Apparently, it's still *legal* for schools to expel gay stud

[Seth]

Education, and educational curricula are best left to the states, and to the local communities, where community standards will serve to prevent monolithic propagandistic indoctrination by the central government. Diversity of thought and teaching is necessary to prevent indoctrination on a wide scale. That's why states are best suited to regulate education. Yes, standards may vary somewhat from place to place, but that's far better than organized indoctrination, which is very, very dangerous to liberty and free thought.

But what's to stop states deciding they want to teach something like creationism instead of evolution or teach homeopathy as a valid science or teach lies for history and thus becoming a laughing stock churning out children unfit to work in any type of industry?

The People. The vast majority of parents are very concerned about the curriculum of their children's education, and in point of fact, they already largely control it in most places. The fear that this will result in nothing but theocratic "madrassas" schools teaching Christian dogma is vacuous and insubstantial. Those who wish their children to be taught religion along with other subjects already put their kids in private religious schools. And guess what? The states regulate the curricula of even private schools, and homeschoolers for that matter, to ensure that in addition to any religious education, students receive an adequate secular education as well.

I'm not suggesting that educational criteria be done away with, merely that the state is the appropriate and only legal entity to control such things, not the federal government.

I'm not sure how true the underlined bit is but I have seen homeschoolers been taught things like the world is less than 10,000 years old. Do you think there is a bit of a clash here between the rights of a parent to teach their children what they see fit and the rights of a child to not be lied to or deprived of an education?
I mean, you're all about personal freedom, right? Isnt this an infringement on a child's personal freedom is their choices are being limited by indoctrinating parents?

Children do not have full personal autonomy, and one of the fundamental concepts of civilizations that value liberty is that parents have a right to "indoctrinate" their children in their own beliefs. The alternative is, of course, state-directed indoctrination, which as we can see from China, the Soviet Union and Venezuela, is the antithesis of liberty. Yes, children get taught all sorts of silly things by their parents, and their peers, and society, like "it's okay to have sex whenever you like." Most people grow up and question those silly things and either find value in them and perpetuate them in their own children, or they reject them and resolve not to indoctrinate their own kids with the silliness of their parents.

It's a constant pendulum back and forth, generation by generation, but in the long term, it all evens out and civilization manages to survive.

State-sponsored indoctrination and propaganda in schools is, on the other hand, incredibly dangerous to liberty and free thought. When the State gains the power to dictate everything that children are exposed to eight hours a day, that power will inevitably be misused, as all power is when its given to people with their own ideological agendas.

I much prefer a diversity of belief and a diversity of educational curricula because it denies the State the power of propaganda and indoctrination, which I see as a far, far worse threat to human freedom than kids being taught the earth is only 6000 years old. That particular ignorance is easily repaired through personal observation of facts as they mature into adults. And if it's not, so what? Who cares? Big deal. Let them cling to the delusion if it makes them happy and they aren't hurting anyone in the process.

[Animavore]

Education, and educational curricula are best left to the states, and to the local communities, where community standards will serve to prevent monolithic propagandistic indoctrination by the central government. Diversity of thought and teaching is necessary to prevent indoctrination on a wide scale. That's why states are best suited to regulate education. Yes, standards may vary somewhat from place to place, but that's far better than organized indoctrination, which is very, very dangerous to liberty and free thought.

But what's to stop states deciding they want to teach something like creationism instead of evolution or teach homeopathy as a valid science or teach lies for history and thus becoming a laughing stock churning out children unfit to work in any type of industry?

The People. The vast majority of parents are very concerned about the curriculum of their children's education, and in point of fact, they already largely control it in most places. The fear that this will result in nothing but theocratic "madrassas" schools teaching Christian dogma is vacuous and insubstantial. Those who wish their children to be taught religion along with other subjects already put their kids in private religious schools. And guess what? The states regulate the curricula of even private schools, and homeschoolers for that matter, to ensure that in addition to any religious education, students receive an adequate secular education as well.

I'm not suggesting that educational criteria be done away with, merely that the state is the appropriate and only legal entity to control such things, not the federal government.

I'm not sure how true the underlined bit is but I have seen homeschoolers been taught things like the world is less than 10,000 years old. Do you think there is a bit of a clash here between the rights of a parent to teach their children what they see fit and the rights of a child to not be lied to or deprived of an education?
I mean, you're all about personal freedom, right? Isnt this an infringement on a child's personal freedom is their choices are being limited by indoctrinating parents?

