Abolition of 'Faith Schools'

[Bowness]

Dear Nations,

My nation has submitted a resolution proposal which we would greatly appreciate you looking at, and if agreeable to vote in favour or it.

You can find the resolution here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal

Sincerely,

Bowness

[Flibbleites]

It's considered polite to post the text of your proposal here in the forum, it makes it easier for people to comment on it.

[Bowness]

Abolition of 'Faith Schools'

Category: Education and Creativity

Area of Effect: Educational

Proposed by: Bowness

Description: If brought into legislation this resolution will bring about the legally binding abolition of ALL 'faith schools' in all nations.

For the purpose of this proposal 'Faith Schools' are defined as any school, or place of educational learning (including parochial schools, & madrassas) that place a particular religious organisation in greater importance over other religions, or have formal links with religous organisations.

We AFFIRM the right of nations to teach about religion in schools should they so choose, but this must be done in a fair and balanced way with no bias or extra attention given to any specific religion regardless of the main religion in any nation.

Reasoning behind the abolition of 'Faith Schools' include the following:

1) Faith Schools increase segregation in communities, not bring about cohesion.

2) True Multiculturalism will be more likely through an equal understanding of ALL religions, not a specific emphasis on one relgion as 'Faith Schools' practice.

3) 'Faith Schools' place pupils into institution with a primary religious focus before they are at an age old enough to determine which religion (if any) they would like to follow.

4) Abolishing 'Faith Schools' will prevent parents from placing their children in schools with a specific religious emphasis. This gives the children greater freedoms, and time to choose such decisions at their own pace.

5) Some 'Faith Schools' are teaching ideology, that could be increasing social community tensions, and could be deemed discriminatory against certain people and communities. For example, some 'Faith Schools' teach that gay people are bad, and wrong. These attitudes should not be accepted by the World Assembly.

6) Abolishing 'Faith Schools' is not 'anti-religious' and indeed should nations choose to, relgion can still be freely, and widely taught in schools. This proposal simply has the intention to make religion be taught in a fair and unbiased way.

7) The 'Abolishing 'Faith Schools' Act' has no effect on religion outside of the education system. People are still free to follow any religion they choose, regardless of age or any other factor such as sex, or political preferences. Indeed, pupils in the education system will still be free to follow and practice any religion they choose, as long as does not break the laws of the nation they reside in.

In summary this, is not anti-religous, but is intended to increase social cohesion, and better understanding of different cultures and religions through the encouragement of a more equal, and unbiased way of teaching religion in the education system.

[Bahgum]

The glorious people of Bahgum decided long since that they have no faith in schools. So we shut them all and our children are now gainfully employed in wiggling down those smaller mineshafts, cleaning chimneys and fetching buidling materials in aid of our all consuming economy. As such we respectfully feel that this proposal does not go far enough.

[Maerngau]

re: Abolishing faith-based schools

We respectfully decline to support this proposal.

While we firmly believe that the most appropriate education a *state* can provide is a secular education, we simultaneously maintain that, as proposed, such a law would constitute an unreasonable intrusion and state interference into both the practice of religion and also into a parents' right to raise her child as she sees fit.

We maintain that it is the duty of the state to *provide* for the full and complete primary education of every child. We also hold that alternative educational paths shall be recognized as long as it can be demonstrated that said institutions meet competency-in-instruction standards in core subjects as accredited by reputable third-party bodies.

Finally, we recognize that in the marketplace of ideas, freedom is an extremely valuable currency.

Respectfully,

Half Zandorff,
Undersecretary for WA affairs,
Grand Duchy of Great Maern.

[Tessaglia]

re: Abolishing faith-based schools

We respectfully decline to support this proposal.

While we firmly believe that the most appropriate education a *state* can provide is a secular education, we simultaneously maintain that, as proposed, such a law would constitute an unreasonable intrusion and state interference into both the practice of religion and also into a parents' right to raise her child as she sees fit.

We maintain that it is the duty of the state to *provide* for the full and complete primary education of every child. We also hold that alternative educational paths shall be recognized as long as it can be demonstrated that said institutions meet competency-in-instruction standards in core subjects as accredited by reputable third-party bodies.

Finally, we recognize that in the marketplace of ideas, freedom is an extremely valuable currency.

Respectfully,

Half Zandorff,
Undersecretary for WA affairs,
Grand Duchy of Great Maern.

