NationStates Jolt Archive

n-irl brought in an act so homosexuals cant be discriminated against in work places such as, christian bookshops, old folks homes and b'n'b's. also it prevents teachers in christian schools preaching that homos are evil.
now i'm a big fan of freedom of speech and i have alos been accused of wanting to lower gays to second class status, but i think there is a line what you can or cannot say in a work place or a school. so this act is fine by me.

The Democratic Unionist Party, usually associated with the protestants, tried to bring a motion to oppose this.
here's a qoute from a politician from this party.
"If a teacher teaches the christian belief that homosexuality is sinful, then a pubil who self identifies himself as being gay could bring a claim for harrassment by complaining that such teaching had the effect of violating thier dignaty or creating an intimidating, humiliating or offensive enviroment."
to me thats right to point why this is act is a good thing.
also.
"Is this the kind of situation we want to to place our teachers in Northren Ireland today?"
yes it is, welcome to the 21st century.

no which group of people opposed the motion to oppose the origional act? as in who were in favour of the new act?
the so called "evil catholics".
sinn fein say that the DUP are using homophobia for political gain.
"It is attempting to whip up homophobic sentiment that leads to discrimination and violence."

i wouldnt vote for sinn fein in the republic but in the north i would. they seem to be the ones most likily to bring advancement to n-irl, despite being the political wing of the ira. they highlighted that there has been a 175% increase on violence against homosexuals in n-irl.

so people of NS, this act good or bad?

ANYTHING that helps protect people and keeps them from being discriminated against, taken advantage of, persecuted, or abused is a good thing.

Especially if the people helped are gay, but that may just be my pesonal bias, being queer myself...

I knew Sinn Fein wasn't evil! Yay!

There isn't a link? I can't find it if there is one...

Aside, lets see if I understand this one part right or not. Does the Christian Teacher thing you mentioned apply to public schools only or private schools as well? If both, how can any elected government expect to be able to make a law that stipulates what may be a religious belief and what way not, AND then dictate that their truth be taught in all private assemblies?

You WILL advance our program or we'll shut you down... Interesting concept of liberty I think.

There isn't a link? I can't find it if there is one...

Aside, lets see if I understand this one part right or not. Does the Christian Teacher thing you mentioned apply to public schools only or private schools as well? If both, how can any elected government expect to be able to make a law that stipulates what may be a religious belief and what way not, AND then dictate that their truth be taught in all private assemblies?

You WILL advance our program or we'll shut you down... Interesting concept of liberty I think.

Those are good questions to ask PootWaddle.

There isn't a link? I can't find it if there is one...

Aside, lets see if I understand this one part right or not. Does the Christian Teacher thing you mentioned apply to public schools only or private schools as well? If both, how can any elected government expect to be able to make a law that stipulates what may be a religious belief and what way not, AND then dictate that their truth be taught in all private assemblies?

You WILL advance our program or we'll shut you down... Interesting concept of liberty I think.

I second.

If a teacher places a homosexual child in a situation where they feel they are under attack while they are in a classroom, they deserve to be in trouble. That is the biggest violation of a teacher's duty out there, anyway, and that particular teacher needs to look into finding a feild where they won't be harming innocent children with their innability to hold their tongue.

People need to get it through their head that homosexual people should be as safe from harassment as any other people. The act of harassing a child, who is a captive audience, for their sexual orientation is so egregious that the teacher deserves any and all consequences the law brings down on them.

And yet, if it is a private school (I'm sure there are private schools in N.I.), they receive no government funding and can teach what they want.

If a teacher places a homosexual child in a situation where they feel they are under attack while they are in a classroom, they deserve to be in trouble. That is the biggest violation of a teacher's duty out there, anyway, and that particular teacher needs to look into finding a feild where they won't be harming innocent children with their innability to hold their tongue.

People need to get it through their head that homosexual people should be as safe from harassment as any other people. The act of harassing a child, who is a captive audience, for their sexual orientation is so egregious that the teacher deserves any and all consequences the law brings down on them.

What if they feel bad because I teach them that having sex with their siblings is wrong?

What if they feel bad because I teach them they should only have sex with their spouse, ever.

What if they feel bad because I had to tell them in private that they should wash more often because they smell badly and the other children are starting to notice...

There are lots of things that can traumatize a child in a classroom. Should we legislate them all?

Perhaps we should anticipate some children having problems where others do not and supply general councilors for children to seek help and guidance from instead of trying to legislate religious doctrine.

And yet, if it is a private school (I'm sure there are private schools in N.I.), they receive no government funding and can teach what they want.

And I'll bet there are religious schools in NI that are funded solely by the government.

Anyway, everyday I prey for northern ireland's independence.

What if they feel bad because I teach them that having sex with their siblings is wrong?

What if they feel bad because I teach them they should only have sex with their spouse, ever.

What if they feel bad because I had to tell them in private that they should wash more often because they smell badly and the other children are starting to notice...

There are lots of things that can traumatize a child in a classroom. Should we legislate them all?

Perhaps we should anticipate some children having problems where others do not and supply general councilors for children to seek help and guidance from instead of trying to legislate religious doctrine.

What if you teach in class black people are irrehabilitatable thieves?
What if you teach Arabic people are all terrorists?
What if you teach Jews are sinful Christ killers?
What if you teach homosexuals are sinful?

And I'll bet there are religious schools in NI that are funded solely by the government.

Anyway, everyday I prey for northern ireland's independence.

I would not be surprised if that was the case too.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/1211/breaking38.htm

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-3232.html

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=4333755&p=433377x

I think we should enforce homosexuality in Northern Ireland, every IRA-man gets a Unionist paired up as his beau, and vice versa. After a generation the sectarian violence would be reduced to disagreements about curtains and stuff.

Then we can repopulate the place with Afghans, or Danes or something.

What if you teach in class black people are irrehabilitatable thieves?
What if you teach Arabic people are all terrorists?
What if you teach Jews are sinful Christ killers?
What if you teach homosexuals are sinful?

Why don't we talk about if it okay to teach our beliefs of acceptable sexual behaviors to our children and deal with egocentrisms, racisms and bigotry in the next class.

Thing is, I don't beleive that either the DUP or Sinn Fein have a genuine interest in any of this. The situation could just have easliy been the reverse.

Anyway, everyday I prey for northern ireland's independence.

That would just lead to civil war.


On topic: Anything to stop people being discriminated against is a good thing.

Sinn Féin and the Green Party are the only two parties to want to bring in civil partnership in the Republic of Ireland as far as I know. Being Irish and gay I'm annoyed by the fact that Northerners can have civil partnerships and I can't.

That would just lead to civil war.


Not my problem. Maybe the america irish should act as peacekeepers? Really it's their dream after all.

Why don't we talk about if it okay to teach our beliefs of acceptable sexual behaviors to our children and deal with egocentrisms, racisms and bigotry in the next class.
There is no difference in attacking homosexuals than there is in attacking any of the rest. When was the last time some one was notably persecuted or killed for being an adulterer in western nations? for incest? for premarital sex? for having a child out of wedlock?

There isn't a link? I can't find it if there is one...

