MoCo Students Hear Speech
Montgomery County students generally heard the President's speech yesterday. Here's The Gazette:
To my mind, this is ideal. I am a believer in distributed control -- if you create an environment where things are allowed rather than prohibited, people are free to make the best choices, and I am confident that most people, given the autonomy to choose, will make the best choice. If one central authority prohibits something, then choice is taken away from participants in the system, and if the authority orders the wrong thing, everybody does the wrong thing.
In this case, MCPS allowed the speech to be televised, at the principals' and the teachers' discretion. It sounds like all of them chose to enrich our county's children's education experience by showing them the President's speech.
Justina Sarkodie, 7, said President Barack Obama doesn't want her to give up.
Her classmate at Gaithersburg Elementary School, Brandon Lazo-Flores, 7, said the president wants him to learn from his mistakes.
These were just a few of the messages that area students took away from Obama's much-hyped speech to the nation's students that aired at noon Tuesday.
Chris Cram, a spokesman for Montgomery County Public Schools, said it was left up to principals whether their schools would show Obama's speech. He said he did not know of any schools that chose not to air it.
Any guidance, Cram said, came from the U.S. Department of Education, but principals with questions could call their community superintendents.
The president's address sparked controversy nationwide among some parents, politicians and teachers, with critics charging that Obama's address and accompanying lesson plans would bring politics into the classroom.
Obama released a copy of his prepared remarks over the weekend to allay fears that his message would be overly political.
Niki Hazel, principal of Gaithersburg Elementary School, said she spoke with PTA members to see if parents shared her interest in showing the address in school. She decided to use an automated phone message system to alert parents that students would be able to see Obama's speech in class Tuesday, but they could opt out of the speech or accompanying lessons.
"If they didn't want the child to participate, they could send a note to school," Hazel said.
She received two notes out of 500 students. Those students participated in alternate activities, Hazel said.
Hazel said she received other notes, too.
"I got a few notes from parents thanking us for the opportunity, and a note from a parent saying that even though they didn't agree with Obama's views they would allow their child to watch it, but they didn't want their child to participate in any after-activities."
Hazel said she let teachers decide whether to lead students in any activities related to Obama's speech. In Justina's and Brandon's Gaithersburg classroom, students used markers to write down what they heard in Obama's address. Schools across county air Obama speech
To my mind, this is ideal. I am a believer in distributed control -- if you create an environment where things are allowed rather than prohibited, people are free to make the best choices, and I am confident that most people, given the autonomy to choose, will make the best choice. If one central authority prohibits something, then choice is taken away from participants in the system, and if the authority orders the wrong thing, everybody does the wrong thing.
In this case, MCPS allowed the speech to be televised, at the principals' and the teachers' discretion. It sounds like all of them chose to enrich our county's children's education experience by showing them the President's speech.
posted by JimK at 9:37 AM
48 Comments:
"people are free to make the best choices, and I am confident that most people, given the autonomy to choose, will make the best choice"
So then you disagree with the Alamadea school district presenting pro-homosexual lessons to kindergardners and not allowing parents to opt out ?
Based on what you said above, I would believe you are on the side of parents rights in CA.
Well Jim ?
sounds like Montgomery County is like most places on this
nobody seemed to care about this speech that much
there will be some people that protest everything the President does
liberal again were overstating the opposition to the speech for propaganda purposes
I don't know anything about "Alamadea," even where it is -- I guess "CA" stands for Canada or California, right?
I am fine with my county's policy of requiring parents to approve their child's attendance in the sex ed classes before they can attend, it's a little strict in that the default position is that the student is prohibited from taking the classes but I think it's fair enough.
Sorry but I don't have any opinion about this other place.
JimK
Andrea- not anon
Anon always speaks without information. I was in the Atlanta area and I heard on the news there that the speech was not aired in some schools there due to opposition. Guess it would be bad to hear you should work hard and do well in school.
http://catechismoncall.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/catholic-take-on-teaching-homosexuality-in-school/
I love this.
Finally a priest standing up and pointing out that yes I have a right to refer to the behavior as immoral and unnatural and that doesn't make a homophobe.
So all Catholics are homophobes ?
