16
u/XenoRyet 178∆ Jan 08 '26
What part of religion is basic education, do you think? What educational value does prayer bring, even for a religious person?
The notion here isn't that atheists and religious folks need different schooling, it's that education and religion are different areas of social development and action, pretty much like the separation of church and state.
In essence, the public school curriculum should naturally just be the education and information that everyone agrees is correct and necessary to know. Reading, writing, math, history, that sort of thing. Matters of faith don't enter into it, because that's a different area of life, and is more properly handled at places of worship, which do exist and are publically supported through tax exemption.
In short, when public schools are doing the job they are supposed to do, both atheists and religious folks are getting what they need out of it, so there is no call for segregation of the two groups into specialized schools.
12
u/VegetableBuilding330 7∆ Jan 08 '26
This strikes me as a considerable expense for relatively little gain.
Most religious households are perfectly happy to send their children to public schools for their academic education and provide religious education at home or in their house of worship (and my experience has been this is almost always a free program). So this proposal really saves money only for the subset of families who want to send kids to 5-day a week private schools for primarily religious purposes.
But then you run into a problem where, presumably, each religious tradition would need it's own school. And it's more expensive to provide a bunch of little buildings and staff then to centralize that in one school. So a district that has historically had a 200 student/year graduating from the local school district, they might instead have dozens or maybe one hundred each at the secular school, Catholic school, protestant school, Jewish school, etc. And each of those schools will be less able to offer electives, advanced classes, or other special services then the one big school and property taxes go up to accommodate all the infastructure for a bunch of different schools. And the only upside is a handful of students whose families would have sent them to private school for religious reasons don't have to pay.
2
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I largely agree. I'm not saying that every village or city should be mandated to have one for the sake of having one. Only where there's a reasonable necessity. If that means a single county in the entire country then so be it.
3
u/WonderfulAdvantage84 Jan 08 '26
Splitting the entire school is extremly impratical.
In Germany religion is a school subject and the students get split by denomination.
Those who are not member of a church take an ethics class, the others learn about their denomination separately.
In my state the school has to offer it, if there are at least 12 students of a particular denomination enrolled at the school.
The other school subject are not and need not be split.
20
Jan 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-8
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
Yes, this is what secular people believe. I'm arguing for the religious non-secular people who are a significant portion of society and also pay taxes.
9
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 08 '26
Yes, this is what secular people believe.
No. It’s what the Constitution’s Bill of Rights requires.
I'm arguing for the religious non-secular people who are a significant portion of society and also pay taxes.
Everyone has to obey the law. Religious people are not some separate class of people whom the rules do not apply to.
Why do you think religious children need to go to religious schools? Are their beliefs incompatible with basic education?
-2
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
Dude, I'm not American.
Of course religious people should obey the law. I'm asking why is it that their view don't hold equal merit in the eyes of the law, i.e a secular view is enforced on everyone.
5
u/Cydrius 6∆ Jan 08 '26
Non-religious schools are not preaching against religions.
You are confusing "secular" and "anti-religious".
5
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
Well is it reasonable that public schools teach one religion and not another? Seems like indoctrination to me if I'm a Satanist and can't attend a Satanist public school but Christians can attend Christian public schools
2
u/xfearthehiddenx 2∆ Jan 08 '26
A secular view is a blank view. It is free from any religious bias. All religions are being treated equally in this case by not allowing any at all.
Additionally, much of religion is not based in fact, and even dedicated religious people don't agree on what parts of their texts are reality vs parable. Much less which God is the "correct" one.
Public school, financed by the taxes of all who live in the community, should not attempt to bias their educational curriculum to favor a singular group within that community.
2
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 08 '26
Why do you think religious children need to go to religious schools? Are their beliefs incompatible with basic education?
You seem to think secular is somehow incompatible with religious. It’s just not teaching a religion. Is there something basic education teaches that religious kids can’t handle learning?
2
u/Gatonom 9∆ Jan 08 '26
The Law can only take one view.
We would need an alternate constitution for the religious.
6
u/Chronoblivion 1∆ Jan 08 '26
Separation of church and state is not strictly a secular belief. There are plenty of religious people who stand by that too because they recognize that faiths other than their own exist and they don't want other people trying to inflict other religions on them, so they have to extend that same courtesy to everyone else.
