They Don't Know When They've Lost
The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever don't like it that the Montgomery County schools are teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity, and they have tried everything to get them to stop. They sued and won a temporary restraining order in 2005, and the school district re-wrote the curriculum. The state superintendent of schools was asked to stop pilot testing of the classes and declined. The state Board of Education was asked to stop implementation of the classes and declined. A county judge was asked to step in, and declined.
The fact is, there's nothing wrong with the curriculum. People are not offended by it. Ninety-seven percent of parents filled out the permission slips for their kid to take the tenth-grade classes. Nobody complained about the content of the classes. It's just Health, and no big deal.
Unless you're an anti-gay bigot and can't stand the fact that the schools teach students to respect people who are different from themselves.
Here's The Gazette:
I don't personally think they need to leave, either. They should just find something constructive to do.
There's more here. As usual, The Gazette is on-target.
The fact is, there's nothing wrong with the curriculum. People are not offended by it. Ninety-seven percent of parents filled out the permission slips for their kid to take the tenth-grade classes. Nobody complained about the content of the classes. It's just Health, and no big deal.
Unless you're an anti-gay bigot and can't stand the fact that the schools teach students to respect people who are different from themselves.
Here's The Gazette:
The religious conservative groups fighting to stop the school system’s sex-education curriculum will meet next week to decide their next move, after a county Circuit Court judge decided that the lesson plans were legal.
Representatives with the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays, Family Leader Network, and the Thomas More Law Center will meet Feb. 15 to determine whether to file another appeal to have the curriculum halted, said John R. Garza, an attorney for the groups.
School board member Patricia B. O’Neill, expressing frustration at the out-of-town legal muscle in the case, suggested the attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center return to their headquarters in Ann Arbor, Mich.
‘‘Obviously, local folks are entitled to their opinion,” said O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda. ‘‘It’s fine for Montgomery County people to advocate, but not outside attorneys.”
When he heard O’Neill’s comment, Garza said: ‘‘We’re not going to get out of town or disappear. We’re not leaving.” ‘We’re not leaving,’ say sex-ed critics
I don't personally think they need to leave, either. They should just find something constructive to do.
There's more here. As usual, The Gazette is on-target.
posted by JimK at 3:04 PM
58 Comments:
Andrea- not anon
Constructive? The shower people? I don't think so- they enjoy the spotlight that their bigotry has brought to them.
"The fact is, there's nothing wrong with the curriculum."
No, not if you don't mind the public schools invading the province of morality and telling students that immoral behavior is fine.
And, if you don't mind telling unfactual information that may lead them into dangerous and unhealthful practices.
Other than that, there's not a thing wrong with this curriculum.
"‘‘Obviously, local folks are entitled to their opinion,” said O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda. ‘‘It’s fine for Montgomery County people to advocate, but not outside attorneys.”"
That's right. We're perfectly happy to let people have their opinion just as long as they don't have enough money to make their voice heard. The time that an outside lawyer will spend here is a pittance compared to the resources of one of the most wealthy school districts in the country.
Anon, there is no statement in the curriculum about the morality of anything, and nothing that says that any kind of behavior is "fine." In fact, the classes on sexual orientation don't talk about any behaviors at all, just feelings. There is no "unfactual information," only information approved by the biggest mainstream medical and scientific organizations. To guarantee this, the curriculum was written by a team of pediatricians from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Other than that, there's not a thing wrong in your comment.
JimK
When you say it is innate, which is an opinion, not a fact, regardless of how many scientists disagree, you're implying that it is fine, in a moral sense.
The will is not part of the physical realm and the opinions of scientists have no more validity than any other human being. Believing that consciousness, conscience, will and soul are merely illusions of physical interactions is a religious point of view called materialism. The public schools have no business endorsing this religious point of view, especially when it is not the view held by the majority of the citizens in our democratic society.
BTW, the last line of your last comment was a nice touch. From an artistic perspective.
Anon, nobody really believes that sexual orientation derives from "consciousness, conscience, will and soul." Most people grow up and are attracted to members of the opposite sex, some small percentage of people are attracted to their own sex. The feeling of attraction is not willed. You may argue that the individual can control their behaviors, but that is far beyond the scope of these classes, which do not talk about behaviors at all.
JimK
"Most people grow up and are attracted to members of the opposite sex, some small percentage of people are attracted to their own sex. The feeling of attraction is not willed. You may argue that the individual can control their behaviors, but that is far beyond the scope of these classes, which do not talk about behaviors at all."
You can also argue that the exclusivity and persistence of the attraction are susceptible to the will. You can't stop a bird from flying into your hair but you can stop it from building a nest there. Just as people can control their behavior, they can also control their feelings.
Indeed, it is also, whether an exclusivity of this attraction even exists.
Just as people can control their behavior, they can also control their feelings.
Anon, those of us who actually do have feelings will disagree with you.
