David versus the Bolsheviks: The Battle of Lexington Green in the Year 2005

On April 27th of this year, the heavy hand of Bolshevism clamped down upon David Parker, a Lexington, MA. citizen and father of a six year old son. David was arrested on trumped up charges, handcuffed like a dangerous felon, and led off to jail. His heinous crime? Parker is guilty of being a morally principled man with the courage to request that he and his wife be given advance notification when issues of sexual unnaturalness and perversion (transgenderism, sodomy, and same-sex headed relationships) were going to be discussed in his son's classroom. Said Parker, "certain authorities insist that I agree that my children must be taught that gay relationships and transgender transformation are acceptable and normal. When I firmly, albeit patiently, objected and then finally insisted to be notified when and how my own children were to be exposed to these issues, I was arrested and hauled off to jail." Freedom of conscience has been made a hate-crime in Massachusetts.

Among the communist goals listed on the Congressional Record—Current Communist Goals (pp. A34-A35, Jan. 10, 1963) are these: 17) Get control of the schools…use as transmission belts for socialism, 25) Break down cultural standards of morality, 26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as 'normal, natural, healthy."

These goals are affirmed by the Communist Textbook of Psychopolitics. It is written, "Degradation and conquest are companions. In order to be conquered a nation must be degraded. By attacking the character and morals…by bringing about contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling (will facilitate) command of the population."

Lexington Bolshevik commissars are actualizing invidiously evil stratagems devised to effectuate moral decay and collapse within America. In their capacity as school board officials and as teachers, they are spreading propaganda designed to "destroy the home." By "creating continuous juvenile delinquency, forcing upon the state all manner of practices to divorce the child from it (the family) will in the end create the chaos necessary to Communism. Creating a greed for drugs, sexual misbehavior and uncontrolled freedom (will) bring about our alignment." (Communist Textbook of Psychopolitics)

David Parker, a morally principled man, devoted father, and courageous dissident of their evil devices has been stamped: "Enemy of the State."

In a speech before his supporters, Parker stated, "I stand before you banned from attending my son's first day of school…banned from voting, teacher-parent conferences and school committee meetings. The Lexington school administration demands that I ask permission for these rights. What free U.S. citizen must ask for permission to vote, or to be in the presence of his son? The school administration…is attempting to put themselves in the role as parents."

Facing off against Parker and his supporters was a malevolence-fueled rabble gathered together to spit and spew venom. Among the venomous hissing snakes were commissars Helen Cohen, Chairman of the Lexington School Committee; Tom Griffiths, a School Committee member; and Jeanne Kreiger, member of the Lexington Board of Selectmen. Also in attendance were three Marxist 'liberation theology' preachers: Rabbi Howard Jaffe of Temple Isaiah, Rev. Judy Brain, Pastor of Pilgrim Congregational Church, and Rev. Bill Clark, Senior Pastor of the First Unitarian Parish in Lexington. (Article8.org)

Of the venom-spewing rabble, one witness commented, "You could see the look in their eyes, even the kids. It was eerie. They really can't stand us, as if we're polluting their town just by being here." (Article8.org)

In speaking of commissars, Balint Vazsonyi (America's Thirty Years War) observed that, "commissars of 'social justice' demand conformity in our most private thoughts, our innermost sentiments. Conformity—not only to their failed theories, but to their every whim."

"In the predawn light of April 19 (1775), the beating drums and peeling bells summoned between thirty and fifty militiamen to the town green of Lexington. As they lined up in battle formation the distant sound of marching feet and shouted orders alerted them of the Redcoats approach. The British troops approached…rapidly in platoons…a general officer on horseback at their head. The officer came up to within about two rods of the centre of the company…swung his sword, and said, "Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, or you are all dead men. Fire!" Thus began the "confrontation that would launch a nation." (EyeWitnessToHistory.com)

David Parker has been ordered to 'lay down his arms' and surrender. But he, a valiant modern-day Paul Revere, not only cried out the alarm, but courageously fired the first volley, so to speak, when he bravely vowed:

"Let the call go forth from Lexington, across Massachusetts, and throughout the United States to the world - Parents stand your ground!

But if they mean to have a war over parental rights, Battling for the hearts and minds of our children,

And with regard to the Lexington School administration banning a father's will and presence from all schools,

No powers or principalities on this earth or beyond shall separate the Father from his Son!"

