NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/30/cgy-bill-evolution-law-alberta-classes-teachers.html


If this bill passes children can legitimately skip biology class. Remember education is just about teaching your children what you -want- them to hear. Not what might actually inform them about anything. My commentary? It's pretty plain that alberta is ruled by a bunch of lunatics, and not the harmless gibbering kind. However, note that this bill hasn't passed yet. If you're from alberta, you might want to start shouting loudly at the supervillains running the place.

I happen to live in this ass-backwards province and can assure it is not ruled by supervillains. It happens to have been run by high school drop outs, drunks and folks generally red around the collar. But we're not permitted shout loudly at such folks, public forums and like are only open to those who agree with them.

Due to the fact that I am bringing up my children to believe that pie is inherently better than cake, I demand the right to be informed by the school in advance of any mention of cake so that I can pull my child out of the class in question. *nod*

Okay, this makes it official: I don't want to hear any more Canadians bitching at me about how backward and ignorant and bigoted Americans are.

I don't want to hear any Canadians bitching, full stop.

Okay, this makes it official: I don't want to hear any more Canadians bitching at me about how backward and ignorant and bigoted Americans are.

That makes two of us.

That makes two of us.

Three.

So what is exactly wrong with parents pulling their children out of religious classes? Or sex-ed classes?

So what is exactly wrong with parents pulling their children out of religious classes? Or sex-ed classes?

There is something wrong with pulling children out of biology because it might teach evolution.

So what is exactly wrong with parents pulling their children out of religious classes? Or sex-ed classes?

What religious classes? Since when did Biology become a religious class?

It scares me that this phenomenon seems to be spreading. As far as I am concerned, parents should have no say whatsoever in curriculum. Leave it to the professionals and teach whatever garbage you want to in your own home.

Three.
Four.


(let's keep this alive, guys!)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/04/30/cgy-bill-evolution-law-alberta-classes-teachers.html


If this bill passes children can legitimately skip biology class. Remember education is just about teaching your children what you -want- them to hear. Not what might actually inform them about anything. My commentary? It's pretty plain that alberta is ruled by a bunch of lunatics, and not the harmless gibbering kind. However, note that this bill hasn't passed yet. If you're from alberta, you might want to start shouting loudly at the supervillains running the place.

Well, it IS Canada's Texas.

What religious classes? Since when did Biology become a religious class?

Don't know but considering the rules allow parents to take their children out of classes that deals with religion, I would like to know why the people on NSG are against this.

The new rules, which would require schools to notify parents in advance of "subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation

It scares me that this phenomenon seems to be spreading. As far as I am concerned, parents should have no say whatsoever in curriculum. Leave it to the professionals and teach whatever garbage you want to in your own home.

Why?

And what about when different experts say different things? Which one should we follow?

Don't know but considering the rules allow parents to take their children out of classes that deals with religion, I would like to know why the people on NSG are against this.

"A controversial Alberta bill will enshrine into law the rights of parents to pull their children out of classes discussing the topics of evolution and homosexuality."

Ahh, publicly-funded education. A terrific experiment.

Don't know but considering the rules allow parents to take their children out of classes that deals with religion, I would like to know why the people on NSG are against this.

Because Biology is science, not religion.

Because Biology is science, not religion.

So you are just against a particular part of the legislation rather than all of it?

So you are just against a particular part of the legislation rather than all of it?

Mainly that part, but I think taking kids out of sex-ed is pretty stupid, too.

And what "religion" class could be offensive? What do they mean by "religion class", anyway?

So you are just against a particular part of the legislation rather than all of it?

Well, it's buried in a bill granting more rights to homosexuals which makes me wonder what was left out. As for sex-ed, I don't think opposition to homosexuality is a legitimate reasons to object to a sex-ed class, but I do think that reasons to object could exist.

Mainly that part, but I think taking kids out of sex-ed is pretty stupid, too.

Why? What if the school has an abstenice only education and parents don't want their children hearing about this? But would rather teach them about contraceptives?

