Separation of Church and State? (Page 7)

If anyone here is religious, and does not think religious organizations are trying to advance their agenda and have their personal and political views taught in school... well you are being disingenuous.

If you are a secularist and do not thing there is an agenda being advanced and personal and political views being taught in public school... you are being disingenuous.

It isn't about a flyer, or a pledge, or homosexuality, or when dinosaurs walked... it is about both sides using the public education system to advance an agenda... it certainly isn't about math, English, history, physics, biology, chemistry, civics, economics.....

To some people it is a cultural value... and yes to some it is a choice. Not to me, but to some... and if it is to some, then it is controversial. I can't claim to be an expert on this since I have no real stake in it, but I have seen many examples brought up about homosexuality being introduced to very age inappropriate students. Not that I think there is a problem with homosexuality... but why are we discussing it with 2nd graders? Why are we discussing sexuality of any kind with 2nd graders? Again I can't claim 1st hand knowledge of the examples, so I don't know that exact details, but when I see stuff like that I think it is troubling.

We can obviously teach respect, individuality, and diversity at any age all without ever discussing sexuality. And I also understand that things do not change without grief... nobody is ever going to accept change over night and with open arms, so of course this or any other such subject is going to ruffle feathers and they will just have to get over it. Obviously, by the puberty years it becomes a legitemate issue.

But I will say this too, and I don't mean any disrespect... but when ever gays are given attention in the media, it is not always good. It seems there is a law now that no television show can be on with out homosexual representation, and they have to be flambouant drama queens. Then about every city has a gay pride parade and usually there is a lot of latex and leather involved with the occasional sex toy. And being Bi-curious is celebrated these days... notice I didn't say gay, I said bi-curious... meaning a choice. I do know a lot of parents and look at face book pages of girls kissing girls all the time just because they know guys like it... (not that there is anything wrong with that) A lot of parents have problems seeing their little Jack and Jills expressing any sexuality hetero or homo.

I don't personally have a problem with any of it... but again, public schools mirror society, and when this subject comes up in school, there are a lot of examples parents draw from that don't make them real warm and fuzzy about the subject. Not all of that behavior is a trait and some of it is most definitely a choice. It clouds the issues. I'm not saying I agree or condone that, I'm just saying it is, and that is going to be a sore subject to many. These are just observations, not judgements.

It isn't just your number. I don't know who or when, but it has been thrown around for a long time and it changes frequently. At first is was scientists, then it was climate scientists.... right like you are going to get a job in climatology if you don't tow the line... yours is peer reviewed papers. I've also seen different numbers... all over 90 though. I just find it silly that is all.

And like Gearboy mentioned, healthy science is about critical thinking and finding flaws. Scientists make a name by discovering a new theory.... then other scientists make a name off of discrediting it... and this goes on and on like you have shown with the process... and yes eventually at some point a consensus is reached or it is tossed. But theories are not judged by a score, or by a majority. I just personally find it silly to use such statements because it really means nothing. The same way you can get any statistical set to say anything you want it to say. It's sound bit science, it does not really mean anything.

Here's what I don't understand.  Why would religious people want a bunch of socialist, Obama-programmed drones teaching their children anything regarding religion?  I would thing they would be first in line advocating that anything remotely related to religion stay out of the public schools.

It isn't just your number. I don't know who or when, but it has been thrown around for a long time and it changes frequently. At first is was scientists, then it was climate scientists.... right like you are going to get a job in climatology if you don't tow the line... yours is peer reviewed papers. I've also seen different numbers... all over 90 though. I just find it silly that is all.

And like Gearboy mentioned, healthy science is about critical thinking and finding flaws. Scientists make a name by discovering a new theory.... then other scientists make a name off of discrediting it... and this goes on and on like you have shown with the process... and yes eventually at some point a consensus is reached or it is tossed. But theories are not judged by a score, or by a majority. I just personally find it silly to use such statements because it really means nothing. The same way you can get any statistical set to say anything you want it to say. It's sound bit science, it does not really mean anything.

