And they wonder why California is burning?!?
Posted on 10/22/2007 5:06:23 PM PDT by freeper_peeper
The Terminator is at it again. Only this time he seems bent on terminating what's left of childhood innocence in California public schools.
In a bold and terribly misguided power play, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week signed into law a measure, SB 777, dictating that public school children be taught bizarre perversions such as cross-dressing and transsexualism. What's more, the bill muzzles teachers from using such three-letter words as "mom" and "dad" in the classroom and turns children into the guinea pigs of the radical homosexual agenda.
Still, millions of public school parents across our nation will continue insisting that their child's school is honorable, despite the chorus of facts to the contrary.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
That's something that's been gone close to 40 years now.
And they wonder why California is burning?!?
Isn’t that what the dates of Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton said after seeing them butt nekkid ?
Why in the world would this man take the innocence of children?
Don’t get me started. This junk filters down from the national level after its importation from (as the artcle states) California. If the parents rise up, boards of education will listen, but the voices of teachers are merely irritants. Most of the parents are like your neighbors, and many don’t know because they really don’t care; they just want good grades and lean on teachers to get them.
Perhaps where you live. In MA, they harass the parents and if the parents insist, they end up arrested and going to court to try and be awarded there rights to opt out. The activist and teachers are relentless in their vengeance and hostility.
Which is why in MA, there are meeting to discuss regionalizing school districts, because of lowering enrollments and the schools not being full. That is a good thing! Some towns enrollments are down 30% or more.
I wonder what would happen if a town decided to opt out of the government school system altogether? Do you know if any community ever did this?
Why not have a private school in the town instead of a public school? The people who have children in school would pay for tuition while those people who do not have children in school will not have to pay school taxes. I think people would actually save money since parents would be more in control of the schools without all of the politics of school committees and the like. Under the public school system anyone who isn’t happy with the schools has to pay extra to put their children in private schools in addition to the high taxes they have to pay to the public schools that they don’t even use.
A way to save money would be to build all the schools on the same campus. This would make the bus routes simpler. Also have just one larger grammar school instead of several schools throughout the town would save money on building expenses, libraries, teachers, cafeterias etc.
Parents who are unable to afford school tuition would get discounts.
We decided to send our children to a local private Christian school beginning in Kindergarten. Although the Educrats at the state level have graded our local public school system as “Excellent”, we do not want our children in that cesspool environment. Public schools are not worth saving and those without children are getting ripped off royally through their property taxes.
You can take your child out of public school and also support overturning SB 777, as I posted on another thread. The two actions are not in opposition to each other.
I agree that the actions are not contradictory. At a minimum, parents should boycott CA schools until this abomination is undone. The difficulty is that for many parents the referendum will become their excuse for leaving their children in, as illogical as that may be.
The MSM has virtually blacked out coverage of SB 777 in CA, and the MSM certainly are not discussing the changes that this legislation will require in school regulations, policies,and procedures, or, for that matter, what it will do to children.
I have found that very few parents and pastors in CA have any idea what SB 777 is all about. It is, however, in a nutshell, a complete and final repudiation by the CA political class and the CA government school system of 2000 years of Christian teaching on sexual morality and the family. Again, if you read the bill, it is a complete repudiation of the heterosexual family as the social norm.
Consequently, everyone ought to be emailing and calling their friends in California to let them know about SB 777 and urging them to remove their children from the government schools. We should also be asking them to encourage others to do the same.
Many here will wonder why they should invest any time in this, but I can assure everyone that if there isn’t crushing “push-back” on SB 777 (it should be “SB 666”), the sodomites and their friends will know that it is safe to start pushing this hard everywhere else.
Most of the articles from conservative sources on this subject accurately portray what SB 777 will lead to based on the principles embodied in the legislation. Nevertheless, those articles generally fail to inform people about the actual language of SB 777. So, below is something that was circulated that discusses SB 777’s text and provides a link. If you read the popular press articles together with this language, you will understand why the articles are not exaggerating the likely impact of SB 777.
To all: The note below was written to help someone in the media understand the new pro-sexual deviant California school legislation that Schwartzenegger just signed. You may find it of some interest.
Dear XXXX, XXXX suggested that I send you some information on SB 777.
As you probably know, State Senator Sheila Kuehl (formerly “Zelda” of The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis) is the main sponsor of the bill and has been pushing this bill for 3 years or so. You probably also know that she is a radical lesbian.
In general, the general public has no real awareness of the legislation because there has been a lack of reporting by the MSM. Internet sources such as WND have published what seem to be exaggerated accounts of the consequences of SB 777 (after all, who would believe that our legislators and Governor would sign on to what WND describes). I have seen homosexual activists and liberals claiming that the “rightwing” furor is just much ado about nothing: the words “mom” and “dad” appear nowhere in the bill, and it is clear that the purpose of SB 777 is just to make California schools safe for “gay and bisexual” children.
The problem is that once one thinks carefully about SB 777 soporific legislative prose, it is obvious that SB 777 is indeed quite radical.