Aside, lets see if I understand this one part right or not. Does the Christian Teacher thing you mentioned apply to public schools only or private schools as well? If both, how can any elected government expect to be able to make a law that stipulates what may be a religious belief and what way not, AND then dictate that their truth be taught in all private assemblies?

You WILL advance our program or we'll shut you down... Interesting concept of liberty I think.

Even private institutions in this country have public requirements placed on them ... personally I would just make sure places that violate this receive no public funding whatsoever instead of a hard rule set. But thats me.

n-irl brought in an act so homosexuals cant be discriminated against in work places such as, christian bookshops, old folks homes and b'n'b's. also it prevents teachers in christian schools preaching that homos are evil.


This is the 1st Horseman of the Apocalypse, as was foretold by the sign of Big Ian having truck with Fenians.....

There is no difference in attacking homosexuals than there is in attacking any of the rest. When was the last time some one was notably persecuted or killed for being an adulterer in western nations? for incest? for premarital sex? for having a child out of wedlock?

Yeah I seem to remember spending some time in the hospital for being gay... got to love getting beat down when walking home from the bars.

There is no difference in attacking homosexuals than there is in attacking any of the rest. When was the last time some one was notably persecuted or killed for being an adulterer in western nations? for incest? for premarital sex? for having a child out of wedlock?

Every time a husband shoots his wife's lover, Every time a wife kills or mutilates her cheating husband while he was sleeping, or every time a girlfriend attacks and tries to kill another girl who is pregnant by her boyfriend... It happens all the time and still not the topic.


The topic here is having the right to teach our children our religious beliefs and self-determined parameters for what is and what is a not acceptable behavior for personal sexual conduct.

Even private institutions in this country have public requirements placed on them ... personally I would just make sure places that violate this receive no public funding whatsoever instead of a hard rule set. But thats me.

Stopping the bombing was hard enough. Let's not get overambitious with what can be accomplished.

Yeah I seem to remember spending some time in the hospital for being gay... got to love getting beat down when walking home from the bars.

Anyone walking home alone from the bar is susceptible to being beat down, gay or not.

Every time a husband shoots his wife's lover, Every time a wife kills or mutilates her cheating husband while he was sleeping, or every time a girlfriend attacks and tries to kill another girl who is pregnant by her boyfriend... It happens all the time and still not the topic.


The topic here is having the right to teach our children our religious beliefs and self-determined parameters for what is and what is a not acceptable behavior for personal sexual conduct.

If some school were teaching that you are wrong for being beat by your husband or other such nonsense I would care for it about as much as preaching against homosexuals too ...

Like I said before personally I would just remove all governmental funding from any institution that chose to preach such (including tax breaks)

Teach your kids how you want but do it without the support of society around it.

Though on the governmental side why should the government have to approve every educational institution as capable of teaching our students?

Wow, legalese in Europe is even worse than it is in the US, unless its just that this is a freaking long code. Anyway, if anyone's interested:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/sr/sr2006/20060439.htm

Personally, I would shy away from telling parochial schools that receive no government aid that they cannot teach whatever bigotry they please. If a child is then harmed by those teachings, I blame the parents who put them there more than the teachers, since the parents chose to indoctrinate their children in such a school. But, as far as I know, there is nothing that would restrict such a law from going into effect in England or NI (assuming it actually passes).


The topic here is having the right to teach our children our religious beliefs and self-determined parameters for what is and what is a not acceptable behavior for personal sexual conduct.

Sexual conduct and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

Anyone walking home alone from the bar is susceptible to being beat down, gay or not.

Was not alone there were two of us ... Just happened to be 4 of them ...

And the were yelling fag when they poped my lung with a knife, First beat down like that I had seen in a long time in small town Minnesota ...

If some school were teaching that you are wrong for being beat by your husband or other such nonsense I would care for it about as much as preaching against homosexuals too ...

Like I said before personally I would just remove all governmental funding from any institution that chose to preach such (including tax breaks)

Teach your kids how you want but do it without the support of society around it.

Though on the governmental side why should the government have to approve every educational institution as capable of teaching our students?


Because we are not talking about academia here, not about the three R's, it's about what is and what is not acceptable behavior. Not about what is and what is not legal behavior.

If I teach that according to religion “A” it's okay to have three spouses at the same time, should the government be allowed to illegalize my teaching or just ban the practice of having three spouses? If I teach that it's wrong to have sex for any reason outside of procreation, should the government be able to close the school because it's not practical? If I teach that God created Man and Woman to be joined and to become one flesh, joined together in their collective likeness of God, and anything other than that is an repugnance to the Lord, why should an elected government have ability to mandate a change in my doctrine in private assembly?

Anyone walking home alone from the bar is susceptible to being beat down, gay or not.

I'm done with homophobic trolls.

Teachers can't spread homophobia under the guise of religion? Fantastic! It's about time they caught up to other requirements which prevent racism under the guise of religion/political belief, Holocaust denial, sexism etc.

You always hear people telling teachers to keep their opinions out of the classroom...but then those same people turn around and get angry that teachers can't tell kids "Fags will burn in hell". Make up your damn minds people!

...
Sexual conduct and sexual orientation are not the same thing.


Never said it was.

I think we should enforce homosexuality in Northern Ireland, every IRA-man gets a Unionist paired up as his beau, and vice versa. After a generation the sectarian violence would be reduced to disagreements about curtains and stuff. Oh my my my...quite so!

Because we are not talking about academia here, not about the three R's, it's about what is and what is not acceptable behavior. Not about what is and what is not legal behavior.

If I teach that according to religion “A” it's okay to have three spouses at the same time, should the government be allowed to illegalize my teaching or just ban the practice of having three spouses? If I teach that it's wrong to have sex for any reason outside of procreation, should the government be able to close the school because it's not practical? If I teach that God created Man and Woman to be joined and to become one flesh, joined together in their collective likeness of God, and anything other than that is an repugnance to the Lord, why should an elected government have ability to mandate a change in my doctrine in private assembly?
No I don't think they would have a right for you to stop teaching those things ... just like I don't think they should have to fund or mark approval as an educational institution either.

Why don't we talk about if it okay to teach our beliefs of acceptable sexual behaviors to our children and deal with egocentrisms, racisms and bigotry in the next class.

Homosexuality is not just about sex. That's just the fun part of it.

But no, sorry...just because your religion is intolerant, doesn't mean that it's okay.

And the odd thing is...not all Christians are raving homophobes pushing an anti-gay agenda.

So why don't we hire THOSE Christians?

Never said it was.

You chalked it all up to 'sexual behaviour' to separate it from racism, sexism etc. So yes, in essence you said just that. A person can refrain their whole life from sexual behaviour, but that does not mean they are free from a sexual orientation. You are trying to hide behind the idea that this is DIFFERENT than other types of discrimination because it's about BEHAVIOUR. No, that's just the part that gets the most attention, and it isn't just the behaviour that is attacked, it is the orientation itself.

I'm done with homophobic trolls.

Yeah because of course it was because I was waking home alone ...

Except I was not

Of course it is just because I am an easy target ... (at 6'4" 220 pounds I would not classify myself as stereotypical easy target) (proven by the fact that 3 of them ended up in the hospital with me even after they stabbed me)

[/sarcasm]

I was beat down because I was bisexual and made the mistake of kissing my then boyfriend (peck on the lips no making out) as we left the bar. They made that clear as they were yelling it at me when kicking me in the chest.