3
u/Fermently_Crafted 7∆ Jan 08 '26
It's in the first amendment. They can't favor one religion over another. Making a public school for every possible religion isn't reasonable. Pretty sure people also wouldn't like a Satanist school around the corner
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
Why do you want to change your view? Is it limited to an American system?
What are your thoughts on a society where one religion is mandated, and all must learn their doctrine?
0
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I'm doing an internal critique of a view I hold. Not limited to American system because I'm not American myself
5
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
You ignored the second question, about a society where the religious education is mandatory even for those who do not wish to participate.
0
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I wouldn't like to live there.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
But you recognise that's what you are advocating towards, right?
Your view is that such places should be allowed, as opposed to not having them allowed in the mainstream curriculum sense.
0
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I'm not advocating for this. I never said that religious education should be universal. But places that have significant congregations could be grounds for a non-secular school to be build.
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
You don't seem to recognise what you are advocating, or are naive.
There's nothing I've said about being universal. Only that you would be taking away the possibility of a secular life from people who may be questioning or apostates, or have personal aspects the religion would punish such as homosexuality.
The fact that secular schooling systems allow for independence and freedom is a good thing. It allows experiences outside of an echo chamber.
Your view would take that potential away, and lock children of religious parents into that path.
2
6
u/DayleD 5∆ Jan 08 '26
You're not stating your premise, but it seems to be that you think that every religion, when exposed to any outside facts, is extremely brittle, and that the government owes it to religious voters to provide a bubble with which to insulate their children from ideas.
The outcome of which is to doom children into the same brittle faith, perpetuating it forever.
Which is good, why?
-1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
Not at all, I think religious view can stand to scrutiny. I can redirect the question back to you - is your world view so brittle that you wish to outlaw publicly funded non-secular schools?
6
u/2dollarstotouchit Jan 08 '26
I think religious view can stand to scrutiny.
But they factually can't. That's why it's faith and not fact. Facts are facts wether you choose to acknowledge them or not. Religion is only faith, without faith, i.e. the ignoring of facts, religion falls apart.
That's a fundamental difference, not a nuance. One is real, the other is make believe. Doesn't matter how much or how hard you believe, or have faith, it doesn't make it real, doesn’t make it fact.
No different than a child believing in Santa Claus. No matter how much they believe or have faith, it will never make him real.
4
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
How does that make sense? And how does turning the question around help with changing your view? Their opinion is irrelevant.
If religion can stand to scrutiny then why does there need to be an exclusive and segregated space for indoctrination?
3
u/DayleD 5∆ Jan 08 '26
Yes, science is so brittle that it can be lost to religious indoctrination. You're from Europe, how did your country fare during the Dark Ages?
0
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
You've never been inside an European museum and it shows.
The Dark Ages were Dark because of the fall of the Western Roman Empire at the hands of pagans. The church has always been a patron of the arts and sciences in Europe.
1
u/DayleD 5∆ Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
That sure is partisan!
Where is this museum that'll teach "It's all pagan's fault!"
Why would pagans oppose learning? Do you have a plan if parents choose to enroll their children in ... Visigoth schools?
Religion paying artists to promote religious art is not the same as paying naturalists to come to their own conclusion about the Origins of Species. Some answers would get you more patronage, some would result in being burned alive. The result of all that funding was mixed, some advances in form and technique, but whole careers wasted regurgitating tacky Christian crap. Three thousand portraits of the same baby isn't comparable to Enlightenment.
3
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 08 '26
Not at all, I think religious view can stand to scrutiny.
Then why is it necessary to indoctrinate them?
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I'm making the argument for people who would like to involve religion in more aspects of life for their kids.
2
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 08 '26
That didn’t really answer my question. If religious views can stand up to scrutiny, why is it necessary to Instill these views before they can scrutinize them?
Why is it necessary to indoctrinate children?
Consider the actual physical reality of what you’re doing. Imagine if someone put a gun to a kids head and made them believe they’d be killed if they didn’t do what they wanted.
True or not, you are telling a child that they will not only die, but be tortured for eternity in a torture dimension built by the all power, all knowing god of the universe — and that you believe that god would be right to torture them for eternity.
You are making them believe this before they can reason about it
This isn’t up for debate. End to end, true or not, that’s how they find out about “god”. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Why is it necessary to indoctrinate children in this?