David Parker has sounded the battle cry. Now it's time for all good men to unite and join the fight, for as Edmund Burke cautioned, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

About the writer: Linda Kimball is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on politics, culture, and worldview.

Macvsog68 advocates surrender in the cultural war. So he doesn't like Christians who raise a fuss and actually fight back.

Just curious, Sam. Are you capable of any degree of reasoned discussion without resorting to insults? The stupid one liners are not necessary. You have several supporters here aiding you in the attack. But as long as you avoid the real issues here, and toss in a verbal grenade from time to time, you ought to win.

You are selling a line of cultural defeatism, ignorant of the fact that the cultural "changes" you point to are confined to the bluest of blue cities in the bluest of blue states. And the entertaiment industry which has always been a sodomite-friendly environment (Rock Hudson, Richard Chamberlain, Tab Hunter, and George Maharis were protected by a conspiracy of silence). You just assume that the sodomites will tag along in the wake of the civil rights revolution (not noticing that blacks deeply resent sodomites cloaking themselves in the mantle of civil rights).

Polls clearly show that support for sodomite marriage is soft but opposition rock hard. People who support it do so weakly. For people who oppose sodomite marriage it is a red button issue and they will never, ever vote for a candidate who supports it. This is the most religious country in the Western world and it is becoming more religious, not less. And as I have shown before cultural left assumptions that they were the wave of the future have failed miserably since 1980 as the culture has moved steadily to the right, away from the depraved, narcissistic excesses of the 70's. And as any Gay Pride parade shows, any perusal of the back pages of a sodomite publication shows, sodomite culture is rank with depravity and narcissim. Normal people's "tolerance" of sodomy does not extend beyond, "We don't care what you do in private. Just keep it private and don't rub our faces in it and stay away from our children."

And this is as it should be. We were created to find revolting things that are bad for us (like eating spoiled food, or contact with decomposing corpses). Or if you believe in evolution, we biologically evolved to find revolting behavior that diminished our survival/reproductive chances. The belief that sodomite relationships and hetersexual relationships are equal is something that must be indoctrinated through political correctness. It does not come naturally.

You are selling a line of cultural defeatism, ignorant of the fact that the cultural "changes" you point to are confined to the bluest of blue cities in the bluest of blue states.

Perhaps, though I would refer to it as cultural realism. I don't have to like it to see it coming.

You just assume that the sodomites will tag along in the wake of the civil rights revolution (not noticing that blacks deeply resent sodomites cloaking themselves in the mantle of civil rights).

Well you may want to consider the "gains" they have made, which have certainly slowed down under a Republican executive and legislative power structure. But you will see them move again with leaps and bounds should that balance shift in Washington. Look at the military today. President Clinton's first act in office was the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and under 5 years of the Bush Administration, it is still there. And it is almost totally ignored, from what soldiers tell me. They no longer consider homosexuality a drawback to effective operations in combat.

Polls clearly show that support for sodomite marriage is soft but opposition rock hard

The poll most often quoted shows 25% in favor of gay marriage, and 35% who favor same sex union legalization, which amounts to 60% favoring legalization of some sort of relationship. While 30% are against any form, that's still a 2 to 1 margin. The movement has moved from complete ostracism of gays and lesbians in the 40's and 50's through recognition they exist, to civil rights for them in most communities, to benefits for same sex couples, to a majority of Americans favoring some type of legal recognition. So to not recognize the inevitable may be the moral thing to do, but is not terribly realistic.

The belief that sodomite relationships and hetersexual relationships are equal is something that must be indoctrinated through political correctness. It does not come naturally.

None of our founding fathers believed that blacks were in any way the equal of whites, either emotionally or intellectually. While some still don't accept that thesis of equality, most do.

But the real issue here is not the future of homosexual marriage, but the actions of Mr. Parker. You like what he did because he did it for you and those who believe that a war must be fought on this issue. For me, I believe that what he did hurt his children and prevented him from ever participating in school activities with them. If Parker had simply counseled his children properly on the morality of homosexual relationships, that would have been the end of it. Had he accepted the offer by the school, he would have achieved what he ostensibly set out to do. But his real motivation, like that of Michael Newdow, had nothing to do with the welfare and education of his children. But I sense you know that.

And to continue about the persistence of the public view of sodomites, aren't the dandies of "Queer Eye" just an updated version of Liberace ?

