Trouble in Charles County
Down in Charles County, Maryland, there's no need for any religious extremists to threaten the school board and take them to court and drag in all the Family Blah Blah groups to undermine their sex education curriculum. The nuts don't have to attack the school board there -- the Charles County school board respoonds to nuts in other counties: ours. Here's The Post:
Well, first of all, let me note that the "impassioned parents" who fought the curriculum in Montgomery County were mostly not parents of public school students -- and ... is "impassioned" the best you can do? How about something more vivid, like "hypocritical," or maybe "delusional?" Also, it's a little weird to say they "fought all the way to federal court," when actually they went directly to federal court after the the public turned against them.
But can you imagine? Just imagine your school board saying, oh, we don't want that kind of trouble in our beautiful county, so we're just going to be sure we don't do anything that might anger those people. Well, I'm sure Montgomery County's radicals like it, like a kid who learns he can get what he wants just by throwing a tantrum.
I don't know about Charles County, but where we live, public input only hurts the anti-gay, anti-safe-sex side. Most people here understand that some of our neighbors are gay, we don't hate them for it, it doesn't frighten us, and we want people to learn to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of diseases. The decision that was made last year to adopt the new curriculum was an excellent reflection of the sentiments of Montgomery County, not extreme but not naive either. Maybe it's different down there in CC, I don't know.
Uh, yeah, that's so much better. That way, kids can just learn about these things on the playground, and your sacred stereotypes won't be threatened.
They what? And they're afraid it's going to become more conservative?/
I'm just glad I don't live there.
For more than a year now, members of the Charles County school board have been watching Montgomery County. They saw the proposed sex education curriculum last year that included discussions of homosexuality and videos on using condoms. They looked on as impassioned parents fought all the way to federal court to kill the program.
And after they had seen enough, the Charles board members took a vote to make it official: They didn't like what they saw.
So the Charles Board of Education drew up a list of positions on the subject: in favor of laws to restrict teachers from discussing homosexuality, to emphasize abstinence and to oppose demonstrations of how to put on a condom. Taking No Chances on Sex Ed
Well, first of all, let me note that the "impassioned parents" who fought the curriculum in Montgomery County were mostly not parents of public school students -- and ... is "impassioned" the best you can do? How about something more vivid, like "hypocritical," or maybe "delusional?" Also, it's a little weird to say they "fought all the way to federal court," when actually they went directly to federal court after the the public turned against them.
But can you imagine? Just imagine your school board saying, oh, we don't want that kind of trouble in our beautiful county, so we're just going to be sure we don't do anything that might anger those people. Well, I'm sure Montgomery County's radicals like it, like a kid who learns he can get what he wants just by throwing a tantrum.
Not all board members agreed with the preemptive move.
"I thought we wasted valuable time talking about sex ed when it's not even a problem in Charles," said board member Donald M. Wade. "Even if it was an issue, we need the input from parents before we, as a few members on the board, start dictating what we want in the schools."
I don't know about Charles County, but where we live, public input only hurts the anti-gay, anti-safe-sex side. Most people here understand that some of our neighbors are gay, we don't hate them for it, it doesn't frighten us, and we want people to learn to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of diseases. The decision that was made last year to adopt the new curriculum was an excellent reflection of the sentiments of Montgomery County, not extreme but not naive either. Maybe it's different down there in CC, I don't know.
Some teachers said they were particularly alarmed by the board's support of "legislation restricting instructors from discussing sexual lifestyles (i.e., bisexuality, homosexuality, etc.)" and equated it to supporting a gag order on teachers.
"My question is: If a kid raises a question in class, what do I do?" said James Campbell, who taught a family life course for 13 years at McDonough High School. "Do I just say, 'Sorry, I can't answer that'?"
Young called that notion ridiculous. "Nobody's saying a teacher can't answer a question," she said. "We're saying we don't want a curriculum that purposefully discusses alternate sexual lifestyles in a positive way."
Uh, yeah, that's so much better. That way, kids can just learn about these things on the playground, and your sacred stereotypes won't be threatened.
Many of the proposals on the legislative list are already in place in Charles. The school system uses an abstinence-based curriculum to teach sex education in health classes. In ninth grade, students must receive parental approval before taking a health class that includes such subjects as sexually transmitted diseases, dating and birth control but emphasizes abstinence as the safest choice, said Darlene Kahl, who coordinates the county health curriculum.
The Charles school board drew much attention last year for a "brainstorming" list that included suggestions to eliminate science books that are "biased toward evolution" and to offer Bibles to students. Some people who criticized those ideas believe that the ongoing selection of a new board member behind closed doors will make the board even more conservative.
They what? And they're afraid it's going to become more conservative?/
I'm just glad I don't live there.
posted by JimK at 10:39 AM
67 Comments:
well, if they get their way, Charles Co. kids will be one more group of kids whose science credits are not accepted(well, outside of Liberty and Regent U) for college credit. That is what America needs- more poor education.
You guys have left me completely confused and I feel like, in arguing with about eight people at at a time, I've left a lot of things unresponded to and created some misimpressions. Anyway, in response to my repeated requests for "scientific facts", David had pointed to the discarded curriculums and the presentation at your forum by the AMA rep. Rather than trying to find those comments, I hope you don't mind my moving the whole thing up here to the top shelf.
First of all, David, to state the obvious, I'm not a scientist. Still, I keep up with current events and always am interested in science findings related in the mainstream media.
My personal theory, based on what I've seen, is that all people have a capacity for attraction to either gender. There are various reasons why people begin to gravitate to exclusive same-sex activity but society's position is a key influence. Also, the more an individual engages in these behaviors, the harder it becomes to change. This is a simply Pavlovian response.
I think the research presented in AMA presentation either doesn't contradicts or supports what I've said.
Let's start with the facts you think kids should be taught.
"Definitions of sexual orientation from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association."
Well, a definition isn't a "fact" except the fact that someone has a definition. Defining something doesn't mean it exists. Still,their definition is common usage so, no problem.
"That "all major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.""
I've more often heard you guys say not a "disease" but I'll assume you mean the same thing. Webster defines "disease" as "a condition that impairs normal functioning." Problem is before you can study whether something a disease, you must define what you mean by "normal functioning"- a value judgment and not a scientific one. For example, one of the AMA rep's cited studies says that there is evidence that gay animals don't produce enough of a hormone that breaks testerone into estradiol. Doesn't that affect "normal functioning"? Couldn't it be theoretically corrected or compensated for. It all goes back to a value judgment and not a scientific one. If you state that's there's a biological basis affecting a mental condition, and that that biology is different from most other people's biology, you have to concede that it might constitute non-normal functioning. This, then, is not a scientific fact or a fact at all. It is an opinion.
That's enough for today. I'll move further down the list tomorrow.
"well, if they get their way, Charles Co. kids will be one more group of kids whose science credits are not accepted(well, outside of Liberty and Regent U) for college credit. That is what America needs- more poor education."
Andrea,
The only college system I've heard disallowing science credits is Calfornia and they're being sued. Do you know of any others, or is this one of those lies you TTFers never tell?
My son's at a Christian school taking AP Biology. Most of the kids who have taken the class in the past have passed the AP exam. Last year, every kid in the class who got an A, received 4 or better on the AP exam. They teach evolution but point out its deficiencies along the way. Kids who learn that way are actually more familiar with Darwinianism than those who are taught to blindly accept it. Interesting what happens when kids are taught to think.
My personal theory, based on what I've seen, is that all people have a capacity for attraction to either gender.
OK, that's a personal opinion. Everybody has one. We could probably trace your idea back to Kinsey.
I think the research presented in AMA presentation either doesn't contradicts or supports what I've said.
