That’s a valid reason. If it was just pot, I would ignore it. But getting burned or blown up is a whole different story.
When you say this:
that is not advocating the government enforcing existing rights, that is advocating legislation if necessary to make parents teach evolution if the parents don’t believe in it.
Should parents be required to teach Geography if they don’t believe in it?
Don’t know, don’t care. Since I haven’t seen anyone post that the govt should oblige parents to teach Geography and then said they have never advocated using legislation to enforce their viewpoint, it’s also not relevant.
It’s a parellel case to show how parents electing not to “believe” in something that is a fundamental part of human knowledge would deprive children of their right to an education. That is what Dio is getting at, I think. If parents didn’t believe in mathematics, or literacy, or state capitals you would see that children would be cheated to have their educations so short shrifted. Evolution is the fundamental fact (not theory) of biology, and is as much a core part of a sensible curriculum as geography or mathematics.
No. I’m advocating that the government needs to protect children’s right to an education. They do not have the right to deprive their children from learning science anymore than they have a right to prevent their children from learning how to read or do arithmetic. Why on earth should the parents’ ignorant “beliefs” have the slightest bearing on whether their kids have the right to a sound education. It’s the children’s rights that matter here. No parental rights are being abridged. There is no parental right to prevent children from being educated.
Do you think there should be no rules at all for homeschooling. Should parents be able to make up whatever rules for math or grammar that they want?
I think everyone is missing the best part of that thread. Dio uses the term 'the man ’ without irony. Now that is groovy.
I’m no expert on home schooling, but don’t states generally put curriculum reqt’s on parents who want to home school their kids? I would assume that those req’ts apply equally to private schools. If so, and if the public and private schools must teach evolution, then I’d have no problem with requiring home schooled kids to demonstrate knowledge of that subject. If the other schools don’t, though, then home schooled kids shouldn’t either.
But here’s the problem… Suppose the kid aces every other subject? What are you going to do, hold him back? The science portion would include evolution only as one small part, so let’s say the kid does great on all the science questions except evolution? What are you going to do? I can’t believe that kids would be held back in public school if they failed to demonstrate knowledge of evolution.
So, you can test for it, and you can require it to be taught, but you can’t do anything about the parent who simply doesn’t teach it and the kids “fail” that portion of the test. Right?
I don’t know that the government should force the parents to teach it, but the parents are ignorami, and ignorami shouldn’t be teaching. It’s not just about evolution, it’s about attitudes towards science. If parents are supposing that one can approach the world of science and select facts based on personal preferences, then they don’t know what science is and aren’t qualified to teach it.
Suppose I don’t “believe” in long division and don’t teach it. Maybe my kids will pass their math test; maybe they won’t. But I’d hope that people would agree that if I have a pigheadedness about a crucial aspect of mathematics, I wouldn’t teach it. Moreover, it would be fair to say that if I was so confused about mathematics that I supposed long division could be categorically denied – not just omitted, but its very existence denied – then I would be indeed a poor math teacher.
Downplaying evolution as a small part of science shows how much science has suffered due to the controversey. It makes schools afraid to treat the topic with any respect, and people grow up confused, thinking evolution is a big question mark and not all that important. In fact, it is as foundational to biology as any concept is to any subject.
If they can make it from Salt Lake City to Donner’s Pass on foot carrying a keg without breaking a sweat, then no. They would have proven geography is irrelevant. Sort of hard when you compare that to religious/scientific differences. I want evolution taught. Much to your surprise, I’m sure, it’s proven to us mortals that it happened/happens.
Now give me a moment to plant my tongue in my left cheek (no not that one). Comparing geography to evolution? When’s the last time a plane debated a mountain of it’s existance and won? We all know what point you’re making, and it’s undeniable. But I son’t see the stone clad equality.
I’m not sure which is supposed to surprise me – evolution explaining things, or you wanting it taught in schools. Neither does, in fact, surprise me.
I think you meant plain, not plane…or maybe you meant geometry istead of geography.
The “equality” is that geography and evolution are equally factual and that a parent has no right to prevent a child from learning about either.
If a parent refuses to abide by a state sanctioned curriculum, then the state has an obligation to see that the curriculum is provided in some other way.
I’ll play along with the hijack for a second to answer this question. As with most things regulated at the state level it varies. You go from Texas, which has virtually NO regulation of home schools(along with AK, ID, OK, MO, IL, IN, MI CT, and NJ), to the relatively restrictive Washington state(along with ND, MN, WV, PA, NY, VT, ME, RI, and MA). It should be noted that even in the case of very restrictive states there are very rarely cirriculum requirements which drill down to the point of “teach evolution as fact”. About the only thing the state demands in virtually all cases is basic instruction in citizenship. Standardized testing is sometimes required, as are teaching certificates or some number of college hours. The number of states with no such regulations is probably 3/1 over those with such regs.
In any event, the point stands. Diogenes not only advocates laws to enforce his views of how things should be(we all do this to some extent), he asserts things already ARE that way. c.f. his nonsense earlier in the thread about the 14th amendment already applying to home-educated students to make their educations “equal” to the publicly educated. If this is the case then you better start launching lawsuits against 2/3 or more of the states because not even the most stringent requires the number of classroom hours, teaching certificates, board certified cirriculum, standardized testing, etc. as is required for public education. NO state that I am aware of requires certain cirriculum to be used in a home school. In fact, home schooling families have defeated those types of laws in the past, so the caselaw is on the other side(c.f. pretty much anything dealing with the Amish and mandatory public education).
It doesn’t matter one whit how much Diogenes blusters about it on the SDMB. It undermines his credibility to spout nonsense about what the 14th amendment requires while simultaneously displaying acute ignorance of the actual situation. Adding intractible stubbornness on top of the bluster and ignorance and you get exactly what I have described him as. Diogenes the Self-Righteous.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ll sign that lawsuit anytime.
Yes, but will you fund it?
Maybe, a bit. Just a tad. But I keep in mind that my Dog gives every indication that he has studied the matter with some serious intent, this whole “righteous” thingy; when he wears the white hat, it ain’t a disguise.
The distinction between passionate commitment and smug Pharisee-manship is not so crisp, but in my judgement friend Doggyknees leans far more to the former than the latter. It is a virtue I freely admire without any intention to emulate.
Sure, as soon as win the lottery.
I’ll take bets on the outcome. I’ll give 5-1 odds that it’ll be laughed out of court in 40 or more of the states. The “red” states on the map I linked to may not laugh it out, but they sure as hell won’t uphold it.
Face it Dio. A child’s “right to be tought fact” is your opinion and nothing more.
Enjoy,
Steven
Intent? Intent?! Your favorite religious leader Pat Robertson studied things with serious intent. Or do you have a different interpretation of intent? One that applies to those you agree with and those you don’t?
And save your shit about me being a follower of Robertson. I’m Catholic. (Also save your shit about the Pope.)
Let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re right, and that it’s only my “opinion” that a child has a right to a decent education. Why does that make me an asshole? Do you actually DISAGREE with that opinion or do you think that parents have a right to completely withhold education from their children? Does a kid have a right to learn how to read? Am I a “self-righteous” asshole if I say that they do? What, exactly, the fuck is your problem?