QUICK LINKS
Court Supports Pro-Gay Grade School Curriculum
We reported the controversy first in 2006 when Tonia and David Parker sued school officials after their son brought home a book from kindergarten that depicted a gay family. Joseph and Robin Wirthlin joined the suit after a second grade teacher in the same school district read the class a story about two princes falling in love.
Last Thursday a federal court spoke to the issue.
The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a judge that had ruled that the parents rights are not violated when children are exposed to these ideas in the Lexington, Mass. schools. (Read article.)
It seems ironic that this same school and most others would undoubtedly act quickly and decisively if one parent complained about "under God" in the pledge, some hint of creationism or intelligent design, or any number of other issues that are not so-called "progressive" issues.
The court said, "Public schools are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas or even participate in discussions about them."
Kindergartners are, of course, socially developed to the point where they can make those kinds of decisions.
Jeffery Denner, attorney for the parents, said, "I think this influences the way they [the kids] think in very very direct ways and becomes functionally indoctrinating them."
Essentially the court in ruling in favor of gay activism in curriculum, is saying that children in kindergarten through the first or second grade have the ability to discern these complex moral issues, which attack the traditional family and the beliefs of a majority of Americans and decide whether or not they believe them.
The word insanity comes to mind.
The court is saying that parents have two options. They can take their kids out of school while they continue to mandatorally pay taxes to the school or they can go through a politicized judicial process that is stacked against them.
Washington, and Oregon for that matter, seem fixated on following Massachusetts into the new world of gay marriage and the reengineering of society that will follow.
This is one more snap shot of your future if gay activists continue to dominate the political process in Washington State and Oregon.
You, with your vote and prayer for God to intervene, can make a difference.
God bless you.
_________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
20 Comments:
As a pastor, I am deeply appreciative of your blogs. I am cirrulating them to all of my influence circle. I hope others will do the same.Keep up the good work, Gary. God bless you.
Private school appears to be the only choice that will ensure the innocence of our kids in the classroom. Shame on anyone who wants to introduce sex of ANY kind to children that young.
Gary Gary Gary, acknowledging the facts is not activism.
Facts:
Citizens of any gender combination can license the contract of marriage in Boston.
Some citizens, for whatever reason, do so with spouses of the either gender and are quite happy and fulfilled about it.
Many studies have shown that married people are the same regardless of the gender of their spouse - same motives, same expectations, same problems, same joys. Any differences that exist are greater within those groups than there is between them.
Teaching facts is what schools do - trying to suppress facts is what you are advocating. Mentioning there are gay married couples is no more 'activism' than mentioning there are Christians.
The truth will set you free - give it a try.
Regarding: "Teaching facts is what schools do - trying to suppress facts is what you are advocating. Mentioning there are gay married couples is no more 'activism' than mentioning there are Christians."
"Facts"... They teach the THEORY of evolution.
"mentioning there are Christians"... I don't see my public school sending home books that depict a Christian family (a family, sure, but not a Christian family). Most kids don't have any kind of sex education until about 4-5th grade, so why should k-2 graders be introduced to homosexuality before they have even been introduced to sexuality?
-Chris
Oshtur Oshtur Oshtur, presenting kindergartners and 2nd graders with stories about homosexuality is not "acknowledging the facts" it is INDEED ACTIVISM.
The reason they expose little children to homosexual behavior is because they want to convert them before their parents have a chance to teach them differently. The reason they do it in the classroom is so the parents aren't around to challenge the subject before it is supplanted in their mind. This form of indoctrination is brainwashing.
Homosexuality cannot stand on its own merits, because it has none. In order to achieve their goals activists have to usurp the parents and force their way into the minds of babies before they have matured enough to recognize homosexuality for what it really is, a perversion.
If the government tried to force religious views upon children the way these schools do homosexual views, it would be considered a serious constitutional violation. The judges may have ruled on the side of the homosexuals this time, but they were wrong. Their actions have betrayed our constitution, and they will be removed from their seats of judgement.
James :)
Mimi,
Talking about same-sex parent headed families does NOT "introduce sex of ANY kind ".
If it did reading about Dick & Jane and their mom & dad would be introducing sex as well.
Jeff in Bellevue
"Gary Gary Gary, acknowledging the facts is not activism"
Its what facts are given and which ones are with held or denied is where the activitism comes in .
Hence I go to my college professors , three diffeent professors all giving lectures on FDR . ALL Historically correct FACT driven lectures . . One made the facts promote a great President in harsh times , one gave a lousy President in hard times , one gave a medicre President in harsh times .
The harsh times were all right on .
