Tim Blair writes:
Whoa! Progressive types will be furious about this. Well, they would be, if Christianity was involved instead of Islam.
Tim is referring to this story:
ISLAMIC schools in Australia have adopted a sex education policy aimed at overturning the influence of Western sexual values on their students.
Under the policy, non-Muslim teachers would be banned from teaching sexual health classes. Students would be taught that pre-marital sex and homosexuality were anti-Islamic and therefore prohibited.
Otherwise, Muslim teenagers were in danger of forming their attitudes to sex from un-Islamic sources such as newspapers, magazines, television and the internet, the policy said.
“Thus Muslim youth may end up getting the wrong notion of sex, as for example, safe sex is OK,” the document, Sex Education Policy: an Islamic Perspective, says. “It is imperative that the Islamic attitude to sex should win the race over the Western attitude to sex in reaching the minds of Muslim youth.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, Tim, but I’m a progressive and I’m as mad as hell! I don’t care if it’s a Catholic or an Islamic school, responsible sex education should be mandatory for all government funded private schools, as a public health issue. Otherwise, they should forego public funding.
Update: More condemnation at progressive blog Week by Week.
It’s a good thing you’re upset kim as we all should be when it comes to intolerence and I mean that sincerely.
However Tim’s making an interesting point here. If say the hack had made a mistake and transcribed Catholic and Christian in all the spaces that contiain or allude to Islam and Muslims, the ABC, Fairfax and sundry would be going hogwild.
Yet if Blair hadn’t talked about it and you hadn’t read him none of us would be any wiser.
Go back to the original piece he is referring to and you see the almost clinical way it was written. No sense of outrage or horror this is going on. If it were Christians doing this almost every minority spokesman including Kaser Trad would have a shot at the target.
That’s the point.
It can only be for tow reasons.
1 We don’t expect much of a standard from third worlders and anything said that is distastful to our culture by these people is given a pass, or
2.Any opportunity to hit Christians should never be avoided at any cost.
Which is it, do you think?
Joe, no doubt I would have seen it in the SMH even if Tim Blair hadn’t linked to it. Given the strength of feeling I have about the issue, I probably would have posted about it.
And the SMH piece is a news report, not an op/ed, so you’d hope that it would be dispassionate rather than opinionated. It is disappointing that they didn’t look for quotes from people who think this is a bad idea, though.
Now that we have gone this far and let this element in it only highlights the concern we have with funding education from the public purse. You have every righjt to complain that your tax dolls are going towards groups who teach kids things you find distastful. So join us Kimsey in seeing that all ed is privatized so your tax dolls don’t go to places they shouldn’t be. I am 100% with you on that.
That’s a lot further than I want to go, Joe…
JC, so I can get my head around where you are coming from. Should the ‘education’ of children via schooling be mandated by the Stae or should it be left to the whims of parents?
That’s a really good question Wpd. I would have to say that the state could define a minimum syllabus and take it from there.
US private schools in are really private in the sense that no a dime goes into maintaining them from the state. However accreditation also requires a minimum syllabus. Public schools there are a mishmash of state and local taxes support combos, however the parent board has a strong say in terms of what is taught that not breach state guidlines.
Home schooling is about that most privatized system around however parents are monitored by state authorities to see theycomply with required standards.
I don’t think this is a really big hurdle though for us here if we privatized.
However the point is those schools
Kim is referring to are not breaking any laws so although their teaching is offensive it is still quite legal.
Hence the point I made about tax dolls not necessarliy going where you want them to go all the time.
For the left it’s welcome to the rights issue with publicly funded abortion.
Kim
my reply to W was moderated for some reason. Can you see if you can retrieve it for the blog toilet?
Just putting my hand up as another progressive who is furious about any group that denies teens a comprehensive sex education. Because there’s no way that every teen who’s advised to abstain is going to do so, and pretending that they will merely produces young people much more vulnerable to disease and abuse than their sexually active peers. Those who choose not to abstain should at least know best how to protect themselves.
or this! http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2006/05/when-saying-no-is-not-ok-sex-education.html#links
Retrieved, Joe, not sure why it ended up in there. It’s been playing up a bit lately!
Tigtog, indeed.
The most recent study on the efficacy of “virginity pledges” by Harvard researchers shows that within a year, 50% of those who have made them have had sexual contact with others, and they’re less likely to have safe sex.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2200492,00.html
Thanks, Weekbyweek, I’ve updated the post.
JC you said:
“would have to say that the state could define a minimum syllabus and take it from there”
It would seem that you see a role for the State. You say that the State should determine a syllabus (curriculum), a proposed course of study.
Should the State therefore have any role in determining the result(s) of that course of study?
You have to forgive me for these basisc questions this is a new experience.
In reality Wpd the state’s role in setting a syll I think is very limited if looked at from the technical context in which it is made up.
how is a syll made? I think you have a bunch of educators from universities to eminent people sitting on a committee and they present a structure for say year 12 English to the ed sec who then essentially gets a minister to sign off on it. that’s about as far as it goes in terms of the state actually having a paw print on the Syll.
I’m no expert in the area but in reality it isn’t too far away from the real picture.
You wouldn’t even need the paw of the state to accdredit schools anyway. I am sure that immediately after privatization, private bodies would spring up that would provide this function anyway.
Look at it like this. Harvard is a private uni with government having nothing to do with its syll. Yet it has the best brand name in th world. See, no hand of state here is there.
On the other ‘gay’ thread people seemed to be saying that parent’s have the right to teach their children whatever they want. On this thread it seems that Muslim parents shouldn’t have this right and that their education funding should be cut unless they toe the current ‘trendy, tell’em everything from a young age’ line.
Which attitude is it to be? Can’t have it both ways!
You haven’t read the other thread carefully, then, Daniel. It’s being argued in both places (at least by people other than yourself, Facelift and steve at the pub on the other thread) that it’s appropriate to teach kids about things like same-sex couples and (at high school) sex ed, as a supplement to whatever “values” parents might care to impart.
JC, I think you are wandering from the point.
We are not talking about University Education. We are talking about the education of children.
Kim’s point is whether sex education for children, broadly defined, should be regulated or not.
This is a real issue.
JC, you reckon that “if Blair hadn’t talked about it and you hadn’t read him none of us would be any wiser”.
For the record, I first read about this story in a post by Anonymous Lefty.
Yeah, well you go to a dedicated Christian school and you get the same thing. Don’t see anyone jumping up and down about them.
And you’re right about the Lefty post leftvegdrunk.
Put simply, do the ‘rights’ of parents displace the ‘rights’ of children, or perhaps the opposite assertion. And if so, who should be the referee?
Come on JC, it would seem that what I have read from your previous questions the answers are so simple? Rely on the market?
Maybe not?
leftvegdrunk says:
“For the record, I first read about this story in a post by Anonymous Lefty.”
Why would I settle for the oily rag when there’s there’s this site the Ferrari to leftish thinking. That doesn’t count.
WPD
Kim’s point is whether sex education for children, broadly defined, should be regulated or not.
This is a real issue
Rghtt, except i don’t think we ought to be regulating this sort of thing.
WPD
“Come on JC, it would seem that what I have read from your previous questions the answers are so simple? Rely on the market?
Maybe not? ”
May be so, that way we don’t get offended with the way our tax dolls are spent.
This is just another meaningless “Gotcha” from Mr Blair. You would think he’d get bored of spending his days searching for them.
There is an interesting counterpoint to this mode of rhetoric here:
http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2006/05/30/ignoring-the-blackfellas/
That link is to some fruitcake site MH.
However, to avoid Mr. Blair constantly saying “gotcha”, people could not put their foot in it?
Hey JC,
The paw of state had its claws out for Harvard last year, demanding military recruiters be allowed on campus or they’d de-fund the uni to tune of hundreds of millions.
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9426402/
Harvard’s brand name didn’t do it much good there, did it?