As I recall, Paul Wertsch showed results suggesting that women can be straight or gay or anywhere in between, while men are usually one or the other, with a small proportion being bisexual. Nothing suggests that you become whatever you're exposed to, as you suggest -- in fact a lot of research suggests the opposite. This rather insidious idea lies behind a lot of the prejudice against gays, for instance people think they shouldn't be teachers because they'll turn the kids gay. No, it doesn't work that way.
As far as definitions of things, you seem to think that only a mechanistic explanation will satisfy the definition of "definition." A brain module, a gene, something like that. I don't think it is possible that only things that are scientifically understood in the finest detail deserve definitions. For instance, remember, Darwin had no idea that evolution worked through genes. He didn't need to know the mechanism to say that survival of the fittest results in adaptation of species.
Further, your argument seems to assume that your opinion is equivalent to that of a researcher who has spent years studying the subject in depth. I don't think so -- the argument that it's "just an opinion" loses its strength when you note whose opinion it is.
The question for mental disorder or disease is whether the person is impaired. And by all standards, gay people are no more and no less impaired than the rest of us. Their sexual orientation per se does not affect their ability to think, to feel, to interact, to be productive. It turns out there is simply no reason to define homosexuality as a disease or disorder.
"Well, first of all, let me note that the "impassioned parents" who fought the curriculum in Montgomery County were mostly not parents of public school student"
Uniequivocally FALSE, Jim.
Of the board, 3 out of 4 did have kids in public school - including me. Now it is 2 out of 4 with kids in public school. My kids would still be in public schools but for sex-ed programs that think it is okay to read questions like "what is anal sex" to ten year olds. And "impassioned" is exactly how I would describe my reaction after first hearing Chris Core describe on WMAL that they were going to teach eighth graders that "same sex play among adolescents is normal" and "gender identity is your inner sense of whether you are male or female" and not what you see when you get out of the shower. Yes, impassioned probably captures it well - though outraged and incredulous might be a bit better.
And the vast majority of our committee chairs are public school parents.
Jim - Stop lying when you have absolutely nothing to back this up with. We have not taken an official count but having managed the email/registration list for a while before we contracted it, I would say about 75% are public school parents or grandparents. We did ask what schools parents had kids attending.
Theresa
CRC Secretary
Theresa, it may be that CRC has some public school parents, and I thank you for correcting me. It would have been better to say that they don't have any public school parents whose kids take the health classes.
I am fascinated by this idea that sexual identity should be what you see in the shower. Do you think it is possible that some boys are more masculine, and some more feminine, than others -- or that girls vary along that dimension? And what could possibly be wrong with pointing that out? Could it possibly be that some guys are more attracted to guys than to girls, and some girls are attracted to other girls, and again, where is the outrage, exactly, in pointing this out?
It always surprises me to see how the CRC pornographizes sexuality. For you guys, sex is about genitalia, it's about what you see in the shower, it has nothing to do with who you love. You would think, since your side claims to hold these fine moral values, that they would be concerned with, say, encouraging lovers to form lifelong partnerships, that they would be more concerned about the emotional attachments that make a good relationship, and less concerned about penises and vaginas. But no, you -- and not just you, we see this all the time -- insist on reducing sexuality to genitalia, what you see in the shower.
That's just weird.
And I still think "impassioned" is the wrong word. Some rightwing talk-radio guy puts things a certain way and everybody gets their panties in a wad ... I don't know ... I thought Beethoven was impassioned, this just falls a little short for me.
(And public school grandparents don't count.)
JimK
OK, Jim - I know that some of the CRC parents do let their kids take the health classes.
And you know what, if we go back to the NCC sex ed class where we had the lovely little movie of the ten year old boy with the wet dream running into his brother as he trys to sneak his sheets to the laundry room... you know what, I would bet that a lot of parents, given the choice between 1) a class where their ten year old girls watch this movie and the movie about menstration with boys in the room, OR 2) a class where the girls watch a movie about menstration with a girls only classroom, that most parents would choose option 2.
And at 13, I think it is perfectly fine to stick with boys are boys and girls are girls according to your anatomy. I don't think you introduce transgenderism to 13 year olds (sorry Dana).
Theresa,
I guess the point about CRC parents and the health classes is that the two principal spokespersons for CRC had never allowed their children to take the 8th and 10th grade Family Life and Human Sexuality Units, the revisions to which led to CRC's formation: Steve Fisher admitted that he took his children out of the public schools after elementary school and Michelle Turner told me (when we served on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) together) that she never gave permission for any of her six children to take the Family Life and Human Sexuality Units. But then, in the CRC public statements last winter, CRC said that the existing Family Life and Human Sexuality Units were fine, and should not be changed at all. It is this kind of dishonesty in the public discourse that has made discussion of how we can improve the curriculum far more difficult than it need be.
With respect to your statement that "I don't think you introduce transgenderism to 13 year olds," I simply would note that if you look at the 2003-04 CAC annual report, which includes the CAC's proposed curriculum revisions, transgender matters are in the curriculum in only the following ways: There is no mention in the proposed revised 8th grade curriculum; just a definition from the American Academy of Pediatrics "for teacher reference only," in case a student asked a question. So the topic was not raised for 13 year olds. In the 10th grade curriculum, that same definition is provided as a "Note" for teachers, following the definitions of sexual orientation. That is ALL the proposed curriculum revisions included about that topic. Yet, CRC tried to make it sound that the revisions presented a full-blown discussion of transgender issues.
When I was Chair of the CAC, I would have been perfectly happy to have a discussion about the wisdom of having certain topics relating to sexuality taught to boys and girls separately when we were considering the curriculum revisions during the 2003-04 cycle. There was never an opportunity to do that because we had to spend so much of our time dealing with obstructionist tactics by CRC's current nominee to the CAC.
The community itself might have been able to have a more useful discussion of the 2003-04 CAC recommendations had Ms. Brown, Ms. Rice, and Ms. Turner accepted my offer for them to submit a minority report to the CAC recommendations, so that MCPS Staff and the Board could evaluate their perspectives. But they chose not to submit a minority report; rather, we see now, in hindsight, they decided to lie in wait until after the Board approved the recommendation and then engage in misleading attacks. And when those misleading attacks did not secure anywhere near enough public support to persuade the Board to change course, they brought a lawsuit in a context in which MCPS had virtually no opportunity to effectively respond before the judge ruled.
In the August 2, 2002, edition of the Gazette, there was an article discussing the opposition of my predecessor as CAC Chair to the appointment of a PFOX representative on the CAC. http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2002/200231/weekend/a_section/115675-1.html I had a different view, and here is what I was quoted (correctly) as saying:
"When people of good will sit down together with . . . open mind[s] a lot more can be accomplished than some people might think."
The CAC did accomplish a lot. However, some of its members, having failed to convince everyone else of the CAC of their point of view, sought to undermine the process through obstruction and misrepresentation. An honest discussion of differences would have been far more productive.
What disturbs me the most about the vocal CRC supporters has not been that they view the world differently from me, but that they typically make honest, good faith public discourse so difficult.
Interesting move Theresa.
In your first comment you mentioned that 3 out of 4, then 2 out of four CRC board members have kids in MCPS. In your second comment you suddenly refer to "some of the CRC parents" who allow their children to take health classes.
I'm sure we all know the reason you decided not to mention how many in CRC leadership positions with children in MCPS allow their students to take health classes.
Of the teachthefacts.org board members and officers (seven in total) every one of them has at least one child in MCPS who takes health.
What is the CRC position on the MCPS health curriculum these days? Does the CRC still support the existing 12 year old curriculum and want it to remain as the only information available for teaching human sexuality to MCPS students?
