Gay Book Flap Erupts Again At Lexington School

[xoxoxoBruce]

Erm...I happen to *be* a parent.

Yes, but not that kid's parent. Would you want your kid taught "creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts", ie, Kansas? And have to pay for it.

Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Erm...I happen to *be* a parent.

Yes, but not that kid's parent. Would you want your kid taught "creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts", ie, Kansas? And have to pay for it.

Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world?

From where I sit, teaching creationism and homophobia (regardless of whether it's the Christian flavor or the Islamic brand) is teaching religion..fine in a private school, but no business of the government.

You can't teach reading (one of your R's) without books. I was taught to read from textbooks that had no black people in them...in the 1950's that was the norm. It did not serve me well in the "real world". (Actually I learned to read before I got to grade school, but that's another story)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You can't teach reading (one of your R's) without books. I was taught to read from textbooks that had no black people in them...in the 1950's that was the norm. It did not serve me well in the "real world".

That depends of what they're teaching. There's no reason for Dick & Jane to be escorted by Jamal. History books are quite another matter, however.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

There's no reason for Dick & Jane to be escorted by Jamal.

I disagree. I bet Jamal does too. Black people aren't just historical, I understand there actually are some still alive today.

I'd prefer black kids to not get a message that reading is only for white kids.

Do you have kids? There's no way you can educate them in literacy without exposing them to culture.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That depends of what they're teaching. There's no reason for Dick & Jane to be escorted by Jamal. History books are quite another matter, however.

There's no reason for Dick and Jane NOT to be escorted by Jamal, either. Jamal exists. Jamal Jr. may be sitting in that very classroom. Jamal is as human as everyone else.

So, I read Cinderella at age 7. I didn't run right out to find what she and Prince Charming did on their wedding night. And I might equally make the case that exposing children to the story of Cinderella encourages women to have an unhealthy dependency on men to come rescue them and for men to view themselves as rescuers.

If children are given a solid emotional and moral foundation at home, reading about Jamal or Cinderella or the two kings is not going to drive them into a life of depravity.

[Jordon]

Seven year olds do not need to learn about homosexuals, and no one has the right to override the wishes of their parents, no matter how enlightened they fancy themselves. This is the kind of thing that only serves to create a backlash against gay rights. Believe it or not, it is possible to be opposed to this kind of thing, or gay marriage, and not be a homophobe or wish all gays herded into concentration camps and gassed. That kind of shrill, frantic, knee jerk reaction just sets back their cause even more and slams the door on any kind of sincere discussion.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Jordon

Believe it or not, it is possible to be opposed to this kind of thing, or gay marriage, and not be a homophobe or wish all gays herded into concentration camps and gassed.

There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

There is no non-bigoted reason to oppose gay marriage.

That's exactly the hysterical attitude I mean, heterophobe.

Gays should come up with their own sacrament appropriate to their unique situation and stop trying to mimic a heterosexual sacrament by simply replacing "husaband and wife" in the ritual with whatever.

However, Civil Unions should be available to anyone.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Jordon

Seven year olds do not need to learn about homosexuals, and no one has the right to override the wishes of their parents,

There are gay parents, too...their wishes count as well. If you want your kids to receive education that comports with your religious beliefs, that's fine: send them to a private school.

But this is a *public* school. Anybody can go; everybody pays. Your beliefs don't get any more weight than anybody else's. You're not entitled to turn the curriculum into a fantasy land where things that you don't like don't exist.

You're entitled to believe in anything from the Invisible Guy in the Sky to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and live accordingly. But don't erase me and people like me from the public school library and then expect us to pay part of the bill.

[Jordon]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

But don't erase me and people like me from the public school library and then expect us to pay part of the bill.

Then certainly we need to include felching and fisting for seven year olds as well. We don't want anyone to feel marginalized or that their sexual practices are anything except completely normal.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Would you want your kid taught "creationism, homophobia and other equally wholesome precepts", ie, Kansas? And have to pay for it.

Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world?

Teaching bias and other social graces is not the same as teaching OF creationism, homophobia, etc. We were taught Darwinism. We were also taught of other theories such as creationism and spontaneous reproduction. Schools must introduce the concepts - which is not same a teaching the agenda.

I am an anti-communist. Therefore I don't want my kid to be taught about the USSR? That is nonsense. But that failed logic can easily be promoted by not defining a difference. Responsible schools must teach of what exists. That does not mean schools need teach how to murder. Just that murder does exist and what it is. Today, some could hype that into schools teaching how to commit Columbine. Therefore kids should never be taught what murder is?

Its unacceptable for a parent to deny children knowledge of what does exist. Denying that knowledge so can even make society ripe for hate crimes. There is a major difference between teaching how to and teaching of basic society realities. Some so fear that knowledge as to not know the difference.

[Deb]

Why can't we stick to the 3-Rs and leave social graces to the parents, churches and the real world?

That is a great idea!

Unfortunatly, some teachers have their own selfish agendas to promote.

[twentycentshift]

about the 3Rs-- this was a reading class. they are reading a book.