Sean
Great point there Sean. My sentiments exactly. If Harvard was true to it’s principle that it hates the military it ought to have stuck to that “opinion” and not taken research grants”.
Another example of money talks hey. I agree.
Government regulated sex education! Compulsary? And if parents or students object? Fines, jail?
JC , it would seem that you are asserting,
” it is always about dollars and the free market”.
Seems to me, an amateur as I am, you are saying that children are a tradeable commodity
The question is whether children’s rights should be unregulated?
I have recently been to Thailand.
Went to a school. Lots of orphans, Parent(s) died of AIDS.
I suppose it was their choice to engage in unsafe sex,
That market once again.
Why is it that market advocates assume that people in the real world have access to reliable information and are in the position to choose?
Really your arguments are juvenile. You really need to travel, get about and reconsider your views on the basis of some experience.
Are you for real or just a computer program?
Wpd
Firstly I want to say this isn’t a thread discussing free vs state ed.
But seeing you asked… I’ll be as brief as possible;
” JC , it would seem that you are asserting,
� it is always about dollars and the free market�.
As though dollrs aren’t used to fund state ed, Wpd. Want to tell teachers state or private they ought to be doing it for free etc.
“Seems to me, an amateur as I am, you are saying that children are a tradeable commodity’
Please! Ed is a service that for the present time is a socialzed system- even private for that matter.
“The question is whether children’s rights should be unregulated?”
Childrens rights are regualted now, Wpd, the first one I can think of is they have to attend school- sometimes against their choice.
“I have recently been to Thailand.
Went to a school. Lots of orphans, Parent(s) died of AIDS.
I suppose it was their choice to engage in unsafe sex, ”
When did I make such a remarkable comment or even asserted it was the kids fault. It would be a foolish comment to make or assert.
“I suppose it was their choice to engage in unsafe sex,
That market once again.”
No it wasn’t their choice (the kids) and it most certiainly wasn’t the market’s fault the parents engaged in unprotected sex. Would you mind explaining this conflation becasue I am at a loss figuring it out.
“Why is it that market advocates assume that people in the real world have access to reliable information and are in the position to choose?”
We don’t, but I would assume that Thais would by now know that unprotected sex with a stranger (in the sense you don’t know the history of the person) is a little dangerous. Aids is a 30 year (odd) disease but other diseases aren’t. They’re taking a risk and in certain cases it doesn’t work out. That’s silly behavior but hardly the fault of the market.
“Really your arguments are juvenile. You really need to travel, get about and reconsider your views on the basis of some experience.
Are you for real or just a computer program? ”
I have done a bit of travel and now learnt to hate it as I don’t like being stuck in a plane for long periods of time. But what would I learn as a result? Certainly not that markets don’t work.
Yep, I am a computer program?? that’s funny.
“As though dollrs aren’t used to fund state ed, Wpd. Want to tell teachers state or private they ought to be doing it for free etc.”
JC, you may or may not be making intelligent arguments. If you would be so kind as to do us all the courtesy of writing English sentences, we might be able to tell which.
“We don’t, but I would assume that Thais would by now know that unprotected sex with a stranger (in the sense you don’t know the history of the person) is a little dangerous. Aids is a 30 year (odd) disease but other diseases aren’t. They’re taking a risk and in certain cases it doesn’t work out. That’s silly behavior but hardly the fault of the market.”
This is naive. Relatively recently, there were apparently parts of Africa where many people seriously believed that having sex with a virgin would cure you of AIDS. Yes, it’s daft, and strictly speaking it’s not the fault of the market. But how are you going to structure a market that will give an incentive to anyone to tell them otherwise? A publically funded system has the power to respond rapidly to moral needs like this, while a purely market based system would need time for someone to work out how to make money from the people who are dying or at risk of doing so (who may not be able to afford to pay anything at all for the service – would you therefore let them die?). It’s clearly a governmental responsibility, simply due to the sheer immorality of letting millions contract the virus and die for years in the hope that a market-based education system might someday emerge that will deal with the problem.
To my way of thinking there’s a circularity about a way of thinking that encompasses markets and nothing else – the assumption is that markets produce the best possible outcomes, therefore any outcome produced by a market is by definition the best possible. The real world has grey areas where market based responses are inadequate, or inappropriate altogether. . There are also plenty of fields in which markets are great – I’m about to graduate and get a job in one of them – but to take a hardline position that markets are the solution to all problems is as blinkered as saying that they should be abolished altogether.
Hey again JC,
Glad to see you agree that the state can play an effective role in education!
I couldn’t agree more with your second argument that that “money talks” – including that coming from the state. Why then would you make the suggestion that education not be funded in part from the public purse? It is precisely because it is funded from the public purse that Kim can be outraged, and Blair can pretend to be outraged over the lack of outrage, whilst resources can be withdrawn until such outrages are stopped.
You see, the problem is not that our tax dollars are going to schools we find distasteful, the problem is the distastefulness! Privatising education won’t remove the distatefulness, it will merely privitise it, and if it’s privitised, then our outrage won’t be worth a tinker’s cuss.
JC, you need to search in your bag of tricks to find an argument that explains how privatising distastefulness actually, you know, removes it. Then you might find you’ve got a few converts.
Andrew
sorry I don’t edit often
I’m sorry but it was WPD who led me to Thailand and now your leading me to Africa.
I don’t have an answer for you about subsistence economics, nor to I want go there but suffice to say a person thinking a virgin will cure aids is not market failure but more an IQ problem.
Well, in the first world I guess that would be true.
In Africa it is a lack of education and the spread of superstition. Saying it is an IQ problem suggests that you think Africans are stupid by nature? Are you sure that is what you wanted to say?
JC, Africa and Thailand are both red herrings. Social problems that may not be amenable to market based solutions exist here in Australia, and the main post refers to one of them.
“suffice to say a person thinking a virgin will cure aids is not market failure but more an IQ problem.”
No, it’s a social problem. If the education and medical system that is supposed to educate them is state run, then it’s a state failure. If the system is free market, then it’s a market failure. If some mix, then it’s a failed mix. Putting everyone who is not in possession of important information in the low-IQ box is an argument that demonstrates, well, low IQ.
Markets are not some magical gift of God, they are one of several possible ways to make best possible use of resources. Sometimes they work really well (eg computer hardware development), sometimes they don’t (eg Californian energy crisis 2001, or whenever it was a few years back). It depends on whether the market is structured openly and fairly, and whether sufficient incentives exist to match available resources to social needs.
“The Market” implies that all markets are the same, and equally effective, which is ridiculous. So if you could stop talking about how privatising everything will somehow magically solve the Muslim sex education question, just because you personally aren’t interested in thinking about it if you personally don’t have to pay for it (as you imply in the fourth comment on this thread), we will all be better off.
I’m not enraged by this in the slightest. If Muslims want to shield their children from the sexual habits of decadent Westerners, then I see no justification for stopping them. Does Tim Blair believe that he or some unnamed government committee should tell other parents what their children are fit to learn?
I like your last two paragraphs Andrew. I would further suggest that whether a market is a useful tool depends on whether you think whatever ‘good’ is in question is reducible to a market value. I submit that ideas are not the currency of education , they are the essence of it, a qualitative not a quantitative phenomenon. We need to give issues like the one referred to in Kim’s post a whole lot more respect than market this or state that. And I heartily agree with Kim, that while we’re at it we should get rid of some of these ridiculous political stereotypes which so gleefully hamper debates such as this.
And so, I express my outrage with the plan of the Islamic schools. Unless i have a solution (which i don’t) that’s all that matters.
Well andrew
Schooling the little there is in Africa is mostly done by the state, so I suggest you take it up with the states.
Back to the subject
More to point is that Islamic schools are doing nothing illegal, as hard it is for me to say it. They are behaving legally and in perfect context to muslim teaching, which I guess is something to think about when inviting cultural problems here in the first place.