The Undersecretary could not have stated this rebuttal more eloquently, elegantly or perfectly. The Kingdom of Tessaglia completely concurs with the Grand Duchy of Great Maern's position.

Respectfully,

HM Shawn Garza
King of Tessaglia
G.M. The Royal Order of the Crane

[Marx-Rawls]

The Republic of Marx-Rawls supports this proposal and agrees with the various reasons given for eliminating faith schools. As for the argument that this is a violation of religious freedom and parental rights, we do not see why parents should have any more right to compel their children to attend religious schools that the State. Sending a child to a religious school is an excellent way of preventing the child from obtaining other perspectives; the child may only know what his or her parents have indoctrinated into him. This is hardly a free choice of religion.

Douglas Gunn
Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Shazbotdom]

"I may not be a religious man but from my personal experience, if a church or other religious organization wishes to open up a religious based school for the paritioners of their specific faith, then it is not the place for the Shazbotdom Empire, nor the World Assembly, to dictate if they can or cannot have their doors open."

The Deputy Shazbotdom Representitive from the shazbotdom Empire clears his throat.

"therefore, the official stance of the Shazbotdom Empire is that we are against this legislation as it goes against the basic human rights. That people be allowed to send their kids to whatever type of school they wish to get whichever type of education they wish. Be it a religious education or a secular education."

[Divinen]

All an Abolition of Faith Schools resolution should do is ban public funding of religious schools. The idea is that everyone should have the right to an unbiased education, am I right? So if you make it illegal for the government or WA to fund religious schools. This allows religion to exist but prevents it from obtaining a monopoly on education.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The Republic of Marx-Rawls supports this proposal and agrees with the various reasons given for eliminating faith schools. As for the argument that this is a violation of religious freedom and parental rights, we do not see why parents should have any more right to compel their children to attend religious schools that the State. Sending a child to a religious school is an excellent way of preventing the child from obtaining other perspectives; the child may only know what his or her parents have indoctrinated into him. This is hardly a free choice of religion.

semi-OOC: Well, that only demonstrates your prejudice. Plenty of prominent public figures were either raised religious or attended religious school. Add to that, schools like Harvard, Princeton and William and Mary College all were founded as religious institutions, and one of the most prominent medical schools in the U.S., Loma Linda University, is governed by a church. Shutting down religious educational institutions simply because a few sniveling diplomats just don't like religion would be a terrible disservice to the millions of children in third-world countries who benefit from schools built by missionaries, and otherwise would have no chance of a formal education whatsoever.

[Philimbesi]

All an Abolition of Faith Schools resolution should do is ban public funding of religious schools. The idea is that everyone should have the right to an unbiased education, am I right? So if you make it illegal for the government or WA to fund religious schools. This allows religion to exist but prevents it from obtaining a monopoly on education.

Again there are nation in this body whose ideology makes it necessary for the government and the public to fund schools, and where as the state is the sponsor of that religion requires a monopoly. This proposal, or any other ban such as you suggest would be discriminatory against them.

[Absolvability]

I tend to agree with the Philimbesi Representative. Personally, I'd support this proposal. I don't like the word 'abolish,' though. It brings to mind the fact that we can't 'abolish' Theocracies.

So, while I WOULD support this proposal, I don't think I will. I think we're far closer to a safe 'base' with the Secular thread.

[Tranoria]

Bad idea..i think its every nations right to have religious schools..that takes the horror of going to public schools away and going somewhere else..I'm not saying all public schools are bad and all Faith schools are good..but i say it should be the nations choice...

[Destructive Art]

The Republic of Marx-Rawls supports this proposal and agrees with the various reasons given for eliminating faith schools. As for the argument that this is a violation of religious freedom and parental rights, we do not see why parents should have any more right to compel their children to attend religious schools that the State. Sending a child to a religious school is an excellent way of preventing the child from obtaining other perspectives; the child may only know what his or her parents have indoctrinated into him. This is hardly a free choice of religion.

semi-OOC: Well, that only demonstrates your prejudice. Plenty of prominent public figures were either raised religious or attended religious school. Add to that, schools like Harvard, Princeton and William and Mary College all were founded as religious institutions, and one of the most prominent medical schools in the U.S., Loma Linda University, is governed by a church. Shutting down religious educational institutions simply because a few sniveling diplomats just don't like religion would be a terrible disservice to the millions of children in third-world countries who benefit from schools built by missionaries, and otherwise would have no chance of a formal education whatsoever.

