And then you read stories like this and understand completely why Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are so popular:
Massachusetts law provides that parents must be notified when children are going to be taught about sex and specifically homosexuality, so the parents may pull the kid out of that class if they choose. Seems reasonable.
Well, five year olds were given “Diversity Bookbags” which included a book showing some families having two mommies and two daddies. Parents were not informed.
The school takes the curious position that depicting same-sex coupling is not, in fact, any sort of mention of homosexuality that would trip the law. So they refused to notify parents.
One parent showed up to demand to know if he’d be informed of any future such non-mentions mentions of homosexuality for his kindergartener.
He wouldn’t leave until he had that assurance, which they wouldn’t give. They were nice enough, however, to have him arrested for criminal trespass, and thoughtfully arranged for him to spend the night in jail.
More here.
*** Update ***
Well, score one for the wingnuts- they fooled me and Ace. This isn’t as cut and dried as the two news stories make it- this guy is clearly an activist with an agenda.
Personally, any way you slice it or dice it, I don’t think the schools need to be sending home ‘diversity bags’ with reading material that may offend parents. Especially not with kindergartners. But there is more to this than meets the eye. I will try to have a summary of what is going on later.
Defense Guy
The man has a valid point, IMO, but is strictly concerning the age of the child. His child is not yet a first grader. That being said, the simple fact that a thing exists being told to children is not the same as advocacy for the thing.
If I teach of the holocaust, it does not mean I am a fan. To deny it even exists is a far worse position.
Geek, Esq.
The homophobic asshole wanted to ban the book from the school library, and conducted a sit-in to further his
“banish the homos from society” cause.
Boo freaking hoo. He can move to Alabama.
neil
That law seems reasonable? Coulda fooled me.
What if the parents had objected to the depiction of mixed-race couples? Would that have been reasonable?
Gotta love the fox news writeup:
Actually, he is going on trial for criminal trespassing. Let’s see if Fox News has any stories about protestors who are on trial for “voicing their opposition to the Iraq War… well, actually, they threw bricks at cars.”
John S.
What’s going to happen when a kid is waiting out front to get picked up after school and actually sees a classmate being picked up by two mommies or two daddies?
Alert the media! Call the parents! It’s a four alarm situation!
Better to hide your child from reality, then have to explain it to them. That is why Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council are so popular: It’s the easy way out for the ever-growing throng of lazy parents.
Geek, Esq.
By the way, does Fox news mention that the Massachusetts law doesn’t even refer to homosexuals?
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-32a.htm
This story, and any rightwinger expressing outrage over it, belongs under politics; Republican stupidity
Kimmitt
You have to think that any loony-tune who showed up to school to complain that his kids might be exposed to TEH GAY was something less than polite when he didn’t get his way. What’s the over/under on how long until we find out that he threatened a schoolteacher, yada yada yada?
Geek, Esq.
Btw, I’m just shocked that Fox News would reprint rightwing lies instead of doing basic research.
Shocked!
Defense Guy
The funny thing is, this outrage is completely reversed when it comes to mention of G-d in the public schools. I will not take claims of ‘seperation of church’ and state as proof of anything other than ignorance of the intent and of the law.
Defense Guy
Kimmitt
All indications at this point is that the man was polite to a fault right down the line from the school to the cops to the judge. He was merely adament, and of course seemingly in violation of the law.
Geek, Esq.
Yes, if one gets all of one’s ‘indications’ from dishonest rightwing propaganda outfits like Faux News.
Kimmitt
Okay, but what color is the sky on your planet? The intent of the Framers is painfully clear; religion is mentioned precisely once in the Constitution before the Amendments.
I mean, y’all can have your fun fighting over whether or not Catholics are allowed to adopt kids and all, but I’d like to live in a country where people can practice whatever religion they please without the guv’mint getting involved, thanks.
Mason
John is exactly right. It’s easy to see how groups like Focus on the Family are popular. Just look at the ridicule from you folks already, and this post has only been up for a few minutes.
I have more friends that are gay, lesbian, trans-X -Y and -Z than are straight hetero — I don’t consider myself the epitome of bigoted thinking — but I’d be pretty pissed off if it were my five year old daughter in that situation. I would like to teach my daughter about sexuality — straight, gay, or otherwise — when *I* feel it is appropriate. The subject is not one that belongs in kindergarten.
Geek, Esq.
The bookbags were sex ed pamphlets?
RSA
A boston.com article adds a bit of detail to the snarky Fox News account above:
Whatever you think of his motivations, Parker is following a time-honored approach of non-violent protest. We’ll see how it works out in the courts, which is where I think the dispute probably belongs.