And what "religion" class could be offensive? What do they mean by "religion class", anyway?

I don't know but people can find almost anything offensive these days.

Maybe Religious education, not just one where a religion is simply taught to students but also one where different religions and their origins and differences are taught.

Well, it's buried in a bill granting more rights to homosexuals which makes me wonder what was left out. As for sex-ed, I don't think opposition to homosexuality is a legitimate reasons to object to a sex-ed class, but I do think that reasons to object could exist.

Well it would depend on exactly what is being taught.

I for one would like to know what was being said to the kids and what was being taught first.

Why? What if the school has an abstenice only education and parents don't want their children hearing about this? But would rather teach them about contraceptives?

One cannot learn about contraceptives if one's school teaches one abstinence?

I don't know but people can find almost anything offensive these days.

Maybe Religious education, not just one where a religion is simply taught to students but also one where different religions and their origins and differences are taught.

How horrid. :eek2:

Maybe Religious education, not just one where a religion is simply taught to students but also one where different religions and their origins and differences are taught.

Ghastly.

One cannot learn about contraceptives if one's school teaches one abstinence?

Yes but that argument can be said for someone who is taught creationism as well.

We are talking about what the parents may or may not want our children to be taught.

How horrid. :eek2:

What's that?

Posters on here have said in the past that students shouldn't be forced into RE classes. This bill will allow parents to take them out of these classes.

Ghastly.

I'm not the one saying that this bill is wrong.

Okay, this makes it official: I don't want to hear any more Canadians bitching at me about how backward and ignorant and bigoted Americans are.

Fuck that.

I have brought up the inadequacies, the hypocrisies, the oppressive tactics, the draconian laws and the absurdities of Canadian politics and society over and over again on this forum. I have earned the right to bitch equally about what goes on in the US as well as my own country! :p

Also keep in mind...Alberta is like a homophobic, racist, stupid oil baron. The rest of Canada can't stand him and won't invite him for dinner, but they all need what he's got.

Yes but that argument can be said for someone who is taught creationism as well.

What school in Canada teaches creationalism? This is about parents pulling their children out of classes that concern evolution. It is like saying children should not have to learn 2 + 2 = 4 from a school, because some school could hypothetically teach them that 2 + 2 = 5.

We are talking about what the parents may or may not want our children to be taught.

Certain things should not be up to the parents.



What's that?

Posters on here have said in the past that students shouldn't be forced into RE classes. This bill will allow parents to take them out of these classes.

Which posters?

Fuck that.

I have brought up the inadequacies, the hypocrisies, the oppressive tactics, the draconian laws and the absurdities of Canadian politics and society over and over again on this forum. I have earned the right to bitch equally about what goes on in the US as well as my own country! :p

Also keep in mind...Alberta is like a homophobic, racist, stupid oil baron. The rest of Canada can't stand him and won't invite him for dinner, but they all need what he's got.

Certain parts of the U.S. make the whole country seem bad.

In Alberta we have two forms of public schooling. The 'public' system (which is secular) and the 'Catholic' system (which is referred to as 'separate' but it still part of the public system).

Very few schools in the 'public' system will have courses on religion. Sex education is taught within the context of health, and biology. Sex education starts in elementary school in both 'public' and 'Catholic' schools, and builds up on an age appropriate level. Things like what is 'good touching' and 'bad' are taught to children in grade one. No. Parents should not be able to take their children out of these lessons. Ignorance makes children particularly susceptible to grooming, and child abuse, which is PRECISELY what this kind of preventative education was introduced to deal with.

Creationism is not science. In the 'public' system, there is no room for creationism. Period. There may be room within the 'Catholic' system...but not in the science classroom. Children who are yanked from science classes and who are not taught about evolution, are not fulfilling the requirements of the Alberta curriculum...and frankly, should not be allowed to pass.

The curriculum is provincially mandated, and a legal requirement. As in, teachers can lose their jobs for not teaching the curriculum.

