County PTA Delegates Resolution Against CRC
It must be tough being the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum. Your moral sense is so refined, you are so sure that your way of life is better than everyone else's, but for some reason other people don't seem to agree. The CRC keeps trying to spread its ... superiority ... through our county, and people keep not buying it.
Like, remember that smart idea they had, to send letters to all the families of kids at the schools where the new sex-ed program was going to be piloted?
Here's the result of that, a resolution passed this month by the Montgomery County Council of PTA's Delegates -- not the executive board, but the Delegates Assembly, consisting of two representatives from every school in the county, plus all the PTA Presidents, plus all of the county officers and the Executive Board:
Like, remember that smart idea they had, to send letters to all the families of kids at the schools where the new sex-ed program was going to be piloted?
Here's the result of that, a resolution passed this month by the Montgomery County Council of PTA's Delegates -- not the executive board, but the Delegates Assembly, consisting of two representatives from every school in the county, plus all the PTA Presidents, plus all of the county officers and the Executive Board:
WHEREAS each school year the local PTA units of the Montgomery County Council of PTAs (MCCPTA) typically compile and publish student directories that include personal and potentially sensitive information such as the names, street addresses, e-mail and telephone numbers of students whose parents have agreed to have such information included, and
WHEREAS by common knowledge and accepted practice these directories are intended exclusively for the private use of the PTA and the local PTA communities to facilitate communication within their communities, and are not intended to be used for any other purpose, and
WHEREAS the president of an organization calling itself the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (CRC) has privately conceded to MCCPTA officers that CRC obtained copies of selected student directories and used the information in these directories to develop a mailing list for a purpose inconsistent with the intended or appropriate use of the directories, and
WHEREAS the misuse of student directories by CRC has caused substantial concern among parents within the affected communities, and
WHEREAS the PTAs in the affected communities are justifiably concerned that fears about potential future misuse of student directories could lead parents to withhold student directory information, thereby impairing a critical PTA asset,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MCCPTA Delegate Assembly strongly believes that the CRC should respond promptly and completely to all questions and concerns raised by local PTA units about the sources and intended uses of their student directory information, specifically identifying any instances in which this information may have already been sold or otherwise made available to another individual or entity, and
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the MCCPTA Delegate Assembly strongly believes that the CRC should agree in writing to cease using information obtained from PTA student directories, and to return to the affected PTAs all copies of their directory information now in the possession of CRC, in whatever form the information may exist, or certifying in writing that this information has been destroyed, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the MCCPTA Delegate strongly believes that the CRC should concede in writing that its use of student directory information was inappropriate and agree that it will refrain from any future use of PTA student directory information.
82 Comments:
"Dec. 12, 2005 issue - Standing on a desolate stretch of property dotted with sagebrush and litter 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, former Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss surveys the sexual frontier. She's sketching out her vision for Heidi's Stud Farm, the country's first legal brothel serving female customers. This pleasure palace will be shaped like a castle, with a marble-floored great room, a spa, a sex-toy shop and secluded bungalows where 20 Casanovas will spend quality time with the clientele (at $250 an hour).
For the time being, Fleiss plans to cater to women only (shall we call the johns janes, and the cathouse a doghouse?). But she says she may target the gay market next. She could be forced to: Nevada lawmaker David Parks, who is gay, plans to ask for a legal opinion this month on whether Fleiss would be violating the state's anti-bias law by letting only women hire her studs. "You gotta take these things one step at a time," Fleiss says. "These things don't happen overnight." Well, some things do."
This is sad. This is the PTA trying to protect themselves. They haven't guarded this sensitive information. If CRC could get this information so could nuts like TTF. The CRC was obviously responsible with the information but what if it got in the wrong hands. PTA must really be concerned with their potential liability.
The issue shouldn't be that someone used it but that it was so easy to obtain. Just think if the TTF would have obtained it and sent their hate-filled propaganda to homes where children might have opened the mail and seen it. Who knows what kind of sleaze might be in there.
ahh but TTF has better sense that to misuse any directory and/or mail items misrepresenting what actual proposed curriculum said.
That was CRC's downfall on these issues among others.
No, the PTA mishandled information. They didn't protect it. They should be banished from school grounds.
Does anybody know what the average attendance rate is at PTA meetings in Montgomery County? Of total parents, what percentage show up?
It's got to be small. I also have noticed it's not a diverse representative group but seems to be mostly white women even at diverse schools.
CRC misused the directories period.
MCCPTA moved to protect what was misused by CRC. Which leads us to the obvious...Michelle Turner as past pres. (one year term) of MCCPTA knew better but as Pres. Of CRC used them anyway or okayed such.
Just could not help herself.
"anon free"
I wonder what the political, religious, gender, racial and ethnic breakdown of the Montgomery County Council of PTA's Delegates is. Bet it doesn't represent parents at all.
Anonymous cried...
