Johnny Punani2 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Let's be honest here, talking about having two moms is a subtle reference to homsexuality. What are you going to say when the kid asks "Why does so-and-so have two moms?" The father has every right to remove his child when those subjects are taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 I WOULD remove my daughter..... I would not remove my daughter in middle or highschool.. But Elemetary school and or KINDERGARTEN??? What are you thinking.... but again its off topic.. These are books YOU have to read to YOUR kids.. in kindergarten she can read words sounding them out but reading pages all you here is Sally and (whats that word) Jessie went to the store and (whats that word) bought a can of (whats that word) strawberries for the farm. (Whats that word) Uncle (whats that word) Michael went to (whats that word) irrigate the farm. etc.. etc.. No need to fear any book in elemetary school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYSkins1 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear I WOULD remove my daughter..... I would not remove my daughter in middle or highschool.. But Elemetary school and or KINDERGARTEN??? What are you thinking.... but again its off topic.. These are books YOU have to read to YOUR kids.. in kindergarten she can read words sounding them out but reading pages all you here is Sally and (whats that word) Jessie went to the store and (whats that word) bought a can of (whats that word) strawberries for the farm. (Whats that word) Uncle (whats that word) Michael went to (whats that word) irrigate the farm. etc.. etc.. No need to fear any book in elemetary school. Right...my understanding is that the SCHOOL is not teaching the book, but rather sending it home encouraging parents to teach it. From my understanding, homosexuals are not specifically mentioned in the book, but rather there is a picture of a household with same-sex parents. This actually reminds me of a story. My mom was the assistant musical director at the local middle school's production of Seussical. Anyways, the three directors (my mom, the head director, and the music director) were working out the casting, and they were trying to figure out the who families. The director suggested that they have a biracial family, and the music director (born and raised in the south, Southern Baptist) said, "Patti, I don't think that's such a good idea." My mom was going to jokingly suggest that they do a family with two dads, but her better judgement told her not to. Anyways, the truth is that there's tension in the South even relating to biracial families, which is pretty absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Why the hell do people who don't want their kids taught about homosexuals have children in public schools in a liberal state? Go to where people think like you do!!! This applies to everyone else too. Find people that agree with you and go live there. Stop tryin gto force liberals to be more conservative, and conservative to be more liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Why the hell do people who don't want their kids taught about homosexuals have children in public schools in a liberal state? Go to where people think like you do!!! This applies to everyone else too. Find people that agree with you and go live there. Stop tryin gto force liberals to be more conservative, and conservative to be more liberal. You mean you don't want people to try and change the way things are done from protest.. Even if your wrong you have the right to protest.. its what we do.... its our thang... Next your going to say that we should break the United States of America into geographical regions and only people that agree can LIVE in YOUR region... Long live free speech... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Hey, I like that idea. Where's the part that has a Democratic President? (Yes, I know, it's a straight line. And an off-topic one at that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Why the hell do people who don't want their kids taught about homosexuals have children in public schools in a liberal state? Go to where people think like you do!!! This applies to everyone else too. Find people that agree with you and go live there. Stop tryin gto force liberals to be more conservative, and conservative to be more liberal. Exactly my point. This family has not lived in Massachusetts for a long time, the have just moved here from what I understand. Just because he came from a different neck of the woods, so to speak, he thinks everyone should think his way. Again, the school was not teaching homosexuality, as the christian right would lead you to believe, but they gave the children a book which teaches tolerance and it was supposed to be read by the PARENTS. If they don't want to teach that to their kids, then fine, but don't think that the whole world is going to come to a crashing hault just because your child has been exposed to reality. Now, if I was in the same position, say I was stationed in Blacksville, Mississippi and my child came home with a book on creationism, I would not react the same way. I would either take it up with the school board at their meetings, or I would send my child to another schoool. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about objecting to literature given to your children. The correct way is to object to it through the proper channels and try to change the rules legally. The incorrect way is to act like a fool, refust to leave and get arrested at the school. But then again this was meant to be a story on the news anyway, otherwise why would he have gone down to the school AFTER he faxed his views and refuse to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Here is the supposed email exchange between parents and school officials: Parkers to Principal: Date: Monday, January 17, 2005 Subject: Estabrook Diversity Book Bag Ms Jay, Today our son, [child's name], in Ms Johnson's kindergarten class at Estabrook, brought home a Diversity Book bag. It was filled with various books deemed appropriate by the anti-bias group, and funded by the Lexington Education Foundation and the PTA. In response to the request to fill in a Family Feedback Form found in the Diversity Book bag we have constructed the following letter. We wish to make our feedback known publicly. In the feedback form given to us, it explicitly states that one of the goals of this program is to acknowledge and celebrate the diverse backgrounds and families in our school community. There is a book included entitled, Who's in a Family (with pictures) that include lesbian and homosexual couples with children ---- implicitly equating this family structure as a morally equal alternative to other family constructs. We stand firmly against this book or any other subject matter pertaining to homosexuality ever being indoctrinated to our child, discussed in school, or sent home. We don't believe gay parents constitute a spiritually healthy family and should not be celebrated. It is one thing to endorse to not persecute/harm homosexuals/lesbians, it is another to teach young children implicitly that these values are acceptable. Some may maintain that if they can not present homosexual situations in school--- this is a form of persecution and harm. To us- this is a very contrived argument. The real question is-do parents have the right to exclude/shield their children from these contrary values being pushed upon young children in elementary school. Furthermore, we believe--just because it is legal in this one state does not give the school the right to teach that it is correct- even implicitly. After all, it was once legal that women and blacks could not vote, and slavery was once legal by law---and that did not make it correct. Estabrook elementary school (or any elementary school for that matter ) is not supposed to teach my child values and morals. That is the parents' sacred responsibility- whether the parents are heterosexual or homosexual. The public school system is there to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, science, music, art, and other school subjects. We acknowledge that there are rights that need to be protected for the gay community,however; the "out of the closet" into the kindergarten classroom mentality will not do justice to this cause and frankly- it just isn't necessary at this impressionable age. We believe this is a promotion of homosexuality to young impressionable children whom are told to listen and obey their teachers and principle, who knowingly or unwittingly will indeed become the purveyors of these values. We want to state for the record that [son's name] shall be removed from any and all classroom or school functions which discuss or display homosexuality. We anticipate that you will respect our wishes. We believe we have the right to answers from you to the following series of questions: 1) Is it the intention of Estabrook to include homosexual/lesbian family dynamics as part of the school curriculum? 2) Is your position in this matter that parents don't have the right to intervene in teaching homosexual family values because of state law? 3) Is equal emphasis and sensitivity being given to Judeo/Christian/Islamic and secular communities and their respective family values--- many of which do not endorse gay family values? 4) Do you commit to us that [son's name] will not be subjected to homosexual family values at Estabrook? 5) Who else has viewed these materials and deemed it appropriate for the children in the school system to take home and view/read? It is not necessarily you, solely, whom we wish to focus our concerns on, however; we feel as the principal- we need answers from your perspective. We will be posing these same question to other authorities. We are also requesting from you the e-mail addresses for key Anti-bias group representatives. To all people whom we have sent this e-mail--- we encourage your feedback, both to the school and to us, concerning this letter. We also encourage anyone to forward this note to other Estabrook parents, since; we were completely caught off guard when our 5 year old son brought this material home. Sincerely and with genuine love to all, David and Tonia Parker ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Principal's reply to Parkers: Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 I want to make sure we have a chance to discuss all of your concerns, so I think the best thing would be if we could meet together. I could meet with the two of you on Thursday, January 20 at 8 or 9:30 or Friday at 8 or 4. Would any of these times work for you? If not, if you could mention some days and times and I'll see what I can find on my calendar. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you. Joni Jay ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Parkers to Principal: Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Ms Jay and Mr. Hurley, Thank you very much for taking our concerns seriously and getting back to us promptly. You can be sure that we have already communicated all of our concerns in the e-mail that you have received. We agree that we should meet together as soon as possible however, reiterating the concerns in our letter will not make for a productive meeting. Rather you should be ready to begin to address the school's position on those concerns with answers to the questions we put forth. If you are ready-- then we want to meet with you as soon as possible. At the very least, even before this meeting- we would like a commitment from you that [my son] will not be subjected to homosexual family values/materials at Estabrook from teachers/staff/and school visitors/guests. Sincerely, Dave and Tonia Parker --------------------------------------------------------------------- Principal to Parkers: Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2005 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker, Of course it is my intent to answer your questions when we meet. I can tell you that we do not have any part of the Kindergarten curriculum that teaches students about gay values. What I can't control is what