Tarhog Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics ...but honestly they didn't think people in their community would object. Do you see the irony here Cho? The majority is ALWAYS shocked that the minority might not share their viewpoint. The very definition of diversity is that those different viewpoints are respected and welcomed, not muffled or marginalized. Can you see my point here? Because what the school system appears to have done exactly that which they claim to oppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics 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. Hey, I love Jefferson, but unfortunately these are the rules now. I have to pay taxes for a school system and I do not even have children, so which is worse? There are also many schools in the midwest and Texas right now which are teaching creationism, or suing the school to teach creationism. This works on the other side as well, if the citizens want to teach creationism, then it is their perrogative, but it is the parents responsibility to tell their children if the school is full of crap as well. They still have the option of of removing their student from the cirriculum, if they don't want it taught. Personally, I am against having creationism taught somply because it is a religious, not because I necessarily disagree with it. There is a difference IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Please... let's try to leave our forefathers out of these discussions. It's like poking a dead guy with a stick to see if he'll move. Our forefathers would ask an even greater question.... why on earth is the federal govt. involved in the education of children in the first place. Start a list... ask why and how the people allowed the federal govt. to get involved in people's lives for which they have no constitutional right. :doh: To them... getting involved in schools just seems like a rather convenient way to get future generations to believe it's ok that the govt. have their hands on the back of your neck pointing you in the direction they choose all the while rifling through your wallets/purses with the other hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 I'm with Cskin on this one. I was trying to come up with a plausible solution to this dilemma but really, what is the point when I don't agree with the very foundation of our current schooling system? One school that works for everyone in a country that has wildly differing viewpoints is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Tarhog Do you see the irony here Cho? The majority is ALWAYS shocked that the minority might not share their viewpoint. The very definition of diversity is that those different viewpoints are respected and welcomed, not muffled or marginalized. Can you see my point here? Because what the school system appears to have done exactly that which they claim to oppose. I completely see your point, you adressed it in the last line of your last post, and yes the irony is apparent. What I was trying to say, and maybe I should have used better words, was that the school system was not aware that people would have a strong opinion against this type of book. I think it was more naievety on the part of the school for not anticipating this kind of a reaction, but I do not think they were being disengenuous for not subjecting themselves to the parents demands. The school can in no way guarentee that the children will not talk anout the fact that some children have two moms or two dads. They can decide not to teach it, but they can not guarentee that the topic will not come up. Is it ironc that a diversity study leads a minority belief system getting upset? Yes, but the minority people in this case want to teach their kids that tolerance of others is not acceptible depending on their lifestyles. Just to further confuse things, the parents are not in the minority (christian beliefs) in fact they are in the large majority. It is just that a different type of christianity is taught in Lexington, one of tolerance to others, and that god's law is not against homosexuals. I think it would be better to say that their INTERPETATION of the bible is a minority viewpoint, but not their religion. 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 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. The school system approved those books for use by the parents so they approved the content as well. They are still promoting those views in an indirect way. I agree that the school can't control kids talking about certain things among themselves. However, they can control access a child has to books they own and have in their classrooms. As the anti-bias group mentioned they were planning on having books on homosexual issues. Even if they are not teaching a subject called homosexuality 101 they are offering books available to children which show homosexuality in a positive light. They shouldn't have to remove their child from the school. After all, his high taxes are paying for the school. Is he allowed to recoop the taxes he pays for public schools when he puts his child in a private schoool? Nope. That would be the right thing to do. He has a right to have a say in what his child is being exposed to. Teaching kids there are many different people in the world is fine. However, teaching them that a lifestyle of a certain group of people is "ok" while your religious beliefs deem that lifestyle as sinful is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Cskin Please... let's try to leave our forefathers out of these discussions. It's like poking a dead guy with a stick to see if he'll move. Our forefathers would ask an even greater question.... why on earth is the federal govt. involved in the education of children in the first place. Start a list... ask why and how the people allowed the federal govt. to get involved in people's lives for which they have no constitutional right. :doh: Why don't you ask George Bush??