Posted on 09/20/2005 12:20:00 PM PDT by Lindykim
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!
Don't return their hate and intolerance when fired upon.
But if they mean to have a war over parental rights, Battling for the hearts and minds of our children,
Then let it begin here!
And with regard to the Lexington School administration banning a father's will and presence from all schools,
I—shall—return!
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."
Copyright Linda Kimball 2005
About the writer: Linda Kimball is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on politics, culture, and worldview.
Please refer me to my post in which I doubted discrimination against children for religious or homosexuality beliefs. They occur frequently and I would be blind not to see it. But turning the discussion over to general issues across the country is not what this thread was about.
What is your personal viewpoint about pro-homosexual instruction in grade school?
Well, finally a fair question. I am against instruction at all pre-college grade levels which amount to sex education involving gay and lesbian lifestyles. I am against any judgment by teachers concerning the benefits or normality of gay and lesbian lifestyles. Having said that, I recognize that such lifestyles exist and gay and lesbian relationships exist. They will be referred to from time to time in classrooms and can no longer be avoided.
As far as I am concerned, any doubts you have about this situation are easily taken care of by reading all the links provided, and I am not sure I understand what your viewpoint is.
I think I have provided my viewpoint. And a complete reading of all the links plus those I read not linked, tells me that my original thoughts were correct:
Do you think that such homosexual instruction in public schools is neutral, a good thing, should not be happening, or what? I sincerely would like to know, since that position makes all the difference.
"Such homosexual instruction" is far too nebulous a term. One of the things I sought earlier was some specifics which no one here could or would supply. I am completely against sex education that refers to homosexuals. I am against any value judgments made by teachers on homosexual lifestyles. I am not against referring to same sex families as existing. That would be tantamount to refusing to believe that terrorists exist, or that communism exists, or poverty or any other concept of realism. The book referred to which started this seemed to merely accept the fact that such relationships exist and that same sex families do exist. The entire problem could have been kept at a proper level if Parker simply told his children that they will see such relationships, hear about them, and that they do exist. But they are wrong and should not be valued as a part of our culture. That is where the parents come in. They too have responsibilities, and going to jail to make a point that could easily have been made at home is no different from Michael Newdow and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Personally, I consider that all teaching about sexuality other than purely biological function is the parents' responsibility. And any teaching that is pro-homosexuality or pro-promiscuity or so-called "moral relativity" is extremely destructive and morally wrong.
I agree.
Sam, you likely haven't the intellectual capacity to understand, but such statements as the above tell far more about you than me. It reflects a vacuous, inane and purely emotional response to a simple question. Whether you believe it or not, it is the signature of extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.
Everything the GOP has it owes to Christian conservatives, not ex-hippie libertarians with harebrained ideas on every subject.
I would distinguish Christian conservatives from the radical religious right. The latter is little different from the extreme left that has taken over the Democrat Party, and was responsible for its loss in the last election. The two major parties need neither, and if the Democrats get their act together, while the Republicans permit the radical right to take it over, it too will lose and lose quickly. As for the rest of your diatribe, shout as loudly as you can, and fire your shotgun in all directions. It won't mean much to the subject of this thread, but will keep you from having to actually respond intelligently to my questions about Parker.
Thank you for your detailed response. Couple of things:
Here's the exchange that prompted my accounts of children either being punished for their religions views and/or expressions, and being forced to accept pro-homosexual indoctrination:
Sam: "He is fighting for every Christian child in that school whom those teachers will mock and belittle and try to get the other children to ostracize for their faith..."
MAC: "Now, I have to admit that sounds pretty chilling. I've not seen anything to back that up. Do you have any links or are you simply making it up to add fuel to the fire?"
There's a little ambiguity in your comment that naturally teachers have to admit the existence of homosexuals in the community, to wit:
". Having said that, I recognize that such lifestyles exist and gay and lesbian relationships exist. They will be referred to from time to time in classrooms and can no longer be avoided."
