No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda

[Jason]

One more reason to be glad I'm not living in Canada, I guess.

Here there was recently a supreme court decision that those guys who protest at the funerals of dead servicemen (saying it's our tolerance of homosexuality that caused their deaths) can continue to do so. A hateful message given with disgusting timing to an emotionally bereft family, but also authentic protected free speech. After all, it's not tolerance if we like what they are saying.

We can have Nazis in our videogames too (at least, the videogames not intended for a German export).

[LDSToronto]

Here there was recently a supreme court decision that those guys who protest at the funerals of dead servicemen (saying it's our tolerance of homosexuality that caused their deaths) can continue to do so. A hateful message given with disgusting timing to an emotionally bereft family, but also authentic protected free speech. After all, it's not tolerance if we like what they are saying.

The thing I don't understand about this *entire* debate is why American LDS hide behind the First Amendment. The original issue is about teaching kids tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, and it quickly turned into a debate about what people are allowed to say.

Here's the thing. I'm allowed to view porn. The law says I can. I'm allowed to drink beer. The law says I can. But I never, ever hear fellow mormons using the law as an excuse to watch porn or drink beer. Yet, bring up homosexuality, and invariably, American LDS hightail it to the First Amendment.

Homosexuality is a moral issue for LDS, not a legal issue! Stand behind your moral issues, people! Stop hiding behind the First Amendment! If you feel it's OK to tell gay kids in schools that they are wrong for being gay, stand up and state your moral position. And if you think that it is wrong to tell gay kids in schools that they are wrong for being gay, stand up for that too!

Just stand for something, stop cowering behind the law, cowards!

H.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

If ever there was a modern organization of moral Gaddianton robbers, this is it. Their modus operandi is to separate the parents from the process of sex education because their enemy is the Gospel of Jesus Christ which many parents still believe to this day despite the concerted assault against it from this direction.

Parents can never be separated fro the process of sex-ed unless parents allow themselves to be separated.

H.

Sure, if the parents speak out against homosexuality, saying it is an abomination before God, they will of course be separated from their children, and then the state will have complete and free reign. Your Utopia looks more and more like Aldous Huxley everyday. That brave new civil world you are building up there.

[Jeff K.]

The thing I don't understand about this *entire* debate is why American LDS hide behind the First Amendment. The original issue is about teaching kids tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, and it quickly turned into a debate about what people are allowed to say.

Here's the thing. I'm allowed to view porn. The law says I can. I'm allowed to drink beer. The law says I can. But I never, ever hear fellow mormons using the law as an excuse to watch porn or drink beer. Yet, bring up homosexuality, and invariably, American LDS hightail it to the First Amendment.

Homosexuality is a moral issue for LDS, not a legal issue! Stand behind your moral issues, people! Stop hiding behind the First Amendment! If you feel it's OK to tell gay kids in schools that they are wrong for being gay, stand up and state your moral position. And if you think that it is wrong to tell gay kids in schools that they are wrong for being gay, stand up for that too!

Just stand for something, stop cowering behind the law, cowards!

H.

We don't hide behind the first amendment, we realize that without it we as Latter-Day Saints, or anyone, can be reduced to a desitute freedom where our rights will be dribbled out to us in small amounts by the state, and the state will pat us and tell us how grateful we should be for their largess.

It is you that hide and create false civility without allowing open debate. But then Canada never really fought for those freedoms against a powerful state.

[Jason]

Just stand for something, stop cowering behind the law, cowards!

I don't follow you. How are we "hiding" behind the law, exactly?

[LDSToronto]

I don't follow you. How are we "hiding" behind the law, exactly?

In this case, when talking about the sex education curriculum in schools, don't bring up the First Amendment. Ever. Rather, focus on the moral stance. I would find it refreshingly honest if, for once, an LDS would stand up and say, "God is against homosexual behaviour, and thus, we should tell kids who are practicing homosexual behaviour that they are wrong".

That's it. Don't do this - "The First Amendment protects our right to protest homosexuality". Big deal! Not interesting! What's interesting to explore is your own belief, not a law that protects your belief.

H.

