Would Mormons Ever Consider Gay-Related Anti-Bullying Curriculum?

[Daniel2]

In surprising news from Canada, the following memo was released on April 15th from the Assembly of Catholic Bishops in Ontario to the Ontario Catholic Education Organizations:

MEMORANDUM

To: Ontario Catholic Education Organizations

From: Archbishop Thomas Collins, President

Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario

Nancy Kirby, President, Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association

Subject: Enhancement of Caring for All Students in the Spirit of the Gospel

Date: April 15, 2011

One reason why Catholic schools have for many years been a source of strength for our local communities, our province, and our country, is that they are animated by a spirit of inclusivity and equity rooted in the Gospel. We believe that every person, young or old, is to be treated with reverence; we are called to see the face of Christ in each person we meet, and to act accordingly.

This is why each person must be welcomed with kindness, respect and compassion and why, for us, bullying is wrong under any circumstances, at any age.

There has been much discussion recently surrounding one dimension of this issue, bullying related to sexual orientation. As an enhancement of the existing resources to support all students, we encourage Catholic school boards in Ontario to provide the opportunity for students who wish to do so to gather to address this dimension of bullying. (bold added)

Guided by our faith, a committee that includes students, parents, trustees, educators, clergy and other members of our school community, working with the Institute for Catholic Education (ICE), will establish a framework for these groups, including a common name, to assist Catholic school boards with this anti-bullying initiative.

In addition, the committee will collect and share the best resources and practices that we have in our Catholic schools to combat bullying in any form and to be sure they are places of welcome according to the Gospel.

The committee will begin this work before the end of April, 2011. It is our hope that the initial results will be available to our school boards before the beginning of the next school year. In the meantime, we urge all members of our community to ensure that students are educated in a safe and caring environment that does not tolerate bullying or harassment of any kind and for any reason.

As a religious organization that disagrees with same-sex relationships, yet still recognizes and has decided to proactively promote and call for an educational curriculum that specifically mentions sexual orientation as an area that's suceptible to bullying in it's efforts to promote peace and respect, the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario have just earned tremendous respect, in my book.

I wonder if the LDS Church and it's members would ever recognize or promote such a need...

Darin

[BCSpace]

Replying to Would Mormons Ever Consider Gay-Related Anti-Bullying Curriculum?

They shouldn't. Maybe antibullying in general, but to make it gay specific lends unwarranted legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle choice.

[bluebell]

I can't think of an LDS who is in favor of allowing someone to be bullied because they are homosexual.

If the program focused on not bullying someone who was gay because bullying is wrong, and didn't focus on not bullying a gay person because being gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, i would certainly support it-very much so.

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

I doubt the Church will officially endorse such a move. But I have seen a move to toward more respectful treatment of our gay brothers and sisters.

[Daniel2]

...to make it gay specific lends unwarranted legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle choice.

I'm not sure that mentioning sexual orientation in anti-gay bullying curriculum "lends unwarrented legitimacy" to homosexual behavior or relationships. After all, it seems that a lot of sexual-orientation-related bullying behavior occurs based on the bully's perception that a student may be gay or lesbian, even when some have not been. So, it isn't even about legitimizing homosexual behaviors, so much as it is suspending bullying attitudes towards students who may even merely seem gay.

In addition, I'm not sure the idea that anti-bullying curriculum "lends unwarrented legitimacy" towards any behavior. For example, if a Christian or Muslim community was struggling with aggressive anti-Semitic bullying, mentionging the need to be kind to one's Jewish neighbors (by name) doesn't mean that the Christians or Muslims must accept or agree with Jewish teachings or beliefs as true or valid--it simply aims to teach bullies that aggressive behavior towards ideals that you don't personally subscribe to aren't appropriate.

My view,

Darin

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I general anti-bullying curriculum is sufficient. Do we really want to set a precedent for having a different curriculum for each group that may get bullied?

[Daniel2]

I general anti-bullying curriculum is sufficient. Do we really want to set a precedent for having a different curriculum for each group that may get bullied?