Ping
IQs in certain parts of Africa are as low as 65 with 100 being the world average. This is too low to even think about in context of cultural differences. Rather it out to be thought of as a total tragedy.
baby. bathwater. JC
‘they’ are not a cultural problem. Some quarters of “their” relgion and culture, in the face of extreme provocation are causing some cultural ,political and ethical problems. This is one example where Islam needs to compromise, it is not the end of the multiculturalism argument.
“which I guess is something to think about when inviting cultural problems here in the first place.”
Now there’s a revealing phrase. My grandparents were “cultural problems” to many people. Really, you should be less lazy about making sweeping judgements of people who are not like you; you’ve done it twice now.
“More to point is that Islamic schools are doing nothing illegal, as hard it is for me to say it.”
Which is why Kim said:
“responsible sex education should be mandatory for all government funded private schools, as a public health issue. Otherwise, they should forego public funding.”
Note: _should be_ mandatory. Read and comprehend.
Thanks, Andrew.
Oh, just go easy with the hyperbole, FaceLift.
What exactly is your problem with high school kids – who are very likely to have sex – and at a much younger age than when I was at high school in the late 80s – learning how not to get STDs. Please actually have a look at the link I posted near the top of the thread about how “virginity pledges” and “abstinence education” are more likely to lead to unprotected and unsafe sex than sex education… What’s your priority? Giving kids who are over the legal aid of consent choices or not telling them a thing? The obvious implication of the latter choice is that you condone the spread of stds…
Anyway, interesting to see the big C Christians line up with the Muslims for once…
Exactly what I was thinking Kim. If those ‘muslims’ weren’t already designated as ‘evil’ would we be seeing more of this?
I don’t get Tim’s point, actually, michael. Under any other circumstance, a heap of his commenters would go spec over someone objecting to a Catholic school, say, coming out with this policy. I’d have thought the left (being, you know, secular) was much more consistent on this. But there seems to be some myth that TEH LEFT NEVER CRITICISES THE MUSLIMS.
I pointed out on Tim’s thread that I’d posted here on a number of occasions about my disgust at the position of women, gays and guess what, Christians and Jews – who are also oppressed and often killed by the Islamist regime in Iraq (fully endorsed by TEH COALITION OF THE WILLING etc). But that didn’t seem to provoke any response. Perhaps because I was saying something that wasn’t what the Blairite stereotype of TEH LEFT was meant to say. But, hey, whatever…
Kim, I often wonder what muted silence from the blogosphere means. In this case i think you can assume that you called their bluff. Especially if you mentioned the Coalition of the Willing thing, and they didn’t bite.
As for Christian fundamentalist vs Muslim fundamentalist, well… is it that great a step from mutual and antagonistic dependence which leads to reinforcement of conservative values TO mutual agreement that leads to reinforcement of conservative values? Sure there is a difference of scale, and i’m not trying to slight anyone here, but the principle is the same. it’s just this war on terrorism makes it impossible. Probably something to be glad of.
There’s a lot more agreement, michael, between Islamists and conservative Christians, than meets the eye. It’s just a pity that secular rationality doesn’t stand somewhere in between this clash of minority civilisations, and speak loudly – halt, think again!
I’d amend that to secular rationality flanked by people of good faith (pun intended) on all sides. But yeah.
Yeah, me too!
But it’s bedtime. Goodnight from me!
xx
“responsible sex education should be mandatory for all government funded private schools, as a public health issue. Otherwise, they should forego public funding.�
obviously schools in islamic nations wouldn’t follow such a policy. Is it likely that a nation in which a woman can be stoned for adultery is going to have responsible sex education in its public schools?
Tim’s point is valid in that often people will criticize christians for something but not criticise muslims for the same (or worse) behavior.
This seems especially wrong-headed:
“There’s a lot more agreement, michael, between Islamists and conservative Christians, than meets the eye.”
civitas, the story is about Islamic schools in Australia, not in Islamic nations.
As to the points of agreement between conservative Christians and Islamists, their views on educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestyles are huge overlapping areas.
Steve Edwards
Do you think that government committees, named or otherwise, should determine whether children are obliged to learn reading and arithmetic, or ought it to be left to the parents?
“civitas, the story is about Islamic schools in Australia, not in Islamic nations.”
and? are muslims not allowed freedom of religion in Australia?
“As to the points of agreement between conservative Christians and Islamists, their views on educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestyles are huge overlapping areas.”
specifically how do muslims and conservative christians agree on educating women? Can you point me to the christian campaign for separate schools for girls?
On limiting dissent? How do they agree?
And on lifestyle, how do they agree?
Let’s see sme specific examples.
Kim, the term ‘mandatory’ has this legalistic, control, dominate element to it, which means that a dissenter will somehow suffer consequences. It puts accross the message that parents aren’t well enough equiped to deal with the issues of their children’s sexuality, so the state will now take the responsibility, and all parents, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, will have to like it or lump it.
The similarity here between Muslim and Christian faiths would be that we don’t want our children taught what we consider to be a lower standard of moral behaviour as part of a ‘mandatory’ policy in schools. Muslims don’t want their young men and women told it’s OK to have sex with whoever they feel like. Neither do most Christians. The idea is to protect our children from the culture which promotes free sex without responsibility.
Your argument against ‘abstinence’ is more of a scoff than anything. Actually, I’ve seen it work well with young Christian men and women, but they have to be real Christians, not nominal (I guess it’s the same for Muslims). And they’ve taken flack from work and school mates for taking a stand, which is tragically unfair for young men and women, although I have to say that some work and schoolmates have actually admired their decision. And they’ve been subjected to a moral system around them which promotes sexual experimentation as normal, accepted behaviour. In fact it considers young people wierd if they haven’t lost their virginity before they marry. So would your sex education lessons include an optional abstinence component?
And, no, Christians don’t have a hangup about sex. they enjoy it as much as anyone, but within the safe, STD free confines of marriage and with one partner, not many. That’s our way, and you can criticise or laugh at it if you want, but we’ll reserve the right to defend it, and if mandatory sex education ever arises, we’ll make a stand to see it either includes Christian morality and values as an option, or ask for our children to be excused to receive alternative counselling compiled by acknowledged Christian counsellors, or better still, parents.
By the way, you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that these two ‘religions’ are in fact ‘minority’ civilisations, when Islam has over 1 billion adherants, and Christianity close to 2 billion, so I think there would be a fair amount of agreement that schools should be carefully monitored when it comes to the kind of sex education they are allowed to put out, if it is to be mandatory.
But Kim, you have no one to blame but yourself for this self-inflicted ideological wound. You are a progressive and you support multiculturalism. You are caught in the standard contradiction by all those who impale themselves on these two prongs. Diverse ethnic cultures often take a reactionary attitude towards sexual mores.
So you have a choice on sex education: support reactionary multicultural diversity or continue impose progressive monocultural uniformity.
Do you want to be: a hard core progressive or a hard-core multiculturalist. Or a wishy-washy illogical Wet who tries to have the best of both worlds and winds up with neither? You cant have it both ways, a point I never tire of reminding you.
And I would like to see the reaction of the ethnic lobbies to cutting funding to Islamic sectarian schools. The High Court, EOC probably the UN, they would be all over it.
I tell you, its like shooting fish in a barrell exposing the ideo-illogicality of the Larva Prodders.
My 2 catholic high schools both taught that condoms and the pill are morally wrong and little else regarding the ins and outs of sex.
The reverse of this fatuous argument from herr Blair is to ask this: if an Islamic school in suburban tweeville teaches that the kids are under a duty to pursue Jihad against infidels, do the barking dogs support this on the basis that parents have a right to choose the way their kids are taught?
Most lefties don’t believe in turning a blind eye to some religious nuts. Most lefties believe in a common, transparent curriculum that results in young adults knowing all about each other’s beliefs and understanding that they are not an island.