While SB 777 and related enactments really require extensive analysis in order to understand their full ramifications, there are a few sections that can give you a feel for just how how far SB 777 goes.
Let’s start with two operative provisions, Section 220 and Section 51500. First, Section 220 reads as follows:
220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis
of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion,
sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in
the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the
Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational
institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial
assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
Here is Section 51500:
51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school
district sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias
because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.
While it is clear that these provisions both prohibit discrimination based on a laundry list of factors, the definition of “gender” is important for understanding the significance of what Schwartzenegger signed.
210.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender
identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
Despite beginning with the common understanding of “gender”, the definition actually enshrines in law the most extreme post-modern view of “gender”. Here are three currently discussed models of sex and gender.
“1. The idea that both sex and gender are biological givens - you are born either male or female, and your gender is the same as your biological sex;
2. The idea that sex is a biological given, but gender is socially constructed - so it is natural to divide humans into male and female, but how your gender role is played out depends on upbringing, culture and social environment.
3. Both sex and gender are socially constructed - the importance accorded to the category of sex (and some of its physical aspects) are socially constructed, and gender is a performance (Judith Butler and Queer Theory).”
SB 777 treats “gender” as if it is entirely socially constructed. Thus, if you have adopted a gender identity as a woman the fact that your birth sex is male cannot be used in any way to “discriminate” against you. I could elaborate on this, but I am sure you can see that there are virtually endless scenarios like this. Leaving aside the false message this legislation is designed to indoctrinate children with, once the kids figure SB 777 out, it is hard to see how the result could be anything but chaos. Certainly, the plain language of the statute prohibits the segregation of children in any facility based on biological sex characteristics. In other words, if a boy decides one day that he is “feeling pretty”, no one can lawfully bar him from the girls’ lockerroom etc., and vice versa. Again, the language is quite clear.
A second key definition is “sexual orientation”:
SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.6. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality,
or bisexuality.
When Sections 212.6 and 210.7 are understood in the context of 220 and 51500, it is absolutely clear that activists for all kinds of “sexual minorities” will be able to make endless claims about discrimination and promotion of discriminatory bias (bear in mind that “gays” and “lesbians” are now just a subset of the total class of perverts protected, mainly because of Section 210.7). This will have a profound effect on what the curriculum in CA schools will look like.
I know you are aware of how the kind of “anti-discrimination” language in Section 220 lends itself to extravagant legal theories that courts are quite willing to entertain (especially in California). But the operative phrase in Section 51500 - “promotes a discriminatory bias” - merits scrutiny, too.
In an earlier version of SB 777 the phrase was “reflects adversely”. For some reason this was changed prior to signing. In any event, Section 51500 takes SB 777 beyond banning so-called “discrimination” and outlaws “any activity” that someone might construe as promoting a discriminatory bias, even if it is not itself discriminatory. The possibilities here are endless - Bible clubs, any activity, text, or teaching that portrays traditional families in a positive light, etc. could easily be argued to be either discriminatory because they “privilege heteronormativity” or tend to foster a discriminatory bias against any group included in the definitions of “sexual orientation” or “gender”.
But, as they say in the late night Ginsu Knife commercials, there’s more. The protected classes extend far beyond those just discussed. The protected classes include people “perceived” to have the listed characteristics or who associate with someone who has, or is perceived to have, those characteristics:
SEC. 10. Section 219 is added to the Education Code, to read:
219. Disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained
in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the
Penal Code includes a perception that the person has any of those
characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who
has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
The potential for litigation is absolutely endless, and I am sure that the homosexuals and other “sexual minorities” will use litigation and, especially, the threat of litigation to get whatever they want.
Now, here are a few more provisions that may be of some interest.
“Educational institution” is defined in Section 210.3 as follows:
210.3. “Educational institution” means a public or private
preschool, elementary, or secondary school or institution; the
governing board of a school district; or any combination of school
districts or counties recognized as the administrative agency for
public elementary or secondary schools. [emphasis added]
Section 235 explicitly includes alternative and charter schools within the nondiscrimination requirements of the bill:
235. There shall be no discrimination on the basis of the
characteristics listed in Section 220 in any aspect of the operation
of alternative schools or charter schools.
Section 221 provides an exception for some religious schools:
221. This article shall not apply to an educational institution
that is controlled by a religious organization if the application
would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that
organization.
Interestingly:
SEC. 8. Section 212.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:
212.3. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief,
observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
Some harassing litigation is likely to result regarding what is and is not consistent with the tenets of a religious organization. There is, for example, always some liberal group that claims that it has the true interpretation of some creed or other. Thus, Section 221 opens the door to litigation against various religious organizations regarding what their “tenets” are. Even if such lawsuits would lose on the merits, as long as they can be filed they can be used to intimidate Christian and other organizations into complying with the demands of the “sexual minorities”. The potential for mischief here is very significant.
I should also mention that “training” regarding Section 220 is mandated now for teacher certification. For example:
SEC. 24.5. Section 44253.3 of the Education Code is amended to
read:
44253.3. (a) The commission shall issue a certificate that
authorizes the holder to provide all of the following services to
limited-English-proficient pupils:...
