 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
 Alberta human rights furor |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 9:30 am |
|
Alberta, our red-neck cousin, has done it again. In amending its Human Rights Act to include prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, it inserted a provision requiring school boards or teachers to notify parents whenever there will be curriculum, instructiion or course of study "that deal explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation." Parents may then provide a signed written request for their child to be excused "without academic penalty." See for example http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/02/alberta-human-rights-school-gay-education-law.html
As might be expected, the outcry is from those promoting "alternate" sexuality with claims that the government is thereby teaching students to hate thier fellow students. IM not-necessarily HO, this is but one more manifestation of competing world-views. One of those views is that the state "owns" the children and has the right and/or duty to mold their thinking along "correct" lines. Another recent example is the attempt of Manitoba to remove children into foster care from a parent who holds and expresses white supremacist views.
A competing world view, one often held by those opting to send their chidlren to Christian schools, is that God has given children to parents who have the obligation to teach and train them. Consequently, schools, including Sunday Schools, are there to assist parents in that duty and not to replace them or usurp what God has placed squarely on their shoulders and for which they will give an account to almighty God. Along with this view comes the idea that if a school is going beyond academic subjects to teach topics of religion and sexual morality which conflict with the beliefs of the parents, they have a right and duty to have their children refrain from participation without being penalized.
The UN Convention on he Rigths of the Child seems to uphold the latter by including:
"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members." (my emphasis) and
"States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. "
More importantly for "people of the book," what does scripture say that is relevant to this topic? |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 12:43 pm |
|
Thanks for raising this sensitive topic.
The issue of education is a tricky one. Personally I stand up for the rights of private communities to teach/function the way they see fit. The only exception is when these communities are causing harm to their own members or to outsiders (an example would be the polygamist sects in Bountiful B.C.).
Of course there are rarely clean divisions in life--especially in the sphere of public/private education. In this way I think Lornewel is right in saying that this issue comes down to competing worldviews. There are however many more than two. There is the public worldview and than the incredibly numerous private worldviews. I would be curious to hear from the forum writers out there whether they have removed their children from class or whether they think removal is appropriate. I am also curious as to how you all view public education? What are you expectations? What are the necessary implications of it being public? And how as Christians are we to to interact/influence with this public system? BTW I see this instance as a perfect case study to show how the various theories on culture that have been discussed elsewhere apply to a real life circumstance.
I would also be interested in hearing from any public teachers that may be on the forum. How do you feel about this legislation?
As an interesting side-note I heard this topic being discussed on the radio. A science teacher from Alberta was being interviewed and he was concerned that this legislation would affect how he would be able to teach science. Since evolution is a part of the curriculum and since many students have creation-science, christian parents at home, it is quite possible that students could be removed for religious reasons when evolution is taught as scientific fact. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 2:47 pm |
|
Tricky topic.
How much authority should the state have over children, over their parents? Difficult to be consistent with that one. A social conservative may want the state to protect the unborn from murder, or anyone for that matter. A social conservative may also not want their children to be exposed to same sex education. I don't think a formula can be drawn to separate clearly what the government should be involved with and what they shouldn't. Lorne also provided an example in Manitoba of protecting foster kids from being raised in white supremacist households. To me that seems like a good thing. Governments can assist in the protection of human rights. But the protection of one person's rights is sometimes an infringement on some other person's freedoms. The question is whose rights are more important.
With same sex politics, this isn't always easy to do. I do think that same sex couples should receive the same government treatment as any other couple. I don't think that pastors and priests be obligated to marry same sex couples, or any couple, for that matter. I also think they should have the freedom to marry same sex couples, if they wish to do so. This might tie back to our Culture thread, where many of us resisted the idea of Christians imposing culture on society (i.e. Type 5).
To be honest, I haven't come to a comfortable position on the morality of same sex marriage, and maybe that affects my political views. But I think an argument could be made that if we value our religious freedoms, we need to respect the freedoms of others (whether they be religious or otherwise), and sometimes this includes instances that is permissive of the freedom to do things that are inconsistent with our moral standards. I don't really see same sex couples as infringing on other people's rights and freedoms, and so I would err on the side of tolerance.
