The Instigator
DarkChiyoko
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MolecularBird06
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Religious classes should be permitted in public 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 2 votes the winner is...
MolecularBird06
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 46638
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

DarkChiyoko

Pro

Hello friends. This debate will be about religious classes. I will be in favour of a class about religion being permitted as an optional course in schools. (even though it already is) Keep in mind that it is an optional course, and not a mandatory one.

You (con) will be in favour of religious classes not being allowed to be in schools. You will debate explaining why religious classes in schools should be banned.

This will be a debate concerning the United States of America and Canada. It will focus mainly on religious classes being available in public schools in these countries.

First round is acceptance.

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point loss.

Good luck, have fun! (GL HF)
MolecularBird06

Con

I accept this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
DarkChiyoko

Pro

I am so glad someone finally decided to accept this debate. It took forever for someone to accept that, and to that I offer my greatest gratitude to my opponent.

So as we should all know, this debate will be concerning school in the USA and Canada. I will explain in 3 main contentions for this round on why an optional religious course should be provided and not banned in public school in the USA and Canada.

Contention 1: It is in the charters of both countries.

Most countries have some sort of charter explaining their rights and freedoms. Canada and the USA are 2 great examples of such. In the charters of rights and freedoms in Canada, it states the following:

Fundamental freedoms

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association." [1]

As you can see, the freedom of expression of religion, belief and opinion is in the charter of rights and freedoms of Canada. Because of such, it is accepted in our country to have a class about religion, where people can express and teach their religion. Also, because of such, banning religious classes from schools would be going against the charter of rights and freedoms in Canada. But that is not all! A similar rule applies in the charter of the USA:

"1. Everyone has the right to associate and assemble, freely, including for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes." [2]

As you can see, it is a freedom to associate freely about religion, political and other things as well. So people would be allowed to create a class, or in other words associate with students if they feel like they want to. And it would be going against the rights and freedoms to have religious classes banned

As you may now understand, in both charters, religion is accepted, and allowed to be expressed. In schools is a good place to express their religions, and they can not be stopped. Doing so would go against the rights and freedoms of both countries.

Contention 2: It promotes diversity

In schools in Canada and the USA, the people have various different cultures. And there are thousands of cultures, beliefs, religions etc. Now let us say there is now a class explaining a religion. Children can now join that class and understand the point of view of other cultures/beliefs. This promotes diversity, and gives children an open mind of all opinions. This is a great thing to have. Now people can understand others and their beliefs under a safe environment without the fear of having to be forced to convert. This is great for students, and promotes diversity.

Contention 3: Religions are good guides to life

Now though we may not all believe in religion, some of the divine books are good guides to life, weather you believe in such a religion or not. Take Christianity for example. Though people may not believe in Jesus, his book still presents a helpful tool for life.

For example, the 10 commandments:

"20 And God spoke all these words:

2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 "You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 "You shall not murder.

14 "You shall not commit adultery.

15 "You shall not steal.

16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 "You shall not covet your neighbor"s house. You shall not covet your neighbor"s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." [3]

This is taken directly from the bible. Now even though we may not believe in Jesus, there are good lessons in this book. Don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat on your wife, etc. In schools, if we have an optional class for religion, we can learn these things,. Even though they won't necessarily believe in the religion you are teaching, they will still learn valuable lessons for life.

So in conclusion (for this round only) optional religious classes are good for students. They promote diversity, an open mind, and teach valuable lessons for life. Furthermore, in both Canada and the USA, religious classes should legally be accepted. Rejecting such would go against the charters of both countries.

I thank my opponent for accepting, and I urge his response. Good luck!

Sources:

1.http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
2.http://www.wilsoncenter.org...
3.http://www.biblegateway.com...
MolecularBird06

Con

The main reason religious classes were banned in schools was of the constitution.According to Engel v. Vitale the Supreme Court stated it was unconstitutional to read the bible at public schools. Schools don't have the funds to may for the material and teachers for many religions, they have to select a few. This would make the schools choose certain religions over other which would be in violation of the freedom of religion, because the schools are allowing certain religions in classes, but not others, and when the schools have to assign classes to students, some kids will end up in a religious class that they don't want for an elective.Also if a student was to choose a religious class they would choose there own religion because the class would be easy for them and thus help the GPA. Also schools have more important things to fund other than religious classes. If schools are having trouble to fund things such as math and science classes where is the money going to come from? This can be seen in schools such as Hopkins Junior High, which is considered to be among the best schools in the state of California, yet it doesn't receive enough funding. Also religious classes are a waste of time, at schools kids could learn new languages, of how to play instruments, things that help in life. What would religion teach to us? That we shouldn't steal. We learn these things in kindergarten without having to read the bible. These things are taught to use without the use of religious materials.
Debate Round No. 2
DarkChiyoko

Pro

Thanks for the response. I am disappointed my opponent did no address or rebut any of my points.