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Chom Hey, I'm advancing a normative argument. Of course, that's how thing are NOW, but many things that are wrong persist despite nearly everyone basically acknowledging such. While we will inevitably pay for somethign we don't use ourselves, I don't think the idea was ever that you were supposed to pay taxes to support schools, especially when you are not using them. To piggy-back on JP's point: Do we really NEED to be teaching this to kindergarteners? I mean, granted, I was getting my shwerve on, even at age 5(I'm not kidding) but it was PRECISELY because I had BEEN EXPOSED TO IT that I engaged in sexual activity(I don't mean doctor) that young. I'm pretty resistant to influence now...but then(or any kid at that age?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Come on Cho... you act as if the govt. became evasive in John Q. Public's life the moment Bush took office. You're better than that. I'd start way before that. Heck... let's start with FDR's New Deal. You see where that's gotten us don't you? Please point out in the Consititution where it explicitly states that the Federal Govt. shall be repsonsible for it's citizen's retirement. And... to head you off at the pass... don't even think about the General Welfare angle... that dog doesn't hunt unless you're talking about the Federal Govt. defending it's citizens against foreign attack.... as in physical military attack. 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 I completely see your point, you adressed it in the last line of your last post, and yes the irony is apparent. What I was trying to say, and maybe I should have used better words, was that the school system was not aware that people would have a strong opinion against this type of book. I think it was more naievety on the part of the school for not anticipating this kind of a reaction, but I do not think they were being disengenuous for not subjecting themselves to the parents demands. The school can in no way guarentee that the children will not talk anout the fact that some children have two moms or two dads. They can decide not to teach it, but they can not guarentee that the topic will not come up. Is it ironc that a diversity study leads a minority belief system getting upset? Yes, but the minority people in this case want to teach their kids that tolerance of others is not acceptible depending on their lifestyles. Just to further confuse things, the parents are not in the minority (christian beliefs) in fact they are in the large majority. It is just that a different type of christianity is taught in Lexington, one of tolerance to others, and that god's law is not against homosexuals. I think it would be better to say that their INTERPETATION of the bible is a minority viewpoint, but not their religion. Sounds like the christianity in lexington has a problem if they are teaching God's law is not against homosexuality... 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 They shouldn't have to remove their child from the school. After all, his high taxes are paying for the school. Is he allowed to recoop the taxes he pays for public schools when he puts his child in a private schoool? Nope. That would be the right thing to do. He has a right to have a say in what his child is being exposed to. Teaching kids there are many different people in the world is fine. However, teaching them that a lifestyle of a certain group of people is "ok" while your religious beliefs deem that lifestyle as sinful is wrong. That would be teaching that tolerance was only OK depending on the person, kind of defeats the purpose of teaching diversity to begin with if you ask me. The book is NOT taught, and the school does not teach sexuality to the classroom, so this should not be an issue. The book is placed in the classroom, but it is there for reference if children want to read it. If you want to teach your kids that being gay is not acceptable, they it is your perrogative to do so, but it is not up to you to decide that the school can not teach tolerance because of your religious beliefs. Using this type of logic, should he be able to get the school to stop teaching biology because of evolution? How about not teaching about archeology and history because it differes with the bible and others religious beliefs. How about not teacing world history and the persecution of the Cathars because it puts their religion in a bad light. These are all part of real world issues. There are gay children in the school, and they will be exposed at it one way or another during the year. If you as a parent don;t like that fact then don't send the child to the school. If you don't want to pay taxes to the school, then move to a different area, it is truly quite simple, there is no reason to blow it out of proportion and make a spectacle out of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 It's pretty interesting how many aspects of politics and society that can spring up in a thread like this. And good to see things are cooling down so we can discuss things rationally. Wonder if other threads should be made before we go way off on tangents. 