Should the government fund single-faith schools?

[Apollyon]

Well, what do you think? This is the debate on which I must debate next Wednesday. I am debating *against* the motion (This house believes that the govt. should fund single-faith schools). As I see it it is just another way of restricting free thought and imagination.

[Gobalopper]

Well the government gets its money from the tax payers. If a large enough number of said tax payers want to have their children educated in a single faith school shouldn't they receive some money from the government?

As long as the school is also teaching the important core subjects and the students are at the same level as students in other schools I don't see the problem.

[DukeLeto]

My 2 cents:

The government is supposed to represent all people equally. THe mobney should be used to fund existing schools, or build new, non-religious/political/racial/whatever schools, that would benefit all students. If you want your child going to a catholic school, pay for it your damn self.

[Gobalopper]

How does providing an equal amount of money to a student attending a religious school as one at another school make unequality? If the government starts to provide more money per student to a religious or any other private type school then I would agree with you.

[Caid Ivik]

I can say atheistic school is same single-faith as catholic one. State can't endorse atheism as well as christianity, so by this logic we wouldn't fund any school. I would preserve equality of schools we can't force them to teach what is "politically correct". That's a dangerous alternative, calling for some carrierists to abuse it.

[sneezer3]

I think the answer to this problem is just to fund the parents. Then they can go to whatever school they want there child in and problem solved.

[Egeides]

I don't believe a state has any right to decide for parents about which kind of education their children should get. But also, these schools should have minimum goals to achieve to be permitted public funds (since the results are partly public, while the type of education is a private matter).

[Edric O]

YES, definitely. The state-funded system of education should offer a wide variety of choices, not just one single and strict curriculum for all public schools.

However, single-faith schools should not receive funding at the expense of secular ones. The government should fund single-faith schools by expanding its education budget, not by re-allocating existing money.

[DukeLeto]

The government has no right to say "You can't go to school here because we don't like your religion." Why not just go back to white-only schools! >:(

[thomas]

single faith schools don't work like that though, I go to a catholic school, but I'm hardly religious and far from being catholic, but I think schools that are single-sex, single sexual oriented, or single faith should remain private, so I'm against it and I am really against hthe all-homosexual school in NY because well it's stupid, make a private school ike htat that offers scholorships from private orgs but don't use my parents tax-dollors for some school that is selective by orientation not grades and itellect (though it's nearly impossible to tell someones intellect)

[Caid Ivik]

In fact, there is no difference between catholic and state's schools, only these catholic have religion lessons and few spiritual actions organized by school compulsory. However, every parent of a student must agree with it by own declaration. In fact, in my school there were many atheists and agnostics, and I found their presence at religion lessons as very productive. We can learn much from the other side. Things like school's masses or spiritual trainings were taken by them as a time out of school, positively. Main thing is to throw out biases and see the bright side.

[DLAGhost]

As I understand the funding system in my neck of the woods, there are two income streams for the schools. One is municipal(comes from my property taxes) and the other is provincial(comes from my income taxes).

On the municipal side of things when I send in my taxes I choose which school board(public or seperate) will benefit from the school taxes that I have just paid.

On the provincial side of things my control is just as direct; the schools are funded based on enrollment-so many dollars per head. If a school overcrowds a classroom, people will move their kids to a different school who will then get the funding for that child.

[SurlyPIG]

HELL no. It's completely impractical, goes against everything society should stand for, and by nature leads to inequality. If you're going to have single-faith schools why not single-faith hospitals and single-faith emergency services. Imagine that, dial 911 if you're christian, 811 if you're jewish, 711 if you're Hindiu...

Canada has a Catholic school system across the whole nation because some jack@$$ wrote it into the constitution a zillion years ago. There's a catholic high school that's a ten minute walk from my house. Instead of attending it, I instead have to bus 30 minutes away to the public school designated for my area. And the only difference between the public and catholic system is a single religion class which some students don't even take. It's idiocy. It's pathetic.

It's also just plain wrong. Think about it. Public tax dollars are being spent to teach people about a religion. If that isn't a state endorsement of religion, I don't know what is. If you remove the religion class, then what argument is left? That parents want their kids to grow up in a specific religious environment? Please. If you're going to do that then you should have religion-specific hospitals so patients can recover in a specific religious environment. While you're add it why not add racially segregated schools as well. The idea of parents of a certain race wanting a school where their race's history is taught is no less insane than if it were religion. Save religious classes for evenings and weekends. I don't want my tax money going to indulge some parents desires to have their delusions taught to their children.

EDIT : Here's another point; what's the government to do when the religious schools start forcing policies on their students that violate their rights? (and you KNOW it's bound to happen). How is it going to look when the state-sponsored Muslim schools force their female students into robes and veils? What happens when the homophobic religious schools expel their gay students? (again, it's bound to happen)

Edric, I'm not surprised by the responses from Caid, Sneezer and co. but your answer amazes me. The super-Commie, supporter of equality in the fullest degree, denouncer of everything uncentralized, is a supporter of single-faith schools? It's like Shaq took up figure skating...