Now of course, as tax paying Montgomery County citizens, CRC leaders have the right to complain about a program funded with their tax dollars even if their children will never be exposed to it, but you might try a bit of honesty about your leadership's complete lack of personal experience with their own teens taking the MCPS health classes.
Christine
Cilly -
I have a big problem with this "you didn't let your kids take the health class" so you have less input.
Wrong.
I went to the parent meeting and I would have let my kids take the health class with some key changes.
I think that trying to imply that parents who don't let their kids take the sex ed class have less input is wrong. In a spirit of trying to find a middle ground - you should try to figure out why some parents object and see if there is middle ground.
And parents, such as Steve Fisher and myself, who have left the public health system because of objections to the curriculum - I would think you should be especially concerned about. After all, if enough parents leave you will signficantly reduce the number of public school attending students to the point you may have to close schools. You think I am happy about spending another 8K on top of the 8K I pay in taxes for private schools ?
And defining "gender identity" as your inner sense of whether you are male or female is a setup for transgenderism discussions, in my opinion.
Theresa,
I also attended the parent meetings, lots of them as I have three children -- two MCPS alumni and one current high school student.
You reported on this blog (at least I think it was you) that when you found out that the teacher would read the questions written by students aloud possibly containing the term "anal sex" and that there was a filmstrip about a young man trying to clean up his own bed after a wet dream, you decided not only to keep your son from the class, but to pull him from MCPS completely.
And that's fine -- you have a right pull your son, not just from the class you didn't like but from the entire school system, instead of asking his teacher to make the "key changes" that might have made the class acceptable to you.
What I have learned over the years from attending parent meetings about MCPS health classes is that if a parent objects to any portion of the health education curriculum, most MCPS teachers are gladly willing to accomodate parent's wishes.
Had I found myself in your position, I would have told the teacher that I object to my son hearing the term "anal sex" and I would have asked her to be sure that IF she was going to read a question from a student containing that term, to make sure my son was not in the classroom to hear it. I'd have made a similar arrangement for the filmstrip as well, working out an assignment agreeable to me and the teacher for my son to work on outside of the classroom while the film was being shown.
And no, I'm not "especially concerned" about the approximately 1% of MCPS parents who decide they do not want their students to learn about human sexuality in MCPS and so home school or private school or opt them out of health class instead. I am quite content to be aligned with the other 99% MCPS parents.
Christine
Theresa
This year the Southern Baptists nearly voted to pull all of their kids out of public schools everywhere. This doesn't have anything to do with a particular curriculum, it has to do with an overall policy of destroying public education. If parents get to dictate the content of classes, the schools will have no ground for teaching difficult facts, say, facts that parents don't understand. If you guys can succeed in getting your private schooling funded by the government, then the Afrocentric parents can send their kids to Afrocentric schools, the militaristic kids can send their kids to military school, the Hispanics can send their kids to classes in Spanish, everybody will be taught something different. Northerners will learn about the Civil war, Southerners will learn about the War of Northern Aggression. Klan kids can go to Klan schools, Nazi kids can go to Nazi schools, and the polarizing effects are not pretty to think about. There will be no standard, colleges will have to be very picky about who they accept, and objective knowledge will become a historical curiosity.
The schools then will be in the business of providing a service to customers, and the main job of administrators will be marketing. This may sound like utopia to you, but its effect on Amercan education will be devastating. We already have the worst system in the industrialized world, if we pandered to special interests it would fall apart altogether.
People who have respect for critical thinking and for the vast knowledge our culture has accumulated need to oppose the pariochialization of the schools that you propose.
(And ... in your mind, what is so terrible about talking about transgender topics?)
JimK
"This year the Southern Baptists nearly voted to pull all of their kids out of public schools everywhere. This doesn't have anything to do with a particular curriculum, it has to do with an overall policy of destroying public education"
No Jim - it was a reaction to the revoked curriculum which called the Baptist church "biblically misguided".
An appropriate reaction, I might add.
And Christine, I did pull my daughter and my son completely out of the public school system (it was my daugther in 5th grade - and I transferred her back before the health curriculum started). I came to the conclusion, which you may not agree with, that the public schools were focused on imparting a particular view of the world quite different than mine. That most of the public school system felt it was the schools job to teach morals and not mine. I basically decided I could not trust what my children were going to be exposed to in the public schools - because "anything goes".
The 9th circuit court decision affirms that what I feared was the case - that the opinion of the liberal run school system is that it is the government job's to raise my children, not mine - was a valid concern.
Hi, Theresa,
First, let me say that I appreciate your willingness to engage on this blog as a reasonable and rational adult. It's too bad none of your other officers are willing to do so, in this venue or any other.
As for the main body of the Southern Baptists being "biblically misguided," well, I can certainly believe that, and I do. That's my theological position. Nearly half of the SBC believes that of the other half, anyway, to say nothing of the internecine warfare among all the Christian sects, today and throughout history. But that's not material for the public schools to teach. I think we all agree on that.
I accept your apology about transgender issues.
First, to a linguistic matter: "transgenderism" isn't an accurate term. "Gender variance" or "sexual variance" is a more applicable medical or scientific term. "Transsexualism" is an appropriate term for those who have the brain sex of one sex and the genital sex of the other.
You say, "defining "gender identity" as your inner sense of whether you are male or female is a setup for transgenderism discussions, in my opinion." That is the accepted medical and scientific definition of gender identity. Even the most extreme of right-wing psychiatrists, among the few who are left, such as Paul McHugh, accept that today. One's sense of whether one is male or female is a brain fucntion and develops in utero.
Now would providing that definition lead to a discussion of trans issues? With 13 year-olds? Probably not, I would expect. Too much of a yuck factor, I would think. But, besides the fact that any adolescent can find out all they want about gender issues online, it would be helpful to the occasional trans student to hear the facts from a teacher, and it would also be even more helpful for all the others to hear about why they themselves feel as they do and to develop an understanding for why a few people do not. I think it might also help the adolescent males to learn not to attribute all their sexuality to their possession of a penis or to its size. Recognizing that their sex resides primarily between their ears rather than between their legs might temper their raw desires.
I have to imagine that you believe that somehow being trans is contagious, and that your son might come home one day and tell you he wants to be a girl because his sex-ed teacher told him there are people who feel that way. I can state that it is not contagious, and if you knew me or any other trans person you would realize this is not something dealt with lightly by anyone, ever. It's probably the least likely issue to be dealt with lightly or flippantly by any human being.
So I would like teenagers to learn that this happens, that it is very uncommon, but it is no different than any other birth variation except that it has to do with sex. And just as I'm sure you wouldn't deprive anyone of surgery to repair a cleft lip or cleft palate, you don't really want to deny anyone genital reconstruction, either.
It might assuage your discomfort some to know that the medical profession did everything it could for over forty years to try to treat trans persons psychologically rather than surgically, even without EVER having evidence that this was a mental disorder (the evidence was always to the contrary, but ignored). Treatments included aversion therapy, electroshock therapy, even lobotomy I've been told. They failed. To their credit, with very few exceptions, they've admitted their failure and supported the treatment that works 98% of the time -- social transition and surgical reconstruction, if desired by the trans person.
Let me tell you a personal story. When I transitioned my two sons were concerned that this might "happen" to them. Because of my knowledge, I was able to tell them unequivocably, "No." Do you think it would have been better for them to remain in the dark, ot troll the internet looking for answers? And since not all parents have the knowledge, it would be preferable that schools could present the facts.