And yes, CA's law does do EXACTLY what the saveourkids folks that collected 300,000+ signatures against it says it does. It mandates the teaching of same sex unions in kindergarden with NO OPT OUT.
It will be interesting to see how this and Prop 8 are reconciled.
Theresa
Theresa, I don't think you will find a lot of TTF people are real big on labeling people as "homophobes." If I may speak for the others, we tend to think that even people who are different from us have the right to love one another and have homes and families without being punished for being different. There are people who seem to believe that LGBT individuals should be punished for the way they are, and we oppose that.
JimK
Jim you did not answer the question about the California curriculum.
Thoughts ?
Theresa
Yes I did. I don't know anything about the California curriculum. That's my answer.
JimK
Theresa,
What does "homophobe" mean? Literally, a fear of homosexuals.
Not all Catholics are homophobes. The references to gay people at Senator Kennedy's funeral certainly proved that.
I am not a Catholic, but I certainly understand why people raised in the Church feel close ties to it, ties that are not broken even when they cannot in good conscience follow all of the Church's dictates. That is why people like the Kennedys and the Bidens keep their connection, even though they have disagreements on issues like the role of gay people in society.
It took about 250 years for the Church to recognize, notwithstanding its position in the 17th Century, that Galileo was right. I hope, for the sake of the Church (which is in so many ways a positive force in the world), that it does not take nearly that long for it to recognize the right if each gay person to have a full life, including a recognized marriage with the person whom they love.
Catholics (as opposed to the Catholic Church) are certainly not monolithic on this issue. Take a look at this letter published in yesterday's Washington Post:
A Catholic View Of Gay Marriage
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
As one of the 580,000 Catholics in the Washington Archdiocese, I object to the suggestion by Ronald Jackson, executive director of the D.C. Catholic Conference ["Wuerl Ups Opposition to Gay Marriage," Metro, Sept. 2] that we are all bigots.
Many Catholics support the right of all people to marry, whether to a person of the opposite sex or to a person of the same sex.
Church authorities should stick to the governance of religious wedding ceremonies and leave to civil authorities the responsibility of granting marriage licenses, a responsibility that should be exercised without discrimination.
MARK F. CLARK
Silver Spring
The writer is a member of the board of Dignity USA, a national organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics and their families and supporters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702057.html
"It took about 250 years for the Church to recognize, notwithstanding its position in the 17th Century, that Galileo was right."
This is wrong, David.
Ok I am a Catholic that believe my churches teaching's are accurate, and that gays should not be allowed to marry.
I don't particularly care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home. I don't appreciate lewd displays (either same sex or opposite sex) in public, period.
I don't believe children should be taught homosexuality in the school system - that discussion should be left to parents.
I do believe that kids should be taught sex-ed, probably about 3 years behind where MCPS is doing it, ALWAYS with the words "don't have sex until you are married" and with a strong, strong emphasis on abstinence and in sex segregated class rooms. I am not in favor of the way MCPS teaches sex-ed - with sex having about all the significance of sharing an ice cream cone.
So, from your post David you believe that Catholics who uphold the churches teaching on homosexuality are bigots ?
Just curious.
Theresa
I do, and so do millions of other Americans. The Church, the leading example of hypocracy, should not attempt to force its opinions and beliefs on millions of others who do not subscribe to that particular religious view of the world. You, Theresa, are entitled to your own beliefs just as those who do not accept those beliefs are entitled to theirs. And...while you may be a homophobe, millions of others aren't. The entire world is not Roman Catholic!
homophobe is really a propaganda term
there's a difference between fear and offense
let's say you oppose beastiality in the streets
does that make you a beastophobe?
no, the problem isn't fear
homosexuality is a sexual deviation and that view has nothing to do with fright
the majority of people on Earth today and throughout history are homophobes, by David's approximation
Theresa,
I have a question for you. Were those who attended and stayed with churches in the South back in the 1950s where the ministers asserted that segregation was God's plan racists?
David
David
Mainstream Protestants or Catholics never held that being black was immoral.
Slavery was first condemned by churches, where the abolitionist movement started.
So did the civil rights movement of the 60s.
Those who preached segregation was God's plan were heretics because that is not supported by scripture.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is condemned by scripture.