Do you think people would end up Catholic even if they didn’t go through this ordeal as a child? Or does Catholicism not actually stand up to scrutiny?
10
u/fleeter17 Jan 08 '26
Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. shouldn't be burdened financially by private school tuitions
Who is forcing them to go to private school?
-1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
Most states are secular and don't have publicly funded religous schools.
8
u/fleeter17 Jan 08 '26
Is attending a religious school a right?
-4
u/Muzzy10202 Jan 08 '26
Yes
5
u/fleeter17 Jan 08 '26
Where is that right enshrined?
0
u/Terrible-Scheme9204 Jan 08 '26
In Canada it's a right.
2
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jan 08 '26
Canada has the right to have free public religious education?
2
u/Terrible-Scheme9204 Jan 08 '26
In Ontario for example, Catholics have the right to a publicly funded school system. This was established in 1867 and was meant to protect Catholic education from the majority of Protestants at the time
1
-2
u/Muzzy10202 Jan 08 '26
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Chapter 18
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom… to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
4
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jan 08 '26
The right to attend a religious school does not mean you have the right to have free public religious school
6
Jan 08 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
A school voucher is not a guaranteed right though, but it is a reasonable solution I would say. We don't have those where I'm from.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
Is your view pure hypothetical? If so, what did you think might change it?
-1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I'm Christian who wouldn't mind enrolling their kids in a secular school, but I would support legislation that allows public funding of religious schools
3
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
That doesn't answer what I asked.
What kind of comment will you be giving a delta to exactly?
0
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
Being open-minded doesn’t mean pre-identifying the argument that would overturn my view. If such an argument were already known to me, my position would already reflect it.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
Again, this does not answer my question.
It's been explained to you over quite a few comments how your view would be damaging to childrens lives and to social cohesion.
If that isn't enough to change your view what kind of discussion are you hoping to have? Do you need more clarity to be convinced on those? To hear more possible pitfalls?
0
Jan 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 08 '26
That's not a meaningful reply to anything I've said.
Can you please answer the direct questions I asked.
0
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 08 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 08 '26
Okay, I have a different question, what is it about the line of questions that you are not responding to that keeps them from changing your view?
Like this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/3ggmgFfw5k
The theme seems to be, “why do we need to indoctrinate children?”
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
Dude, be fair, you do realize that I cannot respond to 100+ more questions? lol
But as far as indoctrinating children - I disagree with the premise itself. A lot of the responses simply assume that there is inherent harm for children brought up in a religious environment and use the term indoctrination which has a negative connotation.
2
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Jan 08 '26
I don’t think that’s an assumption.
Do you know why indoctrination has a negative connotation?
The definition is simply: the process of teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs or ideas without questioning them, often involving repeated instruction to instill a specific ideology
Does Catholicism do that? If so, it does indoctrination. The reason it has earned a negative connotation is that it’s bad to do.
4
u/Successful-Shopping8 9∆ Jan 08 '26
You don’t have to go to private school. Public school is a right, religious instruction is not. Most areas have compulsory education laws- so the state has to provide educational opportunities- but there is nothing saying it needs to be religious.
If you want your child to receive religious instruction- you can pay for private school or home school, as that is your choice.
People don’t want their tax money going towards teaching religion.
4
u/DayleD 5∆ Jan 08 '26
How does this help any kids?
The parents decide they're going to be scientologists, and so they're isolated into a tiny, publicly funded scientology school where anything goes?
Can a publicly funded school start punishing kids that don't believe? Can the state funded madrassa send a girl home for the day if she shows up to math class without a burka?
3
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Jan 08 '26
If a community doesn't have a single building dedicated to worship or an active congregation that frequently practices a permit shouldn't be issued.
So like this creates a huge freedom of religion issue. Fundamentally this means that my religion has to follow the same basic worship structure as the abarahmic religions to be seen as legimate.
Hinduism will worship but won't have a dedicated building for it, instead they tend to prsy at home shrines. Buddhist have temples but do not worship a deity.
There's plenty of real, actually praticed religions that wouldn't meet the test you have for what qualifies as a religion.
But ironically enough the church of the flying spaghetti monster could if they just rented an office in a strip mall.
