frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should public religious schools be allowed to exist in the U.S.?

Debate Information

I was wondering what anyone thinks about this. Most countries allow public religious schools to exist.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  

    Should public religious schools be allowed to exist in the U.S.?

    Hello the:

    That's a contradiction in terms..  Here in the US, public schools are public because of an absence of religion..  Religious schools are just that - religious.

    excon
  • OakTownAOakTownA 442 Pts   -  
    No, as public religious schools violate the 1st amendment.
  • @OakTownA Did you know that the U.K. allows public religious schools to exist?
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    Western people got a bit lazy and complacent about the subject of democratic rights and thought that they could be applied to everybody.      Freedom of religion is a very good concept, and allowing Christian religions in Christian countries to set up their own faith based schools should be no big deal.    But then came multiculturalism and non western immigration and things went south quickly.      In western countries today, we have, through our misguided tolerance, allowed religions which are completely hostile to our western Christian values to cross our moats and enter our keeps.       When it becomes apparent that many Muslim religious in western countries are teaching hatred of the west and jihad, we seem to be surprised?    Although, it must be said that even publicly funded schools in the west today staffed by the new devotees of socialism have also embraced evangelical socialism and likewise teach children hatred of their own race and culture.     This is not going to end well. 

  • OakTownAOakTownA 442 Pts   -  
    "Did you know that the U.K. allows public religious schools to exist?"
    And? The U.K. has a state church, and does not have a Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. The question was whether they should exist in the US where there is a Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    When it becomes apparent that many Muslim religious in western countries are teaching hatred of the west and jihad, we seem to be surprised? 

    And when do you think that would ever become apparent, if ever?

    Anyway......you asked for this one...........

    Mother: How was your first day back at school dear?

    Kid: Aw, it was alright but we got this new Muslim kid in our class and all the other kids reckoned that he had a bomb in his backpack. So they followed him home and got it off him then threw it in the river.

    Mother: Oh my goodness, how horrible. You mean they threw his new backpack with a laptop and all his books into the river?

    Kid: Aw nah, just the bomb.

    Mother: (????!!!!)

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA
    The U.K. has a state church, and does not have a Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. 

    Good point but I think you will find that, in effect, the two countries operate their politics and judiciaries a bit differently. As I understand it, the British constitution does not exactly bind the two together and, in the case of the Anglican church being of the state; it is a throwback to Henry VIII who only founded his own state church as a matter of personal expediency in getting a divorce. What I find interesting is that Americans are more God-fearing than the Brits and although they have a "separation" of church, there is no doubt as to the political influences Churches (and their money) have in America.

    OakTownA
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA

    Contrary to common sense, in the UK, a "public" school means it is a private school.    Everywhere else in the Anglosphere a "public" school is a government school paid for by the taxpayers.    Don't ask me how the meaning got reversed.    There are no public, government funded religious schools in the UK.    There are only private religious schools.      These schools are very divisive as they teach ethnic children the primacy of their own race, religion, and culture, something that is anathema to western schools, who's socialist teachers and administrators never stop denigrating their own race, religion, and culture.   
    OakTownA
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw ; And when do you think that would ever become apparent, if ever?

    You must be very misinformed if you don't know anything about the Muslim schools in the UK teaching students to hate other religions and promote jihad.   There have actually been instances where people have been able to sneak cameras and microphones in UK madrassas to record imams preaching hate and even beating children for not being attentive enough.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6017 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    As I see it, public schools in general should not be allowed to exist: the government should never intervene in the education people receive, as there is clear conflict of interests at play here. Given, however, that public schools already exist, making some of them explicitly religious does not seem like a serious step back to me. In fact, there is a case to be made for proper representation of various demographics in the public education system, so, for instance, the ~3 million Hindus in the US have Hindu schools to send their children to if they so desire.

    I personally have studied at a (private albeit) Catholic university, and it being Catholic never affected or bothered me in any way. I could not care less what "reverent fathers" talked about at religious events, as I had never attended one, and no one had ever tried to convert me to Catholicism or even convince me to accept some Catholic values. I do not see any problem with a religious high school working like that, where the kids interested in religion can get involved in various events and take related classes, while those uninterested in it do not have to do anything beside taking a couple of useless classes (that, let us be fair, are present in any school and in any educational program - even PhD programs in STEM fields are not an exception).
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    There have actually been instances where people have been able to sneak cameras and microphones in UK madrassas to record imams preaching hate and even beating children for not being attentive enough.  