Teachers can't spread homophobia under the guise of religion? Fantastic! It's about time they caught up to other requirements which prevent racism under the guise of religion/political belief, Holocaust denial, sexism etc.

You always hear people telling teachers to keep their opinions out of the classroom...but then those same people turn around and get angry that teachers can't tell kids "Fags will burn in hell". Make up your damn minds people!

It's not the same as racism at all. It IS the same as saying larcenists, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, wife abusers, blackmailers, gluttons, drunkards, reprobates of all kinds are guilty of doing non acceptable behaviors and we teach that they risk their own soul by continuing to practice such acts.

You chalked it all up to 'sexual behaviour' to separate it from racism, sexism etc. So yes, in essence you said just that. A person can refrain their whole life from sexual behaviour, but that does not mean they are free from a sexual orientation. You are trying to hide behind the idea that this is DIFFERENT than other types of discrimination because it's about BEHAVIOUR. No, that's just the part that gets the most attention, and it isn't just the behaviour that is attacked, it is the orientation itself.

A person can have a sexual desire to commit incest with their mother their entire life, that means they need counseling but it does not mean that it's wrong to teach against incest behaviors in the classroom because the student might feel isolated and alienated.

I was beat down because I was bisexual and made the mistake of kissing my then boyfriend (peck on the lips no making out) as we left the bar. They made that clear as they were yelling it at me when kicking me in the chest.

That's terrible, UT, I hadn't heard this story before :(

My transgendered brother was attacked three times last year, twice while dressed as a woman, and once while dressed as a man, but kissing his boyfriend. He's also very large, but it doesn't make much of a difference when they descend en masse. I'm just happy he hasn't been seriously hurt...but the fact that there is so much anti-gay sentiment out there, and that people actively support it and think it should be ENCOURAGED disgusts me. It also scares me, because it means my brother is at a higher risk for violence.

And THAT is why, those of you who think pushing homophobia (or whatever you choose to pretty that term up with...) need to rethink. You're giving the green light to the worst kinds of abuse against people who, whether you think they chose it or not, do not deserve to be made the victims of violence based simply on who they are attracted to.

Never said it was.

You made the assumption that a law which bans discrimination or harrassment on the basis of sexual orientation would somehow keep you from talking about "acceptable sexual practices."

The only rule is that all of the students are treated equally, with no regard to their sexual orientation. A teacher could easily say, "The Holy Catholic doctrine is that sex should be within the confines of marriage and for the purpose of procreation. Non-procreative sex or premarital sex is considered to be a sinful action."

Both heterosexual and homosexual students could possibly engage in these sexual practices, and the teacher is telling *all* of them that it is wrong.

What the teacher cannot say is: "Gay people are evil. We should shun little Johnny over here who likes to look at boys until he repents of his evil ways."

It's not the same as racism at all. It IS the same as saying larcenists, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, wife abusers, blackmailers, gluttons, drunkards, reprobates of all kinds are guilty of doing non acceptable behaviors and we teach that they risk their own soul by continuing to practice such acts.

There you go equating sexual orientation and sexual behavior again. It is the same as racism, because it is a trait of that person. They are attracted to who they are attracted to, whether you like it or not. And you can be attracted to someone and never act upon that attraction.

Everything else you list are behaviors. You could compare them, if you were so inclined, to certain types of sexual behaviors. It does not, however, make sense to compare them to sexual orientation.

It's not the same as racism at all. It IS the same as saying larcenists, adulterers, fornicators, idolaters, wife abusers, blackmailers, gluttons, drunkards, reprobates of all kinds are guilty of doing non acceptable behaviors and we teach that they risk their own soul by continuing to practice such acts.

Sorry, that's your opinion, because you seem to think that it is a choice, and a wrong one at that.

I don't care how disgusting your opinions are...and believe me, they are the epitome of disgusting in my books. But keep them to yourself. Go ahead, indocrinate your children with bias and prejudice...every racist and sexist has that right too...and yes, it IS the same...but I welcome any effort that prevents you from introducing your homophobia as truth to children in a school.

That's terrible, UT, I hadn't heard this story before :(

My transgendered brother was attacked three times last year, twice while dressed as a woman, and once while dressed as a man, but kissing his boyfriend. He's also very large, but it doesn't make much of a difference when they descend en masse. I'm just happy he hasn't been seriously hurt...but the fact that there is so much anti-gay sentiment out there, and that people actively support it and think it should be ENCOURAGED disgusts me. It also scares me, because it means my brother is at a higher risk for violence.

And THAT is why, those of you who think pushing homophobia (or whatever you choose to pretty that term up with...) need to rethink. You're giving the green light to the worst kinds of abuse against people who, whether you think they chose it or not, do not deserve to be made the victims of violence based simply on who they are attracted to.


Being against slavery in the mid-1800’s is not the equivalent of saying someone was willing to join John Brown’s Army to kill the slave owners….

A person can have a sexual desire to commit incest with their mother their entire life, that means they need counseling but it does not mean that it's wrong to teach against incest behaviors in the classroom because the student might feel isolated and alienated.

Yes yes, and next you'll be bringing in pedophelia and bestiality.

The limits of what is acceptable is society-driven, that's for sure. Luckily, our society at least seems to be advancing somewhat, and stepping back with the belief that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they want.

If that means shagging your mom...well, that's pretty disturbing, and please don't get her pregnant, but power to you...just don't tell me about it.

Consenting adults...the choice is theirs...not yours.

Go ahead and teach that incest is wrong. You can commit incest either as a hetero, or a homosexual.

I think Dem sums it up well...you continue to mix and mingle orientation and sexual behaviours in order to justify yourself.

Being against slavery in the mid-1800’s is not the equivalent of saying someone was willing to join John Brown’s Army to kill the slave owners….

Sorry...you're trying to equate homophobia with anti-slavery? Go back, retool that and then we'll talk. Your example is too loaded with self-serving humanitarian sentiment.

How about we assume you meant supporting slavery...that fits much better with this:
And THAT is why, those of you who think pushing slavery(or whatever you choose to pretty that term up with...) need to rethink. You're giving the green light to the worst kinds of abuse against people who, whether you think they chose it or not, do not deserve to be made the victims of violence based simply on who they are.

Sorry, that's your opinion, because you seem to think that it is a choice, and a wrong one at that.

I don't care how disgusting your opinions are...and believe me, they are the epitome of disgusting in my books. But keep them to yourself. Go ahead, indocrinate your children with bias and prejudice...every racist and sexist has that right too...and yes, it IS the same...but I welcome any effort that prevents you from introducing your homophobia as truth to children in a school.

I never said I thought it was a choice (in orientation). Bias and prejudice, sexist and racists? Is it wrong to teach against unacceptable behaviors because some people feel very strong urges to do them anyway and we don't want them to feel badly about it? Nonsense.

I never said I thought it was a choice (in orientation). Bias and prejudice, sexist and racists? Is it wrong to teach against unacceptable behaviors because some people feel very strong urges to do them anyway and we don't want them to feel badly about it? Nonsense.

