CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This debate is very ambiguous. I'll post here because I agree with it in some applications, but I strongly reject it in others.
As many have stated, religious expression should be allowed in schools.
And private schools can conduct themselves as they wish, so they can incorporate religious elements as they see fit.
But public schools? These are tax funded and associated with the government, and as a result need to be basically secular. Also, it is not possible to properly teach science in accordance with principles of some religions. Other aspects of the education may suffer as well.
I am not opposed to explaining religious concepts in philosophy or social studies classes, as long as they are displayed as things which are believed but not necessarily true.
And of course, a public school will likely feature students of various religions. not to mention atheists. Enforcing any religious policy will automatically alienate and disrespect the beliefs of those who don't prescribe to that philosophy.
I wasn't. Ambiguous is synonymous with vague. "Religion should be allowed in schools" can have multiple connotations, and I spelled out what level I agree with it and what level I don't.
True, but only because they believe they'd be eternally punished if they do so.
2. It would lower the teen pregnancy rate.
Bullshit.
3. It would teach discipline and students would be more focused.
Bullshit.
Even if these were all true, are they really good reasons to teach something to kids? They have an entire life ahead of them, and if that's too hard to get through without believing in pixie magic, then so be it. What is so horrible in the world? Humanity is it's own worst enemy.
Religion thought to students should be an option, but not a forced subject. Students could examine each religion, and evaluate. Schools should teach them what happens where. It doesn't mean that if any religious culture starts a religious school for the sake of argument, students won't turn out being obsessed religious freaks. Religion was part of our culture for a long long time, and shame that we still can't live with it. It's an advantage to kids to know their environment. But religions should never be forced onto others. That wouldn't be teaching then, would it? Probably not!
In what way is it a shame that we "can't live with [religion]"? Religion is one of the most destructive forces in human history, as well as being a primary opposing force to the cultivation of knowledge and critical thought. Religion indoctrinates its followers during their most impressionable age into believing something that no rational adult would come to believe on their own.
And to teach religion in schools as being even remotely true is reprehensible. When youth are introduced to an asserted set of beliefs and told that they are true absent any actual evidence, and contrary to what knowledge and reason we possess, it damages the development of their critical thinking and reasoning abilities. It is irresponsible for religion to be taught in any way other than as mythology or an historical accounting of its development.
well i guess it depends on what you mean. personally, i do believe there should a an elective class on the history of relgion, by which is mean a class that teaches the cultures and beliefs of various relgions around the world. It would be a bennifit to have future citizens to be more knowledgeable of these things, rather then basing their opinions on episodes of law and order.
Why do you think religion isn't allowed in schools? If you wanna pray then pray. If you wanna write an essay on god or Jesus do so.nobodys gonna stop you. But that's not what you people want is it? No you want to FORCE people to pray and FORCE your religion on them. That's what you really want in schools. Which brings me to where's your evidence it will lower suicide rates and so on? (Which aren't that high in the first place). You just blindly assert with no tangible evidence or even citations of evidence. Sorry, no. Freedom of religon, freedom from it. First amendment. Treaty of tripoli. End of rebuttal
What do you mean by religion being allowed in schools exactly? Elaborate a little bit. I do think that expression should be allowed, I'm not against World Religions class, otherwise religion shouldn't be taught in schools...
We can do that without religion, in fact religion doesn't necessarily keep people straight... sometimes it turns people bat shit crazy, look at creationism, fundamentalism, the distortion of morality to some.
You're being subjective...there's nothing wrong with that stuff.
Then you are being as subjective as I am claiming there is nothing wrong with that stuff.
The basic structure of principles in the underlying concepts.
rather vague when applied to our conversation, what do they need fundamentals of? You don't need religion so have fundamentals. I can have fundamentals of sciences, without religion.
Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions.
Well thanks for the evidence without the argument, I assume this is what you are referring to. Just because science arose in a religious society does not mean that religion itself gave birth to science.
What we know about science could not have been brought forth without those religious societies being founded. Without the tradition being organized the fundamentals of science could not have been discussed and created.
What we know about science could not have been brought forth without those religious societies being founded.
Yes, however that does not mean the religion in those societies were necessary, nor does that mean science was founded by religion. Science was founded by those in a society (as you would expect with common sense), the society that founded science happened to be founded on religion. However this does not mean that science came from religion.
Without the tradition being organized the fundamentals of science could not have been discussed and created.
This may be true as well, however this does not mean religion is necessary to understand science. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, in fact, science has a notorious reputation for stalling scientific progress. One does not need to accept religion in order to study science. One does not have to have religion in order to have fundamentals of science. In fact religion typically discourages the fundamentals of science.