students may say to one another, as we do have children in our school who have parents who are same sex partners. These issues may come up in talk on the playground, during show and tell, when a student shares a picture about what the family did over the weekend, or when their parents come in to the classroom to volunteer or for a party. In some cases, teachers will need to respond, and they do their best to do it in a way that is factual and respectful of all families, referring children to their parents if they have more detailed questions. Also, the school libraries in Lexington all contain, as part of our collections on families, a couple of books that depict a variety of family configurations (as in the one you saw in the bookbag). [my son] might choose such a book to look at and bring home, though he certainly wouldn't be guided to one. That said, would you be able to make any of the times that I indicated? If not, please propose some others. Joni Jay Principal, Estabrook School ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parkers to Principal: Date: Friday, March 4, 2005 Ms Jay, We find it necessary to write to you and the Lexington Public School to inform you of the following: We do not authorize any teacher or adult within the Lexington Public School system to expose our sons, [older son] and [younger son] (begins school in 2006) to any sexual orientation/homoseexual material/same sex unions between parents. We shall be notified in advance of any such activity in the Estabrook School. Dave and Tonia Parker ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Principal to Parkers: Date: Friday, March 4, 2005 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker, The Lexington Public School Policy is that any discussion of sex requires parental notification. We have a unit that deals with Human Growth and Development in 5th grade and parents are notified about that. I have confirmed with our Assistant Superintendent and our Director of Health Education that discussion of differing families, including gay-headed families, is not included in the parental notification policy. If you wish to clarify the policy with me or Mr. Ravenelle, please feel free to contact us. Joni Jay Principal, Estabrook School ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parkers to Principal: Date: Friday, March 4, 2005 Subject: David and Tonia Parker's Parental Rights Assertion We would like to clarify that our previous e-mail which states: "we do not give the Lexington Public School system permission to discuss homosexuality issues (i.e. - trans gender/bisexual/gay headed households) to our son [son's name]" - is a parental assertion; not a matter open to legal interpretation or administrative policy. Let us, David and Tonia Parker, parents of [son's name], be clear in purpose and prose on this matter: Discussions concerning homosexuality issues will not take place in front of our son, [son's name] (5 yrs old), at Estabrook. This includes material given to [our son] to covertly transport into our household (i.e.- diversity book bag). Such doctrine is against our Christian family beliefs. We will be notified when there are plans to have homosexual material discussed with the students - when [our son] is present - so that we can take action to ensure his spiritual safety. You are not permitted to infringe upon our religious beliefs and parental rights or obviate our freedom of choice, to exclude our son from material that would expose him to beliefs contrary to the Word of God in our Christian faith. Our parental rights and Christian belief system will be respected in this diversity- oriented, anti-biased school community. We know other parents, of various faiths and values, that endorse this position. This is not solely a Christian assertion of rights. May God bless everyone who reads this to be shown his Love and truth of his Word. In Christ, Dave and Tonia Parker PS- It is requisite that our assertion of rights be documented to teacher/staff; since, there were previous examples of less than adequate communication within the Lexington School system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Principal's reply to Parkers: Date: Monday, March 28, 2005 Subject: Re: David and Tonia Parker's Parental Rights Assertion Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker, I just wanted to let you know that I did receive this email. Thanks. Joni Jay Principal, Estabrook School -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Parkers to Principal: Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Ms Jay, Dave and I would like to schedule a meeting with you at your convenience. Dave attended the anti-bias meeting on 4/11/05. They informed Dave that books with homosexual issues/families will be placed in every classroom in our school. Were you aware of this? Who approved this? Various members of the anti-bias group also told Dave that our parental rights assertion would not be honored or respected at Estabrook. By what authority does the anti-bias group deny us of our rights? Who is responsible for the official response to our parental rights assertion pertaining to our son, [son's name]? We thank you in advance for addressing these questions and also scheduling a time we can meet with you. Sincerely In Christ, Dave and Tonia Parker ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Principal to Parkers, scheduling final meeting: Date: Friday, April 22, 2005 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker, My apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I've been trying to arrange a time that Mr. Ravenelle, the Director of Education, could join us to meet. We could both meet with you on Wednesday, April 27 at 2:30 or 3. Would that work for you? If not, please indicate some possible times, and I'll see what we can do. Joni Jay At the April 27 meeting, referenced above, David Parker was arrested and taken to jail. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this is clearly a situation where, unless you were there, its difficult to figure out who the 'bad guy' is here. The parents sound imminently reasonable in the early e-mails. You can tell at which exact moment they 'lawyered up' though, and at that point the defenses go up on both sides. Bottom line, wanting some control over what your kids are exposed to, and when, does not in and of itself make you a bigot. Parents DO have some rights guys, whether YOU think you know whats appropriate or not - ultimately its for the parents to decide as taxpayers whats appropriate. I'd also like to say, I have a problem with the thread title and am editing it. And finally, that if I hear someone describe a certain area of the US in such derogatory terms again, without evidence to support it, someone is getting a vacation. Thats uncalled for, and beyond that, a stereotype I don't personally appreciate. It ain't 1920. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity 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... How about I just come out and say it. The South is the most backwards, bigoted, know-nothing area this side of the taliban. If you want proof look at the 1968 Presidential elections Ark., La., Miss., Ala. and Ga all sent their electoral votes for George Wallace just because the guy was a racist segregationist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 This is what is wrong with our country! Reading, writing, and arithmatic; is that so difficult? Instead, we must "conform" to everyone's desires and behavior in a politically correct environment. Mommie loves mommie has nothing to do with school, period! The gay movement has one hell of a leash on our society right now and it needs to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty How about I just come out and say it. The South is the most backwards, bigoted, know-nothing area this side of the taliban. If you want proof look at the 1968 Presidential elections Ark., La., Miss., Ala. and Ga all sent their electoral votes for George Wallace just because the guy was a racist segregationist. Your giving proof that is 37 yrs old?? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty How about I just come out and say it. The South is the most backwards, bigoted, know-nothing area this side of the taliban. If you want proof look at the 1968 Presidential elections Ark., La., Miss., Ala. and Ga all sent their electoral votes for George Wallace just because the guy was a racist segregationist. :laugh: Dude, that was 1968! Do you know how much things changed just between 1950 and 1965 or 65 and 75 in this country (in a multitude of ways.) Besides, you're assuming that only whites(based on using the south and the Wallace thing) can be racist or bigoted. I lived in Philly for years. I seen it from all angles. Hey, Iran's a secular dictatorship. After all, in 1974 the Shah ran the place, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Liberty How about I just come out and say it. The South is the most backwards, bigoted, know-nothing area this side of the taliban. If you want proof look at the 1968 Presidential elections Ark., La., Miss., Ala. and Ga all sent their electoral votes for George Wallace just because the guy was a racist segregationist. What part of 'it ain't 1920' didn't you understand. It ain't 1968 either Liberty. Can't say I didn't warn you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NASMTrainer Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Well, coming from an 18 y/o who seems to know everything, oh wait, I forgot, all 18 y/o kids know everything. I guess I'm gonna have to change my views on a lot of things. Oh, and enjoy the vacation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 While I generally agree with your stance on tolerance of gays and others, Larry, you are making an ineffective argument. Geography does not equal social views. Thus, a person who doesn't wish to teach their children the microbial nature of disease is not on par with the person who opposed the normalization of homosexuals. AND, as a libertarian(public school or not--but then I'd abolish public education) you should support the right of the parent to defy the authority of the state on such matters. In fact, one would think a free man WOULD have the right, however unconscionable, to raise his child as a bigot. If he is not permitted that, then you really have no freedom(as bigotry, intolerance, or whatever flaw you seek to define will vary from person to person and thus all parents could be robbed of the right to raise their children as they see fit.) Since the people are forced to pay for public schools, the right of certain elites in charge to form minds and attitudes should not be unlimited. Used to be that even TEENS could be excused by notes from their parents from sex ed classes(or certain portions of them.) But a 5 year old's parents have no such say? That seems odd. What if the next step is showing 5 year olds transgendered people? Hey, pedophiles exist guess we should show them too, eventually. And for a bigger controversy, even many gay activists posit the idea that our sexual identity is MALLEABLE. This means that such teaching can alter the outcomes of our children's sexual identity. If I don't want my son to be gay and there's a potential for growing normalization to lead to that(however small,) how can you force this kind of education on kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Tarhog I think this is clearly a situation where, unless you were there, its difficult to figure out who the 'bad guy' is here. The parents sound imminently reasonable in the early e-mails. You can tell at which exact moment they 'lawyered up' though, and at that point the defenses go up on both sides. Correct, the e-mail shed a little bit of a different light in my eyes, as far as what I had heard in the media up here. From my take of the situation, and this was just from watching interviews, and listening to the talk shows on AM discuss the situation, the father was out of line. From the e-mails it appears as if they did go through the correct channels and the principal did answer them with complete truthfulness and honesty. Parents DO have some rights guys, whether YOU