I agree that it'd be unrealistic to have completely separate curriculums for every group that is the target of bullying--but that isn't what's being suggested, by the Catholic Bishops. As their Memo suggests, they are recommending the addition of sexual orientationn "as an enhancement of the existing resources to support all students." As a new awareness emerges of an unfairly targeted minority group, especially one that results in high suicide rates, it seems logical to add them to existing curriculum (as in the case of the religious minorities I mentioned, earlier). It also seems reasonable to expect that anti-bullying curriculum would include some discussion about the reasons why students are bullied, including naming differences (such as religion, abled-ness, gender, economic status, national origin, and sexual orientation, or even perceived aspects of any of the above--among others, of course) to effectively allow students to discuss why others who are different shouldn't be the target of bullying.

Darin

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I agree that it'd be unrealistic to have completely separate curriculums for every group that needs bullied--but that isn't what's being suggested, by the Catholic Bishops. They are recommending the addition of sexual orientationn "as an enhancement of the existing resources to support all students." As a new awareness emerges of an unfairly targeted minority group, especially one that results in high suicide rates, it seems logical to add them to existing curriculum (as in the case of the religious minorities I mentioned, earlier).

Darin

Isn't the goal of anti-bullying campaigns to let kids know that picking on others, for whatever reason, is wrong? What about current anti-bullying curriculum does the gay advocacy crowd feel is lacking?

[Daniel2]

Isn't the goal of anti-bullying campaigns to let kids know that picking on others, for whatever reason, is wrong? What about current anti-bullying curriculum does the gay advocacy crowd feel is lacking?

I can't see how a curriculum that attempts to be "anti-bullying," without being allowed to address or discuss any specifics of the motivations behind bullies' actions, would be effective. That would be kind of like attempting to provide therapy for anger management by simply saying, "Don't be angry anymore!," without addressing any of the triggers of a loss of one's temper. Or addressing alcoholism by simply saying, "Stop Drinking!," without addressing any of the stresses that cause alcoholism. Or trying to address religious intolerance by simmply saying, "Don't Bully!," without acknowledging that religion's are different yet emphasizing the importance of allowing others of other Faiths to enjoy their freedom of religious belief. (or race, or gender, etc. etc. etc.) For a curriculum to be effective, it seems obvious that it needs to allow for discussion of differences, and that ignoring or surpressing any such discussion would be counter-productive to the goal of the curriculum, itself.

Your question would be just as applicable to the implementation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal. One might assume that all the military would need to impliment the new policy that allows gay and lesbian service members would be to simply say, "OK... everyone's allowed to serve in the miliary, now." But the military recognizes that simply saying, "Everyone's included and should be treated with respect" isn't going to change potentially problematic attitudes and behaviors towards those that are gay. Rather, the military has had to impliment a full program to repeal DADT, that includes specific information to increase understanding of LGB service members:

Marines trained on accepting gay recruits

Nothing wrong with 'hanging around' a gay bar, troops are told as part of training

The Associated Press

updated 2 hours 32 minutes ago 2011-04-28T15:22:11

SAN DIEGO — If a Marine spots two men in his battalion kissing off-duty at a shopping mall, he should react as if he were seeing a man and woman. If he turns on the television news to see a fellow Marine dressed as a civilian and marching in a parade with a banner that reads, "Support Gays and Lesbians in the Military!" he should accept it as a free right of expression.

Prescriptions for those possible scenarios are being played out at Marine bases as the military prepares to allow gays to openly serve, ending a 17-year-old policy commonly known as "don't ask, don't tell." Training for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines began early this year and is expected to finish by summer's end.

The repeal goes into effect 60 days after the president, defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that lifting the ban won't hurt the military's ability to fight.

"These changes are about policy," states briefing material for Marine instructors. "The policy is about adherence to orders and behavior, and not about beliefs."

The latest round of training material asks Marines to consider their reactions to a wide range of scenarios, from seeing a member "hanging around" a gay bar to hearing locker-room jokes from others who refuse to shower in front of gays. Members of the 1st Marine Logistics Group report to class Thursday at Camp Pendleton.