Go hard...teach about behaviours.

But don't single out homosexuals, and don't make it about orientation.

Clear? Good.

IMHO, if it isn't about science, history, math, or the predominant language of your country (and some other languages for a mix), it shouldn't be taught and shouldn't come out of the teacher's mouth.

Want to know why test scores drop in the US, and aren't rising? Because we waste a lot of time teaching things that have nothing to do with academic subjects.

If a teacher is teaching math, and opens his mouth about "teh gheys" he needs to have his teaching certificate revoked.

IMHO, if it isn't about science, history, math, or the predominant language of your country (and some other languages for a mix), it shouldn't be taught and shouldn't come out of the teacher's mouth.

So that's literature, sociology, philosophy, economics, drama, politics, physical education, religious education and art all out the window then?

You made the assumption that a law which bans discrimination or harrassment on the basis of sexual orientation would somehow keep you from talking about "acceptable sexual practices."

I didn't make any assumptions, it's in the OP, and later the articles linked to, the story as shown was exactly that, the discussion was about if it would make it possible to persecute the teachers for teaching religious doctrine against homosexual behaviors, they talked about it before it came to a vote.

What the teacher cannot say is: "Gay people are evil. We should shun little Johnny over here who likes to look at boys until he repents of his evil ways."

And where, pray tell, did anyone in the story or this thread suggest that anything like that was okay? I know I didn't say anything like that.

I never said I thought it was a choice (in orientation). Bias and prejudice, sexist and racists? Is it wrong to teach against unacceptable behaviors because some people feel very strong urges to do them anyway and we don't want them to feel badly about it? Nonsense.

Nobody said it was wrong to teach against behavior.

The law says that it is wrong to discriminate against or harrass people based on their sexual orientation.

As I already pointed out, a parochial school teacher could stand in front of the class and say, "Our religion teaches that sex should be only within the confines of marriage and for procreative purposes. Premarital, extramarital, and non-procreative sex are all sinful," and be just fine under this law. What she couldn't say is, "God hates all gay people. If you are attracted to the same sex, you're going to Hell."

I didn't make any assumptions, it's in the OP and later the articles linked to about the story that showed that was exactly what the discussion was about before it came to a vote.

No, it wasn't. The discussion was about teaching that homosexuality is wrong, not that any given set of behaviors is wrong. There is nothing in the law to prohibit religious teachings about certain behaviors. You just can't tailor it to specific sexual orientations or work to make students of a specific sexual orientation feel uncomfortable.


And where, pray tell, did anyone in the story or this thread suggest that anything like that was okay? I know I didn't say anything like that.

Teaching against homosexuality would be pretty much exactly that. You could try to sugar-coat it, but that's what it would be.

Let's look at the quote in the OP:

"If a teacher teaches the christian belief that homosexuality is sinful, then a pubil who self identifies himself as being gay could bring a claim for harrassment by complaining that such teaching had the effect of violating thier dignaty or creating an intimidating, humiliating or offensive enviroment."

The boldface is mine. See how they are talking about teaching that homosexuality is sinful? That is a separate issue from teaching that premarital or non-procreative sex is sinful.

So that's literature, sociology, philosophy, economics, drama, politics, physical education, religious education and art all out the window then?

Depending on your school district, sociology/philosophy/economics/politics/history can often be combined into the social sciences. In Canada, it's one course.

And even there, you can talk about beliefs and opinions...but you don't get to push an agenda.

And religious education? Well you can imagine where I stand on that...but if that floats your boat, go ahead...as long as you aren't pushing discrimination and prejudice against PEOPLE.

Depending on your school district, sociology/philosophy/economics/politics/history can often be combined into the social sciences. In Canada, it's one course.

I'm talking about Northern Ireland here - the matter at hand, y'know?

So do you classify the social sciences as science?

But nonetheless you reject the teaching of literature and drama in schools, yes?

So that's literature, sociology, philosophy, economics, drama, politics, physical education, religious education and art all out the window then?

PE's important. I'm sure missing that was an oversight.

So that's literature, sociology, philosophy, economics, drama, politics, physical education, religious education and art all out the window then?

Until you can prove to me that 90 percent of the children can read, write, do math, and know history to an acceptable level, that's correct.

I'm talking about Northern Ireland here - the matter at hand, y'know? No, actually you're not...you're lambasting someone about their odd belief in what should be the only subjects taught.

So do you classify the social sciences as science?

But nonetheless you reject the teaching of literature and drama in schools, yes?

No, I'm not...just pointing out that it's an easy oversight (philosophy/politics/history/geography/whatever), and not a HUGE chunk of DELIBERATELY excluded courses. And also, if in Canada, all these courses could be included as 'Socials', then they could likely be included in other countries under 'history'.

So, to get back on track? Do you have something to say about the law?

Until you can prove to me that 90 percent of the children can read, write, do math, and know history to an acceptable level, that's correct.

Are you claiming that 90% of the children in Northern Irish schools can't read, write, do maths or know history? Given that NI has one of the most academically successful secondary school systems in the UK I think the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Anyhoo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4182006.stm

- second yellow box down.

Nobody said it was wrong to teach against behavior.

The law says that it is wrong to discriminate against or harrass people based on their sexual orientation.

You're not saying what the story says... Mr Donaldson claimed the regulations would punish people with deeply held religious convictions.

He also alleged it would make schools which teach traditional Christian views liable to a harassment claim from gay pupils if they taught homosexuality was sinful.

As I already pointed out, a parochial school teacher could stand in front of the class and say, "Our religion teaches that sex should be only within the confines of marriage and for procreative purposes. Premarital, extramarital, and non-procreative sex are all sinful," and be just fine under this law. What she couldn't say is, "God hates all gay people. If you are attracted to the same sex, you're going to Hell."

You are re-wording what they said to make it acceptable to you. That's nice, but not the topic.



No, it wasn't. The discussion was about teaching that homosexuality is wrong, not that any given set of behaviors is wrong. There is nothing in the law to prohibit religious teachings about certain behaviors. You just can't tailor it to specific sexual orientations or work to make students of a specific sexual orientation feel uncomfortable.

Read the article please. http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=4333755&p=433377x



Teaching against homosexuality would be pretty much exactly that. You could try to sugar-coat it, but that's what it would be.

Let's look at the quote in the OP:

"If a teacher teaches the christian belief that homosexuality is sinful, then a pubil who self identifies himself as being gay could bring a claim for harrassment by complaining that such teaching had the effect of violating thier dignaty or creating an intimidating, humiliating or offensive enviroment."

The boldface is mine. See how they are talking about teaching that homosexuality is sinful? That is a separate issue from teaching that premarital or non-procreative sex is sinful.


Homosexuality in their religious view IS sinful. So is gluttony, or too much drink. Obviously they mean that being a drunkard is sinful or being an alcoholic is sinful, but an alcoholic who is currently abstaining is clearly not indicted. Your wordage is simply distracting play.

Are you claiming that 90% of the children in Northern Irish schools can't read, write, do maths or know history?

No, but you need a class in remedial reading.

I was saying that until you could prove to me that they are performing well, you shouldn't bother teaching the other topics.

