Christians VS Democracy??
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??
Since education is a Provincial area, you can't really lump the whole country together. However, it is the stated goal of the NB Dept of Education that EVERY student should be able to get a high school diploma. Which actually devalues the diploma.
Colpy has some points here. (although pointing out that he/she/it used to be a teacher (with a poly sci degree????) is almost like admitting to be part of the problem).
There are areas where the education system sucks, but guess what? As a parent, isn't it YOUR responsibility to make sure your child is properly educated? On the one hand, the typical conservative wants all of the power in their own hands, but on the other demands that the state take all responsibility for educating their children. You, as a parent, have to ensure your children get the education you want them to have. That's why some of us help our kids with their homework, so we can make sure they're learning what they need to know.
The three essential skills are:
Literacy (reading comprehension)
Mathematics
Communication (verbal and written).
Without these, you'll never survive.
I was lucky enough to go to a good engineering school, and one of our professors had a system: he would read all tests/assignments until he got to the first mathematical error, or the third grammatical error. Then he would mark based on what he'd read so far. His explanation was that it didn't matter how good you were, if you couldn't communicate and present your ideas, you were worthless.
Colpy said:
Since education is a Provincial area, you can't really lump the whole country together. However, it is the stated goal of the NB Dept of Education that EVERY student should be able to get a high school diploma. Which actually devalues the diploma.
Colpy has some points here. (although pointing out that he/she/it used to be a teacher (with a poly sci degree????) is almost like admitting to be part of the problem).
There are areas where the education system sucks, but guess what? As a parent, isn't it YOUR responsibility to make sure your child is properly educated? On the one hand, the typical conservative wants all of the power in their own hands, but on the other demands that the state take all responsibility for educating their children. You, as a parent, have to ensure your children get the education you want them to have. That's why some of us help our kids with their homework, so we can make sure they're learning what they need to know.
The three essential skills are:
Literacy (reading comprehension)
Mathematics
Communication (verbal and written).
Without these, you'll never survive.
I was lucky enough to go to a good engineering school, and one of our professors had a system: he would read all tests/assignments until he got to the first mathematical error, or the third grammatical error. Then he would mark based on what he'd read so far. His explanation was that it didn't matter how good you were, if you couldn't communicate and present your ideas, you were worthless.
[self-indulgent pasta post alert]
The issue of "rights" vs "responsibilities" that has been alluded to is, I believe, the most important aspect of most policy debates and most of the differences between the "Right" and "Left". Each of us has the tendency to take for granted that our conception of these things is more logical or natural than those we disagree with.
My own opinion is that we have no a priori rights or responsibilities. Simple. The Universe is amoral. God either doesn't exist or is indifferent to the individual decisions we make or, if not, acts as if She is since we ate from the Tree of Knowledge.
Behavioural evolution has determined that certain behaviours and tendencies become predominant, so we could see these as "responsibilities": the responsibility to keep oneself, one's offspring, and to a lesser extent, one's kin and member's of one's tribe alive.
But, because we have eaten from the Tree, we can discern Good from Evil and therefore we can establish which rights and responsibilities we choose to accept and impose on others in our communities.
I'd say that the more moral, enlightened, humane --whatever word you want to use-- a society is, the more rights it accords to its members and the more responsibilities it demands.
From this, you can probably guess what I think of Maggie "There's no such thing as 'society'" Thatcher.
Because rights are accorded from the strong to the weak, any society that seeks to take rights or responsabilities away should have a moral reason to do so. Said another way, I think it's better to err on the side of "too many" rights/responsibilities than on "too few".
Seen this way, the whole issue of policy and allocation of taxes rests at first on a moral/ethical framework and then secondarily on a practical/ financial one. ("Budgets are primarily ehtical statements"-Jim Wallis)
I think the Right generally gets the order wrong and the Left sometimes forgets that the second part is important.
By the way, the Ten Commandements are Jewish, NOT Christian in origin. In fact Jesus cut it down to only two "on which hang all the Law and the prophets", perhaps anticipating the short attention spans of televangelism audiences. :wink:
[/self-indulgent pasta post alert]
The issue of "rights" vs "responsibilities" that has been alluded to is, I believe, the most important aspect of most policy debates and most of the differences between the "Right" and "Left". Each of us has the tendency to take for granted that our conception of these things is more logical or natural than those we disagree with.
My own opinion is that we have no a priori rights or responsibilities. Simple. The Universe is amoral. God either doesn't exist or is indifferent to the individual decisions we make or, if not, acts as if She is since we ate from the Tree of Knowledge.
