01 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeySchool isn't just about academia, it's about social, mental, physical development. Home schooling just cannot do for the children what proper schools can. I oppose home schooling with any other form of public/private schooling where kids learn not just a curriculum, but interaction and development on many other levels.
But what of private schooling? What of home schooling that is academically to par or even better than public schoolling? You make quite a few assumptions here. You ASSUME that a public education is far better than a home school or possible a private education with a religious influence.
Is it not the job of the parent to see to their childrens well be ...[text shortened]... y showing that such power over a nations population can be and has been problematic in the past.
Your second paragraph is beside the point, my argument is not replacing the parent with the state.
Even solely academically I fail to see how home schooling can ever be better than it's alternatives. How can a parent provide the level of tutelage that a qualified teacher can across numerous subjects and with the support and resources a school provides?
Now, the subject of good and bad schools is important, but when, as in this case, you've got a family that is already wanting to limit the subjects taught (as with evolution), how can they be said to be doing the best for their children? They'll learn a limited and probably retarded set of knowledge, coming from only one point of view, and they'll fail on the social interaction they need to develop properly.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by StarrmanFreedom. Freedom to be a Mennonite. To home school your children up to a certain age. To live on a farm and shun many modern conveniences. To be part of a small, tightly-knit, highly supportive society.
School isn't just about academia, it's about social, mental, physical development. Home schooling just cannot do for the children what proper schools can. I oppose home schooling with any other form of public/private schooling where kids learn not just a curriculum, but interaction and development on many other levels.
Your second paragraph is beside t ...[text shortened]... e point of view, and they'll fail on the social interaction they need to develop properly.
Deciding that children should not be raised that way is really more of a commentary about the parents' chosen lifestyle, isn't it? We don't think THEY should live that way, either. But is that for us to decide? Isn't life under Western Democracy about the freedom to choose your own lifestyle?
Learning evolution will not affect a child's ability to succeed in life one way or the other. But being torn from the bosom of his family could have very adverse consequences.
As adults, ALL children question their parents ideas. Recognizing this, the Amish (similar to the Mennonites) have a tradition of allowing their kids to 'get wild' for a time, and 'interact with the English' (as they call the non-Amish) -- a tradition called rumspringa. That way, when the children decide to accept the Ordnung and become members of the Amish community, they do so fully informed.
Living a simple life and home schooling is a choice made by parents which does not harm, cripple or endanger their children -- and in some ways might be superior to the alternative -- who knows?
The Mennonites should be free to continue their ways and traditions.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by spruce112358The parents wants, based on their own beliefs should not limit their children's potentials. If those parents wish to practice their religion in such a way, fine, but you can't talk about freedom in one breath and then talk about forced religion/education in another. It's not about the parent's choices, it's about the children's potential being hampered. And I say again, the church and the state should remain separated, if the Mennonites want to practice religion they should do so within the boundaries of the law. Religion should be a personal thing, privately conducted, it has no place in the decision making process of a child's education and development.
Freedom. Freedom to be a Mennonite. To home school your children up to a certain age. To live on a farm and shun many modern conveniences. To be part of a small, tightly-knit, highly supportive society.
Deciding that children should not be raised that way is really more of a commentary about the parents' chosen lifestyle, isn't it? We don't think THE ...[text shortened]... e -- who knows?
The Mennonites should be free to continue their ways and traditions.
It is my opinion that homeschooling very much limits a child.
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanAt what point then do you resist a social worker/psychologist/psychiatrist/education department interfering and telling you that unless you raise your child in a certain way then you also will lose them to the state.
The parents wants, based on their own beliefs should not limit their children's potentials.
For example, you may be told that they have to be raised gender neutral, in a non-violent way where any form of physical punishment is banned. All toys and activities may have to be approved such that any thought of junior, role-playing in aggressive male bonding exercises will be deemed offensive and your license to parent children may be revoked. You may have to also provide a specific diet to prevent obesity and ensure that your TV no longer serves as a baby sitter.
Unless you intend to study and teach biological sciences how will a lack of knowledge about evolution impact your readiness to perform in todays society? Name me ten professions other than academic/teaching posts that really only perpetuate an irrelevant self serving 'truth' that will be affected by a lack of knowledge in evolution?
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyLets make it more complicated. Should children be forced to learn other scientific facts such as:
Apparenlty, Quebec is threatening Mennonite families that if they don't send their children to public school to be educated about evolution they might take them away.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57199
Should they be allowed to do this?
1. The age of the earth.
2. That people cannot come alive after three days of death.
3. That there is absolutely no scientific evidence for God and much of what their parents believe contradicts science quite considerably.
I notice a number of posters feel that it is right for the government to force the children to learn about evolution but nobody is pointing out that giving them a solid grounding in atheism is also the human right of every child.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by kmax87Did I not understand you or are you saying that the sole purpose of teachers is to "perpetuate an irrelevant self serving 'truth'"?
