Posted on 03/19/2006 6:23:35 AM PST by Liz
Edited on 03/19/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I also pinged you to another zot thread lol
Ursula stands on the still-smoking carcass of the enemy…
I'm not going to go there. I've exhausted that subject again and again and again. Let's just say, I prefer keeping private entities private without being tainted by government stuff.
sorry, just trying to figure out what the heck you were talking about... ya can't go around making cryptic posts and then expect us to read your mind. Since there are no taxes for private schools I can't imagine why it would even be brought up.
>As always, parents may "opt out," in writing.<
And, of course, the rugrats who get this indoctrination will never bring it up in the presence of the kids whose parents opted out of the program.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
One of thousands. Why any parent would submit a precious child to the tender mercies of Public Education is beyond my comprehension. This nonsense about AIDS education for Kindergarteners is one small part of the overall problem. There will be something equally outrageous to come along next week.
No matter where you are, there is some private or parochial school available. No matter how little money you have, there is no excuse for subjecting your child to the abuse heaped out by the Public School System.
No excuses, parents!
That would mean that schools are stumbling into these stupidities blindly, without and agenda. That is even more horrifying to me. One could almost accept the abuse of children if there was some ultimate goal.
You disagree that 5th and 6th graders need sex education???
Geez, I got sex-ed class in 5th grade, and that was 25 years ago... in the conservative south!
Geez, here we go with the "gay" thing again.
There is no homosexual agenda. Stop being a tool for hate.
Holy crap, that's 10 lbs of hyperbole in a 5-lb sack!
I don't think this program is age-appropriate, but I'd hardly call it "child abuse"! Get a grip.
That doesn't make it good or necessary.
Irrespective of that, the only ways most 10-year-olds could contract HIV would be rape or medical contamination, and they should have been taught by their parents long since not to go off with strange men who offer them candy, and not to play with medical waste.
So, when the state chooses to force feed age-inappropriate material to children, what do you call it?
BTW, if you're going to use "scare quotes", at least make sure you're quoting somebody.
I said "abuse of children". There is a world of difference between that and "child abuse", which is a term that usually denotes criminal activity.
It depends on the place. No, I don't expect anyone to read my mind especially when I have no mind to read. But again, like I said, I've exhausted the subject before and won't address it here.
LOL! My bad, I wasn't aware there was such a significant nuance.
And I can see you have thoughtfully removed the substance of the difference, for brevity's sake, of course.
If you are going to quote people, you really should learn to quote them. It is not much of an argumentative technique to misquote somebody and then say they have no point based on your incorrect quote.
BS! read it and weep..
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,610,000 for Gay ACLU. (0.03 seconds)
It's getting to where FReepers see gays behind every curtain... especially the ones with frilly lace and scented sachets.
While I do believe AIDS education is not appropriate for kindergarten, I think it's absurd to call it part of "a homosexual agenda," which is nothing more than a code-word for the religious right's rallying cry to stomp on the civil rights of gay people.
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.