FaceLift, what James Farrell said. All schools have mandatory curricula they must teach including lots of uncontroversial things like maths.
And I note you discount a survey by Harvard researchers with a population of 30000.
When I said “minority” civilisations, I was referring to the minority of Christians and Muslims who are obsessed with sex and social control to the exclusion of most other aspects of religion.
Do you get tired shifting those goalposts so quickly, civitas?
All schools in Australia are required to meet certain curriculum standards in order that attending them meets the mandatory childhood schooling requirements, and also so that their students are eligible for the State awarded Certificates of Education which are required by most employers/higher institutes of learning. Islamic schools are not exempt from these requirements by virtue of their religion.
As to the conservative Christians, perhaps we’d better define what we mean by the term so we’re not arguing past each other. Perhaps a better term for the particular Christian subculture would be politically active reactionary Christians e.g. Dominionists, Theocratic Reconstructionists, Theonomists. If you’re not part of a group advocating that biblical law be the law of the land, then you’re not the type of Christian with worldviews similiar to theocratic Islamists that are being discussed.
OTOH if Kim really is a progressive and would ostracise and defund sectarian Islamic schools then she is no longer a proper multiculturalist. That is certainly a step in the right direction.
It would also represent a total backdown by her and a complete vindication for the arguments that I have been shoving down her throat for the past year or so. Yay.
This thread’s going awry.
Learning math and how to read are not moral issues, Kim, but I take it by your Harvard quip that ‘abstinence’ wouldn’t be an option in your sex education curriculum.
tigtog. I don’t think employers have to be presented with a certificate of completion of a mandatory sex education course by job seekers, do they?
It could be presented as an option, FaceLift, and should be. But not as the only option.
And sorry, a study that tracks 30000 people is not a “quip” but a study.
“Do you get tired shifting those goalposts so quickly, civitas?”
I take it that you CANNOT name any specific way that muslims and conservative christians have so much in common then, tigptog. I didn’t think you could but I enjoyed backing you down over it.
“All schools in Australia are required to meet certain curriculum standards in order that attending them meets the mandatory childhood schooling requirements, and also so that their students are eligible for the State awarded Certificates of Education which are required by most employers/higher institutes of learning. Islamic schools are not exempt from these requirements by virtue of their religion.”
ah, so islamic schools must conform to your particular religious preferences then?
Jack:
“OTOH if Kim really is a progressive and would ostracise and defund sectarian Islamic schools then she is no longer a proper multiculturalist.”
i.e. a Strawman multiculturalist?
You’ve been (by your own admission) grinding this axe relentlessly for as long as I’ve been coming here. The hope of multiculturalism is that we embrace and celebrate difference where it informs, enriches or is of no account; while differences that cause broad alarm, undermine civil discourse, violate the legally enshrined rights of women, children and minorities etc. are gradually (and not without painful contractions) eliminated from all participating cultures.
That’s the end aim. It’s a difficult road, with numerous pitfalls where turds like you will trumpet the failure of the project. Just go back to your isolationist fairy-land, won’t you?
I said we should agree on a definition of terms before we took it further, and I provided my definition of what I meant by “conservative Christian”. Do you agree or disagree with my definition? Then I can give you examples.
As to your second question, I suggest you read what I wrote again and ask something sensible.
tigtog,
A ‘conservative’ Christian is a person who believes what the Bible says and does their best to live by it’s standards, with particular reference to the New Testament, regardless of the law of the land they live in, which they are admonished to uphold and comply with, provided it doesn’t compromise Biblical values.
Jack: what i wanted to say is what FDB actually said.
Everyone else: What do you do when the strawman becomes real, at least in the realm of mass perception?
Also, i’m sorry if I unfairly included some decent godfearing (and god-loving) christians and muslims, in my initial and imprecise comparing of conservative Christians and Islamists. TigTog is on the right track. As is Kim when she points out that these people are the minority.
“I said we should agree on a definition of terms before we took it further”
and you still remain unable to name a single specific way in which conservative christians and muslims resemble each other. Your original shots in the dark, something about educating women if I recall correctly, oh, and limiting dissent, you failed singularly to explain how they’re alike on that score also. Bet you wish you hadn’t mentioned those two items.
On the school issues, you ARE saying that employers have to be presented with a certificate of completion of a mandatory sex education course by job seekers? LOL
“As to the points of agreement between conservative Christians and Islamists, their views on educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestyles are huge overlapping areas.”
so, how EXACTLY do the views of conservative christians and islamists overlap in the area of educating women.
And how EXACTLY do they overlap on limiting dissent?
FDP you are an ideological oxymoron ie you want your multicultural cake and progressively eat it too. Feeble-minded illogicality like this keeps conservative critics in business and dining out for free all along. Why dont you just admit that there is a contradiction and make a clear choice instead of disingenuously fudging the issue?
The key problem is: what if the ethnic traditions that are central to multicultural differences are not “worth celebrating” because they are unEnlightened? What if these nasty differences cannot be “eliminated from all participating cultures” without destroying the essence of certain cultures?
Also, significant parts of the multicultural program in the North seems to be getting worse, not better. Some unreconstructed ethnics haling from the Southern Hemisphere seem to be even more virulent in their ethnic traditions that their forebears. So where is this diffiult road heading: some cloud cuckoo land or Beirut?
I am not an isolationist. I support high intakes of immigrants of any race so long as they are fit, smart and nice ie adapt to the Open Society.
As far as fairy tales are concerned you are the one who believes that the lion can lie down with the lamb and they all live happily ever after.
As I defined above, that’s not the particular conservative Christian subculture to which I, at least, was referring. I was referring particularly to those who wish to overturn the law of the land so that it better reflects so-called Biblical laws. I do acknowledge that such radicals are a minority, but their political influence, particularly in the States, is disproportionately powerful.
Even less radical conservative Christians such as FL describes share with conservative Muslims an opposition to women’s reproductive choice, opposition to gay marriage rights, opposition to euthanasia, opposition to comprehensive sex education and opposition to all forms of pornography.
Radical Theocratic Christians and Islamists share a wordview opposing higher education and social freedoms for women, advocating punishment for apostates and secularists (dissenters), and also advocating punishment for homosexuals.
Seeing as both Christians and Muslims worship the God who spoke to Abraham, Moses and Jesus, such similarities are not all that surprising.
Civitas, I can do that for you. Are you sure you want it?
michael G on 31 May 2006 at 11:44 am
My “strawman” is real. Your support for the program that empowers reactionary social polcies is evil.
ON the weekend I see a report that arranged marriags occur amongst ethnic groups:
Lets celebrate diversity by promoting child-trafficking!
Cousin marriage is on the rise amongst some ethnic groups in AUstralia.
Lets celebrate diversity by promoting in-breeding!
Now a multiculturalist must support ethnic groups that practice this tradition. Or else he is against their culture and is therefore not celebrating diversity.
So what if all ethnics want to practice consanguinity, or polygamy, or head-hunting? If celebrating diversity is your primary civil value then what is the basis of your opposition to such practices?
Your focus on mass perception rather than reality is the classic ruse of the solipsist. In the real world we find that most mass perceptions over the long run are pretty much in accord with reality. This is called “common sense” and the Wets could use a dose of it now and again.
People leaving school have to show certificates demonstrating their satisfactory completion of the curriculum, civitas. The details of the curriculum are not usually on the certificate, just the fact that the student successfully completed the State requirements. Just like they don’t go into detail about the specifics of algebra and geometry in the Maths courses, they don’t go into detail about the specifics of the Health courses either.
Having been part of the US homeschooling system (Christian section) for a number of years, I have personally known the following in real life.
Families that insisted on head coverings for any woman in the family.
Arranged marriages.
Is that enough of an overlap, Civitas, or would gory details be needed?
“As I defined above, that’s not the particular conservative Christian subculture to which I, at least, was referring.”