JimK
Andrea- not anon
M. Anon. when are you going away? Permanently? You want a fact- 97% of students took the class and their parents opted in- so it is you and yours that are the tiny minority whose lies and "false morality"- or as we know it- bigotry -that no one wants in our schools.
Tell us, please, what scientists disagree with what is actually in the curriculum - "that 'there is no single reason why some people are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual' but that 'according to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental and biological factors,' and that 'sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality'."
That is a direct quote from Rowan's opinion. The arguments made by CRC via the Thomas More Law Center were, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. They claimed that the curriculum contained things that are simply not there. You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face that there is "unfactual" content, or statements about morality, or any of the other nonsense that you make up, but you can't make something be in the curriculum that just isn't there.
It's over. Your "outside lawyers" constructed absolutely the best two arguments they could come up with, and those arguments were both laugh-out-loud ridiculous. Sorry.
You can keep wasting the taxpayers' money and making fools of yourselves if you wish - you have that freedom - but the only effect it will have is to make you even more of a pariah than you are now.
You may argue that the individual can control their behaviors, but that is far beyond the scope of these classes, which do not talk about behaviors at all.
So Jim what is it called when you advocate a condom for rectal sex?
Anonymous said...
"No, not if you don't mind the public schools invading the province of morality and telling students that immoral behavior is fine."
Fine, so define HOW this is a moral issue for you.
If same-gender attraction, IN AND OF ITSELF, were not a sin, what problem would you then have with it?
So Jim what is it called when you advocate a condom for rectal sex?
That is simply good medical advice, given by every serious medical professional from the federal government on down. Diseases are transmitted especially easily through anal sex, and condoms are effective in dramatically reducing the risk.
The sexual orientation classes have nothing about any sexual behaviors. The condom class does mention the acts during which a condom should be used. The discussion above has been about homosexuality, which is not mentioned in the condom class.
JimK
Yes the CRW(ackos) don't know when to quit. They should know why Leggett did not attend their "we picket because we are bigots" so called rally a few Saturday's ago.
(from article in W. Post today)
County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), who signed the measure into law, has taken issue with the group's assertion.
The legislation, he said, would not apply to such private facilities as showers or locker rooms.
"If you are in disagreement with this, that is your right," he wrote in an e-mail to the group's president, Ruth Jacobs. "However, you have an obligation to state the facts."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020602306.html
Ted
"Tell us, please, what scientists disagree with what is actually in the curriculum - "that 'there is no single reason why some people are homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual' but that 'according to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental and biological factors,' and that 'sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality'.""
They all would, David. The statements are self-contradictory.
And, BTW, can you tell us any desire that you think doesn't "results from an interaction of cognitive, environmental and biological factors"?
Why are we taking this analytical approach to this one desire and no others? Obviously, it is to try to de-attach it from the moral category it has traditionally assigned to. That is the goal of the gay advocacy movement within public education.
Try a intellectual exercise. Insert racism or gluttony for homosexuality in these statements and see how it sounds.
"You want a fact- 97% of students took the class and their parents opted in"
Here's another fact, Andreary: despite having a school system regularly ranked in the top five in the country, MC has one of the highest rates of kids opting out by going private or homeschooling. Combine that with a recent survey that shows that most county residents believe the local government is unresponsive and you're left with the conclusion that most residents have given up and believe the teacher unions that rule our county can't be overcome.
Meanwhile, Patricia O'Neill throws her weight around trying to intimidate and discourage citizens from getting outside help to fight her vast wealthy juggernaut.
Is TTF getting any grants from MCPS or it being funded solely by liberal churches?
"The sexual orientation classes have nothing about any sexual behaviors"
Good Grief Charlie Brown!
By implication you are talking about the behavior. The lessons teach that homosexual is just fine. What is it about a homosexual that distinguishes it from a heterosexual? You are talking about the behavior that distinguishes the two groups. The words have the word “sex” in them. This is a Family life and Human Sexuality Class.
Here is another fact, Anon. MC has one of the highest rates of parents taking their child out of private schools and putting them in MCPS becuase they are getting, basically, a private school education for free.
Makes you wonder why everyone isn't doing it, doesn't it, Mr TM?
There's obviously some problem that keeps so many kids in our county out of the schools when the public schools have stats that compare or exceed those of the private schools.
What do you think that is, Mr TM?
BTW, if Dr Beyer is reading, I haven't signed any paper petitions or encouraged anyone else to, as of yet. I would like a straight answer to one question though:
Is there is any exemption in the discrimination bill for organizations with a religious mission?
Anonymous:
You said: "MC has one of the highest rates of kids opting out by going private or homeschooling." You (assuming you have children of school age) and anyone else is free to exercise that option; if you want your child (assuming you are a parent) to be "protected" by elitist or isolationist education you have that right. What you do NOT have is the freedome to dictate to the majority of MCPS what kind of education they desire for their children because you subscribe to particular religious beliefs.
You also opined that: "most county residents believe the local government is unresponsive and you're left with the conclusion that most residents have given up and believe the teacher unions that rule our county can't be overcome."