Now, I will also add that what I would REALLY like to see is more discussion of human (and animal) sexual development in biology class. The field has been revolutionized since I was in high school; gosh, even in the past fifteen years. A single class period on such a topic would erase a great deal of ignorance and fear and preclude the need for much discussion in sex-ed class in the first place.
Hey, Anon,
"My son's at a Christian school taking AP Biology. Most of the kids who have taken the class in the past have passed the AP exam. Last year, every kid in the class who got an A, received 4 or better on the AP exam. They teach evolution but point out its deficiencies along the way. Kids who learn that way are actually more familiar with Darwinianism than those who are taught to blindly accept it. Interesting what happens when kids are taught to think."
I have little doubt that Christian schools can teach biology effectively. I learned my science very well in a Jewish school, and I have Catholic friends who did likewise in Catholic schools. As far as I know, neither they nor I was ever told in biology or chemistry or physics class that where there was a problem, we should look to God for an answer.
If that's what your son is being told, then he's the worse off for it. If the gaps in evolution are pointed out to him, then he's got a good handle for a research topic.
If he goes to college and in bio lab he suggests a theological experiment, I expect he'll flunk. And deservedly so. I hope, for America's sake, that is not the reasoning your son is learning.
It doesn't matter that your son or anyone else may believe God is in the details, as long as they understand the details. The minute they become creationists, however, they cannot possibly accept evolution, which means they can't be biologists. And I can't see how a creationist biology course should be accredited for college credit.
To the Catholic Church's credit last week, they announced that they are not creationists.
Arguments about first causes are fun and interesting, but are not the issue here. Some of our greatest scientists have been very pious men, and others have been religious crackpots. Many have been atheists. No matter. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, religion and science are "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOM)and should keep out of each other's way. Jews and Catholics, and I would bet the vast majority of Protestants, agree.
Theresa mentioned a reaction to the revoked curriculum which called the Baptist church "biblically misguided". Of course, the millions of Southern Baptists did not want to boycott public schools because of something MCPS said about them in some background resources.
Besides, you should know that no part of the MCPS package called the Baptist church "biblically misguided." That was Judge Williams' phrase, not anything from MCPS.
And you know the curriculum itself said nothing about any religion at all. The judge ruled on the basis of background materials that students would never see.
Of course the Southern Baptists were concerned, like you, that the schools are "imparting a particular view of the world quite different than mine." Yes, they are, that's their job. They provide a secular education. If the Baptists, or the Amish, or the Rosicrucians, or whatever, want to start their own schools, they are free to do so. The public schools are secular, and they are obligated to teach the facts as they are currently known.
You do realize that not everybody thinks like you, right? Again, you have the right to hold quirky views, but part of the price of that is that you are going to be out of synch with the secular norms of your society. I don't doubt that's worth it to you, but you will not succeed in forcing the whole society to adapt to your unusual beliefs. Most people are concerned about the "information" their kids will pick up on the playground, and would prefer to have them taught what scientific and medical experts hold to be true. And most people are not going to give that up to accommodate you.
JimK
Anon,
You confuse the use of the word normal. It has a statistical meaning relating to population and a value meaning. You know full well that the lay definition takes it to mean "ok, nothing's wrong, just like the rest of us, not weird." Scientifically speaking, it relates to means and standard deviations. (And please don't let's get into a disagreement over the use of the word "deviation.")
So, statistically speaking being gay is not normal. OK. Neither is being American. So what? Being transsexual is even less normal statistically. Again, so what? You try to pathologize a particular state of being by calling it abnormal.
I'm not sure your endocrine system processes testosterone "normally." The last time I looked, for serum T levels there was a pretty wide spread. We define a normal level statistically. And if you fall outside the norm? Is it pathological? Maybe, but probably not. Let's say your system is tuned in such a way that your only problem is you're infertile. Is that a problem for you? Maybe. Is it an illness? Not as we define illness. Is it a condition? Yes. Is it a disorder? Since the majority of the population is fertile, you could certainly define it as such. Would you try to repair the deficiency? Maybe. Should the rest of us consider you damaged or sick or perverted? No.
When Michelle Turner calls heterosexuality mainstream, she's not just stating a fact. It goes without saying that it is true. That's part of the problem. People until very recently never even questioned the phenomenon. They were oblivious. They just accepted they were straight, and then, if you're not, the implication is that you're out of the mainstream. Not different, but out of the mainstream. Bad.
But as most straight persons understand, recognizing that others are different doesn't imply anything negative about themselves. I remember Jerry Falwell being asked about the first time he desired a girl. He was taken aback by the question, as if it were something strange. Michelle is concerned about when gay kids first feel desire, but she's portraying that as a different experience from that of straight kids.
Similarly with Theresa, who's upset with the discussion of gender identity. Well, guess what, we all have a gender identity (I'm still searching for someone who does not have a gender identity). For the vast majority of people, the norm, their identity is congruent with their gender assignment at birth, their gender role, their anatomy and physiology. They don't recall their first awareness of their gender identity because they were very young and it made no impact, it had no affect, it didn't register. So they grow up assuming they don't have one. It's only those of us whose gender identity is at odds with the rest of our gender that we become aware,and then anxious, depressed, confused . . .
But you can see this awareness in many different circumstances. I have men do a thought experiment where their genitals are blown off by an IED, leaving a hole in their groin. When they wake up after surgery, are they still men? So far, every one of them has said yes. But they no longer have a penis, scrotum, testicles, or testosterone. It seems it really isn't about what you see when you come out of the shower.
A more common situaiton is a young girl who fails to menstruate, or an older women having a hysterectomy, or an older man having a prostatectectomy and being treated with estrogens. They all call their sexuality into question, because there is now an incongruence. The incongruence is that they have the same brain sex they were born with, the same gender identity, but something else has changed to throw them into turmoil. It's a bit ironic but the largest group of people with gender identity issues in the country today is older men with prostate cancer, who, as a result of surgery and chemo, can no longer get an erection, and who often develop breasts. Maybe we shouldn't allow them near the grandchildren?
Dana
I wasn't trying to say what is and isn't normal. I have an opinion, as you know, but what I was discussing was whether anyone's idea of "normal" is a fact. To say all "experts" say it is not a disorder is simply noting their opinion. They can study what is and is not a disorder once the term is defined- and that would be scientific- but to decide what constitutes "normal functioning" is a value judgment. If, as you contend, there are certain people who cannot respond sexually to another gender, and thus, reproduce, most people would say that's a disorder. That's a value judgment, too, not a fact- but we're not suggesting it be taught as a "fact".
I believe that by calling opinions of "experts" a fact- the old CAC was using an underhanded method to argue for their own value system. There's no science here, no scientific facts for the "not a disorder" claim.
Let me know if you agree and we can move on to the next "fact" in the curriculum and then, we can, one-by-one, go over Wertsch's presentation's studies. I'm sure some of you would like to put that off as long as possible.
Anonymous writes: "I believe that by calling opinions of "experts" a fact- the old CAC was using an underhanded method to argue for their own value system."
Here is precisely what was in the proposed revised curriculum:
"Myth: Homosexuality is a mental health disorder.
"Fact: All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder."
How in the world is this, in Anonoymous' words, "underhanded"? Anonymous is free to try to explain your view that all these organizations are wrong, but no one wins rational arguments by using adjectives, particularly when the use is without foundation. The revised curriculum could have simply said that "homosexuality is not a mental disorder." It did not; rather, it stated an unassailable fact. If Anonymous wishes to attack the conclusions of the professional associations of our health care providers, he/she should go ahead. But he/she should not attack the integrity of the old CAC and MCPS Staff when there is absolutely no basis to do so.