Did you, or did you not say the following:
“As to the points of agreement between conservative Christians and Islamists, their views on educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestyles are huge overlapping areas.�
Now, I am asking you for SPECIFIC examples of how conservative christians and islamists overlap on two of the issues you cited yourself: 1) educating women and 2) limiting dissent. So let’s have it.
“People leaving school have to show certificates demonstrating their satisfactory completion of the curriculum, civitas.”
on sex education? And you believe that employers will demand to see proof of successful completing of sex education courses?
FaceLift, the question isn’t whether schools should “promote� promiscuity. The question is whether students are entitled to knowledge that may save their fertility, their health and even their lives, or whether a parent’s right to prevent them from getting that knowledge trumps that.
If the only way you can convince people to live up to the Christian standard of morality is by keeping knowledge from them, then it isn’t much of a moral code, is it? Just because you provide kids with knowledge of safe sex, it doesn’t mean you can’t also provide them with the knowledge of the reasons you think they should remain abstinent until marriage, and faithful within. Or are you suggesting that if you’d been taught about safe sex that you’d now be running around nightclubs every night, picking up chicks?
This isn’t just a matter of giving kids information that they’ll need today – this is about making sure they have the knowledge to make these sorts of decisions for the rest of their lives. They won’t be children forever.
Jack, you said of me:
“As far as fairy tales are concerned you are the one who believes that the lion can lie down with the lamb and they all live happily ever after.”
Contrast this with what I said here: (emphasis added)
“The hope of multiculturalism is that we embrace and celebrate difference where it informs, enriches or is of no account; while differences that cause broad alarm, undermine civil discourse, violate the legally enshrined rights of women, children and minorities etc. are gradually (and NOT WITHOUT PAINFUL CONTRACTIONS) eliminated from all participating cultures.
That’s the end aim. It’s a DIFFICULT ROAD, WITH NUMEROUS PITFALLS where turds like you will trumpet the failure of the project.”
Sorry for the turd crack (honestly), but I think I made it quite clear that I’m realistic about problems arising. I think complex solutions are THE ONLY ONES WORTH LOOKING AT when the problem is complex and difficult.
Your solution I assume involves making immigrants sign a form pledging to ‘accept the Australian way of life according to Strocchi’ on pain of deportation? Or just keep them out if they’ve got a head towel? How will you do it, Jack?
I say let them in unless they’re known criminals, and bring the full force of our law and culture to bear on any ways in which they *actually* threaten our institutions. Including this case, incidentally. Withdraw funding for any school which fails to address the realities of sex education for any reason, religious or not.
I (unlike you and most conservatives IMHO) am reasonably comfortable with not having everything in black and white; with not claiming to have a set of answers that will cover every eventuality.
A ‘cultural’ metaphor:
As a musician, I improvise. That doesn’t mean I don’t have a well-founded, subtle, useful understanding of chord structure, it means rather that I can avoid trotting out the same boring lines. I can align my playing to the particular challenges each musical passage presents.
So what are you going to do, Jack? Your tune no longer fits what the band is playing. Play it louder and drown them out? Stick your fingers in your ears and call the band traitors to their style?
Whatevs
Civitas,
Take a look at the socio-economic and political history of Ireland for the last 50 years to see numerous specific examples of how conservative Christians and Muslims overlap. Including, until roughly the last decade:
- illegality of contraception, divorce and homosexuality
- illegality of abortions and information about abortion
- no separation of church and state
- women having to leave public sector employment at the point at which they got married up until some time in the 1970s
- mass emigration of lesbians, gay men and other dissenters
- economic failure
I should point out that economic failure is likely to have been a partial consequence of quasi-theocratic rule.
morgan, I am asking tigtog to back up a very specific claim he/she made. So far, he/she has been unable to do this. And I think tigtog has now vanished, I suspect because he/she cannot back up what he said. Your post indicates that you are not following our conversation. No one is talking about Ireland 50 years ago.
Civitas, do you want more information?
And it won’t be only about dominion theology based things.
I think that it is a valid comparison, civitas. What timeframe and geography would you prefer? And why can’t you do a bit of research yourself, rather than require it of your debating partner? I’m sure she’ll be back shortly.
morgan, you are more than welcome to compare anything you want to. I’m only pointing out that your comparison has nothing to do with the current conversation.
Since I didn’t say: “As to the points of agreement between conservative Christians and Islamists, their views on educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestyles are huge overlapping areas.â€?
I feel no need to do any research on it. I am asking the person who DID say it to provide specific examples.
Civitas, I am talking about America today and know what I am speaking of.
Ready?
So here, Civitas. Where are you?
Kim, I’d just like to point out that, in my experience, conservative Christians in Ireland and Australia still believe in all those things that held true in Ireland over the post-war period up until the 1970s, namely that contraception, divorce and homosexuality should be illegal, that women should stay at home and have children.
I can remember sections of UK import magazines cut out within the last decade because they referred to abortion informtion – an example of limiting information dissemination.
Muslim societies may differ in their attitudes towards divorce and the type of punishments that apply to dissenting behaviour, but the social beliefs of conservative Christians and Muslims overlap considerably.
I don’t think give credit, Anna, for the fact that Christians have access to far more accurate and expansive information than you’re implying, or that Christian parents are being encouraged to take greater responsibility to pass that information on to their developing children, or at least give them access to platforms which help educate them without corrupting their value system.
Neither do I think that schools necessarily set out to promote ‘promiscuity’, which is a word you introduced to the discussion. If you want to go down that track, you’ll know that, from a Christian standpoint, a large chunk of modern Western culture promotes promiscuity, or, at best, liberality of virtue, which is entirely why Christians (and, I suspect, Muslims and other religions with stricty moral codes for sexuality) would like to have some control over the interpretation of the moral surroundings their kids are exposed to, not to totally shelter them from it in a blinkered way, which never works, but to prepare them to be able to to handle the pressures which come when they do enter puberty.
The liberality of our society has pushed us into this stance, and I suspect the Muslims mentioned here are attempting to take some ground in this area before they lose a generation of children to a secularity which promotes its own values as higher than the values of others.
Christians are not killing those who don’t agree but I do have the evidence and proof of the overlap in practice, if not theology.
Speaking from first hand, real life.
morgan,
I think you’re talking about Catholicism rather than ‘conservative’ Christianity.
I think you’ll find that most 21st Century Christians have no problem with the use of contraceptives, discourage divorce (since it breaks up families), and discourage homosexual relationships, although there are some lobbyists for homosexual relationships. I’ll qualify this by adding that this is within Christian circles.
FaceLift – those of us who don’t subscribe to any Christian sect tend to find the messages of Sydney bishops and cardinals pretty much identical.
The minutae of transubstantiation and limbo, and a ‘holier than thou’ chip on shoulder aside, what’s the difference?
So, if Christians don’t have a problem with contraceptives, then what’s the problem with sex ed, FaceLift? Or have you forgotten to mention the “no sex outside marriage” aspect of your beliefs?
Since the percentage of children born out of wedlock is at an all time high in the US, it would be tough to make the case that christians were big on “no sex outside of marriage”. And why ARE illegitimate births so high even with sex education so much more prevalent today than it was decades ago? Shouldn’t sex ed REDUCE the percentage of births out of wedlock?
Well, morgan, I’m a Pentecostal, so you’ll have to ask either a catholic or an Anglican, but I think the main difference here would be that Catholics are still officially opposed to the use of contraceptives, but I don’t think many take much notice of this, and are not permitted to divorce and remarry.
Evangelicals, including Pentecostals, generally have an openess to the use of contraceptives in birth control, allow divorce and remarriage, but do what they can to help counsel couples to stay together rather than divorce, have access to excellent, well-researched material on sexuality, family planning and values, and, of course, advocate that sexual intercourse should be between a husband and his wife.
I think your comparison with 1950’s Catholic Ireland is stretching it.