"Most county residents"? I assume you have polled all close to 1,000,000 of them to reach that conclusion. Total dreck and drivel!
Anyone, like you, who has such antipathy toward county officials and teachers would obviously live more happily in some other area of the country where such stupidity, bigotry, and hatred of democracy and its workings are acceptible.
RT
Anonymous said...
Obviously, it is to try to de-attach it from the moral category it has traditionally assigned to.
--
Yet you have yet to define the morality of the issue:
If same-gender attraction, IN AND OF ITSELF, were not a sin, what problem would you then have with it?
I'm not letting this go. I would appreciate an answer. I think it's a fair question.
Andrea- not anon
FACT -97% of parents opted their kids into the class. I have no reason to believe your "fact" or your survey(give us citations) but the point here is that we are concerned with the people who have kids in public schools- not those who homeschool or people who decide they want expensive non- denom private or less expensive parochial schools(although some religious schools are also pricey).
Your silly little group wants to ascribe the private schooling to your notions of inappropriate teaching in public school. I know people with kids in different private schools in MC- some did it for elitist reasons(some good,some narrow minded), some for religious reasons(not in the narrow minded sense of exclusion of CRG/XYZ), and some for special needs. Private schools have smaller classes, more counselors and better hours and they can cost upwards of $25,000 a year. No one I know took their kid out of MCPS over a class their kid doesn't have to take.
Anonymous said...
Try a intellectual exercise. Insert racism or gluttony for homosexuality in these statements and see how it sounds.
--
Ok.
Starting with the curriculum's definition of homosexual:
Homosexual describes a person who is sexually, emotionally, and romantically attracted to a person of the same sex.
And now:
--
Racist describes a person who is sexually, emotionally, and romantically hateful of a person of another race.
Gluttonist describes a person who is sexually, emotionally, and romantically attracted to too much food.
--
I’m still not following.
I took my kids out of MCPS over the sex ed curriculum...
I think it was the teacher saying she would read "what is anal sex" to a class of 10 year olds that was the breaking point, though.
So, see, Andrea, you do know someone who took their kids out of MCPS over the sexed curriculum.
Congratulations.
theresa
Theresa-
you have the right to do that but the SANE parents of Montgomery County want their children to know that there are different people in the world.
You're a typical bigoted helicopter parent who, unfortunately, will more than likely be doing your children a great disservice than the great service you think you are doing them.
Children need to think for themselves or they will have a really tough time being adults. Sheltering your child from everything is not a good thing. Sad.
Andrea- not anon
I stand corrected, Theresa. I meant the sort of people I choose to know. I read in Washingtonian magazine about people in Bethesda who pulled their kids from public school because of minority enrollment in their schools- I don't choose to know them either. I mean it is just a wonder that my kids went through MCPS, got into college and didn't turn gay
Anonymous said...
I took my kids out of MCPS over the sex ed curriculum...
I think it was the teacher saying she would read "what is anal sex" to a class of 10 year olds that was the breaking point, though.
So, see, Andrea, you do know someone who took their kids out of MCPS over the sexed curriculum.
Congratulations.
theresa
----
Let’s take a little walk along memory lane, shall we?
----
Emproph said...
October 21, 2007 9:57 AM
This is you isn’t it Theresa?
#2702 Oct 12, 2007, Theresa Rickman , Maryland
"given the outrageous determination by the public schools to corrupt children to believe that ANYTHING GOES, sex at any age is just fine, and at age 10 we don't care if you wait until you are married, just wait until you are older, no wonder so many parents are pulling their children out of the public school system. I have kids in the private schools, except for the one year I put them in public school. At age 10, at the "health curriculum" where they were going to tell FIFTH GRADERs to wait until they were OLDER (NOT WAIT until they were married to have sex). I attended the meeting for that sex ed curriculum at North Chevy Chase middle school in MD when my children were enrolled. The parents were shown at that meeting the video they were planning on showing the 10 year olds. It showed the a boy having a wet dream sneaking out of his room in the morning with his dirtied sheets and wandering into his older brother who proceeds to explain the birds and bees... At that meeting we were told that during the class the kids would write down questions and the teacher would read them to the class. I asked if a child asked the question "what is anal sex" would they read that to the class of 10 year olds. The answer was yes. I got up and left, my kids were back in private school within a week. this is just the start of the attack of the public schools in their attempt to destroy religous freedom. WATCH OUT. www.mcpscurriculum.com Theresa Rickman
CRC Secretary - the group that is fighting the pro gay advocacy curriculum in montomery county."
___
-Doesn’t even have kids in the public school system.
-Will settle for nothing less than teaching abstinence (ignorance) only “education.”
-Does not want the words “anal sex” uttered in sex ed, EVEN IF the student asks about it.
-Believes that forcing her beliefs onto the children of OTHER parents is a matter of religious freedom.
