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

My opponent believes that a private school is a state institution and therefore religious studies should be excluded from the curriculum as required by the separation of church and state. However, just because government law dictates that children must attend school does not mean that a private school is a state-run institution. While it is regulated like all private enterprises, it is still a private enterprise. Any building owned and operated by a private school is private property, even if the students are required to attend. As private property, it is not a "state building". Imagine this hypothetical situation: the federal government passes a law saying that homelessness is illegal and everyone must find a place to live. According to this logic, all of the homes that a homeless person could potentially own or rent belong to the state, because it is a state requirement that these individuals be there. Reductio ad absurdum, this claim is false. My opponent claims that as progress is made in human history, laws are changed to reflect changing cultural attitudes. I have no doubt of this. However, the error in comparing the situation being discussed to that of slavery and Galileo is twofold: (1) the abolition of slavery and the abolition of religious oppression were both victories for freedom from unjust institutions, whereas telling private schools what they can and cannot teach seems like a victory for oppression from what is perceived to be unjust freedom; and (2) the possibility of "everyone" realizing that there is no god is not likely, and thus the necessity of changing laws with respect to private schools is not likely either. The existence of religion dates back to the beginning of civilization[1], and only with the end of civilization will there be no religion. Thirdly, it appears my opponent does not believe private school teachers and administrators have the discretionary capabilities to distinguish what is worthy of being taught and what is not, and proposes that we have, say, politicians decide for them: perhaps the same politicians who were indoctrinated in this private schools? The issue boils down to how we decide what is and what is not supported by empirical evidence. Anyone remotely familiar with the fields of chemistry, biology, and physics knows of the tremendous in-fighting that occurs between scientists about whether some theory is supported by evidence or contradicted by evidence. Nothing is cut and dry, and, honestly, there is no practical way of implementing what my opponent is proposing. My opponent chooses not to see the advance of science as a slash-and-burn process, but rather as a process of "updating" previous theories. The account I gave with respect to the theory of gravity does not share your point of view at all: the gravitational theory of Aristotle was not "updated" by Newton. Rather, Newton completely and utterly rejected Aristotle on his account. After all, instead of gravity being an inherent property of an object, gravity became action-at-a-distance acting upon that object. It was a complete paradigm shift: incommensurable with the previous theory. Aristotle was slashed-and-burned as physics moved into the 17th century, and since that time, nobody regards any aspect of Aristotle's theory as correct. While it is true that we teach these as "theories" instead of "laws", to suppose these theories are close to "100% correct" is an unjustified assumption. As the pessimistic meta-induction says, Aquinas and the Scholastics certainly thought that Aristotle was close to if not completely correct in his theory of gravity. Modern day theories deserve no special privilege when it comes to supposing their truth. All I am saying is that "empirically-verified" does not equal true, and if we are seeking to educate our children strictly in what is "true", "empirically-verified" (although it represents the best of man's knowledge at this point) does not always fit the bill. If anything, we have to teach children humility and open-mindedness. Holding back any kind of explanation, empirically verified or not, is antithetical to that goal. My opponent believes that people in Sweden are more free than in other, more religious countries, because the alleged majority (a claim which still has no citation from a source) in that country is atheist. However, according to the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom, Sweden is the 26th freest country in the world, whereas the United States is number six. Thus, to claim that a lack of religion is responsible for freedoms is inaccurate. Taking this a little further, consider what is considered as the most atheist country in Europe: the Czech Republic[2], which ranks a fabulous 37 on the Index[3]. My opponent does not believe that he needs to explain why science is no more credible than mythology. It seems that I have doubted one of my opponent's most fundamental assumptions: one that neither can nor wants to defend. In support of the existence of a free country, where private individuals are allowed what their children are taught in a private school, vote CON. My opponent has not demonstrated, to any extent whatsoever, that teaching religion in private school has an adverse effect on society in general or on individual children. Implementing my opponent's proposed laws is not only impractical, but also supremely immoral: it destroys the separation of church and state, and would threaten the autonomy of all citizens. The only support my opponent has for his position is his hatred for religion, which a vast majority of Americans does not share. The following statement can summarize my opponent's viewpoint: "A step toward [an atheist majority] is eliminating religion from educational facilities". The question is whether my opponent is willing to let people come to atheism on their own, or by forcing them (through closing educational facilities like private schools). Voting PRO is voting for atheist-fascism. Q. E. D. -------------------- [1] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] = . http://www.heritage.org...