Perhaps Anonymous would have had the following, factually accurate statement: "All major professional medical and mental health professional associations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder; some groups identifying themselves as Christian disagree, based upon their theological views." But such theological discussions have no place in the public school health education curriculum. A theological debate between, say, spokespersons for the United Church of Christ -- which does not view homosexuality as a disorder or theologically-condemned -- and the Southern Baptist Convention would be very interesting -- but not in health education classes.
"How in the world is this, in Anonoymous' words, "underhanded"? Anonymous is free to try to explain your view that all these organizations are wrong, but no one wins rational arguments by using adjectives, particularly when the use is without foundation. The revised curriculum could have simply said that "homosexuality is not a mental disorder." It did not; rather, it stated an unassailable fact. If Anonymous wishes to attack the conclusions of the professional associations of our health care providers, he/she should go ahead. But he/she should not attack the integrity of the old CAC and MCPS Staff when there is absolutely no basis to do so."
David
The "myth" had nothing to do with the organizations so the opinion of the organizations as to what is "normal functioning" is no more relevant than the opinions of anyone else. If you could say "homosexuality is not a mental disorder", you would have and there could have been a discussion about it. Your implication is that it's so because they say so.
Critics of the curriculum say that the curriculum normalizes homosexuality and proponents keep saying "where? it just presents the facts- scientifically proven." This is one of the places where it says that exclusive sexual attraction to someone of your same sex is not a disorder. Properly defining order or normality is not their forte.
Yes, I think it was the purpose of the old CAC to be disingenuous.
Anonymous said: Yes, I think it was the purpose of the old CAC to be disingenuous.
Hmmm...have heard this argument before from those that promoted bigotry and hatred toward homosexuals.
"anon free"
Hmmmm, Free
when?
When the majority of old CAC did not do what minority of old CAC wanted.
They (minority) started that argument from day one. Now you are just a repeater of that same absurdity.
The argument did not work then and neither does it for you now anonymous.
"anon free"
What!?! Their purpose was to mislead people into thinking that science had proven that homosexuality is not a mental disorder? That's absurd- but it was the CAC that did it.
Okay anonymous..what science has said it is a mental disorder?
"anon free"
David said,
"Myth: Homosexuality is a mental health disorder.
"Fact: All major professional mental health organizations affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder."
And Anon said,
"The "myth" had nothing to do with the organizations so the opinion of the organizations as to what is "normal functioning" is no more relevant than the opinions of anyone else."
Really Anon? So "professional mental health organizations" have "nothing to do with" "mental health disorders" in your view.
Please tell us then in your view, which groups would have something "to do with" mental health disorders then if not professional mental health organizations.
Christine
Recent Statements by Professional Associations
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. The American Psychological Association declared that it was not a disorder in 1975.
Recent statements by professional organizations include:
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973.
The American Law Institute continually updates its Model Penal Code, which is a group of laws that they suggest be implemented at the state level. They recommend to legislators: "that private sexual behavior between consenting adults should be removed from the list of crimes and thereby legalized."
The American Bar Association in 1974 expressed its approval of the Model Penal Code, including its decriminalization of consensual adult homosexual acts.
The World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1981.
The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are:
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.
Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.
In 1994-AUGUST, The APA sent a proposal to one of its committees that would declare as unethical:
attempts by a psychologist to change a person's sexual orientation through therapy, or
referral of a patient to a therapist or organization who attempts to change people's sexual orientation
The APA publishes an undated brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." They state:
"...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
"...psychologists do not consider sexual orientation for most people to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."
"...homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem."
"There is no evidence indicating that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children." 1
In 1997_AUG-14, the APA published a news release about a recently passed resolution "on so-called reparative therapy." The resolution "raises ethical concerns about attempts to change sexual orientation, reaffirms psychology's opposition to homophobia and client's rights to unbiased treatment." 2
The American Medical Association (AMA) released a report in 1994-DEC which calls for "nonjudgmental recognition of sexual orientation by physicians." They suggest that psychotherapy be directed help homosexuals "become comfortable with their sexual orientation."
The Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Child and Adolescent Health have also stated that homosexuality is not a choice and cannot be changed.
NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality is a professional organization for psychiatrists, psychologists, other therapists, social workers, and behavioral scientists. They, alone among professional mental health organizations, promote reparative therapy for gays and lesbians. Their Statement of Policy and Right to Treatment completely contradicts statements by all other professional mental health organizations, and mirrors the beliefs of fundamentalist and other conservative Christians and Jews . Their total membership is somewhat over 1,000 which compares to the over 132,000 members of the American Psychological Association. Noon-therapists can join as a "Friend of NARTH;" many conservative Christian ministries have done this. NARTH teaches that homosexuality is a sexual disorder -- a sexual deviancy -- which can be readily cured. More details.
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association jointly issued a document titled: "Just the facts about sexual orientation." 3 They: expressed concern about harassment of gay and lesbian youth.
condemned reparative therapy as potentially harmful and of little or no effectiveness
describe transformational ministries as representing only one part of Christianity -- those faith groups which view homosexuality as outside God's will, and incompatible with Christianity. They cite other denominations as supporting equal rights, and protection against discrimination, for gays and lesbians.
Christine said in reply to Anonymous:
Really Anon? So "professional mental health organizations" have "nothing to do with" "mental health disorders" in your view.
Please tell us then in your view, which groups would have something "to do with" mental health disorders then if not professional mental health organizations.
**********************
Now you know Anonymous means CRC/PFOX would be those groups.
Anon,
You're playing language games again. We can get into a discussion of the history and philosophy of science, which I would enjoy, but expect very few others on this blog would.
You're correct. Because the APA says something that doesn't make it a "fact." Even when the other APA joins in. Or the other medical organizations. Those are consensus opinions based on scientific facts. The kind of stuff Wertsch discussed, and many others as well.
Will there be more facts? I hope so, especially once the Bush administration disappears. The more facts there are, the better the judgments. Will the judgments change with the new facts? Possibly. That's science. It won't happen overnight, it never does, but judgments do change.
The main contention between CRC and TTF is that your "facts" are based on a selective, fundamentalist reading of the Christian Bible, while ours are based on science. That's what it comes down to, in my opinion. Just like the evolution vs. creationism debate.
You claim that people who can't reproduce are "disordered." Maybe in certain contexts. But, of course, gay persons can very well reproduce, and often do, or may choose not to do so. For you to call that choice a disorder is again based simply on your religious faith. Be proud, admit that, and then deal with the fact that our public schools are secular institutions and will not be promulgating your theology or anyone else's.
> Dana
I wasn't trying to say what is and isn't normal. I have an opinion, as you know, but what I was discussing was whether anyone's idea of "normal" is a fact. To say all "experts" say it is not a disorder is simply noting their opinion. They can study what is and is not a disorder once the term is defined- and that would be scientific- but to decide what constitutes "normal functioning" is a value judgment. If, as you contend, there are certain people who cannot respond sexually to another gender, and thus, reproduce, most people would say that's a disorder. That's a value judgment, too, not a fact- but we're not suggesting it be taught as a "fact". <
Dana,
As always, you're the clearest thinker among the various commenters (no insult intended, Cilly and David- you two are a close second):
"You're correct. Because the APA says something that doesn't make it a "fact." Even when the other APA joins in. Or the other medical organizations. Those are consensus opinions based on scientific facts. The kind of stuff Wertsch discussed, and many others as well."
This is the only point I was making right now. If their conclusions are so solidly based on facts, why not teach the facts? I personally think it's because the facts are not that solid. Right now, though, I'm trying to get through this all in a methodical way. First, through each "fact" in the discarded curriculum and, then, going through each of Wertsch's cited studies. Anyway, I think I've made this point. Tomorrow, on to "fact" two.