    So, what does that have to do with it and why is it any different from Catholic Nuns beating the bejesus out of their students? In fact, they go one step further and molest them as well.

    And how is it any different to what Christians do?......Preaching hatred?

    So, for that little bit of meaningless logic you have earned some brownie points for another anecdote.....let's cash them in now, shall we?......

    Mother: Well, you're home early today. I thought you were going to play with your new friend Mohammad at his place.

    Kid: Aw yeah well, he had to go with his Dad to the airport to drop off his cousin.

    Mother: I see where is the cousin going to?

    Kid: Aw, I reckon he's going around the world because I asked him that same question and he said that he is going to go all over the place.

    Mother: (????!!!!)

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1530 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    I see that you still have a few more Brownie points left in your account so let's slip this one in.........

    Kid: And I know exactly what airline he's flying with and exactly how many other people will be on board.

    Mother: (rolls her eyes upwards) And pray tell, what airline and how many other passengers?

    Kid: Aw well, he's going to fly on Virgin and there are going to be 72 other passengers on board because he said that he was about to sleep with 72 virgins.

    Mother: (!!!!!????)
  • BoganBogan 449 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw ;    So, what does that have to do with it and why is it any different from Catholic Nuns beating the bejesus out of their students? In fact, they go one step further and molest them as well.

    50 years ago in Australia, both private and public schools enforced discipline with corporal punishment.    What I am talking about, bashing students, is happening right now in western madrassas.

    Mr Swallow wrote.      
    And how is it any different to what Christians do?......Preaching hatred?

    Excuse me?      Which denomination of Christianity preaches hatred?    I am not religious, but I will defend the Christian faith against false accusations.    Who is negatively stereotyping an entire group of people now?
  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 109 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: We don't need public schools - period.

    In order for our public schools to function normally we have to make them act and behave more like private schools. We should give them more autonomy for their subject and their school decisions. We should also reduce funding for lousy schools so that public schools can compete.

    On separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is probably one of the most misunderstood concepts of American politics. Separation of church and state does not mean that people should not integrate their religious beliefs with politics - that would be a violation of the 1st amendment and the actual separation of church and state.

    When Thomas Jefferson said "separation of church and state" he meant that the government is not allowed to get involved with a person's religious beliefs or practices(as long as they don't actually hurt other people. And by hurt I mean actually physically hurt for no good reason, not that they should hurt other's feelings - as that would be a violation of 1st amendment rights). So yes, people are allowed to let their religious beliefs influence government. School prayer does not affect anyone as long as its the following:
    • If no specific god is mentioned to pray to.
    • If everybody worships that god(the god of the bible as most people in this country are monotheists(even most of the 'nones'). Polytheists and others make up less than 1% of the country. America is probably one of the least religiously diverse countries in the world.
    • If people are not forced to pray and if bullying those who don't pray is punished.
    Statistics show that after Engel v. Vitale, America just got worse(source:  Halverson, Delia T. Teaching Prayer in the Classroom: Experiences for Children and Youth. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989. Print.)

    Statistics show that after Engel v. Vitale, America just got worse. When school prayer was no longer allowed you got a rise in crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and obesity.(source:  Halverson, Delia T. Teaching Prayer in the Classroom: Experiences for Children and Youth. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989. Print.)

    We should overturn this court decision that damaged kids just like we did with that utterly, utterly retarded Roe v Wade. Leftists only care about children when they can defame their opponents as not caring.
     
    Liberals invented this mythical version of "separation of church and state" to promote their atheistic agenda. Nearly everything libtards do to society damages it - and by damage I mean they completely rip and tear society like its a demon from the video game DOOM(the original 1991 version is my favorite video game).
    OakTownA
  • OakTownAOakTownA 442 Pts   -  
    "In order for our public schools to function normally we have to make them act and behave more like private schools. We should give them more autonomy for their subject and their school decisions. We should also reduce funding for lousy schools so that public schools can compete."
    How and why? So according to you, in the same city, one public school could teach one curriculum while another public teaches a completely different thing? Education is standardized for a reason; to make sure every person who goes through public school learns roughly the same thing. Why should we reduce funding for "lousy" (not entirely sure what you mean by that) schools, when they are usually underfunded to begin with? Also, research is finding that increasing money per student increases positive outcomes in education, especially in low income districts, including higher test scores, increased graduation and college enrollment rates, and increased college graduation rates. For example one study that looked at 875 districts in Texas over 2003-2010 found that an increase of $1,000 per student decreased the drop out rate by 2%, increase college enrollment by 9%, and increased college graduation rates by 4%. That study at others are outlined at the link below.