[Egeides]

ACE, an hospital doesn't TEACH you something... A school is about education, which will be different from one school to another (if permitted).

About public funds, well they presently are going for a specific type of school so I don't see why they couldn't go for a school giving education in a different way, as long as it gets the results that are asked socially by all (which has NOTHING to do with religion).

Also, I don't see any problem with the state establishing some limits. No one said a religious school should be permitted to declare a new constitutions because it has some right to educate in a specific way!

[Acriku]

Under the United States constitution, this is strictly forbidden. Aside from it though, it is completely useless. If a parent wants their kids to learn about their religion, they can take them to sunday school or just church. And like Madison once said, if there is a school based on a single faith, then there is a school based on a single denomination, and people of the same faith but different denomination would even cry out in disbelief that another denomination gets to have a government-funded school instead of them. There's no way around this, unless you have government-funded schools for every religion. But then again, there are denominations, so you're coming up to tens of thousands of schools just to appease everybody. But to make things a lot easier and financially better, why not a school that is not of any denomination, or religion? Not an atheistic school, because a school does not have a mind to lack beliefs, but a secular school. Not for, nor against, any religion or denomination. Isn't this a better idea than the alternative?

[Egeides]

I don't say that the state should have 30 types of schools by city, and not even that it's about religion. I say that someone wishing to go at another school should just see his studies financially helped as anyone else. This means, for public schools, that given a high enough number of students, the state should accomodate the students.

Besides, they already put "moral" at school. We also get religious classes, and I don't see why a Hindu in a place with enough Hindu shouldn't get his Hindu course. For many, this course is the only contact with "theoric" religion. It's not always easy for parents.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, that point about single-faith hospitals is an utter nonsense. When I'm dying it doesn't matter if it is some order sister or secular doctor who cares for me. Not saying that most finances for hospitals are from insurance institutes, and for them isn't question who will use it.

Public schools, whether they teach religion or not, should be supported by state, if there are finances. Like state helps culture and also churches with enough support, any school should have something too.

[Acriku]

Egeides, this is about single-faith schools specifically. Would not a Hindu be outraged to see the government fund a school for Christians? Or a Lutheran be outraged to see the government fund a school for Mormons? Or a Protestant see a school for Catholics? Should you ignore the thousands of denominations and faiths for the sake of having a school for one faith, or should you appease everyone and have a school for no faith?

Caid, public schools by definition are funded by the government. I don't see how schools have to bring religious culture into its environment.

[Caid Ivik]

In catholic schools you have no "religious enviroment". Only a cross in classroom and two lessons of religion per week. Which is also nearly same as lessons of ethics in secular schools, just with some theological thoughts. But religion funding itself is an interesting issue. Do you think there is a difference on state's support for a national theater and churches?

[Acriku]

Well a catholic school can choose whether or not to have an intense religious environment, or not, but the slightest endorsement of religion is still unconstitutional if it is to be funded by the state. Define national theater please.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, our constitutions are rather different then. Slovakia isn't as pluralistic as USA, here are 70% of people catholics. In view of state, religion is just another popular cultural activity, like theatres, sport, tradition preserving and so on. Welfare state is based on motto "bread and games", so it must fund not only health and education, but also culture. And we are still a welfare state.

[Acriku]

So in your country, it would be best to ignore 30% of the population to satisfy the majority?

[Egeides]

Acriku, wouldn't it be better that the other 30% of population can get what HE wants while the 70% also gets what HE wants? All this instead of the kind of education the state would like to give its people.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, I don't think this is logical. 70 percent may want it, but why should be other 30 against it? How is it possible we have created an university for hungarian ethnics in Komarno, altough they are only 10% of our population? By your logic, 90% don't need it, so they are against...

[Acriku]

Acriku, wouldn't it be better that the other 30% of population can get what HE wants while the 70% also gets what HE wants? All this instead of the kind of education the state would like to give its people.

Trouble is, HE of the 30% is not a uniform HE, and I doubt the other 70% is of uniform denominations.

Well, I don't think this is logical. 70 percent may want it, but why should be other 30 against it? How is it possible we have created an university for hungarian ethnics in Komarno, altough they are only 10% of our population? By your logic, 90% don't need it, so they are against...

Who wouldn't be against there being only catholic schools to go to if they are not catholic? Being told you're going to the hell told in the bible if you say GOD in vain, while you're Hindu, is not a desirable thing. If you're going to satisfy everyone, yes if 10% want it, they should have it, and have the 10% go there, and the other 90% go to their own religious schools. But that's the problem...

Satify every little percentage of the population, costing the state millions of dollars, or there can be a secular school for everyon, saving money through less schools, more efficiency through the relatively same curriculum, etc. It is more practical to have few of the same secular schools to satisfy everyone, than many schools of each denomination and religion to satisfy everyone. Then again, if you want to ignore the people and just build catholic schools throughout the country, oh well. The pragmatism of secular schools is optimal.