"The main contention between CRC and TTF is that your "facts" are based on a selective, fundamentalist reading of the Christian Bible, while ours are based on science. That's what it comes down to, in my opinion. Just like the evolution vs. creationism debate."
I don't agree but let's revisit this after the process is complete.
One other thing, Dana: You had surgery. Is it out of place to say that the purpose was to correct a disorder?
I see that Theresa called me liar when I suggested the other places may follow California's current lead if Charles County follows its plans(not that they are realistic). The Charles County statement was to get rid of science books that are "biased towards evolution". I am sure there are not any other sort of valid science text books so this kind of step would be likely to make science education impossible in Charles County. This is not the same as saying your son takes AP Biology and is taught that there are concerns with evolution- or somethng like that. I don't know- my son wasn't taught anything like that in his AP biology class or in college.
Theresa, while I will not call you a liar, first you said you pulled your kids because of health ed- which seemed unlikely since no kids has to
take the areas of health ed with which you have problem. Then you said it was that it was basically that you had problems with how public schools teach morals or that etc, that the gov't has the right to decide what kids learn, not parents. You then appear to say that the national Southern Baptist Conference considered a resolution to pull their kids from public school because of what happened here in MC. Perhaps you are just confused about why things happen.
I have no problem with people whose kids are not in MCPS-no one I know personally did it for your reasons- or anything even close. You may believe that significant numbers left because of health ed- but that is all it is - your belief.
That was Lightning not Theresa, Andrea, and, if you'll read closely, you'll find I didn't call you a liar but posed a question about how easily TTF throws that charge around.
We've been talking about whether gays have mental problems and, for the sake of the TTF cause, you'd probably be wise to just nto say anything.
Anon,
Thank you for the compliment. I don't have much time right now, but I will say that a fundamental issue here is what we mean by facts. Having fought the psychiatric community in one form or another now for forty years on this issue, I've learned how people and organizations can get things in their heads which are impossible to dislodge. My experience was that the psych community routinely abused trans persons because of their beliefs which were not based on any scientific facts at all. There were plenty of embryological facts about intersex conditions from the 20s and 30s which were completely ignored, and instead the profession took a Freudian/religious approach that had its roots in 19th century Germany. For all of Freud's insights, he presented absolutely no science. Maybe it was the best they thought they could do at the time, maybe not. I do know that no attention was paid to the intersex work which has obvious connections to transsexualism. And I and many of my friends suffered greatly as a consequence.
Since the 90's however, there has been an increasing amount of hard science on sexual identity and orientation. Enough? No, of course not. A remarkable amount considering the intense obstructionism of the Christian community. And I believe more than enough for all those medical organizations to use to develop the positions they have promulgated. I expect there will be scientific debate on many of these issues, and I welcome it, just as I did when I presented my paper this past August to the human sexual development community.
As to myself, I have no problem acknowledging that in this society I was born with a birth defect, caused by a toxic substance ingested by my mother at her physician's insistence. However, there may very well be cases of transsexualism which are simply congenital variants, such as recombinant alleles or transpositions which occur all the time and make up the variation responsible for human diversity. Should those be called disorders? In and of themselves, no. In the context of how the person feels in this particular society, yes. Until we accept that there are women with penises and men with vaginas, this culture will induce a feeling of disorder in this group of people. Many will then want to repair the condition so as to no longer feel disordered. Personally, I don't have any problem with the concept of women with penises, but I accept that many people do. So in that context it certainly does become a disorder.
"I have little doubt that Christian schools can teach biology effectively. I learned my science very well in a Jewish school, and I have Catholic friends who did likewise in Catholic schools. As far as I know, neither they nor I was ever told in biology or chemistry or physics class that where there was a problem, we should look to God for an answer.
If that's what your son is being told, then he's the worse off for it. If the gaps in evolution are pointed out to him, then he's got a good handle for a research topic.
If he goes to college and in bio lab he suggests a theological experiment, I expect he'll flunk. And deservedly so. I hope, for America's sake, that is not the reasoning your son is learning.
It doesn't matter that your son or anyone else may believe God is in the details, as long as they understand the details. The minute they become creationists, however, they cannot possibly accept evolution, which means they can't be biologists. And I can't see how a creationist biology course should be accredited for college credit.
To the Catholic Church's credit last week, they announced that they are not creationists.
Arguments about first causes are fun and interesting, but are not the issue here. Some of our greatest scientists have been very pious men, and others have been religious crackpots. Many have been atheists. No matter. As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, religion and science are "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOM)and should keep out of each other's way. Jews and Catholics, and I would bet the vast majority of Protestants, agree."
Dana,
I think we need a whole seperate blog just to discuss design issues and the deficiencies of evolution (and I'm sure there is one somewhere.) I'm going to stop responding to these temporarily, however, until the whole sex-ed crtique has concluded but don't think it's because I don't think it's important.
One post you made somewhere, though, that I didn't want to let pass without comment was when I said I didn't have any problem with seeing Genesis as a parable and you made a comment about the Bible being a big metaphor. Just to clear up positions, I do think the Genesis story happened- I was just saying that I don't have any big objection to someone thinking it's a parable. There may be other parts of the Bible that are symbolic but it's usually pretty clear when that's so. I interpret scripture perspicuously. For the most part, the narratives are actual events. Indeed, a key message of Christianity is that GOd has intervened in our universe.
"Since the 90's however, there has been an increasing amount of hard science on sexual identity and orientation. Enough? No, of course not. A remarkable amount considering the intense obstructionism of the Christian community. And I believe more than enough for all those medical organizations to use to develop the positions they have promulgated. I expect there will be scientific debate on many of these issues, and I welcome it, just as I did when I presented my paper this past August to the human sexual development community."
I'll have to disagree here, Dana. Not near enough to count as a fact that should be taught to kids but we'll get to that presentation of Wertsch's. What's this alleged obstructionism? Any specifics? Because, if not, I can make some generalizations from the other side of the fence.
Anon,
I really don't want to have to waste my time going back through the Science archives to find examples of the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress obstructing any kind of research having to do with sex, gender, HIV, sexual orientation, etc. There was a period last year when the stories seemed to come every week. It is today a given that if you are doing research in the field, you need to sanitize your grant proposals to get them through.
As a florid example, just look at the recent events at the totally neutered FDA, and the story today about how they made their (Republican religious extremist decision) before the science was completed.
As for your way of reading the Bible, that's fine. I was taught in a similar form, though very highly nuanced. I know Jews who read Torah in every way imaginable, yet only a very few have the audacity to say that their way is the only way.
You call your reading perspicuous; I would disagree. Whether or not events described are historical to some degree or not is another entire debate. You choose to see God intervening, I choose not. But that has nothing to do with either the teaching of sex education, biology or evolution.
I guess it comes down to the psychological issues that are driving this war today. We can actually have it because of the separation of church and state, yet you are aligned with the side that wants to obliterate that separation. Do you all not realize that in so doing so you will end your freedoms? The world has a history of balkanizations and religious wars, and we've been fortunate to evade that except for the major divide between the Confederacy and the the rest of us. Now that is as bad as it's been in decades, maybe centuries. Do you think that's a good thing? Do you really believe the South (and I'm speaking of a perspective that includes CRC, PFOX, Charles County, the former Dover school board, the Kansas school board, and most of the states of the former Confederacy, including Texas) with its medieval worldview can function in this world, sopping up tax dollars from the North while teaching its kids a way of thinking that would make the Shiite mullahs proud?
After looking back at some earlier statements in this thread, I have to point out the following:
Theresa said...
Cilly -
I have a big problem with this "you didn't let your kids take the health class" so you have less input.