It is impossible to mention this topic without value judgement. In fact, the whole "values neutral" theory really means "our values, not yours". Teaching by its very nature cannot always be values free. The point in question now is whose values are going to be inculcated? Rejecting all values doesn't happen. Teaching cannot happen in a vacuum.
Personally, my POV is that all school monies, administration, rules and so one should be strictly local. No fed involvement whatsoever. How they are funded should also be locally decided. The whole public school system is riddled with so much idiocy, pork, leftist crap and so on that I don't think there's any hope for it any way.
I've tutored a lot of kids, and read what passes for text books here and there. Unbelievable crap, and saturated with leftist propagand in every subject.
To state that the sodomite family is a natural, normal form of family just like any other IS a value judgement. It is not simply "saying that it exists". Those are like the arguments that vulgar rappers use ("We're just stating our experience. We're just saying what actually happens."). Neutralization is normalization. And normalization is what the sodomite agenda wants.
It was that very "normalization" that Parker was fighting against.
Very good point. It is impossible to say "homosexuality exists" - especially to children - in a values-free way. A value is implied even if not stated. To not state a value is to imply one - a positive one.
You think there are some Christian conservatives who would criticize Parker ? You think that the sodomite agenda is negotiable for Christian conservatives in any way, shape, or form ? It is obvious you are somewhat ignorant on this subject.
The sodomite agenda is no more negotiable than abortion for Christian conservatives.
I think you misunderstood my response. The exchange involved that school and those teachers mocking and belittling the children and getting other children to ostracize them for their faith. I said that I would like to see something supporting that. Yes, it happens that there are problems across the country between school officials and Christian philosophy, but I saw nothing in any of the links to support that statement.
As for mentioning of same sex relationships without judgment, I admit it may not be easy, but again parents better be prepared for it and inculcate the values they cherish into their children. But Parker's demand was likely unmeetable, that is that any time homosexuality was mentioned, even in passing, that he be informed ahead of time and permitted to remove his children. He should have more faith in his ability to instill values into his children than he apparently does.
As I've said, there are many evils in the world and the realism of them cannot be ignored. Good parents, however, can prepare their children for them.
For all of Parker's efforts, he now has caused major embarrassment for his children, and can no longer participate in any way in school matters.
I've tutored a lot of kids, and read what passes for text books here and there. Unbelievable crap, and saturated with leftist propagand in every subject.
I couldn't agree more. If you have read "The Death of Right and Wrong" by Tammy Bruce or "The Language Police" by Diane Ravitch, you will feel even more helpless. But both the right and left have dumbed down our schools' textbooks, especially in the fields of history and literature. So I will end by saying what I did at the start of this discussion earlier: I agree with Mr. Parker's goals, but not his methods. If that makes me a Libertarian, Godless, DU'er, and all of the other things I have been called here, ok. Take care.
Not all, only the intelligent ones.
You think that the sodomite agenda is negotiable for Christian conservatives in any way, shape, or form ?
Well, there are Protestant groups who have ordained homosexuals, so I'm not sure. In any case, those like you, who claim to be Christian conservatives may be Christian, but hardly conservative in any traditional sense of the word. After all it was so-called Christian conservatives who said that God sent Katrina to punish the pro-homosexuals. How they know that is beyond me, but folks like that are anything but conservative. Whether you or I like it or not, homosexuality has always been around, and is now becoming a part of the culture. I don't have to like it, but I'm not going to jail to keep my child from even knowing it exists. Rather, I will tell him or her that while it exists and many people have such relationships, they are not acceptable. It's called taking responsibility for your own life and children, and is the conservative way, which beats insulting everyone in sight who may not agree with your tactics....
The sodomite agenda is no more negotiable than abortion for Christian conservatives.
Which perhaps explains why the Catholic Church permitted early abortions up until the 19th Century?
Ok, I think I understand now. If a school even admits the reality of something, it has violated some (moral?) code. If they don't mention it, then by definition, it can't exist. So we definitely ought not discuss drugs, terrorism, communism, poverty, environmental issues, gang violence, abortion, the mafia, and a host of other "bad" things, huh?