No, the PTA mishandled information. They didn't protect it. They should be banished from school grounds.
3:55 PM
Anonymous cried...
Does anybody know what the average attendance rate is at PTA meetings in Montgomery County? Of total parents, what percentage show up?
4:09 PM
Anonymous cried...
It's got to be small. I also have noticed it's not a diverse representative group but seems to be mostly white women even at diverse schools.
4:11 PM
___________________________
Anonymous really into overdrive to SPIN SPIN SPIN...Hey why not talk to Michelle about PTAs and representation at meetings?
"anon free"
Anonymous said...
I wonder what the political, religious, gender, racial and ethnic breakdown of the Montgomery County Council of PTA's Delegates is. Bet it doesn't represent parents at all.
________________
MCCPTA represents over 50,000 parents, teachers, students, etc., and is the largest in Maryland serving 183 local PTAs.
No small potatoes
"MCCPTA represents over 50,000 parents, teachers, students, etc., and is the largest in Maryland serving 183 local PTAs.
No small potatoes"
This is a lie. They don't have that many members. Most parents in this county are glad anytime someone can fill them in on the clandestine practices of the MCPS school board. The new CAC is shamelessly non-representative of the parents in the county in spite of the COMAR mandate. They won't even explain why they chose the people they did. Don't waste county money on stacked committees with predetermined agendas. Each and every board member will have to find a new hobby after they next come before the electorate.
"MCCPTA represents over 50,000 parents, teachers, students, etc., and is the largest in Maryland serving 183 local PTAs"
yeah, right
how many teachers come? how many students come? how many parents come?
how do they represent them when they're not there to speak or vote? oh, they must be experts
Boy, that PTA out there in Montgomery County will do anything to please the school board. Luckily, groups like CRC can provide some dissent. If I lived there, I would have thanked the CRC.
"This is a lie."
What do you expect from Teach the Frigging-Myth (TTF)?
PTA didn't protect the information. Period.
Boy CRC nuts are out in force trying to "explain" the resolution in SPIN SPIN SPIN.
Funny to read this.
"anon free"
Well, this is interesting. Apparently some Anonymice are taking this one a little personally.
And what, now the PTA is a liberal conspiracy undermining your moral superiority? This is great. That is one nasty leftwing group, the PTA.
JimK
Anonymice like to dish it out but cannot take it.
Pretty Funny.....
"anon free"
"And what, now the PTA is a liberal conspiracy"
No one here seems to have any idea about who they are. They have to much influence for a non-representative body.
Jim K said, Well, this is interesting. Apparently some Anonymice are taking this one a little personally.
______________
Probably those anonymices who licked those stamps on those misrepresentations mailed by CRC misusing the PTA directories are having the fits.
anonymous said,"No one here seems to have any idea about who they are. They have to much influence for a non-representative body.
________________
Speaking about CRC of course who represents hateful bigots, etc.
"anon free"
"Speaking about CRC of course who represents hateful bigots, etc."
You're a real bigot spigot. They're bigots because they think a certain behavior should be presented to kids as normal even though it's dangerous and irrational. Why isn't it bigoted to not want to teach any other dangerous and irrational behavior?
Anonymous cried out, "You're a real bigot spigot"
____________________
Nah..just pointing out the obvious which wounds CRC and company's bigoted pride...poor babies.
WAA WAA little babies...cry for all the injustices you anonymices think are supposedly happening to CRC and company.
We are not buying your snake oil(hate-filled bigotry) and that is what bothers all the anonymices the most. Spinning wheels come to mind on the road to nowhere for CRC and supporters.
Are you anonymices sick of that hamster wheel yet?
"anon free"
"WAA WAA little babies"
Intellectual discourse: TTF-style.
Kay, try a thesaurus.
I can't believe with all the problems this school system has, the PTA's wasting time obsessing about CRC. Life must get boring.
PTA: a bunch of school board wannabees
Nah...Funny how you anonymices are bent out of shape over this.
FUNNY....
"anon free"
Look at what we have here...on MCCPTA website:
http://us.net/mccpta/resolutions.html
A page just for CRC and their anonymices.
"anon free"
funny how there isn't a remark brain-free won't respond to
sounds like someone else we all know
brilliant responses, though
Anonymous said...
"WAA WAA little babies"
Intellectual discourse: TTF-style.
Kay, try a thesaurus.
________________
Purely comical how CRC and supporters blame everything on Jim, Kay or Andrea and never think how wrong they are.
Too bad CRC and supporters cannot face reality that many just cannot stand them nor will tolerate their BS. Anyone with common sense will not support hatefilled bigotry hoisted up the flagpole by CRC and supporters like the anonymices.
"anon free"
Anon free wrote:
Purely comical how CRC and supporters blame everything on Jim, Kay or Andrea and never think how wrong they are.
