NationStates Jolt Archive

To any age group getting sex ed, which would probably include 2nd or 3rd grade and above.

And you aren't sure what what means? Masturbation?

:confused: People have sex ed in second grade? We don't get it until 5th grade, and that's only an explanation of menstruation, at least for girls. I don't know what they teach the boys then.

Yes, I'm not sure what it means.

:confused: People have sex ed in second grade?

i guess they mean "Good Touch/Bad touch"...

:confused: People have sex ed in second grade? We don't get it until 5th grade, and that's only an explanation of menstruation, at least for girls. I don't know what they teach the boys then.

Yes, I'm not sure what it means.

I got it in 4th grade (boy)

i guess they mean "Good Touch/Bad touch"...

That makes more sense, then.

:confused: People have sex ed in second grade? We don't get it until 5th grade, and that's only an explanation of menstruation, at least for girls. I don't know what they teach the boys then.

Yes, I'm not sure what it means.

I'm trying to remember when we started having sex ed. I want to say it was 2nd or third grade. 5th grade would likely be too late to even discuss menstruation, as some of the girls would have already started. It's generally better to have the information beforehand.

Bear in mind that the sex ed in 2nd or 3rd grade is not the same as that in 5th or 6th which is not the same that you might get in 7th or 8th grade.

Bear in mind that the sex ed in 2nd or 3rd grade is not the same as that in 5th or 6th which is not the same that you might get in 7th or 8th grade.

All three of which are WAY different from high school and college's sex ed...

:confused: People have sex ed in second grade? We don't get it until 5th grade, and that's only an explanation of menstruation, at least for girls. I don't know what they teach the boys then.
I remember our science teacher brought us outside to make a water propelled rocket of some description when the girls were getting their period talk.

Yes, I'm not sure what it means.

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org) is your friend. Posting links may not be however.

I'm trying to remember when we started having sex ed. I want to say it was 2nd or third grade. 5th grade would likely be too late to even discuss menstruation, as some of the girls would have already started. It's generally better to have the information beforehand.

Bear in mind that the sex ed in 2nd or 3rd grade is not the same as that in 5th or 6th which is not the same that you might get in 7th or 8th grade.

I see. I had it in 5th grade (which was basically just about an hour or so about mentsruation), 6th grade (which was about body parts, basically), and 9th grade (about contraceptives, STDs, etc.)

Now that I think of it, I do remember some sort of "good touch/bad touch", "don't let other people touch you anywhere that is covered by a bathing suit" education, although I can't remember when. I guess I didn't remember it as sex ed because I had no idea about sex at the time.

I see. I had it in 5th grade (which was basically just about an hour or so about mentsruation), 6th grade (which was about body parts, basically), and 9th grade (about contraceptives, STDs, etc.)

Now that I think of it, I do remember some sort of "good touch/bad touch", "don't let other people touch you anywhere that is covered by a bathing suit" education, although I can't remember when. I guess I didn't remember it as sex ed because I had no idea about sex at the time.

Yeah. back then, all you thought about the oppostie sex was cooties.

Put some booze in the refrigerator box first and you've got a deal.

Booze, OK. But you'll have to do without cigarettes. Hard liquor and matches in a very close and confined area made of cardboard seems like a bad idea.

The student was essentially asked to defend their views on homosexuality against an attack by a superior (their teacher).

OK, now this has gone into the realm of the utterly ridiculous. She was not asked to defend anything. She was asked, "How would you feel if as a heterosexual you were in the minority in a community of homosexuals." She was not bullied. She was not told what to answer. She was asked for an opinion which she refused to give in a written assignment.

Will you next have her teacher bending her over the table and paddling her for not answering? Perhaps next it will be escalated to her being hung by her thumbs?

I call bullshit, because the source I've offered twice says the developments start in your 20's..

I believe if you re-read it you will see it says it CONTINUES into your 20s. Not starts.

Here is what Piaget had to say on the matter:
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/development.html

Concrete Operations Stage. Occurring between ages 7 and about 12, the third stage of cognitive development is marked by a gradual decrease in centristic thought and the increased ability to focus on more than one aspect of a stimulus. They can understand the concept of grouping, knowing that a small dog and a large dog are still both dogs, or that pennies, quarters, and dollar bills are part of the bigger concept of money.

They can only apply this new understanding to concrete objects ( those they have actually experienced). In other words, imagined objects or those they have not seen, heard, or touched, continue to remain somewhat mystical to these children, and abstract thinking has yet to develop.

Formal Operations Stage. In the final stage of cognitive development (from age 12 and beyond), children begin to develop a more abstract view of the world. They are able to apply reversibility and conservation to both real and imagined situations. They also develop an increased understanding of the world and the idea of cause and effect. By the teenage years, they are able to develop their own theories about the world. This stage is achieved by most children, although failure to do so has been associated with lower intelligence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development#Formal_Operational_stage
Formal Operational stage

The formal operational stage is the fourth and final of the stages of cognitive development of Piaget's theory. This stage, which follows the Concrete Operational stage, commences at around 11 years of age (puberty) and continues into adulthood. It is characterized by acquisition of the ability to think abstractly and draw conclusions from the information available. During this stage the young adult functions in a cognitively normal manner and therefore is able to understand such things as love, "shades of gray", and values. Lucidly, biological factors may be traced to this stage as it occurs during puberty and marks the entering into adulthood in physiologically, cognitive, moral (Kohlberg), psychosexual (Freud), and social development (Erikson). Many people do not successfully complete this stage, but mostly remain in concrete operations.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23pi.html
Piaget found four major developmental stages (with many subdivisions). For the first year and a half or two years of life, infants are only aware of sensorimotor experience, and do not connect it to things outside of themselves. They do not know how things will react, and so are always experimenting -- shaking things, putting them in their mouths, throwing -- to learn by trial and error. The stage from 18-24 months to 7 years Piaget called preoperational, where children can think about things in symbolic terms. They can pretend, verbalize, and understand past and future. Still, cause-and-effect, time, comparison, and other complex ideas are out of reach. From 7 to 12 years, children gain new competence in thinking and are aware of events outside of their lives. But tackling a problem with several variables in a systematic way is unusual at this age. From 12 years old and up, people are able to think about abstract relationships (as in algebra), understand methodology, formulate hypotheses, and think about possibilities and abstractions like justice.

Piaget is widely recognized as the greatest developmental psychologist of the century. His ideas have been refined and added to, but they remain the foundation of child psychology.

Yeah. back then, all you thought about the oppostie sex was cooties.

I never thought that, but I basically feel the same about them then as I do now.
I remember our science teacher brought us outside to make a water propelled rocket of some description when the girls were getting their period talk.



Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org) is your friend. Posting links may not be however.

Aww, I would have liked to have made rockets then.:( Although I did make rockets in middle school, with a small engine, and mine went all the way across the lake.

I don't want to find out information about that through wikipedia. I'll ask my parents eventually.

Here is my humble opinion.....

This entire thing is a non-issue, I have refused to do assignments on moral grounds, and most of my teachers accept an explanation why. This is just a teacher being a jerk, and yet another example of liberals attempting to force their immoral and evil beliefs down the throats of innocent children

Yes. Because she was asked to pretend to be the heterosexual she is. How immoral and evil!

Not to be offensive or anything, but you're hardly the spokesperson for kids your age.

1984 has a sex scene in it, and I'd like middle schoolers to have it as basic reading material in the curriculum.

1984 is a fine book, but I think that the nuances of it would be lost on most people under the age of 16, simply because the language, especially in the long section on "Goldstein's Book" is tough enough for my high school students to get through....

And the sex scene is pretty "quickly fade to black," really.

1984 is a fine book, but I think that the nuances of it would be lost on most people under the age of 16, simply because the language, especially in the long section on "Goldstein's Book" is tough enough for my high school students to get through....

And the sex scene is pretty "quickly fade to black," really.

I quote page 219 of 1984

"her powerful marelike buttocks protruded, it struck him for the first time that she was beautiful."

I think this is an awesome book by the way. It should be required reading. Even if the book part of the book is a little hard. They need a little challenge anyways.

I quote page 219 of 1984

"her powerful marelike buttocks protruded, it struck him for the first time that she was beautiful."

I think this is an awesome book by the way. It should be required reading. Even if the book part of the book is a little hard. They need a little challenge anyways.

So he likes big butts, he cannot deny... ;)

As for your quotation -- he's looking out the window at a fifty year old prole washerwoman and admiring her for being free in relation to the lifestyle he and Julia know as party members -- he doesn't go down and have sex with her.

My seniors have some difficulty with the language of the book -- I should think it would be that much harder for a middle schooler.

So students should get to choose what to want to study at school now, is that it? :headbang:

Newsflash! It's approved curriculum! You cannot expect to get an exemption pass just because:

1)you "morally reject" the Theory of evolution taught in biology courses, and write Creationist answers in your work

2)you "morally reject" the idea that the Earth is a slightly eccliptical sphere because you belong to a Flat Earth society

So he likes big butts, he cannot deny... ;)

As for your quotation -- he's looking out the window at a fifty year old prole washerwoman and admiring her for being free in relation to the lifestyle he and Julia know as party members -- he doesn't go down and have sex with her.

My seniors have some difficulty with the language of the book -- I should think it would be that much harder for a middle schooler.

I know. But what I am saying is you can see where even something as great as this book can get labeled "pornographic" which is what happend at my school.

I thought he like big butts and could not lie? ;)

I know. But what I am saying is you can see where even something as great as this book can get labeled "pornographic" which is what happend at my school.

I thought he like big butts and could not lie? ;)

Eh, as a teacher I am automatically out of the loop of popular culture, dontchaknow. ;)

Will you next have her teacher bending her over the table and paddling her for not answering? Perhaps next it will be escalated to her being hung by her thumbs?

Well, she certainly failed a class for refusing to answer it.

I thought he like big butts and could not lie? ;)

Yes; the "people" are the deniers...

Yes; the "people" are the deniers...


I believe it was the "other brothers"

I believe it was the "other brothers"

*Checks*

Yes, it was "you otha brothas"...

How stupid of me. Mea culpa.

Well, she certainly failed a class for refusing to answer it.

She failed. For not doing. Her project. The same way I would fail a child for not writing a literary criticism on Hamlet, if that were the assignment. Or for refusing to do a public speaking presentation, if that were assigned. Or for failing to hand in his newspaper project discussing Fahrenheit 451, if that were the assignment given.

By the way, you still have not responded to my post pointing out that according to Piaget, the task given to her class of 12, 13 and 14 year olds was actually age appropriate.

Additionally, one of the ways one teaches students to use formal operations is

Give students an opportunity to explore many hypothetical questions.


* Provide students opportunities to discuss social issues.
* Provide consideration of hypothetical "other worlds."
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piagtuse.html

It is not, as you opine, bullying or child abuse.

She failed. For not doing. Her project.

*Audience claps and w00ts*

agreed.

I never thought that, but I basically feel the same about them then as I do now.

I meant 'you' as in 'the average child'.

She failed. For not doing. Her project. The same way I would fail a child for not writing a literary criticism on Hamlet, if that were the assignment. Or for refusing to do a public speaking presentation, if that were assigned. Or for failing to hand in his newspaper project discussing Fahrenheit 451, if that were the assignment given.

But do you fail a student for refusing to do The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? I know that at many schools, the school is required to offer an alternate assignment (Ironically, the student at my school who didn't take part in reading the book in Junior year because of parental concerns is reading it now because our teacher gave us free reign to choose our own classic to read).

By the way, you still have not responded to my post pointing out that according to Piaget, the task given to her class of 12, 13 and 14 year olds was actually age appropriate.

Actually, hardly. See, the thing is that it wasn't just asking for "Forming an opinion". That would have been the question "how do you feel about the way Homosexuals are treated today." Instead, the teacher's question was:

A) Presented in such a way that it pointed to a conclusion, and therefore forced students who dissagreed to defend themselves.

and

B) The teacher knew that, because they told the students not to tell their parents.

It is not wrong to ask students to think, at 13. However, it is wrong to ask them to respond to an attack.

Additionally, one of the ways one teaches students to use formal operations is


http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piagtuse.html

It is not, as you opine, bullying or child abuse.

Would you ask a 7th Grade English class to write a ten page paper? Obviously not (I hope!). The same is true of teaching the art of critical thinking. You don't start a philosophy course with Sartre or Berkely ("Now Billy, why didn't you do my homework?" "God didn't think of it."), and you don't start teaching thinking by crafting a question that is a hostile environment.

A better option would have been asking them to put themselves in the shoes of someone with a heart disease, or asking them to write what it must be like to be of the opposite gender, or something. Homosexuality is a charged issue, and that question was not so open-ended as you pretend.

Booze, OK. But you'll have to do without cigarettes. Hard liquor and matches in a very close and confined area made of cardboard seems like a bad idea.

Good, I don't smoke anyway. Getting drunk in a cardboard box on a plane FTW!

I meant 'you' as in 'the average child'.

OK. I see now.

Would you ask a 7th Grade English class to write a ten page paper? Obviously not (I hope!).

I had to write a paper that ended up being 16 pages including annotated bibliography in eighth grade, and I finished it in one day. That would not be a ridiculous assignment.

I had to write a paper that ended up being 16 pages including annotated bibliography in eighth grade, and I finished it in one day. That would not be a ridiculous assignment.

WTF?

Details, please.

WTF?

Details, please.

It was for history. There was no page requirement, but it had to be more than 1,500 words for the body part and it had to include an annotated bibliography (I had about 18 sources.) The good thing, though, was that it qualified me to go to the state history fair. The topic I chose was how the Beatles affected the Soviet Union.

I had to write a paper that ended up being 16 pages including annotated bibliography in eighth grade, and I finished it in one day. That would not be a ridiculous assignment.

