It Is A Rather Boring Controversy
There was another long, brain-draining citizens advisory committee meeting last night. We are currently evaluating the curriculum that goes with the condom video. Committee members have submitted about seventy changes to the curriculum. Most of it's little things, wording changes, very little that has any ideological impact. Oh, you know, an "anal sex" here and a "premarital" there, but nothing big. Last night we got through about half of the changes.
It's funny to think that this is a "controversy." We're just a bunch of people going through some stuff for a health class, with like four or five people sitting in the chairs watching. It's the most boring thing you can imagine. Sometimes there are differences of opinion, but, really, when you go eyeball to eyeball, it seems that there's not really a huge amount of disagreement there. Like, no matter what those other guys say, Teach the Facts is opposed to sexually transmitted diseases of all kinds. We are against teenagers getting pregnant. We are in favor of happiness, good health, and responsible sexual behavior. People might disagree on how to define some things, or how high certain thresholds should be, but if everybody will just stay cool I am confident this committee can come to agreement on most things.
Let me state the obvious: the controversy was never actually about the information taught in a sex-ed class. We could go through that last curriculum, and discuss everything, and we might change a word here or there, but basically it was perfectly acceptable, just like basically this one is perfectly acceptable. It needs some tuning up, but it's really just a class, nothing to get excited about.
If people want to get their noses up in the air, they can find something wrong with anything -- hey, remember last year when they decided that SpongeBob SquarePants was promoting the "gay agenda?" Remember when they decided one of the Teletubbies was secretly encouraging preschoolers to turn gay? There is nothing so innocent that these guys can't complain about it. And that's what happened in Montgomery County, the new sex-ed curriculum got Tinky-Winkied. It seems to me, if conservative citizens want to sit at the table and work, there's no reason for them to be disappointed. Some people like to think that evil forces are trying to corrupt their kids, and that might be true, but it isn't the Montgomery County school district, and it isn't Teach the Facts.
We are going to start meeting every week now, so we stay on schedule for pilot testing and stuff. This committee is going to be rolling up our sleeves and plugging along for a while, it looks like.
It's funny to think that this is a "controversy." We're just a bunch of people going through some stuff for a health class, with like four or five people sitting in the chairs watching. It's the most boring thing you can imagine. Sometimes there are differences of opinion, but, really, when you go eyeball to eyeball, it seems that there's not really a huge amount of disagreement there. Like, no matter what those other guys say, Teach the Facts is opposed to sexually transmitted diseases of all kinds. We are against teenagers getting pregnant. We are in favor of happiness, good health, and responsible sexual behavior. People might disagree on how to define some things, or how high certain thresholds should be, but if everybody will just stay cool I am confident this committee can come to agreement on most things.
Let me state the obvious: the controversy was never actually about the information taught in a sex-ed class. We could go through that last curriculum, and discuss everything, and we might change a word here or there, but basically it was perfectly acceptable, just like basically this one is perfectly acceptable. It needs some tuning up, but it's really just a class, nothing to get excited about.
If people want to get their noses up in the air, they can find something wrong with anything -- hey, remember last year when they decided that SpongeBob SquarePants was promoting the "gay agenda?" Remember when they decided one of the Teletubbies was secretly encouraging preschoolers to turn gay? There is nothing so innocent that these guys can't complain about it. And that's what happened in Montgomery County, the new sex-ed curriculum got Tinky-Winkied. It seems to me, if conservative citizens want to sit at the table and work, there's no reason for them to be disappointed. Some people like to think that evil forces are trying to corrupt their kids, and that might be true, but it isn't the Montgomery County school district, and it isn't Teach the Facts.
We are going to start meeting every week now, so we stay on schedule for pilot testing and stuff. This committee is going to be rolling up our sleeves and plugging along for a while, it looks like.
posted by JimK at 11:47 AM
23 Comments:
0
Would this be a rather boring post?