******************
Yes this is amazing but very telling as CRC and company had to know this resolution was coming as it was mailed to MT/CRC in early November. Why should all the anonymous posters act indignant over something they all had to know was coming or had happened? Did MT not tell them?
Those MCCPTA Delegates Assemblies where resolutions can be proposed and passed are very public meetings. The meeting where this was discussed in late October...well it was a packed house. The resolution was publicly displayed way before the October meeting. MT knew that as well.
Wonder if Garza and Turner will send a threat letter over to Cindy Kerr, Pres. of MCCPTA? We all will know soon enough if CRC goes there.
Because the one they sent me went absolutely nowhere when challenged.
Well, why should anyone care about this resolution? What should CRC have seen coming? A resolution by the PTA? Oh dear, what a grave situation. The PTA's mad.
One of the Anonymice on this thread said Just think if the TTF would have obtained it and sent their hate-filled propaganda to homes where children might have opened the mail and seen it. Who knows what kind of sleaze might be in there.
I gotta point out that many of us in TTF, all of our core group, have kids in Montgomery County schools, and we all have the directories for those schools. We never would have thought of using them to promote our point of view. What CRC did was wrong, and this is not a big price to pay for it, a public censure.
TeachTheFacts.org formed to support the school board in its unanimous decision to adopt a new sex education curriculum that was comprehensive and fair, and very, very moderate in tone. The curriculum spent very little time on sexual variations but did address the topic. We felt it was the right kind of curriculum for our children, and we have stood up for it for a year now. Most of the county agrees with us, and CRC's battle to push their extreme agenda has met with almost no public support. They did win a 10-day restraining order which gave them bargaining power with the school district, who negotiated rather than spend tens of thousands of dollars more on legal expanses. And that's it. Everything else they've tried, including these letters, has been a big flop.
Statements like this one of Anonymous's, plus others that the reader can see above, give an indication what we have been up against. Look over on the righthand side of the blog page and you will see links to the 8th and 10th grade curricula, if you're curious. If you think there is "hate-filled propaganda" and "sleaze" in those documents, please feel free to point it out to us here in the comments.
Recently it has seemed that there may be some members of the CRC extended group who are willing to discuss the issues, rather than call "sleaze" and silliness. Maybe the CRC would like to nominate a legitimate candidate to the MCPS citizens advisory committee, and participate in the evaluation of a new curriculum. And maybe they'd rather not.
JimK
Anonymous said...
Well, why should anyone care about this resolution? What should CRC have seen coming? A resolution by the PTA? Oh dear, what a grave situation. The PTA's mad.
_____________
How about asking all the anonymices/mouses who are screaming like hyenas over it? They know what it means for now and in future.
This blog is great today as it reminds me of Africa with CRC hyenas.
"snow white"
"TeachTheFacts.org formed to support the school board in its unanimous decision to adopt a new sex education curriculum that was comprehensive and fair, and very, very moderate in tone"
With all their money and with virtually every parent in the county behind them, why did the school board need you to support them? How can a little band of bigots scare them so much?
anonymous said,
How can a little band of bigots scare them so much?
________________
Speaking about CRC/PFOX again are you??????
"anon free"
"They know what it means for now and in future."
Yeah, absolutely nothing. Just like it always has. It just a pointless tangent for TTF to fly off on.
"snow white"
another personality
and of course for CRC Hyenas to run after....
Now if MCCPTA had supported CRC mailings would the anonymices/mouses be supportive of MCCPTA?
Come on hyenas..we all know what you would have done.
"snow white"
"we all know what you would have done."
what?
"Statements like this one of Anonymous's, plus others that the reader can see above, give an indication what we have been up against. Look over on the righthand side of the blog page and you will see links to the 8th and 10th grade curricula, if you're curious. If you think there is "hate-filled propaganda" and "sleaze" in those documents, please feel free to point it out to us here in the comments."
What you refuse to take responsibility for is the sleazy and hate-filled information in the teachers' resources that are not on your website. That's what would have been taught- the stuff in the curriculum is vague and needs interpretation. Boy, did the teachers get some resources for that. TTF has supported it to the hilt. A federal judge called you to account for it- and will again.
Anonymous spewed--That's what would have been taught-
No the proposed curriculum would have been taught...not teacher resources.
There is a difference you know.
Plus as we all know a temporary restraining order is just that temporary and not any but that.
Pick up a law book.
"anon free"
the judge is an expert, free;
I thought you people were big on the opinions of authority
everyone knows the teachers won't just read the curriculum- it would take two seconds
the teachers would expound- they'd have to
their discussion would be colored by the sleazy and hate-filled information in the teachers' resources; the board let them know what they wanted them to advocate
I'm sure TTF would love to put those resources in the hands of every MCPS student
It would have been very easy to remove the three or four objectionable teachers' resources from the MCPS documentation. Very easy. Just throw 'em out. Woulda taken two minutes. Nobody defended them, and nobody would have objected if they were removed from the list.