Was the paper required to be 16 pages?

If not, then you simple reached beyond the requirement. Requiring most 7th graders to write 10 pages would be absurd.

A better option would have been asking them to put themselves in the shoes of someone with a heart disease, or asking them to write what it must be like to be of the opposite gender, or something. Homosexuality is a charged issue, and that question was not so open-ended as you pretend.

How is this going to teach a child tolerence for a minority, pretending you have a HEART disease? Do you have roving bands of heart haters running around your community with burning torches? Opposite gender is also not a minority as males and females are roughly 50% of the population. This is a lesson in empathy and sharing a perspective with minorities. This lesson is completly lost unless you actually USE a minority topic that actually has PROBLEMS incorperating into full society. Otherwise you might just as well have a group that likes puppies and imagine what is like to like kittens instead. At that point the entire point of the lesson is lost.

How is this going to teach a child tolerence for a minority, pretending you have a HEART disease? Do you have roving bands of heart haters running around your community with burning torches? Opposite gender is also not a minority as males and females are roughly 50% of the population. This is a lesson in empathy with minorities. This lesson is completly lost unless you actually USE a minority topic that actually has PROBLEMS incorperating into full society. Otherwise you might just as well have a group that likes puppies and imagine what is like to like kittens instead. At that point the entire point of the lesson is lost.

And we get to the heart of the issue. You want the government to teach morals to people.

Absolutely unnaceptable. The state has no place dictating moral rights and wrongs. It has laws which are aimed to protect people, but even they don't make having a different opinion illegal.

If you want to teach a child to be tolerant, do it at home. It isn't the government's job to raise children, and it should. Not. Be.

Was the paper required to be 16 pages?

If not, then you simple reached beyond the requirement. Requiring most 7th graders to write 10 pages would be absurd.

It had to be at least 1500 words. I wrote as much as I needed to reach the requirement, include all of my important information and conclude, and then the endnotes and annotated bibliography took up the rest.

As long as plenty of time is provided, 10 pages is not too much for a middle schooler to write.

It had to be at least 1500 words. I wrote as much as I needed to reach the requirement, include all of my important information and conclude, and then the endnotes and annotated bibliography took up the rest.

As long as plenty of time is provided, 10 pages is not too much for a middle schooler to write.

1500 words is from 3 to 4 pages, which isn't unreasonable at all.

However, I would put to you that asking most middle schoolers to write 10 pages in a time frame of less than a whole fracking semester is unreasonable. You are very gifted in being able to write an essay that long (or is that with double spacing, because that would be much easier), but I doubt that the average 7th grader could do it.

If Kat says otherwise, I'll concede though that, because I'm no teacher at all.

And we get to the heart of the issue. You want the government to teach morals to people.

Absolutely unnaceptable. The state has no place dictating moral rights and wrongs. It has laws which are aimed to protect people, but even they don't make having a different opinion illegal.

If you want to teach a child to be tolerant, do it at home. It isn't the government's job to raise children, and it should. Not. Be.

I disagree, tolerance does not in any way equal morality. Tolerence allows OTHERS to have whatever morals they feel are valuable while not affecting your own morals. Tolerance teaches you to be able to sell a sandwich to that gay guy. Tolerance teaches you not to push and shove in a crowd. Tolerence teaches you to respect the beliefs and opinions of others. Tolerence teaches you not to punch soemone in the nose that you disagree with.Its not morality. Its teaching critical life lessons that will keep you out of jail when you grow up.

I disagree, tolerance does not in any way equal morality. Tolerence allows OTHERS to have whatever morals they feel are valuable while not affecting your own morals. Tolerance teaches you to be able to sell a sandwich to that gay guy. Tolerance teaches you not to push and shove in a crowd. Tolerence teaches you to respect the beliefs and opinions of others. Tolerence teaches you not to punch soemone in the nose that you disagree with.Its not morality. Its teaching critical life lessons that will keep you out of jail when you grow up.

Those are morals. We don't teach people not to commit "thought crimes". We leave that for the people of Brave New World. Our system is designed to allow people to think what they want, so long as they don't violate the law.

The job of a school is to teach a child to be A) Prepared to take part in a participatory government (this means teaching them to think for themselves, not teaching them to do what the government says is "right), and B) (although only in the modern era) Prepared to enter college or the Job Market.

Schools have no place dictating what people's opinions should be.

Our system is designed to allow people to think what they want, so long as they don't violate the law.



Agreed and as a predicate to allowing people to make thier own decisions, education comes first and is required by law. Now lets start putting information in these childrens heads that they can actually use, to help them make intelligent, reasoned, balanced and well informed desicions about thier own morals when the proper time comes.

Agreed and as a predicate to allowing people to make thier own decisions, education comes first and is required by law. Now lets start putting information in these childrens heads that they can actually use, to help make intelligent desicions about thier own morals when the proper time comes.

And what does that have to do with biased questions that push them towards one side and strive to teach "Tolerance"?

The way we teach people to make intelligent descisions is by giving them facts (not opinions), and teaching them to think, not by biasing them or offering uneven questions, but rather by giving them legitimate and appropriate assignments.

But do you fail a student for refusing to do The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? I know that at many schools, the school is required to offer an alternate assignment (Ironically, the student at my school who didn't take part in reading the book in Junior year because of parental concerns is reading it now because our teacher gave us free reign to choose our own classic to read).



Actually, hardly. See, the thing is that it wasn't just asking for "Forming an opinion". That would have been the question "how do you feel about the way Homosexuals are treated today." Instead, the teacher's question was:

A) Presented in such a way that it pointed to a conclusion, and therefore forced students who disagreed to defend themselves.

and

B) The teacher knew that, because they told the students not to tell their parents.

It is not wrong to ask students to think, at 13. However, it is wrong to ask them to respond to an attack.



Would you ask a 7th Grade English class to write a ten page paper? Obviously not (I hope!). The same is true of teaching the art of critical thinking. You don't start a philosophy course with Sartre or Berkely ("Now Billy, why didn't you do my homework?" "God didn't think of it."), and you don't start teaching thinking by crafting a question that is a hostile environment.

A better option would have been asking them to put themselves in the shoes of someone with a heart disease, or asking them to write what it must be like to be of the opposite gender, or something. Homosexuality is a charged issue, and that question was not so open-ended as you pretend.

There really is no point in responding to you further. You are giving your opinion that it is not age-appropriate, that it is an attack, and that students should pick and choose what they want to do. Furthermore, you INSIST that there was a guided outcome when this patently was not the case. "How do YOU feel," is not "You should feel THIS," no matter how much you dislike the topic of the project.

I have demonstrated by referring to the foremost thinker in childrens' cognitive development as well as pointing to a rubric of acceptable and in fact encouraged teaching methods of fostering such, that it was age-appropriate, that it is an acceptable teaching method, and that it is not unreasonable. But what do I know, I've only had five years of training in both Early Childhood education (kindergarten - second grade) and secondary education, plus eight years of experience in dealing with children in this setting.

In all my years at my school, no one has ever been given a pass for reading Huck Finn or any other book because they objected to it.

We teach The Color Purple, which has a scene in which a nine year old is raped.

We teach Lord of the Flies, in which there are disturbing sexual/violent images.

When I teach Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Beowulf, and The Canterbury Tales, none of my Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish, or atheist students have ever refused on the basis that as Christian works, they violate their faith.

It's on the state-approved curriculum; the choice (backed up by the administration) is to do the work, or not to do the work and reap the consequences.

You are also apparently confusing the definitions of tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance is teaching that because others are different, it is not acceptable to attack them. Acceptance would be "This ethnic/social/sexual oriented group is great, you should love them all." Tolerance is necessary to incorporate in the classroom else you get a school where education is impossible because the various populations are trying to beat on or kill each other -- and it happens more often, I'll note, in nice white middle class American schools (Columbine anyone?) than in ethnically diverse urban schools. Wonder why?

1500 words is from 3 to 4 pages, which isn't unreasonable at all.

However, I would put to you that asking most middle schoolers to write 10 pages in a time frame of less than a whole fracking semester is unreasonable. You are very gifted in being able to write an essay that long (or is that with double spacing, because that would be much easier), but I doubt that the average 7th grader could do it.

If Kat says otherwise, I'll concede though that, because I'm no teacher at all.

I can't entirely remember (it was three or four years ago), but I know that we had to include quotes, which may or may not have counted into the word limit. I can't entirely remember whether they counted quotes or not, although they probably did.

I don't think it was double spaced, but I guess you're right that most middle schoolers wouldn't be able to do that.

There really is no point in responding to you further. You are giving your opinion that it is not age-appropriate, that it is an attack, and that students should pick and choose what they want to do. Furthermore, you INSIST that there was a guided outcome when this patently was not the case. "How do YOU feel," is not "You should feel THIS," no matter how much you dislike the topic of the project.

Right.

A) It is intellectually dishonest to reply with "I can't hope to convince because it is your fault."

B) Insisting that it is my feelings on the topic of the project which influence my opinion is insulting. I beleive that Homosexuals deserve completely equal treatment, and suggesting otherwise is offensive to me.

C) "How do YOU feel," may have been the way it was phrased, but that doesn't mean that it was not a leading question.

I have demonstrated by referring to the foremost thinker in childrens' cognitive development as well as pointing to a rubric of acceptable and in fact encouraged teaching methods of fostering such, that it was age-appropriate, that it is an acceptable teaching method, and that it is not unreasonable. But what do I know, I've only had five years of training in both Early Childhood education (kindergarten - second grade) and secondary education, plus eight years of experience in dealing with children in this setting.

And I dissagree. I think that you are looking at it disengenuously, but you have shown that I do need to do some more research into the descision making process.

So I'll leave you with this: Why is 18 the legal voting age, if 13 year olds can make descisions like that while under the influence of a biased authority figure?

In all my years at my school, no one has ever been given a pass for reading Huck Finn or any other book because they objected to it.

I'm sure it's nothing new to you that that is not the case at all schools, however. Some people are offended by the gratuitous use of the "N-Word", and so they ask that their children be given an alternative assignment. While I understand that this makes more work for a teacher (which is unfair), I think that if a parent asked to have an alternate assignment given, and the kid was willing to work on that, it would not be unreasonable to let them still earn credit.

I feel that the projet was just a touch to "deep" for a 13 year old to do. What happened to having a sunflower collection project?

I wonder if she would have been failed because she objected on more "pro-homosexuality" grounds?

Regardless, the teacher should've maybe had an ounce of leeway in her, just ask the kid to do something more diffucult and see if she really belives in her beliefs or just wants to watch corn on her computer.`

And what does that have to do with biased questions that push them towards one side and strive to teach "Tolerance"?

The way we teach people to make intelligent descisions is by giving them facts (not opinions), and teaching them to think, not by biasing them or offering uneven questions, but rather by giving them legitimate and appropriate assignments.

Biased questions? Ok MR Teacher, provide me a list of UNBIASED 30 questions and excercises that will teach children not to beat up people that disagree with you, be it verbally physically or whatever. Questions that teach the majority not to make life a living hell for a minority. Make sure these questions include ACTUAL minorities with actual problems that society actually acknolwedges as a problem. Then submit them to this board and we shall evaluate them and see how good of a job you do. I eagerly await your list.

And NO schools just dont teach facts. They teach theories, concepts, ideas, current events and most importantly how to think. Learning facts has very little to do with learning how to critically think. Critical thinking is taught with opinion, fact, amusing anctidotes, funny pictures, dry textbooks and in a million other ways. All proven to create generally normal and well developed children.

I can't entirely remember (it was three or four years ago), but I know that we had to include quotes, which may or may not have counted into the word limit. I can't entirely remember whether they counted quotes or not, although they probably did.

I don't think it was double spaced, but I guess you're right that most middle schoolers wouldn't be able to do that.

For a middle schooler, I should think 3 or 4 pages was more than sufficient.

For a middle schooler, I should think 3 or 4 pages was more than sufficient.

Ah, I just found the paper. I had forgotten that it was double spaced, and the body of the paper was about 6.5 pages long, with about 3.5 pages for endnotes and about 5.5 for the bibliography. It wasn't as long as I remembered from spending quite a while typing it and researching for it.

Right.

A) It is intellectually dishonest to reply with "I can't hope to convince because it is your fault."

B) Insisting that it is my feelings on the topic of the project which influence my opinion is insulting. I beleive that Homosexuals deserve completely equal treatment, and suggesting otherwise is offensive to me.

C) "How do YOU feel," may have been the way it was phrased, but that doesn't mean that it was not a leading question.



And I dissagree. I think that you are looking at it disengenuously, but you have shown that I do need to do some more research into the descision making process.

So I'll leave you with this: Why is 18 the legal voting age, if 13 year olds can make descisions like that while under the influence of a biased authority figure?



I'm sure it's nothing new to you that that is not the case at all schools, however. Some people are offended by the gratuitous use of the "N-Word", and so they ask that their children be given an alternative assignment. While I understand that this makes more work for a teacher (which is unfair), I think that if a parent asked to have an alternate assignment given, and the kid was willing to work on that, it would not be unreasonable to let them still earn credit.

You're the one that insisted that a twelve year old did not have the cognitive development to be able to deal with this sort of question -- when I show you that, yes, indeed, they are, you choose not to respond except to insist that I am 'disingenuous' while not even reponding to what the works of Piaget had to say about child development. You insist that cognitive development doesn't begin until the 20s -- when this was pointed out as a misunderstanding, you never responded to it -- you just insisted that this is the attack of a superior on a child.

You insist that this teaching method of roleplaying is an attack, I show you that it is both accepted and encouraged to get students to think about grey areas of morality and to think about concepts such as justice.