There is nothing wrong with "hanging around" a gay bar, the materials state. The officer who witnesses the loud locker-room banter aimed at gays and lesbians should remind the Marines any discrimination or harassment is inappropriate.

For those who oppose the new policy, the Marine Corps says it doesn't expect anyone to change their personal beliefs. Still, everyone must follow orders.

"You remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are gay or lesbian, even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held moral or religious beliefs," the training material states.

A top-notch recruiter who opposes the new policy cannot refuse a promising applicant on grounds of sexual orientation but might be considered for another assignment and, at the discretion of the Navy secretary, may be granted early discharge.

Chaplains who preach at base chapels that homosexuality is a sin are entitled to express their religious beliefs during worship.

The Marines expect to finish training on the new policy by June 1, Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, testified in Congress earlier this month.

Amos testified last year that permitting gays to openly serve could disrupt smaller combat units and distract leaders from preparing for battle. When he appeared this month before the House Armed Services Committee, he said he had been looking for problems that might arise under the new policy and hadn't found any "recalcitrant pushback."

"There has not been the anxiety over it from the forces in the field," he said.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Obviously, the military's educational program is and should be different that an anti-bullying campaign found in schools, as there's several clear key differences (adults are being trained; a previous, explicityly-anti-gay-servicemember policy is being replaced by one that permits gay service members, it's a professional work environment vs. a public school, etc). So, there are and should be differences in the DADT repeal educational program, vs. what is taught in schools.

However, when tolernace for others is being taught, I submit it'd be pointless to try to teach "tolerance," alone, while ignoring the challenging differences that may be the spark of conflict behind the bullying, itself. One of the comments on the above MSNBC article is noteworthy:

So, basically, they are giving these adults elementary school lessons about how to get along with people who are different with you.......?

My view,

Darin

[frankenstein]

They shouldn't. Maybe antibullying in general, but to make it gay specific lends unwarranted legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle choice.

what "lifestyle choice" has a person who is attracted to their same gender made?

[frankenstein]

I wonder if the LDS Church and it's members would ever recognize or promote such a need...

Darin

The Church Official has made several statements concerning how we should treat others, these statements were made in reference to homosexuality.

Will the members in generally understand and apply the message from the Church....I wouldn't hold my breathe. Even on these boards when the statement from the Church has been posted a LDS Member will responded with something that contradicts or tries to paint the statement in with a different meaning.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

No, in that people don't have much control of their emotions. Yes, in that we are all expected to control how we act with those emotions.

[Daniel2]

No, in that people don't have much control of their emotions. Yes, in that we are all expected to control how we act with those emotions.

I always appreciate your even-handed responses, SometimeSaint. I agree with what you wrote, above.

(Btw, I'm embarrassed to say I've only just noticed the cleverness of how your moniker could be read as, "Sometime Saint"/"Sometimes Aint," depending on one's approach. For what it's worth, I've always considered you by the more "Saintly" slant. )

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

Don't worry. I still have my "Ain't" moments.

[BCSpace]

They shouldn't. Maybe antibullying in general, but to make it gay specific lends unwarranted legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle choice.

what "lifestyle choice" has a person who is attracted to their same gender made?

Often, to self identify with the temptation.

Will the members in generally understand and apply the message from the Church....I wouldn't hold my breathe. Even on these boards when the statement from the Church has been posted a LDS Member will responded with something that contradicts or tries to paint the statement in with a different meaning.

Yes, I agree. It's quite common to see expressed here that which is contrary to LDS doctrine.

What about current anti-bullying curriculum does the gay advocacy crowd feel is lacking?

That crowd's agenda is to identify doctrines, teachings, and even science which are negative towards homosexuality with bullying or meaness or bigotry so they can openly practice their dangerous and self destructive lifestyle. Now I don't usually mind people destroying themselves by choice, but the problem is that other vulnerable people become victims as well through recruitment, other peer pressure, or fads etc.

