It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Homeschooling families can’t teach homosexual acts sinful in class says Alberta gvmt

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Any set of rules and morals taught to a child could be considered 'indoctrination'.

It is, in my eyes, outrageous to teach that homosexuality is a sin. It breeds ignorance and hatred and if it was actually 'being a female is a sin' or 'being left handed' is a sin, it would still need to be stopped.

Thank goodness a stop has been put to this practise.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I have no problem with this, sins shouldn't even be mentioned in any non-religious educational environment ... unless it's part of a history lesson and even then there shouldn't be any talk of right or wrong, just the facts.

In addition to sinful acts & religion , I would add to the list of forbidden topics ...
1. magic
2. pop culture
3. hand to hand combat
edit on 2/29/2012 by RedParrotHead because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
One more stab at the heart of american constitution, telling people what they can and cannot teach their kids. This infringes upon freedom of religion, because in many religions homosexuality is a sin, so in effect the government would be telling you, you cannot teach your children the tenets of religion.

This is scary for the fact that it is the beginning of the world telling people what they can and cannot believe and taking away their rights to worship their god/gods as they see fit.

This is going to spearhead the movement into worldwide secularism and hopelessness.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

One more stab at the heart of american constitution, telling people what they can and cannot teach their kids. This infringes upon freedom of religion, because in many religions homosexuality is a sin, so in effect the government would be telling you, you cannot teach your children the tenets of religion.

This is scary for the fact that it is the beginning of the world telling people what they can and cannot believe and taking away their rights to worship their god/gods as they see fit.

This is going to spearhead the movement into worldwide secularism and hopelessness.


What if one of the children taught this has homosexual feelings?

Not a very compassionate approach to take, is it?

Hide behind excuses of Government infringement all you like preaching that homosexuality is a sin is a direct contributing factor to ignorance, hatred and violence towards homosexuals.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ComeFindMe

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

One more stab at the heart of american constitution, telling people what they can and cannot teach their kids. This infringes upon freedom of religion, because in many religions homosexuality is a sin, so in effect the government would be telling you, you cannot teach your children the tenets of religion.

This is scary for the fact that it is the beginning of the world telling people what they can and cannot believe and taking away their rights to worship their god/gods as they see fit.

This is going to spearhead the movement into worldwide secularism and hopelessness.


What if one of the children taught this has homosexual feelings?

Not a very compassionate approach to take, is it?

Hide behind excuses of Government infringement all you like preaching that homosexuality is a sin is a direct contributing factor to ignorance, hatred and violence towards homosexuals.



I am not going to get into that debate because it would go nowhere. You would not change my position and i would not change yours so there's no point going there.

You're a fool if you think this will not be another step in the direction of further eroding the american constitution, i will say that much.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


And you would be a fool to believe that strict adherence to a 230 year old document in spite of a changing world and society is the best way forward.

Common sense would dictate that if a contentious viewpoint is presented to a child, it should at least be counterbalanced by an explanation of the opposite view to ensure the child can make a reasoned judgement. If the parents fail to do this, then the state is obliged to intervene. Good on them.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

One more stab at the heart of american constitution, telling people what they can and cannot teach their kids. This infringes upon freedom of religion, because in many religions homosexuality is a sin, so in effect the government would be telling you, you cannot teach your children the tenets of religion.

This is scary for the fact that it is the beginning of the world telling people what they can and cannot believe and taking away their rights to worship their god/gods as they see fit.

This is going to spearhead the movement into worldwide secularism and hopelessness.


Two things ... one, this is in Canada so the US constitution isn't affected and two, worship and teach religious beliefs all you want outside of school....just like the United States Constitution mandates.


edit on 2/29/2012 by RedParrotHead because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 



Maybe you didn't notice this part?


“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life,
you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.



...as part of your educated study and instruction.
Why would educated study and instruction include personal relationships?
This is supposed to be SCHOOLING your child and getting credit for it - a somewhat equal replacement to an approved institution of learning. You could also be teaching your child nothing but military tactics and how to fire a gun but should that count as a remedial education? Well rounded?