It is your fault, in the sense that you have made your decision and nothing that 1)teens in this thread who should know what they are capable of, 2)someone studying neurobiology and 3) someone who has more than a slightly passing familiarity with cognitive development has said has made any dent into "Well you're wrong because I still think the assignment is wrong because in my opinion they are not yet cognitively developed and they shouldn't have to deal with difficult questions." You're the one who brought up the topic of cognitive development; it's dishonest to now ignore the matter since it no longer appears to agree with your point, and to blame those who've pointed out your error for expecting you to acknowledge it.

Now who's being intellectually dishonest?

And NO schools just dont teach facts. They teach theories, concepts, ideas, current events and most importantly how to think. Learning facts has very little to do with learning how to critically think. Critical thinking is taught with opinion, fact, amusing anctidotes, funny pictures, dry textbooks and in a million other ways. All proven to create generally normal and well developed children.

So, there is no other way to teach critical thinking to 13 year olds that does't include living on the moon filled with homosexuals? You think it is fine because it teaches them critical thinking? So what if it's in 8th grade, at least she is learning critical thinking!

Damnit, last time I checked critical thinking doesn't need sexual orientation to get across its point, especially if it is so "charged" with political ideals and people like me and you who debate it. Honestly, is the next years assignment going to be on Mars, the Red Planet [pardon the pun], where you are the only person to have an abortion?

Critical thinking doesn't need to be so... Earthy, maybe talk about being the only human in a alien community or somesuch. If you want to get kinda of RL be the only Christian in a Moslem community. There is many ways to learn critical thinking, especially with nice, open subjects, without sexual orientation that is so hyper-politiked.

let me ask you something, do you support the handing out of gay literature such as "Heather has 2 mommies" and "Daddy's Roommate" to 5 year olds, as they tried to in the NYC school system before a public outcry put a stop to it? Did you support the Surgeon General who Clinton had to fire because she wanted masturbation to be taught in Kindergarten?

I am just curious exactly how far you would take this.

Yes. (pretty sure you're misstating exactly what the surgeon general was doing but still yes).

I realize being from Virginia and all you are used to being called ignorant, but just remember I'm NOT the crazed mad man here.


Could have fooled me.

Well, she certainly failed a class for refusing to answer it.

That would be because it was an asignment and she didn't DO it. What are you failing to understand here?

But do you fail a student for refusing to do The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? I know that at many schools, the school is required to offer an alternate assignment (Ironically, the student at my school who didn't take part in reading the book in Junior year because of parental concerns is reading it now because our teacher gave us free reign to choose our own classic to read).


I certainly would. Do your asignment or get a failing grade that's the way school works.


Actually, hardly. See, the thing is that it wasn't just asking for "Forming an opinion". That would have been the question "how do you feel about the way Homosexuals are treated today." Instead, the teacher's question was:

A) Presented in such a way that it pointed to a conclusion, and therefore forced students who dissagreed to defend themselves.

and

B) The teacher knew that, because they told the students not to tell their parents.

It is not wrong to ask students to think, at 13. However, it is wrong to ask them to respond to an attack.

A: She was not asked to come to any "conclusion" at all.

B: WHAT ATTACK? You have yet to show an attack.

So, there is no other way to teach critical thinking to 13 year olds that does't include living on the moon filled with homosexuals? You think it is fine because it teaches them critical thinking? So what if it's in 8th grade, at least she is learning critical thinking!

Damnit, last time I checked critical thinking doesn't need sexual orientation to get across its point, especially if it is so "charged" with political ideals and people like me and you who debate it. Honestly, is the next years assignment going to be on Mars, the Red Planet [pardon the pun], where you are the only person to have an abortion?

Critical thinking doesn't need to be so... Earthy, maybe talk about being the only human in a alien community or somesuch. If you want to get kinda of RL be the only Christian in a Moslem community. There is many ways to learn critical thinking, especially with nice, open subjects, without sexual orientation that is so hyper-politiked.

ZOMG! CHURCH+STATE!!!!111!!!shift+one!!!

Seriously, what is the difference between that and homosexuals?

Seriously, what is the difference between that and homosexuals?

A good amount of things, including it not being on the forefront of politicians and their dirty little minds. Also, Moslems and Christians are both respectful, well entrenched, and relativly calm majorities. Yes there is exceptions but generally the moderates of both religions are a lot less suicide [or willing to ask the Supreme Court to ban Harry Potter books] prone and can accept such proactive thoughts.

Gays on the other hand, well, other than it having to do with sex, are easily provoked, like red ants. Then of course the politicians debate about if it is good or not a lot more. It is just an all around more extreme topic, not the kind of shit you throw at a junior high school kid.

Relgion-Sexual Tendencies, what is the difference? I am depressed you asked. Closing my post off: you obviously need to get out more and read some news.

We covered this a while back. I'm pretty sure she got an E, it being an Australian school, after all... ;)

;) Apologies. Give the girl the "E" she so richly deserved. They started that crap in the US too (using an "E" instead of the F for Failing), like kids are going to get their feelings hurt over a letter of the alphabet. <sigh>

Ye cats, what a screwed up world.

I suppose logic would not have nothing to do with this whole bloody topic. I want my kids to learn about sex, sexuality and PUBERTY before they enter it. Because parents rarely teach their kids anything about human sexuality.

The parents are tossers.

A good amount of things, including it not being on the forefront of politicians and their dirty little minds. Also, Moslems and Christians are both respectful, well entrenched, and relativly calm majorities. Yes there is exceptions but generally the moderates of both religions are a lot less suicide [or willing to ask the Supreme Court to ban Harry Potter books] prone and can accept such proactive thoughts.

Gays on the other hand, well, other than it having to do with sex, are easily provoked, like red ants. Then of course the politicians debate about if it is good or not a lot more. It is just an all around more extreme topic, not the kind of shit you throw at a junior high school kid.

Relgion-Sexual Tendencies, what is the difference? I am depressed you asked. Closing my post off: you obviously need to get out more and read some news.

:rolleyes:

A) I mean that there SHOULD be no difference in schools.
B) Many gays are calm people. Only the popularized ones are easily angered... like the groups above. And that is WHY they are popular.
C) Junior high school kids get exposed to it anyway...
D) My point was that the same people would be infuriated as well, IMO
E) The reading of text literally when meant otherwse can lead to collateral damage.

She doesn't get an F, she gets a "Level 1, 1st Percentile, Student has not displayed knowledge of any of the subject areas of..." :rolleyes:
Effing outcomes based education.

Is that like getting a BUS = Betygsunderlag Saknas ?

A good amount of things, including it not being on the forefront of politicians and their dirty little minds. Also, Moslems and Christians are both respectful, well entrenched, and relativly calm majorities. Yes there is exceptions but generally the moderates of both religions are a lot less suicide [or willing to ask the Supreme Court to ban Harry Potter books] prone and can accept such proactive thoughts.

Gays on the other hand, well, other than it having to do with sex, are easily provoked, like red ants. Then of course the politicians debate about if it is good or not a lot more. It is just an all around more extreme topic, not the kind of shit you throw at a junior high school kid.

Relgion-Sexual Tendencies, what is the difference? I am depressed you asked. Closing my post off: you obviously need to get out more and read some news.
What kind of crap is this? Who thinks like this? I'm being driven insane. It's my fault, isn't it? Is it a conspiracy? Are you all who you say you are? Who sent you? I want my stuffed bunny....

So, there is no other way to teach critical thinking to 13 year olds that does't include living on the moon filled with homosexuals? You think it is fine because it teaches them critical thinking? So what if it's in 8th grade, at least she is learning critical thinking!

Damnit, last time I checked critical thinking doesn't need sexual orientation to get across its point, especially if it is so "charged" with political ideals and people like me and you who debate it. Honestly, is the next years assignment going to be on Mars, the Red Planet [pardon the pun], where you are the only person to have an abortion?

Critical thinking doesn't need to be so... Earthy, maybe talk about being the only human in a alien community or somesuch. If you want to get kinda of RL be the only Christian in a Moslem community. There is many ways to learn critical thinking, especially with nice, open subjects, without sexual orientation that is so hyper-politiked.

Yeah but nothing drives home the point like keeping it close to thoes that need to be understood. A lot easier for younger people to draw the ties between

The school could have handled things a lot better and understood it may be a fairly touchy subject. But its scary to think that these homophobic fundies exist here in sunny Queensland. I expect this from the southern states of the USA.

About that log in your eye there, Kid....

You might be surprised to discover that unlike the rest of the world, the south isn't allowed to dodge problems. We are forced to confront everything, from race to reverse racism. The kid would probably have been given an alternate scenario or helped to explore the scenario without offending her.

Let's face it, 13 isn't the most enlightened age.

About that log in your eye there, Kid....

You might be surprised to discover that unlike the rest of the world, the south isn't allowed to dodge problems. We are forced to confront everything, from race to reverse racism. The kid would probably have been given an alternate scenario or helped to explore the scenario without offending her.

Let's face it, 13 isn't the most enlightened age.

Nor is it the least.

As a matter of fact, no age is any more or less enlightened than any other...

As a matter of fact, no age is any more or less enlightened than any other...

Biologically, they most certainly are. The adolescent mind is not fully developed.

So, there is no other way to teach critical thinking to 13 year olds that does't include living on the moon filled with homosexuals? You think it is fine because it teaches them critical thinking? So what if it's in 8th grade, at least she is learning critical thinking!

Damnit, last time I checked critical thinking doesn't need sexual orientation to get across its point, especially if it is so "charged" with political ideals and people like me and you who debate it. Honestly, is the next years assignment going to be on Mars, the Red Planet [pardon the pun], where you are the only person to have an abortion?

Critical thinking doesn't need to be so... Earthy, maybe talk about being the only human in a alien community or somesuch. If you want to get kinda of RL be the only Christian in a Moslem community. There is many ways to learn critical thinking, especially with nice, open subjects, without sexual orientation that is so hyper-politiked.

It does if you are in Health Ed and learning about sexuality, now doesn't it?

You know... if the kids don't know it now, they'll eventually know it later..!

Biologically, they most certainly are. The adolescent mind is not fully developed.

I agree, no reason to start pushing the whole homesexuality message, lets face it, it's kinky.

Less kinky stuff, the better the education is.

Now let us just work out what is kinky and not-

It does if you are in Health Ed and learning about sexuality, now doesn't it?

Maybe they should be taught about how Muslims couple and how Christians couple? After all, they are of different species.

Biologically, they most certainly are. The adolescent mind is not fully developed.

Please, for the love of whatever you worship, actually read the links about cognitive development and age-appropriate teaching methods before you go any further. They aren't long, you don't need to sign up anywhere to read them, and they state very clearly otherwise.

Maybe they should be taught about how Muslims couple and how Christians couple? After all, they are of different species.

Well if they do fine, but the main questions is if they are [the couple] gay or not.

And we get to the heart of the issue. You want the government to teach morals to people.

Absolutely unnaceptable. The state has no place dictating moral rights and wrongs. It has laws which are aimed to protect people, but even they don't make having a different opinion illegal.

If you want to teach a child to be tolerant, do it at home. It isn't the government's job to raise children, and it should. Not. Be.

Strawman, strawman, strawman!
NO ONE'S expressed "opinion" in the assignment, "different" or otherwise, would actually be "ILLEGAL". Please!

The home is a limited environment. No family, no parent, no home can be all things or provide all experiences to a child. That's why it is considered a GOOD THING for children to get to LEAVE home to learn about other things. To be given the opportunity to experience that which is only possible in a GROUP setting. Children can not be made fit as citizens if they grow up in isolation, taught only what the parents are capable of teaching; and experiencing only that that the parents are able to expose them to. How absurd! Talk about nurturing dysfunction.

What a load of crap.

Please, for the love of whatever you worship, actually read the links about cognitive development and age-appropriate teaching methods before you go any further. They aren't long, you don't need to sign up anywhere to read them, and they state very clearly otherwise.

Relax! Im in the camp that is perfectly fine with this assignment. The only problem I would have with it, is if the parents were deliberately kept in the dark (which is possible but arguably not true) or if the matter was not class appropriate (It certainly was, in a health class). I have always been queasy with the government defining values, but I did not see that in the assignment. They did not ask the girl to "become" anything- she existed in the same state. I am very well versed on cognitive development as is reflected by my background in psychology. I was not debating, i was simply being finicky about details.

Relax! Im in the camp that is perfectly fine with this assignment. The only problem I would have with it, is if the parents were deliberately kept in the dark (which is possible but arguably not true) or if the matter was not class appropriate (It certainly was, in a health class). I have always been queasy with the government defining values, but I did not see that in the assignment. They did not ask the girl to "become" anything- she existed in the same state. I am very well versed on cognitive development as is reflected by my background in psychology. I was not debating, i was simply being finicky about details.

I apologize, then.
I do agree that if the children were specifically instructed not to inform parents of the nature of the assignment because the school was afraid of parental reaction, that was extremely questionable judgment. If the school meant only to get honest reactions and would have wanted the kids to let their parents know in a general way what they were studying, I think it's fine.

Bottom line: There were plenty of times I disagreed with my teachers, and one or two times when I didn't think what they asked was appropriate. If a teacher asked me to do something I found truly inappropriate, my parents were calling the school or visiting the school the next day, because I'd told them. I can't see a student not doing an assignment they felt inappropriate and hiding it from her parents. I suspect something more was going on than is stated in the OP.

Well, I think that this is a valuable school excercise. Gays exist, and education should acknowledge it. Students are also obligated to do their homework.

However, I think that thirteen is too young to assign such a project, and I also disagree with the instruction to keep it in-classroom.

Well, I think that this is a valuable school excercise. Gays exist, and education should acknowledge it. Students are also obligated to do their homework.