The Fishback revisions sent an ambivalent message to teens which might have been interpreted as official condonement of teen promiscuity and endorsed a view of sexual preference that advanced the gay agenda without factual basis. Word is that the first is largely corrected by the new revisions. The sexual preference material is yet to be unveiled.
While TTF may consider the objections of the citizens' advocacy group, CRC, to be trivial, a federal judge, CRC event attendees and petition signers differed with TTF. That's why the Fishback curriculum was thrown out and its designers dismissed from the CAC.
Perfect, Anon, you have perfectly well demonstrated what we're up against here. Let's compare your language to the real thing, shall we?
Now, readers, click HERE for the 8th-grade curriculum that was rejected, or HERE for the tenth-grade one.
Please review these original documents with your own eyes, and see if you observe anything remotely resembling "advancing a gay agenda," or "officially condoning teen promiscuity."
If you have any doubts, please do follow those links, and we can discuss here.
JimK
My my again with one's perceptions not reflecting reality. You see one thing, jump through hoops, reach some illogical babble, believe your biased perceptions and interpretations, and go round claiming your rubbish as fact. Next time you reach any sort of conclusion, provide the reasoning and any substantiating evidence and then others might actually believe you.
Jim
After all this time, you still don't understand why the Fishback revisions were so quickly dropped as soon as any party with the authority to impose accountability began to scrutinize it. The Board had a guilty conscience, as it were.
"The Fishback revisions sent an ambivalent message to teens which might have been interpreted as official condonement of teen promiscuity"
The Fishback film committed the iniquity of making premarital sex seem like a given for teens. While not pornography, it was salacious in its portrayal of an attractive young woman placing a condom on a large vegetable. This effect can't be observed by pulling out snippets but by viewing the overall impression made by the film. Who knows, after seeing it, how many impressionable kids would get the idea that teachers and parents expect that they will have sex and get into trouble with STDs, pregnancy or simply the emotional and moral consequences of early promiscuity.
The new video goes a long way to rectifying this problem by approaching the lesson from a more clinical perspective. Remember, you were complaining, after seeing it, that it didn't make teenage sex look cool enough.
The new approach, viewed broadly, will probably save lives by preserving a societal standard. Far from trivial, CRC's dissent achieved a tangible benefit.
"and endorsed a view of sexual preference that advanced the gay agenda without factual basis."
The Fishback revisions endorsed the gay agenda by buying into the whole idea of innate sexual orientation. This is a fiction without basis. There is no proof that sexual preference is innate, inevitable or irreversible. By quoting the opinion of associations as the basis of assertions, it would confuse kids. Who knows how many a kid, frustrated and confused, would mistake a misdirected adaptive impulse for their own identity and venture down a path with deadly consequences.
The judge found that the curriculum exhibited viewpoint discrimination. It took matters in the realm of theory and presented one of the theories as fact to the discrimination of other theories. A fact would be that a small number of people engage in sexual relations with members of their own gender. Describing the nature or explanation for this fact would simply be theory and opinion. TTF has yet to show that it understands the judge's words. Hopefully, the CAC as a whole or the MCPS Board has better judgment so we won't have to seek judicial relief again.
Anon, all I'm saying is that anybody who thinks there's anything at all to what you say can click on those links and take a look at what was in the actual curriculum.
It's not like I'm going to debate your absurd assertions. This is easier than that, I just point to the thing you're talking about and tell people, look at it yourself. They just might agree with you, somebody might look at those documents and see what you say they'll see. If that happens, you win, I lose. But I don't need to tell people what they'll see, they can look for themselves.
JimK
How many times can Anon say Fishback? Obsession it seems
The opinion is here:
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/CRC050505.pdf
Never mind anonymous and that "I will lie and hope you never know" opinion.
We all know what temporaty means. Well all of us but anonymous.
Ted
"They just might agree with you, somebody might look at those documents and see what you say they'll see. If that happens, you win, I lose."