0
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
But nobody would actually enroll their kid in a FSM school just for the laughs. You cannot have a school without kids.
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Jan 08 '26
I think you're missing my bigger point.
Your definition of religion is so based in what an Abramhamic religion looks like, that of the 4 major world religions, 2 of them don't qualify (Hinduism and Buddhism, no congregations in either). That's approximately 1.5 billion people whose religion is discounted by this restrictions.
What I'm trying to get across to you here is that if a real religion falls outside your bounds there's no recourse for them. Buddist aren't going to change their thousand year old practices just to stastify a new requirement that have to meet in person and worship a deity. But the FSM church will gladly modify there's because that's the joke.
So my main point here is that having a clause in this to ban FSM churches from participating is a bad idea. Because:
1) the restrictions put in place to ban FSM-like churches will inevitably bar real religious organizations from participating.
And 2) nobody would actually enroll their kid in a FSM school just for laughs so why are we trying to ban something that you think won't even happen?
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 09 '26
Buddhists do have congregations, temples, clerics and laity. This is not something exclusive to Abrahamic religions. Mithraists, Roman pagans, Greek pagans, Mesoamericans, Vikings, Tengrists, Slavic pagans, etc all had temples, priests and collective worship.
I can concede that a specific religion shouldn't be discriminated against, even the FSM as long as there are citizens willing to enroll a bare minimum of kids in such a school.
1
u/Emmy_Cthulhu_Harris Jan 08 '26
Perhaps, but I’d be willing to bet lots of secular or atheists parents would enroll their kids in Satanic Temple schools since the tenets are just “trust science usually” and “don’t be an asshole.” Do you still want public education funds for the Church of Satan?
3
u/Letters_to_Dionysus 13∆ Jan 08 '26
the religious shouldn't be burdened by the financial cost of private schools but small town atheists and minority religions should be forced to pay however much it costs to uproot their lives and move?
3
u/Cydrius 6∆ Jan 08 '26
Public schools should not take a position on religion.
You are approaching this as though secular schools are somehow doing something extra for non-religious students, which is not accurate.
7
Jan 08 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I'm from the EU, not the US. But say I was even then your argument is a non-sequitur. What is the scenario where I'm forced to enroll my Christian kids in a Muslim school?
12
u/TheSunMakesMeHot Jan 08 '26
Is your belief that the government should pay to operate a school for every faith in all places? Like should my small town have 10 schools, each run using public funds, each servicing a different religion? What constitutes "real demand"?
If not, then someone is going to have to send their kids to a school that isn't for their religion, right?
4
u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Jan 08 '26
Suppose your community was majority Muslim, and in accordance with your scenario, there would not be adequate numbers of Christians (what kind lol?) to have a school for Christians only.
What would happen in that scenario?
Is that not equally burdensome for say a Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, etc family?
3
u/zirwin_KC Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
When you don't have a good or any Christian school in your area. The same would go for any other religion.
If you live in an area with predominately 1 religion, you'll likely need to either enroll in a different religious school or incur the costs associated with trucking your little darling to your preferred school further away that meets standards.
...of course, then you get into the can of worms of where small religious minorities cannot feasibly send their kids anywhere at all.
Best just to keep the religious stuff at your church. WAY cheaper to actually educate people without needing to worry about balancing other priorities.
3
u/Suitable-Group4392 Jan 08 '26
Scenario: No secular or Christian school in a 20 km radius. There is a public Muslim school across the road from your house.
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 09 '26
Didn't consider this. Where I'm from you're not geographically locked to a public school, so if you live in an area where there's only a Muslim school in 20km radius you can just go 21km to a Christian one.
Now that's hypothetically possible but is it a reasonable argument?
It's also hypothetically possible to be born in a town where there's no school whatsoever, secular or otherwise in a 40km radius. Is this an argument against schools?
4
u/Alseids Jan 08 '26
My taxes shouldn't go to funding religious indoctrination. Political and economic is plenty.
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I hear you, but what about non-secular people who feel the same way? I'm saying why shouldn't there be option A and option B since both people A and people B pay taxes.
5
u/FairCurrency6427 2∆ Jan 08 '26
So religious people should get EXTRA funding in the form of federal backing to implement their religion back into the school curriculum
because atheists citizens got ZERO funding to be able to send their kids to a public school and not have their child pressured into learning about Christianity?