Unless you intend to study and teach biological sciences how will a lack of knowledge about evolution impact your readiness to perform in todays society? Name me ten professions other than academic/teaching posts that really only perpetuate an irrelevant self serving 'truth' that will be affected by a lack of knowledge in evolution?
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by kmax87The first point is confused, we're not discussing how much control the state has over its citizens and whether that level is too little or too much. We're discussing whether one's religious views should be allowed to contravene the laws of the state. They should not.
At what point then do you resist a social worker/psychologist/psychiatrist/education department interfering and telling you that unless you raise your child in a certain way then you also will lose them to the state.
For example, you may be told that they have to be raised gender neutral, in a non-violent way where any form of physical punishment is banne ...[text shortened]... an irrelevant self serving 'truth' that will be affected by a lack of knowledge in evolution?
The second point is also a non sequitur, the discussion here is whether a parent's religious beliefs should be allowed to determine the education and development of a child. They should not.
Further, it is not just evolution that the child will not learn, it is likely that their general education will be diminished, their spelling, grammar, vocabulary, their critical thinking, and not least of all their social development.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was saying that evolution is a self serving dogma that makes little or no difference to you or the way you live your life unless you were to study it further such that you would complete the cycle and teach it to someone else.
Did I not understand you or are you saying that the sole purpose of teachers is to "perpetuate an irrelevant self serving 'truth'"?
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanShould the state be allowed to impose laws on matters that have previously been left to parental discretion? Should the State be allowed to impose its own 'religious view' even if it is dressed up respectably like a science?
The first point is confused, we're not discussing how much control the state has over its citizens and whether that level is too little or too much. We're discussing whether one's religious views should be allowed to contravene the laws of the state. They should not.
Why do you assume that the first point is confused and that the heart of this debate lies somewhere other than the amount of control the citizens of a state should allow it to have?
Why should the State rule in a matter where the basic human rights of any individual is not being tampered with? It is a highly contentious assumption to make that if a child was denied the access to learn evolution, that their grades or their capacity to produce insightful and meaningful work would suffer.
01 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanShould a parents beliefs determine the education and development of a child? Should a parents religious beliefs determine the education and development of a child?
The second point is also a non sequitur, the discussion here is whether a parent's religious beliefs should be allowed to determine the education and development of a child. They should not.
Its logically absurd to suggest that a parent would divorce their world view from the act of raising a child, whether that view be secular or religious, so other than showing a bias against a particular mode of thinking, what point are you actually making?
01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87The state is not imposing it's own religious views, or it's scientific ones, you're reducing the arguement to one about evolution, as I've pointed out three times now, the argument is solely about whether religion should succeed the state in matters of law.
Should the state be allowed to impose laws on matters that have previously been left to parental discretion? Should the State be allowed to impose its own 'religious view' even if it is dressed up respectably like a science?
Why do you assume that the first point is confused and that the heart of this debate lies somewhere other than the amount of control ...[text shortened]... n, that their grades or their capacity to produce insightful and meaningful work would suffer.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by kmax87
Should a parents beliefs determine the education and development of a child? Should a parents religious beliefs determine the education and development of a child?
Determine; no, influence; yes, alas there's no getting away from it.
Its logically absurd to suggest that a parent would divorce their world view from the act of raising a child, whether that view be secular or religious, so other than showing a bias against a particular mode of thinking, what point are you actually making?
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, I'm saying (for the 4th time now?) that: 1) Religious views should be private and cannot be allowed to take precident over those of the state. 2) Homeschooling is inferior to public schooling on both academic and social developmental levels. How are you not getting this?
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI am getting that you are repeatedly saying this, but I have yet to see one bit of substantiating evidence to back your sweeping claim. Having met a few people who were home schooled and considering their subsequent achievement at a tertiary level of education, I am not at all convinced by your assertion. There would be too many variables between say an educated parent with a passion to providimg a varied learning regime and say a lackluster public education where the only concern is getting home in one piece to opine that 'homeschooling is inferior to public schooling on both academic and social developmental levels'
2) Homeschooling is inferior to public schooling on both academic and social developmental levels. How are you not getting this?
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by StarrmanName some other areas of contention where religious views are in direct conflict with the wishes of the state?
The state is not imposing it's own religious views, or it's scientific ones, you're reducing the arguement to one about evolution, as I've pointed out three times now, the argument is solely about whether religion should succeed the state in matters of law.
Considering that most of the law is derived from a Judeo-Christo perspective with a bit of the English common law and French Napoleonic code thrown in for good measure it seems incongruous to suggest that the law be allowed to 'bite the hand that fed it'
01 Oct 07
3. That there is absolutely no scientific evidence for God and much of what their parents believe contradicts science quite considerably.Oh c'mon. It takes at least as much of a leap of faith to believe in the Big Bang, and Earth being the "Goldilocks planet", and that invisible "dark matter" makes up 90% of the universe ('cuz we ain't got enough mass in the universe to make all the equations come out right), as it does to believe in the Divine.