If that was the way it is, the KKK could call itself a school of "education" and begin classes.

Math, English, History, Science should be the focus of any child's primary education and what ever else you want to fill their heads with should not be something advocated and paid for by the populace at large (and in whose best interests it might NOT be.)

You want to sic your kids on certain groups?

You gotta do it on your own time. (which there is PLENTY OF, you're at home for crissakes)
Not in the time you CLAIM to be giving them a primary education (math, science, history, English) in your home.

This education is important and each child has a right NOT to be deprived of it by their own parents.

It is vital to become a contributing (as opposed to DETRIMENTAL)
member of society, to land a job and survive in the world at large.


PS: You want to know why they are involved at all?
Why kids need to either show up at school or show they are being home schooled?
Invasion of parental rights? We wish. They are checking for bruises.

Parents can and have been known to do unspeakable things to their own children.
This is a way to make sure each child who is registered as BORN
grows up and has a chance at a normal life.

It is a sad commentary but, Child Welfare Service that works with DOE
is necessary and was initiated to stop small kids from dropping off the radar.




edit on 29-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Kudos to you for rising to my challenge. However, your post suggests that in the end the arguments for sending your daughter to school rather than teaching her at home prevailed – and quite right, too. Your reason for wanting to home-school her wasn't, in the end, powerful enough to be decisive. And in fact, it's not that different from 'teaching her something different'. You wanted to teach her something differently.



No, I found a charter school in my area which used teaching methods I felt were better for my daughter. I don't blame the public schools for using the teaching methods they use. When you have 20-25 kids in a classroom, you can't customize teaching methods for each kid - it's not practical.

Where I live, the homeschool community is fairly large, and there is much communication between the families (there is a homeschool forum where information is shared, parents get their kids together for social activities, field trips, etc.) So, I felt pretty confident that homeschooling would be a very good option for my daughter, but I'm a little on the lazy side, so if this charter school works out well, that's more time I have to play around on ATS.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
You are out of your minds. This is a GREAT law! Soon in the US you will see that hate groups are NOT and never WERE protected by the first amendment. The sooner we stop teaching our children to hate, the sooner we live in a world without hate.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by schadenfreude
 



Maybe you didn't notice this part?


“You can affirm the family’s ideology in your family life,
you just can’t do it as part of your educational study and instruction,” she added.



...as part of your educated study and instruction.
Why would educated study and instruction include personal relationships?
This is supposed to be SCHOOLING your child and getting credit for it - a somewhat equal replacement to an approved institution of learning. You could also be teaching your child nothing but military tactics and how to fire a gun but should that count as a remedial education? Well rounded?

If that was the way it is, the KKK could call itself a school of "education" and begin classes.

Math, English, History, Science should be the focus of any child's primary education and what ever else you want to fill their heads with should not be something advocated and paid for by the populace at large (and in whose best interests it might NOT be.)

You want to sic your kids on certain groups?

You gotta do it on your own time. (which there is PLENTY OF, you're at home for crissakes)
Not in the time you CLAIM to be giving them a primary education (math, science, history, English) in your home.

This education is important and each child has a right NOT to be deprived of it by their own parents.

It is vital to become a contributing (as opposed to DETRIMENTAL)
member of society, to land a job and survive in the world at large.


PS: You want to know why they are involved at all?
Why kids need to either show up at school or show they are being home schooled?
Invasion of parental rights? We wish. They are checking for bruises.

Parents can and have been known to do unspeakable things to their own children.
This is a way to make sure each child who is registered as BORN
grows up and has a chance at a normal life.

It is a sad commentary but, Child Welfare Service that works with DOE
is necessary and was initiated to stop small kids from dropping off the radar.




edit on 29-2-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)


Oh i read it,and I paid no attention to it b/c it's a load of crap.