See the difference?
At my school, we recorded the speech and if students wanted to see it, they could do so the day after during their lunch period in designated rooms while eating their lunch. Plain and simple.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, which is why those who fail to remember that scripture was used to justify racism (See The Examiner: "Racism, the Bible, and Hamm's Curse" and Religious Tolerance: "Using the Bible to Justify Slavery" and do more research to learn more about how the church was used to justify racism) are misusing scripture again today, this time to justify hatred and fear of LGBT people.
One day I hope we will see the groups and individuals who make such statements as "homosexuality is a sexual deviation" apologize for and mend the errors of their ways.
If an organization like Bob Jones University (BJU) can do it, so can Anon and the gang.
BJU finally realized its own racist past was wrong and decided to do the right thing and allow African Americans to attend their school, and then, thirty years later, it evolved some more and became willing to allow interracial dating.
President Jones stated, “For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.
“In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.”
what Bob Jones is confessing here is exactly what I said above:
any effort to support racism from scripture is heretical because scripture doesn't support it
he was wrong to do so and he was following his culture rather than his religion
opposition to slavery and discrimination orginated in the Church and those who tried to justify racism by scripture were attempting to counter that movement
it was a reaction to the realization that scripture condemned racism rather than a manifestation of it
homosexuality, however, is clearly condemned by scripture and widely embraced by our secular culture
btw, Anon-B's whole post above is more of the deceptive twisting of logic she is known for
Another personal attack to justify your fear and hatred of gays, Anon? How boring.
Scripture tells us repeatedly to love others as ourselves and do not judge. BJU used false assertions and misinterpretation of scripture to support racism, just like Anon does to support his homophobia today.
The arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice.
We hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one.
Theresa,
Anon's response to my question to you was not responsive.
The point of my question is not the theological accuracy of a particular viewpoint, but, rather, is whether you would consider members of southern churches which advocated legal segregation, and who supported those church's doctrines in that regard be racist?
I guess I was too ambiguous for you, David
saying segregation is supported by scripture is heretical and the motivation for that is often racist but there may be other factors, like simple desire to conform to the culture
saying that homosexuality is immoral, on the other hand, is scriptural
saying homosexuality is not condemned by scripture is heretical and the motivation for that is usually a desire to conform to the culture
any other opportunities to be responsive?
Anon,
My question (in response to Theresa's question as to whether I thought Catholics who adhere to the Church's views on homosexuality and what civil law should or should not say regarding gay people are homophobic) was very simple. Would you, or Theresa, view people who were members of, and supported, churches that preached segregation racists? The question has nothing to do with whether those churches readings of scripture were "heretical" or not.
drawing a parallel between racial segregation and refusing to allow homosexuals to marry really inflames the black community who tend to be socially conservative.
they don't see the parallel.
because they clearly can't change the color of their skin and a good percentage of them don't see why sexual orientation holds a place besides race in discrimination laws...
did you know that david ?
so I guess I don't see the point.
I don't agree that gays can't change. how about ann heche ?
she was just always bi-sexual, yes, yes I know....
drawing a parallel between racial segregation and refusing to allow homosexuals to marry really inflames the black community who tend to be socially conservative.
they don't see the parallel.
because they clearly can't change the color of their skin and a good percentage of them don't see why sexual orientation holds a place besides race in discrimination laws...
did you know that david ?
so I guess I don't see the point.
I don't agree that gays can't change. how about ann heche ?
she was just always bi-sexual, yes, yes I know....
theresa
Theresa,
I am not discussing a direct equivalency between racism and homophobia (although they do live in the same neighborhood, as Civil Rights icons like John Lewis, Julian Bond, and the late Coretta Scott King have recognized).
Rather, I am discussing the question of what it means to follow a church doctrine that belittles and seeks, as a matter of theology, to marginalize one group of people or another.
One last time: Would you consider supporters of the doctrines of churches that supported segregation to have been racists?
Are you uncomfortable answering the question? If so, why?
Theresa, seeing that I AM BLACK AND GAY, I personally resent it when folks play both communities against one another.
I assure you that me and many others like me see the parallel.
"Would you, or Theresa, view people who were members of, and supported, churches that preached segregation racists?"