--
Andrea- not anon then said…
October 22, 2007 8:31 PM
And yes, that is The Theresa. Her ideas of religious freedom are not those in the Constitution- CRC's idea is that everyone learn their religious views since of course, those are the "right" ones.
----
So Theresa, what exactly is it about what we already know about you that you consider to be news?
"You also opined that: "most county residents believe the local government is unresponsive and you're left with the conclusion that most residents have given up and believe the teacher unions that rule our county can't be overcome."
"Most county residents"? I assume you have polled all close to 1,000,000 of them to reach that conclusion. Total dreck and drivel!"
Well, I didn't. The county paid someone else to do it last fall. The survey was part of the widely publicized "state of the county" released last fall.
For crying out loud, read the paper!
"Well, I didn't. The county paid someone else to do it last fall. The survey was part of the widely publicized "state of the county" released last fall.
For crying out loud, read the paper!"
--
Yeah that’s helpful. Does anyone have a copy of every single paper through all of last fall? And could you possible transcribe them all and then post them online here so we can see what the hell she’s talking about?
Emproph
There was a survey that found that Montgomery County residents find the county council "unresponsive" or something. It had nothing to do with the topics we discuss here, it's just how people feel about politicians.
JimK
There is no religious exemption in the County anti-discrimination law, and that holds for all protected classes. All this bill does is add gender identity to the law, and another paragraph about dress codes.
I find it interesting that the CRW or other groups have never lobbied, let alone petitioned, to have the exemption added since sexual orientation is included in the law, and has been for some time. As you all know, there is nothing in the Christian Bible that deals with trans persons, so the enmity is quite striking in that context, and completely misplaced.
I also noted a quote from Michelle Turner today where she disbelieves the County Exec again, and wants language that is more “clear cut.” I don’t suppose any pun was intended, but if that were all she ever wanted, she could have lobbied for it during the process, or even afterwards, and gotten it. There would have been no resistance to that clarification, similar to what Congressman Frank added to HR 2015. And there is no resistance to such language because the situation never comes up, because transitioning women are overly modest and not willing to put themselves into potentially embarrassing situations.
Unfortunately, that was not the tack that Michelle and Ruth took during the hearings, and having Owens-Williams give the Nazi salute and accuse the Council of aiding and abetting predators and pedophiles is way, way beyond the pale. Why would anyone want to work with such people? And then to basically accuse the County Exec of lying doesn’t endear oneself, either, as seen in today’s Post.
So, Michelle, if that’s all you want -- a clarification about accommodations that are defined as areas of public nudity –- then why don’t you act in the traditional, proscribed manner and lobby the Council for that amendment?
JimK said...
There was a survey that found that Montgomery County residents find the county council "unresponsive" or something. It had nothing to do with the topics we discuss here, it's just how people feel about politicians.
Well that changes everything.
So students are NOT overwhelmingly being forced into private schools because of the new and approved MCPS Sex Ed Health Curriculum.
Check.
Thank You.
"There is no religious exemption in the County anti-discrimination law, and that holds for all protected classes. All this bill does is add gender identity to the law, and another paragraph about dress codes.
I find it interesting that the CRW or other groups have never lobbied, let alone petitioned, to have the exemption added since sexual orientation is included in the law, and has been for some time. As you all know, there is nothing in the Christian Bible that deals with trans persons, so the enmity is quite striking in that context, and completely misplaced."
Thanks for the info, Dr. The point that "sexual orientation" discrimination laws already exist and don't include a religious exemption is an interesting one. As far as I know, there haven't been any problems.
Still, I think a religious exemption should exists and probably already does under the connstitution. I assume that gays don't want to work somewhere that considers homosexuality to be sinful but it does leave the churches vulnerable to tricks by organizations like ACT-UP.
I agree that the Bible doesn't specifically mention trans but the verses addressing homosexuality might be considered applicable. To be honest, I don't see why the sexual oriention laws don't cover trans.
How about getting your boss to throw in a religious exemption?
Excellent Post Dr. Beyer. I'd been wondering about this:
There is no religious exemption in the County anti-discrimination law, and that holds for all protected classes.
Am I to understand that all churches, mosques, and synagogues are already “forced” to hire people of opposing faiths, including atheists? Ditto for nursery schools?
--
Also, from the Washington Post:
The county's Human Rights Commission compliance director has said the law allows the owner of a health club or swim club to segregate facilities based on biological sex.
But the group says the language is too vague.
"We want it very clear-cut," Turner said.
--
So essentially they want the owners of these, and all facilities, to be “forced” to segregate based on biological sex. And that if that was written into the law, they would then have absolutely no problem with it?
Australia: Christian Leaders Apologize to Gay Community
Posted on February 7th, 2008 by Dave Rattigan
AustraliaOver 100 Christian ministers will be showing their support for Australia’s gay and lesbian community by marching in this year’s Sydney Mardi Gras parade. The multi-denominational group, which calls itself 100 Revs, has issued a formal apology for the Church’s mistreatment of gays, confessing that Christians have been “profoundly unloving” towards homosexuals:
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not been places of welcome for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people, For these things we apologise. We are deeply sorry and ask the forgiveness of the GBLT community.