Homosexuality in their religious view IS sinful. So is gluttony, or too much drink. Obviously they mean that being a drunkard is sinful or being an alcoholic is sinful, but an alcoholic who is currently abstaining is clearly not indicted. Your wordage is simply distracting play.

Why is it so painful, so difficult, for you to see that you are NOT talking about the same thing when you mention homosexuality and gluttony in the same breath?

You are not gluttonous if you are not engaging in gluttony. So the behaviour of gluttony is the issue.

You are homosexual whether you engage in homosexual acts or not. But you insist that the state of being, and the behaviour is the same thing. Disingenous at the least...deliberately obtuse at the worse.

No, but you need a class in remedial reading.

Note how my sentence was formed as a question: an inquiry into what you meant.

I was saying that until you could prove to me that they are performing well, you shouldn't bother teaching the other topics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4182006.stm

Second yellow box down. NI scores best in the UK.

This seems to be a climb down from your earlier position..."it shouldn't be taught and shouldn't come out of the teacher's mouth". So do you believe that list of subjects should actually be taught or not?

Note how my sentence was formed as a question: an inquiry into what you meant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4182006.stm

Second yellow box down. NI scores best in the UK.

This seems to be a climb down from your earlier position..."it shouldn't be taught and shouldn't come out of the teacher's mouth". So do you believe that list of subjects should actually be taught or not?

It's not a climb down if you read my first post.

No, I don't believe that PE should be taught in schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4182006.stm

Second yellow box down.

*whispers* do you mean the graphs? I see no yellow boxes.

That's terrible, UT, I hadn't heard this story before :(

My transgendered brother was attacked three times last year, twice while dressed as a woman, and once while dressed as a man, but kissing his boyfriend. He's also very large, but it doesn't make much of a difference when they descend en masse. I'm just happy he hasn't been seriously hurt...but the fact that there is so much anti-gay sentiment out there, and that people actively support it and think it should be ENCOURAGED disgusts me. It also scares me, because it means my brother is at a higher risk for violence.

And THAT is why, those of you who think pushing homophobia (or whatever you choose to pretty that term up with...) need to rethink. You're giving the green light to the worst kinds of abuse against people who, whether you think they chose it or not, do not deserve to be made the victims of violence based simply on who they are attracted to.

Yeah I have told it around here before ... Just don't bring it up much except in very specific cases. Personal stories are hard to trust and if believed lead people to dismiss you as overly emotionally bias.

*whispers* do you mean the graphs? I see no yellow boxes.

Box shaded a yellowish/cyan/fawn colour, with a blue header labelled 'GCSE grades A*-C'.

The Gamma settings on my circa 1992 monitor are a bit dodgy, so the block of colour may not actually be yellow.

Are you claiming that 90% of the children in Northern Irish schools can't read, write, do maths or know history? Given that NI has one of the most academically successful secondary school systems in the UK I think the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Anyhoo:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4182006.stm

- second yellow box down.

This also being the very same secondary education system that the Labour dictatorship of Northern Ireland is planning on destroying, presumably to bring us "into line" with England.

.
here's a qoute from a politician from this party.
"If a teacher teaches the christian belief that homosexuality is sinful, then a pubil who self identifies himself as being gay could bring a claim for harrassment by complaining that such teaching had the effect of violating thier dignaty or creating an intimidating, humiliating or offensive enviroment."

Well....yes, that does seem about right, doesn't it? What the hell is a teacher doing teaching that in the first place?

Good law, welcome to modernity.

This also being the very same secondary education system that the Labour dictatorship of Northern Ireland is planning on destroying, presumably to bring us "into line" with England.

They already destroyed the education system in the north of england. Why shouldn't you get your turn in the barrel?

The ultimate plan is to turn everywhere outside of the south east into the third world.

It's not a climb down if you read my first post.


This one?

IMHO, if it isn't about science, history, math, or the predominant language of your country (and some other languages for a mix), it shouldn't be taught and shouldn't come out of the teacher's mouth.

Unless I'm mistaken you've gone from 'subjects X, Y & Z only should be taught in schools', to 'until an arbitrary level of pupil competence is shown subjects X, Y & Z only should be taught in schools'.

What have I missed?

They already destroyed the education system in the north of england. Why shouldn't you get your turn in the barrel?

The ultimate plan is to turn everywhere outside of the south east into the third world.

Well, we're the only part that would have an opportunity to "secede", so you would think Hain would drop the idea....after all, he likes having his own personal kingdom to reign over unopposed, wouldn't want to lose it.

This one?

Unless I'm mistaken you've gone from 'subjects X, Y & Z only should be taught in schools', to 'until an arbitrary level of pupil competence is shown subjects X, Y & Z only should be taught in schools'.

What have I missed?

This:

"Until you can prove to me that 90 percent of the children can read, write, do math, and know history to an acceptable level, that's correct."

This:

"Until you can prove to me that 90 percent of the children can read, write, do math, and know history to an acceptable level, that's correct."

Yes, and it was that part I was identifying as the climb down.

It's not a climb down if you read my first post.

That wasn't your first post.

Well, we're the only part that would have an opportunity to "secede", so you would think Hain would drop the idea....after all, he likes having his own personal kingdom to reign over unopposed, wouldn't want to lose it.

I'm sorry, but if you are going to be part of the Union, then you have to follow the same rule as everyone else: if you don't have a home counties accent, then it is required that you are an illiterate, workshy, criminal gobshite. (Except for scotland. That's different and special. Mostly because tony b. actually comes from there and not Durham like he claims).

Why is it so painful, so difficult, for you to see that you are NOT talking about the same thing when you mention homosexuality and gluttony in the same breath?

You are not gluttonous if you are not engaging in gluttony. So the behaviour of gluttony is the issue.

You are homosexual whether you engage in homosexual acts or not. But you insist that the state of being, and the behaviour is the same thing. Disingenous at the least...deliberately obtuse at the worse.

Not at all disingenuous, the simple truth. A glutton is a glutton, even if they are not consuming too much food, then they are a controlled glutton. Look at all the mental and physical reasons for gluttony and, by affect, obesity, they need surgery or serious medications to help them cut down their calorie intake. A person once addicted to cigarettes will always be addicted to cigarettes and nicotine, even if they quit for twenty years they will still be stung by the pangs of addiction. An alcoholic is an alcoholic even when they are not drinking. It's all the same, how does the desire for homosexual sex get a repreive when none of the other temptations do?

Yes, and it was that part I was identifying as the climb down.

That wasn't your first post.

It's not a climb down. Maybe you should wait until I answer your questions before you form an opinion on what I'm saying.

Not at all disingenuous, the simple truth. A glutton is a glutton, even if they are not consuming too much food, then they are a controlled glutton. Look at all the mental and physical reasons for gluttony and, by affect, obesity, they need surgery or serious medications to help them cut down their calorie intake. A person once addicted to cigarettes will always be addicted to cigarettes and nicotine, even if they quit for twenty years they will still be stung by the pangs of addiction. An alcoholic is an alcoholic even when they are not drinking. It's all the same, how does the desire for homosexual sex get a repreive when none of the other temptations do?

because unlike alchohole, nicotine and obesity, homosexuality isn't actually harmful and thus there's no need to abstain?