Kimmitt
Wait, wait — so if a story has a heterosexual couple with a kid, that’s just normality, but if a story has a homosexual couple with a kid, that’s “teaching the kid about sexuality”? If we have a story with an African-American couple, is that “teaching the kid about racism”? If we have a story with a single mom, is that “teaching the kid about marital infidelity”? How little are we allowed to deviate from the WASP nuclear family norm? How marginalized are we going to make kids who live in those households?
neil
Polite to a fault, Defense Guy? He went to the school office, insisted that he would not leave until his demands were met, and had to be dragged off by police, at which point he refused bail to make a point! That’s _polite_?
Kimmitt
Hey, now — that’s standard Civil Disobedience stuff, and he’s got every moral right to do it, if that turns out to be the case.
That said, I hope we have established that Fox News is composed of a bunch of lying sacks.
Mike S
Considering the sourse, a FOX opinion piece and a worldnut daily piece, I suspect this is more bs than not. It sounds like the FOX outrage over the teacher and the bill of rights, or the teacher and the picture of Bush. What they didn’t tell you in the second case was that the teacher was telling kids their parents were stupid and evil for supporting Bush, IIRC. I wonder what they’re leaving out of this one.
Defense Guy
neil
RSA covered that. You can be polite and still be activist, despite what the anarchists may tell you.
Mike S
change Bush to Kerry in my comment.
John S.
I fail to see where depicting a child with two parents of the same sex translates into a sex talk. I know you want to conflate this issue into something it is not, but your point has very little merit.
Explaining to a child that some families have two mommies or two daddies in accordance with the reality they are likely to see around them is not the same as having a frank sex talk with them.
Anderson
Fellow libs, the outrage won’t work here. It’s begging the question to assume that “Donny has two mommies” is innocuous. (“Human sexuality issues” in the statute is vague enough to include the materials in question, but that’s another matter.)
It’s innocuous to me, but not to everyone, and however prejudiced those folks may be, people were entitled to be prejudiced, last time I checked. It’s rather high up in the list of amendments.
Cole is right: getting our panties wadded over such things does indeed play into Dobson’s hands. We should admit that it’s challenging to decided when and where these issues should be raised in school, and get a conversation going about it.
That in itself puts the Dobsonites in a corner, because their answer is “never, unless the eternal damnation of these sodomites is part of the lesson plan.”
(We should save our outrage for cases like the little boy in Louisiana who was suspended for mentioning to his classmates that his mommy was a lesbian.)
Mike S
The poor man is just a victim of lesbians
Vlad
Unless the picture showed the bears having sex, I fail to see the issue here. Maybe they were just friends?
neil
Courtesy of TFP Student Action, here’s what all the stink is about:
Anderson, your comment makes no sense as all the outrage in this case is coming from the right. I don’t see any panties being wadded other than this parent who wants veto power over every aspect of the school’s curriculum, and those who defend him. (You know, they do allow home-schooling and private schooling in Massachussets.)
jg
Another wedge issue blown out of proportion to energize the base. Feeeling energiszed Defense Guy? Feel a little more hostility to the libruls who are trying to force a homo agenda on our children? Its a great opportunity for the base to rail about persecution and other stuff too.
In other news 5 more US Soldiers died in Iraq.
Luddite
Good Gawd what is the state of MA even THINKING? It’s not like Gay Marriage is legal in that state. NO WAY would any kid in grades K through 12 have 2 mommies or 2 daddies.
neil
Where will it end? The lesson they objected to did not even contain a direct acknowledgement that homosexuality existed! Will they object next to their son being taught about someone who is a homosexual, even if his sexuality is not mentioned? Would this be reasonable?
james richardson
um, he was arrested because he REFUSED to leave. let’s not forget that. it had nothing to do with the topic.
Geek, Esq.
The problem is that kids in Massachusetts ARE going to get exposed to this. If this were Alabama, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t know kids with two dads. But in Massachusetts, they’re going to see this kind of stuff.
The real issue is that this ISN’T a discussion of sex at all, but rather a mainstreaming of homosexuals. That’s what they oppose.
SeesThroughIt
And it’s understandable why that has him so vexed. I mean, lesbians have 10 times the political power of any other group in the country. Whatever lesbians say goes, and gawd help you if you cross them!
Geek, Esq.
Is this the lesbian mafia that Dr. Coburn was so afraid of?
metalgrid
Umm Mr. Cole,
I’m just curious, are you assigning the popularity of FOF and FRC to sensationalism and reporting based on incorrect and incomplete facts?
Defense Guy
jg
Of the 2 of us, you are the only one who does not deviate from the party line. So is this a case of projection?
What is the proper proportion when discussing a parents right to have a say in some of the fundamental issues regarding the raising of their young?
