PASSED: Access to Science in Schools

[Absolvability]

So national sovereignty advocates are religious zealots in your eyes?

Only for all present intents and purposes.

So the nations that only subscribe to and teach the theory of evolution are correct? Or should they be forced in the name of education and TRUTH, to give equal time to creationism, or mutation, or any of the other theories of how this all started?

For the umpteenth time, nobody is limiting options as to other forms of teaching. I do not think it would be proper to impose upon other nations the religious beliefs of another-- as, despite popular opinion, I draw the line somewhere. I do not however consider science a religion. And I believe one should give fairly free range to science. Especially in respect to the upcoming. Whatever else you would like to teach you certainly may.

By stripping a nation or government of its fundamental rights, you're stripping those rights from the people that nation is composed of. What is a government, other than the manifestation of the political will of its people?

So basically what you're saying is that, since a government is the manifestation of the political will of its people, to strip a nation of its sovereignty is to strip the people of their voice. BUT-- what voice should the people be entitled to? Should it be a well rounded, culturally aware, and well educated one? I think so. Any nation that will not permit this is in abuse of its sovereignty. And that is PRECISELY the sort of thing that deserves WA attention. Limiting the scope of a person's ability to think is akin to slavery.

This is, without a doubt, one of the most self-righteous, naive and utterly dangerous things I have ever heard from a representative to this Assembly.

Hahahaha. I can see why you think this is dangerous, Ambassador.

[Sionis Prioratus]

What is wrong with saying to you students, the theory of evolution states this, however there are religions who subscribe to the following?

We - in Sionis Prioratus - as a matter of fact do provide contextualized Religious and Philosophical Diversity Awareness (RPDA) classes. We do provide the debate in our nation. We are a secular nation, not an atheistic one (although atheists are fully regarded as citizens any many occupy high-ranking positions in government).

Point is, I don't know how the W.A. could set worldwide standards in religious diversity awareness, given the innumerable diversity of religions, and interpretations of tenets within each one. Evolution is a single subject, with few doubts about its validity within the scientific community over the course of centuries of debates, and a consensus about what Evolution is all about, and how it should be exposed to students in a scientific, proper fashion.

Yours,

[Philimbesi]

Only for all present intents and purposes.

How open minded of the ambassador.

For the umpteenth time, nobody is limiting options as to other forms of teaching. I do not think it would be proper to impose upon other nations the religious beliefs of another-- as, despite popular opinion, I draw the line somewhere. I do not however consider science a religion. And I believe one should give fairly free range to science. Especially in respect to the upcoming. Whatever else you would like to teach you certainly may.

No, it's forcing a form to be taught, in addition to, as if the other are wrong, yet it doesn't come out and say that cause that of course because then it would be illegal. It's ok though as we've found the appropriate loopholes in the resolution to allow us to still do what we'd like after the unlikely passage.

[Philimbesi]

What is wrong with saying to you students, the theory of evolution states this, however there are religions who subscribe to the following?

We - in Sionis Prioratus - as a matter of fact do provide contextualized Religious and Philosophical Diversity Awareness (RPDA) classes. We do provide the debate in our nation. We are a secular nation, not an atheistic one (although atheists are fully regarded as citizens any many occupy high-ranking positions in government).

Point is, I don't know how the W.A. could set worldwide standards in religious diversity awareness, given the innumerable diversity of religions, and interpretations of tenets within each one. Evolution is a single subject, with few doubts about its validity within the scientific community over the course of centuries of debates, and a consensus about what Evolution is all about, and how it should be exposed to students in a scientific, proper fashion.

Yours,

I'm glad to see that as I had wrongfully placed your nation as anti-religion. I humbly appologize for stereotyping your nation.

Religous diversity aside, again though I wonder why this body should force the sentient animals and non-human nations to our version of how we were created, be that religious, scientific or otherwise.

[Intangelon]

Waking from a slumber too deep and long to fully comprehend, Intangible Minister for the WA, Benjamin "Benji" Royce wipes the river of drool off his chin and neck and sits upright.