However, I think that thirteen is too young to assign such a project, and I also disagree with the instruction to keep it in-classroom.

How is it too young? sersiously not only are a big chunk of them ALREADY dealing with sexuality issues some of these kids are ALREADY beating kids because they dont under stand their sexuality

This was not early enough personaly (at least to start introduce empathy for a group that gets treated like shit often)

How is it too young? sersiously not only are a big chunk of them ALREADY dealing with sexuality issues some of these kids are ALREADY beating kids because they dont under stand their sexuality

True that.

But do you fail a student for refusing to do The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

Yes, or at least a student should be failed if they refuse to do so.

Actually, hardly. See, the thing is that it wasn't just asking for "Forming an opinion". That would have been the question "how do you feel about the way Homosexuals are treated today." Instead, the teacher's question was:

Actually, "How do you feel about the way homosexuals are treated today?" would be a much, much more "pointed" question than the one asked. It obviously suggests that there is something wrong about the way homosexuals are treated - that they are treated differently.

The assignment given had no such in-built assumptions. It simply asked the student to place herself in a different world, and discuss how she might react to it. There was absolutely no reason, given the assignment as described, that she could not have done it from a homophobic standpoint.

B) The teacher knew that, because they told the students not to tell their parents.

Wrong. The students were asked (according to the article's sources) not to discuss it with their parents. In other words, the assignment needed to clearly come from the mind of the students, not from the opinions of the parents. A student can tell a parent about an assignment without actually discussing the assignment.

It is not wrong to ask students to think, at 13. However, it is wrong to ask them to respond to an attack.

Luckily, there was no attack.

There was no attack. QED*.
The question was not pointed. QED.
The child could have easily done the assignment. QED.
The assignment was relevant. QED.

Did i get this right? Cuz if so, what is left to discuss? Is there something I missed? or is this ended?

*Quod erat demonstratum- What has been demonstrated, meaning, see above.

But its scary to think that these homophobic fundies exist here in sunny Queensland.

They run things in NSW - that particular resource has been banned here for a year now.

In my opinion, I think that the course should have offered an alternate assingment, at the very least.

If she did not do the assingment, she gets an F, but the fact that there was no alternate assingment deffinatly has an impact.

I wonder who the "sources" were...

Just out of curiosity... is it common practice in the USA to provide classes with a choice of assignments rather than giving one to everyone?
I'm asking because I've never before heard about a teacher offering students alternative assignments, let alone to just one single student.

*Quod erat demonstratum- What has been demonstrated, meaning, see above.
Is there any particular reason you decided to point that out?

I can't believe that this thread is still going. Surely people could have agreed to disagree by now?

Oh, and Cabra, I don't know about America but in the UK it's common the older you get to have a choice of questions. I'm not sure we would have got the choice as young as this, though.

Wait wait wait, so this dumb ass kid refused to do a paper and is bitching about the F she fucking EARNED? That's laughable! Oh man, if I were the principle I'd just laugh in the mothers face.

Just out of curiosity... is it common practice in the USA to provide classes with a choice of assignments rather than giving one to everyone?
I'm asking because I've never before heard about a teacher offering students alternative assignments, let alone to just one single student.
In my schools it was common for a teacher to give assignments of the format "please answer 3 of the following 5 questions" to their students. Or 5 of 8, etc. It was not common for students to be given alternate assignments by request; in fact I'd venture so far as to say it never happened in any of my classes.

I should add that university is the only school I attended that was actually in the U.S., but all my schools prior to that were American and/or international. So perhaps someone else should shed some more light on the subject.

Is there any particular reason you decided to point that out?

I can't believe that this thread is still going. Surely people could have agreed to disagree by now?

Oh, and Cabra, I don't know about America but in the UK it's common the older you get to have a choice of questions. I'm not sure we would have got the choice as young as this, though.

Well, you do get a choice in exams, yes, normally 3 or 4 topics to choose from. But for a regular asingment? I would find it a bit odd.

Well, you do get a choice in exams, yes, normally 3 or 4 topics to choose from. But for a regular asingment? I would find it a bit odd.

It's hard to remember what it would have been like back then because I've had so much education since; at uni, you would always get a choice of questions for assignments. Towards the end of school, I don't think we got nearly as much freedom to choose, but I think it still happened sometimes. But, like I said originally, I would be surprised to hear that someone got given a choice at 13.

Wait wait wait, so this dumb ass kid refused to do a paper and is bitching about the F she fucking EARNED? That's laughable! Oh man, if I were the principle I'd just laugh in the mothers face.

and then say,"Dee Dee Dee!" :D

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions.

You can not believe in it all you want, it still exists.

Just out of curiosity... is it common practice in the USA to provide classes with a choice of assignments rather than giving one to everyone?
I'm asking because I've never before heard about a teacher offering students alternative assignments, let alone to just one single student.

It's certainly not the case in my school, which is in NYC.

and then say,"Dee Dee Dee!" :D

If you are a DEE
Please don't marry a DEE
Cos then your kids will be....

DEE DEE DEE...

If you are a DEE
Please don't marry a DEE
Cos then your kids will be....

DEE DEE DEE...

If you are a Dee
Please don't marry a Dee
It's genetics, don't you see
your kids will be dee dee Dee!



Good song... SOMEONE GET THE FULL LYRICS NOW!

If you are a Dee
Please don't marry a Dee
It's genetics, don't you see
your kids will be dee dee Dee!



Good song... SOMEONE GET THE FULL LYRICS NOW!

Spoken:
Dee de dee, doesn’t mean mentally retarded. It means stupid. This song goes out to all the stupid people out there, you’re gonna find this song hilarious, and you don’t even know…it’s about you.

[Verse 1]
You dropped out of school cause you’re smarter than everybody
I got three words for you dumbass, “Ding, fries ready”
You try to outrun a bull, but nobody’s that fast
That’s how you end up, with a horn stuck up your ass
Roethlisberger needs no helmet cause he’s a star
But the year the bus left, he got hit by a car
You wanna go huntin’ for quail someplace
Don’t go with Cheney, he’ll put a fuckin shot in your face
If you bungee jump so you can fly through the air
I ain’t upset you ended up in that wheelchair
You ignore all the warnings, yeah you light up a smoke
Now you have to talk with a machine through your throat

[Chorus]
How many idiots can there be?
Some say that it’s 1 out of 3
If you don’t know then take it from me
You’re the dee dee dee

(spoken) you you you
dee dee dee

And if you are a Dee
Please don’t marry a Dee
Cause then your kids will be (what? what?)
Dee dee dee

(spoken) dee dee dee

[Verse 2]
You cry about the price of gas and war in Iraq
But you voted Bush in twice what were you smokin, crack?
Didn’t get a prenup, though you knew she was a skank
Now you’ve got herpes and she’s got half your bank
You were on top of the world with “Hit Me Baby One More Time”
Only a stupid bitch would marry Kevin Federline
You drink and drive and you think it’s okay
Now you’re cell mate’s weavin in and out the “hershey highway”
When you put tigers on your show and they can’t be free
They’ll bite your neck off and then you’ll say (chokingly) “dee dee dee” (cough)

[Chorus]
How many idiots can there be?
Some say that it’s 1 out of 3
If you don’t know then take it from me
You’re the dee dee dee

(spoken) you you you
Dee dee dee

And if you are a Dee
Please don’t marry a Dee
It’s genetics don’t you see?
Your kids will be dee dee dee

(spoken)
That’s what they’re gonna be: DEE DEE DEE!!!

[Verse 3]
Parents are to blame for all these dee dee dee’s
Letting their kids drop out and not get GED’s
You keep your kids inside cause there’s freaks on the loose
But yet you let them drink from Michael Jackson’s “Jesus Juice”?
You don’t care when your kids come home with D’s from class
What you need to do is get some balls and beat that ass
He isn’t stupid, you say he’s got A.D.D.
It’s that his mom and his dad are both dee dee dee!

[Bridge]
This test is too hard! (So they lower the standards)
I’m not good at sports! (So they give them all trophies)
My dad used to spank me (So they lower the standards)
I’m too fat for this seat (So they widen the standards)
They say no cause I’m black (So they lower the standards)
They say no cause I’m white (So they lower the standards)
They say no cause I’m Asian (So they lower the standards)
No habla Englais (So we all become Spaniards)
And you wake up one day and you don’t have the skills
To get a better job so you’re stuck on the grill
You’re wondering why Julio took your job
But you forget to see, you’re as dumb as a knob
Your ass is too fat to get out of the house
While you’re eating more food trying to figure it out
So they outsource your job to some guy named Habib
Cause he works harder than you and he’s got 5 degrees
And you’re asking yourself how could this happen to me
I’ll tell you why, homie! Cause you’re….dee dee dee

Dee dee dee
Dee dee dee

Spoken:
Dee de dee, doesn’t mean mentally retarded. It means stupid. This song goes out to all the stupid people out there, you’re gonna find this song hilarious, and you don’t even know…it’s about you.

[Verse 1]
You dropped out of school cause you’re smarter than everybody
I got three words for you dumbass, “Ding, fries ready”
You try to outrun a bull, but nobody’s that fast
That’s how you end up, with a horn stuck up your ass
Roethlisberger needs no helmet cause he’s a star
But the year the bus left, he got hit by a car
You wanna go huntin’ for quail someplace
Don’t go with Cheney, he’ll put a fuckin shot in your face
If you bungee jump so you can fly through the air
I ain’t upset you ended up in that wheelchair
You ignore all the warnings, yeah you light up a smoke
Now you have to talk with a machine through your throat

[Chorus]
How many idiots can there be?
Some say that it’s 1 out of 3
If you don’t know then take it from me
You’re the dee dee dee

(spoken) you you you
dee dee dee

And if you are a Dee
Please don’t marry a Dee
Cause then your kids will be (what? what?)
Dee dee dee

(spoken) dee dee dee

[Verse 2]
You cry about the price of gas and war in Iraq
But you voted Bush in twice what were you smokin, crack?
Didn’t get a prenup, though you knew she was a skank
Now you’ve got herpes and she’s got half your bank
You were on top of the world with “Hit Me Baby One More Time”
Only a stupid bitch would marry Kevin Federline
You drink and drive and you think it’s okay
Now you’re cell mate’s weavin in and out the “hershey highway”
When you put tigers on your show and they can’t be free
They’ll bite your neck off and then you’ll say (chokingly) “dee dee dee” (cough)

[Chorus]
How many idiots can there be?
Some say that it’s 1 out of 3
If you don’t know then take it from me
You’re the dee dee dee

(spoken) you you you
Dee dee dee

And if you are a Dee
Please don’t marry a Dee
It’s genetics don’t you see?
Your kids will be dee dee dee

(spoken)
That’s what they’re gonna be: DEE DEE DEE!!!

[Verse 3]
Parents are to blame for all these dee dee dee’s
Letting their kids drop out and not get GED’s
You keep your kids inside cause there’s freaks on the loose
But yet you let them drink from Michael Jackson’s “Jesus Juice”?
You don’t care when your kids come home with D’s from class
What you need to do is get some balls and beat that ass
He isn’t stupid, you say he’s got A.D.D.
It’s that his mom and his dad are both dee dee dee!

[Bridge]
This test is too hard! (So they lower the standards)
I’m not good at sports! (So they give them all trophies)
My dad used to spank me (So they lower the standards)
I’m too fat for this seat (So they widen the standards)
They say no cause I’m black (So they lower the standards)
They say no cause I’m white (So they lower the standards)
They say no cause I’m Asian (So they lower the standards)
No habla Englais (So we all become Spaniards)
And you wake up one day and you don’t have the skills
To get a better job so you’re stuck on the grill
You’re wondering why Julio took your job
But you forget to see, you’re as dumb as a knob
Your ass is too fat to get out of the house
While you’re eating more food trying to figure it out
So they outsource your job to some guy named Habib
Cause he works harder than you and he’s got 5 degrees
And you’re asking yourself how could this happen to me
I’ll tell you why, homie! Cause you’re….dee dee dee

Dee dee dee
Dee dee dee

Thanks.

*Is happy that someone else has no life.*

"It's no wonder our kids are struggling with the basics when the Government is allowing this sort of rubbish to be taught in the classroom," Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney told The Sunday Mail yesterday.
So there's no such thing as minorities? They exist - get over it, retards.

They said many of the students were uncomfortable with the subject matter or did not understand the questions.

The 13-year-old girl instantly refused to do the assignment on religious and moral grounds.

"It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher, who responded by failing her.
Taking a survey is against God? That's news to me.
I don't think she quite understood the question. :p

She said she was shown the assignment. "When I started to read it I thought, 'Oh my God' . . . I was shocked by the content," she said.
ZOMG! I'm being asked to imagine how it would be to be... straight! :O
:rolleyes:

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions.
"Next, on 'Ripley's Believe it or Not!': Gays!" :rolleyes:

Mr Seeney said Queensland needed common sense back in the classroom.

"The Beattie Labor Government has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said.

"It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs.

"It's not the job of our schools to politicise our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and maths."

Christian Lobby state director Peter Earle said the assignment was not about education, rather a teacher or school pushing their own agenda on young minds.
And this from the people who want to teach Christianity in public schools. :rolleyes:

Because heaven forbid, she actually be confronted with how her viewpoints actually affect people. The reaction of this girl and her mother demonstrate to me that both should be forced to do the assignment in question, to teach them a thing or two about tolerance, understanding and reading comprehension. The assignment didn't actually ask her to imagine she was gay, agree with the homosexual orientation, or even debate homosexuality. What it did was ask her to imagine what it would feel like to be in a minority.