It's a little theoretical, David, because I've never experienced or heard of such a church. I've heard of some who tolerate it in areas where the general population does but never heard of them "preaching" it.
I think racism is clearly immoral so I'd wouldn't be part of it. I'd try not to judge anyone who was a member but it would be difficult to maintain such a stance.
Did I answer that question yet?
"Rather, I am discussing the question of what it means to follow a church doctrine that belittles and seeks, as a matter of theology, to marginalize one group of people or another."
Again, other than some neo-Nazi fringe groups hiding out remote mountains out West,I'm not aware of any such churches that hold racism to be a doctrine.
"Theresa, seeing that I AM BLACK AND GAY, I personally resent it when folks play both communities against one another.
I assure you that me and many others like me see the parallel."
Isn't that because homosexuality is genrally not tolerated in black communities?
David -- I'm not Theresa, but I'm here to say that the basis of your argument rests on the theory that homosexuality is equivalent to race. You completely ignore the fact that homosexuality has a huge behavioral aspect to it (whether or not you think it's genetic), while the other (race) has absolutely nothing to do with behavior. Thus, trying to force a fictional supposition on such a groundless comparison is fruitless and, in the end, irrelevant.
Then compare sexuality to religion. There are plenty of people who change from one religion to another, and sometimes back again.
Yet all of these ex-Catholics, ex-Mormons, ex-Druids, ex-Jews, and any other ex-religion is protected by non-discrimination laws -- whether they choose a new religion or no religion.
Many churches have ways of shunning or sanctioning ex members of their church, but in the rest of this great country, they are still entitled to apply to and be accepted for any job they are qualified for, marry whoever they want (unless they are gay in most states) and buy a home wherever they can afford one.
If you don't want to give EVERYONE the same rights whether or not they are gay or straight, why should we protect everyone who chooses any religion they want to? Especially given the history of violence and child predation in many churches? Perhaps if we taught everyone how to THINK CRITICALLY and not accept everything they hear as "ordained by god" then we wouldn't have so many people following people like David Koresh, Jim Jones, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Moonies, people who profess polygamy as part of god's plan, bishops who shuffle priests to new parishes once parents accuse them of child sex-abuse rather than reporting them to the police, people who say Jews need to "be perfected," etc. etc. etc. etc.
Religion is a choice, and it's characterized by a set of beliefs and behaviors. Most of the religious people I know are pretty sane, normal, and well-meaning folks. Then there are others that somehow just manage to stay out of the funny farm. Sometimes figuring out which side of the line those folks are on isn't always easy. Yet they are protected by law.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Rather, I am discussing the question of what it means to follow a church doctrine that belittles and seeks, as a matter of theology, to marginalize one group of people or another. "
So I don't think the Catholic Church seeks "to marginalize one group of people". In my daughter's Catholic school, they discussed homosexuality in yes, sex-ed. They had a very different approach than MCPS. They acknowledged that same sex attraction exists, that they don't know what causes it, but that same sex sexual acts are immoral and against God's plan for procreation. Does that marginalize gays ? See I don't think so. It was coupled with repeated information that all people are to be respected and loved.
I don't see any marginalization in that. I do see a discussion of right and wrong and clear lines for right and wrong.
Theresa
"Most of the religious people I know are pretty sane, normal, and well-meaning folks. Then there are others that somehow just manage to stay out of the funny farm."
Did it ever occur to you, then, that religion is not what makes them crazy?
Maybe crazy people get involved with churches because Christianity is highly tolerant and seeks to help any who seek help. It may be the only place they have to turn.
"Maybe crazy people get involved with churches because Christianity is highly tolerant and seeks to help any who seek help. It may be the only place they have to turn."
Church is free and mental health care costs money.
and religion has a better track record helping people than psychiatry
the psych can get you some quality pharmaceuticals though
Part One:
Theresa,
Now we are finally getting to the nub of it. Prior to the shift in polite American society regarding whether it was acceptable to discriminate against black people, pastors in Southern churches preached that God’s intent was to maintain segregation. Congregants who adhered to that teaching certainly were racist, by any reasonable definition. They may not have necessarily been malevolent, but the result in terms of discrimination against black people was the same. Just because such pastors and congregants may have been horrified by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan (just as the Catholic Church sincerely believes that all people are to be “respected and loved”) did not lessen the impact of the discrimination on the actual lives of black people.
