Posted on 07/22/2004 2:35:44 PM PDT by pilgrim
Amen!!
Sorry to be gone so long. Qwest had a 'failure'.
Channel 13 is going with it. Had a teaser concerning it a few minutes ago.....pilgrim
You beat me to it.
i was just thinking the very same thing!
What would happen if an adult, not connected to the school, handed a condom to a 15 yr old and told him/her to taste it?
How fast can you say arrested?
It turns out the guy was sent to the school to teach a health course. The students in the eleventh grade average about fifty percent passing in math and english. BUT THEY KNOW HOW TO PUT ON A CONDOM!!! It "over torques my lug nuts" when things like this happen.
They've got this really old gal on Comcast here who goes all giddy talking about sex stuff; she rustles when she moves in her seat.
How did it taste?....:^p ilgrim
Minty, but good!!!!!!!!!!
YUCK!!!
Is this a humorous/sarcastic article, or did it really happen?
Almost as funny as the New York City Councilman a few years back who said that "the city must bend over backward" for the Gay Games.
Pervert Pedagougue alert!
And I'd be in jail for kicking your ass for not asking my permission to kick his ass before I kicked his ass. ;-)
If you won't get upset and do anything over 25,000 dead shredded babies a week, you won't get upset enough over anything to ever do anything about anything
Homosexual Agenda Ping It's for the Children Alert, Bring your own Barf Bag.
Believe me, I was trying to avoid this article. I really was. But I finally saw it one too many times, read it, and saw I had to ping it out. Note the perv sex-ed teacher telling the boy who expressed disgust over the thought of homosexual acts that he might like it "that way".
Right, no homo-indoctrination in schools. They want OUR children to become minks and weasels and monkeys, screwing anything that moves and some things that don't.
Curse them.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
P.S. RIP YOUR KIDS OUT OF SCHOOL. Oh, it's summer. OK, DON"T PUT THEM IN NEXT FALL. Anything is better than being turned into an animal that can't control itself. Better to be self educated than lose one's soul.
The entire class should sue the teacher, and the district. It is insulting, disgusting, and whatever else you ccall it.
This is more than wrong. It's diabolical. And yes homeschooling is a good solution to all this.
In Massachusetts, this has been going on for over 10 years. We even had a comedienne turned sex-ed "teacher" do this on stage in front of an auditorium filled with 14-16 year olds. But the presentation was much worse than this. One girl tried to leave during the presentation, but teachers blocked her exit.
Her parents sued the school, and lost.
Brown v. Hot, Sexy, And Safer Productions, Inc. (1st Cir. 1995)The U.S. Court of Appeals For The First Circuit several years ago issued a decision calling into question whether a parent's right to direct the upbringing of his child is protected by the Constitution. 53 F. 3d. 152 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied (1996).
On April 8, 1992, the Chelmsford (Massachusetts) High School held two mandatory, school-wide assemblies for ninth through twelfth grades. The school district contracted through the chairperson of the PTO with a performer, Suzi Landolphi, head of "Hot, Sexy, and Safer Productions", to present an AIDS awareness program for $1000.
According to the Complaint, during her presentation, Ms. Landolphi: "1) told the students that they were going to have a 'group sexual experience, with audience participation'; 2) used profane, lewd, and lascivious language to describe body parts and excretory functions; 3) advocated and approved oral sex, masturbation, homosexual sexual activity, and condom use during promiscuous premarital sex; 4) simulated masturbation; 5) characterized the loose pants worn by one minor as 'erection wear'; 6) referred to being in 'deep shit' after anal sex; 7) had a male minor lick an oversized condom with her, after which she had a female minor pull it over the male minor's entire head and blow it up; 8) encouraged a male minor to display his 'orgasm face' with her for the camera; 9) informed a male minor that he was not having enough orgasms; 10) closely inspected a minor and told him he had a 'nice butt'; and 11) made eighteen references to orgasms, six references to male genitals, and eight references to female genitals." 68 F. 3d at 529.
Before contracting with Ms. Landolphi, the school physician and PTO chairperson had previewed a video showing segments of Ms. Landolphi's performance. School officials, including the school superintendent, were present at the assemblies. They knew in advance what she would say and how she would say it. But no advance notification of the presentation was given to parents, despite a school policy stating that written parental permission was a prerequisite to health classes dealing with human sexuality.
The parents of two students sued on behalf of themselves and their children, alleging that the school district had violated their privacy rights and their substantive due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, their RFRA rights and their Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment. The district court dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6), and the First Circuit affirmed.
In its discussion of the substantive protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the parent's right to rear his children, after discussing Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the First Circuit stated in dictum:
"Nevertheless, the Meyer and Pierce cases were decided well before the current "right to privacy" jurisprudence was developed, and the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children is among those fundamental rights whose infringement merits heightened scrutiny. We need not decide here whether the right to rear one's children is fundamental because we find that, even if it were, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate an intrusion of constitutional magnitude on this right."
68 F. 3d at 532 (footnote omitted)(emphasis supplied.)
The First Circuit then rejected the plaintiffs' free exercise claim. First, the court questioned "whether the Free Exercise Clause even applies to public education." 68 F. 3d at 536. Second, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that their parental rights were protected by the Free Exercise Clause under the "hybrid exception," noted in Employment Division v. Smith, for "the right of parents, acknowledged in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) to direct the education of their children, see Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)." Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881 (1990). The First Circuit stated:
"[A]s we explained, the plaintiffs' allegations of interference with family relations and parental prerogatives do not state a privacy or substantive due process claim. Their free exercise challenge is thus not conjoined with an independently protected constitutional protection."
68 F. 3d at 539.
Virtually all public school districts in the U.S. receive federal funds. So H.R. 1691 would once again level the playing field for parents who, for reasons of religious conscience, wish to have their child "opt out" of objectionable instruction such as this.
In case you missed it, the court said:
"...the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children is among those fundamental rights whose infringement merits heightened scrutiny."This is what government schooling is all about, Charlie Brown.
God save the children.
Yes. It's just most of the people there that make it ugly.
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.