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 Sounds like the christianity in lexington has a problem if they are teaching God's law is not against homosexuality... Really??? I think you should actually attend a church in Boston and tell the hundreds of gay and lesbian couples that they are an abomination in gods eyes then :doh: If you think being gay is against god, then you must also think that slavery is good, that Hebrews can be bought, and that as the owner of a Hebrew, you get to own their children as well. This is what you believe isn't it? I mean if the old testament is all about hating homosexuals, then the other beliefs in it are also correct right? Or do you just pick and choose the sections out of the old testament which back your beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 The problem, as I'm sure you see, is that diversity is an amorphous concept, unless viewed properly as a means to indoctrination in much more significant areas. It realy only means diversity of accepted categories. How often are Baptists or even just devout Christians mentioned when 'diversity' is brought up? how often is it that diversity simply becomes a vehicle to stifle frank and honest discussion on a host of issues? And is there not a difference between accepting what a human being is born as, vs. what he does(whether or not we believe him to be compelled by birth or by upbringing?) Many believe pedophiles to be compelled? Shall they be tolerated as well?(and no, I don't believe gays=pedophiles, but it's still a bias against what people DO not what they are) The idea that 'tolerance' is somehow a virtue, in and of itself, is a nebulous and quite new one. What do we tolerate? what people are, what people do? all of that? Are there no limits? How has the eradication of the single mother stigma affected the most recent generations of young men and women in this country, our economy and our crime rates? have we not now blurred the line between tolerance and ACCEPTANCE? I may tolerate many things in that I don't lash out with physical and verbal attacks. But I do not accept them. There is a big difference. This isn't just about gays or 'not hating' but about the lifelong indoctrination of the youth into ideologies that are well-developed and not merely the negation of hatred or violence. (assertions and assumptions about race, religion, politics are part and parcel of the adolescent and college-aged education in such matters) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Cskin Come on Cho... you act as if the govt. became evasive in John Q. Public's life the moment Bush took office. You're better than that. I'd start way before that. Heck... let's start with FDR's New Deal. You see where that's gotten us don't you? Please point out in the Consititution where it explicitly states that the Federal Govt. shall be repsonsible for it's citizen's retirement. And... to head you off at the pass... don't even think about the General Welfare angle... that dog doesn't hunt unless you're talking about the Federal Govt. defending it's citizens against foreign attack.... as in physical military attack. Not at all, just telling you to ask our president since he has signed the biggest federal education package ever. He has singlehandedly increased education spending almost 100% from $32 billion in 00 to $56 billion in 06'. Your rhetoric is getting old Cskin, because you party has spent like drunken sailors on the issue, yet you still want to blame the democrats. 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 That would be teaching that tolerance was only OK depending on the person, kind of defeats the purpose of teaching diversity to begin with if you ask me. The book is NOT taught, and the school does not teach sexuality to the classroom, so this should not be an issue. The book is placed in the classroom, but it is there for reference if children want to read it. If you want to teach your kids that being gay is not acceptable, they it is your perrogative to do so, but it is not up to you to decide that the school can not teach tolerance because of your religious beliefs. Using this type of logic, should he be able to get the school to stop teaching biology because of evolution? How about not teaching about archeology and history because it differes with the bible and others religious beliefs. How about not teacing world history and the persecution of the Cathars because it puts their religion in a bad light. These are all part of real world issues. There are gay children in the school, and they will be exposed at it one way or another during the year. If you as a parent don;t like that fact then don't send the child to the school. If you don't want to pay taxes to the school, then move to a different area, it is truly quite simple, there is no reason to blow it out of proportion and make a spectacle out of the situation. Schools shouldn't promote homosexuality or make decisions on what it deems to be morality correct either. That is exactly what they are doing buy having these books avail to young children. They are also circumventing the parent's right to what values their children are exposed to by having these books in the classroom readily available for them to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by Cskin 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. Typical conservative "we are the majority everywhere" attitude. Public schools do NOT have the right to teach whatever the hell they feel like. They teach what elected officials, elected by the people of the state, say they can. And guess what, in this state this sort of thing has been allowed. You do NOT have the right as a parent to decide what schools will teach, you have the right to vote, speak, protest, and remove your child from the school. What is taught is