No, no apologist, but realistically seeing the world and the country slowly changing to much more of an acceptance of homosexuality as both a cultural and political force.

And has been pointed out, this so-called "acceptance" is confined to the bluest of blue cities in the bluest of blue states. It is pure arrogance on the part of the left, an arrogance you have completely bought into, to assume that cultural elite values will inevitably flow downhill to the rest of the rabble. The American people choose what is useful and reject what is not.

1. Have you bothered to factor in the Wilder Effect ? It is the tendency of the weak minded, when polled, to give "tolerant" and "open-minded" answers because they are afraid of the pollster thinking them "narrow-minded" or "bigoted". But in the privacy of the voting booth, they vote right. So support for sodomy poll numbers have to be reduced by a tenth to reflect the truth of what people really think. And even without that they show that only 11% of Americans strongly support sodomite marriage while 40% are strongly opposed. Hardly the inevitable wave of the future.

2. If there is any enduring trend in post 1980 American culture, it is the rejection of excess. Back in the 30's the screwball comedies showed being hung over the morning after in your penthouse after getting drunk in a swank NY night club as the height of glamorous living. Back in the 70's Freddie Prinze, Steve Martin, and George Carlin all told drug jokes in their monologues. After 1980, "Arthur II" was nearly not made because drunkeness wasn't funny or cool anymore. When was the last time you saw a comedian do a comical drunk routine ? The coke spoon humor vanished at around the time AIDS set in (which became a general metaphor for the consequences of excess). The sodomite lifestyle is based on excess, on bath houses, on anonymous anal sex in toilets, on "barebacking", on "bugchasing", on crystal meth, on a generally pornographic culture. It is the survival of late 70's disco, meat rack, coke spoon culture into our own time.

I don't like it, but it will likely be one of those things that ultimately a reading of the 14th Amendment will resolve one way or another.

All those GOP victories (and in their shadow Clinton dared not appoint ACLU types to the Supreme Court) mean that the Supreme Court is packed with judges who are out of the business of imposing radical cultural change on the country. The age of Warren Court judicial activism is over. The disaster that was busing guaranteed that. Now all the Democrats can hope to do is save Roe v Wade as an increasingly conservative Supreme Court retreats from the social engineering experiments of the 70's. Delusions of the Supreme Court imposing sodomite marriage on the country are utterly unrealistic.

Take a look at the gay/lesbian parades which seem to be glorified around the world. Look at television and the movies. Unfortunately, much has changed which is called "acceptance".

Around the world ? Around the world ? You mean like the parade that was cancelled in Jerusalem because they were flatly told that if they paraded their obscene lifestyle through God's holy city they would get their backsides handed back to them ? Or the parades that were cancelled in Poland because Poland is a Christian country ? By "around the world" you mean Western Europe.

And as I already told you the entertainment industry has always had bohemian values towards sodomites. So the poitierization of sodomites on TV and movies was to be expected. Hollywood is the last bastion of the political and cultural left so that is to be expected.

And as for "acceptance", society has always had a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. High society always had its Oscar Wilde, its "confirmed bachelor". The policy has always been, "We don't care what you do in private. Just don't rub our faces in it. We don't know and we don't want to know."

You offer cogent arguments on a point by point basis. However, the one aspect you--and to be frank, most of the others seem to be ignoring--is why this particular issue is being addressed with the emphasis that it is (implying disproportionate importance, whatever your view) in the classroom. There are many people who have eccentric views, or who act in ways outside the more common paths, in their lives. Why is it that deviant sexuality gets more attention in Massachusetts than other forms of eccentric conduct?

For an obvious example, does the Massachusetts school put as much emphasis on understanding the present day differences in religious thought in the Commonwealth? How about the different perspectives on race and ethnicity in Massachusetts, etc.? What about understanding that some parents prefer "Home Schooling," and why?

Even in terms of sexual issues, I wonder if they try to understand the realities of prostitution in the classroom? What about the different perspectives--and resulting personal conduct, resulting therefrom--with respect to patriarchal vs. matriarchal family structures?

Perhaps Mr. Parker did not challenge what was going on in the most effective way. He did not initiate the sudden emphasis on "understanding" the one traditional eccentricity, which was always considered an "abomination," rather than just another one of those quirks, or simply an instance where we all do not think or act alike.

