Melanie_

So the status quo works for you – no need for reform. Parents and family are the greatest influence in children’s lives, despite the fact that children spend so much time in school. The residential school experience actually demonstrates this very well – even when children were separated from their families, punished for trying to contact them, and stripped of what they held in common with their families (language, customs, spirituality, etc.), there was almost universally a determination to reunite. The destruction of the aboriginal family unit is what has led to the dysfunction we still see in some communities today. I don’t think you can reliably say that this is the fault of the school system. There are too many other cultural variables that also are at play. Certainly be aware of the system, but do away with it completely? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. My livelihood has nothing to do with the public education system. I don’t know what research facilities and fundamental industrialized concepts you are familiar with, but you might need to expand your horizons.

+1. This is the perfect answer to this entire thread (and several other threads, too.)

I certainly see issues with the education system... one issue is highlighted earlier in your post, when you talk about child development. Typically, you do not need to take any child development courses to get a Bachelor of Education degree, or any courses about family dynamics or family systems. This is a glaring gap in the preservice training of teachers. (I will at this point confess my own bias, as a post secondary instructor in child development.) But... the article doesn't really make a good case for doing away with the system as it currently stands, based on the historical evidence. Perhaps a stronger case could be made using current examples, in today's context. Instead, by citing a system that no longer exists, the author has weakened his position.

The article indicates the inadequacies of one of the worst examples of public education we can refer to. If he wants to reform the education system he needs to make a case that the current system is just as bad. I'm not saying that the public school system is perfect, but his argument strays too far to logically support his end point.

We can probably all agree that the residential school system is a shameful part of Canada’s history. I liked how the article called attention to the differences in the way children were raised, and the priority placed on self-reliance that was part of many aboriginal cultures. But the author says in the end that there should therefore be no government involvement of any sort in education – I wonder what his alternative is? Should we home school all our children? Or have independent private schools creating their own unregulated curriculums? It seems like the article is only half written, as it doesn’t explain what the next steps should be.

We were on topic. We were discussing a story from the Bible, and whether or not it provides a reasonable argument to discriminate against homosexuals. Betsy didn’t like the way the conversation was progressing, so she tried to spin it to be about feminism, and then started a new thread. Classic deflection tactics.

Betsy, have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Or the Roman Catholic Church? Who do you think spread Christianity throughout Europe? The Romans continued to exist long after the death of Paul.

No matter how much money First Nations make as a result of partnerships with industry (and I am all for them doing so), it will not negate the obligations of the government of Canada. The payments that go to First Nations are not government handouts, they are fulfillments of the requirements agreed to by treaty.

No one is brow beating Betsy. She starts thread after thread on the topic of Christianity, and people respond. This is a discussion forum, the point is to exchange views and ideas, and she is fully aware that many regular posters here do not believe in her religion. I do agree that everyone has a right to be in government, but the government has to represent all citizens, not just the majority. Some great thinker somewhere once said, "Democracy has to be something more than two wolves and a sheep sitting down to decide what's for dinner". It can't simply be that the majority wins - no one can be oppressed on the basis of the majority deciding to do so. That is my biggest concern with having religion influence politics... the religious right would take away individual rights (same sex marriage and the right to terminate a pregnancy being the most divisive) based on superstition.

The problem is in who is responsible for administering the money. The current system is a holdover from the days of colonialism, with the prevailing attitude still being that the First Nations are not capable of managing their own affairs. We need to move towards a modern system, where Canada gives the money they owe to the First Nations and then leaves it up to them to administer how that money is spent. Yes, there may be abuses to the system, as there are in all levels of government, but we can't treat them like feeble minded children who need to be supervised in the candy store.

One of the nicest reataurants I've experienced in a long time is Valentino's in Mahone Bay, Nova Scotia. Probably not going to make it on any critic's list, as it is so off the beaten path, but it is just as good as any restaurant I've eaten at in any big city.

I played Bejeweled on Facebook once...

It isn't "our" money. It is the money owed to the First Nations by the government of Canada. Think of it as paying the rent. The government signed treaties saying they would provide services, in return for the land. As long as Canada occupies the land, Canada provides the services. I don't think the First Nations owe any accounting of the money to the government of Canada, but they do owe it to the people of their band.

Many Biblical places can be found on a map today... but that doesn't justify discrimination against homosexuals.

Oh goodie, another thread. Have fun over there. Betsy, you’ve twisted what I’ve said to suit your purposes, but I expect that of you. My skepticism regarding the story of Lot was not based on a disregard for a man being sexually assaulted, but rather on my (apparently mistaken) belief that it was physically impossible for a man to perform sexually when he was blind drunk and passed out. American Woman has shown otherwise, and I’ve conceded the point. And yes, I still think it is a rare thing for a woman to use an unconscious man to become pregnant, but if it happens it is wrong.

Interesting how you've made huge assumptions about my position on so many things! You're jumping to conclusions here, based on what you think I would say, rather than on anything I actually said.

Ok, it seems it is possible. Probably incredibly rare, as this seems to be the only case Google can find, but still possible.

Betsy, the story of Sodom is used consistently by Christians to say that consensual homosexuality is wrong. You even have gone so far as to say that raping young girls is the lesser evil. I will never agree with you on that, but I also recognize that you are far too entrenched in your beliefs to see why anyone else might find that repugnant. As for Lot and his daughters, I know how the story goes. I just don’t buy that an old man is capable of getting so drunk that he doesn’t know that he is having sex with his own daughters, particularly when they are living in a cave, and haven’t seen another soul in a long time. I also don’t buy that 2 young girls are so worried about procreation that they decide to use their father as a stud. Far more likely that Lot was an incestuous old boot, living in a patriarchal society, who already had so little regard for his daughters’ bodies that offering them to strangers or taking advantage of them himself was all the same. Just to be clear, I don’t believe any of this is real. But I do object to people taking ridiculous stories like this, and using them to justify discrimination against homosexuality today.

Deleted. Discussing anything with Betsy is like beating your head on a wall.

A wonderful god you choose to worship.

Yes, Betsy, of course. The daughters got him too drunk to know that he was having sex with his own children. Lot set the standard defense for incestuous fathers everywhere - "no, really, she wanted it!"

So, Lot offers his virgin daughters to a mob to be raped. And then later, gets them both pregnant. You really want to worship a god that sees Lot as the shining example of sexual morality?

Another thought... In agreeing to discuss whether or not abortion should be allowed in the case of rape, we seem to be conceding that it shouldn't be allowed for other reasons. A woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a preganancy doesn't hinge on how that pregnancy came about - somehow the Republicans moved the goalposts when no one was watching.

But what kind of compromise is that? If I believed that life began at conception, how could I justify taking a life based on how that life began? It is an irreconcilable contradiction. You can't say these conditions are ok, but these ones are not, especially when talking about what someone believes is an innocent life. (edited for spelling - damn you, Shiraz!)

At my age, I have liked a lot of things! I wish I could remember them all!