REBUTTALS:

"The main reason religious classes were banned in schools was of the constitution."

Religious classes are not banned in schools, nor should they. I have one at my high school, which I have the pleasure of participating in.

"According to Engel v. Vitale the Supreme Court stated it was unconstitutional to read the bible at public schools."

There is no proof supporting this. As I have already mentioned in my last argument, the constitutional laws allow religion to be expressed. So this point is invalid, and has no proof supporting such.

"Schools don't have the funds to may for the material and teachers for many religions, they have to select a few."

This is not however a reason these classes should be banned.

" This would make the schools choose certain religions over other which would be in violation of the freedom of religion, because the schools are allowing certain religions in classes, but not others, and when the schools have to assign classes to students, some kids will end up in a religious class that they don't want for an elective."

This is quite a long run on sentence. Anyway, there are classes called "compared religion class". These classes discuss all religions, their similarities, and their origins. These classes teach different religions each time. Because of such, they would not have to choose some religions over others.

Furthermore, as I have said in the rules, this is an optional class, not an elective. So children would not be forced to be in such a class, it is an option, or in other words an extracurricular.

".Also if a student was to choose a religious class they would choose there own religion because the class would be easy for them and thus help the GPA. "

Extracurriculars do not affect your GPA. Furthermore, as I have already said, there are classes with all religions
included, not just one about only 1 religion.

"Also schools have more important things to fund other than religious classes. "

Once again, not a valid reason to which why religious classes should be banned. And anyway, some classes are less important than religion, like Spanish, or French. This is all opinionated however. I for one think religion is more important than a language you will most likely forget.

"Also religious classes are a waste of time, at schools kids could learn new languages, of how to play instruments, things that help in life. What would religion teach to us? That we shouldn't steal. We learn these things in kindergarten without having to read the bible. These things are taught to use without the use of religious materials."

First of all, religion as I have already mentioned can help people in life. And even if we learn this stuff in kindergarten, there are much more things in the bible to learn. And if kindergarten helped so much with these lessons, why are people still stealing?

For now, I will extend my argument from last round, since I have rendered all of my opponent's points invalid. Furthermore he did not consider any of mine, so I would prefer if he does so before I continue.
MolecularBird06

Con

Your highschools is going against the Constitution then, also I have plenty evidence of the Engel v. Vitale, my sources are:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.infoplease.com...

If the Engel v. Vitale case banned OPTIONAL religious school prayers than what hope does a religious class have. If the Supreme Court is in charge of deciding what is constitutional and what is not, then your opinion doesn't stand against the Supreme Court's decision.

"Extracurriculars do not affect your GPA. Furthermore, as I have already said, there are classes with all religions
included, not just one about only 1 religion."

An extracurricular activity does not relate to schools. Also a religious class is defined as a class that studies the beliefs, doctrines, rituals, customs, rites, and personal roles of a religion.

"First of all, religion as I have already mentioned can help people in life. And even if we learn this stuff in kindergarten, there are much more things in the bible to learn. And if kindergarten helped so much with these lessons, why are people still stealing?"

Many people in the U.S.A are Christian, if the bible helped so much, why do they still steal. Actually, also its a small amount of people that steal, and most of the people who don't steal learned not to in kindergarten, not by reading the bible.

"It promotes diversity"

How would a class on religion promote diversity? Diversity is defined as the state of being varied/different. Sure you know that a Christian worships Jesus, that doesn't make the population varied. Also how does teaching a child about a religion help them more? Even though many White and African Americans practice the same religion, they still hate each other, how that supposed to change through a religious class? Also racism is based of your race, not skin color, as I said early Africans and Whites hate each other, and they are both Christian. Also laws enforce that violence and fear cannot be used to force someone to convert from one religion to another, this makes it safe for people to practice there religions. Also how would religious education stop racism, if you have kids who were raised by parents who are racist? In fact one of the leading causes for racism is that kids had this idea told to them by there parents over and over because parents have the most influence over kids.
Debate Round No. 3
DarkChiyoko

Pro

First of all, I would like to explain how my opponent did not debate his reason on why these classes should be banned. Furthermore, he is not following the rules I have given, considering he treated this class as an elective. If my opponent continues to go against the rules, I urge the voters to deduct 7 points.

Rebuttals:

"Your highschools is going against the Constitution then, also I have plenty evidence of the Engel v. Vitale, my sources are:
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://www.infoplease.com...;

No they are not first of all. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It can easily be edited. Secondly, there are plenty of religious classes in Canada. Here is an example or the plan of one of the high schools, and as you can see, religion is a course there. https://www.wcdsb.ca...

"If the Engel v. Vitale case banned OPTIONAL religious school prayers than what hope does a religious class have."