[LDSToronto]

Sure, if the parents speak out against homosexuality, saying it is an abomination before God, they will of course be separated from their children, and then the state will have complete and free reign. Your Utopia looks more and more like Aldous Huxley everyday. That brave new civil world you are building up there.

It's hard for me to answer this, Jeff, because my soma-induced happy state won't let me think bad thoughts. One thing I'm taught at church, (you know, the Utopia that you are from) is that parents can teach their kids correct morals in the home, that wonderful, happy place that shelters mormons from the sins of the world!

Soooooo dreeeeeamy!

H.

[blueadept]

In this case, when talking about the sex education curriculum in schools, don't bring up the First Amendment. Ever. Rather, focus on the moral stance. I would find it refreshingly honest if, for once, an LDS would stand up and say, "God is against homosexual behaviour, and thus, we should tell kids who are practicing homosexual behaviour that they are wrong".

That's it. Don't do this - "The First Amendment protects our right to protest homosexuality". Big deal! Not interesting! What's interesting to explore is your own belief, not a law that protects your belief.

H.

The motto Americans live by is "I may not like what you say, but I'm going to defend your right to say it". It's ingrained into our culture and there is not much you can do about it ............. thank goodness

[Jason]

In this case, when talking about the sex education curriculum in schools, don't bring up the First Amendment. Ever. Rather, focus on the moral stance. I would find it refreshingly honest if, for once, an LDS would stand up and say, "God is against homosexual behaviour, and thus, we should tell kids who are practicing homosexual behaviour that they are wrong".

That's it. Don't do this - "The First Amendment protects our right to protest homosexuality". Big deal! Not interesting! What's interesting to explore is your own belief, not a law that protects your belief.

H.

I still don't follow. I thought the whole "you poor Canadians don't know what free speech is" bit was an aside to the curriculum thing.

[LDSToronto]

It is you that hide and create false civility without allowing open debate. But then Canada never really fought for those freedoms against a powerful state.

I just wrote a really foul-mouthed post, but decided to erase it, and ask this:

Why is it OK for Jeff to spew this ignorant slop on this board? Do you all feel the same way as him - anti-Canadian? I get this occasionally around here - I must be liberal because I'm Canadian, I must be pro-gay because I'm Canadian, I must be a leftist because I'm Canadian...

I AM Canadian, and I'm damned proud to be a Canadian, as proud as anyone here is to be an American, or a Brit, or anything else you may be. And while Canadians may be known for being polite, and neutral, do *not* think for one moment that you can insult my homeland, or my people, or my history.

H.

[LDSToronto]

The motto Americans live by is "I may not like what you say, but I'm going to defend your right to say it". It's ingrained into our culture and there is not much you can do about it ............. thank goodness

I don't want to take it from you, just want to hear about your moral stance.

H.

[Jason]

Do you all feel the same way as him - anti-Canadian?

No, not really. I have a good friend who is Canadian and I spent my honeymoon in Vancouver. Jeff is going a bit far in my opinion.

It's true I don't like some aspects of Canadian government, however.

I get this occasionally around here - I must be liberal because I'm Canadian, I must be pro-gay because I'm Canadian, I must be a leftist because I'm Canadian...

Well you do appear to be liberal, pro-gay, and leftist, at least compared to many on the board, and it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to think that living in Toronto (a rather liberal, pro-gay, and leftist city when compared to, say, Salt Lake) has something to do with it.

[krose]

... Toronto (a rather liberal, pro-gay, and leftist city when compared to, say, Salt Lake)...

If you had said "Provo" instead, the statement would have more impact and accuracy. Salt Lake is a pretty liberal place, with a thriving gay community. We did happily elect Rocky Anderson... more than once.

My gay friend who now lives in SoCal is planning to move back to SLC because of how "depressingly conservative" his area is.

[Jason]

If you had said "Provo" instead, the statement would have more impact and accuracy.

I just didn't want to play to the obvious extreme.

We did happily elect Rocky Anderson... more than once.

To your everlasting shame (though I work in Salt Lake I have never lived in the actual city, so you can't blame Rocky on me).

[frankenstein]

as for the "morality" of wearing a shirt "Be Happy, Not Gay" I do not see anything immoral about it. I do not see how said shirt would violate any teaching of the LDS Church.