But CRC didn't want to improve the curriculum, they wanted to destroy it.
The judge was clearly led to believe that materials from the teachers' background resources, which were just used to develop the curriculum and which teachers were told explicitly were not for classroom use, were "part of the curriculum." You can see in his opinion that he thought the materials would be used in the classroom. He issued the 10-day-TRO on the basis of his feeling that there might be grounds CRC/PFOX to win a lawsuit -- it was only a temporary restraining order.
Jim
your statement is simply your biased opinion;
there's no guarantee that throwing a few items out would have sufficed
there is also viewpoint discrimination about sleazy material
"The judge was clearly led to believe"
You guys better hope you don't get the same judge again. He's not going to appreciate you calling him stupid.
The only thing the judge objected to was those background resources. The lawsuit complained about a whole bunch of things, and that was it, the background materials.
There was nothing "sleazy" in the curriculum.
There was no "viewpoint discrimination," and everybody, including Liberty Counsel lawyers, knows that that would never have held up if this had actually gone to court. It is absurd to try to argue that a school should teach "both sides" of every controversy, and that's not what "viewpoint discrimination" is in any case.
JimK
He's not stupid, he got snookered. The suit was filed at the last minute, precisely so he wouldn't have time to study the materials. We know that CRC/LC was planning the lawsuit for months in advance. It was clever lawyering, but the judge did not have a chance to review the materials and the arguments, and did not rule on the basis of what was actually there, but only whether he was given sufficient reason to believe that it would be possible that CRC/PFOX had a case. That's what a temporary restraining order is for.
JimK
he had alot to say for someone who barely looked at the stuff- I guess you're now saying he's not stupid, he's just irresponsible
viewpoint discrimination is when there is no established answer but only one an advocacy group wants to be believed- that's what the curriculum was going to teach, before the law stepped in: vague statements, open to interpretation
anonymous said, "viewpoint discrimination is when there is no established answer but only one an advocacy group wants to be believed- that's what the curriculum was going to teach, before the law stepped in: vague statements, open to interpretation"
--------------
amateur anonymous tries to play lawyer....
Schools do not have to teach both sides of anything nor do they have to throw in the fake notion of ex-gays and have Richard Cohen telling them how to hug their male students in his weird interpretation of "man hugging" therapy.
CCR/PFOX did not win anything on viewpoint discrimination and the temporary order was temporary.
There is no law cited for what bull you are passing off that relates to the temp order and what judge did.
"anon free"
"free of awareness"
read the judge's opinion yourself- he spoke of viewpoint discrimination
you don't have to give both sides of factual issues but you do on social issues
the problem here is your side keeps claiming it's got scientific evidence on its side but it doesn't
you keep trying to make everyone believe this is science v. religion; actual it's liberal religion v. traditional values; every time someone tries to talk about science, your side starts talking about rights and fairness, revealing your concerns have nothing to do with science
"Viewpoint discrimination" is a term used for the situation where a school's nondiscrimination policy is applied to a religious group on campus. For instance, if you told the Young Baptists (assuming there were such a group) that they couldn't consider the religion of candidates for president of their group, there would be a conflict, an infringement.
That is so far from the situation here that everyone knows, even though the judge mentioned the term, it would never stand up. There is no precedent, and a viewpoint discrimination case here would be thrown out.
The judge issued a 20-something page opinion, which was pretty good when you figure he heard MCPS' side of the case in the morning and issued his opinion in the afternoon. That means he never looked at their evidence, and probably wrote much of the opinion before he even heard their side of the case.
All it was was three or four background resources that mentioned differences between some religions in terms of how they consider homosexuality. The information was accurate enough -- Quakers are more tolerant of gays that evangelicals are -- but it didn't belong anywhere in a public school, even in a list of resources.
JimK
you're not reading his use of the term in context- "viewpoint discrimination" was used as I said
the curriculum's sin against fairness was not that it listed what different religions believed about homosexuality- it's that it took a side
Anonymous said...
read the judge's opinion yourself- he spoke of viewpoint discrimination
________________
Speaking of it fleetingly in temp order and a court win on that point are vast different things. We all know that and now you do too.
A temporary order is not a win..just a delay until all facts are heard as in this case would have been 10 days, etc. but alas a settlement was done and now CRC has no seat on CAC until they follow rules like PFOX.
Yes it is snowing outside...but do not try to snow us.
"anon free"
Speaking of it fleetingly in temp order and a court win on that point are vast different things. We all know that and now you do too.
"A temporary order is not a win.."
It was in this case because the judge revealed enough of his thinking that the school board gave up.
"just a delay until all facts are heard as in this case would have been 10 days, etc. but alas a settlement was done and now CRC has no seat on CAC until they follow rules like PFOX."
actually, PFOX didn't follow the "rules" either; rules that circumvent legal settlements are illegal
"Yes it is snowing outside...but do not try to snow us."
