I think that the reason that the schools are sneaky about not letting parents know is that they dont agree with some parents beliefs and ways so they give the student the opportunity to tell the parents if the so choose or keep it a secret.

It's just a terrible way to do things as this type of thing is what grooms children for pedophiles as it teaches children to keep secrets about things that they know their parents would find wrong.

I know that sometimes at high school they have to watch a move that is rated M15 and they give the students a note that asks the parent to sign it if they dont want their child to watch the movie. If the student does not bring back the signed note they can watch it. Students who know that their parents wouldn't agree and don't want to be singled out or miss out, just destory the note and keep the note from their parents.

I understand why they might do it in some instances but I dont agree. It doesn't teach the student to be open and honest.

The parent is the primary guardian of their children under 18 years of age. That right has not been vetoed by any law or teacher. Parents send their children to be taught a curiculum they would approve. Since we have teachers with personal agendas unknown to parents is it any wonder we have a drift into private and church based education.

Kipp, let me join mjpb in offering my best wishes for your upcoming public ceremony. I hope your life ahead together is a great one.

R0bert

To work out what you meant by heat and euphemisms, mjpb, I had to head off to another discussion to find the person you’re referring to.

Yes, there are some extreme views here. This is, after all, Online Opinion, not Online Mild Opinion, or Online For-gods-sake-don’t-offend-the-christians Opinion.

You might think you’ve been a model of diplomacy, but in recent posts you’ve claimed that discrimination against homosexuals is OK, because, after all, we discriminate against children http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=156#3561 , you’ve made irrational claims about homosexual representation in parliament http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#59733 and you have claimed that those who disagree with you here are “bashing” christians. Granted, you later retracted the third of these, but the point is you don’t shrink from making offensive, confrontational and unsubstantiated points.

And you are far from the worst. How can you be surprised by people arguing that christians still haven’t pulled themselves out of the middle ages (as your nemesis West seems to be doing), when there are declared christians here claiming that “homosexuality is the death of the civilisation” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5067#59600 and equating lawful homosexuality with unlawful pedophilia http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6302&show=history ?

In answer to your question, yes, “varying degrees of heat” is definitely euphemistic with respect to many of West’s posts. I would urge you to look for the reasons why some people hold strong anti-christian views, rather than taking offense every time someone says something you find personally disagreeable.

In any event, it’s probably better that these opinions are held openly. There’s a lot of mutual understanding to be gained here, though not without some pain.

Finally, it’s nice that you’re offering Kipp your best wishes. With any luck, one day you’ll be able to share the joy in the realisation that the qualification is unnecessary.

Congratulations, Kipp. I wish you both a wonderful day, and a long and joyful future together.

W,

"To work out what you meant ... I had to head off to another discussion..."

I'm grateful you refreshed your memory and grateful you acknowledge the description is euphemistic applied to the comments.

“Yes, there are …”
Sure but I just don’t think hatred is good. I’m a Christian remember.

“You might think you’ve been a model of diplomacy…”
I see a big difference between not being diplomatic and expressing hatred.

“ you’ve claimed that discrimination against homosexuals is OK, because, after all, we discriminate against children”

I could do a whole post responding to that but you’ve provided a link for people so I’ll leave it.

“you’ve made irrational claims about homosexual representation...“

It seems unreasonable, unfair and unkind to use the term “irrational” to describe poor expression. Does that concern you at all?

“that those who disagree with you here are “bashing” christians. Granted, you later retracted the third of these,”

Noting that verbal Christian bashing has occurred isn't the same as saying those who disagree with me are bashing Christians. Was my ‘retraction’ on the 30th October? If so, I agreed with what you said as I had never thought otherwise.

“How can you be surprised by people arguing ...(as your nemesis West seems to be doing)”

I believe Westy goes beyond that and believe "nemesis" doesn’t fit perfectly. Do you think it appropriate for me to label it irrational?

“when there are declared christians here claiming …”

Am I understanding your reasoning correctly? Doing it the other way… if I read vilification of Christians by a declared homosexual would you consider it natural for me to hate homosexuals and make similar comments and you would defend that?

“I would urge you to look for the reasons why some people hold strong anti-christian views…”

There could be a million reasons. However I’m convinced that some people like to hate other groups. At different times in history the available target just changes.

“In any event, it’s probably better that these opinions are held openly...”

Probably. But there is another alternative – not hating at all.

Just suppose:

The state curriculum authorities in Bihar or Andhra Pradesh in India are developing a unit for ninth graders to teach about tolerance and respect for minorities. Secularism is written into the Indian constitution, and there has been increasing concern about communal tension and violence in this multicultural country. Victims have included Muslims, Christians and members of the scheduled castes.

They devise an essay question in which students (the vast majority of whom are Hindu) are asked to imagine themselves in a colony on the moon in which they are a tiny Hindu minority and the overwhelming number of their co-colonists are Christians.

The kids have to address ten questions, including how they felt about being in the minority and what strategies they would use to help them cope.

They were also asked to discuss where their ideas about Christianity came from.

A 13-year old from a devout Brahmin family is failed when she refuses to write on the topic because of her religious and moral beliefs. “It’s against my beliefs and I’m not going there,” she tells her teacher.

The opposition BJP education spokesman demands an immediate enquiry.

“Parents need to know the content of school curriculum. This is another example of political correctness gone mad,” he says.