Author and former Assemblies of God evangelist Anthony Venn-Brown applauded the move towards reconciliation:
This wonderful act reminds me of the time the NSW Police marched in the parade for the first time. It was a sign of progress when the very organisation that had imprisoned the first marchers in 1978, joined the parade as participants, 20 or so years later.
He added that it was “a way forward of healing for us all.” Venn-Brown believes that those who sign the 100 Revs statement may become the targets of anger and hostility, even ostracized for their willingness to admit the wrongs. “Thank you for standing with us and welcome to our world,” he concluded.
(www.exgaywatch.com)
Sayeth anon:
"Why are we taking this analytical approach to this one desire and no others?"
Nobody is doing that except you, anon. The statements in the curriculum (which are not contradictory, btw) refer to sexual orientation in general, not a specific "desire." Please read the statements quoted by the judge again.
Jim said "The fact is, there's nothing wrong with the curriculum."
Red Baron replied "No, not if you don't mind the public schools invading the province of morality and telling students that immoral behavior is fine.".
Nowhere does the curriculum say immoral behavior is fine. Part of learning to be a good citizen is to learn morality and its apropriat that schools teach students that whatever they do is fine as long as they aren't hurting others.
Red Baron said "When you say it is innate, which is an opinion, not a fact, regardless of how many scientists disagree, you're implying that it is fine, in a moral sense.".
The overwhelming abundance of evidence suggests orientation IS innate, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. And of course gayness IS fine in a moral sense. Your attempting to dictate to others how they should live when its not hurting you is what is NOT fine in a moral sense.
Red baron said "You can also argue that the exclusivity and persistence of the attraction are susceptible to the will...Just as people can control their behavior, they can also control their feelings.".
No one can control their feelings. Study after study has shown that same sex attractions are not susceptible to the will and even if they were that certainly wouldn't justify telling others that they should change.
Red Baron said "What is it about a gay that distinguishes him from a heterosexual? You are talking about the behavior that distinguishes the two groups.".
No, it has nothing to do with behavior. A gay is same sex attracted and a heterosexual is opposite sex attracted. Its about feelings, not behavior. Virgins can be either gay or heterosexual.
Red Baron said "Still, I think a religious exemption should exists and probably already does under the connstitution.".
Thanks for admitting that its you demanding special rights for christians, not gays. The U.S. constitution mandates a seperation of church and state, nowhere does it allow for special rights for Christians.
Red Baron said "I assume that gays don't want to work somewhere that considers gayness to be sinful but it does leave the churches vulnerable to tricks by organizations like ACT-UP.".
Religious people should have to follow the same laws everyone else does. No special rights for religionists.
You guys might be interested in D'souza's column today:
"Now that John McCain seems assured of being the Republican nominee for president, will I join Ann Coulter in campaigning for Hillary Clinton? Only if I've completely lost my marbles, as Coulter seems to have in this case.
Hillary Clinton wants to raise taxes. She wants the government to take over one-sixth of the economy in the form of the health care sector. She wants to retreat in Iraq. She wants abortion on demand, however "safe" and "rare.' She wants more social liberals of the Ruth Bader Ginsburg stripe on the Supreme Court. She loathes conservatives who represent to her a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
I cannot believe that Coulter would seriously consider voting for such a person. So her threat to actually campaign for Clinton is pure rhetorical buncombe. Coulter specializes in outrageous, attention-getting statements like this. But this one is especially ill-timed and foolish.
Equally over-the-top are Rush Limbaugh's attacks on McCain. Limbaugh too has intimated that McCain as president would be worse than Hillary. What did we as conservatives do to deserve such spokesmen? Several years ago Al Franken described Limbaugh as a "big fat idiot." Rush isn't big and fat anymore, and he certainly is not an idiot. But he is an egomaniac. And he has grown accustomed to conservative bigwigs worshiping at the Shrine of Rush.
McCain's big offense seems to be that he hasn't paid his obeisance. I cannot think of any other explanation for why Limbaugh is so vehement against him. Consider that Rudy Giuliani got much more respectful treatment from Limbaugh, and Giuliani is a self-professed social liberal who supports abortion, embryonic stem cell research and gay rights.
McCain is conservative not only on foreign policy but also on economic and social issues. He's at least as conservative as Bush and almost as conservative as Reagan. Yes, he disagrees with some conservative pundits on immigration and campaign finance reform. So what? Are conservatives so politically immature that they cannot distinguish the primary issues from the secondary ones?
I'm heading to Washington D.C. tonight to speak tomorrow afternoon to the main session at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC). I am scheduled to talk on how to counter the new atheism. But I'm tempted to speak instead on why conservatives need to stop this childish tantrum and grow up a little. We need to work with McCain as much as he needs to work with us.