think you know whats appropriate or not - ultimately its for the parents to decide as taxpayers whats appropriate. Actually, I disagree with you a bit here. While I do acknowledge the parents right to decide what is appropriate for their children, the community gets to decide what is appropriate for the school. This is done by electing the people who decide the cirriculum on the school boards. I do think they should be able to opt their child out of class if there is a discussion of homosexuality which is in the cirriculum, but I don't think the principal was in a place to guarentee this would not come up. Ultimately, I feel that the parents should remove their child from school and place them in a private parochial school. There are many in the area, and they can afford it. They should be able to chose which school their child goes to, and they can. They just have a different set of morals then the majority of Bostonians, no problem unless you make it one. I'd also like to say, I have a problem with the thread title and am editing it. And finally, that if I hear someone describe a certain area of the US in such derogatory terms again, without evidence to support it, someone is getting a vacation. Thats uncalled for, and beyond that, a stereotype I don't personally appreciate. It ain't 1920. Understood, I was called out by JP for doing the same thing, so I tried to explain my position a little better, but I understand where you are comming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Thiebear You mean you don't want people to try and change the way things are done from protest.. Even if your wrong you have the right to protest.. its what we do.... its our thang... I didn't say don't protest. I just think that moving to a liberal state and using a liberal run education system when you disagree with it is a little stupid. And now that I've read the e-mail exchanges, which clearly read like political speeches intended for public release, I can see that this poor "family" is little more then the right wing version of the nut who tried to force god out of the pledge. Originally posted by Thiebear Next your going to say that we should break the United States of America into geographical regions and only people that agree can LIVE in YOUR region... Long live free speech... Yeah...uh...that's what I was going to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Chom, I somewhat agree with your point. Then I think of this line: To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson So, even if he takes his kids out of that school, the issue persists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Exactly my point. This family has not lived in Massachusetts for a long time, the have just moved here from what I understand. Just because he came from a different neck of the woods, so to speak, he thinks everyone should think his way. Again, the school was not teaching homosexuality, as the christian right would lead you to believe, but they gave the children a book which teaches tolerance and it was supposed to be read by the PARENTS. If they don't want to teach that to their kids, then fine, but don't think that the whole world is going to come to a crashing hault just because your child has been exposed to reality. Now, if I was in the same position, say I was stationed in Blacksville, Mississippi and my child came home with a book on creationism, I would not react the same way. I would either take it up with the school board at their meetings, or I would send my child to another schoool. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about objecting to literature given to your children. The correct way is to object to it through the proper channels and try to change the rules legally. The incorrect way is to act like a fool, refust to leave and get arrested at the school. But then again this was meant to be a story on the news anyway, otherwise why would he have gone down to the school AFTER he faxed his views and refuse to leave. Chom, The reverse could be said as well. Just because someone moves to a different area of the country and has different views on morals doesn't mean the school system/others can force their ideals of morality on them or their children. In the emails Tarhog posted, the anti-bias group said that they would have books with homosexual themes in them and they would not have the right to refuse their child being taugh these materials. Parkers to Principal: Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Ms Jay, Dave and I would like to schedule a meeting with you at your convenience. Dave attended the anti-bias meeting on 4/11/05. They informed Dave that books with homosexual issues/families will be placed in every classroom in our school. Were you aware of this? Who approved this? Various members of the anti-bias group also told Dave that our parental rights assertion would not be honored or respected at Estabrook. By what authority does the anti-bias group deny us of our rights? Who is responsible for the official response to our parental rights assertion pertaining to our son, [son's name]? We thank you in advance for addressing these questions and also scheduling a time we can meet with you. Sincerely In Christ, Dave and Tonia Parker Tolerance is not what is being taught. What is being taugh is that it is ok to be a homosexual which is in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. I agree that his refusing to leave the school was stupid but also the school's blatant refusal to give assurances that their child would not be subject to this kind of teaching smacks of intolerance over his religious beliefs and his right as a parent to raise his child as he sees fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Correct, the e-mail shed a little bit of a different light in my eyes, as far as what I had heard in the media up here. From my take of the situation, and this was just from watching interviews, and listening to the talk shows on AM discuss the situation, the father was out of line. From the e-mails it appears as if they did go through the correct channels and