Haiku Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The first thing I noticed is that the article is extremely poorly written and in serious need of an editor. Beyond that, what came to mind is the idea of "separate but equal," which courts in this country have already ruled unconstitutional in this country. I do agree, however, with eliminating compulsory attendance. Tara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In2why Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I took it as an attack on Christianity. Wonder how well talk like that about Moses' date=' or Mohammad, or the Dalai Lama, or Siddhartha would go over? If it was only about how the rich should help the poor, I'd be all in favor. :D See, both political sides hate me for different reasons. :lol: And IMO most aspects of evolutionism are not at all in odds with creationism or Intelligent Design.[/quote'] I didn't see an attack on Christianity, but on hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 So then preventing kids from learning about ID by teaching evolution exclusively is also a form of forced ignorance, correct? Well, I dreamed up a complicated creation story with reincarnation at age 4. I spent my afternoons hiding behind the picture window curtains (from my brothers), waiting for Papa to come home. I told the story to myself over and over, getting more and more complex as the weeks went by. Therefore, I didn't need to be "taught" ID. Our human drive to explain everything is, to me, the force behind both religion and scientific inquiry. I think it part of a healthy brain, and it is what has raised us above simply having enough to eat and warm place to sleep. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virg Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I took the bill to be used as a recourse for situations where a parent finds a book or topic objectionable and wants them to do an alternative, not necessarily a whole curriculum. For instance when I was in high school my parents would not allow me to attend the s*x part of s*x ed. They thought it was ridiculous that the kids would learn to put c*nd*ms on a banana in a co-ed classroom. The teacher was fine with it and I was assigned an essay on STDs in the library. I still learned what was essential to the state requirements but wasn't exposed to something my parents objected to. I see the bill to be a protection for when schools refused to allow an alternative. Another example the PS had my DSS when he was young reading something by Poe about a guy being murdered and buried under a house or some such thing. He came to me very upset about the first page and combined with his FASD and literalness I decided that it wasn't something he could handle. (Nor do I think it is necessary for a preteen to know what it feels like to murder and what someone thinks as they murder another.) The teachers obliged me and I found another story for him to read that still provided the point that they were making about literature. If they hadn't allowed that, this bill would have provided a recourse for us. I do however think it is badly worded and awfully vague. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teachin'Mine Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I didn't see an attack on Christianity, but on hypocrisy. If that was the only point the author was aiming for, there are plenty of other ways to express that without offending Christians - or at least this one. The author is free to write whatever they like, but clearly this one student was not alone in finding it offensive and I'd certainly not consider it appropriate for assigned high school reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I am reminded suddenly of plowing a damp field. Git your mind outta the furrow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 It may be ignorance of an aspect of religion, but it isn't ignorance of science. What Mrs. Mungo said is correct is about my post, though. It is about more than the science, Heather. There are all kinds of issues in history and works of literature that could be attacked as well, not to mention issues of health & hygiene and physical education. In this legislation they aren't talking about parents being able to introduce extra curricula alongside the standard curricula, they are talking about parents replacing curricula. If parents only want to supplement the curricula with other viewpoints, that would be a different story, which would best be served by afterschooling anyway. The legislation is rather ridiculous on whole. They can't possibly accomodate all these other curricula. I'm sure as a school administrator, you would be in a tizzy if faced with having to accomodate multiple parent requests for multiple curricula substitutions. It is a logistical nightmare. Oh I think the legislation is ridiculous. There is no way to make it work on a large scale like a in a public school. But considering there was recently a thread deleted that I will not mention by name where a poster was upset that some were making denigrating remarks about her religion... And you jumped to her defense along with others... And I said it is no different than someone saying those who believe in creationism are ignorant... And you agreed... I was just surprised by your response in this thread. Hopefully, I just misunderstood you. As for creation/evolution, my children learn both. If they went to a public school they would only learn one view which I disagree with and is one more reason why I am glad my money is not going to support public schools. To each his own. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.