McCain will give a much-anticipated talk at CPAC, and there are legitimate issues that I wish he would address. We all know that he supports the war in Iraq, but I'd like to see him delineate a strategy for victory. McCain should emphasize that he's a fiscal conservative, and it would be interesting to hear how how he plans to curtail runaway government social spending. McCain should also spell out his vision for a decent society, and remind his audience that he will appoint judges like Roberts and Alito.
But it would be unseemly for McCain to pander to the conservative hissy fit. He has already asked his conservative critics to "calm down" and this is the right message. The intelligent, practical-minded conservatives will line up behind McCain, as the majority of the GOP rank and file already has.
Let's recognize that if McCain is going to win in November he also needs to reach out to moderate and independent voters. McCain's standing with swing voters might even improve if he tells Rush Limbaugh to go worship at his own shrine."
Red Baron said "You guys might be interested in D'souza's column today".
You guessed wrong. No one cares what moronic nobodies think.
I agree, Randi. I most certainly am not interested. Hillary's got my vote! The day I vote for a Republican is the day I have truly lost my marbles!!! However, being a teacher and treated like a political football almost everyday by CRW(eirod)-related freaks... that could happen at any time.
"You guessed wrong. No one cares what moronic nobodies think."
Goes a long toward explaining why liberals have been such consistent losers over the years and why they will lose again.
McCain already tops both Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama by a small margin. And we haven't even started the national campaign yet.
"I agree, Randi. I most certainly am not interested. Hillary's got my vote! The day I vote for a Republican is the day I have truly lost my marbles!!! However, being a teacher and treated like a political football almost everyday by CRW(eirod)-related freaks... that could happen at any time."
Are you saying you're not a football? Stop the whining.
Anon said, "Are you saying you're not a football? Stop the whining."
Nope, I am not.
What? Not a football?
What about teacher? Is that a ruse too?
Oh, AnonFreak.
I have decided to ignore you for a bit.. your ADD is kicking in again.
Red Baron, the trend over the decades is gradually towards the liberal. If you had it your way we'd all be living in a scientifically illiterate theocracy which we're a long way from. You're the consistent loser.
And as far as Mccain topping Hilary and Obama, that's another one of your never to be fulfilled fantasies like "president Huckabee".
"Red Baron, the trend over the decades is gradually towards the liberal."
You're a hoot, Randi. A real hoot.
Conservatism is a world-wide trend. America's socialist moment was 1932-1945. Since 1964, the only Democrats who've gotten elected were a couple of Southerners who catered to conservatives. What was Bill Clinton's big accomplishment?: welfare reform.
Worldwide, we have conservative pro-American leaders gaining power consistently. Remember the French and German losers who opposed us in Iraq? Gone and replaced by our friends.
We don't even have to mention Canada.
But I guess you see patterns in the air.
Hear voices too?
Listen, Theresa, Michelle, Wyatt, etc.,
You are free to do whatever you want. You can lie and go to hell, or you can lobby your Councilmembers just like anyone else. If you find someone willing to amend the County Code to provide a religious exemption, then good for you. If you can find someone willing to push for bathroom segregation, good for you. That's the way this process works.
During this debate I spoke to a number of reasonable people who were concerned by the lies of CRW. After discussion their concerns were put to rest. The leaders of this group, such as Jamison, Jacobs, et al presented themselves as extremists and fanatics and were given their time to speak and be read. Their case was made, considered, and the Council moved on. I have no doubt that if a reasonable approach and request had been made, Michelle would have obtained what she says in today's Post that she wanted, but no one ever presented herself to do so.
Who's fault is that?
As I pointed out, in general legislation is kept as simple as possible. When an attempt was made to be more explicit, it just led to more confusion. So the Council listened to its attorneys and passed the bill as you have it. The County Exec has made the law's intent and effect clear. Trans men and women have been arranging accommodations for decades, gays and lesbians have been working in religious institutions without lawsuits. This law is, and always has been, primarily about employment.
I have a feeling that the CRW is more interested in political theater and agitprop than in accomplishing anything. I guess working with the Council is just exciting enough.
Red Baron, good for you that you've got your fantasies. The problem for your so called "conservative trend" is that even the conservatives are increasingly liberal. Mccain is much more liberal than Bush was and Bush was more liberal than Regan. The only reason conservatives have been able to win is because they've been forced to move farther to the left. The clear evidence of this is the ever gaining success of the gay rights movement even under conservative governments. The world is increasingly liberal and will continue to go that way as the inevitable march to equality and fairness continues.
And good thing for you that you didn't mention Canada, Canada has been run by the liberals for the vast majority of the time and even the conservative party had to move to the left to get elected, note how they refused to continue opposing equal marriage for same sex couples.
There's no moving back the hands of time, society is increasingly progressive and religion is on the wane.
"You are free to do whatever you want. You can lie and go to hell,"
I think you were adressing this to the anon who requested that you consider including a religious exemption.