I agree. We're in the realm of opinion and theory.
"We all know what temporaty means."
Well, in this case, it meant permanent. Those nameless revisions will never see the light of day.
Anonymous you are jealous you are not on CAC. You live vicariously through Jim while he is on CAC. You just cannot stand this blog is here while CRC's forum sucks big time. NO ONE POSTS THERE so here you are craving attention.
New revisions of course because new CAC. Facts and comprehensive sex ed will rule the day not the hocus pocus called "exgay."
Ready to say Fishback AGAIN anon before you start your chapter on
"heterosexual agenda?"
Ted
"Facts"
Could you name one?
"The opinion is here:
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/publications/opinions/Opinions/CRC050505.pdf"
Thanks for providing that for everyone, Ted.
Reading it again reminds me how strong the judge's words were about how the Fishback revisions violated students' free speech rights. It said the revisions presented homosexuality as a "natural" lifestyle to the exclusion of other perspectives. Doing so violated students First Amendment rights according to the judge. MCPS can't advocate the gay agenda. I hope the CAC keeps this in mind so there will be no need for further court involvement.
TTF has always dismissed this part of the judge's opinion and instead said fixing the religious freedom violations would be sufficient. If this view prevails on the CAC, look for more litigation.
MCPS has some sharp lawyers reviewing this stuff though so, hopefully, history won't repeat this egregious chapter.
If anyone reading this is new to this site, I have pasted below the analysis of Judge Williams’ decision I posted as a response to a blog last February:
I am honored to have the proposed revised curriculum to be associated with my name. So is everyone else in my family. The BOE unanimously voted in Nov. 2004 to pilot those revisions. And, contrary to your suggestions that the information to be provided was just "the 'opinions' of a couple of associations," but, rather was based on the considered judgment of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and every other mainstream medical and mental health professional group in the United States. But if you wish to continue to belittle, for example, the American Medical Association, go ahead. We all can draw our conclusions.
As to the legal questions, we need to be very clear: There were two aspects of the curriculum that Judge Williams said he thought were unconstitutional. First, he saw a violation of the First Amendment's requirement of separation of church and state because three teacher background resources made comments on the wisdom of certain denomination's views on homosexuality. Court’s decision at pp. 16-19. The BOE’s lawyers failed adequately to point out that those resources were not part of the curriculum and all teachers know they are not to express theological views in the classroom (they only had a few days to write a brief defending against 80 plus pages of factual and legal assertions). See BOE Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO Request, at pp. 8-9. Still, even if that had been pointed out to the court, the court conceivably could have concluded that somehow those comments in the resources might bleed into the classroom. Those resources were recommended by MCPS Staff (and accepted by the Citizens Advisory Committee) for the purpose of providing teachers background on the simple statement in the curriculum that different religions have different views on sexual behaviors and that there are even differences among people of the same religion. MCPS Staff and the CAC knew that teachers knew not to discuss theology in the health class; Judge Williams apparently did not understand that. (I have not seen the oral argument transcript, so I don’t know if the BOE attorney made this point; it was not in the BOE’s memorandum of law.) Because those resources (which were accepted by the CAC in the winter of 2004) were unnecessary in light of more recent, widespread public discussions of these differences, MCPS decided to drop those teacher background resources, thus mooting that part of the case. Indeed, immediately after the court's decision, I recommended that they be dropped.
The other ground the court gave for its belief that the curriculum revisions likely were unconstitutional was its conclusion that the First Amendment was violated because if MCPS was to say anything about sexual orientation, it had to present “all sides” of the subject. Court’s decision at pp. 19-21. Sort of like saying that if a school system is to teach about the Holocaust, it must also present the views of Holocaust deniers. That ruling could never have withstood an appeal, even in the most conservative federal courts. The BOE was faced with a problem: If it fought the lawsuit, the matter likely would have been tied up in litigation for years, preventing MCPS from implementing the needed revisions. Instead, the BOE decided to start over, making the lawsuit moot, and forcing the plaintiffs to accept a settlement wherein the BOE reserved its right to decide what would and would not be in the health curriculum.
