No opting out of pro-gay school propaganda

[Jaybear]

does not follow.

Well he also made shrimp and pigs so tasty, but told us not to eat them.

Its a puzzler.

Wouldn't it be great if some one could talk to him, and find out what he was thinking?

[mtomm]

Weakness is not sin.

[frankenstein]

Weakness is not sin.

yes, that is the better way to state it.

weakness, that is to have a weakness is not an "abomination" nor is to have a weakness sin,

[toon]

If your child attends school in Vallejo, California, he will watch pro-gay propaganda videos whether you like it or not.

Forced by the ACLU to provide "mandatory diversity training" to students and faculty, the Vallejo Unified School District isnow showingall students "anti-bullying" films produced by a homosexuality affirming San Francisco group called GroundSpark. Among other topics, the films discuss same-sex relationships.

Read more:No opting out of pro-gay school propagandahttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=235989#ixzz1G46Kk7Pz

So has anybody yet posted a link to these allegedly pro-gay propaganda videos? I'm not going to take wnd's word on it, nor am I going to rely on JeffK's "summary" of what may or may not have been the videos and curriculum in question. In other wrods, I'm not goung to get bent out of shape wihtout seeing sufficient supporting facts.

That being said, I'm curious where people think this "opt out" line should be drawn. I believe that, at some point, if you choose to send your kids to a public school, you have to accept the curriculum. I suspect most would agree that allowing parents to opt their students out of sex ed makes sense. And I think most would also agree that students should not be able to opt out of core subjects like math, science, english, etc. But what about something like anti-bullying lessons? To me it seems like an important enough subject that it should be required. And I fail to see how an anti-bullying program that teaches kids not to bully others because of their sexual orientation is the least bit controversial. I understand here the allegation appears to be that this anti-bullying program was disguised sex ed, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

[Pahoran]

I haven't made any attempt to redefine the family.

No; you simply give aid and comfort to the enemies of all Godly people in their efforts to redefine the family.

I've asked two questions, both of which remain unanswered.

What, you mean these?

1. For what reasons are you opposed to homosexuality and how do you know that god endorses those reasons? No straight answer given.

Because there are a number of scriptural passages on the subject, and the message is entirely consistent throughout. "The men of Sodom were men of belial." And so they still are.

2. If LDS believe that God, through a living prophet, has declared homosexuality immoral, why don't more LDS espouse this view in public, instead of reverting to secular arguments? No straight answer given.

Are you really this thick? As you perfectly well know, such an approach would be immediately derailed into a discussion of our religious truth claims. And while that is a good missionary approach, we're not here trying to convert anyone. Rather, we are trying to establish common ground with other decent people in order to make a shared stand for decency. Making that stand dependent upon our unique religious claims would be counter-productive and divisive.

Is that why you would prefer we took that approach?

Reading John Shelby Spong helped me to understand the angry/passive-aggressive reactions that you and others display. I'm challenging religious authority claims, and entering into a rational discussion may reveal things with which you are uncomfortable. Anger never rises out of genuine commitment; it is always a product of threatened security.

It must be so nice to be so gosh-darned superior.

Your challenging of religious authority claims is entirely appropriate for someone who openly opposes the Church of Jesus Christ and rejects the authority of its leaders. In your case, it just shows the wolf hair and fangs hanging out from underneath your rather threadbare sheepskin rug.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

Couldn't help but notice the screaming irony of these two juxtaposed quotes (bold added):

we are trying to establish common ground with other decent people in order to make a shared stand for decency.

It must be so nice to be so gosh-darned superior.

Regards,

Pahoran

It must be nice to be so gosh-darned "decent."

Darin

[LDSToronto]

Are you really this thick? As you perfectly well know, such an approach would be immediately derailed into a discussion of our religious truth claims. And while that is a good missionary approach, we're not here trying to convert anyone. Rather, we are trying to establish common ground with other decent people in order to make a shared stand for decency. Making that stand dependent upon our unique religious claims would be counter-productive and divisive.

It is fashionable among many attempting to share our message to first seek common ground with those they desire to teach. That is a rather strange notion. Can you imagine a salesman attempting to convince you that his product is just like the one you are using? If he is right, why in the world would you want to change?

The message of the Restoration centers on the idea that it is not common ground we seek in sharing the gospel. There is nothing common about our message. The way we answer questions about our faith ought to be by finding the quickest and most direct route to the Sacred Grove. That is our ground. It is sacred ground. It is where the heavens are opened and the God of heaven speaks. It is where testimonies are born and the greatest truths of heaven are unveiled. It is of this sacred ground that we say, here we stand.

H.

[Pahoran]

Toronto,

I previously wrote:

Are you really this thick? As you perfectly well know, such an approach would be immediately derailed into a discussion of our religious truth claims. And while that is a good missionary approach, we're not here trying to convert anyone. Rather, we are trying to establish common ground with other decent people in order to make a shared stand for decency. Making that stand dependent upon our unique religious claims would be counter-productive and divisive.

And you respond by quoting:

It is fashionable among many attempting to share our message to first seek common ground with those they desire to teach. That is a rather strange notion. Can you imagine a salesman attempting to convince you that his product is just like the one you are using? If he is right, why in the world would you want to change?

The message of the Restoration centers on the idea that it is not common ground we seek in sharing the gospel. There is nothing common about our message. The way we answer questions about our faith ought to be by finding the quickest and most direct route to the Sacred Grove. That is our ground. It is sacred ground. It is where the heavens are opened and the God of heaven speaks. It is where testimonies are born and the greatest truths of heaven are unveiled. It is of this sacred ground that we say, here we stand.

I've got to hand it to you: that was clever.

Clever, as in cunning.

Brother McConkie was talking about missionary work: sharing "the message of the Restoration." I explicitly said that I was talking about something other than missionary work: taking a stand for decency with other decent people. People with whom we share common moral standards.

Standards that are not directly dependent upon accepting "the message of the Restoration."

Standards that all good people everywhere accept.

Standards that you reject.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It must be nice to be so gosh-darned "decent."

Darin

Well you'll never know, will you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

Brother McConkie was talking about missionary work: sharing "the message of the Restoration." I explicitly said that I was talking about something other than missionary work: taking a stand for decency with other decent people. People with whom we share common moral standards.

Standards that are not directly dependent upon accepting "the message of the Restoration."

Standards that all good people everywhere accept.

Standards that you reject.

Can I assume, then, that you are not acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ, or a member of the church, when you publicly declare your stance regarding these 'common moral standards'?

Are you, in fact, trying to hide who you are so that you don't have to defend the church's truth claims regarding these moral issues?

H.

[Daniel2]

Well you'll never know, will you?

Regards,

Pahoran

Please don't get this thread shut down, Pahoran.

Darin

[krose]

"There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define the family out of existence."

President Spencer W. Kimball 1980

Wow, I didn't remember Kimball being that paranoid. I used to think so highly of him. How was he unable to see the difference between an effort to destroy and an effort to be included?

Voting didn't suddenly become less important because women were allowed to do it. Likewise, my dad/mom/kids family doesn't become less of a family because of the inclusion of other family models. Exclusion of others doesn't help in the least.

[krose]

So has anybody yet posted a link to these allegedly pro-gay propaganda videos? I'm not going to take wnd's word on it, nor am I going to rely on JeffK's "summary" of what may or may not have been the videos and curriculum in question. In other wrods, I'm not goung to get bent out of shape wihtout seeing sufficient supporting facts.

No, but here is the story from a different source:

A school anti-bullying film has come under fire from a few parents and an anti-gay group in Vallejo, CA.

That

[Pahoran]

Can I assume, then, that you are not acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ, or a member of the church, when you publicly declare your stance regarding these 'common moral standards'?