You've snowed yourself enough- be honest and stop fighting for what is wrong
Fighting bigotry and hate is not wrong anon...you should know better. Is CRC going to turn on PFOX who has a seat while they do not? That might be interesting.
Anonymous hope you have a shovel for all the snow you are shoving our way or at least put on hip boots for all the bs you are bringing in.
"anon free"
"Fighting bigotry and hate is not wrong anon..."
No, corrupting kids and telling them perverted lust is part of who they are is. Since when is it a civil right to rub yourself on whatever happens to strike your fancy. You have an identity apart from your temptations.
"Is CRC going to turn on PFOX who has a seat while they do not? That might be interesting."
why would they? you might be right-the hateful school board might be thinking that's going to happen- well, it won't be the first time they've miscalculated
anonymous said:
No, corrupting kids and telling them perverted lust is part of who they are is. Since when is it a civil right to rub yourself on whatever happens to strike your fancy. You have an identity apart from your temptations.
******************
How perverted is it for you to think the above?
A pure sign of bigotry and hate anonymous style it seems. I feel very sorry for you.
"anon free"
Anon -- NOW -- go to the pdf files on the righthand side of this page, open one of them up, and copy and paste the parts that corrupt kids and tell them perverted lust is part of who they are... Show us.
Please, just one sentence. Both of the new curricula are there.
Either do that, or just stop lying about it. You are not advancing your cause with this kind of distortion.
JimK
Experts say sexual orientation is not a choice.
by the way- it's a lie to call what you have over there "the new curricula"
that curriculum was discarded
One class each of 8th and 10th grade curricula were discarded and are being rewritten.
JimK
In other words anonymous has nothing to back up the statement " corrupt kids and tell them perverted lust is part of who they are.."
Anonymices never ever do.
They like to spout it but can never back it up with a real example...just their "bigoted feelings" they try to pass off as facts.
snow white
anonymus said: No, corrupting kids and telling them perverted lust is part of who they are is. Since when is it a civil right to rub yourself on whatever happens to strike your fancy. You have an identity apart from your temptations.
******************
Please tell us where anything remotely indicating this was in the "proposed curriculum" or even in old.
Are you now going to tell us that homosexuality, transgendered are perverted, etc.???
If you think that..your right.. but I can tell you right now that plenty of us do not feel that way.
perversion: an aberrant sexual practice
aberrant: not normal
Jim's got it on his desk
Anon, lots of things are "not normal." Extreme intelligence is not normal. Irresistible beauty is not normal. Having more than ten millions dollars in the bank is not normal. Finding a pot of gold is not normal.
Luckily, the goodness of a thing is not evaluated in terms of how "normal" it is. It turns out that some small percentage of people in any society are attracted to members of their own sex. You don't have to feel that way, and you don't have to like it, but the fact is, it happens.
The MCPS educational strategy has been to pretend that it doesn't happen. But even by the most conservative statistics (Peter Sprigg's, in fact) there is a greater than 50 percent chance that at least one student is gay in every class of thirty. You can say it's not normal, and I'll agree it's uncommon, but it's not that uncommon. It is a fact of human sexuality, whether we understand it or not, and it seems to me that students should be taught about it and should learn to tolerate and respect their gay classmates.
JimK
"Luckily, the goodness of a thing is not evaluated in terms of how "normal" it is. It turns out that some small percentage of people in any society are attracted to members of their own sex. You don't have to feel that way, and you don't have to like it, but the fact is, it happens.
The MCPS educational strategy has been to pretend that it doesn't happen. But even by the most conservative statistics (Peter Sprigg's, in fact) there is a greater than 50 percent chance that at least one student is gay in every class of thirty. You can say it's not normal, and I'll agree it's uncommon, but it's not that uncommon. It is a fact of human sexuality, whether we understand it or not, and it seems to me that students should be taught about it and should learn to tolerate and respect their gay classmates."
It's fine to teach students that it happens but, we all know, they already know that. That's just rhetoric on your part, you don't want to teach them that it happens-you want to tell them what to think about it. You just said it yourself: they "should learn to tolerate and respect their gay classmates."
This is not the school's business. Although it would still be fine if it simply meant refrain from harassment. But it doesn't- you want the gays to be affirmed in their lifestyle. If a kid wants to say he thinks homosexuality is immoral, that should be his right. The kids shouldn't have to go through sensitivity training. The agenda is already in the schools now- when kids do that now they are ridiculed and belittled by teachers.
Next up will be gay history month, gay pride day, removing "hetrosexist" literature from the curriculum, et al.
Drop the agenda and support teaching facts.
"Anon, lots of things are "not normal"
Kay was objecting to the use of the term "perversion" so I was showing her what it means. We weren't talking about "lots of things", we were talking about sexual practices.
The term "perverted" of course is a judgment, not a description. It is a word that demeans how some people feel, and how they behave. Do you think it advances the discussion in any way to use this term to describe gay people?
