What do you think of religious schools requiring church attendance?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

When I went to a private Christian school as a child they made us get a paper signed every year by a pastor of a church verifying that we attend church or we could not attend the school. This is apparently very common. I was always confused about this as a child, since it seems that if the point of a Christian school is to teach children about Christ and salvation then they should be all the more eager to have the children who don't attend church enrolled, since this might be their only exposure to Christianity. Looking at it now as an adult it seems that to many Christians these schools are more of a safe space for their kids, where they can be free from "corrupting influences", and have no real interest in actually bringing new people into the faith.

[Vice President Christian Man]

It's a good idea in theory but not in practice. People who go to church should want to attend. They can't be forced to attend and expect to get anything out of it. It just ends up being a waste of time and backfires any attempt of increasing one's religiosity/belief.

[Xeuma]

Obviously a good thing. It is hard enough to raise children as religious in such a manner that you will have grandchildren raised likewise that any positives from reversing this practice would be disastrous, more so than it already is.

[LabourJersey]

Religious schools can go ahead and do that (this is essentially the terms of a contract - responsibilities of a student/their family in exchange for attending).

Though this raises the question of what happens to students who aren't in the faith/in the particular denomination of the school itself. It's extremely common in the Northeast for the most selective/respected Catholic schools to have a Protestant students who are there strictly there for academics or sports (especially the Football/Basketball schools).

[Cokeland Saxton]

This is a horrible thing to do. Forcing more children who have no say in the matter to attend an institution that ruins kids’ childhoods and causes long-lasting negative effects into adulthood is absolutely disgusting. I speak from firsthand experience here.

[Skill and Chance]

It's a good idea in theory but not in practice. People who go to church should want to attend. They can't be forced to attend and expect to get anything out of it. It just ends up being a waste of time and backfires any attempt of increasing one's religiosity/belief.

Hmmm... conditioning membership in one private institution on membership in another private institution with the same or similar values doesn't seem like a major liberty issue to me? 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think it depends on where. In America where there is a surfeit of options to send children to school, it's entirely reasonable for a religious school to require that its students actually adhere to and actively practice the faith. In third world countries where the religious school might be the only place for the local children to receive an education, it's best if they open their doors to anyone and everyone.

[Cassius]

This is a horrible thing to do. Forcing more children who have no say in the matter to attend an institution that ruins kids’ childhoods and causes long-lasting negative effects into adulthood is absolutely disgusting. I speak from firsthand experience here.

Public schools aren’t great, you’re right.

[RINO Tom]

This is a horrible thing to do. Forcing more children who have no say in the matter to attend an institution that ruins kids’ childhoods and causes long-lasting negative effects into adulthood is absolutely disgusting. I speak from firsthand experience here.

And you speak ONLY for your firsthand experience.  Many kids don't come away with long-lasting negative effects at all in fact have long-lasting positive effects.  So, you're biased against religion because of negative things that happened to you ... fair enough.  But that only speaks for your situation, just as my decision with my son and everyone else's will be its own separate thing.

[Cokeland Saxton]

This is a horrible thing to do. Forcing more children who have no say in the matter to attend an institution that ruins kids’ childhoods and causes long-lasting negative effects into adulthood is absolutely disgusting. I speak from firsthand experience here.

And you speak ONLY for your firsthand experience.  Many kids don't come away with long-lasting negative effects at all in fact have long-lasting positive effects.  So, you're biased against religion because of negative things that happened to you ... fair enough.  But that only speaks for your situation, just as my decision with my son and everyone else's will be its own separate thing.

There is no positive effects from being raised as a Christian, and it's delusional to think so.

[Aurelius2]

Perfectly reasonable and sensible in many to most cases. Agree with PiT here.

This is a horrible thing to do. Forcing more children who have no say in the matter to attend an institution that ruins kids’ childhoods and causes long-lasting negative effects into adulthood is absolutely disgusting. I speak from firsthand experience here.

And you speak ONLY for your firsthand experience.  Many kids don't come away with long-lasting negative effects at all in fact have long-lasting positive effects.  So, you're biased against religion because of negative things that happened to you ... fair enough.  But that only speaks for your situation, just as my decision with my son and everyone else's will be its own separate thing.

There is no positive effects from being raised as a Christian, and it's delusional to think so.

How can you say this so confidently? Extrapolating from the experience of one person is just the good old typical-mind trap.