Who is being attacked by sex-ed? Shane

I don't think "sexuality" per se is discussed with 1st and 2nd graders. What *is* discussed in some places, though, is the idea that there are different kinds of families. Some families have a Mommy and a Daddy. Some have two Daddies. Some have two Mommies.  99.999% of the books with families in them have a Mommy and a Daddy. A book with a Daddy and a Daddy does not "discuss sexuality" any more than a book with a Mommy and a Daddy. 

Thank you, powerman. You said it better than I did. Whoa! Stop the presses! We agree on something!

Where there IS controversy in the scientific community is about how severe the effects will be. Most of the credible skeptics acknowledge we are changing the climate but disagree about what the effects will be, and this is an area where it would be appropriate to teach the controversy in the classroom.  What, if anything to do about it and how much should the government be involved is also obviously a controversial area, but that is policy, not science.  I'd actually be interested to get Shane's view on how teacher's go about staying up to date on science, especially something such as climate change which advances pretty rapidly.

I get your point about a percentage of scientists being a silly way to measure things, and I agree to a point.  I think it's meant more as a rebuttal to those who continually say 'we need more studies to know whether or not we're changing the climate' as a means of stalling and keeping the status quo.  At some point we have to acknowledge that we really do have a good understanding that particular process and it is time to move on to understanding other problems (ie what will the outcome of the changes to the climate be?).  Among the scientific community that change in focus is already well under way, but you'd never know that because the media has to pretend there are still two legitimate sides to the view that we're causing it.

But obviously it does involve sexuality. But why do we have to spend so much time on two Dad's? I mean look at it this way... there are all kinds of non traditional families... adoptions, Grand Ma raising grand kids, parents in prison or drug addicts, divorced parents, single parent, dead parent(s), incestuous relationships in the sense of first cousins or what ever... what's the point??? Do we spend equal time teaching young children about "every" form of family possible.... no we don't. But for some reason it has become important to teach kids about 2 Moms or Dads.... when the general population does not show there is a need.

What percentage of children in the school system come from homosexual parents? What percentage are adopted, come from single parent homes, have a parent in prison... I seriously doubt the percentages are big enough to warrant such focus.

Again... not that plenty of focus can't be put on respect despite differences, diversity, or individuality in a mirriad of ways and for various reason without focusing on such a hot button issue.

Probably the most important things I learned in graduate school were critical thinking and the research process. Knowing how to frame a question, find appropriate information, and evaluate the quality of that information are skills that are applicable to much more than science.

At no point in my work would I ever accept anything unprovable as fact. That's what I go to synagogue for, and that's where scientific method ends and faith begins.

You're kidding right? Kids get beat up for what ever reason the beater wants to... because they are poor, because they are rich, because they are big, because they are small. Kids pick on kids for what ever difference they can find... I can name a few hundred without mentioning homosexuality including the two you mentioned above.

Completely genuine. You want to discuss to issue of bullies to give reson why we should specifically teach about homosexual parents. Kids getting beat up in school are because they are somehow different. The reason they are different does not need to be specifically addressed to address the issue of kids beating up other kids.... don't address the symptom, address the problem.

Stopping is the goal. Plus I already know why he did it... he likes to assert his dominance by victimizing others through violence.

So you are telling me that if Billy beats up Little Johnny because he has a particualrly bad birth mark on his face, that little Billy has some deeply entrenched hate towards birthmarks? And that if little Billy would have been taught about birthmarks in 2nd grade he would not beat Johnny up?

I never said I didn't want to know. You did. I said I already knew the reason. Those that go on to beat, stab, shoot, mame and kill because of what ever reason they have... isn't going to not do those things because a teacher read them "My Two Dads" in 2nd grade. There are those in this world that think violence is a perfectly acceptable strategy to get what they want.... but just because they use violence, does not mean it was a hate crime. Yes there are hate crimes, not every violent attack is a hate crime.