Has all decency left the entire planet?

Frogman, I disagre with a term 'in fact' in a context you have used it. 
But, let me explain my thoughts, aldo I am sure that you are quite familiar with everything I 've got to say.
With all due respect I am surprised that I have to write such things in year 2020 (why religious education or upbringing should remain private thing)

The state has power not based on divine law (jus divinum) but on social contract that transcends religious, religious and any other personal or particular interests.

The state is thus positioned wider and more general than any particularism, especially religious, in order to guarantee citizens neutrality,  so that every citizen  can address the state if certain groups threaten his existence and world view by imposing his particular belifs

According to the postmodern understanding of society, the religious community as well as all social associations not only have the right of political stance, it is indispensable for pluralism to be complete. But in order to maintain pluralism, the state must remain the sole guarantor of generality and neutrality, and its constitution a guarantor of abstractness so that no particularity or individuality is favored. The law (constitution) of the state,let us not forget, is not written on a case-by-case basis and can apply equally to everyone only if the state is not part of any particular association

Religious education in public school classrooms would impair the neutrality of the state.The students of 'other' confessions or agnostics might think that, in addition to the equal rights they enjoy, there are nevertheless those who are more desirable, or "more equal" than them.

Some society might be, religiously and culturally majority religious, but it is decisive that this fact has nothing to do with the notion of majority or the notion of state, which in a civic sense should ensure neutrality for those who are in the minority.

It is precisely in this symbolic example (absence of religious education or any other form of religious influence in public or 'official' institutions) that the importance of state neutrality is perceived, that is, the reason why it emerged as an abstract, impersonal power which, in its breadth, abstractness and generality, transcends particularisms, in this case religious, but also of any other.

Only if there are no particular features in such places, citizens of another confessions or non religious people can except the state (or school) as their own, as one that is not only for members of some particular confession. Citizenship is not related to confessional affiliation. Nationality and citizenship in the western tradition differ and are not conditioned by religious affiliation, which is why citizenship as a legal term is broader and more general than belonging to a nation or confession.

In simplified terms, this means that no matter how many citizens on the census declare themselves believers for any reason, state neutrality exists because of one citizen who does not declare himself so. Only then can one speak of the liberal-democratic character of the state, because the will of the individual is protected from the will and worldview of the overwhelming majority. 

Frogman, your last paragraph has certain ambiguous meaning, at least to me.
Would you be so kind to explain it better?
If I may add something and hoping that it has some relation to the original subject, I would say that by all means any religion has no place in any 'official' education in any secular state.
 

Frogman, please stop me (or op. for that matter) if you think that this conversation has no place in this thread.

However, in meantime, this is the sentence from your previous post that I find controversial...
 'why is it surprising that in an age when there has been a concerted effort to remove God and spirituality from education... Bach’s music should be disrespected like this ...

Imho, any disrespect or barbarisam toward any civil or cultural heritage, may come from any number of reasons and none of them should be justified, no matter what 'explanation' may be in someones head.

But, on the other hand, I am quite sure that teachings about any God should be kept inside the religious institutions and not the part of any public ('official' ) education or constitution, except other than learning about history of it.

In this particular case, I believe that nobody single picked Bach to make some kind of statement and I dont think that Bach's relationship with church should be problem or significance (other than scholars) to anybody today.

Putting these things in some kind of correlation I find to be very ambiguous

Frogman, neither I said that you said something about 'excuses'.
I quoted some other sentence of yours, when you got the time, take a look.
Reageding Bach, would you say that only a person with deep understanding of his relationship with church and perhaps with simmilar feelings can enjoy his music?
Do you believe that 'others' would be less capable doing so?

Schubert, I am not sure did you understand what I wanted to say at my first comment
I believe every word you say about Bach or his role in somebodys religous life, but that was not the point of my objection.

I have simply said, au contraire to Frogman, that I do not think that moral erosion is society is caused by lack of 'religious influences' in education. (its a paraphrase, but I guess it comes to that)

Imho, religious teachings, of any kind,(except as mentioned as part of history,art literature,music or philosophy or part of some some other subject in context)   should not be part of public education in secular society.
Also, lack of such edcation in secular state does not meen that it will sink to moral decline without it

Schubert, allow me to correct you, it might be a surprise.
Also, many of following states are Republics too and all western countries are considered to be liberal democracys, in fact, here is the link

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

In Europe, only Spain, Romania, Norway and Turkey have some sort of mandatory religious education.

In Norway such subject is called ’Christianity, religion and philosophy of life’ and it is going thru public discussions is it ’fair’ or not to be educated.

In Spain you might be excluded from such education if you bring the conformation that you are not religious, the rule which has seen objection as well.