[Vice President Christian Man]

It's a good idea in theory but not in practice. People who go to church should want to attend. They can't be forced to attend and expect to get anything out of it. It just ends up being a waste of time and backfires any attempt of increasing one's religiosity/belief.

Hmmm... conditioning membership in one private institution on membership in another private institution with the same or similar values doesn't seem like a major liberty issue to me? 

As Cokeland mentioned, some people don't have a choice.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's a good idea in theory but not in practice. People who go to church should want to attend. They can't be forced to attend and expect to get anything out of it. It just ends up being a waste of time and backfires any attempt of increasing one's religiosity/belief.

Hmmm... conditioning membership in one private institution on membership in another private institution with the same or similar values doesn't seem like a major liberty issue to me? 

As Cokeland mentioned, some people don't have a choice.

And even if the family as a whole is in a position where it's a meaningful choice, for the child there's never a ton of liberty involved in school attendance anyway. Compelled attendance at religious services for students at religious colleges makes sense, and I don't think this question is open-and-shut by any means, but at the K-12 level I tend to agree that it's unjust as generally practiced.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

My instinctive reaction is negative (what counts as church attendance anyway?) but I also find the trend, apparently quite common in the United States and other places, of not particularly religious or not even Catholic parents sending their children to Catholic school even more instinctively perplexing. I don't know if it happens with other denominations, I don't remember ever hearing about it. That said, I have no direct experience with this so explanatory replies would be welcome.

[afleitch]

There were times when I went every day while at school. On spiritual retreat, as early as 4 am after a 45 minute walk from the residency.

I don't have an issue with religious schools requiring church attendance. I do have an issue if they try and determine or 'force' ones experience of it. If someone attends, and feels 'nothing' and gets nothing from it, that's something that should be respected.

[dead0man]

My instinctive reaction is negative (what counts as church attendance anyway?) but I also find the trend, apparently quite common in the United States and other places, of not particularly religious or not even Catholic parents sending their children to Catholic school even more instinctively perplexing. I don't know if it happens with other denominations, I don't remember ever hearing about it. That said, I have no direct experience with this so explanatory replies would be welcome.

I have to assume it went like this:
1.Catholic parents of kids don't want little Michael and Mary going to school with Claus, Bubba, and Toby so they had their local church start a school
2.one day the basketball coach goes to who ever is in charge and says, "hey Tony, one of my boys has a buddy who is just an amazing player, now, he's a good kid, but, ahhh, he's a bit of a Methodist..."
3.wash, rinse, repeat, now they've got 8% of their school as non-Catholics (but they've got a hell of basketball team and are finally competitive in football and track)
4.there is a big fight at the local public High School and Nancy Reagan keeps saying drugs are everywhere, so local fancy parents don't want Buffy and Trey with that....element and the only private schools in the area are weird, tiny Fundy Christian ones, or the local Catholic HS with the basketball team you keep reading about in the paper.  I bet if we offer to buy some uniforms or a new team bus, they'd let Trey play on the team, that would look great to good colleges.

at least I think that's how it worked where I grew up (St Louis area 80s/90s)  In the post Covid world its going to be easier to just homeschool or get together with other Karen parents and do them "pod" things.

[vitoNova]

When I went to Catholic school as a kid, we had compulsory Mass every Thursday.  It wasn't a big deal.  lol

It was actually kinda fun. Unlike attending Church with family (BORING AF), I was with my friends.  99% of the time we were goofing off behind the pews.  

Not once in my life have I ever considered myself "religious"--even as a wee young child--but the only weird thing I remember from my brief 2 years of Catholic school is how about half of my fellow classmates took the Eucharist with the priest shoving his dirty, nasty-ass fingers down their gullet-holes, as opposed to the perfectly logical option of receiving the wafer with left-hand-cupped-under-right.  

There were kids in my class who had hardcore weirdo Opus-Dei cultist parents who wrote letters to the principal demanding that Mass be held in Traditional Latin.  Because reasons.  

[Skill and Chance]

It's a good idea in theory but not in practice. People who go to church should want to attend. They can't be forced to attend and expect to get anything out of it. It just ends up being a waste of time and backfires any attempt of increasing one's religiosity/belief.

Hmmm... conditioning membership in one private institution on membership in another private institution with the same or similar values doesn't seem like a major liberty issue to me? 

As Cokeland mentioned, some people don't have a choice.