This is not encouraging, Dana. My post today didn't include a word about accomodations. I simply requested that you and your boss consider religious freedom and include an exemption. You can't blame your own actions on what CRC is doing. Personally, I'm concerned about the employment issue.
One problem with discrimination legislation in general is that it treats everyone like a factory worker. In the real world, more and more people want to think they are supporting the mission of the place where they are employed.
Here's an example: an evangelical church believes homosexuality is unbiblical. The pastor complies with the law and hires a gay guy to be his secretary. If the preacher asks his employee, who is gay, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the biblical view of sexual morality, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?
I know you don't give a damn because you think gay rights are more important than constitutional freedoms but it's really not a good situation. It would better, constitutionally, to avoid it. If you don't, you'll probably lose in court anyway.
anonymous
you are omitting the fact that nondiscrimination laws have religious exemptions.
therefore your example regarding a church and a gay employee is something that would not happen.
Firstly, Anon, you misread my post. When I said "lie and go to hell" I was speaking biblically, not colloquially, that "you should go to hell." I believe lying is a sin, correct?
As for a religious exemption, I said that the County Code doesn't have one for any reason, and it hasn't mattered. State and federal laws do have them, so it's a moot point.
As for your example -- again, the issue has never arisen, and there are assuredly plenty of closeted gay men working in churches writing such sermons as I write. There are even the preachers themselves doing so, as we've discovered over the years. It was only recently that the infamous Ted Haggard failed his ex-gay therapy.
As for my feelings about the Constitution, they're a little more ethical than your buddy, Huckabee, who wants the Constitution to be amended to be more in line with "God's word." I'm an American, and I deserve the same rights as anyone else. As a fundamentalist Christian you have the right to employment; as a woman born transsexual I should have the same right. Period.
"Firstly, Anon, you misread my post. When I said "lie and go to hell" I was speaking biblically, not colloquially, that "you should go to hell.""
Actually, I knew that. I still think you were trying to be inflammatory.
"I believe lying is a sin, correct?"
Oh, it seems situational to me. When you read scriptural reference to deception, the appropriateness appears to hinge on the intent. The commandment doesn't say "you shall not bear false witness", it says "you shall not bear false witness AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR."
I'm sure you'd agree that the Christians who hid the Jews in their attic during WWII and lkied to the Nazis about it weren't sinning.
To take a biblical example, Rahab, the prostitute who hid the Hebrew spies in Jericho and lied to the authorities, is not only not condemned by scripture, she actually becomes an ancestor of David and Jesus.
Still, if CRC has lied about something to gain leverage in this debate, I wouldn't defend them except to say that that is an easy trap to fall into when you engage in political advocacy and, from what I've seen, TTF doesn't seem so snow-white pure that they're above stretching a point for rhetorical advantage.
"As for a religious exemption, I said that the County Code doesn't have one for any reason, and it hasn't mattered. State and federal laws do have them, so it's a moot point."
I hope you're right. Again, I'm sure religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. Be nice to avoid litigation though.
"As for your example -- again, the issue has never arisen, and there are assuredly plenty of closeted gay men working in churches writing such sermons as I write."
There may be but that's not the issue. The issue is whether an organization, especially a religious one, should be able to hire those who support their mission. This is in the best interest of all organizations. Whether there are some working for the organization who secretly oppose the mission is irrelevant.
"There are even the preachers themselves doing so, as we've discovered over the years. It was only recently that the infamous Ted Haggard failed his ex-gay therapy."
So what?
"As for my feelings about the Constitution, they're a little more ethical than your buddy, Huckabee, who wants the Constitution to be amended to be more in line with "God's word.""
If the Constitution were in line with God's word, it would provide stronger protection of basic freedoms for all people, including non-Christians. I don't know what Huckabee means thought. It seems the Constitution is pretty supportive of a biblical viewpoint already to me. I think the problems have resulted from misinterpretation by judges in the Warren wing.
"I'm an American, and I deserve the same rights as anyone else."
Absolutely.
"As a fundamentalist Christian you have the right to employment; as a woman born transsexual I should have the same right. Period."
Neither of us has a right to employment. We have the right to pursue it. It's the burden of employees to meet the needs of their employers and serve their agenda. It's our obligation to find an employer whose agenda we can support.
You're working for an employer whose mission you support. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if, say, Huckabee were forced to hire you as a political consultant?
Red Baron said ""I believe lying is a sin, correct?"
"Oh, it seems situational to me. When you read scriptural reference to deception, the appropriateness appears to hinge on the intent... I'm sure you'd agree that the Christians who hid the Jews in their attic during WWII and lkied to the Nazis about it weren't sinning.".
So contrary to Christian assertions about biblical morality being objective and absolute its a relative morality that they hypocritically condemn left and right while claiming they're not guilty of it. The bible is full of these sorts of contradictions. The first commandment is "thou shalt not kill" yet god and his followers kill millions of innocents throughout the bible. Its because of this sort of thing that the bible can never be a guide to morality.