I'm skirting around the topic a bit, but I wanted to suggest that the issue may not be so much about who owns our children. The fact is that both government and parents play a role in the environment our children grow up in, and we need to carefully consider the proper balance.
I'm also hesitant about schools skirting around controversial issues. Sometimes it's best to let a sleeping dog sleep, sometimes the protection of rights is more important than the hurt it will cause some people.
I'm still skirting! I don't know what the Albertan government should do. Maybe how I feel depends on what is being taught. I think it is fair game for schools to address bigotry, and I might suggest it is their responsbility to do so. Bigotry against homosexuals is a very big problem in society. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving parents the freedom to excuse their children from being taught that hatred of gays is wrong. And there is something to be said about hearing other points of view. I'm not threatened if my kid hears a perspective other than the one I believe. I would prefer that teachers teach according to my beliefs, but that's not realistic. As a parent (kids aren't in school yet), I have far greater concern regarding the influence of my children's peers than I do of their teachers. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 2:52 pm |
|
| thursday wrote: |
As an interesting side-note I heard this topic being discussed on the radio. A science teacher from Alberta was being interviewed and he was concerned that this legislation would affect how he would be able to teach science. Since evolution is a part of the curriculum and since many students have creation-science, christian parents at home, it is quite possible that students could be removed for religious reasons when evolution is taught as scientific fact. |
I used to think that evolution shouldn't be on the curriculum, but I have since changed my mind, and I don't think parents should have the freedom to opt out. But realistically, not very much of science class deals with evolution, and that's probably fine. I guess more than evolution is at stake. Ancient history got more curriculum than evolution when I was a kid. Should that get scratched because it deals with history from before 4000 BC? |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 3:28 pm |
|
Todd,
thanks for your thoughts. I particularly liked what you had to say re: how if we want our rights protected we need to protect the rights of others. Otherwise we slip into a relationship over culture where we think we are better than everyone else and so can impose our will on them. I agree re: evolution as well. I brought it up to show that this legislation could perhaps be used in a way it wasn't intended. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 5:00 pm |
|
| Quote: | | More importantly for "people of the book," what does scripture say that is relevant to this topic? |
Proverbs 22:6. I am one that supports public education over private Christian schooling or home schooling as I see this as being 'in the world'. To be not 'of the world', to me, is to provide further education in the home and through church community involvements that will give the child the tools to overcome any non-Christian teachings they will come up against so they will make right choices.
I've seen those who were raised in a protected/isolated environment and when they got out on their own they did not stand up well against views that went against their beliefs. IMO, we should allow children to be engaged with various cultures and allow them to grow spiritually as they work through the tension that exists in this world with being a follower of Christ. |
|
|
|
| bert Member Joined Feb 10, 2009 35 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 6:40 pm |
|
| Quote: | | if we want our rights protected we need to protect the rights of others |
This makes our life easier, but should we be doing this if it means protecting the rights of people doing what we know is biblically wrong? |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 7:00 pm |
|
Bert,
that is the million dollar question. I don't have time for an answer now but I think it would be worth discussing  |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 7:24 pm |
|
| bert wrote: | | Quote: | | if we want our rights protected we need to protect the rights of others |
This makes our life easier, but should we be doing this if it means protecting the rights of people doing what we know is biblically wrong? |
YES we protect rights of other who are doing what we consider to be biblically wrong. So long as they are not causing harm to self or others (and I am using the term: harm in a physical sense as how 'the system' might understand the word.' But Bert, i don't think it necessarily makes our life easier. It tends to complicate things - instead of black and white we begin to see shades of grey.
For example: imo without a doubt we protect the rights of people who have a gay or alternate life-style to work in a harrasment free enviroment. Even though many of us would consider those life-styles to be biblically wrong. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 10:15 pm |
|
I read an interesting book called "The myth of a Christian Nation: How the quest for political power is destroying the church" by Gregory Boyd some time ago, which addressed the issue of legislated Christian morality. Interesting read, though he takes things a step or two further than I would go.
