tex Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 http://www.article8.org/ Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son's kindergarten class. Had demanded that school inform him and allow child to opt-out; superintendent refused. Father brought to court Thursday in handcuffs, scolded by judge. Had been refused opportunity to call a lawyer, so did not have legal counsel at hearing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/ Arrested father had point to make Disputed school's lesson on diversity By Maria Cramer and Ralph Ranalli, Globe Staff | April 29, 2005 CONCORD -- For David Parker, the first alarm went off in January, when his 5-year-old son came home from his kindergarten class at Lexington's Joseph Estabrook School with a bag of books promoting diversity. ADVERTISEMENT Inside were books about foreign cultures and traditions, along with food recipes. There was also a copy of ''Who's In a Family?" by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children. The book's contents concerned Parker and prompted him to begin a series of e-mail exchanges with school officials on the subject that culminated in a meeting Wednesday night with Estabrook's principal and district director of instruction. The meeting ended with Parker's arrest after he refused to leave the school, and the Lexington man spent the night in jail. NECN: School lesson lands dad in court Yesterday, Parker was arraigned in Concord District Court on one count of trespassing, and a not guilty plea was entered on his behalf. Bail was set at $1,000, and Parker was freed after being ordered to stay off Lexington school property. He is due back in court June 1. Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks. Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing. Parker, who refused to bail himself out of jail Wednesday night, said he spent the night in custody to prove a point. ''I chose to stay, which I'm not sure was a wise move," he said. ''But I wanted to see how far they would go for asking something simple." Parker said he wanted to control ''the timing and manner" in which his son learned about ''adult themes." ''This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society," Parker said after his arraignment. ''I'm just trying to be a good dad." Hurley did not return calls for comment yesterday. But in an April 27 letter to Parker, Hurley warned him to stay away from school property. ''If you are found on Lexington public schools' properties you will be subject to arrest by the Lexington police," Hurley wrote. ''Access to school properties can only be accomplished with prior written authorization from the superintendent of schools or his designee." The case drew interest across the state yesterday. NECN: School lesson lands dad in court Governor Mitt Romney, an opponent of same-sex marriage, said: ''Schools under our parental-notification law are required to inform parents . . . of matters relating to human sexuality that may be taught in the classroom and to allow that child to be out of the classroom for that period of the education." Romney said he supports parents' right to know, though he declined to speak specifically about the Parker case. Thomas B. Griffiths, Lexington School Committee chairman, said parents of older students are notified in advance when sex education will be taught. ''We don't view telling a child that there is a family out there with two mommies as teaching about homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any kind of sexuality," he said. ''We are teaching about the realities of where different children come from." The bag of books promoting diversity is sent home with one student at a time, said Rachel F. Cortez, copresident of the Estabrook parent-teacher association and a member of the school's Anti-Bias Committee. Parents received notice about the book bag at the beginning of the year and the date that it was scheduled to be sent home with their child. The bag's contents also were put on display at a back-to-school night earlier in the school year, she said, and parents are not required to have their child bring it home. ''The kids don't have to take them [the materials] home," she said. ''Parents can either opt out entirely or use whatever materials they want." Tonia Parker said yesterday she attended back-to-school night, but was not told about the bag or its contents. David Parker said the topic of Wednesday's meeting was not about the book bag, but about concerns that his son could be exposed to more books and lessons about ''gay-headed" households. ''We're not giving unfettered access to the psyche of our son when he enters the school," said Tonia Parker. It's kindergarten... 1. They shouldnt be sending that home, but ... she/he doesnt know..... just don't read that one... If its being taught thats different. Sending a note home that a bag of many books/materials about different cultures 4 months ago is kinda lame as exuses go... No more than a weeks notice... Every tuesday we get a big envelope we have to sign and send back with 90% requests for money/drives/weekly events and 10% school work related.. (Every Tuesday).. Is this not common, and if it is what up with 4 month notification... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Massachusetts schooling 6 yr olds on homos/lesbos. The headline (yours? it doesn't seem to be a quote from the page) is incorrect. A more accurate one would be "Book given to preschoolers says that some people are different. Book includes a couple which could be interpreted to be homosexual". Originally posted by tex http://www.article8.org/ Funny, the article you've chosen to quote and link to as authoritative on the subject, seems to be a web site that was created for the purpose of impeaching judges. In particular, the three judges who had the audacity to rule that the words "equal protection under the law" actually means "equal protection under the law". I notice that the web page uses as it's banner the atricle of the MA Constitution that allows removal of public officers. But they don't quote the sections that require all citizens to be treated equally. Lexington, Mass., father of 6-year-old arrested, spends night in jail over objections to homosexual curriculum in son's kindergarten class. The Boston Globe article refers to the child as five years old, but that was in January. Perhaps there's been a birthday. In any case, it appears a more accurate statement would be "father arrested for refusing to leave school property when asked to do so by police officers, choses to spend night in jail, to create publicity stunt over objections to . . . " Had demanded that school inform him and allow child to opt-out; superintendent refused. Actually, according the documents posted on the site you quoted, he had demanded school inform him (school pointed out that they had), and also demanded "that we will not only be notified when these discussions are planned but in addition agrees to an automatic opt out for our child when such discussions arise spontaneously to be enforced by those in authoritative control. Accordingly key teachers and staff must be notified (those that have authoritative control over our son at Estabrook) so that these accommodations may be implemented." Your site then implies that when Dad faxed the demand to the Principal, Principal then decided to have Dad arrested. (but funny, Dad was arrested in the school. Could it be that after the fax, Dad went to the school and then refused to leave? Or did Dad fax the letter to the school while he was in the school?) Father brought to court Thursday in handcuffs, scolded by judge. Had been refused opportunity to call a lawyer, so did not have legal counsel at hearing!! [/b] Father brought to court using standard proceedures for people who haven't made bail. "Had been refused opportunity to call a lawyer" does not appear to be substantiated anywhere else, even on the site you quoted. I suspect it's untrue. In short, the article you've chosen to quote, from a single-issue special interest blog, appears to consist of four sentances. Three of them (and the headline which you appear to have written yourself) are, shall we say, factually challenged. (The fourth is really difficult to swallow, but has not yet been absolutely refuted.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Nice to see the People's Republic of Massachussettes is finally finding a pliable audience for their propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by redman Nice to see the People's Republic of Massachussettes is finally finding a pliable audience for their propaganda. Oh yes, call Bostonians commies:rolleyes: Way to continue with the stereotypes and generalizations :hammer: Having seen this "propaganda" material, people would think they sent home books worshiping satan. Here is what they sent home, a childrens book in which one of the charactors had two moms. . . Oh the HORROR!!!!!! :doh: Fact: Civil unions between two gay people is LEGAL in Mass. Fact: There is a gay and lesbian population in Lexington Fact: There are gay and lesbian people who can legally adopt children, and they go to the said school Fact: The reason this is in the news is because a father had to be removed from the school grounds by police after calleing the teachers a bunch of racial slurs and refusing to leave. Fact: The father can remove his child from the school and place him in a catholic school which teaches creation, abstenance and that all sex is bad Fact: The father is a biggot who moved to Massachusetts from the south. Now, if you want to debate the merits of the case, go ahead, but there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with giving a childrens book to classmates when they are faced with the reality that some of their classmates have gay parents. It is a reality in Massachusetts. We live in a tolerant state and a tolerant society, there is no room for bigotry in this state, and if you don't want your children to be exposed to reality, then home school or private school. Lexington is an affluent community where the average house is around $600K, so every parent CAN afford private schooling. IMHO, this is a moron who wants to have the ability to act like a bigot, if he wants that, then he moves to the wrong state. If he wants to act like all gays are an abomination, then he should have stayed in Alabama. One more thing, this was not being "taught" in the classroom, it was in a childrens book explaining diversity for the PARENTS to discuss with their children. It was sent home in a care package with the children so the parents could pen up discussions with their children as to why some of their classmates hafe same sex parents. This father went overboard, refused to leave the school for hours, and was only removed after the police showed up at the school and arrested him for a failure to leave. He was 100% wrong, and if he wants to live life as a bigot, there are a lot of southern communities who will take him in with open arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool Hand Loki Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Dude. Might want to change the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 chomerics Fact: The father is a biggot who moved to Massachusetts from the south. Opps, are you saying people from the south are biggots? Seems like you alluding to it... chomerics If he wants to act like all gays are an abomination, then he should have stayed in Alabama. chomerics He was 100% wrong, and if he wants to live life as a bigot, there are a lot of southern communities who will take him in with open arms. nevermind your not alluding your "stating"... chomerics Fact: The reason this is