here, and and the sophistication of mankind, nature and the earth and universe is far too complex to be a fluke or accident. Thus something would have created us, that something is far more powerful than myself and should be acknowledged as our creator and respected and if it has orders for u to follow I will follow those orders.. That is my logic.

Will God judge me according to Islam then sprint and if I follow it will I go to heaven??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 11:52pm:

thats very nice of you to say..

but having said that, if that was the case why do u give muslims and islam such a hard time if you believe judgement should be left only to God..

Malik Shakur wrote on Jun 13^th, 2008 at 11:22pm:


Many people try to ram their beliefs down your throat. They don't have to be atheist to do that.

They are probably the noisy minority. 'Empty barrels make most noise. '
The silent majority are tolerant. As I said before, I can't get inside your head, and you can't get inside mine to understand my point of view. So why argue?

I agree with you - You can believe whatever you want.