An honest reading of my first comment should dissuade you from spouting partisan crap like this, but then perhaps you are not honest.
alex
Mr. Upset has every right to be prejudiced, and he even has the right to teach his kids to be prejudiced too. What he doesn’t have is the right to demand that everyone else join in and reinforce the lesson. Sorry pal, if you want to send your kids to public school on everybody else’s dime, you’re going to have to put up with the one-size-fits-all lessons. Don’t like it? Private school, homeschool, move, put them up for adoption.
For a guy who belongs to party that talks a lot about personal responsibility, he seems to want other people to shoulder a lot of the burden.
capelza
This story reminds me of the “Declaration of Independence BANNED in Californis School” story last year…which it was not and as time went by, the real story came out. Of course, most people who first heard of the story still think the DoI was banned without checking back to see what really happened. I have a feeling that this will be similar.
Interesting that “two mommies” is considered sexual, but a mom and a dad are not…especially in MA, where homosexual marriage is legal, right?
jg
I’m not partisan. I hate both parties. You however do represent the conservative wing of the republican party so the question is applicable. Do you feel energized? Can you see that this is a wedge issue hyped to keep the dividing line drawn on the sand?
Defense Guy
jg
I take it you don’t even read my posts. Maybe you scan them in an attempt to find a club to beat me with. I will not be the charecture you seem intent on trying to make me. Get someone else to be your dancing monkey.
DougJ
What disgrace. No respect for the family. No respect for traditional values. The public schools are nothing more than pawns of the far-left homosexual lobby in Taxachussets obviously. When I see this kind of whacked out left-wing extremism, I can see why you RINOs do stick with us. You may not agree with our positions on creationism, but at least we’re not trying to make your kids gay the way the Dems are.
Make no mistake: the homosexual lobby is a greater threat to this country than terrosism.
Demdude
Geek, Esq. Says:
When you scrape away everything, that’s it exactly.
According to these groups, the term homosexual has to be followed by: degenerate, perverted, with box seats in hell or you are supporting the “Gay Agenda”.
Another Jeff
I don’t think that was the real DougJ.
Defense Guy
I agree with Another Jeff, sounds like a fake to me.
SeesThroughIt
Real DougJ or fake DougJ? This one is too close to call.
Brad R.
Make no mistake: the homosexual lobby is a greater threat to this country than terrosism.
That’s irony, right?
tBone
Yeah, damn those homosexual bullies! If they get their way we’ll all be dragged out into the street and
beatenshotblown upgiven mandatory makeovers. Of course, our kids won’t mind, since the Democratic Party will have already turned them gay.Keep up the good work, DougJ.
Brad R.
And holy crap is this misleading:
So if the actual charge is trespassing, why write in the lede that he’s going on trial just for asking the school to provide parental notification. FOX has zero shame. Absolutely appalling.
Nikki
Boy, I could use a mandatory makeover. When does the homosexual agenda take over? I hope it’s before my next big date!
Mike
Geek, Esq. Says:
“The real issue is that this ISNâT a discussion of sex at all, but rather a mainstreaming of homosexuals. Thatâs what they oppose.
When you scrape away everything, thatâs it exactly.
According to these groups, the term homosexual has to be followed by: degenerate, perverted, with box seats in hell or you are supporting the âGay Agendaâ.”
And there’s a very simple reason for that. Many people (I’d say fairly significant number in the Country actually) feel that Homosexual behavior is a moral choice. And therefore does not fall under the same category as say interracial marriage.
John S.
One must first qualify as human to experience the sensation known as shame. And since the FOX/Conservative position is that they never make mistakes, that decidely puts them outside the realm of humanity.
Jim Allen
Re: “Make no mistake: the homosexual lobby is a greater threat to this country than terrosism. [sic]”
I fail to see how a bunch of gays putting flowers in the lobby is such a great threat. I think it’s rather festive, actually.
John S.
I disagree with your conclusion. When interracial marriage was outlawed by dozens of states just a few decades ago, the matter was most definitely deemed as a ‘moral’ (or rather immoral) choice. The same groups that were opposed to interracial marriage then are the same ones opposed to homosexual marriage now (and chiefly for similar ‘bibilical’ reasons).
When making comparisons such as this, you cannot ommit the looking glass of time as a factor. People’s attitudes towards social and moral issues change over time, but that doesn’t change what their original attitude was.
james richardson
what exactly does the “mainstreaming of homosexual marriage” mean? how can any rational person consider homosexual marriage mainstream, considering it accounts for about .9% of all the marriages in the country, the rest belonging to heterosexuals? how is t hat mainstream?
or is it that they’re upset that the gays don’t see themselves as immoral, since they have the nerve to seek peace and happiness themselves? if two gays are living happy and healthy lives together, and it goes against their ideology, do they rethink their ideology, or do they ban any mention of gays?
i’m not sure that it’s necessary to show a 5 year old a book about two moms and two dads, but i’m less sure that saying gays exist and gay marriages exist constitutes an inherent acceptance of their lifestyle either. if the mere mention of gays can turn your son or daughter into a homosexual then we need to rethink human biology, social psychology, and HBO.
