8 ms·

I'm divided on these sorts of things (I didn't used to be). Sure science classes shouldn't be teaching religion, but having governments decide what's an approve

I'm divided on these sorts of things (I didn't used to be). Sure science classes shouldn't be teaching religion, but having governments decide what's an approved view for its population is bothersome. People should be allowed to make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it themselves. Encourage people to be active in their community rather than sitting back and expecting someone from the top to take the initiative.

brational 11y ago
What happens to the kids whose parents won't provide any leadership or input?
arethuza 11y ago
Kids do get taught about religion in Scottish schools in Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies - where they can learn about lots of different religions and their different beliefs. My son has just done this course at National 5 and found it very interesting and he's not in the slightest bit religious: http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/47421.html http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/47421.html [Edit: I got Standard Grades and National 5s mixed up!]
kbart 11y ago
This move, more likely, is aimed to protect children against idiot parents. Much like vaccination is being enforced. People do have right to be ignorant and believe whatever bullshit they want, but forcing stupid/harmful believes on children should not be allowed as it may damage them for the rest of their lives. If I were in charge, I would ban all religion related matters on children under 18.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
>having governments decide what's an approved view for its population I don't think it's about governments deciding on an approved view, so much as government removing the teaching of obvious nonsense from schools. Religious schools - which still exist, unfortunately - have no problem with forcing their approved views on kids, even after those views have proven to be harmful: as in - say - abstinence education instead of useful sex ed.
janvidar 11y ago
Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools to teach a lie? Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation. Schools also have to follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat because they beleive this is the right thing to do. This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust ever happened, or use text books that alledge this. And, this is probably a good thing.
- 13years 11y ago
  Because banning gives a government the power to hide the truth. Who gets to decide something is a lie? The majority may all be in favor this time, but what gets banned next? There is no issue with schools deciding it is not in their interest to teach a subject; however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book burning. How about letting schools teach the subject along with skills on how to do proper investigation and scientific research and logical reasoning. In other words, how about teaching the kids how to logically reason through fact or fiction so they are prepared to analyze other subjects appropriately.
  - olavk 11y ago
    By that line of reasoning schools should no teach anything at all. 2+2=5 is just as valid math as 2+2=4, anything else would be allowing the government to hide the truth!
    - 13years 11y ago
      That is not what I stated. Banning is saying that we can't discuss why 2+2 is not 5, because that subject is banned. If a lot of people come often come to a wrong conclusion, you should be able to teach and discuss why that happens. Banning subjects is running away from debate and discussion. It fails to teach logical analysis and investigation.
pjc50 11y ago
approved view for its population This is not that, though; it's a question of what's taught in schools. There has to be a curriculum. By necessity of the limits of time and effort, this can only include a finite number of things. For administrative efficiency, this is centralised in Scotland (and separately in England&Wales). Teaching creationism as science is simply a category error. Teaching it as fact is a factual error. You're still free to take your children to Sunday school and teach them whatever you want there.(+) (+) well, apart from the banned sectarian football songs
mikeash 11y ago
What do you suppose a government is, if not people "gather[ing] together [to] fix it themselves"? I'll also note that if parents feel strongly about their children learning creationism, nothing prevents them from teaching it themselves, or buying books that teach it, or even inviting "learned" lecturers to present the topic. This is just about taxpayers not paying for the teaching of nonsense.
copsarebastards 11y ago
> People should be allowed to make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it themselves. Fix it themselves, perhaps by electing government officials who represent their views on what should be taught in schools and can outlaw obvious lies from curriculum? I really don't see the problem here.

brational 11y ago

What happens to the kids whose parents won't provide any leadership or input?

arethuza 11y ago

Kids do get taught about religion in Scottish schools in Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies - where they can learn about lots of different religions and their different beliefs. My son has just done this course at National 5 and found it very interesting and he's not in the slightest bit religious: http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/47421.html http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/47421.html [Edit: I got Standard Grades and National 5s mixed up!]

kbart 11y ago

This move, more likely, is aimed to protect children against idiot parents. Much like vaccination is being enforced. People do have right to be ignorant and believe whatever bullshit they want, but forcing stupid/harmful believes on children should not be allowed as it may damage them for the rest of their lives. If I were in charge, I would ban all religion related matters on children under 18.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

>having governments decide what's an approved view for its population I don't think it's about governments deciding on an approved view, so much as government removing the teaching of obvious nonsense from schools. Religious schools - which still exist, unfortunately - have no problem with forcing their approved views on kids, even after those views have proven to be harmful: as in - say - abstinence education instead of useful sex ed.

janvidar 11y ago

Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools to teach a lie? Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation. Schools also have to follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat because they beleive this is the right thing to do. This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust ever happened, or use text books that alledge this. And, this is probably a good thing.

13years 11y ago
Because banning gives a government the power to hide the truth. Who gets to decide something is a lie? The majority may all be in favor this time, but what gets banned next? There is no issue with schools deciding it is not in their interest to teach a subject; however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book burning. How about letting schools teach the subject along with skills on how to do proper investigation and scientific research and logical reasoning. In other words, how about teaching the kids how to logically reason through fact or fiction so they are prepared to analyze other subjects appropriately.
- olavk 11y ago
  By that line of reasoning schools should no teach anything at all. 2+2=5 is just as valid math as 2+2=4, anything else would be allowing the government to hide the truth!
  - 13years 11y ago
    That is not what I stated. Banning is saying that we can't discuss why 2+2 is not 5, because that subject is banned. If a lot of people come often come to a wrong conclusion, you should be able to teach and discuss why that happens. Banning subjects is running away from debate and discussion. It fails to teach logical analysis and investigation.

pjc50 11y ago

approved view for its population This is not that, though; it's a question of what's taught in schools. There has to be a curriculum. By necessity of the limits of time and effort, this can only include a finite number of things. For administrative efficiency, this is centralised in Scotland (and separately in England&Wales). Teaching creationism as science is simply a category error. Teaching it as fact is a factual error. You're still free to take your children to Sunday school and teach them whatever you want there.(+) (+) well, apart from the banned sectarian football songs

mikeash 11y ago

What do you suppose a government is, if not people "gather[ing] together [to] fix it themselves"? I'll also note that if parents feel strongly about their children learning creationism, nothing prevents them from teaching it themselves, or buying books that teach it, or even inviting "learned" lecturers to present the topic. This is just about taxpayers not paying for the teaching of nonsense.

copsarebastards 11y ago

> People should be allowed to make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it themselves. Fix it themselves, perhaps by electing government officials who represent their views on what should be taught in schools and can outlaw obvious lies from curriculum? I really don't see the problem here.