30 Sep 07
3 edits
Apparenlty, Quebec is threatening Mennonite families that if they don't send their children to public school to be educated about evolution they might take them away.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57199
Should they be allowed to do this?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyStrange... it seems the story is not completely told.
Apparenlty, Quebec is threatening Mennonite families that if they don't send their children to public school to be educated about evolution they might take them away.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57199
Should they be allowed to do this?
That's a good debate:
"Is the state (society) responsible for the education of its children, or the parents?"
For me, the parents should choose the education for their children, but at the same time by doing they might be taking away inadvertently a good future for their kids.
Imagine at a bigger degree some religious fanatics who believe knowledge is for the worshipers of satan and decide to private their kids from all kind of scientific knowledge. Should the state intervene?
30 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoI think there's some parallels with the idea of blood transfusions for the children of Jehovas witnesses. Under the teachings of that religion, blood transfusions are forbidden, but given that they are generally required to ensure survival, parents, in Ireland at least are not allowed to refuse a blood transfusion for their child on religious grounds. It is to protect the safety of the child.
Strange... it seems the story is not completely told.
That's a good debate:
"Is the state (society) responsible for the education of its children, or the parents?"
For me, the parents should choose the education for their children, but at the same time by doing they might be taking away inadvertently a good future for their kids.
Imagine at a bigger d ...[text shortened]... cide to private their kids from all kind of scientific knowledge. Should the state intervene?
The parallel I see is that if it is considered that a balanced education is necessary for a childs development, than the rights of the parent take second place. Just because the children are to be taught evolutionary theory does not prevent the parents from teaching their own beliefs, but to provide parents with complete control of their childs curriculum may result in a poorly balanced education. This would be bad for society and the state, and ultimately for the children and ths I believe the state should be able to force a child to learn the state curriculum, provided it does not cross the line of preventing the parents own views from being taught at home (which is not the case).
30 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyEvolution has nothing to do with this. If the question is "should they be forced to learn about evolution or face having their children taken away?" then clearly it's wrong, but that's not what the real issue is here. The question that has been misrepresented is "should all children attend school by law and if failing to do so, should they be taken away from families who deprive those children of an education?" - maybe.
Apparenlty, Quebec is threatening Mennonite families that if they don't send their children to public school to be educated about evolution they might take them away.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57199
Should they be allowed to do this?
Firstly, religious belief is no grounds for disobeying the law and those families just have to deal with that. Each person should be allowed to practice his own religion privately, but when that practice contravenes the law of the country they live in, then tough. I have always and will always champion a separation of state and church. Secondly, home schooling is no substitute for public schooling on both educational and social developmental levels. Education is about being given the tools to make your own decisions, your own boundaries and your own social context, home schooling within religious communities retards such development.
EDIT: And on the subject of teaching evolution, any parent that would by choice stop their child from learning what arguments there are, be they for evolution or nonsense like ID, by keeping their child isolated, doesn't deserve to bring up a child. A pet dog would be a better, more obedient choice.
01 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanBut what of private schooling? What of home schooling that is academically to par or even better than public schoolling? You make quite a few assumptions here. You ASSUME that a public education is far better than a home school or possible a private education with a religious influence.
Evolution has nothing to do with this. If the question is "should they be forced to learn about evolution or face having their children taken away?" then clearly it's wrong, but that's not what the real issue is here. The question that has been misrepresented is "should all children attend school by law and if failing to do so, should they be taken away f doesn't deserve to bring up a child. A pet dog would be a better, more obedient choice.
Is it not the job of the parent to see to their childrens well being and education or should we instead begin to allow the state to act as the parent? What implications can arise from such an arrangement? Could such power be abused to indoctrinate beliefs/ideals that is beneficial to to a particular state? Did not Hitler do the same?
Do bear in mind that I am not making a comparison of Quebec and Nazi Germany, rather, I am simply showing that such power over a nations population can be and has been problematic in the past.
01 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodey
But what of private schooling? What of home schooling that is academically to par or even better than public schoolling? You make quite a few assumptions here. You ASSUME that a public education is far better than a home school or possible a private education with a religious influence.
Is it not the job of the parent to see to their childrens well be ...[text shortened]... y showing that such power over a nations population can be and has been problematic in the past.
01 Oct 07
7 edits
Originally posted by whodeyAnother concern I have are for poorer populations who live in poor school districts. These parents have no choice but to either send their children to poor public schools or home school. I have been in many and I will tell you that many kids within these public schools make those within our prison institutions look like boy scouts. I would just as soon send my child to prison to be educated than I would many of these schools with insufficient security and authority figures to deflect such bad behavior. Also, I am sure the teachers would be of a better quality in the prison institutions than many of our underfunded public schools. If I were a parent in such a predicterment I would insist on homeschooling my kids and the state would only take them to those he@@ holes over my dead body.
But what of private schooling? What of home schooling that is academically to par or even better than public schoolling? You make quite a few assumptions here. You ASSUME that a public education is far better than a home school or possible a private education with a religious influence.
Is it not the job of the parent to see to their childrens well be ...[text shortened]... y showing that such power over a nations population can be and has been problematic in the past.
To give you a taste, one inner city school I visited they told me where to park so that my car would not be vandalized or stolen by the students. Then all the doors on the school were chain locked except the main enterance which was guarded by only one security gaurd with a metal detector to try and catch any weapons that may filter into the school. All that was missing was a dog to sniff out drugs that the students most assuradly carried into the schools. Their proficiency tests were abysmal as was their graduation rates. Every day a bloody fight or two would break out in school with next to no consequences for the students involed. The schools teenage pregnacy rate as well as drug rate for the students was far above the state average. So you being a parent STARMAN who was faced with being forced to send your child to such a place, what would you do? Would you send them anyway while glibly telling your child not to bend over for the soap? After all, it is the law.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe other extreme of course is the parents methodically raping the child they keep locked in the closet when not being "used". Should the state intervene?