My point, FaceLift, is that you’re arguing against mandatory sex education on “moral� grounds, but you haven’t given a very satisfactory answer as to why kids should be prevented from getting knowledge that will protect their health.
At the moment, most people believe it’s irresponsible and harmful not to give kids information like this, and as with all health information, we generally think that it’s better for it to come from qualified professionals, so that kids get the correct information. We wouldn’t allow parents to choose whether and how to teach their children maths if they weren’t qualified to do so.
So either the accurate information that Christian parents are providing to their kids is the same, in which case, you should have no problem with making it compulsory learning in schools – or it’s not the same information, and it’s in some way incomplete, or wrong, so then you have to explain to us why it’s OK for kids to have such vital information withheld from them.
You haven’t provided any satisfactory reasons why a. it is better for a child to remain ignorant of health and safety in a society that you think promotes promiscuity; b. how accurate and complete information that allows kids to make up their own minds in some way undermines Christian moral teaching; and c. why a liberal society should support any groups withholding vital information from their kids – information that allows them to make up their own minds.
I specifically responded to a question on overlap between Christian and Muslim practices.
Thats like..going nowhere.
Fundies (at one time, myself) occupy niches only separated by miles and color of skin.
Civitas, I think I know why you are not talking.
“We wouldn’t allow parents to choose whether and how to teach their children maths if they weren’t qualified to do so.”
Sure we would. And do. At least in the US. You can home school your kids no matter how little you know about math.
It would be interesting if we could get a few people to explain the complexities and subtleties of Islamic belief, like Facelift and others are doing for Christianity.
I think that the comparison with 1940s-1970s Ireland is a good one, because it gives a good example of a quasi-theocratic state in a Western country with close familial and cultural ties to Australia. Spain is another good example, although it’s a bit more difficult for some as it’s not English speaking.
What’s interesting is how both of those countries are strongly moving towards a secular, pluralist social model while the US and Australia the trend – at governmental policy level, anyway – is somewhat the reverse.
Another Kim – did you intend to post a link before? It’s not showing on my browser, which makes your last comment seem misplaced.
Ireland and Spain are both lovely countries, but no one in their right mind would describe either as pluralist or secular.
Misplaced comment because no source quoted?
I am my own source, having lived it.
Civitas, engage.
Anna,
You’re eaons away from the point of what I’m saying, or understanding what Christians teach their kids, maybe because your vision is so clouded by your secular position.
I’ll try to answer your questions, but they’re off the mark:
‘a. it is better for a child to remain ignorant of health and safety in a society that you think promotes promiscuity’
Who says they’re ignorant? I’ve told you 21st century Christians have access to execellent material on the subject which talks about everything you mention, including STD’s, pregnancy in and out of marriage, abortion, etc, etc.. It also talks about what you do on your wedding night, how to use contraceptives, how to sexually and emotionally please your partner, etc etc. It also mentions abstinance, which I don’t suppose comes up as a rational option in your curricilum.
‘b. how accurate and complete information that allows kids to make up their own minds in some way undermines Christian moral teaching’
Do you think kids from Christian families don’t make up their own minds about sexuality? The evidence is that they do make up their own minds. The material available is complete. Why do schools have to take the place of parenting?
‘c. why a liberal society should support any groups withholding vital information from their kids – information that allows them to make up their own minds.’
Because it’s a liberal society, which should allow for differences. Your so-called complete education is actually limited by it’s lack of morals, not advanced. Christian literature and material tends to look at things from both sides, and include in-depth cause and effect information.
Equip the parents and get sex education out of the schools.
How many times do we have to tell you, civitas – we’re not in America. I don’t care if innumerate Americans are allowed to teach their kids maths. We’re discussing Australian schools here.
I didn’t say you were in the US, Anna. Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else.
Australians cannot home school?
Yes, Australians can indeed home school.
http://homeschoolaustralia.beverleypaine.com/
So it appears that they WOULD allow parents to teach their children math even if they weren’t qualified.
So not talking to me, Civitas?
Why?
Not up to it?
FaceLift, firstly I’ve actually told you a couple of times now that I grew up in a Christian family, and I went to a Christian school for the first half of my schooling. What I am saying to you is not out of ignorance about what Christians believe.
I am asking you to explain why, if it’s the same information being provided by each source, you have a problem with that information being made compulsory. It’s health class, not religious ed. We’re talking about information, not promoting a particular view. And health teachers have been given the job because not all parents have the knowledge themselves. Like they don’t all have enough knowledge to teach maths, or English, correctly.
Lastly, liberal society isn’t about diversity in and of itself – it’s about respecting the rights of people to make their own decisions. Withholding information from them prevents them from doing that. I respect your right to live according to your Christian beliefs. Likewise, you must respect my right to reject the Christian beliefs my parents had hoped to instil in me – as well as my right to know how to protect myself from unwanted pregnancy and STDs once I rejected the Christian faith. Had my parents been allowed to withhold that information, I’d probably still have rejected the faith, but I would not have been armed with knowledge to exercise my choices safely.
The kids have to pass their classes civitas – we don’t let parents make up their own syllabus.
Here’s what you said:
“We wouldn’t allow parents to choose whether and how to teach their children maths if they weren’t qualified to do so.�
and the fact is, you would and you do.
“Lastly, liberal society isn’t about diversity in and of itself – it’s about respecting the rights of people to make their own decisions.”
muslim people too?
and apparently parents CAN make up their own curriculum….even in Australia
http://homeschoolaustralia.beverleypaine.com/resources/curriculum.html
On the record now.
For whatever reason, Civitas will not speak to the issues he himself raised with one who can speak to it.
Civitas? Cowardis.
Idiotas – parents shouldn’t get to decide that their children won’t be taught maths, and if they are then it’s an outrage. I see no evidence of that, though, in the link you’ve provided.
won’t be taught math? are you reading stuff that’s not there again?
The link I provided disproved your claim that “we” don’t let parents make up their own syllabus.
Please refute my claims about required head coverings and arranged marriages in fundie communities.
Come on, daring you!
Not even Mennonite communities doing this..
Anna,
I don’t think Christians are withholding information on sex education from their children. That’s your accusation. There’s more information available to Christians in these areas today than there was even ten years ago, and it is being used as far as I can make out, in most evangelical-style churches and amongst evangelical Christians. I think you may be out of touch.
Going to a Christian school means very little since the curriculum used is almost invariably based on state school curriculum. It’s the environmeent parents prefer, because they believe the influence of Christian teachers will be good, but there’s no guarrantee there either. The need for funding can actually mean there is little to distinguish between Christian education and secular education, as far as I can make out, but I’m no expert, just making an observation.
Using health profesionals to teach sex education is OK, but it isn’t a guarantee of anything either. Boys and girls change at different rates as they approach puberty, have different needs and different reactions. These things are most closely observed in the home by parents, who, in an ideal situation, should be able to help their children through the changes, so they mature well, in their own time under the guidance and supervision of caring parents, grandparents and older siblings. I don’t see how a few lessons in a health class can give anything more than information, which tough it’s interesting, and maybe even useful, can’t replace a healthy homee environment.
That’s why I advocate better skilled parents, who can bring their children through these issues gradually, on a day to day basis, in a caring environment. And this is one of the areas church groups are targeting for improvement.
“Using health profesionals to teach sex education is OK, but it isn’t a guarantee of anything either.”
facelift, you’re right, it is no guarantee, particularly no guarantee that any child is being protected in any way. Illegitimate birth percentages are way up, STD transmission way up. Why isn’t the education working to lower the incidences of both?
Observe what happens when truth is told.
Deafening silence.
That’s sweet in it’s own, silent way.
So try that line with someone who hasn’t lived it.