decided by a larger body of people then just a parent. This is true EVERYWHERE in the US not just in this case. Originally posted by Cskin 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: Yes that's exactly what's going to happen, they are going to teach your child to have sex with animals. Right after the anti-abortion movement starts teaching kids how to build bombs to kill doctors. You went extremely crazy, so did I. Originally posted by Cskin 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: The younger the better. "I can not tell a lie" and all that good stuff that never happened is given to you early. There is a reason for it. I don't agree with any of it, but I'm not the majority. The majority is made up of a bunch of morons both right wing and left wing that have decided kids make great political tools. Here's an idea, just let kids be kids. If timmy insults someone because they have two daddies he gets detention....because *gasp* he insulted someone. Don't get into the right and wrongs, just teach and enforce behavior standards. Nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Really??? I think you should actually attend a church in Boston and tell the hundreds of gay and lesbian couples that they are an abomination in gods eyes then :doh: If you think being gay is against god, then you must also think that slavery is good, that Hebrews can be bought, and that as the owner of a Hebrew, you get to own their children as well. This is what you believe isn't it? I mean if the old testament is all about hating homosexuals, then the other beliefs in it are also correct right? Or do you just pick and choose the sections out of the old testament which back your beliefs? Let's avoid theological debates. Jesus is supposed to be the New Covenant, but then in the words in the New Testament, the "fulfillment of the law." One could easily argue that being homosexual is not going to lose you God's love, but that it is against His Will. Just as the adulterer would be forgiven, so too will the homosexual. That churches in Boston cater to the political or social beliefs of its constituents should not come as a surprise. Because some churches even ordain gay ministers means nothing in terms of the accepted traditions of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics Not at all, just telling you to ask our president since he has signed the biggest federal education package ever. He has singlehandedly increased education spending almost 100% from $32 billion in 00 to $56 billion in 06'. Your rhetoric is getting old Cskin, because you party has spent like drunken sailors on the issue, yet you still want to blame the democrats. And how many of us have said time and again that Bush is not a real conservative? As for the education bill, are you referring to the one that Kennedy called "a good start" before immediately going onto attack the man who worked with him on that bill? As I've said countless times--Socialism and Socialism-Lite. because I'm more hostile to the 'package' of ideas from the Socialism Party doesn't mean I'm friendly to the diffused rightist Statism of the other party. 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 Really??? I think you should actually attend a church in Boston and tell the hundreds of gay and lesbian couples that they are an abomination in gods eyes then :doh: If you think being gay is against god, then you must also think that slavery is good, that Hebrews can be bought, and that as the owner of a Hebrew, you get to own their children as well. This is what you believe isn't it? I mean if the old testament is all about hating homosexuals, then the other beliefs in it are also correct right? Or do you just pick and choose the sections out of the old testament which back your beliefs? Chom, don't put words in my mouth ok. Thanks. Well, if they view homosexuality not being a sin then they are wrong IMO and their beliefs are not based in what the bible teaches because the Bible is pretty clear about the subject. The problem with your arguement is your lumping in different teachings in the old testament some of which are not applicable to Christians or that were never said to be ok to do by God but by men. Since homosexuality is condemed both in the Old and New Testaments I think God's opinion of it is pretty clear. 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 Let's avoid theological debates. Jesus is supposed to be the New Covenant, but then in the words in the New Testament, the "fulfillment of the law." One could easily argue that being homosexual is not going to lose you God's love, but that it is against His Will. Just as the adulterer would be forgiven, so too will the homosexual. That churches in Boston cater to the political or social beliefs of its constituents should not come as a surprise. Because some churches even ordain gay ministers means nothing in terms of the accepted traditions of Christianity. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted April 30, 2005 Share Posted April 30, 2005 The book is placed in the classroom, but it is there for reference if children want to read it. The question still remains... why is this book sitting on a classroom shelf of kindergarten students? Could this incredibly hot-button issue not wait until middle school? ....."we are the majority everywhere" attitude. Funny Destino... I remember just that attitude from 92-00....except... that majority appeared to be centered around the large metropolitian cities on the Eastern Seaboard and Left Coast. The younger the better. "I can not tell a lie" and all that good stuff that never happened is given to you early. There is a reason for it. Yep..... but that's an awful big leap, I'd prefer to define as casm, from telling little Timmy that and telling him it's ok to like other little boys and that's it's perfectly ok to grow up and marry a man. Come on.... that stuff can wait until a kid can rationalize that choice and make up his own mind bases on further analysis.... both internal and that of society. I'm just asking to restrict the public schools, K through 6 at least, to right and wrong and the solar system and not the endorphin release of performing necrophelia on your fellow student they just stabbed to death in the music room. :doh: Not at all, just telling you to ask our president since he has signed the biggest federal education package ever. He has singlehandedly increased education spending almost 100% from $32 billion in 00 to $56 billion in 06'. Again....CHO.... you're awful clever to take the current administration's legislation and extrapolate only the most obvious point that somehow validates your tired rhetoric. I'm betting you'd be barking at the top of your lungs along with the rest of the Left if Bush CUT education spending. You know as well as I that once you give it to the sweaty unwashed... you can't take it away. Additionally, you know the Left would wield the "He cut your kid's education" tool if he did just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Originally posted by Johnny Punani Schools shouldn't promote homosexuality or make decisions on what it deems to be morality correct either. That is exactly what they are doing buy having these books avail to young children. They are also circumventing the parent's right to what values their children are exposed to by having these books in the classroom readily available for them to read. JP, there is a big difference between promoting homosexuality and teaching tolerance, they are doing the latter. They are teaching children that there are a LOT of different people in the world, and that they should learn to accept them for who they are. This is not promoting homosexuality any more then it is promoting muslim or buddahism. It is teaching children that they should be accepting to people, and not prejudge or stereotype individuals based on personal beliefs. This is what the book is about, and the parents objected. It is their right to object, but they do not get to decide that tolerance gets to be taught, but tolerance of gays does not because they are an abomination. Seriously now, what would you say if the parents were upset because there was a Jewish man in the book? What would you think if a Lebaneese couple thought that their child shouldn't be exposed to the fact that there are jewish kids, and that Jewish children are at the school, because they don't like Jews? Would this still be O.K. with you? Would you still feel the need to defend the parents in this case? As for circumventing the parents rights and values by having the book in the classroom, well you are right. Their value system is completely different from the school, the town, and states value system, and they should realize this. They should realize that their values are not held by the school. They should realize that if they want to shelter their child from homosexuality, then they should not send their child to public school where there are students of homosexual couples. As for the theological discussion, I will leave my self out of it here. I know there are some religious people and I have a way of coming across crass to people of faith, so I will end it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Originally posted by Cskin Again....CHO.... you're awful clever to take the current administration's legislation and extrapolate only the most obvious point that somehow validates your tired rhetoric. I'm betting you'd be barking at the top of your lungs along with the rest of the Left if Bush CUT education spending. You know as well as I that once you give it to the sweaty unwashed... you can't take it away. Additionally, you know the Left would wield the "He cut your kid's education" tool if he did just that. You're probably right, but that is not the situation now, so I don't have to take that position :laugh: I just get to laugh at the conservatives who voted for Bush, then whine and moan about how much we're spending on education and the prescription drug plan. Personally though, I think the education system should be state funded, and locally funded for K-12 and it should not be part of the federal government. I DO however think we should fund higher education. I think the federal government has a duty,and it is in its best intrest to educate its citizens. It is completely valid that for each dollar spent on education, the federal government gets back something like five fold in taxes, so it looks like a win win to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 Originally posted by Cskin The question still remains... why is this book sitting on a classroom shelf of kindergarten students? Could this incredibly hot-button issue not wait until middle school? Because elected officials decided to allow it. Originally posted by Cskin Funny Destino... I remember just that attitude from 92-00....except... that majority appeared to be centered around the large metropolitian cities on the Eastern Seaboard and Left Coast. And? Originally posted by Cskin Come on.... that stuff can wait until a kid can rationalize that choice and make up his own mind bases on further analysis.... both internal and that of society. Like I said I agree. But voters ultimately decide not you or me. I like it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.