I can only imagine the outrage if a child comes to Parker's school with two parents of the same sex tagging along. I wonder if that child has the same rights to non-information as Parker's kids?
Mac, who has been hypocritically chastising us for 'name calling" says: "One of the things extremists never understand is the common courtesy of pinging anyone referred to directly on a post. Failure to do so generally reflects a bit of cowardice"
You should've left well-enough alone. That you didn't is due to your narcissism, which compels and controls you---rather than the reverse. Narcissim always "darkens the mind to reality" Thus, in your case, it forced you to display your hypocrisy doubly. Again. I wonder if you can figure out how?
You didn't really address my comment of the impossibility of "mentioning" homosexuality without moral implications. It cannot be discussed in a values neutral way. Do you agree with that statement? Just as one cannot address the other realities that you mentioned in a values neutral manner.
Such morally weighted topics mandate that one will fall on one side or the other. Naturally, a teacher or anyone else discussing such topics can state both sides - like "some people believe this, others believe that" - but to assign no value to something means that a default value will be ascribed.
To just state neutrally something like "some children have two parents of the same sex" [which is actually a lie because no child in the history of the world ever had two PARENTS of the same sex, nor could it ever occur] is placing a value of normality on homosexuality. It cannot be stated in a neutral manner.
Are any of those things discussed in a value neutral way ? Is drug education equally devoted to discouragement and instruction on how to cook crystal meth ? Does the teacher teach "both sides" on avoidance of gangs and the view that gangs are just a valid "alternative lifestyle" that others should respect ? If a parent brought their kid to school with gang tattoos would the teacher ask that parent to give a little talk about what Mara Salvatrucha meant to his life ? Any kid likely to see "My First Slashing" on his desk ?
Neither can homosexuality be taught in a value neutral way. To say that it is normal is to say that it is all right just as with drugs and gangs. Your brain seems incapable of understanding that the teacher were not teaching that homosexuality existed. They were teaching that it is normal and therefore should be accepted.
The sodomite line is that Biblical ("moral ?" as you put it) condemnation of homosexuality is no different from racism. That is what the teachers were in effect teaching.
Can your brain comprehend that ?
LOL! Do you even have a clue as to what you said? It's not enough to use a big word now and then, you also have to understand their meaning and context. Quit making a complete fool of yourself and leave well enough alone.
Well, if I understand you correctly, then if Mr. Parker does not want any discussion of homosexual families because they cannot be discussed in a neutral way, and you agree that none of the other areas can either, should all of them be dispensed with in school?
To just state neutrally something like "some children have two parents of the same sex" [which is actually a lie because no child in the history of the world ever had two PARENTS of the same sex, nor could it ever occur] is placing a value of normality on homosexuality. It cannot be stated in a neutral manner.
A parent, in addition to being defined as one who brings into the world a child, is also defined as one who brings up or cares for another. Under the restricted definition you suggest, no adoptee could consider his or her caregivers as parents, and we all recognize adoptive parents.
I will give you the point that most things cannot be discussed in a completely neutral way, but there is still a big difference between discussing homosexuality in a sexual way and simply pointing out the reality of Virginia having two moms. So should the school prevent same sex parents from attending school functions?
You started out so well on that post, but with your insult at the end, I won't waste any intellectual discussion on you.
There is no Christian conservative group that has ordained sodomites. Or are United Church of Christ, Episcopalians, and Unitarian Universalists your definition of Christian conservatives ? If you were the least bit familiar with them you would know they are political and cultural leftists in clerical collars with no respect for the Bible. If you bring this level of ignorance about religion to the discussion, your statement about the Catholic Church allowing abortions can be dismissed with equal contempt.
Christian conservatives believe that when God said "abomination", he meant exactly what he said. Christian conservatives believe that when St Paul wrote that sodomites would not inherit the kingdom of God, he meant exactly what he said. Christian conservatives will not put political correctness and fashionable opinion ahead of God's holy word. For the culture to say that what God has condemned is good and should even be celebrated puts it on a collision course with 2000 years of Christian teaching. For the culture to prevail, traditional Christianity in America must be destroyed as in Europe.