Vlad
From context in the cited passage, it’s even possible to come up with a non-homosexual interpretation for both groups, if you want to entirely isolate your kids from the realities of the world. Clifford’s “partner” Henry could be a roommate who’s also a business partner, or a partner for doubles tennis, or a bunch of similar things. Laura and Kyle might have two moms because Joyce and their father got a divorce, and after a while he re-married Emily.
That’s obviously not what the authors were going for, but if Mr. Parker wanted to offer that interpretation when asked by his kids, he could certainly do so.
Kimmitt
The same way that, say, a marriage between a Chinese guy and a German gal is. That is, relatively rare but nothing to get incensed about.
Demdude
I understand that is where it is coming from.
I’m always struck that divorced people never get the same treatment as gays. Jesus and the Bible are quite clear how immoral that is. Of course, they wouldn’t dare start attacking those folks because of the sh*^strom that would follow.
My final thought is since it is legal in the State for gays to marry, it would seem a gay couple could sue if they were not represented in the literature.
Richard Aubrey
Defense Guy.
WRT teaching about the Holocaust:
I was adamantly against it when my kids were small. The psychological shock of the horror seemed to be far too likely to be damaging at that stage of development. I am not against teaching it at all, which would seem to be an inference from your post.
“If it’s worth teaching, it’s required to teach it to the youngest kid we can drug into sitting still.”
I don’t think so.
Later on, when I thought it appropriate, we discussed the holocaust in detail, not least so they could have yet another reason to be proud of their Infantry officer grandfather who fought across Europe and helped end the thing.
IMO, some folks in authority seem to think that deflowering young minds, the younger the better, is a terrific experience. Power and control, or something.
I have no idea whether this parent would be more amenable to such topics later on.
But at this age, I give him the benefit of the doubt. Kids are not formed. Hell, the heural wiring is still grossly immature.
Give’em a break.
If it’s not too much of an imposition on those who have no other source of legal fun.
Anderson
Anderson, your comment makes no sense as all the outrage in this case is coming from the right.
Many of my comments are senseless, but this wasn’t one of them; I was referring to the outrage on the comments thread. (Unclear, perhaps, but not senseless.)
Geek, Esq.
Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.
Check out Dobson’s advice to fathers:
Meanwhile, the boy’s father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son’s maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.
Does Dobson belong to NAMBLA?
Another Jeff
That was really creepy, I thought it was from the Onion or something.
But, what advice does he have for the father if the father notices that the son’s unit is bigger than his?
neil
I found this guy’s web site, which has a pretty thick paper trail and list of documents. It makes his motives and his complaint a lot more clear.
In short, he spent months rejecting attempts to compromise and resolve his concerns, and instead demanded that the superintendent sign a statement that the teachers would shield his child from any mention of homosexuality, even with _other students_. The superintendent would not sign it, probably because he recognized that Parker intended to use the first ‘violation’ to justify a lawsuit.
After the superintendent refused to sign the agreement which Parker wrote himself, Parker refused to leave, instead calling his friends to get them to come take pictures of him getting arrested. The police came and spent an hour and a half trying to persuade him to leave, and finally arrested him in the late afternoon when the staff wanted to shut down the building.
It seems clear to me that Parker wanted to sue the school system from the start, and probably has a group trying to help him do it. They would obviously not be happy with removing the book from the ‘diversity bags.’ Their goal was the complete eradication of acknowledgement, even implicit, of homosexuality from the school, and possibly even the exclusion the students of homosexual parents. It’s hard to see how they could meet his demands if same-sex couples were allowed on school property, at least, and I suspect this was exactly the intention.
Defense Guy
Interesting. This being MA, I suppose he is intent on taking the issue back to the courts. I don’t think he really has a chance. When he loses, he will have the right to move to any community he feels is more in line with his way of thinking. Probably not going to be San Francisco.
At the end of the day, so long as we are willing to stand together against those that seek to remove these types of choices from us, I can live with it.
I still say the subject matter is age inappropriate
cd6
If Dobson is trying to prevent homosexuality, then I’m not sure he ought to be encouraging people to partake in the vaguely homoerotic activity of “pounding pegs into holes”
Gary Farber
A tangential observation.
Brad R.
Personally, any way you slice it or dice it, I donât think the schools need to be sending home âdiversity bagsâ with reading material that may offend parents. Especially not with kindergartners. But there is more to this than meets the eye. I will try to have a summary of what is going on later.
