The Instigator
BigMouth63
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PlagueDoctor
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Religion being taught in Non-Church Schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
PlagueDoctor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 541 times Debate No: 66712
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

BigMouth63

Con

I argue the case that Religious studies or activities should not be taught/performed in State run schools. I argue that the education of children attending State run schools should be free from the delusions and prejudices of the religious community. I argue that the only reason that religion is permitted in State run schools is to condition children to be compliant to the will of the State. I argue that law, morality and ethics be taught in schools from a non-religious perspective. I accept the right of religious people to have their children taught in church run schools, but their children should have the right to opt-out if they choose.
PlagueDoctor

Pro

I disagree with your argument and I say that religion should be taught in schools. You say that state-run schools should be free from the delusions and prejudices of the religious community, but what if your 'religious community' was all one religion that the vast majority of students belonged to? In this case, the religion would be Christian. Indeed, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that, of all the world's population, 31.5% were Christian-more than any other religion in the world. In the US, however, that number rises to a staggering 77%. In short, it wouldn't matter if children were taught religion in state-run schools if they already identified with the said religion in everyday life.
You also say that religion is only taught in state-run schools because 'it conditions students to be compliant to the will of the State'. However, even without religion present in school curriculums, most students grow up law-abiding and state law-following people. The remaining few students that cause problems usually have different reasons-they come from a bad home, their parents are abusive, etc.
Debate Round No. 1
BigMouth63

Con

Please let me clarify, I am not American, and when I refer to "State" I mean a sovereign country. My argument is set in a global context and when I refer to State schools I refer to public schools not private schools . I accept that in some countries there is little freedom of choice, if any, and that the practiced religion is usually enforced upon its subjects and is so pervasive and all encompassing, but that can change. I am glad my opponent supports my argument that students can go on to become law abiding citizens without religious teaching or conformance, this is supported by statistics supplied by the Federal Bureau of Prisons where 99.7% of inmates state a religious affiliation. Therefore if religious teaching or practice has no bearing on the behaviour of citizen's, in fact it would appear it has the opposite effect and that atheists are proportionally less likely to offend, it therefore has no value as part of the public school education. I would argue that the figures my opponent stated are based on estimates drawn from census figures, and that in completing census figures a declaration of a particular faith isn't necessarily a declaration of a religious practice. In the USA, I would argue that certain US states have a higher proportion of a particular faith whilst the majority of others have a more balanced representation and therefore "pushing" of a particular faith or any faith in public schools is undemocratic. I would argue that the continuance of pushing a particular faith or indoctrination in public schools comes from a historical background that has no relevance in an enlightened and progressive modern world. Maybe my opponent would care to highlight some of the benefits to society to be gained by the continuance of religious education in public schools in support of their argument?
PlagueDoctor

Pro

I would very much like to, thank you.
A study posted by the NCSS (National Council for Social Studies) says that 'religion has inspired some of the world's most beautiful art, architecture, literature, and music'. Furthermore, the study goes on to say that, in the 1963 case of Abington v. Schemp, the United States Supreme Court said that religious education in public schools was both 'legal and desirable'.
Think about that for a second-some of the world's most beautiful art, architecture, literature, and music was inspired by religion, hundreds of years ago without most of the highly advanced technologies we have today. Think what children could do today, exposed to religion and with our advancements and inventions that support and make creating artwork much easier.

Debate Round No. 2
BigMouth63

Con

BigMouth63 forfeited this round.
PlagueDoctor

Pro

PlagueDoctor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
BigMouth63PlagueDoctorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both debaters forfeited the final round which is unacceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. While I fully agree with Con's position, Pro had the stronger arguments here and effectively rebutted Con's arguments. Due to con failing to respond in the final round, which left Pro's arguments standing unchallenged, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.