    "Separation of church and state does not mean that people should not integrate their religious beliefs with politics - that would be a violation of the 1st amendment and the actual separation of church and state."
    Agreed, however, this does not mean that a person can bring their religious beliefs into their profession, especially if they are employed by the state. Someone who believes that the Bible clearly states that two people of different religions should not get married is not allowed to deny a marriage license to a mixed religion couple. The government, including governmental representatives like public school teachers, cannot legislate religion or require that people participate in religious practices, like prayer. It does not matter if the prayer is nondenominational, if everyone in that school worships the same god, or if the students are forced to pray; a prayer led by a teacher is a prayer led by the government, and thus a violation of the 1st amendment.

    "Statistics show that after Engel v. Vitale, America just got worse. When school prayer was no longer allowed you got a rise in crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and obesity.(source:  Halverson, Delia T. Teaching Prayer in the Classroom: Experiences for Children and Youth. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989. Print.)"
    Do you have these statistics or a more recent source than an almost 40 year old book that was written to instruct teachers how to use prayer in their classroom?

    "Liberals invented this mythical version of "separation of church and state" to promote their atheistic agenda. Nearly everything libtards do to society damages it - and by damage I mean they completely rip and tear society like its a demon from the video game DOOM"
    How? Do you have any examples with links to back them up? From this post, it sounds like you would be happier in a theocracy, and are upset that culture is progressing beyond your conservative beliefs.



  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 109 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    Argument Topic: response

    OakTownA said:
    @Pepsiguy

    my notes in bold
    "In order for our public schools to function normally we have to make them act and behave more like private schools. We should give them more autonomy for their subject and their school decisions. We should also reduce funding for lousy schools so that public schools can compete."
    How and why? So according to you, in the same city, one public school could teach one curriculum while another public teaches a completely different thing? Education is standardized for a reason; to make sure every person who goes through public school learns roughly the same thing. Why should we reduce funding for "lousy" (not entirely sure what you mean by that) schools If we cut funding for lousy schools, then they would manage their resources better and succeed, schools don't need more funding they need better systems. Also kids aren't standardized. And by lousy I mean poor test scores. , when they are usually underfunded to begin with? Also, research is finding that increasing money per student increases positive outcomes in education, especially in low income districts, including higher test scores, increased graduation and college enrollment rates, and increased college graduation rates. For example one study that looked at 875 districts in Texas over 2003-2010 found that an increase of $1,000 per student decreased the drop out rate by 2%, increase college enrollment by 9%, and increased college graduation rates by 4%. That study at others are outlined at the link below.

    "Separation of church and state does not mean that people should not integrate their religious beliefs with politics - that would be a violation of the 1st amendment and the actual separation of church and state."

    Agreed, however, this does not mean that a person can bring their religious beliefs into their profession, especially if they are employed by the state.
    This is nonsense. My middle school(which was a US public) used to have(still do) Gideons hand out new testaments to the kids and nobody's religion was affected. There will still some "atheist" students at my school and even a muslim one, yet all of them got and even some collected multiple copies of bibles. Students even used to steal bibles from students and trade them between each other. There was nobody complaining "Hey!! they are violating separation of church and state" because that would be . 

     Someone who believes that the Bible clearly states that two people of different religions should not get married is not allowed to deny a marriage license to a mixed religion couple(No, this is old testament law, which Jesus already fulfilled, this doesn't violate religious freedom. I'm not advocating theocracy, just that religious organizations be allowed to preach, discuss religious issues, and hand out scripture, to public school students without forcing a religion on them. This is normal and should be allowed). The government, including governmental representatives like public school teachers, cannot legislate religion or require that people participate in religious practices, like prayer. It does not matter if the prayer is nondenominational, if everyone in that school worships the same god, or if the students are forced to pray; a prayer led by a teacher is a prayer led by the government, and thus a violation of the 1st amendment.



