I guess my objection comes down to one point, which is that taxpayers money is being using to indoctrinate children into one of many 'one true religions' according to what their parents want.

If parents want to indoctrinate their children in that way, I don't think it  should be at the expense of others. FD, even you agreed with me that such socially irresponsible teachings (the rest of humanity is going to hell) could be dangerous. So tell me - Why should society sponsor it?

Now my kids went to a Catholic school, but the religious education part was relatively liberal in that they were taught about all religions. They ended up making up their own minds when they grew up, both deciding that religion was irrelevant for them.  However, the school did hire the local priest to warble inanely as a prelude to particular events, unfortunately including events at which parents attended.  It was a total waste of funds, but I guess it did no real harm.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 10:07am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran_vs_God

Remember this? 

Episode Five

* John travels to Sicily to confess to a priest that he stole some batteries and masturbated in a bed owned by the priest during Race Around the World
* Again in Salt Lake City, Safran tries some atheistic door knocking to harass local Mormons
* In India, Safran tries out the spiritual teachings of several Hindu gurus

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:


Point taken, but as well as getting a basic education, in some cases they get a single perspective on religion, which biases people against those with different views on religion and is a form of state-supported elitism.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that all religious schools provide a 'liberal' religious education as opposed to a fundamentalist religious education? I don't think so.

OK the taxpayer may not be paying for the whole service, but if the tax payer were not subsiding the schools, fewer parents would be able to afford this kind of 'elitist' religious education, and society would benefit as a result.

The tax payer is effectively making it possible for these schools to exist in a lot of cases.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say that all religious schools provide a 'liberal' religious education as opposed to a fundamentalist religious education? I don't think so.

No, but I think freedom of choice is more important than these other goals you have.

Mozz:

Once again FD demands that we raise Religion up for special consideration

Freedom of religion is not a special consideration, it is a fundamental human right.

even to the point where he tries to equate the teaching of religion as being equal to learning maths, history, english, etc

Quite the opposite actually. Perhaps you should read my post before you respond next time.

This is only acceptable for those who wish to have their children indoctrinated with religious beliefs from their earliest childhood

Well it sounds like you are starting to grasp the whole freedom of religion thing. Good for you.

He then adds to his previous claim about extreme atheists forcing their views on others, you have to be smacking out of your mind to think that line of bulldust will fly.

But it will fly. You are an extremist trying to force your views on others. The law, and even human rights charters, are firmly on my side and you have no hope of succeeding in your crusade to take people's rights away. Even most atheists would baulk at your suggestion.

Your assertion is that by keeping religion, and education separate, that this is forcing children to be Atheistic?

No. That is not my assertion. My assertion is that it is up to individuals whether religion is an integral part of their children's education. You are not forcing atheism onto people, you are forcing your view that religious education must be separated from education.

It merely allows all children

No, Mozz, it forces them. It takes away their rights. They are already allowed to. This is not good enough for you, because people make different choices to you, so now you want to force them to make the same choice as you.

religion is something that should be taught through family values and church

Again Mozz, you do not get to decide for others what their religion entails.

Mozz, you have this very odd idea that religious education has nothing to do with religion, and that religious education only takes place on certain days of the week, at certain times of the day, or not in certain places. You do not get to decide for others what their religion is or how to practice it. You are of course entitled to your view and to control over your own children. But luckily for everyone else we live in a free country with freedom of religion. If a parent wants to send their child to a school where they chant the hare krisna every hour, on the hour, that is there right. You will not be riding in on your high horse to take their children away from them.

I spent one year in a private, religious school.

Well I unfortunately spent my whole time in catholic schools, and I will let your imagination fill in the blanks, just think of the worst stories you have heard then appreciate that you have not heard a fraction of it.

So I fully accept that my personal experience leaves me biased against religious schools on a practical level, but that is not why I oppose them.

I strongly believe that the rights of children, not to be indoctrinated with unreasoning, and unreasonable, faith based ideologies whilst attending school is a very important freedom.

If people are feel compelled to force their beliefs on their children then that should be done by providing a good example of those principles in their own lives, and supplemented with church and church based activities.

I believe that religions really just want to increase their base numbers, and the easiest way is to indoctrinate children before they can reason for themselves, the validity, or lack of validity in what they are being taught.
That is what I find offensive in religious schools.
If the religion is really so good, they can make an informed choice when they are old enough to weigh up the pros and cons for themselves.

I believe that religions really just want to increase their base numbers

Duh

I guess you have to balance that with the freedom of parents to bring up their kids as they see fit.

Exactly. Children have rights. But if it comes to a choice between government making choices for them and parents, let it be the parents.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to go to church on Sunday mornings. It means freedom to practice your religion without arbitrary limitations imposed by self appointed do-gooders like Mozz, eager for the state to take children away from their parents. Mozz does not want to ban religious schools because they provide an inferior education. Rather, he wants to ban them in order to impose arbitrary limitations on people's right to practice their religion.

Mozz, if you are still bitter about your catholic school experience, you should seek justice against those that harmed you, not lash out against freedom of religion. I think you'll find that private schools have changed over the years, just like the rest of society. The year I spent in a private school was marked by a lot of talk about how things had changed and how we had it so easy compared to just a few years earlier. If they are actually harming children, you have every right to intervene and protect them. But you have no right to ban religious education, or limit it to certain hours. The harm has to be real, not imagined in the embittered minds of those who took to long to stand up for their own beliefs.