You may assume whatever you please; but if you think your assumption is valid, you would be wrong.

Are you, in fact, trying to hide who you are so that you don't have to defend the church's truth claims regarding these moral issues?

No. I make no effort to hide my religious views.

Neither do I rub my views about essentially unrelated matters in other peoples' faces, knowing that they may become a distraction.

But here are two questions to which I have never received a straight answer, Toronto:

Since you are not acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ when you publicly oppose His Church and Kingdom, do you try to hide who you are so that people don't think they're getting mixed messages from the Church?

And do the Priesthood leaders who grant you a Temple recommend know that you oppose the Saviour's Church in this and other internet fora, or do you conceal that from them too?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Wow, I didn't remember Kimball being that paranoid.

There's nothing paranoid about it.

I used to think so highly of him. How was he unable to see the difference between an effort to destroy and an effort to be included?

How are you unable to see that sometimes "an effort to be included" may sometimes have the effect -- unintended or otherwise -- of destroying something?

In the 1860's, do you think the New England and western states could have claimed that they only wanted to be "included" in the Confederacy?

Voting didn't suddenly become less important because women were allowed to do it. Likewise, my dad/mom/kids family doesn't become less of a family because of the inclusion of other family models. Exclusion of others doesn't help in the least.

This same fallacy, repeated over and over, gets really tiresome. Can I suggest you look up fallacies of composition?

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

And do the Priesthood leaders who grant you a Temple recommend know that you oppose the Saviour's Church in this and other internet fora, or do you conceal that from them too?

Regards,

Pahoran

how nice of you to make a Temple worthiness judgment against Toronto and call him a liar.

-------------

as for what the definition of family is, the Courts used the term family to describe unrelated people living together in a group home type setting.

-------------

depending on what is said in the video I can understand wanting to "opt out". however, a video about treating people with respect and dignity need not use labels other than "human being".

[TAO]

Here guys, the actual video has been posted here:

It generally is inoffensive, however, I do think that some of the implications of the way their words are phrased are rather biased. Thus, I can see why parents are objecting - because the video doesn't just attempt to stop mean comments, it tries to say that the behavior is fine.

So yes, the parents should have a right to dismiss their children in this case.

[Mordecai]

...Wow, I didn't remember Kimball being that paranoid...

I don't think it's paranoia so much as an understanding that society is fragile. As you dilute the meaning of family, you undermine the principles of what makes a family work, introducing more dysfunction, neglect and abuse into society. As family values are destroyed, good parenting will become more and more scarce, ultimately resulting in a completely broken society. Give countries that reject family values a few hundred years, and I'll show you miserable and weak countries that eventually get overrun with foreign cultures (often tyrannical in nature) and/or get outright conquered.

[Pahoran]

how nice of you to make a Temple worthiness judgment against Toronto and call him a liar.

If Toronto is going to be truly madly deeply hurt by such things, then perhaps he shouldn't start playing that game, thus:

Can I assume, then, that you are not acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ, or a member of the church, when you publicly declare your stance regarding these 'common moral standards'?

Are you, in fact, trying to hide who you are so that you don't have to defend the church's truth claims regarding these moral issues?

I don't see you objecting to that....

as for what the definition of family is, the Courts used the term family to describe unrelated people living together in a group home type setting.

Thus proving the validity of President Kimball's concern. A definition that includes everything defines nothing, and the definition you've described has no meaning.

depending on what is said in the video I can understand wanting to "opt out". however, a video about treating people with respect and dignity need not use labels other than "human being".

The issue is not that some parents want to "opt out." The issue is that they have no freedom to do so. The People's Republic-style Political Re-education appears to be compulsory.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LDSToronto]

You may assume whatever you please; but if you think your assumption is valid, you would be wrong.

No. I make no effort to hide my religious views.

Neither do I rub my views about essentially unrelated matters in other peoples' faces, knowing that they may become a distraction.