Your last post raises two important issues:
1. First, does your Catholic School’s teachings marginalize gay people? Put yourself in the shoes of a male student who is gay (the same thing I am about to lay out would, of course, apply to a female student who is lesbian). He is told by the Church that if he ever acts on his sexual feelings, even in the context of a life-long monogamous commitment, that he is acting in an immoral fashion, that ever being sexually involved consistent with his orientation would be wrong. While is it immoral? Why is it wrong? Application of the Golden Rule surely would not lead one to conclude that the behavior is immoral or wrong. Rather, it is deemed immoral and wrong solely because, in the Church’s view, it is against God’s plan for humanity. I’d respectfully suggest that many pious gay boys, believing what they were told about homosexuality, chose the priesthood so that they could have a full life without sex. That may have worked out for some; but it is certainly reasonable to conclude that much, if not most, of the Church’s sexual abuse tragedies resulted from such priests ultimately not being able to deal with their sexuality in age-appropriate, non-coercive ways.
The Church is certainly free to tell its gay parishioners that God is calling them to celibacy. But is that really wise or humane? And how does one know that that is really commanded by God? Those who say that the Bible says X, and therefore we must always do X ignore the fact that none of us a really scriptural literalists. If we were, we would insist on following all the admonitions in Leviticus, including, for example, the one that commands that a parent kill a disobedient child. See Leviticus 20:9 (“For every one that curseth his father or mother shall be surely put to death.”).
Part Two:
My personal view is that the Church’s position on homosexuality is a tragedy not just for gay and lesbians who are born into the Church and then must struggle to decide whether to be celibate, disobedient, or to leave the Church altogether. It is a tragedy because the Church can be, and has been, such a force for good in the world. I fear that, over time, the Church will lose its vibrancy for being a force for good, because it will be seen as a force for oppression. That would be a terrible tragedy for the world.
2. The second issue is what role the Church’s teaching on homosexuality should impact on our civil laws. The Church’s view appears to be that it vigorously opposes same sex marriage because such marriages (and the sexual relations that would occur in such marriages) are contrary to God’s plan. But the Church really has no business imposing its theological views on civil society. This attempt to impose a theological position is improper. This is very different from the Church being a leader (as it often was) in the fight against segregation. Segregation was a violation of the Golden Rule, which is not just a theological concept, but a civil concept that transcends theology. Moral precepts are not necessarily the same as theological precepts. Morality is how we treat each other. Theology is how we understand God.
The Church is free to teach what it will about this subject. If I had been born a Catholic, and my gay son was told by our priest that he would have to be celibate his whole life to be a good person, I would have used my common sense and left the Church – although I admire people who stay and fight within the Church to achieve change, as difficult as that is in an non-democratic institution. But the Church is flouting the spirit of our nation’s wise history of separation of church and state by pursuing us into the sphere of civil government, seeking to impose its theological views on non-Catholics.
Cynthia -- I'm the one who said that race and sexual orientation are not equivalent. I very much agree with you that race and religion are not equivalent either.
One can argue outside of the church that marriage should be promoted by society for reasons of stability, entirely outside the religious argument.
My main issue is I have a real problem with the schools teaching kids it is "just another way to be". I don't believe that. I believe it is a lifestyle choice. Period. I don't really care if folks make that lifestyle choice, but I don't want my kids or anyone elses kids told that they "might be gay" at an age where they are young and sexual orientation is quite fluid. The statistics on teenage suicide bear that out. Have you checked if the suicide rate for teenagers has gone up or down since the county started teaching its extremely progressive health curriculum, David ?
How about for LA, the only other county that has a curriculum like ours.. If you are correct, the acceptance of gay kids will have caused it go to down. If I am right, the numbers will have gone up.
Did you know that while I at Staples printing stuff for the petition (and talking to everyone I ran into about the new MC law) that one of the check out ladies told me that her nephew had decided he was really a girl AFTER taking the MC class ? Her sister was beside herself. I told her to contact an attorney.