It is because many of us feel that what Massachusetts is doing in this area is a form of assault on traditional values, that we pass judgment not on Mr. Parker, but on those who prosecute him.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

You're the one who raised polls as a measure of American values. Now you reject any that do not fit your view of what you want Americans to think. I'll give you your one tenth reduction. That still shows 50% of the American people who accept some form of legal union. That's a far cry from the 40's and 50's.

The sodomite lifestyle is based on excess, on bath houses, on anonymous anal sex in toilets, on "barebacking", on "bugchasing", on crystal meth, on a generally pornographic culture.

So, given that picture, I would presume you would accept 2 members of the same sex settling down together and getting out of that lifestyle. But you don't equally oppose the same thing with members of the opposite sex? Your logic would dictate that none should be married or otherwise live together, since both sexual lifestyles do that sort of thing.

Delusions of the Supreme Court imposing sodomite marriage on the country are utterly unrealistic.

Well, I suspect they will have their opportunity under the guise of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. It is a broad umbrella, and if it can cover presidential elections and all sorts of "civil rights" claims, they will definitely have the opportunity to address gay/lesbian claims, whether they be legalization of unions, or benefit claims.

I mean the West in general, including Europe and the United States.

So if I am to believe you, everything I said about the "gains" made since the 50's really didn't take place. Average Americans don't accept homosexuals in society; Communities across the nations still condone discrimination against gays and lesbians; No same sex benefits are provided by governments and businesses across the nation; No civil unions are recognized; 2 states don't actually provide for same sex marriage; Gays and lesbians are not permitted in the military; Well, I do appreciate the update. If nothing has changed, what was this whole thread about?

Speaking of which, you expect me to respond to all of your points, which I do, but you completely ignore mine, or selectively grab one you think will make your point. Let's keep the playing field level and discuss the issue in this thread, which is not global gay rights, but the actions of one misguided individual.

Excellent post.

I agree with most of what you've said. A reading of "The Death of Right and Wrong", written by a lesbian BTW, exposes leftist thinking in a way that reaches far past political rhetoric. Massachusetts considers itself at the forefront of "progressive" thinking, and right now gay-lesbian rights are at the forefront of "progressive" thought.

It is not the book in question on this thread that Tammy Bruce would jump on, as it appears to do nothing more than reflect the reality of same sex families. Rather it is the promotion of, and graphic presentation of homosexuality and the resulting sexual activities that bother her, and me. "Death" is an excellent book and covers all aspects of the leftist agenda, not just homosexuals.

It is because many of us feel that what Massachusetts is doing in this area is a form of assault on traditional values, that we pass judgment not on Mr. Parker, but on those who prosecute him.

I too, deplore Massachusetts. But a reading of the article posted at the start of this thread was clear enought to see that its goal was to inflame rather than educate. As for Mr. Parker, a new arrival in Massachusetts, he should have been prepared for what he found in the schools there. I read all of the emails and details of his meetings, letters and other communications. He is being prosecuted because he wants to be prosecuted. The school's offer was fair if he simply wanted to be made aware of the books and lesson plans which discussed homosexuality. His demands were unfair and could not conceivably have been met by any school. The meeting was over, he was asked to leave and refused. The police came and again asked him to leave. He refused. The police properly arrested him for trespass. He further refused bail.

So now, he has no contact with his children in school, no ability to interact during school activities, no chance to work with the school on books and subject reviews, and his children will likely be subject to ridicule and shame by the other students...and perhaps even by teachers.

And the book in question is still very much in the school. So just like Michael Newdow, Mr. Parker was using his children for a crusade, that will give him his 15 minutes of fame...but at what cost?

You don't get it do you.

Soft support. Hard opposition. The support numbers are soft. The opposition numbers are hard. Supporters are wishy washy. Opponents will go down the line.

This isn't about "civil unions". That fall back compromise position is unacceptable to sodomites. Sodomites demand marriage and the full acceptance and equality it implies. So "civil unions" isn't acceptance. It is the "take this sop and shut up and go away" position.

So, given that picture, I would presume you would accept 2 members of the same sex settling down together and getting out of that lifestyle.

Marriage is God's holy sacrament for a man and a woman. Not an experiment in trying to normalize deviance. How can deviance be normal ? Excess is the natural byproduct of deviance. The leather bar, the bath house, the toilet, "bug chasing" aren't extremes of sodomite life. They are its very core. It is no accident that the sodomite life is based on the survival of late 70's decadence into our own time. Has late 70's disco life survived among heterosexuals ?