Parents who wish to deny their children access to that curriculum should not be able to avoid the consequences (ie. their child losing credits).

What school in Canada teaches creationalism? This is about parents pulling their children out of classes that concern evolution. It is like saying children should not have to learn 2 + 2 = 4 from a school, because some school could hypothetically teach them that 2 + 2 = 5.

It was always a hypotectical, and to clarify you are against this one aspect rather than the bill as a whole?

And this isn't about parents pulling their children out at all it is about that some parents could have the potential to pull their parents out and covers more than simply biology.

Certain things should not be up to the parents.

Ok so you are against the entire bill?

Why? Wouldn't you want to know what is being taught to your children?

Which posters?

Fuck man the usual crowd I suppose, but then can't we just go back through the various threads on this forum that discuss simliar issues.

Certain things should not be up to the parents.

I love the smell of statism in the evening.

I love the smell of statism in the evening.

You would, you fascist. :p

It was always a hypotectical, and to clarify you are against this one aspect rather than the bill as a whole?

Just against the parts that allow parents to withhold facts from their children and teach nonsense in place.

And this isn't about parents pulling their children out at all it is about that some parents could have the potential to pull their parents out and covers more than simply biology.

:confused:

Ok so you are against the entire bill?

As far as I understand it, though I will need clarification on the "religion classes".

Why? Wouldn't you want to know what is being taught to your children?

I would want to make sure they learning facts, if that is what you mean.


Fuck man the usual crowd I suppose, but then can't we just go back through the various threads on this forum that discuss simliar issues.

The liberal gang-bangers? :wink:

I love the smell of statism in the evening.

You believe parents should have unlimited legal carte blanche when dealing with their children?

Okay, a few comments on the proposed legislation.

We’re talking about Bill 44 ( http://www.assembly.ab.ca/bills/2009/pdf/bill-044.pdf). This is all within the context of amendments being made to the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act ( http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-h-14/latest/rsa-2000-c-h-14.html). The government wants to finally add ‘sexual orientation’ as a prohibited ground of discrimination. While it’s a nice move, it’s pure window dressing. Sexual orientation has been included as an analogous ground since 1998 after Vriend v. Alberta ( http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs1-493/1998rcs1-493.html). Ironically in that case, Vriend was a teacher, who was fired for being homosexual.

In addition to this 'ground-breaking move' to uphold the rights of homosexuals in Alberta, the government wants to allow parents to “remove their children from teachings that conflict with their religious beliefs or sexuality ( http://www.calgaryherald.com/Life/Alberta+Tories+move+enshrine+rights/1544975/story.html)”.

The text of the amendments is as follows:

(1) A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation.

(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction,
teaching a course of study or educational program or using the
instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a
written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that
the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study,
educational program or use of instructional materials, the
teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of
the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the
student

(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction,
course of study or educational program is taking place or
the instructional materials are being used for the duration
of the part of the instruction, course of study or
educational program, or the use of the instructional
materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in
subsection (1), or

(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part
in the instruction, course of study or educational
program or using the instructional materials.

What is essentially being declared here...is that teaching children about religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation, can be discrimination based on religion and/or sexual orientation. Which would be a good argument if the curriculum were in fact portraying anyone's sexuality or religion in a negative light.

Of course, the reality is, the Alberta curriculum teaches more than abstinence only education, and refuses to condemn homosexuality. So the 'people at risk' are homophobic heterosexuals and people with narrow religious beliefs.

And frankly, I don't think that these people should be 'protected' in this manner under our provincial human rights legislation.

You believe parents should have unlimited legal carte blanche when dealing with their children?

I would trust them more than a government bureaucrat -- especially when it comes to education.

So stupidity crosses national borders. Big Effing w00t.

You'll also note that, as much as I do not support it, parents ALREADY have the right to yank their children out of sex ed classes in Alberta...proponents of the changes say it simply enshrines this into law, but it does more than that. The wording is broad.