Or does it occur to you that your use of the word only reveals your own feelings and the limits of your knowledge?
JimK
Anon, this comment of yours almost slipped by me:
actual it's liberal religion v. traditional values; every time someone tries to talk about science, your side starts talking about rights and fairness, revealing your concerns have nothing to do with science."
I resent it, because I have always talked about science.
I have no idea what "traditional" values are, because there is no such thing. Traditions change and evolve. You would be better off saying "your" traditions, rather than trying to boost your ego in thinking these are generally traditonal. Is slavery a traditional Christian value?
"The term "perverted" of course is a judgment, not a description. It is a word that demeans how some people feel, and how they behave. Do you think it advances the discussion in any way to use this term to describe gay people?"
Well, it doesn't advance your position but it's accurate. Might not be diplomatic and, yet, that would be a strange complaint from someone who liberally uses terms like "bigot", "hateful" and "nut".
"Or does it occur to you that your use of the word only reveals your own feelings and the limits of your knowledge?"
Well, who can argue with a man of unlimited enlightenment?
"actual it's liberal religion v. traditional values; every time someone tries to talk about science, your side starts talking about rights and fairness, revealing your concerns have nothing to do with science."
I resent it, because I have always talked about science."
You may have some point, Dana. You generally have a unique capacity to acknowledge facts. Still, you have to admit your motivations here are not the advancement of science. The conflict here is not science vs. religion. It's worldviews and yours is not based on science. It's really humanism v. Deism. You simply want to exalt the importance of human desire. That's not based on any science.
First, I'd like to post this piece from the conservative chronicler of the Goldwater movement, speaking at Princeton to a group of conservative students:
>I get the question all the time from smart liberal friends: what is conservatism, anyway? They're baffled. "As far as I can tell, anything someone on the right does is, by definition, ethical. It's not about the act, or even the motivation. It's about who's perpetrating it." It has become the name for a movement that can scream from the rooftops that every Supreme Court nominee should have an expiditious up-or-down vote, then 15 seconds later demand tortuous proceduralism when that nominee is Harriet Miers. Flexibility is the first principle of politics.
I'm trying to make here an argument not about instances, but about a structure of thought. It is the structure of thought betrayed, I think, by Ahmed Chalabi, explaining his deliberate deception of U.S. intelligence: "We were heroes in error."
Is Chalabi, or Jerry Falwell, a "principled conservative" or a "pragmatic conservative." That's a question I'd like to pose to you all. My head hurts just thinking about it.
This part of my talk, I imagine, is long after the point a constitutive operation of conservative intellectual work has clicked on in your minds: the part where you argue that malefactor A or B or C, or transgression X or Y or Z, is not "really" conservative. In conservative intellectual discourse there is no such thing as a bad conservative. Conservatism never fails. It is only failed. One guy will get up, at a conference like this, and say conservatism, in its proper conception, is 33 1/3 percent this, 33 1/3 percent that, 33 1/3 percent the other thing. Another rises to declaim that the proper admixture is 50-25-25.
It is, among other things, a strategy of psychological innocence. If the first guy turns out to be someone you would not care to be associated with, you have an easy, Platonic, out: with his crazy 33-33-33 formula--well, maybe he's a Republican. Or a neocon, or a paleo. He's certainly not a conservative. The structure holds whether it's William Kristol calling out Pat Buchanan, or Pat Buchanan calling out William Kristol.
As the Internet's smartest liberal blogger, Digby, puts it, tongue only partially in cheek: "'Conservative' is a magic word that applies to those who are in other conservatives' good graces. Until they aren't. At which point they are liberals." <
Of course, I expect many won't get past his first sentence, where he labels some of his liberal friends (not all, mind you) as "smart." :-)
Now, for your comment:
>You may have some point, Dana. You generally have a unique capacity to acknowledge facts. Still, you have to admit your motivations here are not the advancement of science. The conflict here is not science vs. religion. It's worldviews and yours is not based on science. It's really humanism v. Deism. You simply want to exalt the importance of human desire. That's not based on any science.<
Of course, my motivations here, on this blog, and on ttf and at the BoE in discussing this issue, are not directly the advancement of science. I do that in other writings, research, presentations to academic meetings (AAAS, International Behavioral Development Symposium, etc.) However, my desire to root sex-ed and biology classes, in general, in science is in the advancement of science, insofar as it is the education of the next generation to understand science and possibly become scientists, if that's their desire.
I have no problem being labelled a humanist, and I believe one of the foundations of humanism is a respect for and a desire to cultivate scientific research. As for Deism, I don't believe, based on your writings, that you're a Deist. Many of the Founders were, and they had a healthy belief in the importance of science in their society. For quite a while I also considered myself a Deist, though Deism was a product of Newtonian mechanics and that was superseded by Einsteinian mechanics. So I became more of an Einsteinian Deist. Whatever that means.