Your pre dettermined bias allows you to see the facts in the way you see it , as does Gary .
Your right , the Truth will set you free .
Chris,
Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which is so much more than just a fact. A scientific theory takes a set of facts, and attempts to explain and connect them. This scientific theory can then be tested, which yeilds yet more facts, which either confirm or refute the theory.
That you would point out the teaching of the "THEORY of evolution", as if this somehow refutes the contention that they teach facts in school, only serves to highlight the depth of your ignorance when it comes to science.
James,
Same-sex marriages exist in MA = FACT; children in the school in question have same-sex parents = FACT. Could you please point out where EXACTLY this alleged ACTIVISM is occuring?
Mick,
Great, lousy and mediocre are subjective and hence OPINION not fact. The facts would be FDR took action X or failed to take action Y, any conclusions about the merits of these actions is by definition OPINON, not FACT.
So now, with reference to the case at hand what are the facts?
1. Same-sex marriage is a legally valid form of marriage in MA.
2. Some children (including many at the school in question) are being raised by same-sex parents.
Can you provide a valid reason why the schools should be prohibited from presenting these facts to children?
If your response is becuase it violates their parents religious beliefs, then I assume you would have no issue with a school banning any and all mention or discussion of pork or pork products to avoid offending the religious beliefs of Muslim parents. If not, how do you justify the former, but not the latter?
-Jeff in Bellevue
Exactly what kind of 'sex' beyond someone being married is being taught Mimi, James and Chris?
Of course I'm from that 'Dick and Jane' generation where there was an opposite gender married couple that even when to a christian church in our first grade primers. And even though this 'activism' of opposite gender marriage was 'taught' I can't think of a single mention of sex - just as there is none when the FACT that there are same gender marriages is taught.
Oh and Chris please that you don't know a theories can be fact, it so undermines your case. Never heard of the 'theory of relativity', the 'theory of gravitation', the 'theory of electromagnetism', the economic 'theory of supply and demand'?
But all this does point out that to you marriage is just about sex - that seem to be saying you can't even think of a way to explain it to children without mentioning sex. Really?
If true you guys are telling your kids way more about sex than the schools are anyway and demonstrates that it is YOU who are the are the ones obsessed with the subject.
And James, again all your empty posturing shows is that you are without argument. Again the book teaches nothing but facts, i.e., some people marry same gender spouses, one you obviously can't address. People speak like you about race, religion, and ethnicity too. You want to pretend some people are inferior to you fine, just don't expect the schools to help you do it.
Most of the world looks a loving couple and sees the beauty of their loving, nurturing relationship.
Gary and his followers look at a loving couple and see genitalia. How pathetic.
Jeff...
"Evolution is a Scientific Theory, which is so much more than just a fact."
Really? MORE than a fact? Then why is it not the LAW of evolution or the FACT of evolution?
"A scientific theory takes a set of facts, and attempts to explain and connect them."
Key word: ATTEMPTS
The theory of creationism and/or intelligent design does the same thing, does it not?
"This scientific theory can then be tested, which yeilds yet more facts, which either confirm or refute the theory."
So, evolution has been 100% proven in your mind? Do you throw out all evidence that contradicts evolution or do you let the liberal indoctrinated evolutionary pseudo-scientists do that for you?
"That you would point out the teaching of the 'THEORY of evolution', as if this somehow refutes the contention that they teach facts in school, only serves to highlight the depth of your ignorance when it comes to science."
A fact is a fact. A theory is a theory. They teach both in school, allegedly as long as it doesn't have any religious connotations (though, if you ask me, a belief in the theory if evolution, is just as much a religious belief, involving faith in the believer, as any other theory of our origins).
-Chris
Vishanti...
"Oh and Chris please that you don't know a theories can be fact, it so undermines your case. Never heard of the 'theory of relativity', the 'theory of gravitation', the 'theory of electromagnetism', the economic 'theory of supply and demand'?"
Theories can be assumed to be nearly a fact, and treated as such, when they best describe a phenomenon and have not been disproven.
So, according to you, there's never been a single experiment of piece of data that's even one bit out of line with evolution, eh?
FYI: If we look at theories in history (and even "facts," in some cases), some have been proven. A theory is "this is our best guess as to how to explain it, given our current data." FYI, that's not a fact. In my handy thesaurus here on my desk, I have these entries:
fact:
-event
-certainty
-truth
-existence
theory:
-knowledge
-attribution
-supposition
Interesting how fact doesn't list theory as a synonym, nor does theory list fact and neither list the same words synonyms.
Regarding: "Never heard of the 'theory of relativity', the 'theory of gravitation', the 'theory of electromagnetism', the economic 'theory of supply and demand'?"
Yes, I've heard of all of them and more, but here's some thoughts for you on them:
-Theory of relativity: Has this been proven? Can you explain it to me. Is it completely unquestioned? Does it not have contention with certain theories of quantum mechanics? Has the theory perfectly stood for years or been modified. Will it ever be modified again? Is the theory of relativity a fact?
-Theory of gravitation: Sure, I deal with gravity everyday, don't you. Okay then, please explain to me how it works. If you ask an honest scientist how gravity works, he might give you some gravitational theory for an explanation, but if you ask him/her, "but are you sure about that? Is that really how it works?" I can almost guarantee what you'll get is "well... we're not really sure, but that's our best guess" or some similar response. If you've got it figured out, please share it with us.
-Theory of electromagnetism: Given this paragraph from wikipedia (not a definitive source, I know, but convenient for a quick copy/paste operation), does it sound to you like theories are ever changed? Could a theory ever be wrong or revised to be more correct (recalling that until it's 100% correct and not in conflict with any known data, it's still just a theory, not a fact):
"One of the peculiarities of classical electromagnetism is that it is difficult to reconcile with classical mechanics, but it is compatible with special relativity. According to Maxwell's equations, the speed of light is a universal constant, dependent only on the electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability of the vacuum. This violates Galilean invariance, a long-standing cornerstone of classical mechanics. One way to reconcile the two theories is to assume the existence of a luminiferous aether through which the light propagates. However, subsequent experimental efforts failed to detect the presence of the aether. In 1905, Albert Einstein solved the problem with the introduction of special relativity, which replaces classical kinematics with a new theory of kinematics that is compatible with classical electromagnetism."
-Theory of supply and demand: Yep, know about that one too. That's our best guess as how to explain the relationship of supply and demand, but can you tell me where interest rates are going to be tomorrow? Next month? Next year? Are there ever things that supply and demand don't account for? How about the emotion of buyers? Have you paid attention to the stock market at all lately? Can you accurately predict what it's doing to do? Are you willing to take out a 2nd mortgage on your house and use the "fact of supply and demand" to rake in the big bucks with "no risk" investments?
Don't try to mince words and confuse people by trying to tell them facts are theories and theories are facts. Each have their place in attaining knowledge and understanding the world around you, but they're not the same thing.
I look at same sex couples, and it saddens me! They are 'nice' people being caught up in a 'diviant' behaviour. We are praying for them!
Chris,
"The theory of creationism and/or intelligent design does the same thing, does it not?"
No, it doesn't. Read up on the Dover case, wherein a judge declared that ID is NOT SCIENCE, in fact the ID proponents in that case adimitted that any definition of science that would include ID would also include astrology, phrenolgy and other pseudo-scientific frauds. There are NO experiments being done to confirm or refute the "theory of creationism". ID doesn't tell us anything about the world around us. It is an explanation in search of supporting evidence (facts), not a explanation that explains the evidence (facts) found through experimentation.
"So, evolution has been 100% proven in your mind? Do you throw out all evidence that contradicts evolution or do you let the liberal indoctrinated evolutionary pseudo-scientists do that for you?"
Evolution has not been disproven. It is the tested theory that best explains the diversity and interelatedness of life.
As far as the "evidence" that allegedly contradicts Evolution, it has an apalling record of being resoundingy refuted every time it is examined.
Missing link- found there are countless examples of transitional fossiles.
Flagellar motor - ID claims it is irreducably complex, yet bacteria have been found with working secretory systems that is made up of parts of a flagellar motor. This illustrates the fact that the pronouncement of structures as Irreducibly Complex by ID proponents usually represents little more than a failure of imagination on the ID part. Just because something doesn't work as motor without all its parts doesn't mean that it couldn't serve some other purpose, which could cause it to get passed on changed through Evolution.
As for your contention that Evolution is just as much a religious belief as creationism, hogwash. Creationism starts with the story, not with observable fact. It is knowledge allegedly handed down from on high, not derived from personl effort and observation. Moreover, unlike a religious belief, The theory of evolution is constantly being tweaked and adjusted as new facts arise.
What really bothers me about ID is the complete lack of intellectual curiosity it shows. They find something and claim "Aha! this structure is irreducibly complex because I can't personally envision a way that it would work without all of its parts, there for they must have been designed" then, except for the preening and gloating, they feel their "scientific" enquiry is complete. To my mind, were ID an actual science, the next questions to ask are:who are what is this designer? What does this design tell us about this designer? What predictions can we make and then verify through experimentation based on this knowledge?
