Well done, Joe. You get first place for mentioning the sexual assault of children as a comparison to homosexuality. It normally happens before we get to three figures in the post count so you got in relatively early there.
As usual Freddy you fail to see the flaw in your initial logic and then attack a strawman when you cannot rebut with a solid response. Well done on your argumentation fails.
I’m not sure if you know that civil unions have been granted to same sex couples in New Zealand for over 15 years. And marriages between same sex couples for a number of years.
Now if you live in NZ you can, I guess, pretend that the vast majority of your fellow countrymen don’t see any problem with it, ignore that it’s entirely legal (whilst still disagreeing with the morality of the matter) and pretend it doesn’t exist. Or you can face the facts (whilst still disagreeing with the morality).
The position of the Min of Education is that schools should be able to address any questions that their pupils have about ssm (and other matters that you might not actually support from a moral perspective) and that they should be informed of the social make up of New Zealand society. And quite possibly why changes have been made to social institutions over the years.
The morality of the changes that have occured is, I would suggest, a matter for parents and for the church and for Catholic institutions. So I would imagine that a Catholic school would inform their students of the current situation and give them all the facts that they would need and then, separately, inform them of the church’s position.
Personally, I would support them in doing that. Both of my children went to Catholic schools and my wife and I had zero problems in having the position of the church explained to them in various ways in regards to morality as Catholics perceive it. They left school all the better for it - fully informed of a variety of views coupled with all the information they needed to make their own personal decisions.
No there doesn’t.
Governments should not be telling schools what to teach outside the core curriculum.
Possibly not. But social science is part of the core curriculum.
‘The social sciences are one of eight learning areas described in the curriculum, and social studies is the foundation, integrating subject for the social sciences at years 1 to 10.’
‘The social sciences learning area is about how societies work and how people can participate as critical, active, informed, and responsible citizens. Contexts are drawn from the past, present, and future and from places within and beyond New Zealand.’ https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum/Social-sciences
I suspect you can see what the government is trying to do as well as I can. Im not going to discuss it with you further.
Curse those Kiwis and their underhand methods of turning the next generation into ‘critical, active, informed, and responsible citizens’!
Well, why didn’t you say that in the first place and provide links to mainstream Finnish news sites in English?
And, in English, that means?
I’m not in Finland - but as I read Scripture, there will be no (physical) “safe space” for Christians when evil has its brief moment of power. The only safe refuge will be in Christ. - really, truly, actually in Him. And maybe alongside Him, on our crosses, Him on His.
Why? Christian Today, Premier and Evangelical Focus are responsible news outlets in the Christian news industry.
How many English publications are based in Finland that focus on Finland?
Google Translate exists. Not perfect but still a useful tool.
But here it is:
It has already been reported that the investigation from Juha Mäenpää will go to the Public Prosecutor’s Office
Goodness, such detail.
Yeah, because you only took the preview. But hey, let’s just rely on your assumptions of what has occurred instead of reading sources from Finland and those who have covered the two cases.
A rising tide lifts all the boats. You need to agree on a minimum standard that all children should reach and then set that as the benchmark. You need to agree on the best methods of passing on information to children and apply that across the board. You need to agree on what should be taught that is in the best interests of the children and how they will apply that information when they leave school.
It’s also helpful if you have a common curriculum when it comes to disseminating information amd materials to schools. It also helps when children or teachers move from school to school. And it helps to give you an overall view as to how the educational process is working. Or not, as the case may be. You need the same exams to be taken by a kid if she’s in Auckland or Dunedin.
That’s not to say that the core curriculum is all they can teach. It’s not a means of turning out automatons. You have to be able to adapt it to specific needs. And in NZ I believe it only applies to government run schools.
That’s the case in NZ and Australia. And in the UK. And as far as I know it’s pretty common in all countries.
Sounds a bit dictatorial. One can be coerced to conform but one never needs to agree.
What to do when some disagree with the teachings seems to be the point. If, for instance, let’s say 50 years ago that some disagreed that teaching children that only heterosexual relationships are natural, what to do?
Few can teach without imparting explicitly or implicitly a value statement.
The community that possesses a common set of values can organize in such a way that the education of the children can be orchestrated by the government. However, if the community becomes fundamentally diverse in its values then the collective looses its capability to orchestrate because the musicians refuse to harmonize on any one song.
At that point, and I think the sexual morality issues have taken us to that point, government ought to begin to get out of the education business. Let the schools teach what they will, let the parents choose the schools they prefer, provide vouchers for those who need them and transition from public to private schools.
Private schools are free to do so. But governments, either to the right or the left of the political spectrum, have a requirement to provide free education for those who want it. At least, they do in NZ and Australia. Private schools are quite expensive. It’s nonsensical to think that all schools should or even could be.
It seems that some people object only to aspects of the social sciences with which they think they disagree. And I say that because they assume that moral positions are taken when lessons are given. Whereas, as to the best of my knowledge, the curriculum will pass on the facts to the children (e.g. that same sex marriage has been a legal right in NZ since 2013) and leave the moral aspects - which is an entirely different subject, to those who wish to involve themselves with it.
And as I said, that may well be within the same school if it’s a Catholic school. That applied here in Australia when my kids went to Catholic schools. They were given the facts and then they were given the church’s position on it.
And as I also said, parents get to meet with the staff of their children’s school on a regular basis to discuss matters such as these and express any concerns that they might have.
First, there is no free education anywhere. Second, governments do not fund the education, taxpayers do. The government controls the system only because of the golden rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules. Third, in a republican democracy, government rights are specified and limited by the people. Our constitution does not even mention the word “education” for good reason. Taxpayer education is a privilege, not a right.
A public centralized education system that controls school curricula easily morphs into a propaganda instrument. A decentralized system, as private schools necessarily would be, does not.
This cannot happen overnight. As society splinters on values so should the schooling of our children transition from a centralized public to private system. Only one who has never taught children could think that a teacher would robotically be able to just give the kids the facts.
You are, of course, free to lobby and vote for any politician who would promote a policy that best matches your particular view. And to send your children to the school of your choice.
Epic naïveté! That the State endorses SSM is regrettably a moral statement that it’s good! However it is a legal reality so it’s unrealistic to declare it off-limits for coming up in school (if there actually is a subject that would cover that).
True, but like with health care, many communities often agree to see to it that no person goes without for lack of financial resources. For this to work, we typically need government in the picture.
Outside the US, the US constitution is not as highly regarded as within! I’m not sure there is much of a need to mention education in a Constitution.
The state obviously endorses it. And if the subject came up in social science then it would be explained that the state endorses it. And has done since 2013 (I think). How else could the information be passed on? If someone asks about abortion, you’d need to explain that it’s legal. And if they ask about homosexuality, you’d need to tell them that up until 1986 it was illegal for two men to have sex. But now it’s not.
There are obviously moral decision to be take by some people on these matters and I would expect that to be discussed as well. But suggesting that this information not be passed on seems nonsensical to me.
If my kids were doing social science and ssm, abortion and homosexuality were all illegal and the subject came up then I’d expect them to be informed accordingly. Why wouldn’t I?
The way I see it is that you give your kids all the information they are likely to need (age specific), you explain your own position and why you hold to it and then let them make up their own minds.