"A board as defined in the School Act shall provide
notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of
study, educational programs or instructional materials, or
instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include
subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or
sexual orientation."

Parents will have to be given notice about textbooks and any other educational material, prior to those materials being handed out if they have any subject matter explicitly mentioning religion, sexuality or sexual orientation. Parents can object to the use of these materials in whole, not just in part because of the inclusion...they can even have their child excluded from the course IN WHOLE that uses these materials.

THAT is a right that is far too broad, and frankly, makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Are there going to be a lot of parents doing this? Probably not. Just the damaged ones who would have probably fucked with their kids' education anyway. But it's a stupid can of worms to open up, and protecting homophobes under human rights legislation seems to me...intensely fucking wrong.

I would trust them more than a government bureaucrat -- especially when it comes to education.

Why? I mean genuinely here. Parents aren't some special class of people, they're bigoted, shallow minded, and stupid just like many other people - at least you can speak out and get the government to change its ideas (at least theoretically) with a parent, there's no guarantee that they won't turn out a child that is well educated. And that will have direct results in the childs life as an adult. And the child doesn't belong to the parent. a decent, rounded education should be a right nobody can be denied, especially not in the western world.

I would trust them more than a government bureaucrat -- especially when it comes to education.

So you support them beating their children if they so wish?

I believe God used evolution to make the world. Why do some that believe in God have to be so extreme? Couldn't He just use evolution? I mean, He's God, so...

So you support them beating their children if they so wish?

No. It's an initiation of force, which is not only immoral but also illegal. I know you're trying to twist my opinion but I'm afraid you're going to fail.

The purpose of government is not to be a nanny.

I would trust them more than a government bureaucrat -- especially when it comes to education.

Then you can explain to me how parents will manage to gather together the experience, the materials, the manpower and the resources (financial and otherwise) to create a curriculum and provide their children with resources.

Education is a public issue for a number of reasons. One, standardisation. We need to be reasonably certain that people graduating out of our programs will have a particular skill set. We can ensure this by having a standardised curriculum. The curriculum is not developed in a vacuum by mindless government bureaucrats. It is developed by professionals, in consultation with stakeholders. That process takes years. Literally decades. Every reform of the curriculum goes through intense public scrutiny and consultation. Parents have ample opportunity to add their voices and input into this process, as does business, church groups, and any other special interest group you can possibly think of.

Second, resources. Developing materials is a time-consuming and incredibly expensive endeavour. Individual parents CANNOT afford this. The government contracts out materials development and ensures that these materials match the curriculum. They then publish a list of approved curricular resources. At that point, parents have a certain amount of choice...but all that development was done with governmental oversight, because once again, parents simply do not have the resources to do this on their own.

Third, training. I'm a teacher. I am reasonably confident that were I independently wealthy, I could refrain from working, stay home, and give my children a superior education to what they would probably receive in the public system. Most parents are not so trained, and frankly, without extensive support, homeschooling can be extremely difficult to pull off. You'll note that homeschooling MUST STILL COMPLY with curricular standards. Homeschooling families can receive funding through the government to help offset the costs of materials and so forth. There is a fair amount of support here for homeschooling.

You take the government right out of that, and you've got parents on their own, making their own materials out of scratch, figuring out over the breakfast table what's important, what's not, and people on the other end (post secondary institutions, employers and so forth) not having a flying fucking clue what they're going to get with the 'graduates' coming their way.

You show me how that's something I should trust more than government bureaucracy.

Then you can explain to me how parents will manage to gather together the experience, the materials, the manpower and the resources (financial and otherwise) to create a curriculum and provide their children with resources.

Education is a public issue for a number of reasons. One, standardisation. We need to be reasonably certain that people graduating out of our programs will have a particular skill set. We can ensure this by having a standardised curriculum. The curriculum is not developed in a vacuum by mindless government bureaucrats. It is developed by professionals, in consultation with stakeholders. That process takes years. Literally decades. Every reform of the curriculum goes through intense public scrutiny and consultation. Parents have ample opportunity to add their voices and input into this process, as does business, church groups, and any other special interest group you can possibly think of.