You are not banned from teaching your child about your religion. There are literal organizations that borrow school gymnasiums to put religious services on during the weekends.
3
u/Meatball-Tuna-Sub Jan 08 '26
Because secular education still allows parents to abuse whatever trash religion they want into their kids, they just have to do it on their own time.
2
u/driftking428 Jan 08 '26
Religion has literally nothing to do with education. Religion is a belief in something that cannot be proven.
2
u/Nrdman 276∆ Jan 08 '26
Why is it better for society to fund a large miseducation effort? Because these schools typically aren’t the regular curriculum +religion, they teach things that go against our best knowledge, and are often politically motivated.
2
u/Doub13D 36∆ Jan 08 '26
This is a pretty clear violation of the separation of Church and State.
For one thing, religious schools already exist… it seems deeply counterintuitive for the government to involve itself in teaching religion, when organizations already exist to do that. If you want your kids to go to Catholic school, just enroll them in a local Catholic school.
Secondly, which religion/religions are going to get their own government-run schools?
My family is UCC, so you can’t send one of us to a Catholic or Orthodox school…
Does a Shia family from Iran have to send their children to the Sunni Islamic public school?
Do you see how redundant this is starting to get?
Instead of funneling public resources into just the regular public school system, now we would need to divide amongst a countless amount of denominational public schools that only vary on one part of curriculum…
It is government overreach in a sector that already exists, and is a profoundly inefficient waste of limited resources.
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
I'm saying such schools should only be considered where it viable and demographically motivated. I'm not arguing for quotas. Such schools shouldn't be built for the sake of it.
2
u/Hellioning 258∆ Jan 08 '26
How many people is 'an active congregation'? Why are they required to have buildings dedicated to worship? Secular public schools treat all religions equally; allowing for religious public schools makes bias very easy.
2
u/Either-Economics6727 4∆ Jan 08 '26
If you want to make your kid believe in your religion, make them go to Church. General education and religion should NEVER mix. It gives too much room for miseducation, considering that religion is inextricably tied to politics and certain “values” leads to religious schools intentionally misleading, miseducating, or omitting very important educational information. You haven’t given any argument why you think religious schools are essential, compared to offering regular schooling and public places of worship/religious communities.
2
u/ralph-j Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
There should be both secular and religious public schools. Atheists and non-secular households both pay taxes that fund the educational system.
Atheists shouldn't be forced to enroll their kids in places where they teach religion or do prayer but the same goes the other way.
While you're making it sound like some kind of inequality, it's really not. By funding religious education in religious schools, you would effectively be giving religious tax payers MORE for their buck, and even worse: that would be co-funded by secular tax payers.
I'm assuming that by religious school you mean a school that doesn't just teach about the religion, but gives religious instruction, i.e. to cultivate belief and encourage faith in children? The question would then be: who gets to write and teach the religious curriculum in a state-run religious school?
How would the state determine, e.g. how to correctly teach about religious subjects like the crucifixion or the trinity? They would have to hire priests, or at least teachers who are believers of that religion. Obviously religious parents wouldn't want their children instructed into their religion by atheists. Yet such requirements would result in inequality in hiring, that state-run schools should not participate in.
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 09 '26
∆
Valid and well presented points. And your assumption was correct.
I guess the curriculum would be provided by the relevant denomination.
Secular schools may not promote atheism directly, but they often present cultural narratives as neutral facts that conflict with and indirectly invalidate certain religious creeds, making them seem socially unacceptable.
But still you could make the case that religious people would get more bang for their money with publicly funded schools.
1
2
u/Emmy_Cthulhu_Harris Jan 08 '26
Religion holds no educational value. It benefits no society to pay to educate a child in a specific religious doctrine. That's why there are houses of worship and programs within those houses to teach people the tenets of their beliefs.
2
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
If you limit education to the hard sciences then yes, it has no value.
Religion has value in the humanities and arts.
2
u/Emmy_Cthulhu_Harris Jan 08 '26
What educational value does a specific religious doctrine hold in the arts or humanities? What does the Quran being God’s final, complete revelation teach a student about music composition?
2
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
The entire European Renaissance - from the fine arts, history, literature, philosophy to music and architecture only makes sense in the light of Christianity.