    "Statistics show that after Engel v. Vitale, America just got worse. When school prayer was no longer allowed you got a rise in crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and obesity.(source:  Halverson, Delia T. Teaching Prayer in the Classroom: Experiences for Children and Youth. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989. Print.)"
    Do you have these statistics or a more recent source than an almost 40 year old book that was written to instruct teachers how to use prayer in their classroom?
    https://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Prayer-Classroom-Experiences-Children/dp/0687064252
    This was years after the event. A consistently low graph and lowering graph doesn't get better. In fact, the problems only got worse.

    "Liberals invented this mythical version of "separation of church and state" to promote their atheistic agenda. Nearly everything libtards do to society damages it - and by damage I mean they completely rip and tear society like its a demon from the video game DOOM"
    How? Do you have any examples with links to back them up? From this post, it sounds like you would be happier in a theocracy (I do not advocate theocracy, I support secular government. But I oppose secular society(which is what liberals want). No free society ever was a secular society, all secular societies that have ever existed had state atheist governments which were also dictatorships), and are upset that culture is progressing beyond your conservative beliefs.

    The mythical version I am talking is the false idea that "that people should not integrate their religious beliefs with politics" which is not true, and you agreed with my statement.


  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 109 Pts   -  
  • OakTownAOakTownA 442 Pts   -  
    "If we cut funding for lousy schools, then they would manage their resources better and succeed, schools don't need more funding they need better systems. Also kids aren't standardized. And by lousy I mean poor test scores. "
    I noticed you ignored my link to studies that show increasing funding also increases test scores. What "better systems" do schools need? What would they look like? No, kids aren't standardized, but what they learn should be so that they have the knowledge and skills to be part of society. If there is no standardization, every school would teach different things, even in the same city or district. It also attempts to make sure that the information taught is accurate. Would you be fine with a school that taught the earth is flat or that the solar system revolves around the earth rather than the sun? In you system, what, if anything, would prevent this?

    "This is nonsense. My middle school(which was a US public) used to have(still do) Gideons hand out new testaments to the kids and nobody's religion was affected. There will still some "atheist" students at my school and even a muslim one, yet all of them gained and even some collected multiple copies of bibles.  Students even used to steal bibles from students and trade them between each other."
    Assuming this is true, your school was in clear violation of the First Amendment. Would you be fine with an Islamic group handing out copies of the Koran? What about the Temple of Satan handing out literature? I don't know why you have atheist in quotes. If students want to exchange Bibles that they have collected in their free time, that's fine. What is a violation of the First Amendment is having the Gideons on campus handing out the Bibles. What is the name and location of the school? I'm curious to know more.

    "(No, this is old testament law, which Jesus already fulfilled, this doesn't violate religious freedom. I'm not advocating theocracy, just that religious organizations be allowed to preach, discuss religious issues, and hand out scripture, to public school students without forcing a religion on them. This is normal and should be allowed)."
    Is the Old Testament not part of the Bible? Didn't Jesus say that he came to fulfill the law, not change it?
    "17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
    Regardless of how you feel about it, there are people who believe that people of different faiths should not be in a relationship, as they will be "unequally yoked."  (Which is in the New Testament):
    " Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
    Should a person who believes that two people of different faiths be able to deny a mixed faith couple a marriage license?
    Allowing religious organizations to "preach, discuss religious issues, and hand out scripture" to public school students IS forcing religion on them, especially if it is mandatory. How else would you describe forcing religion onto someone?

    "This was years after the event. A consistently low graph and lowering graph doesn't get better."
    Years after what event? To what graph are you referring? The reference you posted was a book published in 1989, which discusses how to incorporate prayer into teaching at public schools. Do you have anything with actual data from this millennium that supports your assertion?

    "The mythical version I am talking is the false idea that "that people should not integrate their religious beliefs with politics" which is not true, and you agreed with my statement."
    This does not answer my question. You said "Nearly everything libtards do to society damages it - and by damage I mean they completely rip and tear society like its a demon from the video game DOOM." I asked you explain how "libtards" damage society with almost everything they do, to the point that they "rip and tear society like like its a demon from the video game DOOM." Yes. INDIVIDUALS can and do integrate their religious beliefs with their politics. This is not the same as saying that the INSTITUTIONS, like public schools, can or should integrate religion into their systems. Think of it like this: my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Similarly, your right to practice your religion ends when you force your religious beliefs onto me. Mandatory school prayer forces religious practices onto the students.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch