Posted on 10/20/2005 9:48:30 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lexington, Mass. — David and Tonia Parker are asking their neighbors in this liberal town for one consideration: Tolerance. The Parkers believe homosexuality is immoral. So they were appalled when their son brought a picture book home from kindergarten that showed families with same-sex parents. To ensure his "spiritual safety," they demanded the right to pull him out of class whenever homosexuality was discussed. To deny them that right, they say, would be intolerant of their faith.
School administrators offer a different take on tolerance. They say it's their job to expose children to the world's diversity. Supt. Paul B. Ash refuses to whisk the Parkers' son away if a classmate with same-sex parents brings a family photo for show-and-tell, or a lesbian couple volunteers at the Halloween party.
Similar debates have roiled communities across the nation as conservative parents challenge classes, books and after-school activities that they say promote a one-sided view of homosexuality as normal. They have notched victories in several states. But the dispute here has gone further than most.
David Parker has been banned from school property. Ash has been flooded with hate mail from across the country. There have been protests and counter-protests; the local newspaper received so many letters, many condemning the Parkers as bigots that the editor stopped printing them. Ash talks of the school's obligation "to be more than tolerant" to children and parents of all backgrounds. Parker asks: Where's the tolerance for him?
"Real respect, real tolerance, is not pushing your beliefs on other people," Parker said. "What people do in their bedroom, that's their business. What they tell my children in school about these subjects — that's my business."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well, it would be a bit silly to survey the residents. Does Congress survey all Americans before casting a decision? No.
We have a trustee form of government. We entrust our elected officials to represent us in their respective bodies, including school board members.
If the school board members are not representing the common views of the people, the voters should replace them in the next election.
That's not the issue.
This is about actively trying to undermine religious beliefs, which is not something that the government schools have any business doing.
It's amazing how much time, money, and effort is put into promoting an unnatural sexual lust that contributes nothing to society other than speading disease.
The schools are promoting homosexuality. Do you have any doubt about that?
Good statements.
Get a grip! I don't pretend these folks don't exist, but I'll explain "different strokes for different folks" to my children when I think the time is right. In the meantime, the school can teach my child to read and do math. Pretty simple concept (at least for some).
How would it violate the Constitution? Would Congress be establishing a religion? What do you think the Constitution actually says about teaching in public schools? Why not let local boards control?
I have read that he advances the( disingenuous) argument that this has nothing to do with sex education since sexual relations are not dealt with.
As if any 4-year old doesn't know that the affection between mom and dad is something "special." Touching, for instance, when the kids are already being told that touching can be a very wrong thing?
This is about actively trying to undermine religious beliefs, which is not something that the government schools have any business doing."
It's really the same thing. The end result is that they want something banned in school because of their religious beliefs and that's not something we can accommodate in public schools.
Frankly if I felt the way these parents do, I would take the position that diversity training of any sort has no place in kindergarden - that would be constitutional and possible.
That's easier said than done when decisions are being from the top down rather than the bottom up. Ask anyone from Massachusetts who is upset with four appointed judges rewriting the state's marriage laws. A well-positioned minority with clout in the media and academia will crush public opinion as often as not.
"This is about actively trying to undermine religious beliefs, which is not something that the government schools have any business doing."
True.
My parents gave us the tools to deal with such issues if they arose. We never really ran into too much in our years in neighborhood schools (including the present time), but my brother in high school did once throw this kid out of the house for going off on a gay marriage binge.
First of all, wow! Kudos for successfully working the word phlogiston into a conversation. That opportunity doesn't come along that often! haha!
Secondly, in theory, I can agree with you. But in practicality, I don't think you can truly say "If I don't want them taught that then that's the way it should be."
Schools don't work on a one-on-one basis. Teachers typically have around 30 kids per class. That's 60 parents, all with differing opinions. There is no way that they can successfully please all parents at all times and still educate the kids.
Now, in this circumstance, perhaps they should not be teaching acceptance of homosexuality. I can agree with that. However, I don't like the blanket statement of "If I don't want them taught that then that's the way it should be."
By that standard, the schools could teach anything, and no one could ever object, because all morals have a religious foundation.
"How would it violate the Constitution? Would Congress be establishing a religion? What do you think the Constitution actually says about teaching in public schools? Why not let local boards control?"
Because the government is not supposed to establish religion and that's what we would be doing if we set the rules based on religion.
Besides, what makes us think that if public school teachers bring religion into schools the end result will be at all resemble conservative Christianity?
Some are promoting it, yes. Some are not promoting it, but are promoting acceptance of it. Still some only promote toleration of it (completely different from acceptance). Lastly, some do none of the above.
How would the government be establishing a religion? And it specifically says Congress shall make no law...
I don't believe it discusses public education, does it?
I wouldn't trust teachers to "teach" religion. Such is better suited for parents and churches. We got a LOT of religious education outside of the school growing up.
So were public schools violating the Constitution during all those decades that they didn't have this gay-friendly agenda? I'm not from Massachusetts, but something tells me this current homosexuality "tolerant" curriculum wasn't part of public education there in 1898, 1930, 1944, 1958, 1967, or even 1995. So were the public schools in those years engaging in heinous, bigoted, and unconstitutional behavior by NOT featuring homosexuality in their curricula?
"By that standard, the schools could teach anything, and no one could ever object, because all morals have a religious foundation."
You need to find some other basis than religion.
For example - consider violence in school. You don't have to cite the bible - you can talk about the effect on education if you don't have a zero tolerance policy.
Sex in school can be banned based on age appropriateness and school disruption, you don't have to use the 10 commandments.
Now, in my heart, as a Christian, I am well aware of the religious basis but that does not need to be part of the public argument.
Good point.
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.