And even if the family as a whole is in a position where it's a meaningful choice, for the child there's never a ton of liberty involved in school attendance anyway. Compelled attendance at religious services for students at religious colleges makes sense, and I don't think this question is open-and-shut by any means, but at the K-12 level I tend to agree that it's unjust as generally practiced.

Children don't and shouldn't have free expression rights enforceable against their parents except to be protected from clear abuse/neglect.  It's the parent's right to raise their child as they see fit that's the liberty interest that's being protected here. 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It's a good idea in theory but not in practice. People who go to church should want to attend. They can't be forced to attend and expect to get anything out of it. It just ends up being a waste of time and backfires any attempt of increasing one's religiosity/belief.

Hmmm... conditioning membership in one private institution on membership in another private institution with the same or similar values doesn't seem like a major liberty issue to me?  

As Cokeland mentioned, some people don't have a choice.

And even if the family as a whole is in a position where it's a meaningful choice, for the child there's never a ton of liberty involved in school attendance anyway. Compelled attendance at religious services for students at religious colleges makes sense, and I don't think this question is open-and-shut by any means, but at the K-12 level I tend to agree that it's unjust as generally practiced.

Children don't and shouldn't have free expression rights enforceable against their parents except to be protected from clear abuse/neglect.  It's the parent's right to raise their child as they see fit that's the liberty interest that's being protected here.  

Calling one humans ability to control how another human being thinks and talks a "liberty interest" is like calling a shrimp and bacon cheeseburger kosher.

[pikachu]

Neurtral. I don't think it's necessary in order for a religious school to achieve mission since the religious aspects can be easily integrated into day-to-day academic life. During my seven years in Catholic school, we still did morning prayers, religion classes, masses on First Fridays and major holidays, and did prepping for receiving sacraments during normal school hours. But I also don't see anything wrong with a religious school restricting attendance to only those who are religious, and my guess is that you get a more religious crowd doing so compared to my school, where you have non-religious families like mine who were just there for idiosyncratic reasons.

[Mr. Smith]

This is a horrible thing to do. Forcing more children who have no say in the matter to attend an institution that ruins kids’ childhoods and causes long-lasting negative effects into adulthood is absolutely disgusting. I speak from firsthand experience here.

And you speak ONLY for your firsthand experience.  Many kids don't come away with long-lasting negative effects at all in fact have long-lasting positive effects.  So, you're biased against religion because of negative things that happened to you ... fair enough.  But that only speaks for your situation, just as my decision with my son and everyone else's will be its own separate thing.

There is no positive effects from being raised as a Christian, and it's delusional to think so.

Even as an ex-religious person, I cannot in good conscience say this is true. In fact, this reeks of the same zealotry you're decrying about Christianity.

That said, I'd voted no on the assumption that even the weekend with the Sabbath could be involved, I'm neutral on the matter if the religious services and attendance factor in only to school hours. But a student shouldn't have to tally off where they go off hours.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's a good idea in theory but not in practice. People who go to church should want to attend. They can't be forced to attend and expect to get anything out of it. It just ends up being a waste of time and backfires any attempt of increasing one's religiosity/belief.

Hmmm... conditioning membership in one private institution on membership in another private institution with the same or similar values doesn't seem like a major liberty issue to me? 

As Cokeland mentioned, some people don't have a choice.

And even if the family as a whole is in a position where it's a meaningful choice, for the child there's never a ton of liberty involved in school attendance anyway. Compelled attendance at religious services for students at religious colleges makes sense, and I don't think this question is open-and-shut by any means, but at the K-12 level I tend to agree that it's unjust as generally practiced.

Children don't and shouldn't have free expression rights enforceable against their parents except to be protected from clear abuse/neglect.  It's the parent's right to raise their child as they see fit that's the liberty interest that's being protected here. 

Calling one humans ability to control how another human being thinks and talks a "liberty interest" is like calling a shrimp and bacon cheeseburger kosher.

Eh, it's being used as a generalized term for the whole set of potential First Amendment issues that the question raises, not a special term for the parents' interests specifically; this is consistent with how the expression is normally used in American legal theory and jurisprudence.

Skill and Chance is correct about how the First Amendment is currently read, of course, but I think viewing children as legal extensions of their parents tout court presents bigger moral issues that aren't usually acknowledged, especially not in the United States.

[UWS]

Depends on the state

[Kleine Scheiße]

Support generally in principle but sometimes not in practice at the college level; oppose generally in practice but not in principle for K-12.

[DaleCooper]

Pathetic.