Canadian equality or intrusion on free thought?

[Inchante]

I just came across this article. It details an Education Act implemented in Alberta, Canada, which prevents parents, home schools, private schools, and Catholic schools from teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

While I like the idea that people would never teach their children that homosexuality is a sin, the idea that the change would be imposed by governmental mandate as opposed to people coming to that conclusion on their own seems to be in direct conflict with free thought, something that should be held as sacred in a free and just society. To me, the exceptions made for Biblical teachings in curriculum and the divisions between curriculum and family conversations only seem to muddy and confuse the situation, especially considering that the Act effects homeschooling. Your thoughts?

http://www.edgeboston.com/news/family/ne...n_province

[OrphanPip]

No the law says that they can't include it as a part of curricular education, they can teach it on their own time. I.e. they can't expect to produce work saying homosexuality is a sin and receive academic credit for it, as recognized by the provincial government.

Edit: Moreover, the state is bound constitutionally not to condone, indirectly or directly, discrimination against homosexuals. Thus, they can not affirm lessons on homosexuality as sin as academically valid.

Certainly this is problematic for whiny, panicky homeschoolers, but they're idiots anyway and there's no chance in hell of the government actually bothering to check on how they teach about homosexuality.

[East]

I love the thought behind the act but I will always support freedom of religion...if they do choose to teach their children that homosexuality is a sin for whatever reason then that is their right. Legislating people's thoughts and beliefs is a Pandora's Box.

[Inchante]

No the law says that they can't include it as a part of curricular education, they can teach it on their own time. I.e. they can't expect to produce work saying homosexuality is a sin and receive academic credit for it, as recognized by the provincial government.

Yes, I know. I thought those exceptions just muddied and confused the situation. They can teach Biblical doctrine on Homosexuality in the curriculum, but they cannot teach that homosexuality is a sin or show it in their work.

Even with that exception, it is not something you can teach as a matter of fact. It cannot be proven or disproven (though rational people tend to go with "not a sin") so it is a belief, and, in my opinion, monitoring what a student can be taught in the realm of belief does impose an unnecessary intrusion on free thought. That goes for German laws against holocaust deniers or people in Alberta teaching their children Homosexuality is a sin.

I guess where I am coming from is the idea that I would not want the reverse to happen to me, for the government to mandate the teaching that homosexuality is a sin (and there are governments that do that) so I really don't think the opposite should be imposed either. I think some J.S. Mill is in order:

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."

[pellaz]

-the state should not giving school credit or consideration for catechism class, not matter where its is held and it should be taught on their own time and place.
-Discrimination of gays is not in agreement with common law.

[ceez]

I have the same fear as Inchante, while this is great for LGBT people, I'm afraid of some homophobic wingnut gaining power and reversing this. like our governor here in Virginia, the first thing he did was take millions away from public schools and visited many businesses and schools to try to convince them to take sexual orientation out of there discrimination policies. I'm still confused on how the douchebag was elected in the first place :mad:

[Inchante]

-the state should not giving school credit or consideration for catechism class, not matter where its is held and it should be taught on their own time and place.
-Discrimination of gays is not in agreement with common law.

No doubt, but the state should not be legislating proscribed thought or opinions on religion either. I have written arguments in favor of gay marriage for courses before, should they not be equally able to write arguments against gay marriage or stating that homosexuality is sinful. I mean, I'd give them an F, but there is a sort of false standard operating here in the notion of what is fair, equal, and true advocacy for diversity.

I think that such issues must be treated very delicately. When one groups freedoms are so closely attached yet directly opposed to another's, you have to tread lightly. There is no justice in giving me my freedom if you are simply taking it from another. Remember, they think that we are as misguided and wrong in our beliefs as we think they are wrong and misguided in theirs.

[pellaz]

they said the same things (intrusion on freedoms) for affirmative action in schools and employment and for student busing. These things are now a part of our lives.

[OrphanPip]

Yes, I know. I thought those exceptions just muddied and confused the situation. They can teach Biblical doctrine on Homosexuality in the curriculum, but they cannot teach that homosexuality is a sin or show it in their work.

Even with that exception, it is not something you can teach as a matter of fact. It cannot be proven or disproven (though rational people tend to go with "not a sin") so it is a belief, and, in my opinion, monitoring what a student can be taught in the realm of belief does impose an unnecessary intrusion on free thought. That goes for German laws against holocaust deniers or people in Alberta teaching their children Homosexuality is a sin.

I guess where I am coming from is the idea that I would not want the reverse to happen to me, for the government to mandate the teaching that homosexuality is a sin (and there are governments that do that) so I really don't think the opposite should be imposed either. I think some J.S. Mill is in order:

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."

I think there is a misunderstanding of what constitutes a Catholic school, these schools are public schools and are attended by many non-Catholics. Alberta is one of the few provinces in Canada that still maintains separate protestant and Catholic school boards, which is a legacy of the dual French and British settler history of the region. Thus, the state has to take into consideration secular concerns of those serviced by Catholic school boards, which are under the public education ministry's control. Since they are under provincial control they must satisfy provincial curriculum standards, which includes protections against discriminating against gays in the education standards. Gay students attend these schools, they often have limited choice about where they attend school, and they deserve not to be discriminated against by a state sponsored curriculum.

Homeschoolers are required to meet curriculum standards for their education to be recognized as complete.

The law also does not say you can't teach homosexuality is a sin, it just says that you can't incite hate or discriminate against homosexuals within the curriculum.

Edit: We are acting like the state should be neutral on all elements that involve a choice. But that is nonsense, the state is never neutral on any of these issues. The state should intervene to promote a more just and cohesive society by promoting inclusive education and prohibiting discrimination.

[Inchante]

they said the same things (intrusion on freedoms) for affirmative action in schools and employment and for student busing. These things are now a part of our lives.

Affirmative action is currently being challenged. And if we have our priorities straight, our goal as a society should be that affirmative action no longer exists, as it does provide for a bias which prevents equality under the law.


Edit:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...-hear-case