To me, government law is not the best way to turn people's hearts to God. In fact, I think the opposite has largely occurred as a result of the rise of the Christian Right in the US. I really feel the reputation of Christians has been significantly tarnished, and if that wasn't bad enough, there have been good reasons for this too. The Christian right has polarized society. The further you polarize the harder it is to reach out to people, and the more you alienate the people you are trying to show the love of God to. Christians have a reputation for being only concerned with social issues such as the legality of same sex marriage and abortion, and have a reputation for neglecting the poor, and not having a care for the sustainability of the environment.
I think we have to think about how is it that people will experience the love of God. Is legislating morality the way to show God's love for them? Anyway, sound legislation is something to be pursued, but we can't be defined by it. A more credible witness on abortion would take steps in adopting children who would otherwise be aborted. Boyd had a good anecdote of someone helping another woman with sufficent money to help care for an otherwise aborted baby. I'm saddened when people vote for legistation that people must carry their babies to term, but vote against financial safety nets for single women who can't otherwise afford to properly care for their babies, if they were to come to term.
If only Christians were typified by relief efforts, with organizations such as MDS, or Lutheran World Relief. Bringing a witness of Christ while helping people in their material needs. We don't even have to hand out gospel tracts because the Gospel is being preached through our service, and draws people to thanksgiving for the gifts of God that rescued them from despair.
Come to think of it, I would rather invite my non-Christian friends to join a Christian community to serve at a food bank, rather than invite them to church. Instead, some Christian organizations host soup kitchens that don't allow non-Christians to serve and mingle with the poor. Isn't that sad? |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| parents are to be the teachers |
Posted Jun 3, 2009; 11:48 pm |
|
These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up Deut 6:6-7
Most Canadian parents instead hardly spend any waking hours with the children, let alone in impressing the word of God on them every waking moment. We get them up early, send them to school to be indoctrinated with an increasingly unbiblical worldview, then home to the TV where they get even worse stuff. Don't you think the law (as in Alberta) should at least give parents the option to keep their children out of some of it, if they can't afford to opt out completely? |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 4, 2009; 8:02 am |
|
I can only truly evalute the education I grew up with. Looking back, I don't recall much that I now find objectionable (though I may have at the time). We learned math, biology, physics, chemistry, history, social studies, English, etc. There was nothing inherently wrong with these subject matters. Most of what we learn about math and physics, for example, comes from some of history's greatest thinkers who were also devout Christians (e.g. Isaac Newton).
Looking back at my parents generation, I find more stuff that is objectionable, such as the charaterization of aboriginals in history class. Or, I can imagine what the American South would have taught with regards to people of African descent.
One trend I'm concerned about is that of school violence, bullying, and disrespect of people in authority. This has more to do with our children's peers (and their parents) than our children's teachers.
We also had Bible reading, which I acknolwedge is getting used less and less. This wasn't always a good thing, from what I recall. I had an atheist teacher read from Genesis, and add his commentary on it. Students had the right to opt out of Bible reading, but it kind of made them look like outsiders.
I don't think parents should have the right to pick and choose what their children learn. There is value in having the same curriculum for each kid, and some unfairness if some is tested for some kids, but not for others. That's not to say everything goes.
And it goes without saying that parents ought to be more involved in their children's lives. That's the more important solution.
I went to a church around a year ago, where the pastor spoke out against public education calling it "X hours of secular humanism". I don't remember what the X was, but it would have been the total number of school hours between K-12. The comment was ill-informed. There is very little objectionable content in public school curriculum. If there is something objectionable, it would more about the teacher than the curriculum. |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 4, 2009; 8:50 am |
|
I agree re: the perspective that there is little in school curriculum that is potentially objectionable to Christians. The two major things are evolution and sex-ed. As a side-point I read something interesting in a recent edition of MacLeans. Despite the objection of some Christian parents that sex-ed in the school does not teach abstinence as a viable option, the statistics say otherwise. Since 1990 the amount of teenagers getting pregnant and even having sex is down. This shows that the students do indeed view abstinence as more of an option than they did in the past.