Theresa
And I feel like it violates my religous freedom to have kids, like those in CA, forced into these classes with NO OPT OUT.
Theresa,
You agree that "One can argue outside of the church that marriage should be promoted by society for reasons of stability, entirely outside the religious argument."
The Catholic Church agrees, apparently, that being gay is not a choice. If you agree with the Church on that point, then the "lifestyle choice" you criticize is the decision not to be celibate. Is it important to you that my sons -- who did not choose to be gay -- should be deprived of the civil rights and responsibilities of marriage?
With respect to the "fluidity" argument, this is simply not borne out by the experience of most gay people. Nevertheless, the version of the MCPS curriculum that CRC and PFOX derailed in 2005 contained the following:
"Myth: A person is a homosexual if he or she has ever been attracted to or ever had sexual contact with someone of the same gender.
"Fact: Fleeting attraction or contact does not prove long-term sexual orientation."
But, due to the CRC/PFOX efforts to stop any medically and scientifically accurate discussion of sexual orientation, that point did not turn up in the final curriculum. If you strongly believe that this should be included in the curriculum, you should urge MCPS to add it back in.
But what is clear in the science is that straight children are not lured into being gay by hearing medically accurate information about sexual orientation.
I was unaware of the poll you are citing regarding the thoughts of the black community, anonymous.
I am also not aware of anyone appointing you to decide what is or isn't accepted in the black community. Homosexuality in the black community is a touchy and complex subject but I assure you that the idea that it is "generally not accepted" is a stretch.
I think that you really need to stop listening to a few talking heads and self-appointed leaders of the black community when it comes to lgbts of color.
And I ask who has a credibility problem when it comes to whose voice better speaks for things in the black community:
Me - Who is a gay black man and has dealt with issues of lgbts of color in the black community.
or
You - who don't even have enough guts any description of yourself; a person who hides his/her identity behind a keyboard/
I win.
"And how does one know that that is really commanded by God? Those who say that the Bible says X, and therefore we must always do X ignore the fact that none of us a really scriptural literalists. If we were, we would insist on following all the admonitions in Leviticus, including, for example, the one that commands that a parent kill a disobedient child. See Leviticus 20:9 (“For every one that curseth his father or mother shall be surely put to death.”)."
David, this is not an issue of literalism vs. another interpretation of scripture. It is whether scripture is valid or not. The argument that homosexuality is morally neutral is not that homosexuality is merely a metaphor but that sexual practice is a culturally relative standard.
In Evangelicalism, the emphasis is not on following rules and prescribed penalties for not following them. Christianity is based mercy and restoration through Christ. When one has undergone this transformation, one is no longer bound by rules by is motivated by a desire to please God. That is why the scriptures that reveal his plan for mankind are significant but not the penalties described in Torah. The rules were to show us we are fallen. The penalties were to show us we all deserved death. We have now have the freedom to seek God and those commandments can help find his will for us.
Back to the original point, our beliefs aren't something we made up but we given to us by God. So much of your reasoning seems to be that we chose this view out of a hatred toward people who want to practice homosexuality.
As I recall, you attend a liberal congregation. Any idea how Orthodox Jews would apply the Leviticus verse you mentioned?
Anonymous who spoke about the children - it does NOT violate your religious rights to have those children in that class. No child should have to feel like they are freaks simply to suit someone's religous beliefs. Sorry.
Also you are being highly specious when it comes to the suicide rate. The studies say that the suicide rates are generally because of the homophobia they have to deal with. Their orientation has nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, I am so sick and tired of these games and this entitlement folks like you seem to have. Schools do not teach that "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice." That's YOUR straw man argument.
Furthermore, not every child comes from the same background. There should be some degree of mutual respect for all families because same sex families exist. It's all about mutual respect. Their family situation is no better or worse than yours and vice versa.
If you feel that your family will suffer for simply respecting someone else's home situation, I think you need to enroll your child into a private school that teaches your "values."
Lastly, I would like to see a link about this article regarding "pro homosexual" lessons. What the hell is that anyway? I know how some on the right unfortunately have a habit of using soundbites in leiu (sp) of actual explanations.