These are the type of questions that Scientists ask upon finding new information. ID asks none of these, attempts no preditions about what further study will find. In short, ID simply isn't science.
Jeff in Bellevue
Wow! Quite a red herring response - I guess the actual content of my reply concerning the blog entry wasn't as approachable.
Anonymous, you're missing the point - we teach many 'theories' as facts something you obviously didn't understand with the '"Facts"... They teach the THEORY of evolution' comment.
The word 'theory' in science does not mean it is all speculation (a common layman misunderstanding) but rather that it acknowledged to either be not fully demonstrated or doesn't yet explain all known instances.
In that regard all of our knowledge is 'theory' because we don't know everything about everything but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. There are still facts, there are still theories that are facts.
So discarding the red herring distraction hopefully we can agree that these are facts and not theories:
- Law-abiding citizens of all gender combinations can marry in Boston.
-Law-abiding citizens do end up marrying someone of the same gender.
- It is appropriate for children to know that people do marry.
Facts, pure and simple.
Jeff, and/or Vishanti,
Would either of you be willing to admit that evolution, as sound a theory as you think it might be, could be wrong?
Would either or both of you be able to firmly state that there isn't a God and there's no way that things were created, as opposed to evolved?
I'm just trying to gauge whether your minds are completely closed to the possibility of you being wrong (instead of the people of faith around you), or if you're willing to consider the possibility that creation might be right and evolution might be wrong.
Regarding these comments...
"... hopefully we can agree that these are facts and not theories ..."
"- Law-abiding citizens of all gender combinations can marry in Boston."
Can we also agree that that wasn't always the case? Can we agree that law have been passed before and some have been repealed? Does that not imply that just because there's a law that permits or disallows something that doesn't inately imply that the law is "right" (morally, ethically, etc)?
"-Law-abiding citizens do end up marrying someone of the same gender."
In recent years, yes that is true in some places, but likewise, if some states decided that stealing was no longer illegal, that wouldn't make it the right thing to do or the right thing to teach our children. In some countries, it's legal host child pornography web sites and in some countries it's legal to use whatever kinds of drugs you want, and in some cultures, the person who is kind and caring and compassionate is looked at as an idiot because he lets people get over on him, but none of that implies these actions or beliefs are right for people or good for society.
"-It is appropriate for children to know that people do marry."
I agree, but the question is whether marriage is marriage when it's between homosexuals, or is that a deviant behavior or a psychological disorder. If it is, then, while it does still occur, I don't think it's right to force our kids at such an early age to be indoctrinated into believing that it's a perfectly normal part of sexuality. We don't teach kids in 2nd grade that it's okay to steal or lie. If you want to teach the kids facts, then prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is perfectly normal, is just as good/health as heterosexual relations, and that it is a good a positive direction for society as a whole to embrace.
-Chris
[b]Would either of you be willing to admit that evolution, as sound a theory as you think it might be, could be wrong?[/b]
Of course it could be wrong - our entire existence could be some sort of 'Matrix' style simulation designed to deceive as speculative fiction and myth has proposed for hundreds of years.
Its just there is no indication that is indeed the case so although it is possible, the actually probability is astronomically low.
[b]Would either or both of you be able to firmly state that there isn't a God and there's no way that things were created, as opposed to evolved?[/b]
Well first I note you are gunny sacking suppositions there - our founding father Deists thought there was a God Creator but that evolution was its tool - that it created the universe and has not directly interfered with it since the moment of its creation. Such a Creator is entirely possible - our mere human physicists have speculated that we will be able to make our own universes if we choose in the future. But such 'gods' are not the Jehovah, Odin, or Allah of myth. its as likely that I'm god and choose to forget as any of these obvious mythologized father figures.
[b]I'm just trying to gauge whether your minds are completely closed to the possibility of you being wrong (instead of the people of faith around you), or if you're willing to consider the possibility that creation might be right and evolution might be wrong.[/b]
Could all the evidence for evolution (the expected genetic drifts, the tell-tale genetic trails across species and even phylum) be the result of some trickster pan-dimensional being intent on deception? Sure, like I answered in the first part but there is NO evidence to indicate there is such a being and no need to assume one to explain the universe as it exists. There might be invisible pink unicorns too but why assume there is such a thing without evidence to support it?
[b]Can we also agree that that wasn't always the case? Can we agree that law have been passed before and some have been repealed? Does that not imply that just because there's a law that permits or disallows something that doesn't inately imply that the law is "right" (morally, ethically, etc)?[/b]
Well actually I believe humans naturally marry and that the contract called marriage is just acknowledging it - the state can no more make someone 'married' than they can make them 'smart' or 'tall' by legal decree. But in the context of the contract yes it is a recent change but regardless they still can now license the contract for their marriages regardless of the gender of their spouse.