Another Kim,
Get real, please! As Anna has said, this is Australia. It’s extremely rare to find a Christian community which insists on head coverings! I saw a Mennonite woman on the streets of Darwin a couple of weeks ago with a strange kind of head covering, and have to say, in all my time as a Christian that’s the very first time I haave seen such a thing, although I visited an old time ‘holiness’ church in Perth once which seemed to advocate head scarves, and also conducted the meeting in a language unknown to us, maybe Serbian, but there were only about ten people there, all over fifty, so I think that’s a rare case in point.
The general shift in Austrlaia is,and has been for about twenty years, towards what is called ‘contemporary’ style worship, such as the large churches like (dare I say it) Hillsong, CCC, or Paradise style churches, or for evangelicals, Crossways, Riverview, etc., and the multitude of smaller city and country churches which are styled similarly. These kind of churches have, as part opf their mandate, excellent seminars on relationships and marriage, which include information on most of the issues raised here.
Is it just me or is this a fairly balanced site when you read the comments irrespective of the articles.
I’d like to know just how many reader voted for Howard and how many commenters voted for Howard.
There are Howardarians all over this site. Why?
civitas, education is a state government responsibility in Australia. To find out what the situation is with home schooling curriculum requirements you need to follow through from the links you provided, which show only that home schooling exists.
Some examples of relevant state law (links found through your link. Took all of 90 seconds):
Victoria
An applicant will be requested by the Department to provide a ‘curriculum’ – eg. subject treatment, aims, resources, method of assessment, etc. The Department does not provide details of the actual studies, courses, levels of competence, expectations, etc for each Year level. Applicants will have to research for themselves the actual skills required in each Year level through the Curriculum Standard Frameworks. http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/2004/04/28/the-law-in-victoria/
Western Australia
The Act specifies an annual visit from a moderator, which should be arranged by the home educating parent. It does not have to be at the place of education and its purpose is to enable the moderator to evaluate the educational program and progress of the child. The moderator can ask for a second meeting if they feel either the program or progress is unsatisfactory.
If there is no consensus reached after this meeting, the chief executive officer may cancel registration, but only after the home educating parent has had 14 days to exercise their right of appeal to the Home Education Advisory Panel, and if they do, then after that appeal has been heard.The act is available from the government printing services although information on the Act is available at the Department of Education website. http://hbln.org.au/gs.html
Queensland
Home Educators in QLD. are required to apply for “Dispensation from compulsory enrolment”, annually – “Education Act 1989″. There are penalty provisions in place for failure to do so, but they are of a minor nature and would rarely be applied.
A comprehensive and informative booklet: “Education Queensland – Home Schooling” (downloadable from, http://education.qld.gov.au/tal/cru/hsap98.doc ) provides all the details and includes the Dispensation application form. The Community Relations Unit (CRU) processes all home schooling applications. Should a prospective home educator decide to apply for dispensation it will almost automatically be granted if an ‘approved curriculum provider’ is used. http://www.australia.edu/steppingstones/qld_leg.htm
I imagine it would take me another 90 seconds or so to find the rest, but I can’t be stuffed. Look at this http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/2004/04/28/the-law-in-victoria/ if you’re interested.
Your comments get a C- so far. Must try harder!
Multi-link comment in the mod queue, Ma’am!
I’m way real. In Perth, Facelift? Small world.
I know certain church establishers there myself.
Your affiliations?
Pentecostal, AK. But I live in Darwin. We were just visiting Perth, and dropped in on a church at random to find it was conducting the meeting in another language. Lovely people, though, and very friendly. Not at alll perturbed that my wife and daughter didn’t have head scarves on, which may tell a story. Not that I’m against headscarves or coverings. Actually my wife looks sensational in hats.
It’s true, kids. Not enough people these days are wearing hats.
Told y’all. That’s code.
Pentecostals are nice tho’ dogmatic.
Bible camps will give the kids cavities but they’ll ne nicer afterwards.
Too fucking bad Jesus doesn’t save you when you need it.
Sounds like you went into freefall and no one was there to catch you, AK. I’m praying something astoundingly good happens for you soon to help pick you up. Hope you don’t mind.
True, Liam. Bring back hats.
FaceLift, it seems we might be in agreement after all. The topic here was a post that describes a school that wants to withhold information, and you seemed to be saying that you thought it was acceptable. It was you who questioned the idea of compulsory sex ed. I didn’t say anything about what I think happens now; I was giving reasons why it should be compulsory.
I said nothing about stopping parents from doing anything – just that it’s not always enough, and making it compulsory in schools ensures that all kids get to learn the basics whether their parents want them to or not. I think that it’s ridiculous to delegate that kind of teaching to parents who for some reason or another believe that contraception is wrong. Children deserve to know the facts, and I think we have to acknowledge that some parents just won’t be up to the job.
Voltaire in the making here.
Yes, Anna, so we need to look at ways to set up opportunities for parents to be better educated in these matters, so that they’re equiped to take it on. I know that many church groups are taking this on, but that only covers a small percentage of the population. There are thousands of parents who need to be better trained in many aspects of parenting, including the areas mentioned here.
Now if schools were to work on developing courses on parenting skills for high schoolers before they become parents, that might be interesting. Imagine asking high school kids how they would handle high school kids in the home!
None of that means that sex ed. shouldn’t be compulsory though, FaceLift. And the easiest place to teach kids things that are compulsory is at school. Unless you’d prefer health officials coming to everyone’s homes to make sure you’ve taught it all properly…
Another Kim, you’re quite right. In Australia as well, there are Brethren and Mennonite communities which require head coverings for women and arrange marriages.
Facelift,like that’s gonna help.
Being reasonable and all that. You’re way nice, tho. Showing my background…covet those prayers. Let’s see what they do, eh?
I do see Civitas is not talkng.
How can one get a good argument online if that is the case?
Civitas, big baby!
May I please have Mark as my next door neighbor on one side and Primary K on the other?
Nabakov can live a bit farther down the street.
Just so he couldn’t bother daily.
Anna,
‘making sure you’ve taught it all properly’
Now let me see, since comparisons with the three ‘r’s have been the precedent here, my English ain’t 2 great, but I’ve seen some pretty aweful spelling and grammar come out of our school system, which makes our beloved BBEP look like a literary genius, and the math’s not all that crash hot, plus there’s a theory going round that boys aren’t learning very well in the present setup. Doesn’t give me confidence that educators educate that well, or probably more to the point, manage to gain and keep the attention of the people they’re educating.
You seem to be advocating a highly regulated society.
Another Kim:
“May I please have Mark as my next door neighbor on one side and Primary K on the other?”
Can my beloved and I join your ghetto please? Free compulsory sex ed. for all* in the glorious blogger’s paradise!!!
*Wait, that sounds suggestive.
Sounds very suggestive. I see that.
But sure. Let’s call it a blogger’s ghetto as you say.
I have no idea if you should be there.
Only if you adore ultimate bohemia. In a feminist sense.
The failure of some students to learn well enough doesn’t provide proof that parents will do a better job. It’s a non sequitur.
And I’m not talking about regulating society – I’m talking about regulating education. In order to have a truly liberal society, where people make genuine choices about what they want to do, and how they want to live, they first have to be well-educated children. There is absolutely nothing inherent in what I’m saying that means that parents can’t take a very active role in educating their children as well. But many don’t, and it’s silly to think they all do. That’s why we have compulsory schooling.
Furthermore, people are using words like parental choice and diversity but the reality of such proposals is actually quite the opposite. It may look like diversity on a broad scale, when you look at a whole community – but if what a particular child is learning has been reduced then it isn’t diversity for that child, is it?
Time to stop explaining, Anna, as we all do. Ad nauseum and so often.
Time now to do. Just do it.
No explanations, no reason and no excuses.
Teaching children about the risks and responsibilities in sexual activity isn’t just about morals: it’s also about public health. The spread of HIV in this country hasn’t been slowed by people embracing abstinence and returning to the church, it’s been achieved through educating people about the risks and arming them with the knowledge, and then letting them make their own choices. STDs and unwanted pregnancies pose significant costs to the health care system and should prevented as much as possible.
