Posted on 06/14/2006 3:57:43 PM PDT by wagglebee
“We’re trying to be patient and tolerant," said Parker when asked if he was considering pulling his son out of the school. "We’re trying to hang on to the notion that the schools are for every child and for everyone. I don’t feel that we should have to leave for an injustice.”
&&&
While his opinion certainly makes sense, I would not leave my young child in such a dangerous situation.
I hope he sues the school district big time for this attack.
Well, I'm certainly not going to waste any more time. I asked a simple question and, of course, I can't get a simple answer. It's obvious that he/she backs the gay agenda. Why can't people just stand up for what they believe in, rather than cowering, hiding, and dissembling?
anti-gay bashing?
**
Yep, sounds like heterophobia to me. A hate crime.
The Catholic School system also works.
*
If youre Catholic..
***
Nearly all Catholic schools accept students of any or no religious affiliation.
You mean like you're doing right now?
Word parsing, Political Pawns is your term. In this case it was an occupational hazard for standing up for principles as they were thrown at him. He didn't try to force homosexual behavior and such "teachings" (that have no business in schools) down little kids throats. The school did. He is teaching his kids an important lesson (unlike pushing gay sex discussion) of standing up for what is right. Teaching his kids that moralphobes are not to be backed down from, teaching his kids right from wrong (so that they will grow up to not stray from those ideas).
BTW... Newbie (as you like to call others)... "Hypocrites," Jesus said, "why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right?" (Luke 12:56-57). I don't plan on being a Hypocrite.
Funny later on you said " Nonetheless, I won't make any such judgments about you." Yet all you do is break (lie) your own self imposed limiter.
Example: "And I seriously doubt you know the meaning of conservative."
Example 2 : "What the matter, gutless punk."
I on the other hand have no problem judging you... You are a hypocrite and a unmoral conservative at best, and your posts prove it.
Right....pawns. His kids were a convenient tool, one that obviously you would use too.
The school did. He is teaching his kids an important lesson (unlike pushing gay sex discussion) of standing up for what is right.
No he isn't. He is teaching his kid that lies and deceit are useful tools...that the end justifies the means. Anyone can teach that. If his father cannot tell the truth of what happened, exactly what is it he is standing up for?
Example: "And I seriously doubt you know the meaning of conservative."
It would appear to fit you as well.
Example 2 : "What the matter, gutless punk."
Yeah, isn't it amazing that it took about 300 posts of death threats, being called every name in the book including an a@@hole, until I finally had enough. The only thing no one found time to do, was to find anything wrong with what I said. You, it would seem fall into that category. It's me, not the subject. When you can't destroy the argument, destroy the poster. Great job! Look through all his posts. We might find something we can pick at. If you guys are the best the anti-homsexual lobby has, give it up. You've already lost.
I on the other hand have no problem judging you... You are a hypocrite and a unmoral conservative at best, and your posts prove it.
Of course. Any one who supports using kids for pawns and targets to get political mileage out of it can send all the insults he wants my way. But I guess if Cindy Sheehan could do it, so can you.
Take care.
LOL Uh, no. Feel free to ask me what I believe in, and I will tell you without hiding, cowering, or dissembling.
Do I support the gay agenda? NO. That means I do NOT support gay marriage or even "civil unions" that would give gay couples the same rights and privileges as married couples (man & wife). I do NOT support the public schools pushing the gay agenda ("gay is normal") on children of ANY age, much less elementary students. I do NOT support equating "sexual orientation" with race or religion. I do NOT support the government telling private businesses that they MUST do work for advocates of the gay agenda, as was recently the case in Virginia. I do NOT support allowing gays to adopt children.
Please tell me where I'm cowering, hiding, or dissembling.
Now then, you can either answer my original question or continue to play your word games; however, you'll soon by playing by yourself.
Do I support the gay agenda? NO. That means I do NOT support gay marriage or even "civil unions" that would give gay couples the same rights and privileges as married couples (man & wife). I do NOT support the public schools pushing the gay agenda ("gay is normal") on children of ANY age, much less elementary students. I do NOT support equating "sexual orientation" with race or religion. I do NOT support the government telling private businesses that they MUST do work for advocates of the gay agenda, as was recently the case in Virginia. I do NOT support allowing gays to adopt children.
See, that wasn't so tough. But you don't have to convince me. All your nasty little one-liners kinda gave me that impression.
Now then, you can either answer my original question or continue to play your word games; however, you'll soon by playing by yourself.
In my pursuit of a real discussion of the issue at hand, I believe I have been playing by myself. Is this the post you are referring to:
Are you not in favor of the gay agenda? Do we really have to play the game of me naming off the things on the gay agenda list? Or can we just cut to the chase and avoid a lot of time wasting?
Guess we are just going to have to waste a lot of time. What exactly am I in favor of? Then do you want to know why Parker used his kids as pawns, or do you want to make me the issue here?
I still honestly do not know what gay agenda you are referring to. I was not being cute. Don't beat around the bush like you have been doing, and ask your questions outright. Since you can't do much to defend Parker and his antics, you can make me the subject. Feel free to ask.
That's right, drive out all the Americans who actually think their PUBLIC schools should not be introducing homosexuality to 6 year olds. Of course, that's the vast majority of Americans. His grave offense? He actually got indignant and angry--can't have that.
Only "tolerant" people who'll either promote, or passively swallow, the lies are permitted. Public "education" deserves to collapse if this is what it has come to.