You say that no religion is taught in schools and that that is a good idea, well believe it or not absence FROM religion is also a religion in and of itself, it's called humanism.

Humanism, IS taught in the schools, every day. It has it's advents, fundamentalists, and yes probably even it's own terrorists. Freedom FROM something does not mean freedom from EVERYTHING. Something must/has taken it's place.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by R4inM4n
 


So then you advocate taking away CHOICE.

Great plan.

Until they come after something YOU believe in.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
You say that no religion is taught in schools and that that is a good idea, well believe it or not absence FROM religion is also a religion in and of itself, it's called humanism.


I think that's straight nonsense. While I fully believe that humans are hard-wired for some kind of spirituality, that's hugely different from what we know as 'religion'...at least in the sense of organised forms of worship. One can quite comfortably go through life without religion, not by actively eschewing it, but merely by not buying into it. Not teaching religion is not paramount to embracing humanism...it is simply not pressing someone elses' dogma, and that's ok.

Frankly, I think the only value to teaching religion is to connect students to the varied philosophical underpinnings of society...certainly not to spread Bronze-age morality.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Of course you think it's nonsense, those that doubt the veracity of a higher power can't focus on indoctrination that agrees with their ideals and beliefs.

Even your statement agrees with this assessment. "Bronze age mentality" isn't exactly the statement made from an open mind. It clearly shows preconceived notions on the subject.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
So heterosexual acts usually are not sinful?

LOL



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Of course you think it's nonsense, those that doubt the veracity of a higher power can't focus on indoctrination that agrees with their ideals and beliefs.
Even your statement agrees with this assessment. "Bronze age mentality" isn't exactly the statement made from an open mind. It clearly shows preconceived notions on the subject.

Funny that not buying into your dogma would constitute an unawareness of indoctrination.
And "Bronze age mentality" isn't exactly the statement I made...I referred to the moral codes. Please refer back to the "Letter to Dr. Laura", and do let us know which of the admonitions you adhere to...and which you write off as 'Bronze Age morality', will ya?

J. Kent Ashcraft May 2000

Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.www-users.cs.york.ac.uk...

edit on 29-2-2012 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because...ok?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Of course you think it's nonsense, those that doubt the veracity of a higher power can't focus on indoctrination that agrees with their ideals and beliefs.
Even your statement agrees with this assessment. "Bronze age mentality" isn't exactly the statement made from an open mind. It clearly shows preconceived notions on the subject.

Funny that not buying into your dogma would constitute an unawareness of indoctrination.
And "Bronze age mentality" isn't exactly the statement I made...I referred to the moral codes. Please refer back to the "Letter to Dr. Laura", and do let us know which of the admonitions you adhere to...and which you write off as 'Bronze Age morality', will ya?

J. Kent Ashcraft May 2000

Dear Dr. Laura, Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.www-users.cs.york.ac.uk...

edit on 29-2-2012 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because...ok?


Why would i give a DAMN what Dr. Laura says? And WHOSE version of morality you wish to discuss? The govt's version? LMAO, plz. TPTB and their 500 million population cap via the georgia guide stones? The catholic church and their flagrant regard for the sexuality of young boys? Or the protestant churches and their love of money more than God?

You're using the wrong stereotype against me, try again.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I haven't seen anything about this, but so what?

"Okay class, class over." Walk into next room. "Home time started! Homosexuality is a sin."

Or are people here suggesting that Homeschooling means that the classroom is always on?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
You're using the wrong stereotype against me, try again.

You appear to be willfully missing the point, so I decline to try again. Happy trails, and God bless, eh?



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
I haven't seen anything about this, but so what?
"Okay class, class over." Walk into next room. "Home time started! Homosexuality is a sin."
Or are people here suggesting that Homeschooling means that the classroom is always on?

I think they are suggesting that you can't preach hatred and suckle at the government teat simultaneously. You are quite right...but I think the statement must be made just the same. And I don't often agree with the government of Alberta...LOL.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join