In Austria, Italy, Germany, Poland, Portugal and in some ex Yugoslavian states, the pupils can attend such subjects at schools, but religious education is not mandatory, meaning that children can usually chose between religious or some sort of subject that teaches ethics (also not mandatory)

Belgium has the same model, but the classes are mandatory, one or another kind

Greece, Holland and Great Britain have different solution. The teachings about religion are included in some subjects which are not stricly religious

So, in Greece its called ’The history of religions’ , the Dutch have something that can be translated as ’Knowing of societys, with history of religion included and in Britain they learn about few different religions and its praxes

France, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czech republic have no religious education at schools at all.

The Switzerland have many different models, all above included.

In constitution of EU, there is no mention of religious roots or connections
.Is it a fairy tale for the US, I would not know, but its never too late to become your reality too

Frogman, sometimes its really hard to get a straight answer from you, glad that you openly stated such a cynical remark  in your last sentence.

You write and I quote, again '.... why is it surprising that in an age when there has been a concerted effort to remove God and spirituality from education'....etc

For me, enough said. I dont think that anybody can or should try to 'remove' such things from a person's mind, heart, home or from any private place.

But, it can and it should be removed from all 'public' institutions or education, for all the reasons I have wrote 2 posts before.

Your last sentence seems to be very bitter and even worse, it represents the attitude very different from what the Americans usually and with pride represent as core value they are willing to fight for, that is the freedom of choice for any individual

Just imagine that instead of 'religious education' we are discussing 'marxist education'. Would you still say and I quote 

...'There is no agenda or pressure to exclude or to force the non-believer to conform in any way.'  .....

It takes the same mindframe that will try to implement singlemindness for everybody, or to think that there is no harm in that.
 What that subject might be is irrelevant for this story. 

Explain me how there would be no pressure for non believers if (marxist or religious, it makes no difference) education is mandatory?


If you cant grasp such a basic concept of individual liberty, protection of every individual and personal choice in public education  even after I wrote the page where I have explained the reasons behind such praxis (in Europe) than really my words are wasted on deaf ears, but next time you take a moment or two, before you decide to tell me some fairytail

Frogman, ' let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late'....

Usually there is always a possibility for missunderstanding, so I kindly ask you, again, to explain on which kind of education you thought when you wrote and I quote, again

...' why is it surprising that in an age when there has been a concerted effort to remove God and spirituality from education' ...etc

Now, to me, that does sounds like the way I understood it, but you are free to explain otherwise, please

'My view point' is not mine, per se, nor it is dogmatic.
It is the view represented by majority of secular european states.

There is no room for middle ground when freedom (in general sense, regarding this subject) is in question.
Either you are free or not.

I do not claim to understand Americans, or anyone else for that matter, but I assure you that I fully understand the ethics of idea I write about.

Since I am trying to make you explain your quoted sentence (I will give you the benefit of doubt)  will not try to assume what is exactly the fact that you or half of America have in common.

Since you said that you did not mention 'mandatory' (its true) I must ask on which kind of education you thought? 
What kind of education can be 'removed' (from where?) if its not already fixed as such? ('mandatory')

As for marxist or religious education, of course that it makes no difference...if its forced (mandatory) to be thought, it is the same for the ones who will have to learn it,if it is against their will.
But, let us not slip into empty talk....

As for bitternes, even if I missunderstood your words (regarding mandatory education) nothing that I wrote should represent something that one should be hopefull that such thing would not happen....

 Respect for every individual and his rights should be duty of every civilizied society and everything I wrote in my posts before explains why and how such things are dealt with in Europe (regarding subject of r.edc)

Now, you may not like it and you may hope that it will never happen in the US, but I challenge anyone to tell me what is the better solution?

Frogman, I am repeatedtly asking you to answer to my very simple question regarding your quoted comment.

It such answer we shall not read than I am very uncertain why do you keep this discussion going.

'Let us stop talking falsely' meaning in vain, for both of us

It is absolutley frutile trying to paint me as somebody who has a desire to claim how somebody ’should’ behave, since I am not expressing my personal viewpoint but certain praxis in many European states, on some which I agree with

I guess nobody should object on anything that I wrote of such matter, even if he shares your opinion, since there is also stated this

....’According to the postmodern understanding of society, the religious community as well as all social associations not only have the right of political stance, it is indispensable for pluralism to be complete. But in order to maintain pluralism, the state must remain the sole guarantor of generality and neutrality, and its constitution a guarantor of abstractness so that no particularity or individuality is favored.’

So, it is not about finding middle ground between ’my’ opinion and yours.
It is about the best what civilization right now has to offer and your opinion, whatever it might be.
I am very curios to hear specific answers what do you do not like or do not agree about it.(European praxis)