NationStates

Category: Education and Creativity / Area of Effect: Educational

THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

MINDFUL that a solid and diverse education provides the best opportunities for personal growth, and greater and more promising chances in the pursuit of happiness, with self-evident benefits for the whole of society and all the worlds,

ACKNOWLEDGING that in science there are no absolute truths; scientific theories, for example Gravity and Evolution, are subject to be proven wrong. Scientific theories are propositions to scientific questions, not absolute facts; this shall be stated whenever scientific theories are taught,

MINDFUL that teaching science has been a source of contentious debate, due to the perceived notion of a number of people of good faith that it somehow could undermine the tenets of their religions or philosophies, notwithstanding the fact that many religions do not feel threatened by science, and in fact embrace it,

ALSO MINDFUL that exposure to different worldviews encourages debate, preparing the forthcoming generations for ever-changing, progressing worlds, and development of tolerance towards different cultures,

ACKNOWLEDGING that international prohibition of Religious views in a school setting is contrarian to the principles stated above, therefore no nation shall ever be deprived of the freedom of exposing their young to Religious worldviews, should said nation see it fit,

ENCOURAGING schools to adopt religious diversity awareness courses, as long as it helps promote greater tolerance and understanding between different peoples,

RESOLVES:

1. Inclusion of peer-reviewed science in schools’ curricula shall from now on be mandatory in public schools and schools that receive governmental aid.

2. Funding for such inclusion shall come from the national education budget and/or – upon request and/or acceptance – from nations willing to provide funding, related reading, human resources, or other resources deemed necessary according to the parties involved.

3. Private schools shall have full freedom to choose to teach or not to teach whatever peer-reviewed scientific theories they want, regardless of the W.A. nation they happen to be situated.

4. Whenever Religious views acknowledged as opposing peer-reviewed scientific theories are part of a school curriculum, the time allocated for teaching said peer-reviewed scientific theories in said schools shall be at least the same time that is allocated for said Religious views.

5. For greater clarity, religious views shall not in any way, shape, or form be banned from schools’ curricula by means of international law; however, individual nations shall retain full freedom to do so by means of national law.

6. For even greater clarity, exposure to scientific theories views shall never, ever be a vehicle – be it by objective of subjective means, or any other means – to force acceptance of scientific theories. Freedom of conscience is paramount, and a person can be exposed to scientific theories and reject them altogether for itself, without any negative consequences whatsoever in what regards a person’s public life.

Bears Armed wrote:Umm, whatever might be the case for other sapient species, we Ursines know that we didn't 'evolve'. What happened was that some beings who'd gone into hibernation as "ordinary", pre-sapient Bears woke up to find that they'd acquired intelligence, speech, opposable thumbs on their forepaws, and bipedal posture. Now, whether this was a miracle worked by the Great Bear (as many believe) or an after-effect of spells worked centuries earlier by the Human wizards who formerly ruled the lands that are now 'Bears Armed' (as some sceptics suggest instead) we can''t prove, but that it happened isn't just a matter of religious belief it's a matter of history... and in fact there further groups have "awakened" like that later on, too, some of them even within living memory...

Absolvability wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Umm, whatever might be the case for other sapient species, we Ursines know that we didn't 'evolve'. What happened was that some beings who'd gone into hibernation as "ordinary", pre-sapient Bears woke up to find that they'd acquired intelligence, speech, opposable thumbs on their forepaws, and bipedal posture. Now, whether this was a miracle worked by the Great Bear (as many believe) or an after-effect of spells worked centuries earlier by the Human wizards who formerly ruled the lands that are now 'Bears Armed' (as some sceptics suggest instead) we can''t prove, but that it happened isn't just a matter of religious belief it's a matter of history... and in fact there further groups have "awakened" like that later on, too, some of them even within living memory...

"Acquired," seems semi-synonymous (in this context,) with "evolved." Though, I'll grant you that such matters don't normally happen so abruptly. Even still, it seems to me that you admit really not knowing what the heck happened. So how in the world do you manage to exclude evolution?

Bears Armed wrote:And how would evolution have favoured the sudden development of all those new features? 'Mutation' could have done it, I agree -- although getting so many favourable changes at once without 'lethal' ones as well seems extremely unlikely -- but given that it all happened within a single generation (for each group involved) there was no scope for 'natural selection', was there?