As far as I know the kids that go to religious schools were sent by their parent's against their will. They did not come because they want to learn about his/her respective religion, they come because they think the way their child thinks will change. The truth, however, is that the kids that go there will only stregthen their will to rebel which causes more harm than good.

[Philimbesi]

As far as I know the kids that go to religious schools were sent by their parent's against their will. They did not come because they want to learn about his/her respective religion, they come because they think the way their child thinks will change. The truth, however, is that the kids that go there will only stregthen their will to rebel which causes more harm than good.

Careful the size of the brush you paint with ambassador. There are tens of millions of students who graduate from religious schools with no rebellious intentions.

[Bowness]

Whilst I am very pleased at the healthy debate this proposal has brought (on both sides of the discussion) here, sadly this is now irrelevant as I recieved this telegram earlier today from the WA moderators...

You submitted a Proposal that was unfortunately invalid. If you would like to re-submit this or any other proposal, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines in the Proposal Rules forum thread.

No warning has been added to your nation. This is an obscure area and difficult to legislate in because of the "no ideological ban" rule.

I am both saddened and confused by this decision, especially as there was a very recent proposal by Buffett and Colbert along similar lines which evaded being invalid. I would be interested to hear clarification on the boundaries of this 'obscure' area otherwise known as the "no ideological ban" rule.
I could be cynical and question the motives behind this decision, but I will fully respect the right of the moderators and leave this be. I am pleased to have at least brought this issue to debate.

Sincerely,

Bowness

[American Imperials (Ancient)]

The Empire of American Imperials SUPPORT this movement completely and will provide any support for its passing.

Young children ANYWHERE should NOT have a religion forced upon them in any way shape or form their own decision must be made on their own even though this theory only applies to other nations as for our empire has banned religion all togher as for it is a obsticle that divides a nations people.

General Divad V. Britiana - Commander of the Imperial Foreign Affairs Office.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The Empire of American Imperials SUPPORT this movement completely and will provide any support for its passing.

Young children ANYWHERE should NOT have a religion forced upon them in any way shape or form their own decision must be made on their own even though this theory only applies to other nations as for our empire has banned religion all togher as for it is a obsticle that divides a nations people.

And what, we should ban parents from dragging their kids to church now? What in God's name is wrong with this organization when we are actively considering making children sign a consent form before they can legally be taught to sing "Jesus Loves Me"?

[Philimbesi]

What in God's name is wrong with this organization when we are actively considering making children sign a consent form before they can legally be taught to sing "Jesus Loves Me"?

A consent form that would then of course eventually be disputed on grounds that the child was forced to signed it due to pressure from his or her peers.

Really, one must love the I hated religious education, so the world must hate religious education... so in the name of religious freedom... let's ban religious education- mindset. So logical.

[Urgench]

And what, we should ban parents from dragging their kids to church now?

Theoretically we would see no problem with such a ban whatsoever, were it enacted at a national level, the forced inculcation of religious beliefs upon minds unable to assess their value, or even if such beliefs might be damaging to the mental well being over the course of their lives is something we take an enormously dim view of. Adults may choose to decide to practice a faith, children do not have the faculties necessary to make such decisions, therefore they cannot consent to make such a choice.

Mind you that does not mean that we in fact believe that the w.a. should ban such activities, we would take the view that this issue is best left to national governments to deal with.


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

Adults may choose to decide to practice a faith, children do not have the faculties necessary to make such decisions, therefore they cannot consent to make such a choice.

I agree with the honored ambassador, however isn't that first taste of religion "forced" or not the basis for that choice? No matter what the religion one must have the chuch-going mindset taught to them, and the most logical, and dare I say natural, place is during the person's youth? Isn't that a part of the experience of youth? Also, who's to say that though my mother and father went to the Our Lady of Great Agony and made me go to The Great Agony School, I'm not going to decide that The Church of the Golden Spoon is more aligned with my beliefs as an adult?

Further eliminating it from public schools isn't going to stop a devout parent from in effect "home-schooling" the child on their faith? So what is there to do in those countries? Dictate what a parent can and can't say to their child?

Plus I really don't entirely subscribe to the line of thinking that Faith Schools are the reason people fall out of touch with a chosen faith. It think those people are cooking long before that, and they sour on the church not the school.