"Not a penny or a vote for such nonsense. The WA does not have any obligation to assert control over the several nations' school curricula. The marketplace of ideas shall arbitrate whether schools foolish enough to exclude evolution from their science curricula will remain viable."

[Absolvability]

No, it's forcing a form to be taught, in addition to, as if the other are wrong, yet it doesn't come out and say that cause that of course because then it would be illegal. It's ok though as we've found the appropriate loopholes in the resolution to allow us to still do what we'd like after the unlikely passage.

The fact that you think this is in any way subversive should offend the author. It is a genuine attempt at freeing the minds of 'the people.' It isn't forcing anything! It is demanding that equal consideration be given to theories of considerable scientific support. Meanwhile, since whatever religious beliefs are still being taught, the governments may continue to enforce/support whatever they want outside of schools. Which should be pretty easy to do, with respect to Theocracies (supposing they still have churches in the more traditional sense.) I really do not see how this is harmful.

[Philimbesi]

No, it's forcing a form to be taught, in addition to, as if the other are wrong, yet it doesn't come out and say that cause that of course because then it would be illegal. It's ok though as we've found the appropriate loopholes in the resolution to allow us to still do what we'd like after the unlikely passage.

The fact that you think this is in any way subversive should offend the author. It is a genuine attempt at freeing the minds of 'the people.' It isn't forcing anything! It is demanding that equal consideration be given to theories of considerable scientific support. Meanwhile, since whatever religious beliefs are still being taught, the governments may continue to enforce/support whatever they want outside of schools. Which should be pretty easy to do, with respect to Theocracies (supposing they still have churches in the more traditional sense.) I really do not see how this is harmful.

The author, who categorizes it as an attack, should be offended that I'm calling it an attack? Ah... no.

No it's saying that equal consideration be given to a single theory, so no matter what your curricula states, you MUST teach this one theory, or you are in contempt of international law.

If the author had seen fit to ensure that all theories be given proper time he wouldn't have put the name of the a single one in the title of the act.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I humbly appologize for stereotyping your nation.

Accepted, no hard feelings.

Religous diversity aside, again though I wonder why this body should force the sentient animals and non-human nations to our version of how we were created, be that religious, scientific or otherwise.

1) About sentient animals: Evolution applies to all life, fungi, plants, and animals (humans, sentients, non-sentients), etc.
Machine/robotic nations: They must have been created by other sentients, and they themselves evolve and take their destinies in their hands after that. Evolution should be of interest to them.
Magical/undead/supernatural nations: For some reason I don't think they have mandatory school attendance. Some kind of telepathic magical infusion of knowledge, actually.

2) About force: it forces exposure, it does not force acceptance. A person could finish a course in Evolution and decide it is utter non-sense. But at least he had the tools to make an informed choice between cutting-edge science and something else. In my view, this draft promotes freedom and respect for the intelligence of W.A. citizens.

[Philimbesi]

1) About sentient animals: Evolution applies to all life, fungi, plants, and animals (humans, sentients, non-sentients), etc.
Machine/robotic nations: They must have been created by other sentients, and they themselves evolve and take their destinies in their hands after that. Evolution should be of interest to them.
Magical/undead/supernatural nations: For some reason I don't think they have mandatory school attendance. Some kind of telepathic magical infusion of knowledge, actually.

2) About force: it forces exposure, it does not force acceptance. A person could finish a course in Evolution and decide it is utter non-sense. But at least he had the tools to make an informed choice between cutting-edge science and something else. In my view, this draft promotes freedom and respect for the intelligence of W.A. citizens.

Two very good points, and honestly not that far off from the USoP's vew of things, in terms of debate and education as we are a church and state seperated society. We just don't view religion and religous education as the albatross you view it as.

I will admit that I'm guilty, though I venture not unwarranted, of allowing our past debates against religion cloud my reading of the text. Now my question is this what is to stop someone from taking that Evolution class outside the state sponsored school? Is the proposal purposely vague as to the point where the evolution education should begin?