What we face is the overwhelming weight of the media (the relentless poiterization of sodomites in movies and tv), the activist left, and the public education establishment on the sodomite side. This is a propaganda war and we will not be silenced. This battle will be fought school board by school board. What sodomites want is not merely recognition of their physical existence but the silencing of traditional Christianity as a cultural voice. They want the power of the state imposing gay marriage upon the entire country and "hate crime laws" that would allow them to arrest and imprison Christian ministers who preach the word of God regarding sodomy as is happenning in Europe and Canada. They want to demand that Christians put political correctness ahead of Christianity.
You think sodomite rights is inevitable ? Guess what, pal. Christians make babies. You cultural elite types don't. Once upon a time I remember a Yale professor named Charles Reich who confidently predicted how America would become one big hippie commune when "all young people" brought Consciousness III and the Greening of America about. You share the same left delusion of inevitability. Sodomite rights will go the way of free love, bell bottom jeans, and disco.
Poor Mac. You just don't know when to quit. Or should I say your narcissism won't allow you to discontinue displaying your total lack of substantive refutations and principled stands. If you had either, you would've been able to actually put together a sequence of logic rather than simply 'mirroring' my own words back at me as you did. It's pretty bad when your opponent must serve as your source for cue cards, Mac.
I disagree with your statement that two men or two women can both be "parents" to a child. A parent means a mother or a father. A child cannot have two mothers or two fathers, either biologically or adoptive. One of the men would or could be a biological father and one woman would be the biological mother, and the other same sex partner would actually be the mother's or father's same sex lover, not a co-father or co-mother.
There is no reality to a child having two mothers or two fathers. You dodge the issue by bringing in adoptive parents. Even adoptive parents are an adoptive mother and an adoptive father, and your accusation that my definition of "parents" means a mother and a father is "restrictive" is illogical, and a straw man to boot. I never said that an adoptive mother and father are not parents. They are substitutes for the birth mother and father, and are meant to fulfill the same roles in a child's upbringing.
To state that some children have two mothers or two fathers is giving the official stamp of approval to homosexuality and all that that implies. It has nothing to do with discussing same sex acts in detail. (That comes in middle school, anyway.)
The book that Mr. Parker objected to was positively promoting homsexuality as morally good. It was not a values neutral book, even if such could exist theoretically. Here is a link to an article posted today with more detail:
Dad on trial over homosexual book [Parent jailed for objecting to school curriculum]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1489174/posts
Lastly, you ask me " So should the school prevent same sex parents from attending school functions?"
This question is coming from way out in left field. Why would you think that I would want that? Reminds me of a recently banned person who trotted out the canard that people who are opposed to the homosexual agenda want them and I quote "rounded up and shot".
If a mother and her lesbian lover come to the a school event, other kids there, if nothing is said, may assume that one is an aunt. Most such events are open to other family memebers as well.
Once again, if you're going to use big words, try and fit some intelligence into the sentence structure. I don't mind a good flame war, but you're absolutely not up to it. Go home, take your meds and chill out. Leave the intellectual discussions to the big boys.
I just noticed this comment of yours:
"After all it was so-called Christian conservatives who said that God sent Katrina to punish the pro-homosexuals."
I noticed a very few comments like that (VERY few) and they were soundly trounced by other freepers. The vast majority of people who consider themselves conservative and religious believers do not think that. So lumping in every conservative believer in God with those who stated that the hurricane was God's judgement on NO's homosexuals is a very far-fetched accusation.
Second, you say that intelligent conservative Christians will criticize Parker. How about conservative intelligent Christians (or any believers in God) criticizing the homosexual indoctrination of children in public schools? It goes far, far beyond fuzzy little books such as "Daddy's Room Mate" and "Heather Has Two Mommies".
Ever heard of GLSEN?
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.