You don't get it, do you. The Republican Party has promised to appoint judges who will not use the 14th Amendment as a tool to impose cultural left revolution from above on this nation. And it has delivered. There is no more "right" to sodomite marriage than there is a "right" to marry your mother or a five year old child. The Supreme Court has stopped using the 14th Amendment to manufacture "rights" where none ever existed before. To restore the neutrality of the judiciary, to end the sharply partisan nature of Supreme Court nomination fights, it has to get out of the "cultural revolution from above" business. It's not good for the Court, American democracy, or the Democratic Party because for as long as left activists think they can do an end run around democratic consent of the governed through a judiciary that is constantly manufacturing "rights" they will never grow up.

The experience of busing deeply chastened the Supreme Court. The intense grass roots backlash against judicial social engineering made them more conscious of the constitutionally destructive effects of forcibly expanding the 14th Amendment in a way that overrode democratic consent of the governed. The Supreme Court will take the hot potato of sodomite "rights" and pass it right back to state legislatures where it belongs.

And as I told you, all the "gains" have been confined to the bluest of blue cities in the bluest of blue states. The places that are losing population. It does not reach across the Hudson or out of college towns or beyond many big cities. It is not the mass acceptance you think it is. It is not mainstream at all (unless you think West Hollywood and Fire Island are mainstream).

And I've told you before about the bohemian values that have always pervaded the entertainment industry.

Gays have always been accepted so long as they kept their mouths shut about their "lifestyle". The "confirmed bachelor" et al. All a gay has ever had to do to be accepted is to keep his "lifestyle" to himself. That hasn't changed.

This thread is about a forcible attempt by cultural left activists to unravel that. They are demanding that we accept their lifestyle completely and totally. The "confirmed bachelor" wants us to listen as he describes how his boyfriends are in bed.

Once again Mac,you've ignored the crux of the issue, which is your condemnation of Parker and your simultaneous support of the Bolshevik (there's that word again) commissars attempt at punishing Parker (the Father) for not wanting "his own" child to be indoctrinated with same-sex 'BEHAVIOR".

Question: if the school administration had decided that all children should be taught the merits of lying (a behavior; a choice; redefined as an 'orientation") would you meekly go along with it?

"Naturalist" "human secularists" and their ilk believe in evolution, which in reality is nothing more than an updated version of the (for example) MesoAmerican pagan belief that mankind was created from Maize. Its been updated by implanting phases and/or steps (called evolution) in between the maize & the appearance of mankind.
But because of this belief, moderns (who pride themselves on being emnlightened) believe that since man evolved from something on the order of maize, he must be evolving upwards. Sort of like being on an escalator. There are all sorts of holes in evolutionary theory, some so big a ship could be driven through them.
But with respects towards the behaviors engaged in by people who engage in same-sex and whether they are some-sort of evolutionary vanguard, all one needs to do to show the sheer idiocy of such a belief is to look back in history to when ancients worshipped Baal-Peor.

Baal-Peor required that males abuse & degrade themselves in various ways. Among those ways: males had to behave like females, wear make-up & feminine clothes & perform sex acts upon other males.
These males eventually became temple priests (prostitutes). They held the very first "GAY" parades in the history of mankind.
Among other requirements demanded by Baal-Peor: exposing one's genitals before him and making a "deposit". It's been said by some scholars that the best way to worship Baal was "on the toilet."

All of these disgusting behaviors have been handed down through history and are to this day----the core of the so-called 'gay' culture.

And because Parker doesn't want his own child to be "endarkened" by this dangerous disease-spreading idiocy, you condemn him.

Enlightened? NOPE!!!! Regressive. Endarkened.

In one post, you have managed to engage in at least half a dozen fallacies of logic. Those usually convince no one other than the perp.

I have done neither. Perhaps you could link to my condemnation of Parker and support of the "Bolshevik", etc,etc.?

Let's try one last time. The article you posted was so slanted as to ignore completely what really happened. Mr. Parker was no more interested in the welfare of his children than Michael Newdow was his daughter. When the school gave in to Parker's original demand and concerns, he simply raised the ante so that the school could not have met his "request". He was arrested after being asked by the police to leave. He refused to bail himself out. Today he can't interact with the school or even his children at school. His children are likely the subject of humiliation at school, and the stupid book that started it all is still there. So other than getting the usual suspects all enraged, what did he accomplish for his family?