This does appear to contradict earlier statements, like:

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.

and

As you perfectly well know, such an approach would be immediately derailed into a discussion of our religious truth claims. And while that is a good missionary approach, we're not here trying to convert anyone. Rather, we are trying to establish common ground with other decent people in order to make a shared stand for decency. Making that stand dependent upon our unique religious claims would be counter-productive and divisive.

Which really kind of fly in the face of something Steven C. Harper says, about teaching others the real reason that they need to understand the will of God:

Knowing God's will does not coerce anyone to do it. Knowing God's will enables persons to knowingly, of their own free will, obey or disobey it. Not knowing God's will means persons remain ignorant and cannot act in ways that please God except by accident

[LDSToronto]

If Toronto is going to be truly madly deeply hurt by such things, then perhaps he shouldn't start playing that game, thus:

Can I assume, then, that you are not acting as a disciple of Jesus Christ, or a member of the church, when you publicly declare your stance regarding these 'common moral standards'?

Are you, in fact, trying to hide who you are so that you don't have to defend the church's truth claims regarding these moral issues?

I don't see you objecting to that....

Pahoran, my line of questioning followed the line of argument. Yours did not. Nonetheless, I've answered your questions.

H.

[toon]

Here guys, the actual video has been posted here:

It generally is inoffensive, however, I do think that some of the implications of the way their words are phrased are rather biased. Thus, I can see why parents are objecting - because the video doesn't just attempt to stop mean comments, it tries to say that the behavior is fine.

So yes, the parents should have a right to dismiss their children in this case.

What's really disturbing is the implication that rats can marry mice.

Seems pretty tame. But I agree that some comments could be interpreted as condoning gay relationships -- not a strong endorsement, but nevertheless there. I agree parents should be able to opt their kids out, but I don't feel strongly about that and could certainly understand and respect the opinion that this is a mandatory part of the curriculum. I wouldn't opt my kids out, as it's pretty close to what I teach them in the home.

I think a better approach for parents who disagree with some of the film's implications would be to talk to their kids about these implications rather than shelter them completely. I suspeect the film is geared toward second and third grades, maybe older. We sometimes don't give kids that age enough credit. When my kids were that age, I hoped that they would be exposed to at least some views that were different than what they got at home.

[TAO]

What's really disturbing is the implication that rats can marry mice.

Seems pretty tame. But I agree that some comments could be interpreted as condoning gay relationships -- not a strong endorsement, but nevertheless there. I agree parents should be able to opt their kids out, but I don't feel strongly about that and could certainly understand and respect the opinion that this is a mandatory part of the curriculum. I wouldn't opt my kids out, as it's pretty close to what I teach them in the home.

I think a better approach for parents who disagree with some of the film's implications would be to talk to their kids about these implications rather than shelter them completely. I suspeect the film is geared toward second and third grades, maybe older. We sometimes don't give kids that age enough credit. When my kids were that age, I hoped that they would be exposed to at least some views that were different than what they got at home.

I agree, kids are pretty intelligent at that age. What I worry though, is that, if that becomes acceptable, more will be pushed. That is my worry indeed... =/

[LDSToronto]

I agree, kids are pretty intelligent at that age. What I worry though, is that, if that becomes acceptable, more will be pushed. That is my worry indeed... =/

'More' what?

H.

[TAO]

'More' what?

H.

LDSToronto, 100 years ago, the thoughts of gay civil unions was close to unthinkable.

We have that today.

Then, we have gay mairrages... when the civil unions passed... it was said gay marriages would not happen

They have passed in places.

There is a point where we have to say, 'no, we will not bend anymore'. Children Education, specifically in Kindergarten and Elementary School is that point for me. (Middle School is iffy, High School I'm not so worried about)

I do not intend to see the things mentioned in that other thread which a teacher suggested promoting certain subjects in the classroom, actually put into the classroom. I will fight it all the way. There is a point where you've got to say 'no'.