Theresa made the above statement in response to what I said, which was....
Now of course, as tax paying Montgomery County citizens, CRC leaders have the right to complain about a program funded with their tax dollars even if their children will never be exposed to it, but you might try a bit of honesty about your leadership's complete lack of personal experience with their own teens taking the MCPS health classes.
There you go again, Theresa! You've made another interesting move.
Your claim of what I said is false. I never said those who don't let their kids take health class "have less input." What I said was, "CRC leaders have the right to complain about a program funded with their tax dollars even if their children will never be exposed to it."
Far from calling for "less input" from CRC leaders, my request was for more input, including the truth -- the whole truth. CRC leaders are opposed to the revised curriculum (and support the existing 12 year old curriculum -- or did at one point) even though the half of them who have students enrolled in MCPS do not allow their students to take health class.
More misconstrual on your part Theresa. Please try to refrain from taking my statements and spinning them into something they do not say. Thank you.
And of course we are all still awaiting for the CRC response to these questions. "What is the CRC position on the MCPS health curriculum these days? Does the CRC still support the existing 12 year old curriculum and want it to remain as the only information available for teaching human sexuality to MCPS students?"
Christine
Lightning, anon, whomever,
You think you are funny, I suppose, in insulting me. Actually, an insult from someone like you is a compliment in my book- I must have done something fierce to deserve it.
Andrea
Cilly
This is getting petty. I've heard distortions- and lies- on both sides. Hey, why don't you go over everything one more time and see if there's anything else to raise a ruckus about?
Theresa always seems more sincere than the average commenter here.
"You think you are funny, I suppose, in insulting me. Actually, an insult from someone like you is a compliment in my book- I must have done something fierce to deserve it."
Yeah, it's mutual, baby.
Anon,
I would be interested in your catalog of the TTF "lies." You're playing the RNC game -- Shout moral equivalence, claim everyone does it, distract, distract, distract.
I pride myself on NOT lying. I don't believe any of my colleagues lie. And I have noticed that when they misspeak and it is pointed out, that they come back and correct their statements. That is as it should be.
I have yet to hear Michelle, Garza, Patton, Jacobs, Theresa or anyone else from your side ever admit to a lie even when we have produced the often voluminous documentation to back it up.
"this war today"
Dana,
There won't be any war. The John McCain-Condeleeza Rice ticket will swamp the Hillary Clinton-Harry Reid ticket. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. Darwin will be exposed. Schools will become vital when kids are motivated to learn in schools not run by the dreary liberal bureaucracy.
"As Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, religion and science are "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" (NOM)and should keep out of each other's way."
I've got a Gould quote too:
"The dirty little secret of paleontology is that no transitional forms have ever been found."
Hence Gould's advancement of the field by introducing the concept of punctuated equilibrium.
JimK
Condi Rice will go down with the other Bush liars, so her political career is over.
I hope Roe is overturned. That will mean the end of the Republican party, and the further separation of the blue from the red states. And as for Darwin being exposed, in your dreams. Your delicate little students already should have their hands full with the nuts and bolts of molecular biology, and I don't expect to see a paper anytime soon in Cell entitled, "God's fingerprint discovered in structure of cyclin B-Cdc2 complex," or in Science called "Femtosecond pulse laser illuminates angels flapping arms in the excited state of the isomerization of cis-retinal to bathorhodopsin."
Here's a lovely Letter from today's New York Times. If only American Protestants had the spiritual wisdom and enlightened decency of this Buddhist leader:
To the Editor:
During the Enlightenment, people witnessed the creation of science as a distinct method of producing valid and reliable knowledge that is so fundamental to contemporary society.
Today, we find that sentiment most keenly expressed by Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, when he writes, "If science proves some beliefs of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change" ("Our Faith in Science," Op-Ed, Nov. 12).
Imagine the possibilities for peace and progress if all religious leaders, the Kansas Board of Education and the president of the United States were as enlightened.
Andrew Pleasant
Highland Park, N.J., Nov. 12, 2005
"Hence Gould's advancement of the field by introducing the concept of punctuated equilibrium."
Renaming something is not the same thing as explaining it.
To you, Anon, it may appear to be a re-naming. In building upon catastrophe theory, and in its cohesiveness with other developments in complexity theory, for instance the recent findings showing the omnipresence of power laws in natural events, punctuated equilibrium theory has opened up a new view of insights into evolutionary theory.
JimK
"Condi Rice will go down with the other Bush liars, so her political career is over."
She didn't lie about anything- just like Theresa. She'll eventually be the first black president- once again solidfying the Republican Party as the party of opportunity for minorities. Soon, there won't be any Democrats who aren't tie-dyed and high.
"I hope Roe is overturned. That will mean the end of the Republican party, and the further separation of the blue from the red states."
Nah. Everyone will accept it because it was an illogical decision. There's no right to murder in the constitution. It will probably still be legal to destroy children's lives in Massachusetts and Minnesota. There won't be a war, over it.
"And as for Darwin being exposed, in your dreams. Your delicate little students already should have their hands full with the nuts and bolts of molecular biology,"
Darwin had a theory about historical events. You can have a terrific and practical knowledge of biology without ever thinking about his theory.
"I don't expect to see a paper anytime soon in Cell entitled, "God's fingerprint discovered in structure of cyclin B-Cdc2 complex,""
No, it'll probably say "Scientists give up on trying to reconcile Darwin's theories with empirical data."
"Femtosecond pulse laser illuminates angels flapping arms in the excited state of the isomerization of cis-retinal to bathorhodopsin."
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
"If only American Protestants had the spiritual wisdom and enlightened decency of this Buddhist leader"
As I recall, Buddhism is based on ascetism and the avoidance of physical pleasure. Sounds like they'd be way into the abstinence curriculum.
"To you, Anon, it may appear to be a re-naming. In building upon catastrophe theory, and in its cohesiveness with other developments in complexity theory, for instance the recent findings showing the omnipresence of power laws in natural events, punctuated equilibrium theory has opened up a new view of insights into evolutionary theory."
When you start talking about things like "chaos theory" or "omnipresence of power laws", where rules apply broadly over all phenomena, to me this is just more evidence that the universe was designed.
And, actually, the original discussion was the lack of transitional forms, which undercuts Darwin's theory. Why do we keep finding many examples of similar species but no fossils in between these certain transitional levels?
You seem to know a lot about this considering it's not your field. How come?
There is an emerging science of complex systems generally, for which the evolutionary paradigm has provided some of the most important observations and theoretical concepts. Punctuated equilibrium is related to the concept of "avalanches", as advanced most famously by Per Bak, and expanded by numerous physicists and mathematicians. Social scientists as well as those in the physical sciences are finding a general class of phenomena running through many different systems.
But this, I thought, was just common knowledge. You'll find it in a lot of pop-science literature.
JimK
Anon,
I do admire your equanimity, as the Republican tent is being torn to shreds all about you. I doubt there will be many of the 80% of Americans who are not religious extremists who will make common cause with the Brownbacks and Santorums much longer. Their time has passed.
Condi did lie -- not too much of a chance there would have been a mushroom cloud sent our way by Saddam, was there?
You missed my point about Roe. Abortion will be banned in the Confederacy, it will be legal everywhere else, the populations will reverse their Sunbelt shift of the past twenty years (hurricanes and drought in addition to religious lunacy, illiteracy, poverty . . .) and the blues will stop sending their tax dollars to subsidize the reds. A de facto, if not de jure, secession.
And there is absolutely no way to make sense of genetics in particular or molecular biology, in general, without accepting the evolutionary paradigm.