By the way, Anon, if you would like to debate that last constitutional point, take a look at the court decision cited Judge Williams in support of his view that the revised curriculum constituted unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination." Court’s opinion at p. 20. That case was Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), which did not involve a school’s choice of curriculum but, rather dealt with UVA’s policies on funding student publications. Under UVA’s rules, any student publication that met certain neutral criteria could get funding. Rosenberger met all the criteria, but the University turned him down because the publication was Christian-themed. The University feared that if it funded the publication, it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise, finding that the University’s decision constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the freedom of speech portions of the First Amendment. I agree with the majority in Rosenberger. But there is a huge difference between a public forum – which was the case in Rosenberger – and curriculum choices, which is what last year’s lawsuit was about. The BOE stood its ground on that issue. If CRC/PFOX did not like it, they could have declined to sign on to the settlement agreement. They agreed to withdraw the lawsuit, it seems to me, because they knew the ground upon which they stood legally was quicksand.
Finally, your statement that “viewpoint discrimination is a fancy word for propaganda” suggests that you have not read Judge Williams’ decision. Not only did he not condemn the actual contents of the curriculum, but he rejected the notion, set forth by CRC/ PFOX that there were “increased health risks to students once they receive the ‘pro-gay’ message. . . . [T]he Court questions the reliability of the studies to which Plaintiffs cite. . . . Moreover, the harm that Plaintiffs posit is highly speculative and attenuated. It would require more than a few logical steps for this Court to find that MCPS students presented with the Revised Curriculum would suddenly choose to engage in promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual sex – adhering to the Revised Curriculum’s message of gay tolerance but somehow overlooking the even more forceful message of safe sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship.” (Court’s opinion at pp. 14-15)
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2006/02/nyt-nails-ex-gay-hoax.html
A RECENT FOURTH CIRCUIT DECISION HAS CONFIRMED THIS ANALYSIS:
In its August 10, 2006, decision in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland v. Montgomery County Public Schools , 2006 WL 2294272 * 4 n. 2 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated, unequivocally, that "when the government alone speaks, it need not remain neutral as to its viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995) ( 'When the University determines the content of the education it provides, it is the University speaking, and we have permitted the government to regulate the content of what is or is not expressed when it is the speaker or when it enlists private entities to convey its own message.' )." The opinion may be found at http://207.41.17.117/ISYSquery/IRL9BA.tmp/2/doc or http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/opinion.php .
Keep blowing smoke Anon. You want a "fact?" Try this one.
FACT: The suers' lawyers advised them to settle rather than persue this case in a court of law.
Now why would they do that if they were so sure they'd win?
Opinion: Because they did not really have a whole lot of confidence in the merits of their legal arguments. They, like you, enjoy blowing smoke.
Prediction: When all the smoke clears, MCPS teens will have the best comprehensive and inclusive sex education curriculum which will serve as a model for other school districts around the world.
The fact is that, given how long the Falwell people could drag out the litigation once they had the TRO, was such that it made more sense to start over and be ready for the next lawsuit (MCPS was caught flatfooted last year) than continue to litigate that case. If the case had been litigated, we would probably still be in district court.
I suspect that the curriculum that emerges will not be in any pertinent respect different from the one that was ready for piloting last year. The proof will be in the pudding.
"I suspect that the curriculum that emerges will not be in any pertinent respect different from the one that was ready for piloting last year. The proof will be in the pudding."
Here's Albert Einstein's definition of insanity:
Trying the exact same experiment twice and expecting to get different results.
"contrary to your suggestions that the information to be provided was just "the 'opinions' of a couple of associations," but, rather was based on the considered judgment of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and every other mainstream medical and mental health professional group in the United States. But if you wish to continue to belittle, for example, the American Medical Association, go ahead."