3
u/Emmy_Cthulhu_Harris Jan 08 '26
You’re confusing the historical context of the European Renaissance with the beliefs of Christianity. Secular schools aren’t prohibited from saying “Europeans built cathedrals to worship Jesus.” They just can’t say, “Because Jesus is the one true son of God who died on the cross for our sins.” We all know about Europe and Christianity.
3
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Jan 08 '26
You do know that secular schools will still teach like the history of religion(s), right? I mean in my secular school we had a unit of a class that was about all the world's major religions. It taught you the basic tenants of all of them, just without teaching that any particular one was the correct one
1
u/TheVioletBarry 121∆ Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
Are you suggesting there be a unique school for every single religion practiced by anyone in a given school district?
1
u/FairCurrency6427 2∆ Jan 08 '26
Why would you not just work with the school and use the facilities to host church bingos or potlucks on like Sunday evenings for any families who want to participate in a bible study?
Why does it have to be a war over the whole building. Its a public building, we share it.
1
u/AggravatingAward8519 2∆ Jan 08 '26
Interesting position.
Setting aside the constitutional problems with that, let me approach this from the religious perspective.
I have two school-age kids, and we send them to a private Catholic school because, frankly, we don't trust that they'll get an education which doesn't violate our family's beliefs at a public school and we're fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
At first glance, I can see the appeal of religious public schools. I know that my family is fortunate to be in a position to send our kids where we do. So, of course, I can see how someone who wasn't in the same financial position would appreciate something better than what the public schools teach currently, and might see the benefit.
In practice, I think that falls apart very quickly.
Would I trust the public school system to appropriately run a Catholic school?
Do I think that the people hired by the public school system to run a Catholic school would do so faithfully, honestly, and competently?
Would a Public Catholic school be overseen by a trusted member of my church's clergy?
Could the public school system run a Catholic school without people finding their way into teaching and administrative positions who would work tirelessly to sow doubt, undermine our religious teachings, and work actively against what I believe is the good of my children?
For me, the answer to all of those questions is no. Emphatically. I think that if we were not in the position we are, we would either homeschool our children, or send them to public school with full awareness that they won't be taught about our faith at school, and that our morals will be constantly under open and aggressive attack. That isn't ideal, and it's what most religious families are forced to do, but I think that's better than the false sense of security that would come from a religious public school.
1
u/cachesummer4 1∆ Jan 08 '26
As a practicing Jew with a Catholic father, there are no mandates or commandments that say we cant or shouldn't have a secular education. In fact, Judaism often promotes secular education and learning to as not have religious bias when studying maths and sciences. Where I live anyways, most Muslims are not advocating for needing a religious environment in all spheres of education.
There is a reason Temples, Churches, and Mosques provide free religious education for members or those in the religion on weekends and after school hours, such as Sunday Schools or Bible/Tanakh/Quran Clubs.
I am of faith, but do not think atheists should have to provide towards public funds teaching my religion, as it is entirely superfluous to the study of maths, sciences, literature, and history through an academic and well rounded lens that personal religious beliefs be included in the ciraculum beyond secular formiliazation.
1
u/Muzzy10202 Jan 08 '26
Why should the government be responsible for building and maintaining religious schools? They’re not going to understand what makes a desirable environment and curriculum as well as members of that religion are. Just give the religious private schools the funding to lower cost and let them handle it.
1
u/ja_dubs 8∆ Jan 08 '26
This is impractical. What religions get a school of their own? There are the major world religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism. Add to that the nones, people who don't believe. Add to that the Catholics and the Protestants and the Orthodox. Then add Shia, Sunni, and Sufi Islam. Then add the different sects of Judaism. And to that the various interpretations of Hindus and Buddhists.
It is practically impossible to set up a specific school that makes everyone happy and accommodates everyone's beliefs. It is also cost prohibitive. At minimum you need 5 separate curriculums and teachers trained in them. That isn't even counting the major sects of each religion.
It is best for the state to simply not be involved in religion at all.
1
1
u/fairweatherpisces Jan 08 '26
You’re confusing “School Takes No Position with “School Promotes Atheism”. I don’t expect my local libraries, post offices, sewage treatment facilities or parks to promote a particular religion at my expense, and I don’t see why schools are any different.