And for fuck's sake, what did she expect for refusing to do the assignment? Why should I go to extra work for her just because she has offensive and bigoted views?
Good point. :D

Spoken:
Dee de dee, doesn’t mean mentally retarded. It means stupid. This song goes out to all the stupid people out there, you’re gonna find this song hilarious, and you don’t even know…it’s about you.

[Verse 1]
You dropped out of school cause you’re smarter than everybody
I got three words for you dumbass, “Ding, fries ready”
You try to outrun a bull, but nobody’s that fast
That’s how you end up, with a horn stuck up your ass
Roethlisberger needs no helmet cause he’s a star
But the year the bus left, he got hit by a car
You wanna go huntin’ for quail someplace
Don’t go with Cheney, he’ll put a fuckin shot in your face
If you bungee jump so you can fly through the air
I ain’t upset you ended up in that wheelchair
You ignore all the warnings, yeah you light up a smoke
Now you have to talk with a machine through your throat

[Chorus]
How many idiots can there be?
Some say that it’s 1 out of 3
If you don’t know then take it from me
You’re the dee dee dee

(spoken) you you you
dee dee dee

And if you are a Dee
Please don’t marry a Dee
Cause then your kids will be (what? what?)
Dee dee dee

(spoken) dee dee dee

[Verse 2]
You cry about the price of gas and war in Iraq
But you voted Bush in twice what were you smokin, crack?
Didn’t get a prenup, though you knew she was a skank
Now you’ve got herpes and she’s got half your bank
You were on top of the world with “Hit Me Baby One More Time”
Only a stupid bitch would marry Kevin Federline
You drink and drive and you think it’s okay
Now you’re cell mate’s weavin in and out the “hershey highway”
When you put tigers on your show and they can’t be free
They’ll bite your neck off and then you’ll say (chokingly) “dee dee dee” (cough)

[Chorus]
How many idiots can there be?
Some say that it’s 1 out of 3
If you don’t know then take it from me
You’re the dee dee dee

(spoken) you you you
Dee dee dee

And if you are a Dee
Please don’t marry a Dee
It’s genetics don’t you see?
Your kids will be dee dee dee

(spoken)
That’s what they’re gonna be: DEE DEE DEE!!!

[Verse 3]
Parents are to blame for all these dee dee dee’s
Letting their kids drop out and not get GED’s
You keep your kids inside cause there’s freaks on the loose
But yet you let them drink from Michael Jackson’s “Jesus Juice”?
You don’t care when your kids come home with D’s from class
What you need to do is get some balls and beat that ass
He isn’t stupid, you say he’s got A.D.D.
It’s that his mom and his dad are both dee dee dee!

[Bridge]
This test is too hard! (So they lower the standards)
I’m not good at sports! (So they give them all trophies)
My dad used to spank me (So they lower the standards)
I’m too fat for this seat (So they widen the standards)
They say no cause I’m black (So they lower the standards)
They say no cause I’m white (So they lower the standards)
They say no cause I’m Asian (So they lower the standards)
No habla Englais (So we all become Spaniards)
And you wake up one day and you don’t have the skills
To get a better job so you’re stuck on the grill
You’re wondering why Julio took your job
But you forget to see, you’re as dumb as a knob
Your ass is too fat to get out of the house
While you’re eating more food trying to figure it out
So they outsource your job to some guy named Habib
Cause he works harder than you and he’s got 5 degrees
And you’re asking yourself how could this happen to me
I’ll tell you why, homie! Cause you’re….dee dee dee

Dee dee dee
Dee dee dee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91MtHvcespM

I forget what the final result was. I know she was originally failed, but did they end up overturning the F or any other shitty thing?

Oh Jesus this is old....

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Am I really falling to my death? I wouldn't have known.


I asked for an update on the resolution of the incident, if anyone had it.

OK, this definitely gets this...

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7485/motivator4574243gz8.jpg

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Am I really falling to my death? I wouldn't have known.
I asked for an update on the resolution of the incident, if anyone had it.Ask Darrell Giles.

she didn't do the assignment? then she gets an F for the assignment. simple as.

whether or not the assignment itself was acceptable is another matter. personally i don't think it sounds too terrible, and refusing to work on religious grounds is not acceptable and certainly would be no reason to get out of failing said assignment if it were up to me.

big deal.

Here, children or parents can refuse assignments on religious grounds.

Teachers are required to provide an alternative. So, if gays offend a parent, and the assignment is teaching people about what it's like to be a minority, the teacher shall pick another minority that is not offensive to the parents.

Pretty simple.

You're also allowed to opt out of some topics, like sex education, or family planning, without any reason given.

Here, children or parents can refuse assignments on religious grounds.

Teachers are required to provide an alternative. So, if gays offend a parent, and the assignment is teaching people about what it's like to be a minority, the teacher shall pick another minority that is not offensive to the parents.

Pretty simple.

You're also allowed to opt out of some topics, like sex education, or family planning, without any reason given.

I thought it was already established that, while religious grounds can be a reason for refusing to do some school-related things, they have to actually be related to religion.

Please tell me where, in the bible, it states that considering the perspective of a homosexual is a sin.

I thought it was already established that, while religious grounds can be a reason for refusing to do some school-related things, they have to actually be related to religion.

Please tell me where, in the bible, it states that considering the perspective of a homosexual is a sin.No. Not after 91 pages in an already dead thread.

Well the federal government will probably try to push some christian-like nationalistic crap on the schools sooner or later.

Wow, old thread.

No. Not after 91 pages in an already dead thread.

He's the one that felt the need to start arguing it again, I just wanted an update on what actually ended up happening.

I thought it was already established that, while religious grounds can be a reason for refusing to do some school-related things, they have to actually be related to religion.

Please tell me where, in the bible, it states that considering the perspective of a homosexual is a sin.

The school isn't allowed to question your own interpretation of the Bible.

If someone wants to believe the lines in Leviticus and Romans, the school is powerless to question them.

Why is this front page news? Continue to read:

Teen failed for stand on gays
Darrell Giles
October 08, 2006 12:00am


A 13-YEAR-OLD student was failed after she refused to write an assignment on life in a gay community, because of her religious and moral beliefs.

Her outraged mother, Christian groups and the State Opposition want an investigation into the treatment of the Year 9 student at Windaroo Valley State High School, south of Brisbane.


"It's no wonder our kids are struggling with the basics when the Government is allowing this sort of rubbish to be taught in the classroom," Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney told The Sunday Mail yesterday.

The uproar came as Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop this week announced plans for Canberra to take control of school curriculums from the states, accusing "ideologues" of hijacking the education system .

The girl was among a class of 13 and 14-year-olds asked to imagine living as a heterosexual among a mostly homosexual colony on the moon as part of their health and physical education subject.

They had to answer 10 questions, including how they felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would use to help them cope.

They were also asked to discuss where ideas about homosexuality came from.

Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class.

They said many of the students were uncomfortable with the subject matter or did not understand the questions.

The 13-year-old girl instantly refused to do the assignment on religious and moral grounds.

"It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher, who responded by failing her.

After a series of discussions between the school and her mother, it was suggested the girl would be better off leaving the state education system and attending an independent school.

The girl's mother said yesterday she did not learn of the assignment until reading her daughter's report card several weeks later and discovered a first-ever fail mark for health and physical education.

"I went to the school thinking there might have been a personality clash with the teacher," said the mother, who asked to be identified only as Bronwyn.

She said she was shown the assignment. "When I started to read it I thought, 'Oh my God' . . . I was shocked by the content," she said.

"My daughter said she didn't want to do the assignment because she did not believe in homosexuality and did not want to answer the questions.

"She was being challenged, but she should not be challenged like that at her age."

Bronwyn was concerned that her daughter was not given an alternative scenario.

She said the school claimed it was powerless to change the curriculum.

Bronwyn said the school seemed more concerned about how parents found out about the assignment.

"That's what concerns me most . . . the parents had no opportunity to even see the assignment," Bronwyn said.

Ms Bishop said the incident highlighted her concerns.

"This is another example of a politically-correct agenda masquerading as curriculum," she said yesterday.

"Parents need to know the content of school curriculum so they can be confident their children are receiving a high quality education that is also consistent with their values."

The State Opposition and Australian Christian Lobby demanded an investigation.

Mr Seeney said Queensland needed common sense back in the classroom.

"The Beattie Labor Government has created a system that tries to tell kids what to think instead of teaching them how to think," he said.

"It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs.

"It's not the job of our schools to politicise our children. It is their function to provide our kids with the basics, like reading, writing and maths."

Christian Lobby state director Peter Earle said the assignment was not about education, rather a teacher or school pushing their own agenda on young minds.

"The subject matter was totally inappropriate," he said.

After being approached by The Sunday Mail, an Education Queensland spokeswoman late yesterday said the school had decided to drop the assignment from its curriculum and would work with the girl and her family to achieve a "satisfactory resolution".

"The aim of the assignment was to encourage students to think about diversity, culture and belief systems," she said.

"Schools can offer alternative assessment topics in consultation with parents, if the school is aware of concerns about an assignment."
_________________________________________________________________

Because heaven forbid, she actually be confronted with how her viewpoints actually affect people. The reaction of this girl and her mother demonstrate to me that both should be forced to do the assignment in question, to teach them a thing or two about tolerance, understanding and reading comprehension. The assignment didn't actually ask her to imagine she was gay, agree with the homosexual orientation, or even debate homosexuality. What it did was ask her to imagine what it would feel like to be in a minority.

And for fuck's sake, what did she expect for refusing to do the assignment? Why should I go to extra work for her just because she has offensive and bigoted views?

I am shocked that someone would say that somebody's religious or moral views are offensive and bigoted. It sounds like the OP is the bigoted and intolerant one here.

He's the one that felt the need to start arguing it again, I just wanted an update on what actually ended up happening.Then why do you use this forum instead of an internet search engine?

Then why do you use this forum instead of an internet search engine?

Believe it or not, this forum is, on average, more reliable than google.

The school isn't allowed to question your own interpretation of the Bible.

If someone wants to believe the lines in Leviticus and Romans, the school is powerless to question them.

Right, but again, where does Leviticus and Romans say anything about it being a sin to try to think from a homosexual point of view? You dodged my question.

Here, children or parents can refuse assignments on religious grounds.
Well, "there" is bullshit. Avoiding school work on "religious grounds" completely voids the fucking point of going to school.

Right, but again, where does Leviticus and Romans say anything about it being a sin to try to think from a homosexual point of view? You dodged my question.

Since I don't believe it does, why would my opinion matter?

If you can't grasp the concept that the school cannot question a student's religious belief that homosexuality is sin, or that thinking like a homosexual is a sin...

Since I don't believe it does, why would my opinion matter?

If you can't grasp the concept that the school cannot question a student's religious belief that homosexuality is sin, or that thinking like a homosexual is a sin...

What if the student decides that doing math problems is a sin?

What if the student decides that doing math problems is a sin?

I guess you have a real problem there. But it hasn't happened yet.

Believe it or not, this forum is, on average, more reliable than google.That is one of the reasons I come here.

I guess you have a real problem there. But it hasn't happened yet.

Why would that be a problem? According to you, the student's word on his religion could not be questioned. They'd have to pass him in math, even if he never did a single assignment.

What if the student decides that doing math problems is a sin?

Damn, I should have thought of that! "Teacher, my interpretation (which you have NO right to question) of the Bible where it says that man should not eat of the tree of knowledge, means that learning stuff at school is a sin."

No. Not after 91 pages in an already dead thread.I am lazy sometimes.. (Idontwannareathe91pages) :D

so what is the final score?

Damn, I should have thought of that! "Teacher, my interpretation (which you have NO right to question) of the Bible where it says that man should not eat of the tree of knowledge, means that learning stuff at school is a sin."

Sadly, especially after this little stunt, that seems all too probable.

EDIT:

PE: "Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth - I don't want to be physically fit."
Science: "Creationism."
Math: "Tree of knowledge. Also, Pi = 3."
History: "Creationism."
English: "God gave us different languages for a reason."


So there you have it. Technically, according to DK, a christian can weasel their way out of EVERY single class.

i don't think she thought that seeing from another point of view (in this case a homosexual view) was a sin
the girl said she didn't believe in homosexuality
maybe she has never met a gay person or she believe that all gays are just mistaken and will turn straight eventually

i think the teacher should have tried to talk to her about it or give her an alternate assignment not fail her, i think the teacher is at fault.

whats up with these people who think homosexuality is a sin anyway?
it is never mentioned in the bible. the line from the bible used to prove that homosexuality is a sin (do not lie with a man as you would a woman, it is detestable; Leviticus)in context is a reference to pagan male prostitutes. Most priest agree on this subject.

I'm fine with people saying homosexuality is against their values but when people call it a sin and use the bible to back it up it really pisses me off.

Here, children or parents can refuse assignments on religious grounds.

Teachers are required to provide an alternative. So, if gays offend a parent, and the assignment is teaching people about what it's like to be a minority, the teacher shall pick another minority that is not offensive to the parents.

Pretty simple.

You're also allowed to opt out of some topics, like sex education, or family planning, without any reason given.

This is irrelevant for several reasons.

As this took place in Australia, it is the local regulations that apply. Not the local regulations where you live. Unless you can prove that the school being discussed has the same regulations as yours, it does not matter what the laws are where you live.

Also, the school is not questioning the girl's interpretation that thinking like a homosexual is a sin, as that was not demanded of her. What was demanded was that she think like a heterosexual living in a predominantly homosexual environment. I do not think there are any Biblical injunctions against imagining yourself to be a heterosexual and a member of a minority.

I find the following to be interesting points that arise from the original report:

1. The idea of homosexuality being considered a core enough topic to result in a fail in "Health and Physical Education".