Sionis wrote:I thank the Zealots and the NatSov's for their input.
What I'd really like to know is if this in any way, shape or form is illegal.

Absolvability wrote: I guess when you 'walk with god' you don't have to watch out for dog poop.

Philimbesi wrote:I walk with no one, except myself ambassador, so if you can see fit not to lump those who believe that a nation has the right to teach that which they see fit without zealots of any particular myth that would be wonderful.

I thank the Zealots and the NatSov's for their input.
What I'd really like to know is if this in any way, shape or form is illegal.

To be more exact, something on the lines of an ideological ban, the sad fate of the "Secular Education" act.

I've done everything so that Zealot Nations retain full freedom to continue to teach whatever they want to the children, however absurd it might be. The draft just gives the children a chance to ponder the other side of things. This will not induce mass apostasy. Some children will stay entrenched as always in the state-sponsored dogmas, whenever they exist.

Yours,

Unibot wrote:"Um... I believe what my boss is suggesting is that we should "like" focus on more ideologies that just "like" evolution. Because theres a good, "like" couple thousand religions and scientific explanations of how humanity came about in the World Assembly, and it'd be "like" a little counterintutive to focus on promoting one philosophy, when we "like" could pass a bill encouring classes on a broader scope of religion and beliefs. But not "like" talk about specifics, "like" "YOU MUST LEARN ABOUT EVOLUTION" or "YOU MUST LEARN ABOUT DA DOOFOAGO", we'd just encourge more diversity in religious education without specifics, eh?"

Absolvability wrote: I don't recall what exact resolution it was, but there is such a thing as Freedom of Expression. There is also a limitation to this. Basically, the limitation would be slander. Slander most commonly means defamation of a person on grounds that can be proven untrue. I suggest the same applies to ideas. And that, in this particular instance (where the 'theory' of evolution is up for debate,) the only course of action is to teach evolution to an equal degree as anything else. The theory may not have been proven to the full satisfaction of some, but it CERTAINLY has more support than anything else I've laid eyes upon. ASSUMING we can ATLEAST agree that religious handbooks are NOT reference books!

Nations should not be seen as having rights beyond what is required to provide for its citizens, Ambassador. They have obligations. They have responsibilities. And our UTMOST responsibility must be to the truth!!

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

And again, the author was VERY clear about not restricting anything else was being taught as well.

Sionis Prioratus wrote:I thank the Zealots and the NatSov's for their input.
What I'd really like to know is if this in any way, shape or form is illegal.

To be more exact, something on the lines of an ideological ban, the sad fate of the "Secular Education" act.

I've done everything so that Zealot Nations retain full freedom to continue to teach whatever they want to the children, however absurd it might be. The draft just gives the children a chance to ponder the other side of things. This will not induce mass apostasy. Some children will stay entrenched as always in the state-sponsored dogmas, whenever they exist.

Yours,

Absolvability wrote:Nations should not be seen as having rights beyond what is required to provide for its citizens, Ambassador. They have obligations. They have responsibilities. And our UTMOST responsibility must be to the truth!!

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

What is a government, other than the manifestation of the political will of its people?

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Not at all an veiled attack.

Sionis Prioratus wrote:

Sionis Prioratus wrote:Not at all an veiled attack.

What I meant with the assertion, is that the draft is indeed an attack, but not a veiled one, but a straightforward, direct one. My apologies if instead of clarifying, I made my intentions even more obscure. I hope this clarifies my sentiments.

And I'm very thankful respectful disagreement can still be found within these halls. I applaud you, notwithstanding your opposition.

Yours,

Philimbesi wrote:Meaning if the school is now only teaching evolution, would it not be in the best interest of debate and learning to teach the other theories?

Sionis Prioratus wrote:

Philimbesi wrote:Meaning if the school is now only teaching evolution, would it not be in the best interest of debate and learning to teach the other theories?

It may, but I won't be the one spearheading the teaching of mythology as fact in schools. I'll leave it up to another ambassador to do that, if one wishes.

I foresee section 2) could represent a putative future problem for those so wishing, should this pass. Ambassadors, opposing or not, I welcome input as for if it should be stricken for the text. After careful re-reading, its absence wouldn't compel secular schools to offer religious education.

Yours,