I didn't belittle them, David. I pointed out they were opinions. In no other field do schools teach opinions. They are supposed to teach facts. The CAC had to do this because there weren't any facts backing up what they wanted students to believe.
"There were two aspects of the curriculum that Judge Williams said he thought were unconstitutional. First, a violation of the First Amendment's requirement of separation of church and state"
This phrase or idea does not exist in the First amendment.
"because three teacher background resources made comments on the wisdom of certain denomination's views on homosexuality... The BOE’s lawyers failed adequately to point out that those resources were not part of the curriculum"
They were there to color teachers' understanding of how to teach the curriculum. Remember, this was no objective rendering of the views of different religions and no material from opposing views was presented. The teachers got a good idea what their employers thought and how they could best implement their agenda. There are a million ways teachers could reinforce these ideas without blatantly stating them. The judge wasn't fooled and neither was anyone else.
"Still, even if that had been pointed out to the court, the court conceivably could have concluded that somehow those comments in the resources might bleed into the classroom. Those resources were recommended by MCPS Staff (and accepted by the Citizens Advisory Committee) for the purpose of providing teachers background on the simple statement in the curriculum that different religions have different views on sexual behaviors and that there are even differences among people of the same religion."
And, yet, only one bias was presented to teachers. This claimed purpose for the material doesn't seem likely.
"MCPS Staff and the CAC knew that teachers knew not to discuss theology in the health class;"
If you call it that. Ridiculing the perspective of traditional religious views in not uncommon in clasrooms.
"Judge Williams apparently did not understand that."
He seems to understand the situation very well.
"Indeed, immediately after the court's decision, I recommended that they be dropped."
Out of expediency I suppose since you just argued above that nothing was wrong with including the resources.
"The other ground the court gave for its belief that the curriculum revisions likely were unconstitutional was its conclusion that the First Amendment was violated because if MCPS was to say anything about sexual orientation, it had to present “all sides” of the subject. Sort of like saying that if a school system is to teach about the Holocaust, it must also present the views of Holocaust deniers."
It's nothing like that because denying the Holocaust is denying a factual event. The TTF view of sexual preference is nothing more than a worldview without empirical evidence to support it.
"That ruling could never have withstood an appeal, even in the most conservative federal courts."
A matter of opinion. Judge Williams obviously has a good understanding of the law.
"The BOE was faced with a problem: If it fought the lawsuit, the matter likely would have been tied up in litigation for years, preventing MCPS from implementing the needed revisions. Instead, the BOE decided to start over, making the lawsuit moot, and forcing the plaintiffs to accept a settlement wherein the BOE reserved its right to decide what would and would not be in the health curriculum."
They don't have any right to violate the constitution and the judge made clear that he found it probable that they did. If the same type of curriculum is passed again, the same result will come about and then the curriculum will really be tied up for awhile. I think they probably realize this- let's just hope they make substantive changes and not play any more games. In any case, all they "reserved the right" to is a second chance to do what's right.
"if you would like to debate that last constitutional point, take a look at the court decision cited Judge Williams in support of his view that the revised curriculum constituted unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination."... Rosenberger v. University of Virginia,which did not involve a school’s choice of curriculum but, rather dealt with UVA’s policies on funding student publications."
So what. It was a different manifestation of viewpoint discrimination. What you fail to appreciate is that many kids have no choice but to attend public school. They are forced to listen to this and the school has no right to treat opinions as facts to the detriment of other viewpoints. The case in question is somewhat unnecessary to read because the judge made clear how he was interpretting it.
"But there is a huge difference between a public forum – which was the case in Rosenberger – and curriculum choices, which is what last year’s lawsuit was about."
Exactly, that why the comparisons you draw are inappropriate.