(c) Completion of coursework in human relations in accordance with
the commission’s standards of program quality and effectiveness that
includes, at a minimum, instruction in the following:
(1) The nature and content of culture.
(2) Crosscultural contact and interactions.
(3) Cultural diversity in the United States and California.
(4) Providing instruction responsive to the diversity of the pupil
population.
(5) Recognizing and responding to behavior related to bias based
on the characteristics listed in Section 220.
However, AB 394, which Scwartzenegger also signed, contains most of the legislative provisions for forcibly indoctrinating teachers and other school employees with the worldview of SB 777.
SB 777 also expressly applies to postsecondary education:
66270. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the
basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity,
religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic listed or defined
in Section 11135 of the Government Code or any other characteristic
that is contained in the prohibition of hate crimes set forth in
subdivision (a) of Section 422.6 of the Penal Code in any program or
activity conducted by any postsecondary educational institution that
receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls
students who receive state student financial aid.
SEC. 45. Section 66270.5 of the Education Code is amended and
renumbered to read:
Finally, Section 51004 makes clear that Section 220 is intended to apply to job fairs. What this provision actually does isn’t clear, but I suspect employers may not like it.
SEC. 28. Section 51004 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51004. The Legislature hereby recognizes that it is the policy of
the people of the State of California to provide an educational
opportunity to the end that every pupil leaving school shall have the
opportunity to be prepared to enter the world of work; that every
pupil who graduates from any state-supported educational institution
should have sufficient marketable skills for legitimate remunerative
employment; that every qualified and eligible adult citizen shall be
afforded an educational opportunity to become suitably employed in
some remunerative field of employment; and that these opportunities
are a right to be enjoyed without regard to economic status or the
characteristics listed in Section 220.
The Legislature further recognizes that all pupils need to be
provided with opportunities to explore and make career choices and to
seek appropriate instruction and training to support those choices.
The Legislature therefore finds that fairs as community resource and
youth leadership activities are integral to assisting and guiding
pupils in making choices and therefore encourage the further
expansion of cooperative activities between schools, youth leadership
activities, and community resources. Among community resources of
particular significance in providing information on various career
opportunities are vocational and occupational exhibits,
demonstrations and activities conducted at fairs.
Although this is just a cursory look at just some of the provisions of SB 777, it should be plain that SB 777 represents a complete victory for sexual deviants. Did WND exaggerate? Probably not, but without education most people will not understand the changes that SB 777 will engender through new regulations, new school policies, and litigation over the next few years.
Bottom line - if this doesn’t motivate parents who have any way at all out of the California schools to leave, they really don’t care much for their children. The same could be said for our churches who fail to assist the parents who genuinely need help getting their children out.
The link below is to the enrolled text of SB 777. God’ s peace be with you, XXXX
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20071012_chaptered.html
Most states have it in their constitutions that they must have government schools. I believe the feds feel that way too.
Fortunately, they haven't taken away the ability and right of parents to explain to their children each night that everything they were taught in school today is a load of crap. ...or, to home school them.
This is exactly why I favor returning control of the school districts BACK to the States, then the counties/regions, and then finally the towns again...
I sure am glad I have the opportunity to homeschool...
I will sell my blood plasma if need be to keep my child in private Catholic school.
My kid likes attending, in part, because jerky kids are bounced out of the school instead of monopolizing the staff’s time, dragging everybody down.
My wife likes him attending primarily because of what he will learn.
I like him attending primarily because of what he will NOT learn.
A classic Frosted Mini-Wheats(TM) win/win/win scenario.
I am sorry to say that if a large segment of our population is determined to morally misguide their youth and leave them ill-prepared for what is a very real “dog eat dog” world, well, *MEH*, less future competition. Advantage, Impugn Jr.
California Penal Code Section 422.55
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/422.55.html
For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) “Hate crime” includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.
California Penal Code Section 422.6
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/422.6.html
(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the above imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
(d) Conduct that violates this and any other provision of law, including, but not limited to, an offense described in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11410) of Chapter 3 of Title 1 of Part 4, may be charged under all applicable provisions. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, and the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
While definitely an improvement it is not a solution.
Even if a school district was the size of a suburban subdivision block there is no possible way to reconcile the political, cultural, and religious differences of the various families on that block. In essence, some of the families on that block would have their values upheld by the government school and others would have them destroyed by the government.
There is a fundamental conflict between compulsory attendance/compulsory funded government schools and freedom of conscience, and every protection found in our First Amendment.
1) There is no such thing as a religiously neutral school. No matter what the government school decides it will establish the religious beliefs of some and trash those of others.
2) Once in the school children are ordered by the government to shut up.
3) They are ordered by the government not to publish.
4) They can not freely associate, but are instead ordered by the government to associate with people of the government´s choosing.
5) And,,,they are forbidden by the government any right to freely express or practice their religion.
All of the above are human rights violations and would be true even if school districts were the size of one city block.
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.