in the news is because a father had to be removed from the school grounds by police after calleing the teachers a bunch of racial slurs and refusing to leave. I missed that one?.. who reported that? remember you can run for "political office" but not the Presidency. You need the south to win that... There was another guy from there that underestimated them also...... EDIT: You know what I can't believe YOUR calling someone a bigot in your post... Hey Pot meet Kettle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Oh, yeah? Well I'm a mirror and you're glue! Bounce off me and stick to you! Granted, this is a thread about kindergarden, but that doesn't mean we all (on "both" sides, aparantly) have to act like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 It sounds to me like they went out of their way to cover there butts by posting a bulletin of the book bags contents at an open school event. One that many parents may not be able to attend. Also sounds like they went out of their way not to make it too obvious. Clearly there is an agenda at work there. They know this is a controversial topic, and should have been proactive in sending notes home to the parents about the contents of the book bag. And the only people who think that schools should be teaching diversity, are those whose beliefs are in line with what the schools are pushing. Stop infringing on the rights of those who don't agree. It is our right to teach our children such things in the manner we see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by tex http://www.article8.org/ Father brought to court Thursday in handcuffs, scolded by judge. Had been refused opportunity to call a lawyer, so did not have legal counsel at hearing!! No, this is an absolute lie trying to make you think the way you do. You have just read a PROPAGANDA piece, and you bought it hook line and sinker. THe father refused to call a lawyer because he wanted to make a publicity stunt out of it. The judge admonished him for his outrageous behavior, and rightly so. I'm glad to see that hatred and bigotry is still rampant down in Texas, at least we know where you stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 It never ceases to amaze me that -- those that are supposedly SO "tolerant", can in no way shape or form make allowance for any form of intolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear Opps, are you saying people from the south are biggots? Seems like you alluding to it... nevermind your not alluding your "stating"... I never said ALL southern communities, but if you are trying to tell me it there are NO soouthern communities who are not tolerant to gays, then you are lying to yourslef. I missed that one?.. who reported that? It was on the news last night. The father called the teacher(s) who sent out the pamphlets racial slurs. He said "I don't want my son receiving and more gay crap from you faggots" or something like that. It was a second hand report, as they were interviewing the principal I believe. remember you can run for "political office" but not the Presidency. You need the south to win that... There was another guy from there that underestimated them also...... EDIT: You know what I can't believe YOUR calling someone a bigot in your post... Hey Pot meet Kettle! Hmmm, I'm a bigot, O.K. well, at least I know what your definition of a bigot is. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 I'm glad to see that hatred and bigotry is still rampant down in Texas, at least we know where you stand. Chom -- you've got a great head on your shoulders; from your posts we can all readily tell that. But statements like this are over the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa And the only people who think that schools should be teaching diversity, are those whose beliefs are in line with what the schools are pushing. Stop infringing on the rights of those who don't agree. It is our right to teach our children such things in the manner we see fit. You seem not to realize that this is Mass, where tolerance IS the standard, and bigotry is outside the norm. They sent the pamphlets home so the parents COULD teach the children, they were not teaching the children themselves in a way they see fit. It is also the parents responsibility to remove the child from the school if he does not agree with the philiosophy, but seeing as he is a southerner who just moved to Mass, maybe he needs to understand the culture before trying to take it down. Furthermor, the entire community is behind the school in this one, so tell me who is infringing on whos rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYSkins1 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear Opps, are you saying people from the south are biggots? Seems like you alluding to it... No, I don't think that's what he was saying. He merely stated that the father moved from the south, which was true, and that he is a bigot, which is open to discussion, but, based on the stated information, is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by jpillian Chom -- you've got a great head on your shoulders; from your posts we can all readily tell that. But statements like this are over the line. Maybe so, but I look at it as "hitting back". When I see the title of a thread as Mass schooling 6yr olds on homos and lesbos, I have absolutely no shame in calling somebody a bigot. When other people have no problem labling Massachusetts residents as communists, I have no problem bringing into the discussion geographical stereotypes. I call it hitting back and calling them at their game. Do I think all Texans are bigots and all southerners are anti-gay? No, absolutely not, but if people are going to bring blatent sensationalism into the threads, and use the said sensationalism to stereotype my area, they had better expect it to come flying right back