Faith schools are immoral, children should not be indoctrinated.

It seems we have run into a philosophical difference here regarding "correct" and "good to know," but I will resist introducing it seeing that it is round 5. "I would argue that that would be a moral infringement, of course it's wrong to teach children things that we know aren't true (unless it concerns major holidays or how good their drawings are)"Now ask (and I will need to answer myself), how does telling children that God exists differ from telling them that Santa does? My opponent concedes that there is no issue with telling kids that "Santa brings them presets," where i the issue in telling them that "God Exists and answers prayers," especially when the parents believe in a god? I see no moral infringement here, and by Pro's concession, it does not sound like he does either. "My point here is that yes, religion is laced with moral teachings, as fanta is laced with vitamin c, but that doesn't make it the best way to learn morals, as drinking fanta isn't the best way to get vitamin c. "Applause. Unfortunately, it misses one fundamental point:Children are often deficient in "Vitamin C," those who drink "Fanta" are, in general, much healthier than those who don't. This is an obvious analogy for religion; here I argue that, on average, children who go to faith schools have, on average, stronger morals than the general public, though I cannot source this on round 5, but I'll support t below. "children are taught and involved in discussions about what makes a good person, why do we have laws, sex education etc etc. I think this is a far more constructive way of building a better society, without involving religion in a direct way. "To continue with your analogy, this is placing a "orange" before children leaving them to decide weather or not they eat it. Some will, but without the idea of an all knowing deity, how many will eat the orange? If they ae given "fanta," and are supervised by a God as they drink it, I think that their chances of ingesting sufficient amounts of vitamin C are greatly increased. (Translation for any simpler voters: Children will be more likely to accept religion than general, unenforced and unjustified teachings. )"anyone with half a brain can smell bulls**t here, the problem is that the children are being deprived of education in favour of religious doctrine"It seems here that Pro switches the focus of his argument to a "it wastes time from other teaching. " I counter with two arguments: 1. The college acceptance rates of Faith school graduates is much higher (Which, in fairness I will not site, though voters can check themselves. )2. Morality is more important than math or science or English, and I believe that we agree here. It's no waste. "Although a person can lead a perfectly normal and happy life believing in a god, the existence of god is not a fact, and should be taught as a belief, not as fact. "It sounds as if we agree: nothing is lost worshiping a God. I, for the sake of debate, do not care if that person's god exists or not. I wish to reference "If everyone were christian and god did not exist" argument. My conclusion stays unchanged:Negligible loss, substantial gain.