But the most telling aspect of your short post was the comment about "exalting the importance of human desire."
A few points. I think it is quite telling that you make that point, because it is a very fundamental difference, maybe the most fundamental one, between Christian conservatives (and Jewish and Muslim ones, too) and the rest of society. It probably underlies much of the conflict here as well. I view "your" side as being "anti-sex," and anti-desire." To you, and I use "you" broadly, and not necessarily personally, all desire outside of marriage and often, outside of procreation, is sinful. Therefore, teaching about sex, in school and without, is sinful. Pre-marital sex is sinful, contraception is sinful . . . I respect the beliefs, and they all hang together. It is probably why the 60's is so reviled by so many on your side. Of course, there are other fundamental currents involved here, such as the the collapse of the patriarchy, women's sexual freedom, extremely delayed marriage, etc., and I can appreciate, as LBJ did in speaking to his fellow white Southerners in January, 1965, that change is difficult. But it is ultimately liberating.
Christians have, for whatever reasons, spent 1500 years, at least since Augustine, trying to control their desires, their passions. From monks and celibate priests, to forcing teenage girls who get pregnant to get married, the Church has tried, and generally failed, to control human sexuality. And for the most part, that means women's sexuality, because men could always get away with just about anything, and women were theirs to control.
But neither the Church, nor Christianity in general, nor the CRC, can change this fundamental human nature. It is not about desire. We all have it, including you. It is about controlling it. And whether you like it or not, once humans hit puberty, they become sexually active with desire.
We, on this side, accept that as a fundamental fact. We accept the fact that women are independent beings with as much right to sexual relations or not, as any man. We understand that in the modern world, where an increasing number of people delay their first marriage until their late twenties or thirties, that expecting them to be celibate, for the twenty or so years when they are horniest, is absolute lunacy.
This transition isn't easy, and we don't want our children to get hurt. But "Just say no" doesn't work.
And this ties in with the mistake you again made with that last sentence. As I've already said, many people just don't udnerstand what I'm trying to express. Liberals, conservatives, it doesn't matter. I'm not talking about desire. I'm just like everyone else when it comes to that. I've been talking about brains and bodies and mismatches between the two. That mismatch makes desire much more complicated, but it is prior to desire. And different from it. And being intersex and transsex doesn't make me a pervert.
The same holds true for homosexuality. The object of one's desire is a fundamental aspect of our nature. For straights as well as gays. It has existed in all human societies. Now you can teach that just like straights, gays should control their desire. I agree. I don't like promiscuity, because it causes too much pain, but I don't distinguish between the two orientations. And when it comes to monogamous relationships, I want them for anyone who is fortunate enough to find a loving partner. And what partners do is no one's business.
I think it would help if you stopped thinking about sexual desire for a bit, and just looked at people as they are. We went through this with the civil rights movement, when blacks were viewed as hypersexed beings who were a threat to white children, particularly girls. It was disgusting then, and it's unbelievable now. Today's debate is not much different.
Anonymous says:
"This is not the school's business. Although it would still be fine if it simply meant refrain from harassment. But it doesn't- you want the gays to be affirmed in their lifestyle. If a kid wants to say he thinks homosexuality is immoral, that should be his right. The kids shouldn't have to go through sensitivity training. The agenda is already in the schools now- when kids do that now they are ridiculed and belittled by teachers."
Interesting switch in mid-paragraph, moving from not "affirming gays in their lifestyle" to discriminating against students who think "that homosexuality is immoral." Let’s examine the two points:
First, there was nothing in the revised curriculum about gay “lifestyle” other than to mention the fact that there are families headed by same sex couples in our community. When the right wing talks about the “gay lifestyle” they are seeking to perpetuate the myth that if someone is gay, or acts on being gay, then that must mean promiscuity in bathhouses. Presumably, a conservative would want to encourage gays, just they encourage straights, to develop strong monogamous relationships – unless said conservative was simply bigoted against gays because they are gay OR is afraid that recognizing that gays can live lives true to themselves and be pillars of the community (like those families in Montgomery County headed by same-sex couples) will cause heterosexuals to become gay and/or promiscuous. Does Anonymous fit into either category?
What Anonymous seems really to object to is to set forth the medical consensus that people can be gay and be OK. But isn’t this precisely the kind of thing that ought to be in a health education curriculum?
Second, how is setting forth the basic information prevent a child from thinking that homosexuality is immoral (if, for example, that he what he or she has been taught at home) or constitute an attack on a student who believes that homosexuality is immoral? It may get that student thinking, but is that such a tragedy? Of course, parents are free not to give their permission for their children to take such a unit in the health education curriculum.
And how is simply providing that basic information (again, look at the actual proposed revised curriculum) amount to some kind of “sensitivity training” that Anonymous belittles? Again, parents are free not to give their permission to be “exposed” to the material.
