Dear David,

«People may send their children to religious schools, but they or their religious organisation must pay the entire cost. The schools also must provide a secular curriculum which includes adequate instruction in science and the humanities. I believe it should be that way here. Religion should not be any of the government's business, and government should not be any of religion's business.»

Indeed, "science and humanities" is not a religion, but it is a particular world-view. Religions offer a different world-view, so different in fact that there is not even an agreement about what life is for.

What you are asking, is for your particular world-view to be taught for free by all tax-payers regardless of their world-view, except that those who want to pass on their different world-view to their own children must not only pay for it, but also pay for the forced indoctrination of their children with your world-view.

Sounds quite similar to what Iftikhar is asking (and I intend to address my criticism to his original post separately, time allowing). Does "missionary" and "crusader" rings a bell?

So you want separation of government and religion? Fair enough, I want it too, but separation means SEPARATION, not domination, and it must include all world-views, not just religious!

Let each parent choose for themselves how their child is to be educated, then they must naturally foot the bill. If certain groups of parents want to pool their education-finances among them, then so be it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

What you say would be legitimate if parents did have a right to indoctrinate children with their worldview without interference. However, a child has rights also. A child living in a modern society has the right to be informed about that society. Some Amish in the US recognise that. They have a tradition of Rumspringa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa

Young people are allowed a period where they can become acquainted with the outside world. At the end of that period they may choose not to be part of the community or come back to the community. I do not wish more discussion with you and will not respond further to your posts.

I think diversity is really great. Great provided it is diverse nations, & not divers populations with in nations.

Those who want to be Muslim should stay in countries predominately Muslim rather than bring their stupidity where it is not wanted.

To Iftkihar. Four thoughts.

1). What you are talking about is not diversity, but supporting seperation of education based on religion. Diversity would be if schools were for everyone, and each of their cultural heritages were welcomed to be embraced. Or diversity would be a merging of customs within society. What you are talking about is to remove Islamic culture and education from the nation that the Muslims reside in. So to buffer the Muslims from the problems of the culture that they reside in.

2). While I can respect your or anyone else's intent to protect your kids from harm done in our culture (any culture), what your asking to do is not just protect you kids of cultural issues, but also rob them of accepting the nation they live in by total rejection of the culture.

3). It is the job of the parents to raise their children up in a way to avoid the pitfalls that they know of in their community. But you can't buffer them completely from society. If drinking or drugs are an issue you're concerned with. Then teaching your kids to be mature and drug free, regardless of friends and peer pressure, is your job. If you go further to go to a privite school, or even a boarding school, then that is on your expense and your privite income. Not public taxes or the government. On the other hand, if your intent is to do more then buffer your kids from the harm of society, but to teach them to reject the society they live in. Then you should move to a different society. There's no reason to expect a society to give up who they are for people who don't want to be there anyways.

(Continued)

(Continued)

4) that all said. If it is still important due to the integrity of a minority's people and culture, to be able to have their own schools and own laws. Then I would ask that Islamic countries be the change they wish to see the rest of the world to adopt. And by that I mean, let the minorities in their countries live safely, and have the equal right to teach their own religion (not Islam), and live by their own laws (not sharia laws). Without that example that is given in Islam nor in Islamic countries; there's no reason to give Islam a special privileges. Because they are unwilling to offer the surrounding communities and cultures that are not their own.

Dear David,

I can understand why you wouldn't want to discuss any further and respond to my posts:

Many times you commented here, quite skilfully, about the historical atrocities of the Christian church - such as how it murdered Hypatia, etcetera. Yes, the medieval church behaved awfully and trampled underfoot all rivalling worldviews, so did communism.

You consider it important and acceptable for parents who adhere to sciencist humanism to indoctrinate not only their own children, but all others as well with their modern nonsense, but deny other parents the right to shield their children from this damaging philosophy. This exposes your attitude to be on a par with the medieval Christian church and communism. It must feel awful.

Regarding Rumspringa, the Amish people choose to have it for their own good reasons, not because they would face law-enforcement authorities otherwise. It is up to Muslims to choose whether or not they want to have a similar tradition, for their own good rather than to forward your ideology.