I'm sorry, but if you are going to be part of the Union, then you have to follow the same rule as everyone else: if you don't have a home counties accent, then it is required that you are an illiterate, workshy, criminal gobshite. (Except for scotland. That's different and special. Mostly because tony b. actually comes from there and not Durham like he claims).

He claims he's from Durham?

I know that when people go on about the "crime" of having a Scottish PM he just stands there, keeps his mouth shut, and looks vaguely uncomfortable, but I always just assumed that was because he knew that everybody knew he was born in Edinburgh.

It's not a climb down. Maybe you should wait until I answer your questions before you form an opinion on what I'm saying.

Hey, when I asked you a question I got the response that I needed a course in remedial reading.

They already destroyed the education system in the north of england. Why shouldn't you get your turn in the barrel?

The ultimate plan is to turn everywhere outside of the south east into the third world.

Infact, London has some of the worst records for schooling, at least inner city ones.

I'm still undecided whether I think grammar schools are a good idea or not. I went to one, and IMO benefitted alot from it, but whether others are unfairly treated in secondary schools is a bit unclear to me. I went to school in Bucks, if thats of importance.

And regarding the OP, the law is good and fair, I wonder why people are disputing it.

Hey, when I asked you a question I got the response that I needed a course in remedial reading.

That's because you didn't read all of my posts before coming to a conclusion.

Should I now post each and every possible missive in my first post, and anticipate all questions in advance, and put the answers in the first post, so that someone doesn't come along and say, "hey, that's a climb down"?

That's because you didn't read all of my posts before coming to a conclusion.

I hadn't come to a conclusion - that is why I asked for more information.

Should I now post each and every possible missive in my first post, and anticipate all questions in advance, and put the answers in the first post, so that someone doesn't come along and say, "hey, that's a climb down"?

Well, if you meant 'don't do X until Y', I think it makes more sense to write that than 'don't do X'.

I hadn't come to a conclusion - that is why I asked for more information.

Well, if you meant 'don't do X until Y', I think it makes more sense to write that than 'don't do X'.

Here, I'll throw you another one.

Certain subjects, such as "life skills" shouldn't be taught in public schools at all.

I believe it's a waste of time and money.

Really, do we live in a world where all parents abdicate all responsibility for raising their child, counting on the state to teach them everything?

That sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

He claims he's from Durham?

I know that when people go on about the "crime" of having a Scottish PM he just stands there, keeps his mouth shut, and looks vaguely uncomfortable, but I always just assumed that was because he knew that everybody knew he was born in Edinburgh.

Ooh yah. Actually he was my grandmother's MP before she died (sedgefield). Shame it couldn't have been the other way around really, but I digress.

He 'chose' sedgefield, because he went to the posh choister school for the idle rich in durham for a year when he was a young boy. In his typically pathological fashion this led him to believe that he 'grew up' near there, and would consequently be a topping choice to represent a constituency of unemployed miners. (Having so much in common with them after all.) His choice of seat had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the newly created sedgefield was one of the safest labour seats in the country, and would have elected thatcher after the miner's strike as long as she ran under the red rose. Rather is was based upon longstanding and established ties that he had with the community.

Interestingly enough, he spent more time in australia than durham as a kid I believe.

Regardless, the man's a psychopath.

He 'chose' sedgefield, because he went to the posh choister school for the idle rich in durham for a year when he was a young boy. In his typically pathological fashion this led him to believe that he 'grew up' near there, and would consequently be a topping choice to represent a constituency of unemployed miners.

Hey, if people are happy to believe James Bond is English, they should also be able to believe TB's Englishness.

Infact, London has some of the worst records for schooling, at least inner city ones.


You would think. But when you adjust for the much greater proportion of non-native english speakers in london, then all of a sudden it actually looks quite good.

Hey, if people are happy to believe James Bond is English, they should also be able to believe TB's Englishness.

James Bond is 50% scottish, 50% swiss and 100% sean connery. That's a fact.

You would think. But when you adjust for the much greater proportion of non-native english speakers in london, then all of a sudden it actually looks quite good.

Indeed, that is true.

What do you believe the problem with schooling is then?

Indeed, that is true.

What do you believe the problem with schooling is then?

Parents. Their involvement and their level of education is a primary indicator of how well a child will do in school - regardless of the school.

You're not saying what the story says...

Yes, I am. It is you who are saying something different from what the story says. The story mentions teaching that a sexual orientation is, in and of itself, sinful. You keep complaining about teaching that certain behaviors are sinful, which isn't at all covered.

Mr Donaldson claimed the regulations would punish people with deeply held religious convictions.

And a law that says you can't discriminate against black people would punish people with deeply held religious convictions that black people are inferior. At least, it would do so in the same way that this law will punish anyone.

He also alleged it would make schools which teach traditional Christian views liable to a harassment claim from gay pupils if they taught homosexuality was sinful.

Indeed. And that is quite a different story from what you are talking about, which would be to teach that certain sexual behaviors are sinful.

In the end, claiming that homosexuality is, in and of itself, sinful makes about as much sense as claiming that blonde hair is sinful or that liking chocolate ice cream is sinful. You might think that dying your hair is sinful or that eating a lot of chocolate ice cream is sinful, but the traits themselves would not be.

You are re-wording what they said to make it acceptable to you. That's nice, but not the topic.

I'm not rewording anything. I am pointing out what would be permissable under the law - which is what you are saying *should* be permissable under the law and what is not permissable under the law - which you have said you don't advocate.

Read the article please. http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=4333755&p=433377x

Already did. Looked over the law itself, too.

Neither mention teaching about behavior. They talk about teachings regarding a sexual orientation itself.

Homosexuality in their religious view IS sinful.

Do make up your mind. Is it certain behaviors that are sinful, or the orientation itself?

So is gluttony, or too much drink. Obviously they mean that being a drunkard is sinful or being an alcoholic is sinful, but an alcoholic who is currently abstaining is clearly not indicted. Your wordage is simply distracting play.

There you go equating sexual orientation to sexual behavior again. Gluttony and drinking too much are both behaviors. They entail action. Homosexuality is not a behavior and it entails no action. It is, quite simply, a sexual orientation.

There are those who would teach that simply being a homosexual is a sin as if you can just "snap out of it." That type of teaching would likely be affected by this law. However, teaching traditional Christian views on sexual behaviors would not. They'd have to be careful about how they taught it, but they should be doing that anyways.

Indeed, that is true.

What do you believe the problem with schooling is then?

The government keeps fiddling with it.

They also use it to hide the true unemployment numbers.

Parents. Their involvement and their level of education is a primary indicator of how well a child will do in school - regardless of the school.

Agreed, but do you think pupils should be separated out based on ability/intelligence as in the grammar school system?

Agreed, but do you think pupils should be separated out based on ability/intelligence as in the grammar school system?

Yes. It allows you to focus on children who are less able without having their self-esteem crushed.

It allows you to put more challenge into the programs for more able children - who might otherwise get bored and demotivated.

...
There you go equating sexual orientation to sexual behavior again. Gluttony and drinking too much are both behaviors. They entail action. Homosexuality is not a behavior and it entails no action. It is, quite simply, a sexual orientation.
...

