Religious/Faith Schools should be banned in the UK

Definitions "My opponent seem to be ignoring the first part of my definition of religious schools- "that which is run by or for a religious establishment or religious community." The definition did not then say "OR any school whose religious teachings are not monitored by the state". It was to include both." I would draw my opponents attention to my statement clarifying the definition set by him; "I will be mainly arguing that as your definition includes all private schools, regardless of how secular ("any school whose religious teachings are not monitored by the state"), and that private schools provide decent social benefit. Whenever the two clauses of the definitions are in conflict, or describe two different groups we shall err in favour of the latter clause." I had stated my intention to interprete the definition in this in comments prior to accepting the debate. My opponent had no objections then. He also did not contest the clarification in the following round. Therefore, as private schools do not have their religious teaching monitered by the state, the resolution includes the banning of all private schools. [1] Therefore when by opponent stated; "I am not against private schools, as the money raised from fees may help build good facilities, buy equipment, and possibly employ better teachers." he has essentially conceded the debate, as he is not against the existence of private schools, therefore does not support banning them. I would also add that I agree with my opponent that I do require sources to back-up my experiences in private education, whilst reminding him to be sympathetic to the fact that due to the almost non-existant complaints about RS teaching in private schools it is difficult to find evidence which states that there is no cause for complaint. I have, however, done my best to try and find sources to back up my assertions. I also contest the assertion that I am trying to make this into a private vs state school argument. I solely argue that private schools ought not to be banned, regardless of religious teachings. I would also clarify that I do not beleive religion has anymore right to exist than any other facet of society in dictating schooling, however private institutions have the right to teach what they would like to as long as the parents, those who are legally responsible for the children, are not coerced by circumstances into sending their children there. Consider the alternative; if private institutions are not allowed to teach what they please, then the state is claiming to have a monopoly on truth! If that is taken as true it would justify the state locking up dissenters and restricting people's free speech. Furthermore it is the legal perogative of private institutions to choose their clients. If I were to set up a school I would have the right to select which students attended whether I base my admissions on religion or academic merit. "Discrimination", that is the act of differentiating between two things is not illegal. If I were to allow Badger to enter my school for Irish drunkards over interrogator, because he is not a mouth-breathing idiot, I have discriminated between the two. Likewise, if I hire a christian to teach RS because I have, using the autonomy gained as a private institution, decided that Christian theology is what I want to teach, it would be lawful and socially expedient. Similarly, it is the right of the parent to choose which private school to send them to. To suggest otherwise is to undermine our civil liberties. The rights of a child in relation to their parent is the right to not be physically, mentally, or sexually abused (probably a few more) Unless you would go further than Dawkins and claim that parents teaching religion to their child is child abuse [2], there is no right to not be indoctrinated. And quite rightly so! It would be the one right violated consistently by all good parents, religious or not, as a good parent would be one who teaches their child moral standards, how to behave in society and other such qualities. Each can equally be called indoctrination. It is the parents right to bring up their child as they see fit, without abusing them. Turning my attention now to the arguments that I apparently have only dropped; Freedom of choice; - There is a much greater level of choice in the private education system, due to the ability of anyone being able to set up a education institution, thus allowing a much wider variety of educational standards. - Segregation I concede the wealthy cannot attend private schools. I fail to see why this supports their abolitiion. Poor people cannot afford sports cars. It doesn't mean sports cars ought not exist. Aside from this the private school system does not support segregation. - Hypocrisy As long as no law is broken, any institution may setup a school (including the KKK! (though they would have to be very careful about the first clause)) and admit who they want. - RE In private schools the RE lessons, as with all subjects, are inspected by an independant board (http://en.wikipedia.org...(UK). I would also state that it is the right of the private institution to teach what it wants, within the law. It should not be banned because it does not conform with the state's version of the truth. I would remind my opponent that these private schools exist in a pseudo free-market (pseudo because location is major inhibiter to choice, but not large enough to prevent market forces), and the most valued aspect of an education system is its ability to get a child into a good university. That is to say; to pass exams. Therefore if the children are not taught effectively, the schools value will diminish greatly, preventing it from existing. Thus, as long as the motivation of the market remains fixed on the output, the private education market is self regulating. Counter arguments 1) You are quite right in that I have failed to provide sources. I apologize. This source shows that people attending private schools are four times more likely to get an A* in any given subject(http://en.wikipedia.org...(UK)). 2) In all fairness you have straw-manned my argument. My argument is not "Why should they be banned if they already exist?", but rather that banning them is extreme when regulation would, for someone with your beliefs, aleviate all concerns and continue to help provide the already over burdened education systems with more institutes for education. 3) You assert that religion has nothing to do with education without warrent. Many philosophers have always mantained that learning should not be seperated from spirituality. Furthermore you keep asserting that certain groups, such as religious ones, do not have the right to have their views aired in a private institution. This is without warrent. If there is demand, the private institution (as long as it abides by the law) is justified. I have shown that not only has my opponent conceded the debate, but also that the banning of certain "faith schools" (private schools) even if they are overtly religious would be to destroy the freedom of speech which is highly valued in British society. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... Sources http://en.wikipedia.org...