"The BOE stood its ground on that issue. If CRC/PFOX did not like it, they could have declined to sign on to the settlement agreement. They agreed to withdraw the lawsuit, it seems to me, because they knew the ground upon which they stood legally was quicksand."
They weren't seeking monetary damages. The defendants voluntarily granted the relief sought. They discarded the curriculum. Obviously, CRC wasn't seeking a permanent takeover of the school board by judicial fiat so I don't know what you mean by they stood their ground. They agreed to get rid of the offending material and start again. If the school board considering that some kind of victory, they had pretty low expectations.
"you have not read Judge Williams’ decision. Not only did he not condemn the actual contents of the curriculum, but he rejected the notion, set forth by CRC/ PFOX that there were “increased health risks to students once they receive the ‘pro-gay’ message. . . . [T]he Court questions the reliability of the studies to which Plaintiffs cite. . . . Moreover, the harm that Plaintiffs posit is highly speculative and attenuated. It would require more than a few logical steps for this Court to find that MCPS students presented with the Revised Curriculum would suddenly choose to engage in promiscuous, unprotected, homosexual sex – adhering to the Revised Curriculum’s message of gay tolerance but somehow overlooking the even more forceful message of safe sex within the confines of a monogamous relationship.”"
Well, he disagreed with the health risks but he clearly agreed that opinions taught by the curriculum had not reached the status of facts.
"A RECENT FOURTH CIRCUIT DECISION HAS CONFIRMED THIS ANALYSIS:
In its August 10, 2006, decision in Child Evangelism Fellowship of Maryland v. Montgomery County Public Schools , 2006 WL 2294272 * 4 n. 2 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated, unequivocally, that "when the government alone speaks, it need not remain neutral as to its viewpoint."
This case demonstrates the anti-religious bias of MCPS. They have spent years litigating just to prevent kids from becoming aware of a Bible study group in their neighborhood. The bottom line: the group's material will now be distributed.
"the public interest is served by preventing Defendants from disseminating one-sided information on a controversial topic"
Here, Judge Williams states how MCPS threatened "the public interest" by passing the Fishback revisions. Let's hope the CAC has read it.
The information presented will be scientific. The other side, which is religious, AKA non-scientific, will not be permitted.
This curriculum will follow the rules explained by countless other jurists, most recently by Judge John E. Jones, III, in the Dover ID case, specifically:
"A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States"
"The information presented will be scientific. The other side, which is religious, AKA non-scientific, will not be permitted."
This is where you're wrong. The "facts" from the Fishback curriculum were not scientific but opinions based on a world-view. The opposite of the facts are not religious principles. In order for the new curriculum to not hurt the public interest, it needs to present all views on controversial topics which haven't been or can't be settled by science. Either that or not bring up the topic at all.
BTW, the constitution says the government can't make laws supporting a certain religious denomination- a part of the constitution which MCPS was about to violate by enacting the Fishback revisions. It doesn't say religious principles can't be taught in school but simply that the government can't make laws requiring certain religious principles be taught.
In Dover, the schools were simply required to point out inconsistencies in Darwinian theory and to present students with possible explanations for the inconsistencies. I've read the MCPS high school biology texts. They do this so they would probably be thrown out in Dover.
"The information presented will be scientific. The other side, which is religious, AKA non-scientific, will not be permitted."
Even if the Fishback revisions were scientific (which they weren't), the opposite of scientific is not religious. Nice attempt at rhetorical trickery though.
"Even if the Fishback revisions were scientific (which they weren't), the opposite of scientific is not religious. Nice attempt at rhetorical trickery though."
You give me too much credit. I'm just making a simple observation that religion cannot be taught in our public schools because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Intelligent design is a religious construct and so is the ex-gay industry. Consequently neither concept will be taught in America's public schools as scientific fact or as another "viewpoint." The consensus opinions of professional mainstream American medical and mental health associations are important to help our public school students understand health issues. Such opinions may be presented in our public schools.