OK, this is why you’re a bad blogger- you actually admit error ;-)
metalgrid
Mr. Defense Guy,
I still say the subject matter is age inappropriate
How does one determine what material is age appropriate and what isn’t? Is it by societal standards for the immediate community? or to the greater state community, or for the national or even global community? I personally like the method of whatever I say, you peons better do.
Mr. Geek Esq,
Ok, the exerpt from that web site is rather disturbing. Considering my parents were not shy about nudity, I had to actively avoid seeing my parents naked since it was nowhere on my list of things I wanted to see. I don’t particularly know what kind of emotional scarring doing such a thing when children are so young would do. Would it make kids think it’s ok to get into showers with other men and compare penis size?
Defense Guy
It’s good to be the king. It’s really hard to draw a bright line on age appropriate right? Individual differences in kids development speeds makes the task harder when trying to define rules. Having said that, I think that discussions involving sexuality should be limited to warning about ‘inappropriate touching’, until the kids are closer to middle school. Parents should feel free to use their better judgment.
All my opinion of course, based only on observations with my own kids.
Geek, Esq.
I think Dobson’s site is offering a blueprint for turning boys into size queens.
Axien
What does that have to do with the story at hand? Saying someone has two mommies or daddies has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. I realize that not everyone thinks that way, but it doesn’t make it any less true. I could understand the father’s position more if they were talking about sex, then I would have no problem. This just seems to me like when they pulled that show off of PBS because it had a little girl with two moms.
Anderson
Re: the Dobson advice, he’s actually quoting someone else. Approvingly, it seems, but still.
Dobson has only himself to blame, however, for his “argument” that gayness can’t be genetic, because if it were, all the gays would’ve died out. Wow! Case closed!
When a creationist tries to argue natural selection, the results were bound to be ugly ….
Demdude
When ever the issue of school kids and sex comes up it a story always comes to mind:
A kid comes home from school and says “Daddy, where did I come from?”. The Dad gives it some thought then begins to describe nature and how the birds and bees reproduce. He then brings out diagrams of human anatomy and describes how babies are created. After about an hour he finally finishes and he asks the kid if he has any questions. The kid looking perplexed says, “Well, my friend Timmy said he came from Cleveland, where do I come from?”.
Kids are going to see families with two moms, two dads, one mom, one dad, etc.. There will be a discussion whether people want it or not.
The Diversity bag could be a discussion from “Look at the Fags on the cover” to “This is a different kind of family”. The only reason schools have to deal with this stuff is parents don’t.
You do not talk about someone’s mom and dad with the first thing that comes out of your mouth, “I wonder if they do missionary or (insert sex stuff here)”. Relationships are not all about sex.
I go back to, in MA it is legal for gay folks to marry. Since it is the law, there is nothing wrong with reflecting that in literature.
Moses
“Personally, any way you slice it or dice it, I donât think the schools need to be sending home âdiversity bagsâ with reading material that may offend parents.”
And that list would be virtually nothing because some parents are simply jack-asses. You couldn’t send home a biology book because some Christians would be offended. You couldn’t send home a creationist (ID) book because you’d offend hindus and atheists. You couldn’t send home a book thad had non-whites in positive roles because you’ve got your racist, skin-head parents that’d be offended.
In short, you can’t pander to intolerence. Because life is full of intolerent bigots.
Moses
“Defense Guy said: The funny thing is, this outrage is completely reversed when it comes to mention of G-d in the public schools. I will not take claims of âseperation of churchâ and state as proof of anything other than ignorance of the intent and of the law.”
It’s a little thing called the Constitution and while you want to bury your head about it, and all the precedents that have flown down from it, it’s still relevent. Regardless of the idiotic opinion you hold.
Moses
“And thereâs a very simple reason for that. Many people (Iâd say fairly significant number in the Country actually) feel that Homosexual behavior is a moral choice. And therefore does not fall under the same category as say interracial marriage.
Actually, that’s not true. And, like it or not, the right-wing is losing this gay-bashing “social value” just like they lost the inter-racial marriage “social value.”
When I was a little boy, it was illegal in many states for people to marry outside their race. When I was a little boy the approval rate (in the polls) for inter-racial marriage was under 25%. Today it is legal in all states AND 75% of all people are accepting of inter-racial marriage.
When I was a little boy, homosexuality was a crime and McCarthy used charges of homosexuality to destroy people. Now it is not a crime and not too many people get upset about all the outed Republican gays, like Mehlman.
And that’s because of increasing tolerence over time. Case in point, people in my parents generation disapprove of homosexuality 49% to an approval rate of 39% (balance undecided). My generation is 50% accept with 39% opposed, balance undecided. One generation behind me, it’s 54% accept, 37% disapprove. The next generation back (15-25) – 64% accept, 33% do not.