But what of private schooling? What of home schooling that is academically to par or even better than public schoolling? You make quite a few assumptions here. You ASSUME that a public education is far better than a home school or possible a private education with a religious influence.
Is it not the job of the parent to see to their childrens well be ...[text shortened]... y showing that such power over a nations population can be and has been problematic in the past.
Where's the line?
Where the line is exactly doesn't matter much as long as you're not at the extremes. I don't think the state should force evolutionary instruction to kids whose parents are opposed to it, but I don't think it is really that much of an issue if the kids are indeed forced to study evolution. Either way its not a big deal.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by PinkFloydNah, as long as they avoid a few sciences like geology and biology they'll be all right. One doesn't need evolution to study economics or electronics.
No, they shouldn't be "forced" to learn anything, but if they have any hope of advanced education (and as such, being a professional in any of the sciences), they'd better learn it.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhere is the line? That is the question. I say the line is abuse. Is not properly educating your child abuse? If so, what qualifies as not properly educating your child? Is it an inadequate education in math or science or literature etc, etc. I thought thats what proficiency tests were for that the state requires homeschoolers to take?
The other extreme of course is the parents methodically raping the child they keep locked in the closet when not being "used". Should the state intervene?
Where's the line?
Where the line is exactly doesn't matter much as long as you're not at the extremes. I don't think the state should force evolutionary instruction to kids whose parents are ...[text shortened]... n issue if the kids are indeed forced to study evolution. Either way its not a big deal.
01 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyTo define something as "abusive" requires someone to state their opinion. I prefer to have more objective definitions of crimes myself.
Where is the line? That is the question. I say the line is abuse. Is not properly educating your child abuse? If so, what qualifies as not properly educating your child? Is it an inadequate education in math or science or literature etc, etc. I thought thats what proficiency tests were for that the state requires homeschoolers to take?
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPerhaps the definition of a crime should fall under the golden command given by Christ which is to do unto others what they would have done to them? In other words, so long as you are not hurting anyone else what business is it of yours? Or is that to close to making the state and religion bed fellows?
To define something as "abusive" requires someone to state their opinion. I prefer to have more objective definitions of crimes myself.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoIf your children could be taken from you on the grounds that you don't submit them to an education which includes a scientific model for speciation which is 'proven', by and large, on the basis of a dominant scientific academic consensus, then would that mean that in some future society, were the majority view of spirituality to embrace a pro Luciferian or Satanic view, that it then might be appropriate for the state to remove our children from our care if we objected to the notion that our kids be given a 'balanced' education on Spiritual matters even if that might mean presenting them with diametrically opposed views of Lordship, to that say of Christianity?
Imagine at a bigger degree some religious fanatics who believe knowledge is for the worshipers of satan and decide to private their kids from all kind of scientific knowledge. Should the state intervene?
Why should the state be allowed to intervene in a matter, which notwithstanding the widespread acceptance of that belief, is yet still a paradigm that can only be 'proven' by a logical discourse wherein the origins and myriad development of life is explained by an argument of best fit, and although the Theory of Evolution is agreed to in principle, the mechanisms that are thought to underline the processes are themselves constantly evolving and all that Evolutionists have actually established, is a 'truth' that life exists and that science needs something better than 'In the beginning God said...'
Because the existence or non existence of God cannot be 'proven' to the rigor required by science we have a stalemate between reason and spiritual belief where regardless of the 'evidence' presented to make a case for either Evolution or Creation, we ultimately are still forced to make a basic assumption in terms of the nature of the Universe and whether or not that includes supernatural elements beyond scientific explanation. That basic assumption which can be reduced to 'We are all alone and happened by chance through random processes' or ' We are made in the image of a loving God' then guides us through the 'evidence'.
In either scenario or in similar subtle variations of those two scenarios, we still end up making a choice to 'believe' based on a personal judgment, a gut feeling, an acceptance of a 'truth' which allows us to suspend our disbelief when skeptics of our chosen view, present the sticky arguments that can expose our beliefs for the absurdity and incongruity that they often represent.
If some future society, were to walk away from reason and embrace a form of spirituality en masse that opposes the logic of Western Christianity, would we still be comfortable to accept that the democratically represented group should still be able by virtue of their consensual view, dictate to a minority and say, 'If you will not submit to an instruction that will invert your view of Christianity, then your kids will become the responsibility of the State'?
If the State is allowed to bully its citizens into submission over the question of a belief system no matter how scientifically constructed, then what hope do we have for the future?
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI am a teacher assistant and tutor for students, the vast majority of African descent, in a poor neighborhood in inner Los Angeles. They have choices; my school is one of those choices. We're a charter school and have freedom from much of LAUSD, though I don't know the details of how charter schools work.
Another concern I have are for poorer populations who live in poor school districts. These parents have no choice but to either send their children to poor public schools or home school. I have been in many and I will tell you that many kids within these public schools make those within our prison institutions look like boy scouts. I would just as soon sen ...[text shortened]... anyway while glibly telling your child not to bend over for the soap? After all, it is the law.
I've heard that last year, our school's first, we had a lot of those scary ghetto trash kids, but they broke the rules and were expelled. Now the school is a happy, peaceful place of learning. I know what a good school looks like and this is a good school. We have a fairly strict dress code and the teachers are clearly chosen by competence.
The students' test scores are still low, but they haven't been at our school for long.
Los Angeles is infamous for bad schools (for minors, that is). What neighborhood are you referring to where such problems still exist?