[Sionis Prioratus]

Now my question is this what is to stop someone from taking that Evolution class outside the state sponsored school?

Could you elaborate further? I am missing something here.

Is the proposal purposely vague as to the point where the evolution education should begin?

The perceived vagueness is due to the daunting diversity of mandatory school systems. I don't think a starting age of exposure would work. I'll accept suggestions, though.

Yours,

[Absolvability]

Well. Not necessarily along those lines... but along the lines of the whole thing, I think, and a suggestion I have...

Perhaps in nations that distinguish between church and state all of the above could be mandatory in publicly funded schools.

Meanwhile, in nations that do not make the distinction, all of the above could be mandatory in privately funded schools.

I do not think age should have much to do with it, other than the fact that certain subjects aren't necessaily taught in schools before a certain age/grade.

[Philimbesi]

I'm assuming that this measure is only viable in state funded schools, that private schools are not subject to it?

The perceived vagueness is due to the daunting diversity of mandatory school systems. I don't think a starting age of exposure would work. I'll accept suggestions, though.

Agreed. Too early and you run the risk of confusing the child, too late and the child has been brainwashed, so that's problematic for the education and debate aspect of the ambassadors argument.

[Sionis Prioratus]

I'm assuming that this measure is only viable in state funded schools, that private schools are not subject to it?

An important point you raise, Ambassador. It could create a potential loophole.
Radical Zealot nations could defund their public schools, and supply unlimited vouchers to Radical Zealot private schools.

Maybe text should be added in the lines that private schools receiving governmental aid also shall have mandatory Evolution classes on the same terms as public ones.

What do you think, Ambassador?

Yours,

[Philimbesi]

I'm assuming that this measure is only viable in state funded schools, that private schools are not subject to it?

An important point you raise, Ambassador. It could create a potential loophole.
Radical Zealot nations could defund their public schools, and supply unlimited vouchers to Radical Zealot private schools.

Maybe text should be added in the lines that private schools receiving governmental aid also shall have mandatory Evolution classes on the same terms as public ones.

What do you think, Ambassador?

Yours,

Once a private school receives public funding it is in fact a public school, at least partially so. I assumed they were subject to this law. My questions in the case of the USoP where our private schools are funded by tuition and donation, not the government. Therefore are able to develop their own curricula.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Once a private school receives public funding it is in fact a public school, at least partially so. I assumed they were subject to this law. My questions in the case of the USoP where our private schools are funded by tuition and donation, not the government. Therefore are able to develop their own curricula.

You're right, but nevertheless maybe I should clarify that in the text.

About 100% privately-funded schools, what's your take on the subject? The State has no right to brainwash a child (indeed it does not) but parents/guardians who choose to put their children in "Evolution-free" schools do? Something tells me it is not right. And insofar a private education fulfills prerequisites for entering higher education, why should these young be "shielded" from the parent-scarying Evolution?

[Philimbesi]

Once a private school receives public funding it is in fact a public school, at least partially so. I assumed they were subject to this law. My questions in the case of the USoP where our private schools are funded by tuition and donation, not the government. Therefore are able to develop their own curricula.

You're right, but nevertheless maybe I should clarify that in the text.

About 100% privately-funded schools, what's your take on the subject? The State has no right to brainwash a child (indeed it does not) but parents/guardians who choose to put their children in "Evolution-free" schools do? Something tells me it is not right. And insofar a private education fulfills prerequisites for entering higher education, why should these young be "shielded" from the parent-scarying Evolution?

My take on the subject is my take on private schools in general, the market dictates what they teach. If they start teaching something the people who pay for them don't like... the funding dries up and the school folds. It's a business agreement.

Cause ultimately agree with it or not it's the government's or the WA's responsibility to impart knowledge and guidance on a child.. it is the parents.

[Unibot]

Kuno Krugner, the photocopy boy forcefully sedated the "official" unibotian ambassador, who in his lunacy was attempting to create fire with two pieces of stone he found out in the parking lot, and some clothes that some nice diplomat had loaned him. Kuno threw a blanket over the naked ambassador, now in a dreamless stupor on the ground.