The MCPS settlement agreement addresses the issue of religion in the curriculum here (emphasis added):
"2. MCPS agrees that the revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Comprehensive Health Education curriculum recently requested by the Board in its May 23, 2005 resolution (the “Revisions”), as well as associated resource materials, will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects. This would not preclude a general acknowledgement that there may be differing religious views on some of the topics discussed in the Revisions without discussion of what those differing beliefs are, which religious groups hold those beliefs, or which religious groups are supportive of homosexuality."
There is nothing in the settlement agreement about the opinions of mainstream American medical and mental health professonals. Unlike religious beliefs which have been expressly prohibited, the opinions of these professional associations may be included in the curriculum.
Like I said, "The information presented will be scientific. The other side, which is religious, AKA non-scientific, will not be permitted."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
First Amendment to Constitution
"I'm just making a simple observation that religion cannot be taught in our public schools because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."
I guess I have given you too much credit. Read the language of the Constitution above. It doesn't say a local school board can't teach religion. It say Congress can't make a law respecting a certain religion or prohibit the exercise of one.
Your misunderstanding is based the distorted interpretations of the Constitution by the Warren court in the middle twentieth century. These distortions will eventually be corrected.
If you don't like our Constitution, we have established procedures for amending it. Or, alternatively, you could change residence to a more enlightened nation. I think North Korea does an especially good job keeping religious observance to a minimum.
"Intelligent design is a religious construct and so is the ex-gay industry."
Wrong on both counts.
Intelligent design, though embraced by all theist religions, is nonetheless based on empirical observations that the design of our universe and all life seem fine-tuned in a way that seems to imply purpose. Many secular scientists have noted this phenomenum including the first person to publish a peer-reviewed paper on the subject in the mid twetieth century, a Czech scientist behind the Iron Curtain.
As I said, the high biology textbook currently used by MCPS mentions this so apparently, we are capable of discussing this subject in our public schools.
To say only religious people believe that it is possible to acquire new attractions or lose old ones and that a conscious decision couldn't affect that process is just stupid.
"Consequently neither concept will be taught in America's public schools as scientific fact or as another "viewpoint.""
Any scientific fact can be taught, even those that would tend to support religious belief. Facts are facts.
As for viewpoints, the settlement you've quoted below expressly allows an objective discussion of the viewpoints of different religions.
"The consensus opinions of professional mainstream American medical and mental health associations are important to help our public school students understand health issues. Such opinions may be presented in our public schools."
They may but it would be inappropriate. We don't teach kids that the National Association of Physicists has officially endorsed Einstein's theory of relativity. It's just an opinion, not a fact.
While we're discussing it, there is no documentation I'm aware of that reveals the consensus of psychiatric practitioners. We've seen in the past that associations may issue opinions that differ from the beliefs of their members.
"The MCPS settlement agreement addresses the issue of religion in the curriculum here (emphasis added):
"2. MCPS agrees that the revisions to the Grade 8 and Grade 10 Comprehensive Health Education curriculum recently requested by the Board in its May 23, 2005 resolution (the “Revisions”), as well as associated resource materials, will not discuss religious beliefs on the issues covered by the Revisions or characterize beliefs as attributed to specific religious denominations or sects. This would not preclude a general acknowledgement that there may be differing religious views on some of the topics discussed in the Revisions without discussion of what those differing beliefs are, which religious groups hold those beliefs, or which religious groups are supportive of homosexuality."
There is nothing in the settlement agreement about the opinions of mainstream American medical and mental health professonals. Unlike religious beliefs which have been expressly prohibited, the opinions of these professional associations may be included in the curriculum."
They may be they should be placed in context not presented as facts.
"Like I said, "The information presented will be scientific. The other side, which is religious, AKA non-scientific, will not be permitted.""
Religious and scientific aren't opposed or opposite positions. to say so is biased and ignorant.
Post a Comment
<< Home