the principal did answer them with complete truthfulness and honesty. Actually, I disagree with you a bit here. While I do acknowledge the parents right to decide what is appropriate for their children, the community gets to decide what is appropriate for the school. This is done by electing the people who decide the cirriculum on the school boards. I do think they should be able to opt their child out of class if there is a discussion of homosexuality which is in the cirriculum, but I don't think the principal was in a place to guarentee this would not come up. Ultimately, I feel that the parents should remove their child from school and place them in a private parochial school. There are many in the area, and they can afford it. They should be able to chose which school their child goes to, and they can. They just have a different set of morals then the majority of Bostonians, no problem unless you make it one. Understood, I was called out by JP for doing the same thing, so I tried to explain my position a little better, but I understand where you are comming from. Thanks for a thoughtful response. I don't really disagree. The sad thing here is that it appeared the system was working exactly as it should. The parents respectfully and intelligently expressed concern, and the school responded in like manner. Either the parents, once at the school, DID decide to make the news, or the school system wasn't responsive during the meeting to their concerns. Its impossible, without having been there, to know which it was. One thing I strongly believe, and thats that the school SHOULD have known this would be an issue for some parents, and sought permission in advance. That they didn't almost telegraphs the message that they think the parents concerns are silly and inconsequential. They created the situation, not the parents, in other words. If they really respect diversity, they should act like it and not expect every parent to fall in line with their way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Chom, I somewhat agree with your point. Then I think of this line: To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson So, even if he takes his kids out of that school, the issue persists. This is a very important sub-issuse as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 From reading the e-mails it would seem the parents were being reasonable considering this is rather young children.IMO tolerance and acceptance of others can be taught without direct reference to sexuality in young children. Larry said it well in a earlier post. As far as Liberty's comments ,I can tell you the south HAS changed a great deal since 68,while we do have our fair share of bigots and racist people,by and large I do not think our problems nowadays is any worse than up north.....At least from the posts I read and the News. A example is I grew up in the 60's and blacks were afraid to be in the city limits after dark here. My children now attend school and socialise with many different races. The schools have a very diverse ethnic makeup from administation on down along with police and city goverment. And last but not least I had teachers and fellow students that were gay or lesbian that were treated no different than others in the sixties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Tolerance for me, but not for thee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Johnny Punani I agree that his refusing to leave the school was stupid but also the school's blatant refusal to give assurances that their child would not be subject to this kind of teaching smacks of intolerance over his religious beliefs and his right as a parent to raise his child as he sees fit. JP, I don't think the school is in a position to meet their demands. If I was a principal at the school, I would not be able to 100% say the topic of why Sarah has two moms would not be brought up. There are children of gay and lesbian parents at the school, and the discussion may possibly come up during the school year. I don't think if a child asked the question about little Sarah's two moms, that the correct thing to do would be to remove a child from the classroom before the question was answered. It would bring a lot of more attention to the subject then is necessary. Again, the school was not teaching the material, they gave the booklet to kids so they could discuss this at home. I agree with Tarhog in that they should have notified the parents what was in the book, but honestly they didn't think people in their community would object. It is not part of the cirriculum, and it is not being taught, but if the question is asked, the teachers know the correct answer. As for the book being in the classroom, it is under the parents watch, and they can feel free to remove their child from the system. Just because the book is in the classroom does not mean homosexuality is being taught, but rather that there are many different people in this world and I think that is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Why the hell do people who don't want their kids taught about homosexuals have children in public schools in a liberal state? Typical Liberal "we know best" attitude. Since when did public schools have the right to teach kids whatever the hell they feel like it.... whether the parents like it or not. The child is still the parent's.... right? Or... is the contol and guardianship of the children immediately transferred to the govt. the moment they are enrolled in public school. What's next... are we going to start seeing a shift in public schools to teach beastiality and necrophelia? :doh: As for the story... seems as if the parents relied on the misconception that the school would do as the parents asked. He caused a distrurbance and was arrested... sounds reasonable. I'm all for diversity... and the kids will eventually be subjected to same sex parents and civil unions. My question is... does it have to start in KINDERGARTEN for god's sake? :mad: I guess the younger the indoctrination starts the better. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.