The Instigator
AgnosticRadar
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Religion should be banned from any school related activity

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 44814
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

AgnosticRadar

Pro

State relations and religious should be strictly divided. This is also in the laws. But most schools still allow this behavior. Also religious schools should be shut down. They are forcing religion onto students that don't want to be there, but have to because their parents force them. Everyone should have a say in their religion. Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing the Cons argument.
Mikal

Con

I accept and await my adversarys first round of contentions.
Debate Round No. 1
AgnosticRadar

Pro

The reason of my disagreement on this topic is because #1 People don't have the right to choose one's religious beliefs.
#2 is because school and religion should not be inter-twined, it strays from main point of teaching public knowledge, not religious beliefs.
#3 If every school taught religion in the class room, one's beliefs might not be taught, therefore causing an un-needed debate on religion.

Therefore any religious teachings should stay in churches and homes. Not in public schools. Parents don't send their kids to a public school to be jammed with information that they may take offensively.

This ends my first argument, I am looking forward to my opponent's argument. Thank you
Mikal

Con

Lets get straight into this.

This debate is about whether or not religion should be banned from any school related activity. We are not debating if religion should be taught as a course in school, but whether it should be banned from any and all school functions. So lets get straight into this

I acknowledge that (a) religion should not be taught in science class or interfere with any empirical evidence in school. This is including all branches of school ; (including middle school , highschool, and even college). Faith based courses should not contradict evolution in the class room and be taught as an alternative. Again that is not the topic of the debate. We are talking about the banning of any and all religions from any and all school functions. I am going to jump straight into my contentions.


Extra Curricular Courses.

While religion may not be accurate or empirically correct, that is no reason to ban it completely from schools. Religion has served a major role in our past and even will still have a major role in the future. Understanding how and why people believe what they believe is a great topic for a class. This goes back all the way to biblical times, and even modern times. The topic of religion is a very interesting topic in and of itself, and is a great extra curricular course both in college, and in highschools. While learning religion, you also get to learn about past cultures.

Religious studies can include anything from Islam, to the crusades, even to how it effects society psychologically. It can even be helpful in other majors someone is taking. It is especially helpful to have a understanding of religious influences and culture when you are majoring in both psychology and history. [1]


Values and Rights

Think if we ban all religious activity in school. Banning religion would include banning prayer. This is depriving someone of their right to freedom of religion.

This is promised to us by the first amendment which states

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " [2]

Again saying that this does not promise the right of religion to be taught in schools is a non sequitur. The main point that we are focusing on is the banning of any and all religious activities including and not limited to prayer in open or silence.

By implementing a religious ban in school, you are forcefully taking away their right to freedom. You are saying the can not pray, speak, or worship whom they want during that time period and that is an infringement of the constitution.

NOTE : This is not addressing separation of church and sate. Separation of church and state would come into play if religious teachings were being taught in place of the actual curriculum and mandate of the school.

Separation of church and state =/= taking prayer and religion out of school

but it does = mandating what is taught in the class room on a regulatory basis.


Private Schools

My adversaries point here is a irrelevant. Someone has the right to attend a religious institution if they please. Even if religious courses are being taught in place of regular classes. There is a safety net to this. A majority of both Christian highschool and colleges are not actually accredited classes/courses. So per say if you attend a Christian Highschool. A majority of the time you will be asked to take a test that is mandated by the government in order to test your knowledge to see if you are actually fit to graduate school. Even when transferring from college to college, some religious colleges and community college courses will not transfer to higher learning institutions because the classes are considered either to easy or irrelevant. Here are a few schools without accreditation. Note that a lot of these are Christian Schools. [3]

Again someone has the right to attend any of these schools knowing the fact that they are not accredited courses. Anyone can choose the right not to be educated. In addition to this however some Christian Colleges work differently than actual universities. Where as if you take a course in divinity in a 2 year college or basic four year Christian College, this will transfer to a seminary as an accredited course but would not transfer to say USF or FSU.

In Closing

If my adversary were simply saying that "religion should not be substituted for facts" or "should not be taught in the science class", I would probably concur. The issue however is that he is saying that religion should be banned from any and all school functions. This can not happen. It is a violation of the Constitution and to someones freedom of religion.




[1] http://www.umass.edu...
[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
AgnosticRadar

Pro

Although I still stand firm in my belief, you win. You have a lot of supporting information. You obviously are a pro debater. Thank you for your insight on this topic.
Mikal

Con

Thank you for proposing this debate pro and I accept the concession.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Oh, and let me be clear, because I reread what I just wrote: It's not that forfeits should be encouraged, but rather, if you're GOING to forfeit, you should do it like Pro did, rather than making your opponent wait as you drain out the clock and abandon the debate.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I gave conduct to Pro for an honorable forfeit. This does not mean that Con did anything wrong whatsoever conduct-wise, but that I think that Pro's behavior should be rewarded and encouraged.

As to the remaining points: Obviously, Pro forfeited. But I'm going to explain myself without reference to that.

For S&G: Pro, your rounds were difficult to parse. It almost makes me suspect English is not your first language? Not that there's anything wrong with that or, if I'm wrong, that I'm trying to be mean. I'm just saying it was difficult to parse in a way that I have come to associate with non-native English speakers.

As to arguments:

Pro, I think you were a bit scattered. Focus on the specific points you want to make, and be sure the things you bring up directly relate to that. While the closing of private religious schools may be a consequence of your position, it felt a bit unfocused to mention it as you did in R1. I also think you need to think about the scope of your resolution. This is not to fault Con, who read it perfectly reasonably, but I THINK you were thinking of teaching religion in school, while Con focused more on the idea of removing even extracurricular religious activities. While I think you could have made a case about that, if you wanted the debate to be about the extracurricular activities, it would be wise to limit the scope TO them, so you have less ground to cover. Then you could, for example, ignore the whole religion in the classrom bit that you addressed, because it wouldn't be relevant. You could, instead, focus on arguments about the proper role of extracurricular activities in school.

Regardless of my critiques, welcome to the site, Pro!

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by A341 3 years ago
A341
For the record I am an atheist.
I think that it is a good idea to teach religion in schools, particularly at the age of 5-12 year olds, if they are taught the teachings of multiple religions it gives them more information to make their choice.
Posted by FEARTHEGHUS 3 years ago
FEARTHEGHUS
religious schools are private not public therefore you have a legal right to not go there.
Posted by FEARTHEGHUS 3 years ago
FEARTHEGHUS
i kinda agree that religion should not be taught in public school by the teachers
Posted by JustAlfey 3 years ago
JustAlfey
I wonder how this will turn out?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
AgnosticRadarMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
AgnosticRadarMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
AgnosticRadarMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. AgnosticRadar, you could have put a better topic that would have skirted all of the issues Con brings forward here. "K-12 public schools should not engage in any religious activities" would have covered you pretty well. The fact that he could bring colleges and private schools into this is really the big issue here. This would also deal with the point of personal prayer choices, since it doesn't shut anyone out from doing their own thing. Placing a "ban" is more difficult to defend. Just saying.