at them. If I offended anyone from Texas, or the south, it was not my point, but casting the people who used the stereotypes initially into the discussion and throwing them back in one themselves is fair game in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa And the only people who think that schools should be teaching diversity, are those whose beliefs are in line with what the schools are pushing. Stop infringing on the rights of those who don't agree. It is our right to teach our children such things in the manner we see fit. Chalk up one fote for a parent's Constitutional right to teach bigotry. Where do you stand on a parent's right to keep their kid out of geography class, because they don't want him exposed to that whole "round-earth agenda"? Just using a loony example to demonstrate that no, there are some things where a parent doesn't have the right to raise their kid in ignorance, and demand that the schools not ruin the lie by letting him in on the truth. The evil work being objected to simply says that "different people exist". (And implies that "being different is OK".) It doesn't even mention homosexuality. Now I understand that it might be nice at a theoretical level if the schools never taught "values". But there are some that just really have to be there, simply to allow the world to function. Don't hit the other kids. Don't take things from them. Speak one at a time. And, y'know, one of those things that just has to be taught is that even if you don't like something, there are times and places where you have to tolerate it. (And school is one of those places.) Aparantly, there are some adults who didn't learn that rule, either. And many of them aparantly believe that if they can successfully prevent their kids from learning it, then that'll prove that it's OK for them to not learn it, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by jpillian It never ceases to amaze me that -- those that are supposedly SO "tolerant", can in no way shape or form make allowance for any form of intolerance. Um (granted, I'm having to make assumptions about what you're saying, here), I'd be willing to bet that cho would be perfectly willing to not only tolerate but defend your right to remain bigoted. My (and, I suspect, his) position is that there is no right to deliberatly set out to create a bigot (and demand that society go along with the effort). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 "The judge admonished him for his outrageous behavior, and rightly so. " Since when is a protest in the country considered to be Outrageous. By all accounts it was a peacful protest. Seems like if he disagrees with the situation, he found a way to bring it to the front. Suprising that a liberal such as your self would find this outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics When I see the title of a thread as Mass schooling 6yr olds on homos and lesbos, I have absolutely no shame in calling somebody a bigot. (Foxworthy immitation): If you start a thread, where the title contains the words "homos/lesbos", well then you just might be . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa "The judge admonished him for his outrageous behavior, and rightly so. " Since when is a protest in the country considered to be Outrageous. By all accounts it was a peacful protest. Seems like if he disagrees with the situation, he found a way to bring it to the front. Suprising that a liberal such as your self would find this outrageous. His behavior was outrageous. He refused to leave the school until his demands were met. He also used racial slurs describing the teacher(s) that handed out the pamphlets. He would not leave until he was arrested. He WANTED to get arrested, he WANTED to make a case out of his decisions, and yes, when a man decides it is in his best intrest to obstruct justice, in a public shool infront of his kid no less, I think outrageous is a good adjective describing the behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa Since when is a protest in the country considered to be Outrageous. By all accounts it was a peacful protest. Seems like if he disagrees with the situation, he found a way to bring it to the front. Suprising that a liberal such as your self would find this outrageous. Speaking only for myself, I don't have a moral problem with his protest tactics. (At least, what I've read about them. Name calling seems excessive, but I haven't read about it, myself. And name calling isn't necessarily over the line.) I'm simply opposed to his bigoted cause. (And the way people think his publicity stunt isn't enough, so they have to lie about it to make it seem more heroic.) But I respect his publicity stunt. I'll respect it when he gets convicted. I'll respect it if he serves time. (I feel bad when we execute murderers. I regret it, but it's necessary.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics He WANTED to get arrested, he WANTED to make a case out of his decisions, and yes, when a man decides it is in his best intrest to obstruct justice, in a public shool infront of his kid no less, I think outrageous is a good adjective describing the behavior. Hadn't read that it was in front of the kids. Context is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Larry Where do you stand on a parent's right to keep their kid out of geography class, because they don't want him exposed to that whole "round-earth agenda"? :laugh: Great post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Larry (Foxworthy immitation): If you start a thread, where the title contains the words "homos/lesbos", well then you just might be . . . Now see, thats funny.. Chomerics: if your going to keep repeating 2nd hand information on racial slurs with kids in front of him... post it please.. find the source... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.