First of all, you forgot the "?" at the end. Anyway, the chance of religious classes being in school is quite a huge one, since as I have already mentioned, there are classes in Canada with religion involved.

"An extracurricular activity does not relate to schools."

Extracurriculars are activities to do in school, therefore related to school.

" Also a religious class is defined as a class that studies the beliefs, doctrines, rituals, customs, rites, and personal roles of a religion."

Once again, no proof backing this up, and furthermore it can also be about several religions. I have already explained this.

"Many people in the U.S.A are Christian, if the bible helped so much, why do they still steal."

No proof backing this up once again. Also you forgot the "?" again. And the reason for being such is because people make mistakes. The bible is there to remind them of the consequences.

"Actually, also its a small amount of people that steal, and most of the people who don't steal learned not to in kindergarten, not by reading the bible."

No proof supporting this, and the bible is a constant reminder. I don't think you carry around kindergarten with you.

"How would a class on religion promote diversity? Diversity is defined as the state of being varied/different. Sure you know that a Christian worships Jesus, that doesn't make the population varied. "

But religion classes are about various religions, thereby showing a variety of religions and cultures, therefore promoting diversity! Read my arguments properly before responding, and you would understand such.

"Also how does teaching a child about a religion help them more?"

I explained all of this already! Read my arguments. It promotes diversity, gives constant reminders of consequences, and helps people have knowledge of religions around the world.

"Even though many White and African Americans practice the same religion, they still hate each other, how that supposed to change through a religious class? Also racism is based of your race, not skin color, as I said early Africans and Whites hate each other, and they are both Christian."

This is a racist inappropriate hasty generalization. This is completely wrong. This is unacceptable behaviour, and should be reported.

"Also laws enforce that violence and fear cannot be used to force someone to convert from one religion to another, this makes it safe for people to practice there religions."

Religion classes are not necessarily to convert people, but to give them an understanding of a religion.

"Also how would religious education stop racism, if you have kids who were raised by parents who are racist?"

It doesn't, when did I mention that? Religion is a good way to tell the students that hating others for their colour of skin is wrong.

" In fact one of the leading causes for racism is that kids had this idea told to them by there parents over and over because parents have the most influence "

This is irrelevant to the concept, along with almost everything in the round you just posted. None of this has to do with anything on why religious classes in schools should be banned. It only explains how they would not be beneficial, even though as I have already mentioned they are.

Now that I have rendered all my opponent's irrelevant, racist, ungrammatical arguments invalid, I will continue with my arguments.

ARGUMENTS:

There is nothing wrong with religious classes in school. It does not negatively affect anyone, especially if it is optional. People should have the right to join a religious class if they wan't to. Since it does no harm, there is no reason to which it should be banned.

I continue to give small arguments since my opponent does not counter my previous arguments. Furthermore, he is constantly explaining irrelevant points, incapable of relating to the topic, on why religious classes should be banned.
He goes against the rules established, has terrible grammar, and posted an inappropriate, racist comment of hate. His points have unreliable sources backing them up. Because of all these reasons, I urge that you vote for pro.

VOTE PRO! :D
MolecularBird06

Con

My opponent doesn't seem to accept that a Religious class is a class that is the study of a particular religion and its beliefs, not a multi religious course. There is a difference in between the two and my opponent needs to stop trying to change the topic. It clearly states Religious Classes, not a class that teaches about religions, there is a major difference between the two.

Furthermore my opponent needs to stop pretending that the Engel vs. Vitale case didn't exist. Please provide evidence that this case didn't exist. Here is another source: http://www.uscourts.gov..., it would be extremely surprising if you call this source invalid.

Also an extracurricular activity doesn't relate to school. It may be taught at a public school, but it is not managed by the school.For example Tae-Kwon-Do classes are extracurricular activities that are not taught by schools. The definition is educational activities not falling within the scope of the regular curriculum, , your classes don't effect your GPA so therefore it is not an official class at your school. If the class is not included in the GPA then it isn't a official class taught by your school.

No proof backing this up once again. Also you forgot the "?" again. And the reason for being such is because people make mistakes. The bible is there to remind them of the consequences. Is the bible their to send criminals to jail? Does the bible tell them what will happen today if the break the law? The answer is no. The law is what states the consequences, not the bible. When a person is tried to court are they charged by what rules they broke in the bible or law? People are sent to jail because the broke a law, not a rule in the Bible. The law is there to tell what people can and can't do and what happens when they break it.

"But religion classes are about various religions, thereby showing a variety of religions and cultures, therefore promoting diversity! Read my arguments properly before responding, and you would understand such."

My opponent is getting diversity and knowledge mixed up. As I said early diversity is the state of being varied. Just because so one knows that Christians read the Bible, it doesn't make them more varied, it just mean that they know a bit of knowledge that they won't know for the rest of their life. For example, I know that Hindus believe in multiple gods, does in affect me? Not really, do I feel more varied? Of course not. If every one in the world knew Hindus were polytheistic would the population be more diverse? Again the answer is no.