Children do not have full personal autonomy, and one of the fundamental concepts of civilizations that value liberty is that parents have a right to "indoctrinate" their children in their own beliefs. The alternative is, of course, state-directed indoctrination, which as we can see from China, the Soviet Union and Venezuela, is the antithesis of liberty. Yes, children get taught all sorts of silly things by their parents, and their peers, and society, like "it's okay to have sex whenever you like." Most people grow up and question those silly things and either find value in them and perpetuate them in their own children, or they reject them and resolve not to indoctrinate their own kids with the silliness of their parents.

It's a constant pendulum back and forth, generation by generation, but in the long term, it all evens out and civilization manages to survive.

State-sponsored indoctrination and propaganda in schools is, on the other hand, incredibly dangerous to liberty and free thought. When the State gains the power to dictate everything that children are exposed to eight hours a day, that power will inevitably be misused, as all power is when its given to people with their own ideological agendas.

I much prefer a diversity of belief and a diversity of educational curricula because it denies the State the power of propaganda and indoctrination, which I see as a far, far worse threat to human freedom than kids being taught the earth is only 6000 years old. That particular ignorance is easily repaired through personal observation of facts as they mature into adults. And if it's not, so what? Who cares? Big deal. Let them cling to the delusion if it makes them happy and they aren't hurting anyone in the process.

We can all play the hyperbole game. Let's go the other way.
State sponsored education can be bad when it goes the way of China but conversely to that a theocracy is no good for people either. America already has a ridiculously high amount of creationists and you don't care if they become stronger if all schools become privatised and kids are given vouchers to pay tuition to private schools that may have previously been closed to them meaning, potentially, more kids are being churned out totally brain-washed into creationist thinking, more of them end up in government and, Bibe-bashers being naturally pushy, end up enacting all types of laws which are not suited to much of the general populace and the whole country goes down the pan.
No matter what way you look at it a country needs to have a core curriculum and schools have obligations to teach things, at least in subjects where applicable, based on evidence and fact.

[HomerJay]

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

No, it just the abdication of rather than the application of, justice.

[Svartalf]

A friend posted this link on FB, and I'm appalled there's still such a law in force.

Appalling' law lets schools expel gay students
David Marr
February 12, 2011

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it "appalling" and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as "deeply offensive", but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

Through a spokesman, Mr Hatzistergos, described the 30-year-old law as necessary "to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs".

A relic of the Wran era when homosexuality was still a crime, the law exempts private schools from any obligation to enrol or deal fairly with students who are homosexual. An expulsion requires neither disruption, harassment nor even the flaunting of sexuality. Being homosexual is enough.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 1aqk2.html

Naturally Jimmy Wallace says his bit about how church schools should be protected from teh 3bil gays*.

Appalling that such a law is still on the books here in NSW in 2011, though sadly not surprising. And that the Attorney-General is actually DEFENDING this law!!!

*I personally think nothing of the sort, I have a friend who is homosexual and he's a good bloke. They should have the same rights as everyone else.

I've tweeted it on twitter (my name on there is the same as on here), feel free to retweet to get this out.

Er, they do have the same rights. What part of "private school" is unclear to you?

Why does "private" make discrimination okay?

Not so much "okay" as "their school, their rool", they have no obligations to take any students that does not fit their criteria, even if said criteria are lousy and silly...

After all, nobody says a thing if students get rejected or expelled from institutions for insufficient academic results, and teh ghey can not help themselves any better than the moronic or the darn lazy... so if the latter can be excluded, why not the former?

[Svartalf]

In the UK it is illegal to discriminate, even in a private ('public') school because of sexuality, as well as because of religion, ethnicity and so on. I work in this area and it is something I know as a matter of course.

Linky:-

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/you ... d_training

No, they just discriminate on academic achievement and tuition.

[Cunt]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

[JimC]

It would be private club if they didnt get qualifications in a secular education system and funding from the taxpayer. Unless they want to stop both they have to maintain certain standards that the vast majority of society expect and the government at large.

Exactly right, Red...

As many here know, I teach at a catholic boy's school that receives government funding. This leaves me with a certain amount of internal conflict, but fuck it all, I'll be retiring soon anyway...

Thankfully, it is a school on the liberal wing of the church, generally leftish in politics, which quietly ignores many church prescriptions. Seth's vision of a monolithic catholic church with every right to enforce its Papal decrees is actually ignored by many pragmatic Aussie catholics...

Good grief! When have I EVER said that? The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is a thorn in the side of the Vatican and trying to get them to obey the Pope is like herding cats. That's one of the reasons the whole sex abuse scandal occurred. After Vatican II, the USCCB liberalized the criteria for becoming an American priest, and they quit being careful about who they allowed into the seminary, and as a result, and quite predictably, pedophiles from all over flooded into the US church. The reasons are obvious: Catholic churches provided (at the time) nearly unlimited and confidential access to children under circumstances where authority could easily be abused to coerce children into sexual activity. The very confidentiality of the confessional, and the therefore intimate relationship between the priest and the child was an open invitation to pedophiles, and they seized the opportunity opened to them by the Vatican II's liberalization of the church. US church authorities and seminarians were simply negligent in screening applicants to the priesthood, and this was partly due to the strong leftist/democrat influences in the USCCB that took a much less conservative viewpoint towards sexual matters than the church's actual doctrines. This overall liberalization of the US church opened the seminary doors to canny pedophiles, which is a great evil and a blight that the church is going to be living down for a long, long time to come. And rightfully so. But that's all changed now, and the church has reversed course and is now one of the safest organizations for children in the US, far safer than any public school in the country, because there is now zero tolerance and substantial procedural protections in place to prevent such abuse.

The notion that the Vatican "owns" the Catholic church or is in temporal charge of everything every parish priest does is the sort of asinine nonsense that SNAP tries to foist off on the public in order to try to link the whole shebang together so they can extort money from the church for 50 year old sex-abuse allegations.

The practical fact is that "The Catholic Church" is nothing more than a relatively loose spiritual association of largely independent dioceses and parishes, and the temporal assets are generally owned by the diocese or parish congregants, not the Vatican. The Pope is nothing more than the spiritual head of the church, the spokesman for God, so to speak. He's not the CEO or even the CFO.

You must be looking at a very different catholic church to me...

It is quite a stretch to blame post Vatican 2 liberalisation for pedophilia in the church. All over the world, it was the conservative, doctrinaire old hierarchy which systematically covered up evidence of child abuse, and indeed facilitated it by deliberately moving pedophile priests to other parishes to hide their misdeeds. It wasn't suddenly careless practices in choosing seminarians that achieved this, it was a perverted internal culture that has been there a long, long time... In Australia, arch conservative Cardinal George Pell was up to his neck in the cover-up in his earlier years, and has been systematically dismissive of victims ever since.

The notion that the Vatican "owns" the Catholic church or is in temporal charge of everything every parish priest does is the sort of asinine nonsense that SNAP tries to foist off on the public in order to try to link the whole shebang together so they can extort money from the church for 50 year old sex-abuse allegations.

That is a truly appalling statement. For every dodgy claim, there would be 10 or more real victims of rapist priests. Time does not diminish their right to gain every possible recompense; you seem to be suggesting a sort of legal dance, suggesting that nobody can be blamed or sued for recompense, particularly if the offender has long since been rotting in a lonely grave...

[Seth]

Given enough popular support, shunning can be quite effective in changing social behavior without the imposition of force or fraud.

That's the proper Libertarian exercise of morals and ethics, not force.

Make no mistake, Seth. It IS force.

Er, not using force is force? Is that like not engaging in commerce is commerce?

[Seth]

America already has a ridiculously high amount of creationists and you don't care if they become stronger if all schools become privatised and kids are given vouchers to pay tuition to private schools that may have previously been closed to them meaning, potentially, more kids are being churned out totally brain-washed into creationist thinking, more of them end up in government and, Bibe-bashers being naturally pushy, end up enacting all types of laws which are not suited to much of the general populace and the whole country goes down the pan.
No matter what way you look at it a country needs to have a core curriculum and schools have obligations to teach things, at least in subjects where applicable, based on evidence and fact.

They do. As I said, the state sets the basic core curricula for all schools. And any "creationist" teaching outside the core curriculum is an expression of religion, and therefore protected. That you don't like "bible-bashers" is beside the point. They have a right to bash bibles, and to teach their kids to bash bibles, and that creationism is true and evolution isn't.

[Animavore]

America already has a ridiculously high amount of creationists and you don't care if they become stronger if all schools become privatised and kids are given vouchers to pay tuition to private schools that may have previously been closed to them meaning, potentially, more kids are being churned out totally brain-washed into creationist thinking, more of them end up in government and, Bibe-bashers being naturally pushy, end up enacting all types of laws which are not suited to much of the general populace and the whole country goes down the pan.
No matter what way you look at it a country needs to have a core curriculum and schools have obligations to teach things, at least in subjects where applicable, based on evidence and fact.

They do. As I said, the state sets the basic core curricula for all schools. And any "creationist" teaching outside the core curriculum is an expression of religion, and therefore protected. That you don't like "bible-bashers" is beside the point. They have a right to bash bibles, and to teach their kids to bash bibles, and that creationism is true and evolution isn't.

It would be protected but what can they do with their "creationism"? Nothing. They're not going to invent new things or develop new life saving treatments.
But fine, I guess the best that one could hope for is that they see everyone else progressing while they're still praying to their imaginary friend and decide to join in.

Funnily enough your way might actually work in this country because the creationists are so few and scattered they would not be able to pool the resources to create private schools.

I wouldn't see much hope for some of the Southern States in America if schools went private, though.

[Seth]

America already has a ridiculously high amount of creationists and you don't care if they become stronger if all schools become privatised and kids are given vouchers to pay tuition to private schools that may have previously been closed to them meaning, potentially, more kids are being churned out totally brain-washed into creationist thinking, more of them end up in government and, Bibe-bashers being naturally pushy, end up enacting all types of laws which are not suited to much of the general populace and the whole country goes down the pan.
No matter what way you look at it a country needs to have a core curriculum and schools have obligations to teach things, at least in subjects where applicable, based on evidence and fact.

They do. As I said, the state sets the basic core curricula for all schools. And any "creationist" teaching outside the core curriculum is an expression of religion, and therefore protected. That you don't like "bible-bashers" is beside the point. They have a right to bash bibles, and to teach their kids to bash bibles, and that creationism is true and evolution isn't.

It would be protected but what can they do with their "creationism"? Nothing. They're not going to invent new things or develop new life saving treatments.

Sez who? Do you have any idea how many medical researchers hold strong religious opinions and yet manage to still do science?

But fine, I guess the best that one could hope for is that they see everyone else progressing while they're still praying to their imaginary friend and decide to join in.

Funnily enough your way might actually work in this country because the creationists are so few and scattered they would not be able to pool the resources to create private schools.

I wouldn't see much hope for some of the Southern States in America if schools went private, though.

Right. Let people fund and control their own schools, not the federal government.

[Animavore]

Right. Let people fund and control their own schools, not the federal government.

Off you go then.

[pErvinalia]

A friend posted this link on FB, and I'm appalled there's still such a law in force.

Appalling' law lets schools expel gay students
David Marr
February 12, 2011

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it "appalling" and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as "deeply offensive", but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

Through a spokesman, Mr Hatzistergos, described the 30-year-old law as necessary "to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs".

A relic of the Wran era when homosexuality was still a crime, the law exempts private schools from any obligation to enrol or deal fairly with students who are homosexual. An expulsion requires neither disruption, harassment nor even the flaunting of sexuality. Being homosexual is enough.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 1aqk2.html

Naturally Jimmy Wallace says his bit about how church schools should be protected from teh 3bil gays*.

Appalling that such a law is still on the books here in NSW in 2011, though sadly not surprising. And that the Attorney-General is actually DEFENDING this law!!!

*I personally think nothing of the sort, I have a friend who is homosexual and he's a good bloke. They should have the same rights as everyone else.

I've tweeted it on twitter (my name on there is the same as on here), feel free to retweet to get this out.

Er, they do have the same rights. What part of "private school" is unclear to you?

Oh here we go.

Human rights need to be upheld EVEN on private premises. Should the school be allowed to kill their students too?

[pErvinalia]

A friend posted this link on FB, and I'm appalled there's still such a law in force.

Appalling' law lets schools expel gay students
David Marr
February 12, 2011

A SENIOR Anglican bishop calls it "appalling" and a gay and lesbian rights group condemns it as "deeply offensive", but the Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, backs a NSW law that allows private schools to expel gay students simply for being gay.

Through a spokesman, Mr Hatzistergos, described the 30-year-old law as necessary "to maintain a sometimes delicate balance between protecting individuals from unlawful discrimination while allowing people to practise their own beliefs".

A relic of the Wran era when homosexuality was still a crime, the law exempts private schools from any obligation to enrol or deal fairly with students who are homosexual. An expulsion requires neither disruption, harassment nor even the flaunting of sexuality. Being homosexual is enough.

Full article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 1aqk2.html

Naturally Jimmy Wallace says his bit about how church schools should be protected from teh 3bil gays*.

Appalling that such a law is still on the books here in NSW in 2011, though sadly not surprising. And that the Attorney-General is actually DEFENDING this law!!!

*I personally think nothing of the sort, I have a friend who is homosexual and he's a good bloke. They should have the same rights as everyone else.

I've tweeted it on twitter (my name on there is the same as on here), feel free to retweet to get this out.

Er, they do have the same rights. What part of "private school" is unclear to you?

Why does "private" make discrimination okay?

Because it's "private."

So is your living room. You're under no obligation to host anyone you find offensive or disruptive in your living room, and you don't even have to give a reason for not allowing them inside the door.

The difference here is that the reason IS known, and by any normal standards it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual preference.

[pErvinalia]

If it is private, can they rape babies?

No, pawiz, that would be inflicting physical harm on another person. Excluding them is not the same thing as that. Now go to bed.

So "physical harm" is the standard for what's legal and what's illegal is it? Fuck me, do actually read what you write sometimes?