BTW Todd, I agree to a certain extent with the pastor who called public ed: secular humanism since indeed this perspective is the hegemony of the education system--however I agree with you that those comments were ill-advised. This however does not mean that they will necessarily be indoctrinated with unbiblical worldview. Lornewel is right in saying that many parents (even Christian ones) do not spend much time with their children. The solution is IMO not to pull the kids out of public school but rather to be more active in their lives like Lornewel is suggesting. BTW Lornewel I do think that parents should have the right to pull their students out of class if they know objectionable content is being discussed. However I am not sure that this step is always the right one. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 4, 2009; 8:53 am |
|
lornewel, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your scripture reference. We are making a special effort in our church to get Christians to return to being 'people of the Book'. Over the past couple of weeks some 170 complimentary copies of MB REALife journal has been signed for and taken by people to read, listen and journal what God is saying to them through daily scripture reading. This came out of our REVEAL survey that shows that MBs are not as involved with 'the Book' and listening to God as they once were. I hope this especially catches on with the younger people.
| Quote: | | Don't you think the law (as in Alberta) should at least give parents the option to keep their children out of some of it, if they can't afford to opt out completely? |
When I was in school, back when you got the strap to keep us in line, we did have an option of taking dancing lessons or not and a note from the parent got us out of that. I don't think this required any legislation at that time but now it appears that everything does. I personally have reservations about how far a Christian parent needs to go to protect their child from worldly views. They probably get more bad stuff from TV and the Internet than from public education.
I mentioned before that I was not in favour of private religious and home schooling. What I think is happening is that those who do not allow their children to attend public schools, although trying to protect their children from the evil in these environments, are supporting the idea of withdrawing from the world. They are raised with primarily and sometimes only Christian acquaintances and continue this type of life right into their adult years. This can be a real shock when they hit university or get jobs in worldly environments. I believe this has an effect on evangelism and perhaps why some never learn to engage with the world that Christ came to save.
I really don't believe Christ would support some of these forms of withdrawing from the world we live in and I also think much time is wasted trying to change the country to be more tolerable with our ways of living as believers. We need to 'suck it up' and keep our sufferings here in perspective and get on with taking the good news so that God can change hearts. One of the main Anabaptist beliefs is being 'born again'. This is where the focus should be. There is so much humanism today leaking into our churches and straying from the belief in the power of God to transform lives. It is not reform we need but redemption experienced. O well, I had to get that off my chest.  |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| AMEN |
Posted Jun 4, 2009; 10:17 am |
|
Hello Sudsy,
I have appreciated your comments related to this topic. In particular I agree with what you wrote: | Quote: | I mentioned before that I was not in favour of private religious and home schooling. What I think is happening is that those who do not allow their children to attend public schools, although trying to protect their children from the evil in these environments, are supporting the idea of withdrawing from the world. They are raised with primarily and sometimes only Christian acquaintances and continue this type of life right into their adult years. This can be a real shock when they hit university or get jobs in worldly environments. I believe this has an effect on evangelism and perhaps why some never learn to engage with the world that Christ came to save.
|
I think my perspective is similar to what you wrote here: | Quote: | | It is not reform we need but redemption experienced. |
Hello Todd,
I have appreciated your comments on the forum. You are able to articulate some of the intellectual struggles I experience, or have experienced, in a meaningful way. Thank you. Related to this topic, I appreciated what you wrote: | Quote: | Looking back, I don't recall much that I now find objectionable (though I may have at the time). We learned math, biology, physics, chemistry, history, social studies, English, etc. There was nothing inherently wrong with these subject matters. Most of what we learn about math and physics, for example, comes from some of history's greatest thinkers who were also devout Christians (e.g. Isaac Newton).
|
and | Quote: | | I went to a church around a year ago, where the pastor spoke out against public education calling it "X hours of secular humanism". I don't remember what the X was, but it would have been the total number of school hours between K-12. The comment was ill-informed. There is very little objectionable content in public school curriculum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