Addiction is addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol or nicotine you do not have to drink or smoke to still be an alcoholic or addicted to cigarettes. Once an alcoholic or addicted smoker you will remain an alcoholic or smoker, even if you never touch a drop of the stuff again. The cause, the root of the temptation, to do the deed is irrelevant, be it a learned behavior or ingrained from birth it doesn't change the fact.

How is it that the attraction to homosexual sex is different than the temptation for any other compulsory desire? It is not. Some people are born with a high susceptibility to alcoholism, we can still teach that alcoholism is wrong and should be inhibited despite that some people will forever be oriented to self-medication with it and it unfairly tempts them individually.

Yes. It allows you to focus on children who are less able without having their self-esteem crushed.

It allows you to put more challenge into the programs for more able children - who might otherwise get bored and demotivated.

Exactly!

This is the main problem with the "No Child Left Behind" program in the US - it assumes that all children should be at the same level in everything at every age. It's garbage. Some children will progress more quickly and through more material than others - and we shouldn't see that as a problem. As long as all students are getting the attention they need, different rates of learning are not a problem.

Exactly!

This is the main problem with the "No Child Left Behind" program in the US - it assumes that all children should be at the same level in everything at every age. It's garbage. Some children will progress more quickly and through more material than others - and we shouldn't see that as a problem. As long as all students are getting the attention they need, different rates of learning are not a problem.

The problem is the typical voter is from Lake Wobegon, and they all believe that their children are "above average".

Tell them that their kids are at a lower level of performance, and they blame the teacher and the elected official.

Someone told them that if you throw money at children, it makes them all smarter.

Until everyone stops believing that part, we're going to have problems with public eduction.

Exactly!

This is the main problem with the "No Child Left Behind" program in the US - it assumes that all children should be at the same level in everything at every age. It's garbage. Some children will progress more quickly and through more material than others - and we shouldn't see that as a problem. As long as all students are getting the attention they need, different rates of learning are not a problem.

It’s a minimum standard. If a fifth grader can't read, I think I'll blame someone besides the fifth grader. No Child Left Behind just sets the minimum bar height, if you aren't at least here, you're doing something wrong. If the bar is too high, that's a different topic. If you object to the bar existing, then you are mistaken.

Yes. It allows you to focus on children who are less able without having their self-esteem crushed.

It allows you to put more challenge into the programs for more able children - who might otherwise get bored and demotivated.


Their self esteem IS crushed when they aren't good enough to be in the classes with their smart friends.

Their self esteem IS crushed when they aren't good enough to be in the classes with their smart friends.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

Then you don't spend much time with kids.

Their self esteem IS crushed when they aren't good enough to be in the classes with their smart friends.

Hardly. In any case, it's not right to hold back the smart kids and bring them down to the level of those who aren't so intelligent just on the basis of the self esteem of another kid. Surely there has to be another answer.

Then you don't spend much time with kids.

I have five of them, lol.

Addiction is addiction. If you are addicted to alcohol or nicotine you do not have to drink or smoke to still be an alcoholic or addicted to cigarettes. Once an alcoholic or addicted smoker you will remain an alcoholic or smoker, even if you never touch a drop of the stuff again. The cause, the root of the temptation, to do the deed is irrelevant, be it a learned behavior or ingrained from birth it doesn't change the fact.

How is it that the attraction to homosexual sex is different than the temptation for any other compulsory desire? It is not. Some people are born with a high susceptibility to alcoholism, we can still teach that alcoholism is wrong and should be inhibited despite that some people will forever be oriented to self-medication with it and it unfairly tempts them individually.

You equate sexual orientation to addiction, that's your problem.

Homosexual sex is no more harmful, no more destructive, and no more an "addiction" than heterosexual sex.

Yes I suppose you can argue that homosexuals have a desire to have homosexual sex. And heterosexuals have a desire to have heterosexual sex. Neither is worse than the other.

Hardly. In any case, it's not right to hold back the smart kids and bring them down to the level of those who aren't so intelligent just on the basis of the self esteem of another kid. Surely there has to be another answer.

There is a better answer. Do everything you can to let the smart kids accelerate their learning AND have a bare minimum bar level so that the school knows if entire classes are falling behind. Do both.

It’s a minimum standard.

And becomes a maximum too, since focussing on that standard, and only that standard, becomes the way to keep funding.

If a fifth grader can't read, I think I'll blame someone besides the fifth grader.

Depends on the fifth grader. Most children at that age should be able to read, but some may not. Of course, if a fifth grader can't read, they really shouldn't be a "fifth grader", should they?

No Child Left Behind just sets the minimum bar height, if you aren't at least here, you're doing something wrong.

....which ignores the children who can't make that bar and focusses us on the bare minimum, rather than making sure that all children, above or below that bar, get the attention and education they need.

If the bar is too high, that's a different topic. If you object to the bar existing, then you are mistaken.

So, if I object to something that you agree with, I'm obviously wrong. Gotcha.

Their self esteem IS crushed when they aren't good enough to be in the classes with their smart friends.

Maybe the problem is that you word as, "You're not good enough...."

We shouldn't teach our kids that they have to be at the top of their class for everything. Different people are better at different things, and that should be recognized.

You equate sexual orientation to addiction, that's your problem.

Homosexual sex is no more harmful, no more destructive, and no more an "addiction" than heterosexual sex.

Yes I suppose you can argue that homosexuals have a desire to have homosexual sex. And heterosexuals have a desire to have heterosexual sex. Neither is worse than the other.

If we can agree that any self harming act that one feels compelled to do anyway is an addiction, we can move on ward.

Not all addictions kill you. Not everyone who smokes for eighty years catches cancer, not every drinker dies of liver disease... A married person who cheats on their spouse and risks a life they don't want to loose but they just can't help themselves, for example, has an addiction problem not a desire for sex problem, I don't care what gender their illicit partner was/is, the same as them or different.

If we can agree that any self harming act that one feels compelled to do anyway is an addiction, we can move on ward.


I don't necessarily agree with that definition and either way it's irrelevant as you have not in any way demonstrated how homosexuality is any way more harmful than heterosexuality.

If we can agree that any self harming act that one feels compelled to do anyway is an addiction, we can move on ward.

Firstly you would have to show that homosexuality is a "self harming act that one feels compelled to do"

We shouldn't teach our kids that they have to be at the top of their class for everything. Different people are better at different things, and that should be recognized.

Some can't be good at anything involving intellect.

We should teach parents that not all kids are smart - indeed, some can't do much of anything intellectual.

That doesn't mean they're worthless - it just means they are never going to do well at any academic subject in school - those are the breaks, and it's not the school's fault or the teacher's fault.

But not many parents like hearing, "your son is in the remedial reading class, because he's in the sixth grade, and is reading at a 1st grade level." They get mad. If anyone esteem is damaged, it's the parents.

Yes, we all wish and hope our children were Einstein without the annoying hairdo. But by and large, they aren't.

And becomes a maximum too, since focussing on that standard, and only that standard, becomes the way to keep funding.

No it doesn't. It does not limit how high a school can achieve. In fact, schools are rated against each other specifically, the higher the better, not just against the 'passing' grade, as you suggest.