Do what, AK? I’m a blogger, not a sex ed. teacher.
I think you’d make a marvellous sex ed teacher Anna.
Yeh, Anna.
Live what we say.
Be the example.
Rock it. Be brave. Be so brave,
Apologies for stepping back a bit – I had to work this afternoon – but civitas said, just after 2pm “Ireland and Spain are both lovely countries, but no one in their right mind would describe either as pluralist or secular.”
Funny, then, how one has a government (and opposition) commitment to recognise lesbian and gay relationships and the other has gay marriaage.
Melbourne, Brisbane, Houston, Zurich,
Everybody talk about — pop music!
Shimmy in the subway.
Shuffle with a shoeshine.
Mix me a Molotov!
I’m on the hit line!
La la la la la la la la laa,
La la la la la la la la laaaa…
Okay, tea break’s over. Back on yer heads.
Heh. I’d probably be prone to fits of giggling, actually, and inappropriate jokes about bananas.
http://www.fpahealth.org.au/resources/healthrites/banpen_20050407.html
The perfect tool for any good sex ed teacher.
Misstrix Anna W., she make heap-big sense this time.
Actually I think the whole platform for debate here is caused by a confusion of terms and purposes. Sex education, as I think Kate pointed out, is a matter of personal and public health, not morals. How the plumbing works, what sorts of diseases it’s prone to, how to avoid them and so on is basic science, like washing your hands before you deliver a baby. It isn’t morals at all. Matters of personal religious and moral beliefs can be, and are, taught in a more private and doctrinally specific setting, in complentary fashion to the other stuff. Just because you CAN put a piece of latex on your winkie doesn’t mean you SHOULD or HAVE TO.
Look at the analogy with gun education. In Texas, for instance, plenty of pre-teens are taught how to handle firearms safely, properly and responsibly. But they’re usually also taught that you can’t go around shooting people just because you know how. Again, one thing is morals, the other is just knowing the details about a species of technology.
James Hamilton on 31 May 2006 at 3:23 pm
Is it just me or is this a fairly balanced site when you read the comments irrespective of the articles.
I’d like to know just how many reader voted for Howard and how many commenters voted for Howard.
There are Howardarians all over this site. Why?
May I advance a theory? I think it may be because the lefties here, though often misguided, are generally ready to address the issues.
You had better be quiet, JPZ.
You sound like most of us.
That won’t square with preconceptions, anywhere.
Pesky prejudices. They die hard. Till someone knows just who they are talking to or about. Like we are perpetually accused.
OK, civitas. I’ve had a busy afternoon and the thread has moved on, but below are cites that support my claims: “As to the points of agreement between conservative Christians and Islamists, their views on educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestyles are huge overlapping areas.”
You can find similiar stuff to these cites on any website which preaches “covenant marriage”, “quiverfull” families, and/or links to loony-Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Institute.
Claim 1: conservative (particularly theonomist) Christians, like conservative Islamists, who wish to restrict their offspring’s’ access to higher education, particularly their daughters, because “higher education for a woman leads to pride, discontent, self-sufficiency, worldly temptation and easy divorce.”
(this one also discusses fathers choosing their sons’ careers and finding wives for them)
Also check this out.
Claim 2: shared worldview on limitation of dissent – keeping their children under patriarchal authority until they are married, commitment to corporal punishment as a biblical injunction, submission of women to the authority of husband/father:
Claim 3: Shared worldviews on non-heteronorm lifestyles – both covenant Christianists and radical Islamists believe that same-sex relationships and sex outside marriage are immoral and should be illegal. Surely I don’t have to go digging around for cites on that one?
Sorry for the rest of you that this comment is so long. Now I’m going to enjoy my dinner after spending the afternoon running errands then taxiing my kids to choir, tennis and dance classes. It was so cold that I was wearing a long skirt and so covered up as to gladden the heart of any Prairie Muffin.
Long comment with beaucoup URLs in moderation, ‘kay?
Feel free to skip if not interested in cites for claims in the civitas stoush.
““For the record, I first read about this story in a post by Anonymous Lefty.â€?
Why would I settle for the oily rag when there’s there’s this site the Ferrari to leftish thinking. That doesn’t count.”
HEY!
tigtog,
Marriage is a covenant! I believe in the covenant of marriage, but I can’t say this site rings much of a bell. i also believe in the ‘quiver full’, but then so does Peter Costello, and he’s prepared to pay parents for providing them. It just means, go forth and multiply!
The thing about ‘Christian’ sites is that you have to check their background and orthodoxy before making them a ‘typical’ representation of what all Christians are saying. This one has no reference to tenets or creed, so I’d put it on the shelf until it gives itself more information on its foundations. There are millions of Christians, and thousands of ‘Christian’ sites. Not all are representative of what you are terming ‘conservative’ Christianity. I agree with Anna that it is more relevant to stick to Australian Christianity, because the US has such a huge, diverse, and complex range of religious groups that it would be possible through (as saint says) asking the Google ‘god’ to ‘prove’ just about anything.
Facelift, you gotta read the code. You believe in the covenant OF marriage, they believe in “covenant marriage” – which is an entirely different beast involving total familial submission to the father.
I agree that these are an extremist subset of self-described conservative Christians, and that there are many other conservative Christians who don’t share those beliefs, or at least not to that degree. Despite civitas’ strawman, I never meant to imply anything different.
It’s worth pointing out your response to these radical reactionary views – most of Islam feels exactly the same about the Talibani etc.
Indeed, tigtog, there are extemes of everything.
And extremes, too!
Extremely extreme extremes! Mostly out on the extremes!
“There are millions of Christians, and thousands of ‘Christian’ sites. Not all are representative of what you are terming ‘conservative’ Christianity.”
Indeed. Yet all too many people are willing to do a tigtog and make sweeping statements about conservative christians that they cannot back up. When called on it, the back-tracking begins. Yet they’ll turn right around and make the same kind of claim with the very next breath.
“civitas, education is a state government responsibility in Australia. To find out what the situation is with home schooling curriculum requirements you need to follow through from the links you provided, which show only that home schooling exists.”
well, zoe, that was the issue. Can parents who cannot prove that they are qualified to teach their children math, in fact, keep their children home and teach them math. In Australia, the answer is yes.
civitas – both Another Kim and tigtog have given you examples.
Another Kim, I bags the house closest to the river
not examples of what I asked for, they haven’t.
Only because you’re playing “no true Scotsman” with our examples, civitas.
your examples were’t examples of how christian conservatives are like islamists.
You asked for examples of how christian conservatives and islamic conservatives share similiar views on “educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestyles”.
When given such examples, you say that those particular conservative Christians aren’t representative. You will do the same no matter how many groups in good standing with the 700 Club and the Moral Majority are shown to share those views.
Perhaps if you don’t like you preferred sort of “conservative Christian” being lumped with their views you should find another descriptor of those Christian beliefs with which to align, because those Rushdoony-esque groups have well and truly hijacked the “conservative” descriptor.
“You asked for examples of how christian conservatives and islamic conservatives share similiar views on “educating the populace (especially women), limiting dissent and non-heteronormative lifestylesâ€?.
and not a single example of any of that was offered. But I didn’t think any would be. People often make ludicrous sweeping claims such as was made that precipitated my question and then the back-tracking begins….well, I didn’t mean THOSE conservative christians…..etc.
I made the point that needed to be made. Hopefully you (and anyone else making such a ridiculous, uneducated statement) will at least think twice before making such a claim and then being forced to face the fact that you cannot back it up.
civitas, you is a troll!
Life’s too short to argue with trolls.
hey, don’t want to back it up? Don’t say it. Kind of a good motto to live by.
Is so! : Is not! is pretty boring for any onlookers, let alone me.
We disgree on who’s shown up whom, let it rest.
OK. Until the next time you make an unsupportable claim.