Second, resources. Developing materials is a time-consuming and incredibly expensive endeavour. Individual parents CANNOT afford this. The government contracts out materials development and ensures that these materials match the curriculum. They then publish a list of approved curricular resources. At that point, parents have a certain amount of choice...but all that development was done with governmental oversight, because once again, parents simply do not have the resources to do this on their own.

Third, training. I'm a teacher. I am reasonably confident that were I independently wealthy, I could refrain from working, stay home, and give my children a superior education to what they would probably receive in the public system. Most parents are not so trained, and frankly, without extensive support, homeschooling can be extremely difficult to pull off. You'll note that homeschooling MUST STILL COMPLY with curricular standards. Homeschooling families can receive funding through the government to help offset the costs of materials and so forth. There is a fair amount of support here for homeschooling.

You take the government right out of that, and you've got parents on their own, making their own materials out of scratch, figuring out over the breakfast table what's important, what's not, and people on the other end (post secondary institutions, employers and so forth) not having a flying fucking clue what they're going to get with the 'graduates' coming their way.

You show me how that's something I should trust more than government bureaucracy.

There are things called private schools.

I want to note that my opinions on education are based on my interpretation of the American Constitution. I've not read Canada's constitution, nor am I well-read in its laws. So keep that in mind.

No. It's an initiation of force, which is not only immoral but also illegal. I know you're trying to twist my opinion but I'm afraid you're going to fail.

I think depriving children of facts and filling their brains with shit is as bad as beating, so you might now know why I feel adamant on this.

[The purpose of government is not to be a nanny.

The primary purpose of the Government is to protect its citizens from harm, via military, police, or other method. Lies taught as facts are very harmful.

The primary purpose of the Government is to protect its citizens from harm, via military, police, or other method. Lies taught as facts are very harmful.

While I agree that people not letting their kids learn about evolution are morons, and that the government should stop this, parents still have some rights in determining what kids hear.

There are things called private schools.

I want to note that my opinions on education are based on my interpretation of the American Constitution. I've not read Canada's constitution, nor am I well-read in its laws. So keep that in mind.

I won't get into legal issues, but I will point out...our system flat out works better than yours (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/24/shocking-news-canada-does-something-important-well/).

I'm not seeing the need to take it out of the government's hands.

I won't get into legal issues, but I will point out...our system flat out works better than yours (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/24/shocking-news-canada-does-something-important-well/).

I'm not seeing the need to take it out of the government's hands.

Education became a federal issue for the U.S. in the late 1970s, with the creation of the Department of Education, although statists like Kennedy and Johnson pumped tons of money into it in the 1960s. There have been no significant improvements since the federal government became involved. Education should be a state issue, and then a community issue. The United States Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to provide public education.

Education became a federal issue for the U.S. in the late 1970s, with the creation of the Department of Education, although statists like Kennedy and Johnson pumped tons of money into it in the 1960s. There have been no significant improvements since the federal government became involved. Education should be a state issue, and then a community issue. The United States Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to provide public education.

Education is a provincial head of power in Canada. We've been doing a pretty good job of harmonising our curricular standards across the country, and making it easier to transfer credits.

Education became a federal issue for the U.S. in the late 1970s, with the creation of the Department of Education, although statists like Kennedy and Johnson pumped tons of money into it in the 1960s. There have been no significant improvements since the federal government became involved. Education should be a state issue, and then a community issue. The United States Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to provide public education.

*cough*"... promote the general Welfare ..."*cough*

And anyway, there are no "Federal" schools. All the Federal government is provide funding for programs designed to improve education. The states are under no obligation to participate.

Just against the parts that allow parents to withhold facts from their children and teach nonsense in place.

Well it depends on what nonsense now doesn't it?

:confused:

Do you want me to say it more slowly?