Hearing the debate,

Point is, I don't know how the W.A. could set worldwide standards in religious diversity awareness, given the innumerable diversity of religions, and interpretations of tenets within each one. Evolution is a single subject, with few doubts about its validity within the scientific community over the course of centuries of debates, and a consensus about what Evolution is all about, and how it should be exposed to students in a scientific, proper fashion.

The teenager cleared his thought, nervously eying some of the more younger, blond female pages that were walked by as he intervened.

"But ambassador, "like" it be seems so, "like" contridicting to say, "like", 'yah, were for diversity of religion among schooling' but then pass a bill that "like" focuses on integrating one scientific model of human existence into "like" our schools and everything. For example, in my school before it because a hunting ground for cavemen warriors, we taught kids in science class "like", the lightning bolts in the sky, um... nitrified the ground and thats where um life and stuff came from. So it just seems silly to me, to "like" focus on one scientific belief in particular... how about um... a proposal on the integration of science into classrooms? Particularly for "like" discussions on creation..."

[Glen-Rhodes]

I support the goal of reducing religion's grasp on public policy, including education policy. That being said, there's no doubt in my mind that this is unlikely to become law, based on personal experiences.

Education reform is a contentious issue. Even after arguing for months -- which is the longest any WA drafting session has lasted, by my count -- my Primary Education Act failed to reach quorum three times. There are too many Bob Flibbles out there for serious education mandates to come to fruition.

[Flibbleites]

I correctly 'lump' anybody who disagrees into the same group because reasons are not important.

By that logic we should be able to repeal a resolution for whatever reason we want no matter how erroneous because "reasons are not important."

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[The Altan Steppes]

So basically what you're saying is that, since a government is the manifestation of the political will of its people, to strip a nation of its sovereignty is to strip the people of their voice. BUT-- what voice should the people be entitled to? Should it be a well rounded, culturally aware, and well educated one? I think so. Any nation that will not permit this is in abuse of its sovereignty. And that is PRECISELY the sort of thing that deserves WA attention. Limiting the scope of a person's ability to think is akin to slavery.

I would buy your claim of deep concern for the right of people to think as they choose, had you not blithely dismissed the points of anyone who disagreed with you earlier in this debate as "not important". You're not interested in preventing mental slavery, you're only interested in imposing your own ideals and morals on societies that may well not want them, regardless of the social or political implications. You wish to impose what you consider a "well rounded, culturally aware and well educated" viewpoint, and automatically dismiss societies who do not teach evolution as not having such viewpoints. Don't pretend to be supporting this for any reason other than your own sense of intellectual superiority and cultural imperialism, because it won't wash. My people (mostly) believe in evolution, but we do not believe in cultural imperialism, which is why we would never support this. What harm does it do to let societies come to these realizations in their own time and place? What is the compelling need for international law to force it upon them?

Hahahaha. I can see why you think this is dangerous, Ambassador.

No, I really don't think you can, Ambassador. Judging from the body of contributions your nation has made here, however, I shouldn't be surprised.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

[Sionis Prioratus]

The marketplace of ideas shall arbitrate whether schools foolish enough to exclude evolution from their science curricula will remain viable."

But what if a nation shuts Evolution completely off the market, even for schools who want desperately to teach it (let's say, for market reasons)? Then the viability of the nation should be put in question?

Yours,

[Sionis Prioratus]

I prefer to keep a distance from duels. However, this substantive part jumped out at me:

My people (mostly) believe in evolution, but we do not believe in cultural imperialism, which is why we would never support this. What harm does it do to let societies come to these realizations in their own time and place? What is the compelling need for international law to force it upon them?

Why do people always have to frame acceptance of Evolution as belief? Evolution is not a religion, for Goddess's sake!

Evolution is science. Science is doubt. Luminaries throughout the generations have tried to debunk Evolution, shall continue to do so, and that is a good thing. Fact is, they have been trying for centuries.