And what evidence is there of teachers belittling students for expressing a belief that homosexuality is immoral? If we are going to make gay students safe from harrassment, we also must keep students who believe gays are immoral free from harrassment – but we will not be able to accomplish all the legitimate purposes by continuing the deafening silence on sexual orientation in our health classes. In any event, what evidence is there that students who state a belief that homosexuality is immoral are being harrassed? (Remember, someone saying that they disagree with you, and vigorously pressing that disagreement, does not constitute harrassment. I am sure there were vigorous discussions during the last Presidential election. Was there harrassment in MCPS because of them?
Anonymous says:
"This is not the school's business. Although it would still be fine if it simply meant refrain from harassment. But it doesn't- you want the gays to be affirmed in their lifestyle. If a kid wants to say he thinks homosexuality is immoral, that should be his right. The kids shouldn't have to go through sensitivity training. The agenda is already in the schools now- when kids do that now they are ridiculed and belittled by teachers."
Interesting switch in mid-paragraph, moving from not "affirming gays in their lifestyle" to discriminating against students who think "that homosexuality is immoral." Let’s examine the two points:
First, there was nothing in the revised curriculum about gay “lifestyle” other than to mention the fact that there are families headed by same sex couples in our community. When the right wing talks about the “gay lifestyle” they are seeking to perpetuate the myth that if someone is gay, or acts on being gay, then that must mean promiscuity in bathhouses. Presumably, a conservative would want to encourage gays, just they encourage straights, to develop strong monogamous relationships – unless said conservative was simply bigoted against gays because they are gay OR is afraid that recognizing that gays can live lives true to themselves and be pillars of the community (like those families in Montgomery County headed by same-sex couples) will cause heterosexuals to become gay and/or promiscuous. Does Anonymous fit into either category?
What Anonymous seems really to object to is to set forth the medical consensus that people can be gay and be OK. But isn’t this precisely the kind of thing that ought to be in a health education curriculum?
Second, how is setting forth the basic information prevent a child from thinking that homosexuality is immoral (if, for example, that he what he or she has been taught at home) or constitute an attack on a student who believes that homosexuality is immoral? It may get that student thinking, but is that such a tragedy? Of course, parents are free not to give their permission for their children to take such a unit in the health education curriculum.
And how is simply providing that basic information (again, look at the actual proposed revised curriculum) amount to some kind of “sensitivity training” that Anonymous belittles? Again, parents are free not to give their permission to be “exposed” to the material.
And what evidence is there of teachers belittling students for expressing a belief that homosexuality is immoral? If we are going to make gay students safe from harrassment, we also must keep students who believe gays are immoral free from harrassment – but we will not be able to accomplish all the legitimate purposes by continuing the deafening silence on sexual orientation in our health classes. In any event, what evidence is there that students who state a belief that homosexuality is immoral are being harrassed? (Remember, someone saying that they disagree with you, and vigorously pressing that disagreement, does not constitute harrassment. I am sure there were vigorous discussions during the last Presidential election. Was there harrassment in MCPS because of them?
I'm not going to bother with anon's usual nonsense about homosexuality. However, as a parent who has been involved with the PTA/PTSA as well as its equivalent at two private schools(and after paying that tuition- I still had to help run silent auctions and get begging letters for donations), I know how important the PTA is. True, lots of parents don't get involved- but they certainly want the things that the PTA/PTSA provides. In many schools, the PTA/PTSA makes it possible for kids to have tutoring, to have music lessons, provide scholarships for field trips, provide many items the school couldn't afford. Is that the way it should be- no- but that's the way it is. And not to bore anon again, but as in any volunteeer situation- the same people volunteer at their church, youth group, scouts, and school. We have a lot of people who want others to do it for them. So don't put down the PTSA- they do a lot for our kids.
"So don't put down the PTSA- they do a lot for our kids."
Oh alright. Just don't say anything bad about that nice CRC. They do alot for our kids.
Anonymous said, Oh alright. Just don't say anything bad about that nice CRC. They do alot for our kids.
************
Yes CRC and company are great examples on how kids should not turn out.
Instilling bigotry and hate are things CRC and company can surely be proud of.....
Yes TTF and company are great examples on how kids should not turn out.
Instilling perversion and abortion are things TTF and company can surely be proud of.....
Anonymous said...
Yes TTF and company are great examples ......
______
Yes TTF is a great example for kids on how to rally parents and community members to stand up and fight intolerance and bigotry. Those are important skills.
Glad TTF has a seat on CAC to make sure those with goals of bigotry and intolerance are challenged when promoting their own hate-filled agendas or those of organizations they represent.
"anon free"
CRC took $36,ooo from our kids, CRC doesn't provide field trips or sports equipment or musical instruments for our kids- it does provide bigotry and dishonesty but kids can get that almost anywhere. As usual anon just parrots- and sounds as silly.
Post a Comment
<< Home