This shows a hard core of intolerence in both areas. Yet a side that is losing, will continue to lose, and will, eventually, become marginalized because of their hate.
Right now, the wing-nuts have had a temporary victory through current demographic solidarity and think they have their 1000-year reich. News to them: they’re still losing the culture war and eventually their solidarity will not get them anything because their numbers won’t be enough to over-come the center and left. And everything they repealed will come again.
Defense Guy
All outrage, no actual facts, from a prophet this is sad. The establishment clause does not specify that mention of the divine is verboten. The seperation is necessary, as in the history in which it what was written (still applicable IMO), governments were imposing their religous viewpoints on the people. It does not mean that a religous man can not be overtly political, nor does it mean that a political man cannot be overtly religous.
SeesThroughIt
I would not be surprised in the slightest if it comes out (bwah!) that he does.
jg
I don’t recall anyone ever saying it did. The government can’t make laws with respect to religion. Simple. Government is neutral on the issue.
Mike
“This shows a hard core of intolerence in both areas. Yet a side that is losing, will continue to lose, and will, eventually, become marginalized because of their hate.”
How do you know they hate them? If my kids do something I don’t like, I’ll tell them “don’t do that, I think it’s wrong”. Not: “Don’t do that, or I’ll hate you”. I know the Left likes to throw this out: “They don’t agree with me about this issue, therefore they are a bunch of losers/haters/haven’t been educated/lied to, etc. It’s never, well I guess they just don’t believe the same thing as me. That’s the reason the Left (not necessarily Democrats mind you,I actually have hope for them) keep losing elections. They condescend to the public, and the public knows it. Some in the Right do this as well unfortunately.
“Right now, the wing-nuts have had a temporary victory through current demographic solidarity and think they have their 1000-year reich. News to them: theyâre still losing the culture war and eventually their solidarity will not get them anything because their numbers wonât be enough to over-come the center and left. And everything they repealed will come again.”
Yes. That’s always the way to win an argument and to win people over to your way of thinking, just call them Nazis. By the way, if they’re “right wingers” then I guess they must represent how most every American has thought on this issue since the inception of the country. The “radical” position here (if there is one) is the issue of Gay Marriage, in that it’s a new idea and quite frankly out of the mainstream of the country, no matter how you wish to spin it.
John S.
DG, if you believe that seperation is necessary, then politics and religion cannot be intertwined. This is not only advocated by our system of law, but als by the Bible itself.
A politician cannot be a religious man, and a religious man cannot be a politician. They are representatives of two entirely different dominions: that of G-d, and that of man.
And never the twain shall meet.
capelza
Have to say here that the next generation, rather the ones who are 20 give or take a number of years is not so concerned about Homosexuality as their older fellow citizens are, at least in ky experience in a pretty redneck area. Though I do have to say, the ones that dislike the idea of Gays, they do HATE them, in a very nasty manner. But the little shits still like to look at girl on girl porn. “That’s different”. It is an obsession about what two men do together that sends them over the top.
My husband was pretty homophobic, though not a hater. Things changed for him when he found out that a long time crewman on his boat was gay. This was after the gentleman had retired. The husband was kind of spooked by the news. I pointed out to him that nothing was different in his relationship with the guy, for all these years, except that he now knew the fellow was Gay. He realised then that it really didn’t make a bit of difference really. Interestingly to me, he, as a former Marine, and two of his sons who are also military vets do support Gays being allowed to serve their country in the armed forces.
Also, Mike, remember that alot of things were out of the mainstream at one time in this country that are now accepted as a “normal” part of life.
Rome Again
Is THAT why right-wing extremists are trying to ruin this country with a dominionist agenda now, since they won’t be able to do it later?
Mike
“Also, Mike, remember that alot of things were out of the mainstream at one time in this country that are now accepted as a ânormalâ part of life.”
Yes.
But is that always a good thing?
Rome Again
DG, if you study some of the writings of the Forefathers, you’ll find it wasn’t just to secure the right to practice a religion and keep it safe from government; it was also (and probably more importantly) meant to stop religion from overriding government, something we have happening right now.
I refer you to James Madison:
For more enlightened reading on the role of religion in government that our Forefathers were concerned about, try reading the quotes on Separation of Church and State (and pay particular attention to Jefferson’s opinion of “the ecclesiastes”). But for a teaser, I give you these from Thomas Jefferson:
Rome Again
Also remember that gay activity was accepted as normal behavior by Grecians and Romans many centuries ago as well. Homosexuality was both accepted and popular before it became unacceptable and unpopular. The Christian religion is mainly responsible for that. Now many people are seeing that some passages of the Christian book simply don’t ring true, and the old mores are coming back as a result.