2. The lack of the provision of an alternative assignment in the event of wishing to use the topic of homosexuality as a core assignment in such a class on "Health and Physical Education".

3. The abject reluctance of the school to involve parents in the education process, including the explicit statement to children not to discuss this assignment with parents.

-----

1. Why is homosexuality, particularly in the context of questions apparently made in this assignment, considered a core-enough subject to "test" children of that delicate stage in youth? Why force them to think in terms of "survival"?

2. Is this incident not similar to failing a student during their driving test for failing to drive with their feet on the wheel or refusing to replace the engine's sparking plugs for such a test? In other words does not the topic of homosexuality go at least slightly beyond the point of being off-topic enough not to expect students to consider it fastidiously?

3. Why force a child into the mindset of thinking about being in a situation with lots of homosexuals? Is this not as dubious as asking them to imagine themselves on a lunar community with only members of the opposite sex? In other words is this not screwing with their heads?

-----

In conclusion... I feel that the school was in the wrong. The curriculum may be inalterable 'but' they surely are under no obligation to make the exam either a matter of homosexuality or even sexuality. Otherwise I'd be forced to conclude that "Health and Physical Education" is a misnomer and hence deliberately misleading to parents. "Health and Sexual Education" would have been a little more honest a title.

-----

As for the girl declining on religious grounds... her problem BUT she should have been offered an alternative. It is called choice. Or are children not considered equal to adults in the eyes of the State?

i think the teacher should have tried to talk to her about it or give her an alternate assignment not fail her, i think the teacher is at fault.

Why should this one girl get an alternate assignment when doing the one that was assigned wouldn't hurt her? If I were to say that I don't believe in addition, can I get out of doing math assignments?

Seriously, how can the teacher be at fault for giving a student precisely the grade she earned?


Also, the school is not questioning the girl's interpretation that thinking like a homosexual is a sin, as that was not demanded of her. What was demanded was that she think like a heterosexual living in a predominantly homosexual environment. I do not think there are any Biblical injunctions against imagining yourself to be a heterosexual and a member of a minority.

Indeed, given her fairly obvious persecution complex, I would think that this assignment would be right up the girl's alley.

Here, children or parents can refuse assignments on religious grounds.

Teachers are required to provide an alternative.

That is ridiculous -- as has already been illustrated with the math example.

So, if gays offend a parent, and the assignment is teaching people about what it's like to be a minority, the teacher shall pick another minority that is not offensive to the parents.

Pretty simple.

Except parents and children shouldn't have that broad of a veto on school assignments.

In this case, the girl wasn't asked to imagine she was homosexual, that homosexuality wasn't a sin, or anything else directly against her religious beliefs. She was merely asked to imagine that homosexuals exist in greater numbers and how that would effect her. A 13-year old's knee-jerk response that she doesn't like homosexuals simply isn't relevant, let alone sacred. She could have simply worked that view into her response to the assignment.

That her parents are hysterical only makes the situation worse.

You're also allowed to opt out of some topics, like sex education, or family planning, without any reason given.

Such options are stupid, but are also special cases, as you well know. As a general rule, you cannot opt out of assignments or classes.

And the girl's family and community for creating such a narrow minded and intolerant girl within 13 years of life.

I expect this from the southern states of the USA.

I'm A Texan, and rather insulted.

To be fair, it's quite ironic that you're damning the girls parents for being narrow minded, and then you make a disgusting generalised statement based on cultural stereotypes; it was very narrow minded of you to say that.

And plus, she's 13 and has been raised in a family who believes that homosexuality is wrong, which is in itself a valid belief to hold (as long as isn't imposed on others by for instance banning homosexual domestic partnerships), she isn't old enough to have developed a considered position on the issue. All in all, she was too young to be saddled with such a controversial topic, 13 in my opinion is generally too young to be discussing sexual issues in depth, by all means give sex education and information about contraceptives, but this is too young for such explicit subject matter.


Signed:TexasT

Sadly, especially after this little stunt, that seems all too probable.

EDIT:

PE: "Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth - I don't want to be physically fit."
Science: "Creationism."
Math: "Tree of knowledge. Also, Pi = 3."
History: "Creationism."
English: "God gave us different languages for a reason."


So there you have it. Technically, according to DK, a christian can weasel their way out of EVERY single class.

You forgot a few:

Health: "Pray and be cured. If you are not, it is God's will."
Foreign language: "God gave us different languages. To learn a common one is a sin."
Religion: "The Bible is the Word and the Truth; all others are lies."
Music: "All music that does not glorify God is sinful."
Psychology: "All humans are created in God's image. We are as we are because God made us that way."
Government: "Romans says that it's wrong to oppose the government. Therefore, we love the government."
Driver's ed: "God intended for everyone to drive to soccer practice in a huge, gas-guzzling SUV from the oil put in the Earth by God himself"...wait a minute...

I'm not reading 91 pages so forgive me if I repeat anything.

No matter where you stand on the issue of whether or not religion is a valid argument or whether the family was being unreasonable, the fact remains that the teacher instructed the students to NOT discuss this project with their parents, and that raises a red flag for me.

When teachers want to teach kids stuff in secret it ceases to be education and becomes indoctrination, even if you agree with the lesson. Parents have a perfect right to know what their kids are being taught and the methods used.

That ALONE would give me reason to question the motives of the "teacher" here.

Several of the more conservative members of this forum have clearly implied in this thread that parents have a legal right to at least some control their children's education.

I wonder where this legal right comes from? How is it protected? Where is it found in the U.S. Constitution, for example?

I ask because some conservative claim to be firmly in the "strict-constructionist" camp when it comes to legal rights. But not on issues like this one.

I'm not reading 91 pages so forgive me if I repeat anything.

No matter where you stand on the issue of whether or not religion is a valid argument or whether the family was being unreasonable, the fact remains that the teacher instructed the students to NOT discuss this project with their parents, and that raises a red flag for me.

When teachers want to teach kids stuff in secret it ceases to be education and becomes indoctrination, even if you agree with the lesson. Parents have a perfect right to know what their kids are being taught and the methods used.

That ALONE would give me reason to question the motives of the "teacher" here.

I always wondered if the teacher said "don't discuss this with your parents" as in "ZOMG, don't tell your parents!" or if it was more like, "Don't discuss this with your parents," as in, "Don't let your parents do this assignment for you - think for yourselves."

I would guess the latter.

I always wondered if the teacher said "don't discuss this with your parents" as in "ZOMG, don't tell your parents!" or if it was more like, "Don't discuss this with your parents," as in, "Don't let your parents do this assignment for you - think for yourselves."

I would guess the latter.

So would I, I think we've all been told that once or twice by our teachers.

I always wondered if the teacher said "don't discuss this with your parents" as in "ZOMG, don't tell your parents!" or if it was more like, "Don't discuss this with your parents," as in, "Don't let your parents do this assignment for you - think for yourselves."

I would guess the latter.

I didn't get that sense of it from the article. Besides which, that gets into the realm of conjecture.

Why would that be a problem? According to you, the student's word on his religion could not be questioned. They'd have to pass him in math, even if he never did a single assignment.

It's pretty easy for people to show that homosexuality is a topic that is considered anathema in their religion.

Kind of hard to do that with math, unless you're discussing probability when they believe that the universe is completely deterministic.

Once again, here where I live, the student doesn't have to listen to anything about homosexuality if they don't want to.

Several of the more conservative members of this forum have clearly implied in this thread that parents have a legal right to at least some control their children's education.

I wonder where this legal right comes from? How is it protected? Where is it found in the U.S. Constitution, for example?

I ask because some conservative claim to be firmly in the "strict-constructionist" camp when it comes to legal rights. But not on issues like this one.

It's school policy here. It's called the opt-out policy here.

Several of the more conservative members of this forum have clearly implied in this thread that parents have a legal right to at least some control their children's education.

I wonder where this legal right comes from? How is it protected? Where is it found in the U.S. Constitution, for example?

I ask because some conservative claim to be firmly in the "strict-constructionist" camp when it comes to legal rights. But not on issues like this one.

I'll hazard an answer. It's because Conservatives tend to believe that unless the Constitution specifically grants a power to the Government, then it doesn't have it.

Are you suggesting that parents having no say in their children's education is a good thing, or are you just putting that out there?

I didn't get that sense of it from the article. Besides which, that gets into the realm of conjecture.

(a) The article is pretty slanted towards the student in general.

(b) No more or less conjecture than the idea that the teacher was trying to be sneaky. And since that doesn't seem nearly as plausible to me as a student who didn't do the assignment and now wants to make it seem like the teacher was being sneaky....

From the article: Sources said the students were told not to discuss the assignment with their parents and that it was to be kept in-class.


Taken together, these two things would seem to be a matter of, "Give us your own opinion, not your parents'" to me.



It's pretty easy for people to show that homosexuality is a topic that is considered anathema in their religion.

You said they don't have to show it. They just have to claim it and the school cannot question it at all.

Kind of hard to do that with math, unless you're discussing probability when they believe that the universe is completely deterministic.

Once again, here where I live, the student doesn't have to listen to anything about homosexuality if they don't want to.

Then the schools where you live shouldn't consider themselves schools. They should be called daycares, where kids are given busy work that has more to do with keeping them happy than actually having them learn. Whether a student thinks homosexuals are dirty, dirty sinners or not, they exist - they are part of the world she lives in, and thus homosexuality is a topic that any comprehensive school should discuss.

It's school policy here. It's called the opt-out policy here.

Come now, that was an evasive answer.

So if the school changes its policy it deprive parents of input or oversight? The parents have no legal rights apart from the policy?

I'll hazard an answer. It's because Conservatives tend to believe that unless the Constitution specifically grants a power to the Government, then it doesn't have it.

Two problems with that answer:

1) It doesn't address the powers of the state and local governments. Sure, the federal government may be limited to powers enumerated in the Constitution, but that isn't true of state and local governments.

2) Where does the Constitution specifically grant power to the Government to regulate partial-birth abortion or marijuana use? The implied powers of the government are very broad. Why wouldn't they include public education?

Are you suggesting that parents having no say in their children's education is a good thing, or are you just putting that out there?

I'm putting out there that there is a disconnect in some people's thinking.

I think parents have a say in their children's education because that is a liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. But a strict-constructionist can't really say that.

(a) The article is pretty slanted towards the student in general.

(b) No more or less conjecture than the idea that the teacher was trying to be sneaky. And since that doesn't seem nearly as plausible to me as a student who didn't do the assignment and now wants to make it seem like the teacher was being sneaky....


No I think it takes more imagination to come up with a scenario in which the teacher was just challenging the students to think independently. Remember, in the article it cites "sources" as opposed to the student in question as the origin of the statement that the teacher told the students not to tell their parents about the assignment.

If we're using the information in the article as a basis for an opinion, then we must go with the article and not make stuff up.

Once again, here where I live, the student doesn't have to listen to anything about homosexuality if they don't want to.

That's nice, but irrelevant. Do you know if Windaroo Valley State High School has the same poilcy?

Two problems with that answer:

1) It doesn't address the powers of the state and local governments. Sure, the federal government may be limited to powers enumerated in the Constitution, but that isn't true of state and local governments.

2) Where does the Constitution specifically grant power to the Government to regulate partial-birth abortion or marijuana use? The implied powers of the government are very broad. Why wouldn't they include public education?



It may come as a surprise but I agree that the Constitution doesn't grant power to regulate marijuana use and thus ought not to be. (That's the newborn Libertarian in me talking.) As for partial-birth abortion, I'm not going to go down a sidetrack. Suffice it to say that there are those who would classify that as a murder, so not the best example.


I'm putting out there that there is a disconnect in some people's thinking.

I think parents have a say in their children's education because that is a liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. But a strict-constructionist can't really say that.

Fair enough.

No I think it takes more imagination to come up with a scenario in which the teacher was just challenging the students to think independently. Remember, in the article it cites "sources" as opposed to the student in question as the origin of the statement that the teacher told the students not to tell their parents about the assignment.

There is no statement that the teacher told students not to tell their parents about the statement. There is a statement that the teacher told students not to discuss the assignment with the parents. While that can certainly be interpreted as being sneaky, I see no reason to interpret it that way.

Perhaps you do because you don't like the assignment? Personally, I think it's a pretty big stretch to go from a relatively normal in-class statement by a teacher - particularly on a critical thinking style project - to, "ZOMG! The teacher must be a malicious person bent on indoctrination!"

If we're using the information in the article as a basis for an opinion, then we must go with the article and not make stuff up.

We also must recognize the inherent bias in the article, and we can certainly bring in what we know in general about students, teachers, and school assignments.

It may come as a surprise but I agree that the Constitution doesn't grant power to regulate marijuana use. (That's the newborn Libertarian in me talking.) As for partial-birth abortion, I'm not going to go down a sidetrack. Suffice it to say that there are those who would classify that as a murder, so not the best example.

Those were illustrations of cases where the federal government is seen as having powers that aren't necessarily specifically granted. The point remains: where is the federal government specifically granted the power to outlaw murder?

And you are still ignoring the question of state and local governments. Do they have the power to educate your children as they see fit or is there some limit on those powers?

I shudder at the naivete of people who think that no harm will come of giving teenagers a carte blanche to opt out of any lessons/homework assignments which they don't feel like doing...

Well, that colony won't last very long.

It kinda makes me wonder where we will be in 20 years...Perhaps through our tolerance, and understanding we can come to accept all people...or just shoot them to the moon to perfect our great race...