Behavioural evolution has determined that certain behaviours and tendencies become predominant, so we could see these as "responsibilities": the responsibility to keep oneself, one's offspring, and to a lesser extent, one's kin and member's of one's tribe alive.
But, because we have eaten from the Tree, we can discern Good from Evil and therefore we can establish which rights and responsibilities we choose to accept and impose on others in our communities.
I'd say that the more moral, enlightened, humane --whatever word you want to use-- a society is, the more rights it accords to its members and the more responsibilities it demands.
From this, you can probably guess what I think of Maggie "There's no such thing as 'society'" Thatcher.
Because rights are accorded from the strong to the weak, any society that seeks to take rights or responsabilities away should have a moral reason to do so. Said another way, I think it's better to err on the side of "too many" rights/responsibilities than on "too few".
Seen this way, the whole issue of policy and allocation of taxes rests at first on a moral/ethical framework and then secondarily on a practical/ financial one. ("Budgets are primarily ehtical statements"-Jim Wallis)
I think the Right generally gets the order wrong and the Left sometimes forgets that the second part is important.
By the way, the Ten Commandements are Jewish, NOT Christian in origin. In fact Jesus cut it down to only two "on which hang all the Law and the prophets", perhaps anticipating the short attention spans of televangelism audiences. :wink:
[/self-indulgent pasta post alert]
Actually, a B.A. with a major in History, a minor in Poly Sci, and then a B.Ed.
I'm not teaching now because I am, admittedly, a failure at it. My temper is too short, my expectations too high, and I simply don't have a talent for it. Some people do, and my hat's off to them. In spades.
Also, when I was a substitute (sometimes for a full term) the pay was $79.35 per day, maximum 180 days a year. Do the math. That was in 1997.
Karlin said:
Can anyone tell me where I can find this law? I have been searching and can't come up with anything. Thanks.
I think not said:
Section 1 or 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are similar to the free exercise clause in your constitution. There is nothing like the establishment clause though, that I can think of.
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Said1 said:
The Free Excercise and Establishment clauses are part of the first amendment. The former guarantees freedom to excercise religion, the latter prohibits congress of getting involved (nationally).
I can't find anything in your Charter, it was the first place I looked, although I did find this:
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
I have found nothing similar to the Establishment clause we have in the US. I assume Karlin may be referencing a Supreme Court decision in Canada, but haven't found anything yet.
I think not said:
IThat's basically what I just said? To my knowledge, there isn't an establishment clause or law. This may be an unwritten convention, which is in fact part of the constitution. Try googling that.
Said1 said:
Easy slugger, wheres that catwoman outfit of yours (avatar)
I've tried everything, I usually don't ask for help when doing research unless I have exhausted all avenues.
Maybe Karlin can help? Yo? Karlin? *whistles*
Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??
In a Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen is the formal head of state, but does not rule the government.
Jay said:
In a Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen is the formal head of state, but does not rule the government.
I think not said:Said1 said:
Easy slugger, wheres that catwoman outfit of yours (avatar)
I've tried everything, I usually don't ask for help when doing research unless I have exhausted all avenues.
Maybe Karlin can help? Yo? Karlin? *whistles*
I'm good. I thought it may have been unclear. I was serious though, try googling unwritten conventions of our constitution, you might find something there.
Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??
No she doesn't. The Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister or the legislature. The Queen does not rule the government of Canada through the GG.
Jay said:
No she doesn't. The Governor General acts on the advice of the Prime Minister or the legislature. The Queen does not rule the government of Canada through the GG.
Said1 said:I think not said:Said1 said:
Easy slugger, wheres that catwoman outfit of yours (avatar)
I've tried everything, I usually don't ask for help when doing research unless I have exhausted all avenues.
Maybe Karlin can help? Yo? Karlin? *whistles*
I'm good. I thought it may have been unclear. I was serious though, try googling unwritten conventions of our constitution, you might find something there.
I've checked Legislative Acts and unwritten conventions, I know your Constitution is not contained within a single document like ours is. Well don't just sit there!! Help me find it!! Sheesh.
Re: RE: Christians VS Democracy??
There are a few exceptions where they can refuse the advise or dislution of government (of which I don't know) but the last time the GG didn't act on the advice of the PM was in the 20's.
Jay said:
There are a few exceptions where they can refuse the advise or dislution of government (of which I don't know) but the last time the GG didn't act on the advice of the PM was in the 20's.