I'm sorry for the multiple posting but I think I've tracked the story down and if this is the case, anonymous is being deceptive. This is from Fox News:
"Parents in the Alameda Unified School District were refused the right to excuse their kids from classes that would teach all kids in the district's elementary schools about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender alternative families.
The parents say they are concerned about "indoctrination" in the schools, but administrators say the course is needed to protect against sexual discrimination — and that the lessons are protected by laws in California and 10 other states."
Link here - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546280,00.html
Gasp and swoon! How dare they try to teach the fact that lgbts have families too!
"administrators say the course is needed to protect against sexual discrimination"
The government has no right to fight against sexual discrimination.
Every person has a right to discriminate sexually and any government that thinks otherwise needs to be replaced.
That's what will happen to the D.C. Council. The voters will replace them at the next election day.
I don't know if the error is intentional or not but obviously the article was talking about sexual orientation discrimination, which is totally different from "sexual discrimination."
Theresa (the last Anon post sounds like you),
You write:
"Back to the original point, our beliefs aren't something we made up but we given to us by God. So much of your reasoning seems to be that we chose this view out of a hatred toward people who want to practice homosexuality."
I do not believe that you necessarily choose to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church out of a hatred of gay people who (like most people) do not wish to be celibate. You and others may be, in my view, prisoners of teachings you would reject if you happened to be born into a different faith community. My point is that people should question whether a teaching of the Church that is contrary to the Golden Rule is really what a loving God really demands of us. Again, we can't fully rely on scripture written by men two thousand years ago and more. If we did, we would execute our disobedient children. Instead, we must use the common sense and humanity that God gave us.
You further write:
"As I recall, you attend a liberal congregation. Any idea how Orthodox Jews would apply the Leviticus verse you mentioned?"
You are correct. And I do have a pretty good idea. Some Orthodox Jews (like Senator Lieberman, a strong supporter of gay rights) find a way around the literal language of Leviticus. Others try to ignore the implications of Leviticus. A a good friend of my older son's from high school became ultra-orthodox. They remained friends after Mike came out. They had a fascinating exchange of e-mails discussing theological questions in the context of modern society. When Mike brought up the passage of Leviticus regarding children who cursed their parents, and asked his friend if he would kill his daughter if she violated that passage when she got older, his friend's response was that the only reason he would not was because civil law would forbid it. That chilling response, which did not seem to be a joke, ended the e-discussion. I simply do not know how many ultra-Orthodox actually believe this (or whether this young man really believes it.)
Religion at its best helps us to be better human beings and to be at peace with our own mortality.
Religion at its worst commands obedience to rules which oppress people and fosters hatred of those who do not follow those rules. (Best/Worst current example: The Taliban.)
All of us, in our spiritual lives, must make decisions about how we wish our faith communities to act in this world.
Theresa related:
“Did you know that while I at Staples printing stuff for the petition (and talking to everyone I ran into about the new MC law) that one of the check out ladies told me that her nephew had decided he was really a girl AFTER taking the MC class ? Her sister was beside herself. I told her to contact an attorney.”
I can’t say that I’m surprised you told her to contact an attorney, although I don’t see how that would have helped the child. A better answer would have been that the child needs to see a specialized gender therapist. I can get the names of several in the area in short order if that would help. I happen to know of a very good one that specializes in children and teens, but she works in PA, so that would be a bit of a hike.
These therapists work with trans adults or trans children on a daily basis. They know the signs to look for and how to differentiate between a true trans person and some smart-aleck kid who just said “I want to be a girl” to get attention. Individuals that go through the Johns Hopkins program have a full day of intensive screening, test taking, and interviews before they will even be considered for admission to the Consultation Unit. Once there, they will spend months with a therapist going over their life history to determine if what they need a full transition or if lesser steps are appropriate. They have the ability to spare the child decades of suffering and flirting with suicide if caught early enough and handled properly.
From what I’ve found on the web, there are about 138,000 students in the Montgomery County Public School system. Depending on whose numbers you think are correct for the prevalence of trans people in our society (they typically vary anywhere between 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 30,000) we should expect somewhere between 4.6 and 27.6 trans students in the school system. They deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as all of the other students, as well as have access to the latest scientific information that can help them deal with the challenges they will face.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Post a Comment
<< Home