"This is a racist inappropriate hasty generalization. This is completely wrong. This is unacceptable behaviour, and should be reported."

My opponent clearly does not have a rebuttal for this. What I'm saying is that people of the same religion hate each other anyways. My opponent is implying that knowing about someone else's religion will stop racism. I just gave a clear counter example to his point about how some African Americans and Whites still hate each other, even though they are both Christian. If the K.K.K are still listed as an active organization, this is proof that some Whites and African Americans still hate each other.

"It doesn't, when did I mention that? Religion is a good way to tell the students that hating others for their colour of skin is wrong."

Nice spelling of color. Also racism is normally generated by the fact that a person is different from you, physically, or mentally. Reminding racist people that a person has a different religion would solidify there hate towards them.

"There is nothing wrong with religious classes in school. It does not negatively affect anyone, especially if it is optional. People should have the right to join a religious class if they wan't to. Since it does no harm, there is no reason to which it should be banned."

This was discussed in the Engel vs. Vitale case, which was over an optional school prayer. If the side that wanted the prayer banned, what is going to happen to a religious class. If a school was to offer a particular religious class, it would be seen as an attempt to interfere with the freedom of religion by influencing a child's opinion on religion. For example if a Hindu child went to a school with optional christian classes, but not Hindu classes, the child will start to think that the school offers only Christian classes because Christians are right and Hindus are wrong. This kind of reasoning was shown in the Supreme Court during the Brown vs Board of Education. During the time period when segregation was legal, africans and whites went to separate schools. One of the arguments that the side that didn't support segregation presented was that when African American children were presented with dolls that were the exact same except for skin color, the African American children choose the White dolls over the Black ones. This was because the kids used the chain of reasoning were they thought there must be a reason why we aren't allowed to go to the same schools as white children, it must be because we aren't as good as them.

"I continue to give small arguments since my opponent does not counter my previous arguments. Furthermore, he is constantly explaining irrelevant points, incapable of relating to the topic, on why religious classes should be banned.
He goes against the rules established, has terrible grammar, and posted an inappropriate, racist comment of hate. His points have unreliable sources backing them up. Because of all these reasons, I urge that you vote for pro."

My opponent has listed four sources, which are just things like the Constitution and a High School course selection sheet, therefore is in no position to complain about my sources, because at least I show were my evidence is coming from. Also I was not being racism, only realistic, if my opponent wants to pretend that racism doesn't exist it is fine. Also he make ridiculous claims about my grammar in a desperate bid to try to earn additional points, then person with the bad spelling and grammar is my opponent, I might have accidentally replace an question mark once or twice, but my opponent can't even spell color. I urge voters to vote Con as my opponent has no legitimate points and is constantly trying to change the topic of this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
DarkChiyoko

Pro

DarkChiyoko forfeited this round.
MolecularBird06

Con

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DarkChiyoko 3 years ago
DarkChiyoko
Dear opponent, "colour" or "color" is spelt differently in Canada and the USA.
Posted by DarkChiyoko 3 years ago
DarkChiyoko
FINALLY SOMEONE ACCEPTED THE DEBATE! xD
Posted by DarkChiyoko 3 years ago
DarkChiyoko
Some people believe there should be no religion in schools at all.
Posted by babyblue10 3 years ago
babyblue10
I believe religious classes should be allowed in public schools
Posted by AdamKG 3 years ago
AdamKG
I can't imagine very many people if any would accept this debate because it really isn't very disagreeable on any level. I was about to accept it until I read "Keep in mind that it is an optional course, and not a mandatory one." I don't know anybody who would debate the idea of merely having optional religious courses in public schools, especially if all they would do is just teach unbiased theology which is all a public school would do in that case. I am against mandatory religious education in public schools, but optional courses isn't really disagreeable at all.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
There is already world religion.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Yeah I will literally accept the debate right now if this gets cleared up lol.

Extracirricular is totally fine, but a distinctly religious class that doesn't cover religion historically but rather as a holy text, like a bible study class, should not count towards high school completion.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
I don't see how anyone could oppose an optional religion class. I'm perfectly fine with that. I just don't want creationism being taught as science alongside evolution, or prayer shoved down people's throats.
Posted by DarkChiyoko 3 years ago
DarkChiyoko
All of you guys, stop commenting and accept my debate! xD
Posted by DarkChiyoko 3 years ago
DarkChiyoko
I agree with such. For example, they are very biased towards the Aboriginals in the Canadian curriculum.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
DarkChiyokoMolecularBird06Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I read the debate simply to discover a round 5 foreit, conduct to Con
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
DarkChiyokoMolecularBird06Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF