Larger than their parents want them to have, apparently. According to the census there are less than 25,000 Mennonites in Alberta. They've always been insular, resisting the secular influence of things like the public school system, and they've often set up their own schools.
I don't see the logic of your argument at all. They have, as you said, a completely different world view, why should the Alberta public school system, which serves around a million children, have to adjust itself to please such a tiny minority that isn't much interested in secular education anyway?
Broadening the kids' world view is likely to damage the community's cohesion and they know it.
No. The burden of proof rests with anyone making a claim. If you claim God doesn't exist, you share an equal burden as those who claim he does exist: you don't get a free pass just because you take an opposing view.
Realistically, I think we do have to concede that a good understanding of evolution might be pretty corrosive to religious belief, especially for those on the more fundamentalist side.
I think what's odd is that they're willing to participate but only if they can keep their children ignorant of certain well-tested ideas, and school boards are, if I've understood your story correctly, in effect willing to let them delete certain items from the standard curriculum when it comes to their children. I think that's a serious disservice to the kids. Keeping rural schools open--certainly a laudable goal I think--by keeping certain children ignorant of a major element in humanity's common intellectual heritage doesn't sound like a good trade off to me. This is a public, and publicly funded, school system, surely one of its primary duties is to pass on as much as possible of that heritage to the children who go through it. I don't believe the ends justify the means.
Sometimes it's unnecessary to question everything. One can, for instance, feel that water is wet and see that oranges are orange and hear that dogs make noise. As one gets older, presumably one better learns whixh questions to ask.
Apparently, AB prefers to steer kids away from prudent questioning. Or rather giving the parents easier ways of limiting kids' ability to do some prudent questioning.
Do you really deny with a straight face that Alberta is more conservative than Ontario or Quebec? Alberta is the home of Reform party and Alliance, which were very much parties of the right. Even during Mulroney era, the MPs and cabinet members form Alberta used to be blue Tories, those from Quebec red Tories, and those from Ontario a mix of the two.
Might as well make geology, anthropology, history, etc. optional, too. They each have information that contradicts creation "theory".
It's not a trade off. Were the School Boards not willing to accommodate the Mennonite community, they would have home schooled or built their own.
The Alberta government deserves big Kudos on this one.
isn't a free society wonderfull...... you have religeous zealots on one side pushing their agenda, and on the other side, equally zealot atheists pushing their agenda, Of course the athiest would never admit to pushing any kind of agenda. They are only doing what is best for everyone.......lol
Uh... doesn't that by definition make it a trade off? We'll do X to benefit us, so you won't have to do Y, and in exchange we'll offer you Z so it benefits you too... I cannot agree.
I think this is a mistake on both sides. There will be children from an insular and restricted religious community attending school with children who are not so insulated, the former are going to hear from the latter about what they're not being allowed to learn, they will be curious as all children are, and it won't take more than a small minority of them following up on their curiosity with the library and Internet access available at school and carrying the secular message back to their religious communities to deeply disrupt them. And when that happens, and it will, the children will be pulled out of the secular public school system and things will be back where they started. Except that it might be too late for those isolated religious communities, the secular influence will already be among them and there'll be no going back. I think that's no bad thing in the long term, because I think all religion is nonsense and should be put aside for better ways of thinking, but things might get ugly in the meantime.
Yes it is. It allows us to have conversations like this one, in which people are free to argue and disagree. Societies where religious and secular authority are vested in the same people and institutions don't allow that, they are monstrous tyrannies. You've complained bitterly about what you think is bashing of religion here, even your current sig line makes that point sarcastically, and I've no doubt that you'd suppress it if you could. I believe you think religious belief deserves automatic respect. It doesn't. It has to take its lumps and defend itself in the marketplace of ideas the same as any other claims do.
How could something as complex as the human eye develop naturally? More importantly, how could it develop in gradual stages while still being functional? The eye's evolution is actually quite simple, starting as primitive light-sensitive cells with gradual improvements over about 364,000 years.
Not only have scientists discovered how such a complex eye could have evolved from a light-sensitive cell, proving the process is not impossible, but every stage of the eye's development can be seen in nature!