Health: "Pray and be cured. If you are not, it is God's will."
the bible does not say trying to avoid illness or getting help is sinful

Foreign language: "God gave us different languages. To learn a common one is a sin."
it is never said that learning a new language is a sin



Music: "All music that does not glorify God is sinful."
it never says this either


Government: "Romans says that it's wrong to oppose the government. Therefore, we love the government."

really the bible shows many times when people oppose the government
in exodus the pharaoh changes his mind at the very last minute, but the Jews leave any way. In The New testament Mary takes Jesus into the desert to prevent his killing by king Herod. Those are examples of disobeying the government.


Are you christian?
If You are have you read the bible?

do not post things like this if you are uninformed

There is no statement that the teacher told students not to tell their parents about the statement.


I beg to differ.

"That's what concerns me most . . . the parents had no opportunity to even see the assignment," Bronwyn said.


Perhaps you do because you don't like the assignment? Personally, I think it's a pretty big stretch to go from a relatively normal in-class statement by a teacher - particularly on a critical thinking style project - to, "ZOMG! The teacher must be a malicious person bent on indoctrination!"


As I said in my first post, for me it's not about the subject of the assignment but rather the red flag that's raised by the teacher's instructions to keep the assignment in-class, specifying the parents.


We also must recognize the inherent bias in the article, and we can certainly bring in what we know in general about students, teachers, and school assignments.
Boy, if I tried that tactic I'd get raked over the coals for it. People who point out bias typically get flamed on this forum (but only if the perceived bias is liberal.)

Frankly, I don't see it being as biased as you do. Most of it was quotes from people whose alignment on the subject was stated clearly.

(Side note: Gratz on your wedding :) )

I shudder at the naivete of people who think that no harm will come of giving teenagers a carte blanche to opt out of any lessons/homework assignments which they don't feel like doing...

And if the issue were that simple, I'd shudder too.

I don't think she should have been failed. But good for her for standing up in the face of religious discrimination.

Health: "Pray and be cured. If you are not, it is God's will."
the bible does not say trying to avoid illness or getting help is sinful

Foreign language: "God gave us different languages. To learn a common one is a sin."
it is never said that learning a new language is a sin



Music: "All music that does not glorify God is sinful."
it never says this either


Government: "Romans says that it's wrong to oppose the government. Therefore, we love the government."

really the bible shows many times when people oppose the government
in exodus the pharaoh changes his mind at the very last minute, but the Jews leave any way. In The New testament Mary takes Jesus into the desert to prevent his killing by king Herod. Those are examples of disobeying the government.


Are you christian?
If You are have you read the bible?

do not post things like this if you are uninformed

Moses was expressly ordered to defy Pharoah by God; and Mary, Joseph, and Jesus supposedly fled into the desert to avoid execution. If I remember my New Testament correctly, it's quite hot on not directly opposing those in authority, even to the extent of remaining a slave, unless this comes into conflict with serving God.

Those were illustrations of cases where the federal government is seen as having powers that aren't necessarily specifically granted. The point remains: where is the federal government specifically granted the power to outlaw murder?

Conceded.


And you are still ignoring the question of state and local governments. Do they have the power to educate your children as they see fit or is there some limit on those powers?

Relax, I'm not ignoring the question. Just forgot that part. Sheesh.

Just remember that Constructionists apply the same logic to state constitutions and local charters. Now, I'm not going to belabor it by going over 50 state constitutions and gazillions of county/city charters because there's an easier way to figure it out: What happens in the real world?

You have Home Schooling, in which the Government has very little authority to regulate what' staught beyond the basic functional requirements.

You have private schooling, with similar Government limits

And many public schools have curricula based upon elected school boards or councils, with some sort of state minimums applied. I don't know how it is at the school from the article, but in this country the majority of what gets taught in schools is controlled mostly by the citizenry. That suggests to me that Government does NOT have free reign on what gets taught in schools.

That's why the opt-in opt-out system exists.

Moses was expressly ordered to defy Pharoah by God; and Mary, Joseph, and Jesus supposedly fled into the desert to avoid execution. If I remember my New Testament correctly, it's quite hot on not directly opposing those in authority, even to the extent of remaining a slave, unless this comes into conflict with serving God.

and god ordered them to disobey the government and if god would do it
then it is fine

I don't think she should have been failed. But good for her for standing up in the face of religious discrimination.

How is it religious discrimination to ask "how would you feel if homosexuals were the majority?" Would you consider it to be religious discrimination if a student was asked to consider what it'd be like to live in a community where Muslims were a majority?

Health: "Pray and be cured. If you are not, it is God's will."
the bible does not say trying to avoid illness or getting help is sinful

Some people believe that it is, however. They think medicine is "playing God" and will not go to the hospital, get vaccinations, etc.

Music: "All music that does not glorify God is sinful."
it never says this either

Some people believe it, however. There are whole churches that look at it this way. In fact, some churches thing instrumental music is a problem - period, and that the only music should be people lifting their voices in praise.

Government: "Romans says that it's wrong to oppose the government. Therefore, we love the government."

really the bible shows many times when people oppose the government

And yet there is a passage in Romans that says Christians should not. Weird, eh?


Are you christian?
If You are have you read the bible?

do not post things like this if you are uninformed

You get the, "the point flew right over your head" award for today. People can find whatever they want to in the Bible - or just about any holy book for that matter. The question is whether or not it is a good idea to take any statement by a student of, "It's against my religion," and give them special treatment for it.

I beg to differ.

It helps if you have something that actually demonstrates your viewpoint. You have a quote from someone (who, by the way, is incredibly biased in the case - considering the fact that it is her daughter whose grades are in question - and also was not in the classroom when the assignment was given) saying that parents had no opportunity to see the assignment. This does not, in any way, demonstrate that the students were told that they could not tell their parents about the assignment. The only information from "sources", whatever those may be, is that students were told to keep the assignment in class, and not to [b]discuss[/i] it with their parents. This points much more towards a "think for yourself" mentality than a "hide this from your parents," unless you are specifically looking for the latter.

As I said in my first post, for me it's not about the subject of the assignment but rather the red flag that's raised by the teacher's instructions to keep the assignment in-class, specifying the parents.

But your interpretation pre-assumes that the teacher was trying to be malicious. Why?

Boy, if I tried that tactic I'd get raked over the coals for it. People who point out bias typically get flamed on this forum (but only if the perceived bias is liberal.)

Frankly, I don't see it being as biased as you do. Most of it was quotes from people whose alignment on the subject was stated clearly.

Indeed, with all but one of them being people who are biased in one direction. The teacher was not interviewed - there isn't even a "refused to comment" line. Most of the listed viewpoints of the school came not from any school administrator, but from the mother of the girl in question.

(Side note: Gratz on your wedding )

Thanks. =)

That's how school works. You do the assignments or you fail.

I don't think she should have been failed.

You think students who refuse to do their assignments should, what? Get all A's?

But good for her for standing up in the face of religious discrimination.

What religious discrimination? She wasn't failed because of her religion. She was failed because she didn't do the work.

Now, if she had done the assignment, stated her point of view, and then been failed because the teacher didn't agree with her, that would have been religious discrimination. But that didn't happen. She just didn't do the assignment at all. That makes her failure completely and entirely her own fault.

You think students who refuse to do their assignments should, what? Get all A's?


Only if they have pervy teachers. (Yes, there are teachers who give attractive girls points for not doing what they're supposed to. So fuckin' creepy.)

And if the issue were that simple, I'd shudder too.

How is it not that simple? She could have written that homosexuality was satanic in origin and that she'd feel deeply uncomfortable living in a place where the majority of people were homosexual. She didn't, she refused to work, and she was failed.

I've got a French oral exam next week: I'm expected to argue with the examiner on three controversial topics (one chosen by me, two chosen by the examiner). Obviously some topics are harder than others, and I'd love to be able to refuse to discuss anything tricky like Euthanasia or religious rights vs. homosexual rights but obviously this would deny the whole point of the exam. Why should I work damn hard and then get an equivalent grade to somebody who refused to cover half the course?

And for fuck's sake, what did she expect for refusing to do the assignment? Why should I go to extra work for her just because she has offensive and bigoted views?
Just because they dont agree with your views doesnt make them offensive and bigoted. Its a religious belief shared by A LOT of people, granted not to many on this forum. It directly contradicts a religious belief she holds. What about your beleifs? Wouldnt you LOVE to do a project on creationism? Hm?

Just because they dont agree with your views doesnt make them offensive and bigoted. Its a religious belief shared by A LOT of people, granted not to many on this forum. It directly contradicts a religious belief she holds. What about your beleifs? Wouldnt you LOVE to do a project on creationism? Hm?
Some opinions are less valid than others, namely the hateful ones, no matter how many people subscribe to them.

Just because they dont agree with your views doesnt make them offensive and bigoted. Its a religious belief shared by A LOT of people, granted not to many on this forum. It directly contradicts a religious belief she holds. What about your beleifs? Wouldnt you LOVE to do a project on creationism? Hm?

I would. I'd enjoy explaining why Creationism is unscientific and deserves ridicule rather than equal treatment.

She had the opportunity to do the same for homosexuality and she refused.

She failed.

Good.

Some opinions are less valid than others, namely the hateful ones, no matter how many people subscribe to them.
Be a little more educated in Christian belief if you want to argue it. Christianity doesnt TEACH HATE.

and god ordered them to disobey the government and if god would do it
then it is fine

Christians are keen to point out that Old Testament teachings such as kosher have been replaced by a New Covenant. The Pauline Epistles explicitly state that one should submit to authority.

Just because they dont agree with your views doesnt make them offensive and bigoted. Its a religious belief shared by A LOT of people, granted not to many on this forum. It directly contradicts a religious belief she holds. What about your beleifs? Wouldnt you LOVE to do a project on creationism? Hm?

A lot of people hold that it is against their religion to consider what life might be like if homosexuals were the majority and they were a minority heterosexual? I don't know of any official religious position or passage against this. Do you?

Meanwhile, why not do a project on creationism, particularly if it were an opinion project? Akai Oni could write about finding the creationism to be ridiculous, and explaining why. Likewise, this girl could have written that being a minority heterosexual in a majority homosexual community would be awful, because she'd be surrounded by sinners with sinful ways or about how she would try and evangelize to them or whatever. Instead, she just plain didn't do the work.

Be a little more educated in Christian belief if you want to argue it. Christianity doesnt TEACH HATE.

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:26).

Be a little more educated in Christian belief if you want to argue it. Christianity doesnt TEACH HATE.

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:26).

It helps if you have something that actually demonstrates your viewpoint. You have a quote from someone (who, by the way, is incredibly biased in the case - considering the fact that it is her daughter whose grades are in question - and also was not in the classroom when the assignment was given) saying that parents had no opportunity to see the assignment. This does not, in any way, demonstrate that the students were told that they could not tell their parents about the assignment. The only information from "sources", whatever those may be, is that students were told to keep the assignment in class, and not to [b]discuss[/i] it with their parents. This points much more towards a "think for yourself" mentality than a "hide this from your parents," unless you are specifically looking for the latter.

But your interpretation pre-assumes that the teacher was trying to be malicious. Why?

Indeed, with all but one of them being people who are biased in one direction. The teacher was not interviewed - there isn't even a "refused to comment" line. Most of the listed viewpoints of the school came not from any school administrator, but from the mother of the girl in question.


I agree that more quotes from the school staff, or a "refused to comment" would have been helpful, but reading the article still convinces me that there was indoctrination going on for 3 reasons:

-The school seemed more interested in finding out how parents learned of the assignment. While it's true that came from the mother, it does make you wonder what, in her conversation with school officials, gave her this idea?

-The school administration claimed they were powerless to change. That makes me wonder why.

-The school is apparently working with the family toward a satisfactory compromise of some kind. If this were all just a misunderstanding of the teacher's motives-or the student's for that matter- why would this be necessary?

At the end of the day this boils down to the following: You're more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the teacher, and I'm more willing to give it to the student. And no, it's not a result of the subject matter. I'd be equally suspicious if it had been a gay student being forced to imagine herself living in a Puritain colony by a zealous Christian teacher.

To me, it's very simple. People's beliefs ought to be held sacrosanct. We already make reasonable accomodations for people and their beliefs all the time. For Example, when I was in College we had a paper due that happened to fall on a Jewish Holiday. Those students who wouldn't be in class that day were concerned about not being able to turn it in on time so the due date was moved. Simple. No long drawn out debate fests about how religion was getting in the way of getting the papers graded sooner or any of that nonsense. No crying about how it wasn't right that it was a holy day for the Jewish religion in the first place. None of that mattered. It was enough that there was a religious need that had to be accomodated, and it was.

And I saw earlier where a response to as imilar argument involved a hypothetical "well what if someone's religion prohimited them from doing math?" That's a non-argument. If you have to stretch to something that silly to make a point, then the point is weak to begin with.

Of all the retarded debates...

The schools really really need to stop trying to from a Liberal podium. Not that I think they should be teaching from a Conservative one either, but honestly, no good can come of it. You're not going to be able to please everyone that way. There's always going to be some who's morals have been stomped on and this is what you get. I agree that schools should be teaching just the basics. If you want a social tolerance lesson in there, give it more broadly, like, say, discussing current events. Giving a whole, in depth assignment like that was not only asking for trouble, it was begging for it on hands and knees.

For the girl who refused the assignment: suck it up. You don't get to pick and chose everything in the real world. You're always going to be faced with things you don't like, and tasks you don't want to do and choices you don't want to make. It's life. Deal with it. There's no "I don't like it therefore it doesn't exist" law in life. School is meant to prepare you for life, it's a good wake up call to be failed for refusing to do the assignment. Life isn't always fair. Tough cookies.

To her hen of a mother with her feathers ruffled: If you're so dissatisfied with your kid being exposed to homosexuality at school, home school her and teach her how to be an ignorant, intolerant little Hitler yourself.

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:26).