[Urgench]

I agree with the honored ambassador, however isn't that first taste of religion "forced" or not the basis for that choice? No matter what the religion one must have the chuch-going mindset taught to them, and the most logical, and dare I say natural, place is during the person's youth? Isn't that a part of the experience of youth? Also, who's to say that though my mother and father went to the Our Lady of Great Agony and made me go to The Great Agony School, I'm not going to decide that The Church of the Golden Spoon is more aligned with my beliefs as an adult?

Why is a child better able to comprehend the comprehend the complex moral and theological details of a religion ?

Further eliminating it from public schools isn't going to stop a devout parent from in effect "home-schooling" the child on their faith? So what is there to do in those countries? Dictate what a parent can and can't say to their child?

Indeed and and we pointed out that we would have no problem with nations banning such indoctrination themselves.

Plus I really don't entirely subscribe to the line of thinking that Faith Schools are the reason people fall out of touch with a chosen faith. It think those people are cooking long before that, and they sour on the church not the school.

The honoured Ambassador may well not subscribe to this view, but then he may not have to live in a deeply sectarian society where peoples of differing creeds are taught to despise one another as infidels or schismatics or heretics e.t.c.


Yours,

[Tax Ass]

What you are really proposing is to abolish schools, since ALL schools teach one faith or another.

There is really no distinction between faiths that involve a deity, and faiths that do not. They all believe their worldview is correct, and many believe their worldview should be forcefully imposed on others. Marxism, Communism, and the like have killed over 100 million people to forcefully impose their viewpoints, which is over 100x those killed by all "religious" wars put together. Frankly, I am far more afraid of non-deity based zealots than I am of those who acknowledge a deity.

I have had far more people try to convert me to Liberalism, than have ever tried to talk to me about all deity based religions put together, and they are far more close-minded to discussion than those that they accuse of being close-minded. They have total faith in their philosophy or worldview, and are unwilling to discuss the issues with an open mind.

So if we are going to have schools free of faith, they will not be able to take positions on any issues, nor will they be able to assign any books to read, since all books have some underlying philosophy, unless they assign books that cover every conceivable philosophy, religion, and viewpoint in an unbiased manner.

So children will be taught that they cannot make any value judgements, which in itself is a value judgement, promoting the virtue of "tolerance" above all others. Unfortunately, that is too much like what many schools are already doing. I have had several talks with teenagers who are friends of my children. They are so far into tolerance that they claim they cannot make value judgements about the actions of others. Even when I brought up rape or murder, they could only say that it would be wrong for them, but that they could not impose their values on others. Talk about brainwashed sheep!

Or perhaps what will happen is that only positions and books that are in line with the state views are permitted to be taught, that is only "politically correct" material. So everyone will be consistently and systematically indoctrinated in the same manner, and will not be exposed to conflicting viewpoints. Certainly that will lead to the increased "social cohesion", but I can't consider this a good thing.

What it sounds like is that someone wants to push their agenda, without parents being able to intervene on what they consider the best interests of their children. It is a way for the state to take control of the minds of the children, pure and simple.

[Philimbesi]

Why is a child better able to comprehend the comprehend the complex moral and theological details of a religion ?

Of course not, any more than a new coming adult to a faith is. Nor anyone who's sat through a 10 minute class. There are theologians who aren't able to fully comprehend such things. Such things take time and experience. Experience the child isn't going to get if they are brought up in a forced religious bubble. If the concept is we're not going to teach faith in a god (any god) to a child how can we expect them to be interested in god later in their lives.

Indeed and and we pointed out that we would have no problem with nations banning such indoctrination themselves.

Well in the USoP we do have a problem with it however we respect a nations sovereignty on the matter. That is not at issue for us.

The honoured Ambassador may well not subscribe to this view, but then he may not have to live in a deeply sectarian society where peoples of differing creeds are taught to despise one another as infidels or schismatics or heretics e.t.c.

Thankfully no I do not. However does the honored ambassador really believe that eliminating this education in schools is going to stop children from receiving that education at home?

[Bowness]

The Empire of American Imperials SUPPORT this movement completely and will provide any support for its passing.

Young children ANYWHERE should NOT have a religion forced upon them in any way shape or form their own decision must be made on their own even though this theory only applies to other nations as for our empire has banned religion all togher as for it is a obsticle that divides a nations people.

And what, we should ban parents from dragging their kids to church now? What in God's name is wrong with this organization when we are actively considering making children sign a consent form before they can legally be taught to sing "Jesus Loves Me"?