Did you see that it also talks about religion and sex-ed? Neither of which have anything to do with biology

As far as I understand it, though I will need clarification on the "religion classes".

I presume it is one of the two things that I described.

I would want to make sure they learning facts, if that is what you mean.

Yes that is what I mean, not all teachers do teach all the facts nor do they the right facts and some even deliberately twist the facts to suit their own agenda (yes that is hard in science classes but in social classes not so much).

The liberal gang-bangers? :wink:

Quite possibly. :)

*cough*"... promote the general Welfare ..."*cough*

And anyway, there are no "Federal" schools. All the Federal government is provide funding for programs designed to improve education. The states are under no obligation to participate.

I knew somebody would come up with that dumbass argument. The General Welfare provision of the Constitution has been so badly misinterpreted, people don't know it's original meaning. Read up on James Madison (you know, uh, the dude who wrote the Constitution) and find the true meaning of that provision, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

Edit: Also, I meant that the Constitution didn't give the government the power to fund education, period. Nothing in the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the intention is good. If it's not in the enumerated powers, it is not the business of the government.

I knew somebody would come up with that dumbass argument. The General Welfare provision of the Constitution has been so badly misinterpreted, people don't know it's original meaning. Read up on James Madison (you know, uh, the dude who wrote the Constitution) and find the true meaning of that provision, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

Edit: Also, I meant that the Constitution didn't give the government the power to fund education, period. Nothing in the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the intention is good. If it's not in the enumerated powers, it is not the business of the government.
Instead of just saying read Madison, tell us what he said. I believe other founding fathers were major proponents of education, especially Jefferson.

Instead of just saying read Madison, tell us what he said. I believe other founding fathers were major proponents of education, especially Jefferson.

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- Madison, in a letter to James Robertson, 1831.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html

And an interesting link. Also: http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/what_james_madison_would_tell_congress_today.html

I wish Neo Art were here to kick your ass. I simply don't care enough about the US Constitution to bother.

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- Madison, in a letter to James Robertson, 1831.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html

And an interesting link.

I'm sorry but Madison (A man I deeply respect and consider one of the greatest Americans of all time) is just too vague there. How do you know he does not consider education to be a part of that "General Welfare"?

I do agree with you that there are too many things that "General Welfare" is applied to, but education is a worthwhile one.

I wish Neo Art were here to kick your ass. I simply don't care enough about the US Constitution to bother.

Just as long as it isn't TCT I couldn't stand another post full of 100 links to back up his claims.

Not that I don't mind people backing up their claims but I just can't be fucked reading through all of them.

While I agree that people not letting their kids learn about evolution are morons, and that the government should stop this, parents still have some rights in determining what kids hear.

Certainly. This is not one of those cases, though.

I'm sorry but Madison (A man I deeply respect and consider one of the greatest Americans of all time) is just too vague there. How do you know he does not consider education to be a part of that "General Welfare"?

I do agree with you that there are too many things that "General Welfare" is applied to, but education is a worthwhile one.

It is a worthwhile one. But it is not a part of the enumerated powers, which Madison was referring to. The General Welfare provision is not a blank check for the federal government do to whatever it wants outside of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section VIII.

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- Madison, in a letter to James Robertson, 1831.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html

And an interesting link. Also: http://federalistblog.us/2006/08/what_james_madison_would_tell_congress_today.html

I don't see how investing in education is something that takes it to a 'literal and unlimited sense'. More likely he was talking about heavy socialisation etc...

Well it depends on what nonsense now doesn't it?

Some stuff is debatable hogwash (Kennedy's assassination being planned by the CIA), and some stuff is absolute hogwash (the world began six thousand years ago).

Do you want me to say it more slowly?

Did you see that it also talks about religion and sex-ed? Neither of which have anything to do with biology


I support mandatory sex-ed classes, and I would have to more about what a religion class was before I could give you my opinion on that.


I presume it is one of the two things that I described.

Yes, one of which is not clear enough.