Good point. The public schools should stand for traditional values, which the majority of parents support (including all those immigrants which the left is so fond of). Let the lefties homeschool or start their private schools to teach homosexuality to 6 year olds.
The left is all about taking over established institutions (judiciary, academia, mainline churches, public schools), rather than creating new ones, because they can't sell their agenda in the marketplace of ideas. So, they just impose them.
I'm sure you understand that it is Massachusetts we are talking about? I have no problem with him letting the school know he doesn't want such materials provided to his children. They had actually agreed to that. But when you use your children to help you in your crusade, then you have crossed the line. There was much he could have done without putting his children into the spotlight.
His grave offense? He actually got indignant and angry--can't have that.
No, that wasn't his offense. I too would have gotten angry if I didn't know my child was being provided such materials. That is not what this is about at all.
Only "tolerant" people who'll either promote, or passively swallow, the lies are permitted. Public "education" deserves to collapse if this is what it has come to.
Fine, stay and fight. But try doing it by leaving your children out of it and not putting them into a position of ridicule by the other children.
People don't want to be confronted with the error of their choices.
Denial isn't just a river in Egypt....
I was wondering the same thing. When it comes to my children's safety, i'm not patient and tolerant.
Another BIG reason to HomeSchool. The man's a fool for leaving his son in such a place.
As I said, it's confusing to me. The original cause of trouble was homosexual indoctrination in the kindergarten class, iirc. When the school declined to address his objections, and even to inform parents of pro-homosexual curriculum's being used, then ... what? Did he decide it wasn't a problem after all?
And I don't see why a parent would continue to send a child to a school where he was targeted for violence. An ordinary fight between kids is one thing, but if this story is accurate, much worse is going on in the school than that.
HUH? When was I ever hiding? I've always been right here in plain sight.
All your nasty little one-liners kinda gave me that impression.
Gave you the impression of what? That I oppose the gay agenda? The only "nasty" thing is what gays want to teach our children.
Is this the post you are referring to
What part of "answer my original question" was unclear? I'll repeat it. In response to your post: "much of the story has been distorted on these Lexington threads, much more in Parker's favor than it really was", I posted:
How so? Other than the fact that he's trying to slow down the gay agenda that you are in favor of, what is your point?
I still honestly do not know what gay agenda you are referring to.
ROFL. Riiiiiight. I just gave you a list of items from the gay agenda, yet, you simply don't have the foggiest idea of what on earth I could possibly be referring to. Too funny. Please don't waste any more time with your pro-gay stance. After all, "you don't have to convince me. All your nasty little one-liners kinda gave me that impression." Your pro-gay stance wasn't the issue to begin with.
We are back to the ORIGINAL question. Dr. Parker. Remember him?
Come on. You more or less said that as the Dad you would call the other parents out.
You would take justice into your own hands.
So you would end up in jail, and probably in more trouble than anybody else involved.
Unless you are into martyrdom, that would be foolish.
Good for you. You've obviously missed the number of posts in which I argued that everyone should read Tammy Bruce's book The Death of Right and Wrong. If you've read it, and since this issue is so important to you, I'm sure you have, then you will know what my agenda is. BTW, Tammy Bruce is a lesbian.
What part of "answer my original question" was unclear? I'll repeat it. In response to your post: "much of the story has been distorted on these Lexington threads, much more in Parker's favor than it really was", I posted:
There you see. Actually your question was "What is my agenda"? But I'll answer the first. See post 203 and 298. 203 will give you a bit of the history of last years events, and 298 will give you the real story that got everyone here so cranked this year. If you still have questions, by all means, ask. I'm kind of surprised that someone with your keen interest in the truth doesn't at least ask if there might be a bit missing in these stories.
ROFL. Riiiiiight. I just gave you a list of items from the gay agenda, yet, you simply don't have the foggiest idea of what on earth I could possibly be referring to. Too funny. Please don't waste any more time with your pro-gay stance.
Well, you keep alluding to my pro-gay stance. Please let me know exactly what it is, and I'll confirm or deny. Like you, I've nothing at all to hide, or I sure wouldn't be hanging out here with y'all.
We are back to the ORIGINAL question. Dr. Parker. Remember him?
Ah, you mean the guy I questioned as to his motives, before I received death wishes, and a ton of hate posts? That Mr. Parker? Sure. Let's look at the facts here. Mr. Parker gives an interview in which he claims that approximately a month ago, his 7 year old son was dragged behind the school (which is kidnapping BTW) and beaten all over his body by a group of larger kids including striking in his genitals (sexual assault), with encouragement from adults, and was well planned in advance.
Now think about that for a moment. What would you have done? Call the police? Parker didn't. Official complaint to the school board? Nope, Parker didn't. Visit to a doctor to look at the beating and ensure the boy was ok? Nope. Parker didn't. At least go back into court and get some kind of restraining order or amend the original live complaint? Nope. Parker didn't. Take your boy out of that school to avoid any life threatening situation? Nope. Parker didn't. At least contact the parents of the children who beat the boy? Nope. Parker didn't.
Parker left the boy in school and did nothing for a month, until he went public to an anti-gay website. Now, if the boy really wasn't hurt, then of course, Parker lied. If the boy was actually beaten as Parker said, then Parker is guilty of parental negligence. Which do you think it is? That is my issue with Parker this year.
BTW, in addition to this issue, I am also quite concerned about the Duke rape case. I question the motives and the credibility of the alleged victim. After thinking about it, I guess that proves I am promoting a pro-rape agenda.
Take care.
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.