Evolution is science. Antibiotics are science. Genomic treatments are science.
Evolution is the bedrock of all sensible biology, the one who is able to predict and warn against developing treatment-resistant strains of bacteria, the one who made genomic treatments possible.

Let me change a single word of your speech, and I hope the huge subjective difference can be spotted:

My people (mostly) believe in antibiotics, but we do not believe in cultural imperialism, which is why we would never support this. What harm does it do to let societies come to these realizations in their own time and place? What is the compelling need for international law to force it upon them?

[Sionis Prioratus]

New wording at the start of the topic. I call upon the ambassadors to review it, and give input.

[Studly Penguins]

I think that its a very good resolution and I support it but have a few concerns though.

Even though personally this is something better left out of the WA's Realm, I do like that it still allows for National self-determination in its education. I think that this may be better if it was more of a guarantee of the right of a school to teach Evolution, if the Schools board/directors, decide rather than saying it MUST be included in the cirriculum. So that if they teach it then the School and Teacher would be protected under the law from lawsuits, loss of job, etc.

C'mon you really think the Theologic gov'ts of this body assembled will sign on to be in a roundabout way FORCED to teach a subject or view that they don't believe in and feel undermines their society and their values. Im a little iffy about this one my friend.

Yours,

[Absolvability]

By that logic we should be able to repeal a resolution for whatever reason we want no matter how erroneous because "reasons are not important."

In my limited experience, Mr. Flibble, repeals are terribly easy to pass. So I'm not sure what point you're making.

I would buy your claim of deep concern for the right of people to think as they choose, had you not blithely dismissed the points of anyone who disagreed with you earlier in this debate as "not important". You're not interested in preventing mental slavery, you're only interested in imposing your own ideals and morals on societies that may well not want them, regardless of the social or political implications. You wish to impose what you consider a "well rounded, culturally aware and well educated" viewpoint, and automatically dismiss societies who do not teach evolution as not having such viewpoints. Don't pretend to be supporting this for any reason other than your own sense of intellectual superiority and cultural imperialism, because it won't wash. My people (mostly) believe in evolution, but we do not believe in cultural imperialism, which is why we would never support this. What harm does it do to let societies come to these realizations in their own time and place? What is the compelling need for international law to force it upon them?

How can you even comprehend the idea of free thought when you can't even do it for yourself, Ambassador? Sure, it looks very proud and decisive for you to deny me my points simply because you don't like the way I speak, but in fact your open distaste for me makes it obvious that I am still generating your opinion for you. I'm to the point, Ambassador, and I don't mince words. If this isn't sufficient enough proof that I have no alterior motive I'm not sure what could be. I believe in freedom of religion. I believe in it for PEOPLE not for governments. A freedom is only inherent to the point that it doesn't infringe upon anybody else's freedom. If a government will not allow equal education then I will not play the 'tolerance,' game with you. I will not pretend to be so enlightened that I tolerate intolerance. What I will endeavor to do is expose ignorance. You're making it quite easy for me. The fact that you pay more attention to the way I phrase things than what I actually said is proof that you vote out of spite rather than logic. You, in fact, have no concern for the people you represent. You want societies to come to these realizations in their own time and place (evolve?) and yet you won't provide the means.

What baffles me is that you say your people mostly believe in evolution. Yet you won't support this proposal because of some warped comprehension of national sovereignty. Damn near every resolution imposes something upon a nation. The only question is, "is it important enough?" You obviously think so-- or, rather, your people obviously think so. But you don't want to step on toes. How cute.

Does national sovereignty give free range to abuse?? Can we throw the CoCR and other related freedoms out the window? Or will be continue to PRETEND like we support it, doing only what is necessary and mandated, while perpetuating ignorance and cultural segregation through failure to provide education. You can not birth a child with a blindfold and claim that 'the baby doesn't want to see or it would remove the blindfold.' Catch-22, Ambassador, the baby doesn't KNOW it's wearing a blindfold. So take it off!