Questions of Constitutionality

[direwolf23]

Yeah, I know, you've only just read the title and you're already yawning and contemplating fuzzy naps. Thankfully, Dr. Tiggyfluff here has selflessly agreed to take that nap for you so you can continue and read the post.

Comments

[foxplay]

So how are religous schools exactly legal? they are privately funded, but its not the childs choice to go there. They may THINK its their choice, but in essence they are sent to them by their parents

The fact that they are public / private makes little diffrence to me even if they are 100% funded privately with absolutely no state funding, or federal or state tax breaks (read:not likely) I believe they infringe upon the rights of the child, and thus should be 100% illegal and brought to court as well.

IMO thats just me, ppl are free to believe in their imaginary friends and be batshitcrazy fucktarded adults if they want to, but it needs to be a choice at or after age of consent, and thus out of the school system entirely.

[direwolf23]

Only government funded school aren't allowed to have religious messages, and there is nothing in our law that states a parent can't teach their religion and/or principles to their own child. *shrugs*

I understand your concern for indoctrination, but I've never head a viable solution presented that addresses this issue, and I don't think we'll ever have one proscribed by law. I think that you're best hope would be a future where it isn't socially acceptable to introduce someone to religion until they're at an age that they can fully understand what they're being presented with and make an informed decision about it.

[foxplay]

Indoctrination is a problem in itself, but a religous school set up as a place of learning can also be extremly harmfull to the childs education as set by the standards of today.

A long time ago everybody thought the world was flat, think that nowadays and they will put you in a straight jacket and give you some meds to laugh the stupid away.

I see no diffrence in religous institutions of learning as any theory or "damn well proven fact with plenty of evidence" conflicting with their religous teachings will either A) Not be taught at all B) Be presented to the children but in a negative manner and not a stance of neutrality C) beat the fuck out of kids with a ruler for thinking such evil thoughts

[direwolf23]

The problem here is that the respect has to go both ways. Even if we don't agree with a belief, that doesn't mean we necessarily have the right to stop people from believing it.

Something that is important to remember when it comes to issues like this is not to conflate the ridiculous beliefs with all the rest. I'm pretty sure you're primary issues with religion are the same as mine in that you don't think it's right to hold beliefs that denigrate others, lead to persecution, or attempt to contradict modern science/reality/or social equality.

The law itself is very restricted in this area from acting, because we're lucky enough to live in a country where you can hold whatever belief you want. The best the law can do is restrict activities that will lead to injustice or inequality, while still not preventing beliefs. From there, it's up to us to help change people's minds about what is and isn't acceptable. Which, incidentally, is something I am attempting to do all the time. ^.^

[lacy]

We can just take kids away from their families at an early age, if the state raises them then there's no indoctrination. :P

[ziabandito555]

I think the argument you're working under has one major flaw: the supposition that children have the same rights as adults or the ability to appeal to such rights as they pertain to themselves. As I understand it we are not fully invested citizens and thus gain full rights until the age of 18, as much as I disagree with this system as I and other started paying taxes as early as fourteen. Instead children are a protected group essentially assumed to not be able to make informed capable choices or exercise their rights appropriately and so must be protected. I'm not saying I agree with the argument merely that I think the philosophical underpinning of it applies to this situation. If children do not enjoy equal rights to adults then they are thus under their parent's decisions and choices.