Abolition of 'Faith Schools'

[Urgench]

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?

Of course we accept that children may be indoctrinated by their parents outside of a school or educational context, but is the honoured Ambassador's answer to this to offer children no escape from this indoctrination ? To also force it upon them in the one place in which they might have the expectation of being educated rather than indoctrinated, School ?


Yours,

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Despite points of my arguement (points 3 & 4 specifically) touching on parental pressure and age being a facor in my proposal, I feel your are very much taking it out of context in an unfair and misleading way.

I was responding to American Imperials' comment, not to your proposal -- which has apparently been ruled an ideological ban, so I really don't know what purpose there is continuing this pointless debate.

[Unibot]

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.

And tens of millions that do.

______

Personally I have a problem with government's funding faith based schools of one paticular religion, a 'monopoly religion' which foreshadows government corruption. That being said, I've always found it best to keep the WA's actions concerned with international problems, and I do not see how faith based schools are a problem in that regard - however, a monopolizing religion seems problematic for international relations.

Yours,
Commander Zhilidigo, Unibot.

[Philimbesi]

Of course we accept that children may be indoctrinated by their parents outside of a school or educational context, but is the honoured Ambassador's answer to this to offer children no escape from this indoctrination ? To also force it upon them in the one place in which they might have the expectation of being educated rather than indoctrinated, School ?




Actually, no. On that we do agree. We were discussing and all out ban on parents based on the "dragging to church" comment made by OMGTKK. Banning discussion of religion totally and fully.

Our problem is this measure would have banned faith schools totally, at least how I read it it would, and had no care if it was doing so in a theocracy or not.

And tens of millions that do.

Agreed. Never said there wasn't.

[Urgench]

Actually, no. On that we do agree. We were discussing and all out ban on parents based on the "dragging to church" comment made by OMGTKK. Banning discussion of religion totally and fully.

Our problem is this measure would have banned faith schools totally, at least how I read it it would, and had no care if it was doing so in a theocracy or not.

Indeed we understood that to be the context of our discussion. Our contention is merely that children of too impressionable an age who do not have the ability to form adult consent to such things should not be exposed to the indoctrination of religion in any context, be that in school or at home or in a place of worship.

In any event this is all rather academic, we would not advocate this policy on an international level and since this proposal has already been scotched it seems pointless to discuss the matter further, no matter how rewarding we may find discussion with the honoured Ambassador for Philimbesi.


Yours,

[Philimbesi]

no matter how rewarding we may find discussion with the honoured Ambassador for Philimbesi.

Agreed. As rewarding as we find the discussion with you. I noticed you mentioned scotch... I'll buy...

[Shazbotdom]

If people surely have a problem with parents sending kids to Religious Schools within their nation, then they should pass legislation on the national level abolishing Religious Schools instead of pushing for this on the level of the World Assembly. This is NOT something that we as a world governing body should be busying ourselves with.

[Obidia]

Respectfully,

With regards to parents dragging children to church, the parents are in charge of their children and the children, until legally an adult, must obey the rules a parent provides. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that the government can use its authority to tell parents how to raise their children or if they should be brought up in a faith or not. Further more, with regards to actual issue being proposed, church and state are kept separate for a reason. It is a terrible thing when a government decides it will inject itself back into the religious scene. This may only be one issue, but let the government into religion now, and more and more and more issues will arise. The deeper a government gets into religious affairs, the harder it will be to separate them again. It is for these reasons that The Federation of Obidia (FO) declines this proposal. I urge all nations seeking the betterment of their people and nations to do the same.

Sincerely,
Emperor Nicholas II
Supreme Civil Authority of the Federation of Obidia

[Never wrong People]

NO
NO
NO!!!

Many nations would be agains this
Including this one and 7 other ones that I know that have not post here yet.

If people surely have a problem with parents sending kids to Religious Schools within their nation, then they should pass legislation on the national level abolishing Religious Schools instead of pushing for this on the level of the World Assembly. This is NOT something that we as a world governing body should be busying ourselves with.

He is right, it is not right to do on world level, do it your country if you hate faith schools.

[Jahka]

Even private schools? This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. I all for secular teaching but this is wrong in many ways.

[Unibot]

Urgench, I'm not sure but I believe the right to "express" and therefore "impress" upon your children with particular ideologies may have been "affirmed" in the Freedom of Expression act.

Again, I'm not sure...

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

So, unless the children develop their ideologies separately and therefore granted the right to express that religion without reprisals from their parents, or the government - their parents appear to have the right to empress them with their views.

[Urgench]

Urgench, I'm not sure but I believe the right to "express" and therefore "impress" upon your children with particular ideologies may have been "affirmed" in the Freedom of Expression act.

Again, I'm not sure...

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal;

So, unless the children develop their ideologies separately and therefore granted the right to express that religion without reprisals from their parents, or the government - their parents appear to have the right to empress them with their views.

You make the distinction yourself honoured Ambassador, to express is not to impress, the difference is profound, indeed the Freedom of Expression statute would seem to preclude the kind of indoctrination in question.

In any event this debate is redundant, the proposal is illegal since it represents an Ideological ban.


Yours,