Yes that is what I mean, not all teachers do teach all the facts nor do they the right facts and some even deliberately twist the facts to suit their own agenda (yes that is hard in science classes but in social classes not so much).

There are crappy policemen too, but that does not mean the law should be optional.

Quite possibly. :)

Tax-cuts are evil. :D

Certainly. This is not one of those cases, though.

Thus my agreement with you.

Some stuff is debatable hogwash (Kennedy's assassination), and some stuff is absolute hogwash (the world began six thousand years ago).

Indeed it is.

I support mandatory sex-ed classes, and I would have to more about what a religion class was before I could give you my opinion on that

Well I gave you two example of a religion class before hand.

Yes, one of which is not clear enough.

Which one?

There are crappy policemen too, but that does not mean the law should be optional.

And that is why we have people checking up on the police to ensure they aren't being 'crappy'.

Tax-cuts are evil. :D

lol, that might bring them out of the woodwork.

I knew somebody would come up with that dumbass argument. The General Welfare provision of the Constitution has been so badly misinterpreted, people don't know it's original meaning. Read up on James Madison (you know, uh, the dude who wrote the Constitution) and find the true meaning of that provision, and come back when you know what you're talking about.

Edit: Also, I meant that the Constitution didn't give the government the power to fund education, period. Nothing in the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the intention is good. If it's not in the enumerated powers, it is not the business of the government.

You made an interesting point. Too bad you had to smear snideness all over it before posting it.

Regardless of whether the Constitution explicitly gives the Federal government permission to do anything at all about education, it does do so and without having had those efforts declared unconstitutional. So apparently there's more than one school of thought on how the Constitution is to be interpreted. Or, as you would have it, misinterpreted. Which is why I am always proud of our system of government.

Well I gave you two example of a religion class before hand.

If the religion in the classes in Alberta matched the example you gave me, I see no reason why a parent should pull his child-out; understanding culture and religion helps prevent bigotry.

Which one?

The religion, at least how it works in Alberta. But for the purpose of this discussion, let us assume it is as your example was.

And that is why we have people checking up on the police to ensure they aren't being 'crappy'.

And the same needs to be done with teachers


lol, that might bring them out of the woodwork.

They are scary. :(

BTW: I fully support measures like homeschooling, I just think they need check-ups.

If the religion in the classes in Alberta matched the example you gave me, I see no reason why a parent should pull his child-out; understanding culture and religion helps prevent bigotry.

See we are on agreement here.

The religion, at least how it works in Alberta. But for the purpose of this discussion, let us assume it is as your example was.

But how exactly does it work in Alberta? Neesika did mention it but only that some schools taught it.

And the same needs to be done with teachers

Yes it does

They are scary. :(

BTW: I fully support measures like homeschooling, I just think they need check-ups.

Why do I get the feeling that we are on similar (not the same) pages here?

But how exactly does it work in Alberta? Neesika did mention it but only that some schools taught it.

I cannot be certain. If I had to vote on the measure, I would do a lot of research, but since I am just debating it, I am going to be lazy and assume the religion classes there are like you described.

Why do I get the feeling that we are on similar (not the same) pages here?

Well, you think parents should have a choice on certain things their children are taught, and I agree with that, I just think these are not those things. Parents should be able to choose their children's education provided it teaches tolerance, facts, and prevents unwanted pregnancies.

I cannot be certain. If I had to vote on the measure, I would do a lot of research, but since I am just debating it, I am going to be lazy and assume the religion classes there are like you described.

Well ok then, see I have nothing against those classes myself I do know some people do simply because they believe that religion is a load of crap and is useless to be taught these things, and that because children are young they shouldn't get this stuff taught to them in case they decided to follow it. Thus they think it shouldn't be compulsory and should be allowed to take their children out. This bill will also allow them to do this.

Well, you think parents should have a choice on certain things their children are taught, and I agree with that, I just thing these are not those things. Parents should be able to choose their children's education provided it teaches tolerance, facts, and prevents unwanted pregnancies.