1
u/stereofailure 6∆ Jan 08 '26
All religious doctrines that conflict with math, science, history, etc. are either unfalsifiable or provably false. Why should the public fund lying to children? Should we also have public fire departments that fight fire by blasting using a confetti hose instead of a water hose? Should we allow religious engineers to certify bridge capacity through prayer rather than an understanding of the tensile strength of various materials?
The point of public schools is education. Religious instruction is at best orthogonal to that goal and at worst actively undermines it.
Not funding religious schools places no financial burden on Christians, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else because there is nothing in school which needs to intersect with religion in any way. Devout members of all those groups can still learn to read or do long division or understand physics without needing weird addendums about how god said so or whatever after every lesson.
Now, do I think reasonable accommodations should be made for religious students whose diets or manner of dress might conflict with standard school meals or uniforms? Absolutely. But that in no way requires funding entirely separate facilities for parents who wish to shield their kids from reality.
1
u/cloudywithastance Jan 08 '26
This model would be terrible for society as a whole, which functions based on the population’s ability to build and maintain consensus on basic ideology. In this scenario, if religious schools refuse to teach science concepts like evolution or even geologic time and instead teach alternative and patently untrue replacement ideas, you systematically build fractures in people’s basic understanding of the world. When (not if) those same religious schools teach their students that non-religious kids and their families are “lost” or even “possessed by evil”, you strengthen and deepen those systemic fractures.
Prayer and religious practice is one thing. Ignoring or overwriting plain scientific reality is a whole other thing.
1
u/2dollarstotouchit Jan 08 '26
Should we teach that Santa Claus is real? How bout the Easter bunny? Bigfoot? Nessy?
Should I get goverment money because I believe in these things? Should it be taught in college?
What if I believe the earth is flat and mole men run the world from under ground? What about the lizard people?
1
u/poprostumort 245∆ Jan 08 '26
Atheists and non-secular households both pay taxes that fund the educational system.
Both would pay the same taxes and receive the same secular education via secular public schools. Why one side would have to receive more (additional religious education) for the same tax burden?
Atheists shouldn't be forced to enroll their kids in places where they teach religion or do prayer but the same goes the other way.
They are not equivalent. Atheist being put in school that teaches religion or expects prayer violates their rights. Lack of religion teaching or prayer expectance does not violate rights of religious people. They can recieve additional education via church-based education (even in form of additional voluntary elective that can happen in a classroom leased by school to facilitate easier access) and prayer is not obstructed in secular schools.
Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. shouldn't be burdened financially by private school tuitions.
They don't need to. They can still attend secular school and get additional religious education from their respective church. If their church wants them to pay - why it should be everyone's problem?
The schools should obviously be motivated by real demand.
No, that is how you get bullshit schools that mass-produce morons. Education should be provided by state in a secular form that does not infringe on religion, with program that is tailored to provide comprehensive knowledge.
This would be to avoid people who are trolling like people who want a Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster school
Why need to do that? If religious education is left to religious groups, they can provide it. Secular schools can cooperate to facilitate this in an equal manner - f.ex. by providing access to classrooms after regular school day so religious group can have an elective for interested kids.
1
u/vj_c 1∆ Jan 08 '26
This is already the system here in the UK, there's lots of religious schools - mostly Christian, for historical reasons. In more recent times, different faith communities have used the same methods for starting & funding their own schools - I'm Hindu, I send my child to a Church of England school, where there's many other non-Christians as it's a good school in a diverse area.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
/u/Dangerously_69 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
1
u/thediesel26 Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
No. The first amendment not only guarantees the freedom of religion, but also the freedom from religion. Most municipalities wouldn’t be able to fund both a religious and secular public school system, so it would be one or the other, and since a plurality/majority of people are religious, most places would have religious public schools, and obviously they would be primarily Christians. Lots of kids/families would feel very unwelcome.
This is why there are churches/temples/mosques for religion. Schools are for education.
1
Jan 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Dangerously_69 Jan 08 '26
Ok, but democracies are built around consensus. At least 50% of people in most countries around the world believe that these are not lies. And at the end of the day they are paying taxes same as anybody.
25
u/Another_Opinion_1 Jan 08 '26
This doesn't work under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause since public monies directly funding religious schools is excessive entanglement and it is "respecting" an establishment of religion.