I might agree with the position that homosexuality is wrong if the writers of the Bible had done a better job of keeping their words straight. Instead, I see a book that has disjointed scriptures claiming opposite points that contradict. I then look to science and what do I see? I see that animals are homosexual too. Gee, what a surprise.
John S.
The Bible is intentionally set up this way. That is really the difference between the Old and New Testaments. One is pre-messianic law that is the cornerstone of the Jewish faith, while messianic laws make up the foundation of Christianity.
The two can exist together harmoniously, if one pays close attention to the specific areas where messianic laws specifically trump pre-messianic laws. But that’s an entirely different discussion…
metalgrid
Mr. Rome Again, since you are so interested in government and religion, perhaps this article by Jon Rowe maybe one that would interest you: http://positiveliberty.com/2005/07/what-kind-of-religion-ought-to-support-liberal-democratic-government.html#more-524
I found the punchline of it rather hilarious:
If the religious right fully understood the implications of Adamsâs notion of government endorsing âthe right kindâ of Christianity, theyâd probably jump on board with the ALCU in calling for a complete âSeparation of Church and State.â
Enjoy.
Rome Again
I have paid attention to it and I still don’t buy it. For someone to buy that they can co-exist together is to say that they believe the covenant God made with Israel was broken and he replaced it with a new covenant with Christians. I don’t think God is that sloppy, and he states in the Old Testament that he would never sacrifice Israel:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
‘Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. No more shall every man teach his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more.’
Judging by the above, the “new covenant” with Christians (which Paul established) is wrong. Paul stated that since Israel failed God, God broke the covenant with Israel and replaced his chosen with Christians. God states otherwise. God also states that the New Covenant will not come until every man stops going around saying “Know the Lord” because those of the covenant will already know him. God also states he will forgive the iniquity of (who?) Israel and Judah (not Christians) whose fathers he made a covenant with when he took them out of Egypt.
Sorry, I don’t buy replacement theology, and I never will.
Chris Johnson
Funny- I heard about this one long ago.
My Mom is a school nurse at Estabrook, and one day I got a real earful about this guy. Yes, indeed, he was executing an elaborate plan and presenting demands he probably knew couldn’t be met. Why?
Because there is at least one lesbian couple with a child at Estabrook, and my Mom says they are very nice people. This fellow was demanding that the school make special rules prohibiting this child from mentioning her (his? I forget) family at home.
This was never a hypothetical situation. They’d have had to take that kid aside and say “You must not say anything about your moms…”. In Massachusetts. I don’t think so…
It would be interesting to consider all this IN a hypothetical situation, but this was not- is not. Those parents are already part of Estabrook and from what I hear they are doing nothing wrong and aren’t even remotely evangelistic. It’s this guy who’s out of line.
Defense Guy
To the politicians must not dig G-d in public crowd.
Do you think Thomas Jefferson spent so much time creating his own Bible, thinking and discussing politcal and religous issues and actually worshiping in church because he was trying to send some sort of secret coded message to the future that you should not act overtly religous as a political man?
Many of the founders were profoundly spiritual. What they were not is sheep.
Rome Again
thanks for the link metalgrid, I did enjoy it.
Rome Again
This I agree with, I would also agree that they didn’t feel the need to tell us how we should believe. They wanted to leave it up the each man’s own reasoning. This does not even mean that because they were spiritual that they were obviously Christians, in at least some cases they weren’t.
John S.
In this case, you are wrong. Paul did not establish the new covenant – Jesus did. That is why the old laws are referred to as pre-messianic (as in prior to the messiah):
Hebrews 12:24 – And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
And there are large swaths of the gospels where Jesus himself (or others) directly address the new covenant he is making, and how it affects the old laws:
Matthew 5:17 – Think not that I [Jesus] am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
John 1:17 – For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Matthew 9:17 – Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
(Incidentally, this scrpture is re-stated in every gospel for emphasis)
Like I said, you need to read these things more carefully. If your basis for understanding is entirely off, so shall be the conclusions you draw from them.
Davebo
What’s amazing John is that you continue to be suprised at being duped.
Over and over and over again.
Wrye
Hey hey, we’re the ones constantly demanding new content–John has to hurry to keep up. The man is entitled to a gut reaction, especially since he’s not shy about sober second thoughts.
Rome Again
Actually John S. I could prove otherwise (using different arguments from several sources, both Old Testament and New), but who am I to try to take you away from your belief? Go ahead and think otherwise, it’s no skin off of my back.
Alex Roberts
Ah yes! The media doing it’s purchased best to fan the flames of hate. My only hope is for a trick of fate and that man’s son turns out to be gay. He’ll of course blame it one society rather than be intelligent and accept it as a genetic reality.