Fair enough but being taught about contraceptives isn't always going to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Well ok then, see I have nothing against those classes myself I do know some people do simply because they believe that religion is a load of crap and is useless to be taught these things, and that because children are young they shouldn't get this stuff taught to them in case they decided to follow it. Thus they think it shouldn't be compulsory and should be allowed to take their children out. This bill will also allow them to do this.

I am not at all religious, and I would still want any children I ever cared for to learn about world religions. If they are not taught in science classes, what is the big deal? You know persons who never want their children to learn what Christianity is?

Fair enough but being taught about contraceptives isn't always going to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

No, but it has been shown to be the most effective thing available.

I am not at all religious, and I would still want any children I ever cared for to learn about world religions. If they are not taught in science classes, what is the big deal? You know persons who never want their children to learn what Christianity is?

I'm pretty sure even people on here have spoken out against it and yes they too will say to doesn't belong in a science class but that students shouldn't be forced to take classes on religion.

No, but it has been shown to be the most effective thing available.

Short from tying the tubes when they hit puberty. :tongue:

I'm pretty sure even people on here have spoken out against it and yes they too will say to doesn't belong in a science class but that students shouldn't be forced to take classes on religion.

I would have to look at some studies, but I really think teaching religion is important. A atheist bigoted against Christians is not better than a Christian bigoted against Muslims.

Short from tying the tubes when they hit puberty. :tongue:

Ah, the internet--how did lustful men survive before it?

I would have to look at some studies, but I really think teaching religion is important. A atheist bigoted against Christians is not better than a Christian bigoted against Muslims.

Oh I know.

Ah, the internet--how did lustful men survive before it?

I believe they called it magazines.

Three.

Four, or whatever.

Is Alberta the Kansas of Canada?

I was always under the impression (usually fostered by Canadians) that Canada was much more civilized and sophisticated than the US. This just destroys my sense of the rightness of things.

Okay, this makes it official: I don't want to hear any more Canadians bitching at me about how backward and ignorant and bigoted Americans are.

I don't want to hear any Canadians bitching, full stop.

That makes two of us.

Three.

Four.


(let's keep this alive, guys!)

Four, or whatever.

Is Alberta the Kansas of Canada?

I was always under the impression (usually fostered by Canadians) that Canada was much more civilized and sophisticated than the US. This just destroys my sense of the rightness of things.

Goddammed backward and ignorant and bigoted USians trying to censor me!

-------------------

On a more serious note, Alberta is the most conservative province in the Dominion. There has always been a large percentage of the Albertan population that has sought to limit LGBT rights. Some do it for religious reasons, some just because they're ignorant. Anyways, they represent a significant voting block.

This looks to me like a grab for votes. They have to respect LGBT rights anyayws, and they have to let public teachers teach evolution and sex eductaion. There'll be a tussle in the legislature and the courts. The law might even go on the books for a while before some court rules against it. But in the end, it's the Tories trying to look like they're fighting for "family values" in an effort to get votes.

Parents will have to be given notice about textbooks and any other educational material, prior to those materials being handed out if they have any subject matter explicitly mentioning religion, sexuality or sexual orientation. Parents can object to the use of these materials in whole, not just in part because of the inclusion...they can even have their child excluded from the course IN WHOLE that uses these materials.

Sounds like kids could be pulled from history classes too. Those various religious wars and the like. Even explaining that the ancient Romans or Greeks or Egyptians worshipped a pantheon of gods and goddesses.

Sounds like kids could be pulled from history classes too. Those various religious wars and the like. Even explaining that the ancient Romans or Greeks or Egyptians worshipped a pantheon of gods and goddesses.

Well it sounds like the hight of stupidity to me, but meh!

Damn, and to think I was happy to see King Ralph go. At least he wasn't putting these stupid things in the scholl curriculum.

What happened to all the progressive minds in this province?

What happened to all the progressive minds in this province?
They went off to Vancouver to smoke pot.