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

Again, you try to use the separation of church and state as reason FOR schools to be allowed to teach religion. Even if it does refer to religion in general, it would still apply to separation from educational facilities. When it says 'Church' in Thomas Jefferson's statements, it refers to all religious buildings (churches, synagogues, others). Religion should not be taught alongside academics, therefor, religion has no place in a school. 'my opponent should have no problem with schools teaching scientific theories as absolute truth.' I have no problem with it, if the theories have been proven, but if they haven't but there is still evidence of them, then they can be taught as possibly true. If it has no evidence whatsoever, (religion) then it should not be taught as true, or possible, in any educational facility. 'The problem with this view is that scientific theories are frequently false. According to the pessimistic meta-induction[1], we do not have good reason to think that our presently successful scientific theories are true or approximately true because the history of science is a graveyard of once empirically successful theories with meaningless referents. In Medieval times, students were taught Aristotelian physics, which, although empirically successful, turned out to be false. In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, students were taught Newtonian physics, which, although empirically successful, turned out to be false. If the successful scientific theories of the past all turned out to be false, there is no reason to believe that our current, successful scientific theories are true.' We're talking about the 1600-1800s here. Of course they had many failed theories, their science was too primitive to be able to discover many scientific theories. Gravity is still a theory, no matter how far science progresses, it will probably always be called a theory. But does it have enough enough to be taught in schools? Yes. That is why it is taught as the Theory of Gravity, and the Theory of Evolution. In the present day, we have the ability to tell if something is evidence for a theory or not. If we can do that, then why shouldn't modern science be taught in schools if it has proof or at least credible evidence? 'For better or for worse, religious beliefs have never been proven otherwise, and thus there is a special certainty that they are immune to disproof.' Okay, I'll disprove god right now. Suppose a god exists. According to the bible, it is all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-good, can judge people, and is immortal. All-knowing and all-powerful are technically impossible, but say they are possible. An all-knowing/all-good being would require a brain, an all-seeing/hearing being would require eyes/ears, and a god in the image of man would require the rest of the body's organs. A law of science states that all-living things die, so an immortal god is impossible. A god would also be extremely complex and couldn't possibly just pop up out of nowhere, and there would be nothing for a god to exist on before he supposedly created the universe. Another way to disprove god is using something called LOGIC. 'Moreover, to a large degree, I do not believe private schools teach religions as true (from my own experience in a private school). They indeed teach about religion, but religious values are reinforced in the home and cemented by the parents' beliefs.' Have you ever heard of a Catholic School? 'In the absence of these private schools, children will still become religious (albeit much more ignorant about what they believe).' People will still become religious, but significantly less people. If everyone in the school is taught religion, then it would be seen as the norm to believe in it, and a lot more people would become very ignorant about what they believe. If no one in the school was taught religion, then it wouldn't be seen as the norm, and people would be less ignorant because there would be more atheists/agnostics in the school. 'Lastly, my opponent believes that religious values hold the country back, because politicians (a lot of whom attend private schools) have a biased, religious education. However, there is no reason to suppose that a completely atheist society would be any better than an overtly Christian one. As an atheist myself, I hate to make this argument, but there are plenty of counter-examples to this: such as the Soviet Union and North Korea, which restricted religious freedom in the same way that my opponent is proposing. The right balance is a virtuous mean between atheist and theist, and not imposing one's values on one's neighbor. My opponent questions why the children should be taught "mythology". I personally think that much of science today is composed of mythology, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation. However, education is a matter that individual parents must decide for their children, for education falls under the heading of a parent's greater responsibility to the welfare of his or her child.' A great example of an atheist country is Sweden. Over 80% of Sweden's population is atheist, and Sweden is one of the most advanced and peaceful countries in the world. On the Human Development Index, Sweden is ranked at 7, which is 8 countries higher than the U.S. You can't link the corruption of North Korea and Communism to atheism. No one was ever killed in the name of atheism, but millions have been killed in the name of religion. 'The right balance is a virtuous mean between atheist and theist, and not imposing one's values on one's neighbor.' If you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm not going to stick a gun to your head and force you to not believe in it. I'm just saying that a law should be passed that an educational facility can't teach something if it doesn't have evidence. 'My opponent questions why the children should be taught "mythology". I personally think that much of science today is composed of mythology' Science is composed of facts and evidence, mythology is composed of blind faith as an explanation for something. 'individual parents must decide for their children, for education falls under the heading of a parent's greater responsibility to the welfare of his or her child.' Children should choose which religion or absence of religion they choose to believe in, not their parents. If the parents want to try to force their delusions on their child, the parents can do that at home, not have a school do it for them.