[Pahoran]

Yet homosexual behavior as normal and acceptable in society is contrary to LDS teachings and doctrine.

And I believe those teachings and doctrines are false.

For once, BCSpace is right about LDS teachings and doctrine. The Church correctly teaches that homosexual behaviour is morally wrong.

Your position of public, active opposition to this teaching is perfectly acceptable for a non-member of the Church; but all faithful, believing Latter-day Saints who genuinely sustain the leaders of the Church also, naturally, uphold this teaching.

All genuine "men of God" are unanimous in upholding revealed moral standards. Those who want to cravenly compromise with the world on this matter may have other good aspects to their character, but in this, they are absolutely wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Parents can never be separated fro the process of sex-ed unless parents allow themselves to be separated.

H.

Not quite. I know a teacher who was specifically instructed NOT to teach how to use a condom to a grade 5 class. She went ahead and did it anyway. Parents protested. Nothing was done to the teacher on that matter. As far as I know she did the same thing the following year. As long as a school district either dictates something must be taught or ignores when taught, teachings that parents do not want taught in school, the parents have been separated from the process. If notices are not required to be sent home to announce when sex ed is to be taught in class, then parents don't even have the chance to pull their kids out for a 'sick' day.

Parents can be separated from the process of choosing what is to be taught in the school. Their only choice then is whether to ignore what happened or to provide counterbalance with teachings at home.

[Jeff K.]

I just wrote a really foul-mouthed post, but decided to erase it, and ask this:

Why is it OK for Jeff to spew this ignorant slop on this board? Do you all feel the same way as him - anti-Canadian? I get this occasionally around here - I must be liberal because I'm Canadian, I must be pro-gay because I'm Canadian, I must be a leftist because I'm Canadian...

I AM Canadian, and I'm damned proud to be a Canadian, as proud as anyone here is to be an American, or a Brit, or anything else you may be. And while Canadians may be known for being polite, and neutral, do *not* think for one moment that you can insult my homeland, or my people, or my history.

H.

But it is true. In our nations there is sometimes a feral argument by both sides. Both sides argue and in the end both sides ensure that they can speak freely. Canada does not allow such free speech. If the state deems such speech hateful, well than, even if you don't think it is, the state can fine you, arrest you and take away your right to say what you feel is true. Whether it is a small hateful church at military funeral services, Nazi's who march in through a Jewish community, or missionaries who knock on your door. Canadiennes now depend on the state to tell them what is hateful and what is not. The state will decide whether speech is hate based or not and therefore whether or not saying something il illegal or not. The most unthreatening speech, if deemed hateful, can indeed be considered a jailable offense. Mormons won't let women hold the priesthood? Get the right party in power and advocating for male priesthood becomes hate speech. There is no mechanism above the political machine that protects or acts as a guard against an over reaching government.

The United States, in its revolution against the United Kingdom saw the free speech issue as one of great concern. Niether kings nor parliaments should be able to direct what can and cannot be said in the public square. Canada, which has never sent its men to death for the ideal cannot understand the price paid and therefore may not value it at its true level.

Be proud you are a Canadian. absolutely, your nation has done many fine things, including Juno beach for the liberation of a continent. But you cannot tell me you hold the freedom of speech to the same level. I can see a day when Mormon doctrine may indeed have to be whispered in your nation since no mechanism exists to protects its utterance. And that the term abomination against a certain lifestyle will itself be considered hateful, even as God has said it. Your own terms on the matter, civility, acceptance, normal, already show the influence of the state upon a people who cannot, dare not argue against it. After all, if you tell someone in a street corner that you are not in favor of gay marriage, you are in fact spewing a hateful view. All a judge has to say is "in my view".... and your done.

Religious speech has absolutely limited protection in Canada and England. And while sometimes it gets ugly, it is protected and carefully guarded in the US.

I trust this makes the issue clear.

[Jeff K.]

Not quite. I know a teacher who was specifically instructed NOT to teach how to use a condom to a grade 5 class. She went ahead and did it anyway. Parents protested. Nothing was done to the teacher on that matter. As far as I know she did the same thing the following year. As long as a school district either dictates something must be taught or ignores when taught, teachings that parents do not want taught in school, the parents have been separated from the process. If notices are not required to be sent home to announce when sex ed is to be taught in class, then parents don't even have the chance to pull their kids out for a 'sick' day.