"I do admire your equanimity, as the Republican tent is being torn to shreds all about you. I doubt there will be many of the 80% of Americans who are not religious extremists who will make common cause with the Brownbacks and Santorums much longer. Their time has passed."
We'll see but it seemed like you guys were so confident in the last presidential election and, what happened?
"Condi did lie -- not too much of a chance there would have been a mushroom cloud sent our way by Saddam, was there?"
She was mistaken as were all the world's intelligence agencies and our erstwhile Democratic legislators. The war would have been necessary and advisable regardless.
"You missed my point about Roe. Abortion will be banned in the Confederacy, it will be legal everywhere else, the populations will reverse their Sunbelt shift of the past twenty years (hurricanes and drought in addition to religious lunacy, illiteracy, poverty . . .) and the blues will stop sending their tax dollars to subsidize the reds. A de facto, if not de jure, secession."
America was united and properous for a couple of centuries before Roe. Protecting children won't drive us to ruin. It's a moral imperative anyway.
"And there is absolutely no way to make sense of genetics in particular or molecular biology, in general, without accepting the evolutionary paradigm"
Nobody rejecting everything about evolutionary theory. The thing that it doesn't adequately explain is the variation of species or origin of life. Species obviously adapt to the environment and it's perfectly explainable how. They were designed to do so.
"America was united and properous for a couple of centuries before Roe."
Yeah right. Especially during the Civil War when religious *nuts* of the day used their religious views to justify their hatred of African Americans. For a while they were successful in their attempts to enact repressive laws to keep African American from being full members of American society but in the end, reason and justice prevailed. The tide turned slowly but surely from the Civil War through passage of the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, through the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
The same outcome will prevail in this latest chapter of the battle for equal civil rights for all Americans.
Heck, it's already starting to become reality with the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling in the Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health case, the US Supreme Court ruling in the Lawrence and Garner v. Texas case, and in last Tuesday's vote in Maine.
Of course last Tuesday's vote may indicate Texas will be the last to know but then for the last five years their village has been missing its ... oh never mind.
Aunt Bea
Look, "Aunt Jim",
Dana was arguing that overturning Roe would divide the country and lead to economic ruin in the South. I offered a fact that I think counters her point.
Try to follow the conversation.
Well, Anon, this historical "fact" you provided
"America was united and properous for a couple of centuries before Roe"
is simply wrong. Not only does the Civil War represent a period before the US Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade decision when America was not united, but most would agree that America wasn't terribly prosperous during the depression either.
You also said "We'll see but it seemed like you guys were so confident in the last presidential election and, what happened?"
We were off by 10-12 months.
You guys were so sure of your "mandate" in the last presidential election. Dana has accurately pointed out "the Republican tent is being torn to shreds all about you" so now why don't you tell us, what happened?
And please, Anon, for the umpteenth time, your John Garza may well have a "Julie" in him but I can assure you, I am 100% woman, inside and out.
Aunt Bea
""America was united and properous for a couple of centuries before Roe"
is simply wrong. Not only does the Civil War represent a period before the US Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade decision when America was not united, but most would agree that America wasn't terribly prosperous during the depression either."
Actually, you're right about that. There have been some big ups and downs. Still, there have been lengthy periods of shalom without the legalized murder of the inconvenient. Indeed, to suggest otherwise is truly offensive.
Your thought and speech patterns are too close to Jim's. I'm not buying it until I see you both together in the same room.
Anon,
Politics -- the 2004 election was stolen by virtue of fascist propaganda. You remember, the mushroom clouds and all that.
And on that point, and Condi's lies, there was NO evidence that Saddam was reconstituing a nuclear program. The fears were about chemical weapons (which we've used in Fallujah) and weapons-grade anthrax. The mushroom clouds were a Willie Horton-like technique to scare decent Americans. And it worked.
Same about brainswashing Americans into believing bin Laden and Saddam were brothers. Do you realize there was a time last year that a majority of Americans believed most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis?
History -- my colleagues make the point quite well. As did Tom Davis, (R) VA, today, who made basically the same point, though much more gently -- just warning Republicans that such a future for them would be very grim indeed.
Biology -- Darwin never said anything about the origin of life. We still have no clue, just some provocative experiments in the lab and great sci-fi about Vulcans, Klingons, and all that. That's not the issue. You can approach that question scientifically, or theologically. They are "non-overlapping" at this point.
The debate was, and still is, between people who believe the origin of life is up in the air but that evolution describes its development once it got started, and those who believe there were dinosaurs on a craft known as Noah's Ark.
Dana
History
Look at today's (Nov 18,2005) Wall Street Journal on the editorial page for a rundown of Bill Clinton's actions and statements about Iraq while President and since.
Biology
The debate was, and still is, between people who believe the origin of life is up in the air but that evolution describes its development once it got started, and those who believe the origin of species variation is up in the air but that evolution describes its development once it got started.
And those dinosaurs were on the Ark.
dinosaurs on the ark!- That's a joke, right?
Not really, Andrea.
Anon,
I have to say I admire your courage in coming out and saying there were dinsaurs on the ark, as if there really was an ark, and there could possibly have been dinosaurs on it. As I've mentioned, I grew up with fundamentalists, and I learned very early on never to discuss these issues, because there was no point. There could be no middle ground, no compromise. It led me to a deep and abiding respect for the separation of church and state.
By today's standards, such a belief is delusional. No matter how much evidence is piled up to dispute the possiblity of the occurrence, you would ignore it, because of your belif in Biblical "inerrancy." That is the definition of a delusion --persistence of a belief in the face of overwhelming evidence.
As I've said, that is your perogative, and I have no problem living in the same county as you, nor would I have any problem with you being a friend and neighbor. My proble, and I expect that of my colleagues here, is when you want that taught in public school, or you try to change the law to impose that and similar beliefs on the rest of us. When you somehow think that belief makes you a more moral person than I, or a better person. That your morality defines the only morality.
If it makes you feel better, and I would hope it makes you a better person, then it's fine with me. Just show me the respect I deserve as well.
I don't know for sure about the dinosaurs- they mignt have been extinct before the flood. I think it's interesting, though, that many ancient legends and myths seem to contain creatures that sound a lot like huge reptiles. I have a feeling a few dinosaurs may have lasted longer than is currently thought.
As I pointed out, part of Christian doctrine is general revelation so we believe all physical evidence must somehow be reconciled to biblical truth but we don't always know how. As I also think I've pointed out, empiricism is not the only way truth is discovered- and that is true for everyone.
Don't know what I've said to make you think I thought I'm a more moral or better person than you.
Who were these fundamentalists who adopted you? What was the church you attended growing up?
I don't have any problem with there having been large reptiles or mammals at the time of the last great floods (9-20,000 years ago). But dinosaurs?
I'm sorry I confused you, but I was referring to Jewish fundamentalists. Same general attitude, but much more open to debate.
Dinosaurs extinct 64 - 65 million years ago- Man appears about 3.2 million- 4 million years ago- so the Flintstones did not happen. There were larger lizards maybe 25,000 years ago- but not dinosaurs nor were they the size of large dinosaurs- from which the komodo dragon is descended(and you can visit the Komodos at the National Zoo-they are not as popular as baby pandas but a lot more interesting- and also endangered)
You two really take the cake. I agree there's no proof that dinosaurs existed later than is currently thought because they haven't found any fossils. I still think it's a possibility but it's strange how sure you guys are.
Then there's fossils of transitional species that would show evolution proceeding through the foggy ruins of time. None of those have been found either but you readily believe in those. Is their existence confirmed by a policy statement from some association? the Piltdown Paleontologists Institute? or maybe just "experts"- top people...
Post a Comment
<< Home