Depends on the fifth grader. Most children at that age should be able to read, but some may not. Of course, if a fifth grader can't read, they really shouldn't be a "fifth grader", should they?

Exactly right, if they can't pass the minimum bar setting, they won't pass to the higher level, that's the point of No Child Left Behind. And to punish the school IF a disproportionate number of those children happen in their school.

....which ignores the children who can't make that bar and focusses us on the bare minimum, rather than making sure that all children, above or below that bar, get the attention and education they need.

100% incorrect. The children in need are identified by the program so that they get the specialized attention they need and the accelerated children get moved into programs they can excel in.


So, if I object to something that you agree with, I'm obviously wrong. Gotcha.

Right, but you don't even agree with yourself. You already said a fifth grader that can't read shouldn't be in fifth grade, thus, you DO have a minimum standard bar, but for some reason you want to spite this bar.

Maybe the problem is that you word as, "You're not good enough...."

They will do that by themselves, you can pretend otherwise if you wish.


We shouldn't teach our kids that they have to be at the top of their class for everything. Different people are better at different things, and that should be recognized.

And it is.

Firstly you would have to show that homosexuality is a "self harming act that one feels compelled to do"

I used that for the base of the rest of the post you omitted.

I used that for the base of the rest of the post you omitted.

Yet you are using it in reference to homosexual sex.

But not many parents like hearing, "your son is in the remedial reading class, because he's in the sixth grade, and is reading at a 1st grade level." They get mad. If anyone esteem is damaged, it's the parents.

Indeed. And children quite often feel better in a class that does move more at their pace. They can actually learn and demonstrate progress, rather than being told, "You have to be here and you're way behind!"

Yes, we all wish and hope our children were Einstein without the annoying hairdo. But by and large, they aren't.

To be fair, Einstein's earliest teachers didn't think he'd amount to anything. He didn't progress through school the way most children do. He didn't even speak until he was 4. He never mastered basic mathematics (although he had an uncanny knack for high-level mathematics.)


No it doesn't. It does not limit how high a school can achieve. In fact, schools are rated against each other specifically, the higher the better, not just against the 'passing' grade, as you suggest.

In practice, yes, it does. When teachers are "teaching to the test," as it were, there really isn't time for higher level information. They need to make sure that everyone in the class gets the basics, no matter how slow they are at getting them. In the end, it becomes the entire focus of the class.

Exactly right, if they can't pass the minimum bar setting, they won't pass to the higher level, that's the point of No Child Left Behind.

No, the point of NCLB is to somehow force a person who shouldn't be in fifth grade to not only be in fifth grade, but to have them at the fifth grade level as well.

And to punish the school IF a disproportionate number of those children happen in their school.

...even if that disproportionate number is not the fault of the school.

100% incorrect. The children in need are identified by the program so that they get the specialized attention they need and the accelerated children get moved into programs they can excel in.

In a perfect world where the streets are paved with gold and chocolate rains from the sky, this would probably be correct. In the underfunded school system we actually have, it simply isn't.

Right, but you don't even agree with yourself. You already said a fifth grader that can't read shouldn't be in fifth grade, thus, you DO have a minimum standard bar, but for some reason you want to spite this bar.

It isn't a minimum standard bar, it's a matter of what classes a person should be in. If a child cannot read, they should not be in classes that require reading. They should be in classes where they are learning how to read. It doesn't matter what age they are, they should be in a class that meets their needs, rather than an arbitrarily set line of, "When you're this age, you should have these skills at this level."

Requiring algebra before trigonometry isn't the same sort of line as, "You must understand basic algebra by the time you are 13 or you are left behind!"


They will do that by themselves, you can pretend otherwise if you wish.

Not if they aren't pre-conditioned to do so. Not if they aren't being pushed beyond their means because "the smart kids" are better than them.

And it is.

No, unfortunately, it isn't. We've arbitrarily set certain levels that anyone of a given age is supposed to be at. That doesn't recognize that some children shouldn't be at that level at that age. Some should be learning lower level material because that is the pace that works for them. Some should be learning much higher level material because they've mastered that material.

Instead, even when in I was in elementary school, we had the situation where you learn, for instance, the exact same mathematics from basically kindergarten to 5th grade. They just keep repeating those addition and times tables over and over and over and over and over again every year. Some students mastered it the first time and are bored as hell, losing all interest in the class. Some students still need the repetition.

Why do we do things this way? Because that's the level they're "supposed to" be at. It completely ignores the fact that children are not little automatons. They are individuals with individual needs and individual rates of learning. They have their own skills and should each be encouraged in that in which they excel and helped in that in which they do not.

Sinn Féin and the Green Party are the only two parties to want to bring in civil partnership in the Republic of Ireland as far as I know. Being Irish and gay I'm annoyed by the fact that Northerners can have civil partnerships and I can't.

correction.
fine gael have set a policy for a civil partnership. but i dont know what it intails. if they are allowed have first of kin privillages and inheritance, but dont get the tax breaks, i'll be happy.

for having a child out of wedlock?

60's.

Because we are not talking about academia here, not about the three R's, it's about what is and what is not acceptable behavior. Not about what is and what is not legal behavior.

If I teach that according to religion “A” it's okay to have three spouses at the same time, should the government be allowed to illegalize my teaching or just ban the practice of having three spouses? If I teach that it's wrong to have sex for any reason outside of procreation, should the government be able to close the school because it's not practical? If I teach that God created Man and Woman to be joined and to become one flesh, joined together in their collective likeness of God, and anything other than that is an repugnance to the Lord, why should an elected government have ability to mandate a change in my doctrine in private assembly?

cause usually. children dont have three wives.

...
No, unfortunately, it isn't. We've arbitrarily set certain levels that anyone of a given age is supposed to be at. That doesn't recognize that some children shouldn't be at that level at that age. Some should be learning lower level material because that is the pace that works for them. Some should be learning much higher level material because they've mastered that material.

Instead, even when in I was in elementary school, we had the situation where you learn, for instance, the exact same mathematics from basically kindergarten to 5th grade. They just keep repeating those addition and times tables over and over and over and over and over again every year. Some students mastered it the first time and are bored as hell, losing all interest in the class. Some students still need the repetition.

Why do we do things this way? Because that's the level they're "supposed to" be at. It completely ignores the fact that children are not little automatons. They are individuals with individual needs and individual rates of learning. They have their own skills and should each be encouraged in that in which they excel and helped in that in which they do not.

Arbitrary standards because the line has to be drawn somewhere.

As to your memory of elementary school, that has zip to do with NCLB unless you graduated from fifth grade since 2002. Barring that, you have no actual experience with NCLB's affect in the schools. You may very well be remembering one of the schools that needed fixing, one of the reasons NCLB was created was to change the status quo of a system that wasn’t working. Or was working in some areas but not working in others, and disproportionately not working (and still is not working) in poorer and urban areas.

Pick your state. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/difference/index.html

Better yet, volunteer some time down at your local elementary school and stick around long enough to see what programs have been implemented for both the children that need the extra help (often found after testing) and the programs for talent development accelerated learning courses for children identified in the testing as being advanced for their classes.