Dana said "As for a religious exemption, I said that the County Code doesn't have one for any reason, and it hasn't mattered. State and federal laws do have them, so it's a moot point."
Red Baron replied "I hope you're right.".
You hypocrite. You christians demand special rights and then falsely accuse gays of that. Only the religious feel they should be exempted from the requirement not to discriminate.
Red Baron said "The issue is whether an organization, especially a religious one, should be able to hire those who support their mission."
Anti-discrimination laws don't prevent them from hiring people who support their mission. Plenty of gay people have supported anti-gay bigots in the past.
Red Baron said "If the Constitution were in line with God's word, it would provide stronger protection of basic freedoms for all people, including non-Christians."
An outrageous lie. If the constitution reflected the bible gays and non-believers would be put to death, women would be second class citizens without the vote, slavery would be re-instituted and people would be forced to make animal sacrifices to god.
Dana said ""I'm an American, and I deserve the same rights as anyone else."
Red Baron said "Absolutely.".
You liar. You don't believe that. You'd deprive gay and lesbians of the right to marry, to be protected by anti-discrimination laws and hate crime laws just as you are.
Everyone deserves the same right not to be fired from a job for reasons other than their ability to do it and you'd deny that right to LGBTS. You most certainly don't believe in equal rights.
Sorry, but I'm trying to be helpful.
I have suggested that CRW play be the rules, and live up to Michelle Turner's plea for clarity. Yet neither she nor Theresa has taken any such action, which just leads me to believe they are only posturing for the press.
This isn't the first time I've offered to be helpful, which is what my job entails. Yet only once, if I recall, did Theresa ever bother to respond directly to a question which I had posed. Now she has a chance to influence legislation, and she's nowhere to be found. All I hear is that my boss should make the introduction. Sorry, that's not how this works. We're happy with the law as is. If someone has a gripe, they need to petition their council members.
This is what I heard outside of my local Giant today: "Would you like to sign a petition to force the County Council to rescind a law that allows men to go into ladies' restrooms and showers"? I was shocked by the sheer effrontery of the bold lies the lady used in trying to get passers-by to sign the petition.
Apparently CRG has been emboldened enough by the massive support they are receiving by well-known national right-wing religious organizations to carry on this sham and will continue to lie their way to a referendum vote this fall. Complacency will only enable this minority of ignorant bigots to force their religious views on the majority of Montgomery County's citizens.
Anonymous said...
"One problem with discrimination legislation in general is that it treats everyone like a factory worker. In the real world, more and more people want to think they are supporting the mission of the place where they are employed."
So are you against ALL anti-discrimination legislation? All fine and good until the hypocritical part where you’re not against ALL anti-discrimination legislation.
--
Anonymous said...
"Here's an example: an evangelical church believes homosexuality is unbiblical. The pastor complies with the law and hires a gay guy to be his secretary. If the preacher asks his employee, who is gay, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the biblical view of sexual morality, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?"
--
Let’s run with that example:
Religious:
Here's an example: an evangelical church believes Islam is unbiblical. The pastor complies with the law and hires a Muslim to be his secretary. If the preacher asks his employee, who is Muslim, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the biblical view of damnation, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?
Here's an example: an evangelical church believes atheism is unbiblical. The pastor complies with the law and hires an atheist to be his secretary. If the preacher asks his employee, who is atheist, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the biblical view of God‘s existence, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?
Here's an example: an evangelical church believes Judaism is unbiblical. The pastor complies with the law and hires a Jew to be his secretary. If the preacher asks his employee, who is Jewish, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the biblical view of salvation, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?
--
Marital Status:
Here's an example: an evangelical church believes polygamy is unbiblical. The pastor complies with the law and hires a polygamist to be his secretary. If the preacher asks his employee, who is a polygamist, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the biblical view of monogamy, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?
Here's an example: an evangelical church believes cohabitation is unbiblical. The pastor complies with the law and hires someone who is cohabitating with their partner to be his secretary. If the preacher asks his employee, who is cohabitating with their partner, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the biblical view of fornication, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?
--
Or try it the other way around:
Here's an example: an Islamic Mosque believes Christianity is anti-Koran. The Imam complies with the law and hires a Christian to be his secretary. If the Imam asks his employee, who is Christian, to type up his sermon notes and there happens to discussion of the Koran’s view of Christianity, is that harassment? Does the employee feel obligated to organize a protest?
--
Are those examples not also valid?
If so, all I'm seeing is an argument for majority rules - an expressly "Christian" supremacist majority rules argument.
Or am I missing something?
Still, if CRC has lied about something to gain leverage in this debate, I wouldn't defend them except to say that that is an easy trap to fall into when you engage in political advocacy and, from what I've seen, TTF doesn't seem so snow-white pure that they're above stretching a point for rhetorical advantage.
Good Anon, then stop defending them right now. You must have noticed that TTF is not going around the county lying about what the law says to trick citizens into signing petitions; only the shower nuts are doing that.
Just thought this was interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7238636.stm
Post a Comment
<< Home