Do I condemn him? No, just ask him and the authors of articles such as your's to tell the truth. Let the world know he is on a crusade, and just as with Cindy Sheehan not wanting the President to actually come out and talk to her, the last thing Parker wanted was a resolution. And let him tell the world how, just like Newdow, his children are are simply pawns, and an unfortunate casualty in the culture war of his...and yours.

And raising all the issues you want about Baal and evolution, etc, doesn't add anything to this discussion.

Marriage is God's holy sacrament for a man and a woman. Not an experiment in trying to normalize deviance. How can deviance be normal ?

One of the most deviant things I have read is here:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/23/D8CPU38G8.html

You seem to feel that deviant behavior should prevent "unions" between two people. Yet 93% of Americans are heterosexual, and I guarantee any deviance committed by gays and lesbians is done many times over by heterosexuals. Read the statistics. Does God still permit heteros who engage in anything like that to marry?

The Supreme Court has stopped using the 14th Amendment to manufacture "rights" where none ever existed before

Do you then disagree with its use during the vote counting in the election of 2000?

Which won't matter much until under the commerce clause and the 14th, a claim for recognition and or benefit rights is made.

I guarantee any deviance committed by gays and lesbians is done many times over by heterosexuals.

Sodomy IS deviance by its very nature. It can never be anything but. It is mortal sin and God cannot be asked to bless mortal sin. God's blessing cannot be invoked on "abomination".

The Supreme Court has stopped using the 14th Amendment to manufacture "rights" where none ever existed before.

Do you then disagree with its use during the vote counting in the election of 2000?

The Supreme Court did not innovate in any way in 2000, much as you may have deplored the outcome. It did not impose any cultural agenda upon this nation.

Which won't matter much until under the commerce clause and the 14th, a claim for recognition and or benefit rights is made.

Claim all you like. The answer is no. The Supreme Court is back to strict interpretation in line with original intent, not magically inventing "rights" to impose cultural elite values on the country. It is not going to twist the 14th Amendment and the concept of "civil rights" out of any recognizable shape to impose a "cultural revolution from above" on America. Sodomites have no legal or moral case in this matter. It's not that the Supreme Court can't. It's that they don't want to, don't have to, and won't.

And I would point out that many of the gains of the left during the 70's occurred because the Warren Court was in the business of imposing cultural revolution from above on the country. Democratic consent of the governed did not end the death penalty or enact busing and quotas. Supreme Court cultural revolution from above did. Which is why those gains were rolled back once the Reagan Revolution took hold.

Sodomy IS deviance by its very nature. It can never be anything but. It is mortal sin and God cannot be asked to bless mortal sin. God's blessing cannot be invoked on "abomination".

Tell that to most happily married heterosexual couples.

The Supreme Court did not innovate in any way in 2000, much as you may have deplored the outcome. It did not impose any cultural agenda upon this nation.

Well, I was very pleased with the outcome, but why do you support it's interpretation in the USSC decision when even for the most pro-Bush supporters, one could say it was a far cry from what was originally intended in 1868. As I understand what you're saying, equal protection applies when...?

Perhaps, but under stare decisis, those decisions emanating from the 14th since 1868 most of which have nothing to do with the intent of the amendment, lead slowly to the recognition of cases of unequal application of the law where no such interpretation would have existed before then. In other words, such findings, even by a conservative court given all of the previous decision would not be such a surprise.

They (USSC) will have many such opportunities. I would not be surprised to see them refuse certiorari especially in cases they would just as soon keep hands off, all of which you may not approve of.

Parker confronted the agenda which has been described. He confronted a school board which is determined to teach his child that Biblical values about sodomy are wrong.

There is nothing in any of the articles I read or any of the documentation I read supporting what you just said, that the school board is determing to teach his child that biblical values about sodomy are wrong. That certainly doesn't come out in the book that is the subject of his crusade. Perhaps you have some links?

There is no such thing as teaching about sodomy in a value neutral way. Either you think it is normal or you don't. If you think it is normal then you think it is right and should be completely accepted. Nobody teaches that drugs or gangs are normal behavior and should be completely accepted.

To recognize its existence is not to convey a moral vaneer of any color. You didn't mention the article I linked you to. Does God smile on the expulsion of a child of lesbian parents from school? Why should she be punished? Is it perhaps a fear of the reality of such relationships being spoken of by the children? Cruelty can take on many faces.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.