[ERayR]

In surprising news from Canada, the following memo was released on April 15th from the Assembly of Catholic Bishops in Ontario to the Ontario Catholic Education Organizations:

As a religious organization that disagrees with same-sex relationships, yet still recognizes and has decided to proactively promote and call for an educational curriculum that specifically mentions sexual orientation as an area that's suceptible to bullying in it's efforts to promote peace and respect, the Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario have just earned tremendous respect, in my book.

I wonder if the LDS Church and it's members would ever recognize or promote such a need...

Darin

It is already in the curriculum. It is Love thy neighbor as thyself and d unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[emeliza]

I am not sure about curriculum per say since they don't really cover anything like this in Sunday school or Primary unless you include the whole treat others kindly and love your neighbor stuff. That being said, the Church has in fact put out various statements about how we should treat those with a sexual orientation that the Church doesn't endore. We are to treat them well and kindly and with love.

[frankenstein]

"As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: ... Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down."

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few that are further polarizing our communities and urge them to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other."

"No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

the irony of your comment bcspace is that i believe it was you who responded to the "never to tear down" quote with "well we have to tear down to build up" or something like that, essentially the response was complete disregard to the Official Church statement and a justification to act contrary to the Official Church statement.

and how often do we read from LDS members perjorative used in reference to persons who live a homosexual lifestyle.

and how often is do LDS members serverily blur the line between having a sexual attraction to members of the same sex with full throttle homosexual hedonism?

[Mordecai]

As long as the anti-bullying curriculum didn't focus primarily on homosexuals but on how bullying is wrong in general, I think that'd be good. We do need to extend the hand of friendship to homosexuals and their friends/families, while we simultaneously oppose their irrational notions of "marriage equality." It seems appropriate to do both.

[TAO]

Yah, I'd agree with Mord, it wouldn't be singled out specifically.

Alot could be gone into on bullying on people who are Autistic for instance (since nearly ever one of them is bullied at one time or another). But I would feel rather embarrassed if people singled out focusing on non-bullying Autistic when we need to focus on non-bullying as a whole. The idea isn't really 'you shouldn't bully them because they have Autism', it's 'you shouldn't bully them regardless' if ya' know what I mean. Creating a tradition of respect so to say =).

Contemplative Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

what "lifestyle choice" has a person who is attracted to their same gender made?

Frank... I think, BCSpace isn't talking about those who are attracted. He is talking about those who have chosen to indulge on those attractions. A bit of a difference.

Innocent Wishes,

TAO

Hehe... I like Nathair's tradition of changing the end of my post =D.

[Calm]

The idea isn't really 'you shouldn't bully them because they have Autism', it's 'you shouldn't bully them regardless' if ya' know what I mean. Creating a tradition of respect so to say =).

Kids are very good at getting the wrong message, especially if they want to justify something. Picking out specific cases where one shouldn't bully could be taken to imply that there are cases where it's okay to bully. Better like you said to create an over all tradition of respect.

[Mordecai]

Kids are very good at getting the wrong message, especially if they want to justify something. Picking out specific cases where one shouldn't bully could be taken to imply that there are cases where it's okay to bully. Better like you said to create an over all tradition of respect.

If a person is the result of a Nazi experiment to produce a human/chimp hybrid, I am for bullying. A little bit. Wait, that's mean to the chimp half of the Nazi experiment. Also, the human half. Okay, I am against all bullying.

In all seriousness, you have a good point. You might imply that it's okay to bully people who are against "marriage equality" ::cough::. As a former teacher, my strategy might be to try to get students to make their own cases for when bullying is okay (if they think it is) and when it isn't (hopefully, your students would argue against bullying), and then correct whatever rationalizations come up. I might begin with a discussion of the Golden Rule. Or perhaps, I might use the Near Golden Rule as described by Confucius, "Do not do to others what you do not want done to you."

[frankenstein]

On the Show "Bones" the FBI character Booth has son. The subject came up of the son hitting. Another character asks Booth "Didn't you teach your son that hitting girls is wrong" IIRC Booth responds "No, I taught my son that hitting is wrong period."

[Mordecai]

"No, I taught my son that hitting is wrong period."

I wouldn't teach that, personally. Hitting, in self defense or defending another person, can be right.