Parents can be separated from the process of choosing what is to be taught in the school. Their only choice then is whether to ignore what happened or to provide counterbalance with teachings at home.

Parents can also be forced to allow their children to attend since classes on diversity are "not" considered sex education classes and therefore cannot be opted out of. While they may not speak directly of the sexual act, they can indeed advocate for the lifestyle in California and under the law parents do not have a right to "opt out" of such classes. In effect separating the parent from what is being taught.

[blackstrap]

While I can agree with Jeff about the speech laws in Canada being draconian compared to the US. I must strongly disagree with his statement that Canadian have never fought a powerful foe. Canadian participation in both world wars was the equal of the US as a percentage of the population who served and as a percentage of those serving who died.Similarly in Korea.Jeff may not have noticed the Canadians who are currently fighting and dying in Afghanistan but Canadians have!

Don't get me wrong.I am very grateful to the US for the support and protection that has been afforded much of the world since WW 2 . Then again there are many counties that might use a rest from that "protection".

Canadians have fought and died alongside Americans with bravery and honor(honour) in defense of freedom in many lands. We take our role as peacekeepers very seriously and are often left to clean up the mess created by others.

I request that Jeff at least rethink his statement after a little research on Canadian War History,or perhaps edit the offending remark to better reflect the truth.

[Jeff K.]

I never said they did not fight a powerful foe. Indeed if you look at my reference to Juno beach you would know that. I said they never really died for the ideal of free speech so inherent in our nation. You may want to read again.

[blackstrap]

As quoted in post#60, how was I supposed to interpret it?

[USU78]

While I can agree with Jeff about the speech laws in Canada being draconian compared to the US. I must strongly disagree with his statement that Canadian have never fought a powerful foe. Canadian participation in both world wars was the equal of the US as a percentage of the population who served and as a percentage of those serving who died.Similarly in Korea.Jeff may not have noticed the Canadians who are currently fighting and dying in Afghanistan but Canadians have!

Don't get me wrong.I am very grateful to the US for the support and protection that has been afforded much of the world since WW 2 . Then again there are many counties that might use a rest from that "protection".

Canadians have fought and died alongside Americans with bravery and honor(honour) in defense of freedom in many lands. We take our role as peacekeepers very seriously and are often left to clean up the mess created by others.

I request that Jeff at least rethink his statement after a little research on Canadian War History,or perhaps edit the offending remark to better reflect the truth.

G-d Save Our Queen,

And Heaven Bless

The Maple Leaf Forever!

[Jeff K.]

Backstrap:

The context being the subject matter, freedom of speech. The text itself could have been misinterpreted because only a portion of the text was used.

Toronto stated we hid behind the first amendment as cowards.

The thing I don't understand about this *entire* debate is why American LDS hide behind the First Amendment. The original issue is about teaching kids tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, and it quickly turned into a debate about what people are allowed to say.

Here's the thing. I'm allowed to view porn. The law says I can. I'm allowed to drink beer. The law says I can. But I never, ever hear fellow mormons using the law as an excuse to watch porn or drink beer. Yet, bring up homosexuality, and invariably, American LDS hightail it to the First Amendment.

Homosexuality is a moral issue for LDS, not a legal issue! Stand behind your moral issues, people! Stop hiding behind the First Amendment! If you feel it's OK to tell gay kids in schools that they are wrong for being gay, stand up and state your moral position. And if you think that it is wrong to tell gay kids in schools that they are wrong for being gay, stand up for that too!

Just stand for something, stop cowering behind the law, cowards!

To which I responded:

We don't hide behind the first amendment, we realize that without it we as Latter-Day Saints, or anyone, can be reduced to a desitute freedom where our rights will be dribbled out to us in small amounts by the state, and the state will pat us and tell us how grateful we should be for their largess.

It is you that hide and create false civility without allowing open debate. But then Canada never really fought for those freedoms against a powerful state.

LDS Toronto only supplied part of the entire quote and so it is easy to see how context could be lost.

[Jason]

As quoted in post#60, how was I supposed to interpret it?

He was basically saying that Canada never fought a war of independence, not that Canada never fought a war.