No School, Public or Private, Should be Allowed to Teach Religion

'I use the separation of church and state as a justification for allowing private schools to teach religion because it is not within the government's constitutional powers to regulate what is taught or practiced by private individuals.' Why are children forced to go to school? Because it's a law created by the government. (state) This law forces students to either go to a public school or a private school. Since the government (state) is forcing children to go to a building 5 days a week, that building is technically a state building. Since it's a state building, religion should have no place being taught in that building. But even if you manage to prove that 'state' does not apply to private schools, that doesn't mean that law shouldn't be changed. People were free to own slaves at the time the Constitution was written, so it had to be amended to abolish slavery. During Galileo's time, people were put to death if they went against the Church's claims. But then it was discovered that the planets orbited around the sun, so that law had to be changed. When everyone realizes that there is no god, shouldn't the law of private schools be changed? 'Now my opponent has changed his position (which is similar to mine) that not even science should be taught as the truth (because scientific theories are at best approximations), but rather we ought to teach children about science and scientific theories. If this is the case, what privilege does science have over mythology? I will agree that empirical science is more useful in living our daily lives, but a lack of proof for religion does not exclude it from the realm of what private schools ought to teach.' I never changed my position, science should be taught as the truth if it has been proven. If it's still a scientific theory, then they should teach it but just called it 'The Theory of...' Science has many privileges over mythology, such as facts, proof, and evidence. Mythology are merely failed hypothesis from primitive man to try to explain things or tell stories. A lack of proof is one thing, but a lack off evidence is more than enough to not let that concept be taught as true in any school. As i said before, a law should be passed that a school can't teach something if there is no empirical evidence of it. 'My opponent disputes the pessimistic meta-induction on the basis that science was too "primitive" in past times. But how will scientists feel in the 26th century about 21st century? No doubt, they will share the same sentiments as you do with respect to 17th century science. To them, science from our time will be primitive. As for the theory of gravity, certainly the empirical phenomenon of gravity has been discussed since the time of Aristotle (why things fall back to the Earth). However, throughout the shift from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein, the actual theory of gravity has changed dramatically: from properties inherent in the object falling to Earth (Aristotle), to a grand force pulling on the object (Newton), to a property of space-time geometry (Einstein). These theories have been introduced in education and subsequently rejected because of the change in scientific focus. There is no guarantee that these theories are correct. Although I have no problem with them being taught, to give privilege to such theories because they are certain facts of reality is wrong. The point of the pessimistic meta-induction serves simply to undermine your argument: that just because something has proof, or at least credible evidence, does not make it the absolute truth.' An aspect of science usually doesn't get entirely disproved, it usually just gets more updated as science progresses. Especially from modern day on, emerging theories will tend to be closer and closer to the truth because of the rapidly advancing technology for science. Your explantation of the ideas of gravity from Aristotle to Einstein show this clearly, the updating of science opposed to the total disproving. True, there is no guarantee that scientific theories are 100% correct, but they are usually very, very close to the truth. And that is why they are taught as Scientific 'Theories,' if they were proven, they would be called Scientific 'Laws.' 'My opponent chose to convince an atheist that God does not exist. The point of the passage my opponent chose to quote and refute was not that there is a god, but that an existence of a god is not subject to the pure reason, pure rationality, and pure logic my opponent used in his disproof. No one reads a theologian's ontological argument and suddenly believes in the existence of a god. Whether someone believes in a god or not is his or her choice, and although that god might merely exist in that person's mind, to them that is an explanation they are at liberty to teach to their children by proxy.' I was not trying to convince you that god does not exist, as I already knew that you were an atheist. I was just refuting your claim that god can't be disproven. As much as I disagree with parents doing this, they do have the liberty to teach their children about what they believe, AT HOME. NOT HAVE A SCHOOL TEACH THEM. There will still be religious children even if a law is passed that private schools can't teach something without evidence. But the thing that's wrong with teaching religion in school, is that it's a school environment. At home or in a religious building such as a church, it is a family or multiple families teaching children religion. At school, it is a mass of children that will be the next generation, all being taught that a religion is true. In this environment, it will be seen as not normal to not believe in the religion that the school is teaching. Because of that many people will pretend to believe in that religion, convert to that religion, or be bullied for not believing in that religion. A school that doesn't teach religion, will give unbiased education to all students, and students will be generally more liberal to students that are a different religion or don't believe in religion. You say it would be better to have Christians who were taught in Christian schools than Christians who were taught in church. I say it would be better to have no one believe in religion in general. It will probably never happen entirely, but one day the majority of the United States will be atheist. One day, even the majority of the Earth will be atheist. A step toward that is eliminating religion from educational facilities. Let me re-phrase this: Over 80% of Sweden is atheist or agnostic. The corruption of North Korea and Communism cannot be linked to atheism, but atheism can be linked to the freedom of the people of Sweden. Since the church in Sweden has almost no power, there are little to no religion-based laws. This gives people in Sweden more freedom than people in the U.S. You're last claim that science is no more credible than mythology is to say that least, ridiculous. I shouldn't even have to explain why. In support of the progression of the United States of America by giving the next generations the right education, vote PRO.