[b]In recent years, yes that is true in some places, but likewise, if some states decided that stealing was no longer illegal, that wouldn't make it the right thing to do or the right thing to teach our children... but none of that implies these actions or beliefs are right for people or good for society.[/b]
But it doesn't imply they are either and since we live in a nation defined by laws where ALL law-abiding citizens can expect equal treatment under the law whether you like or dislike how some other law-abiding citizens are is not something that can be used to limit what is taught in the schools to the exclusion and detriment of these law-abiding citizens.
[b]I agree, but the question is whether marriage is marriage when it's between homosexuals, or is that a deviant behavior or a psychological disorder.[/b]
Show that it is then... problem is you can't. Again common sense tells us that if attraction to males and females is genetically based in other animals it most likely is in the human animal. Every man has every single type of gene and chromosome that a woman has - ergo either gender is just as genetically capable of being sexually and matrimonially attracted to men. And women have all the chromosomes except one and animal model studies show that much of the 'attracted to women' behaviors are on the commonly shared chromosomes. Same gender attraction is a normal variant like left-handedness (another trait also once considered deviant, evil and 'sinister'.)
Empirical studies show that all people marry for the same reasons, behave within the marriage the same, and even bicker about the same things regardless of the gender of their spouse.
As to proving its 'normal' this is America - all people are considered equal in rights unless its proven otherwise. its up to you to show that children knowing about same gender affection will in some way harm them. Will it make them 'gay'? No, no indication that acceptance or persecution changes the relative % of same gender attracted people in the general population. Is there a single solitary thing that gay people do that many many many more times straight people don't also do? Nope there too.
No your only support for this harm is a purely faith-based belief that other American citizens have a RIGHT not to share. Whether someone thinks left-handed people are evil or not I expect a totally secular public school to acknowledge them and even give them left-handed scissors as needed. Similarly I expect all legally married couples to be considered married and that it is entirely appropriate to have them represented in schools if marriages are to be presented at all.
Chris,
"Would either of you be willing to admit that evolution, as sound a theory as you think it might be, could be wrong?"
Is it possible that some new evidence could surface that would refute evolution? Of course, but it has yet to be found. At this point all we have is ID proponents picking at the margins and once their imagination fails them claiming "Aha! Biological structure X is irreducibly complex, therefore evolution is a lie!". Only to be proven wrong by scientific research, which invaribly finds a subset of the structure in question which serves some other purpose that natural selection could act on.
Now, are you willing to admit that creationism/ID, as good a theory as you think it is, could be wrong?
"Would either or both of you be able to firmly state that there isn't a God and there's no way that things were created, as opposed to evolved?"
The question of the existence or non-existence of a diety is irrelavent to the question of whether or not evolution is true. Even ID proponents admit that micro-evolution is a fact, else we wouldn't have drug-resistant bacteria and viruses. Again, all I can tell you is that all available evidence points toward evolution explaining the biological diversity of our planet. Further, the theory of evolution allows us to make predictions based on this theory and scientific experimentation, particularly with genetic mapping of late, has consistenly confirmed these predictions and further supported the theory. Creationism/Provides us with no similar mechanism to make and verify predictions about the world around us. It relies on revelation, allegedly handed down from on high, rather than the cognative effort of the human mind.
Again, are you able to firmly state that all life was created as it currently exists and evolution does not take place?
Are you completely closed minded? Are you willing to entertain the idea that evolution might be well supported and the best available explanation for biodiversity? Are you willing to examine the evidence with a truly open mind, or will you reflexively protect your religious dogma and reject uncomfortable facts out of hand?
"I agree, but the question is whether marriage is marriage when it's between homosexuals, or is that a deviant behavior or a psychological disorder."
This question has been answered in MA, it is marriage, legally indistinguishable from that of a man and a woman. Your, or any other person's personal prejudices don't change that fact.
-Jeff in Bellevue
"This question has been answered in MA, it is marriage, legally indistinguishable from that of a man and a woman. Your, or any other person's personal prejudices don't change that fact."
So, because one state said it is... it is?
How about we take a majority vote of what states think about it and go with that as our answer.
A number of other states disagree, and "Your, or any other person's personal prejudices [even those of people in MA] don't change that fact."
-Chris
After reading the posts on this one, I am left with a few questions.
First, are not all men created equal and endowed with the same rights?
Second, Does not the constitution recognize a separation of Church and State?
Post a Comment
<< Home