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html

It's interesting how that quote of Jesus himself "has to be taken in context", and yet something a guy who never even met Jesus speaks with absolute and literal authority about what is and isn't allowed to Christians...

Be a little more educated in Christian belief if you want to argue it. Christianity doesnt TEACH HATE.

I would agree that Christ didn't teach hate. But some Christians do. Unfortunate, isn't it?


I agree that more quotes from the school staff, or a "refused to comment" would have been helpful, but reading the article still convinces me that there was indoctrination going on for 3 reasons:

-The school seemed more interested in finding out how parents learned of the assignment. While it's true that came from the mother, it does make you wonder what, in her conversation with school officials, gave her this idea?

The fact that she is likely looking for a reason that her daughter shouldn't fail? The fact that she seems to the assignment itself was a bad thing and would thus be looking for malice? That this is a woman who is convinced that the school was giving out inappropriate assignments and would thus likely assume that she wasn't supposed to know about them?

-The school administration claimed they were powerless to change. That makes me wonder why.

The administration often has little control over the curriculum. It usually comes down from the school board.

-The school is apparently working with the family toward a satisfactory compromise of some kind. If this were all just a misunderstanding of the teacher's motives-or the student's for that matter- why would this be necessary?

People are bitching? I've seen schools "work towards a satisfactory compromise" in cases where it was abundantly clear that the student was entirely at fault. It doesn't necessarily mean that they were at fault - it just means people are complaining and they're trying to resolve it in such a way that the community doesn't get all up in arms.

At the end of the day this boils down to the following: You're more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the teacher, and I'm more willing to give it to the student.

But why? Have you never had an assignment where you were charged to think for yourself - not to ask parents, etc. for help? In most cases where a student fails and then tries to blame it on the teacher whose fault is it really?

And no, it's not a result of the subject matter. I'd be equally suspicious if it had been a gay student being forced to imagine herself living in a Puritain colony by a zealous Christian teacher.

Are you under the assumption that this teacher is a zealous homosexual or heterosexual or something of the like? If so, where does that assumption come from? If not, how does this example relate to the actual assignment?

Also note that your comparison doesn't really work. It might if it was a zealous Christian teacher giving an assignment for everyone to imagine that they lived in a Puritan colony. It isn't as if this assignment were directed towards one student, after all. Of course, I think I've seen assignments like that before - from teachers who weren't zealots. It sounds like an interesting history assignment.

To me, it's very simple. People's beliefs ought to be held sacrosanct. We already make reasonable accomodations for people and their beliefs all the time. For Example, when I was in College we had a paper due that happened to fall on a Jewish Holiday. Those students who wouldn't be in class that day were concerned about not being able to turn it in on time so the due date was moved. Simple. No long drawn out debate fests about how religion was getting in the way of getting the papers graded sooner or any of that nonsense. No crying about how it wasn't right that it was a holy day for the Jewish religion in the first place. None of that mattered. It was enough that there was a religious need that had to be accomodated, and it was.

(a) If the prof had decided not to move the deadline, and the Jewish students had failed to turn in their assignments before or on the due date, that would have been their own fault. It is nice that the prof decided to accommodate them, but it was not necessary.

(b) This is, again, not a good comparison to the case at hand. A better comparison would be, "I was in a biology class at college and some students didn't believe in evolution, so they thought they should get out of any assignment having to do with evolution because of their beliefs." Or, to keep it closer to your example, if the Jewish students in question had claimed that they should get a different assignment or due date from everyone else because of their religious beliefs. This girl was not being asked to work on a religious holiday. She was not being asked to make statements that were at odds with her religious beliefs. She was simply given an assignment that charged her to put herself in a different position. If she had done the assignment, from her point of view, and then been failed because of her viewpoints, I could understand complaining. As it is, I cannot.

And I saw earlier where a response to as imilar argument involved a hypothetical "well what if someone's religion prohimited them from doing math?" That's a non-argument. If you have to stretch to something that silly to make a point, then the point is weak to begin with.

I see no difference between a student saying, "My religion is anti-math," and a student claiming that their religion prohibited this assignment. It isn't as if she was being asked to say that homosexuals are saints or anything. The assignment could quite easily have been carried out from the point of view that homosexuals are sinners worthy of damnation, if that was her viewpoint.

But to bring it closer to this case, what if a student refused to take a test on evolutionary theory because the student claimed he was a Creationist? Or refused to take a test on geology because he was a Flat-Earther? Should that student get a whole new assignment, separate from what the rest of the class was doing?

It's interesting how that quote of Jesus himself "has to be taken in context", and yet something a guy who never even met Jesus speaks with absolute and literal authority about what is and isn't allowed to Christians...

On the plus side, if they're right, many popes are going to be seeing Jesus soon after they're elected.

Yes, my sense of humor is dark. I won't deny it.

It's interesting how that quote of Jesus himself "has to be taken in context", and yet something a guy who never even met Jesus speaks with absolute and literal authority about what is and isn't allowed to Christians...

It's not about absolutes and taking things literally, it's more a matter of translation.

It's not about absolutes and taking things literally, it's more a matter of translation.

Nope. The translation is very straightforward in this particular case. The article you linked to argued that the context and cultural environment needs to be considered.

And I saw earlier where a response to as imilar argument involved a hypothetical "well what if someone's religion prohibited them from doing math?" That's a non-argument. If you have to stretch to something that silly to make a point, then the point is weak to begin with.That's not a non-argument; it's simply an argument that there is a limit to what reasonable accomodation to religion is. It's a perfectly valid point to stretch the consequences of someone's principles to test in how far they apply.

Some people belief, on religious grounds, that the earth is flat, should they be accomodated in that belief in an education system? "Nevermind astronauts observed the earth was round, it's just a theory; feel free to ignore it".

"explain what life would be like if you lived with a bunch of gays on the moon". You can take dozens of approaches to that.
I smell an NBC sit-com.
:rolleyes:

What? I just wanted to know what the fascination with responding to month old posts of people who can never respond is. I can't say it was all that sechsy, but I guess some people go in for that sort of shenanigans.

"It is completely out of line for students to be graded on their moral beliefs.
He’s absolutely right. Education shouldn’t try to teach you what to believe. This isn’t some simple right or wrong issue like a maths problem (1+1=2), this is a person’s opinion on something. A person has a right to choose what they believe (within reason, of course – saying maths is against their beliefs is an entirely different kettle of fish) and teachers, let alone the state education system, shouldn’t try to force a change on that.

They had to answer 10 questions, including how they felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would use to help them cope.
In that case then homosexuality could’ve been substituted with something else such as an ethnic minority. I don’t think that it would have changed the assignment much, seeing as it was designed to make students think about being in a minority group.

"It is against my beliefs and I am not going there," she told the teacher, who responded by failing her.
It sounds like me like the child stood up for her beliefs and the teacher immediately got annoyed and failed her. Maybe the teacher was a gay rights activist and allowed her personal emotions to get involved. Who knows? If I had been in the student’s shoes, I probably would’ve done the assignment (I was taught evolution as part of my science course, it doesn’t mean that I had to agree with it) because it only asked you to imagine if homosexuals were the majority, not what your stand on homosexuality was (although it might have come up depending on the questions asked in that survey).

Still, it took guts to say that in front of the class and take punishment for it. People keep slating the girl because of her religious beliefs – but did any of you think that because of her religion that she’s probably be part of a minority (and therefore is already aware of what it’s like to have people pick on her for her beliefs, as displayed by the teacher’s reaction)? Do you know how difficult it is to say that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin (yeah, I know, many of you will say that it doesn’t, or that the verses are misinterpreted, etc.) when it’s a very politically incorrect thing to do nowadays? I’m not saying that the girl was right in this case, but articles are generally so vague that it’s hard to know the entire situation unless you were there yourself. It does seem a bit to me like she is of the type of upbringing that stresses that homosexuality is a terrible sin (which is silly because in God’s eyes sins aren’t graded in terms of how ‘bad’ they are) and that you shouldn’t associate with homosexuals (which is completely unchristian because the Bible teaches to love your neighbour as yourself – which in this case implies respecting homosexuals).

The teacher should not have started by telling children not to get their parents involved (how often have you told your parents about homework?) and yet the girl didn’t tell her parents – until the F on the report card showed up.

Nope. The translation is very straightforward in this particular case. The article you linked to argued that the context and cultural environment needs to be considered.

Whatever, all i'm trying to get at is that the Bible is just the most confusing thing ever. For every verse, there will probably 10 versus that seem to contradict it, there are some that contradict RLI's passage for instance.

What is wrong with this thread? The fact that so many people are responded who are closed minded- and that doesn't only mean the Christians. Remember, you are dealing with 13 year-olds. They think that if something is in-class, and they are not to discuss it with their parents, they should not even mention it. If when I was a child I had brought something up like that to my parents, I could never keep them from ranting about it to me, which would have influenced what I would say. Also, remember that if someone takes offense to disecting a frog, in many places a different opportunity to fulfill the assignment would be provided.

He’s absolutely right. Education shouldn’t try to teach you what to believe. This isn’t some simple right or wrong issue like a maths problem (1+1=2), this is a person’s opinion on something. A person has a right to choose what they believe (within reason, of course – saying maths is against their beliefs is an entirely different kettle of fish) and teachers, let alone the state education system, shouldn’t try to force a change on that.

Yes, he is right. And if this girl had actually been graded on her moral beliefs, that would be a problem. But nobody tried to force her to change her beliefs or to believe a certain thing.

In that case then homosexuality could’ve been substituted with something else such as an ethnic minority. I don’t think that it would have changed the assignment much, seeing as it was designed to make students think about being in a minority group.

Perhaps, but would it have related to the other class material they were going over?

It sounds like me like the child stood up for her beliefs and the teacher immediately got annoyed and failed her.

Not even doing the assignment is "standing up for your beliefs"? It isn't as if the girl were asked to claim that homosexuals are A-OK or something like that.

Maybe the teacher was a gay rights activist and allowed her personal emotions to get involved. Who knows?

I see no reason to think that.

If I had been in the student’s shoes, I probably would’ve done the assignment (I was taught evolution as part of my science course, it doesn’t mean that I had to agree with it) because it only asked you to imagine if homosexuals were the majority, not what your stand on homosexuality was (although it might have come up depending on the questions asked in that survey).

Even if it did ask you where you stand, that would be a question you could answer. There would only be a problem if a student were graded based on whether or not the teacher agreed on the answer.

But you've hit the nail on the head here. She could have done the assignment, no matter what her opinion on homosexuals was, just as a Flat-Earth can do a geology assignment, a Geocentrist can do an astronomy assignment, or a Creationist can do a biology assignment.

Still, it took guts to say that in front of the class and take punishment for it. People keep slating the girl because of her religious beliefs – but did any of you think that because of her religion that she’s probably be part of a minority (and therefore is already aware of what it’s like to have people pick on her for her beliefs, as displayed by the teacher’s reaction)? Do you know how difficult it is to say that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin (yeah, I know, many of you will say that it doesn’t, or that the verses are misinterpreted, etc.) when it’s a very politically incorrect thing to do nowadays? I’m not saying that the girl was right in this case, but articles are generally so vague that it’s hard to know the entire situation unless you were there yourself. It does seem a bit to me like she is of the type of upbringing that stresses that homosexuality is a terrible sin (which is silly because in God’s eyes sins aren’t graded in terms of how ‘bad’ they are) and that you shouldn’t associate with homosexuals (which is completely unchristian because the Bible teaches to love your neighbour as yourself – which in this case implies respecting homosexuals).

How does the teacher's reaction (ie. giving a failing grade to a student who *gasp* didn't do the work) represent being picked on for her beliefs? What makes you think the girl stood up in front of the class and "took punishment" for it. It sounds more like she didn't do the work, got a failing grade, and then whined about it to me.

The teacher should not have started by telling children not to get their parents involved (how often have you told your parents about homework?) and yet the girl didn’t tell her parents – until the F on the report card showed up.

Why shouldn't the teacher tell the students not to get their parents involved? The students are supposed to do the work, not the parents. The students were supposed to imagine themselves in this situation and write about it - they weren't supposed to ask their parents for their parents' opinions. I've had plenty of teachers tell us not to get our parents, friends, etc. to help on assignments.

What is wrong with this thread? The fact that so many people are responded who are closed minded- and that doesn't only mean the Christians. Remember, you are dealing with 13 year-olds. They think that if something is in-class, and they are not to discuss it with their parents, they should not even mention it.

They do?


Also, remember that if someone takes offense to disecting a frog, in many places a different opportunity to fulfill the assignment would be provided.

...but should it be?

Be a little more educated in Christian belief if you want to argue it. Christianity doesnt TEACH HATE.

I assure you that I'm not ignorant to Christianity, and I said nothing about Christianity teaching hate. It is true that homophobia has infested the church since the time of Paul, but I've known and been friends with Christians who hold nothing against gays or homosexuality.
Tolerance and Jesus are not mutually exclusive in my experience, though they are rarely found together, at least where I live.

Things like this are normal in todays socity. People think that just because their religin says that something is bad they follow it like a mindless drone. That is why our world is so messed up. This is the USA one of the few truly free countries in this world so people should be able to make their own desions on how they want to live their life buy they have to be smart about it and not just use religin as a shiled.

Question: Why didn't she simply do the assignment, get a good grade on it, then go bitch to the school administration about its immorality? I did similar things numerous times throughout primary and secondary school, and the results were far better.

*sings*Gravedigger....when you dig my grave....can you make it shallow....so I can feel the rain.....

I totally don't remember who did that song, or any of the other lyrics... :(

I've got a real simple solution - send the kid to a private Christian school! Then the mother can bitch how much money she has to fork out on education instead.

Zombies. Go for the head shot; it's the only way to make sure it's dead.