His, “Wouldn’t the world get along just swell if everyone were only exactly like me, darn!”, attitude merely points out his ignorance and bigotry.
Prejudice comes in all shapes and sizes. Since hate mongering of jews and blacks outright is now frowned upon it’s o.k. to whip up nationalistic fervor ala Hitler against this minority group. When will Americans wake up to the fact that they are being manipulated into a state of fascism with an uncanny resemblence to the Nazi’s?
John S.
LOL
I daresay you could do such a thing because there is nowhere in the Bible that states that Paul established the new covenant.
Your thinly veiled sarcasm and attempt to ridicule (or discount) me only proves that you are unable to view the Bible as a piece of literature, as I do. It isn’t a matter of my beliefs, it is a simple analysis of what is written. That is the distinction many people have trouble making when discussing tenets of theological thought.
And while it may be no skin off your back to misconstrue the simple written word, I refer you to the very last passages in the Bible:
Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
It isn’t my belief, it’s just what is written.
Kimmitt
Um, isn’t it fairly widely accepted that the portion of the New Covenant which expands it to the Gentile population is very much due to Paul’s revelations?
John S.
Perhaps it may be in certain sects of Christianity. But that begs the question, where did this notion come from exactly?
While Paul certainly accomplished a great deal of missionary work, the harbinger (and fulfiller) of the new covenant was Jesus. His blood was what sealed the deal. I would be fascinated to see any passage from the Bible that proposes otherwise.
Bill L.
Defense Guy:
Jefferson was most likely a Deist (as were many of the founders), and he rarely attended church. You need to read the Danbury letter wherein Jefferson clearly states the need for a “wall of separation” between church and the govenment.
This can’t be a surprise coming from a group of people who partly left England to escape the oppressive combination of King George III’s rule and the Anglican church. Now we have our own King George. It’s that “circle of life” thing, but more ironic.
As for the whole Massachusettes diversity issue, I have a couple of questions.
The kids were apparently given “diversity bookbags,” which were then brought home, causing this little ruckus. If they were taken home, wouldn’t the parents have to be involved since most kindergardeners I know can’t read? I doubt teachers were stopping to point out that, unlike the Parker progeny’s mom, these two mommies prefer munching carpet to smoking pipe, so this can’t be a sex ed debate. Of course, seeing as the Parker family is purportedly very religious, maybe mommy doesn’t smoke at all, hence Mr. Parker’s misguided frustration.
If homosexuality is a moral choice, what’s the “up?” Why would someone choose it? The flood of warmth and tolerance from the Right? The chance to be shunned by family, friends, and church? Maybe it’s the desperate need to beaten nearly to death by your peers and left tied to a fence, only to die five days later ala Matthew Shepard. I can only assume that the gay community has a kickass brochure to overcome that prize package.
BenJCarter
So what, exactly, is wrong with a parent wanting to be notified when the school is going to offer material to students promoting same sex marriage as normal? I would hope that any request for notification made by a parent, made as strongly as this, would be honored. After all, are they the schools system’s children, or the parent’s?
If you don’t have kids, it’s hard to truly understand. Kind of like virginity and marriage, until you’ve been there, you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
FWIW, I strongly support the rights of homosexuals to marry.
Norah
It seems clear to me that Parker wanted to sue the school system from the start, and probably has a group trying to help him do it.
Yep…Article 8 Alliance.
John M. Burt
Defense Guy:
It’s separation, not “seperation”.
It’s religious, not “religous”.
Not meaning to cast any aspersions on your opinions (which are wrong-headed and ill-informed on their own merits), but your repeated and consistent misspellings are really grating.
metalgrid
Mr. BenJCarter,
If you actually did some research, you’d see that the book in question is about families: It depicts a family of, among others, a child of cohabiting females (who could just as well be a mother and a grandmother raising the kid), cohabiting males, divorced/single parent, adults who view their pets as their children, etc. It says nothing to the sexual practices of the adults. Even agreeing with Penn & Teller’s Bullshit show on ‘diversity’, I can’t really find anything offensive or wrong about a book that only recognizes that a variety of familial structures exist without passing any judgement on whether those structures are good, bad or ugly.
It is telling that these people view the acknowledgement of the existence of multiple familial structures as unacceptable. Something akin to: If you’re not like me, your existence should not be acknowledged.
Mike
The only thing that Mr. Parker did that was “wrong” was trying to exercise his right to be notified in advance when topics of human sexuality were discussed with his 5 year old. The arrest was clearly a scam on the part of the school board, if you read the email exchanges leading up the arrest.
Mr. Parker is the victim of a denial of his parental and state-guaranteed rights. Victims who have been denied their rights should be supported always, in all circumstances. That is why he should be supported. http://www.davidparkerfund.org/