Religion being taught in Non-Church Schools
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
BigMouth63 forfeited this round.
PlagueDoctor forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.