I am pretty sure he has evidence. he would have not made this topic if he had nothing to back it up. just like me I would have not made a topic if I had nothing to back it up.
Given that there have been multiple requests for said evidence and that 23 days have transpired in which he could have provided it, I think it is a very safe assumption that he does not actually have any evidence.
P.S. People make claims on here all the time without having evidence.
It didn't help you learn to spell "teach", and there is actually a direct correlation between teen pregnancy and religious beliefs. As for suicide, studies indicate that that is true, but not because religion makes people less suicidal, but because it scares them from acting for fear of going to hell. In addition, people who are "religious" are more likely to commit crimes.
I can't believe 1 of those was actually right. Fear of suicide because of religion is still religions fault. Suicide would be more prevalent if heaven were real anyway.
Suicide would be more prevalent if heaven were real anyway.
It would not. You would go to hell, not heaven, for committing suicide. If everyone knew that heaven and hell were real then less people would commit suicide.
If you actually believed that dying would get you to a much better place you would be happy to die instead of holding on for as long as possible. Suicide doesn't have to be cutting yourself or jumping off a building, it could just be someone make decisions that are less safe.
If you actually believed that dying would get you to a much better place you would be happy to die instead of holding on for as long as possible.
Sure, but if we are considering that heaven may exist, then we would also have to consider the rules of getting into heaven or hell. So people would know that committing suicide would get them sent to hell.
Accidents happen. If you are in an accident, why would you want to recover if heaven were real? Why not just live your life as if getting into an accident would be the best thing to ever happen to you?
Which part of the Bible says "Thou shalt try to live as long as possible"?
When did I ever say that there was such a part? My only point is that committing suicide will get you sent to hell (which is in the bible) and for that reason, people would not commit suicide to get into heaven.
None of your arguments have refuted that point and now you appear to be going on a tangent.
No, religion should not be allowed in schools because it poisons your stomach.
Religion does not directly affect your physicality in any manner that could cause any type of poisoning. Religion is just a concept and not something of tangible substance.
Religion does not directly affect your physicality in any manner that could cause any type of poisoning.
Nah, cause and effect makes it true.
I'm only using the same argument style you used on me. In case you haven't gotten the hint, I was not sincere in my claim about stomach poisoning. I threw out a random assertion with vague statements disguised as evidence like you did, in hopes of pointing out that your attempts to prove your point were not really one of validation at all.
Religion is just a concept and not something of tangible substance.
But yet you argue religion can effect whether you are dead or alive. Isn't that "the mother of all" physicality?
Then you have refuted your own argument, congratulations, we're making progress.
I never said that.
You're right, you didn't directly say it, but you did imply it.
Your title for the debate is "Religion should be allowed in schools" and then in the description you list reasons why. The very first one is about lowering suicide rate. Your first argument is that religion effects the suicide rate, and for that to be true, there would need to be more people who choose to live. Thus you are also stating, religion can effect whether you are dead or alive (obviously not solely).
Then you have refuted your own argument, congratulations, we're making progress.
No..I refuted yours...you made a claim, then I refuted it with logic...then you only repeated your premise in response...that is circular reasoning. Your arguments have lost credibility.
Actually, that is true. If you ate oranges and they made you sick, you should stop eating oranges. You clearly believe that the oranges caused the effect. How come cause and effect don't apply here?
Suicide is most strongly correlated to depression and/or other mental illness; it is primarily a medical issue. Responding to the suicide rate with religion is like responding to stage-4 cancer with prayer. Increased funding for pro-active and responsive mental health services and educator/administrator training would be a far more effective approach, and one which is actually logical given the nature of the issue.
Bullying is also one the strongest risk factors for youth suicide, so actually addressing the bullying problem that is rampant in most schools would be far more productive. It is worth noting that a not insignificant amount of bullying is done expressly in the name of religion (e.g. homosexuality is a sin, you faggot) and that some of the foremost opponents to anti-bullying legislation are religious organizations (e.g. the Catholic Church).
More religion is not the solution.
2. It would lower the teen pregnancy rate.
Religion, and conservative religion especially, is demonstrated to do precisely the opposite. (Source A). Religion has been one of the greatest opponents to comprehensive sex education and accessible contraception which are actually proven to lower teen pregnancy rates.
More religion is not the solution.
3. It would teach discipline and students would be more focused.
I have seen absolutely no research demonstrating that religion correlates to improved academic success. What we do know works is the provision of appropriate funding and resources to students and schools. We also know that the greatest risk factors against academic success are things like poverty. So we have both short and long term objectives proven to actually help students learn and grow, while religion has not been proven to do any of this. If anything, religion restricts the critical thinking and learning abilities of young people thorough the imposition of an unfounded and contradictory belief system.
