Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Gay History To Be Included In California Education


TAO

Recommended Posts

The people of California passed an initiative that basically turned over the running of the school systems to the state, rather than to the local school boards.

According to the article in the OP, it is (at best) incorrect to suggest that the people of California "turned over the running of the school systems to the state, rather than the local school boards."

From the article:

California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics.

SB48 would require, as soon as the 2013-2014 school year, the California Board of Education and local school districts to adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities.

The legislation leaves it to local school boards to decide how to implement the requirement. It does not specify a grade level for the instruction to begin.

PaPa,

Good to see you posting. I'd heard somewhere that you were hospitalized. I hope you're feeling better and are getting back to your old self! :-)

Daniel2

Link to comment

Schools are not allowed to teach religious values, but they are forced to teach the religion of "tolerance". Not just tolerance, but advocacy of a certain set of values.

cdowis,

As I understand it, teaching children tolerance in school means teaching civility for others--both those who are religious and those who are non-religious--who display either immutable or chosen personality characteristics or lifestyles.

From my perspective, this type of tolerence is necessary to peacefully live in our pluralistic society, where so many cultures, religions, political parties, races, sexual orientations, and ideologies could potentially clash with one another, and yet our national values seek to avoid enshrining or endorsing one way of life over another, and the rights of all citizens to pursue happiness according to the dictates of our own conscience.

Can you explain how you feel that "tolerance" is, itself, "teaching a religion"?

Thanks,

Daniel2

Link to comment

Jaybear, do you know understand our objection now? We don't want to have these values to be forced upon our children. Where does this stop == educational films, workshops, school projects, field trips......

Not quite. Can you be more specific. What do you mean "these values."

By this bill, the teachers and schools are not allowed to teach lessons which would promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation.

That sounds much like what Christ taught, you know love thy neighbor. I really don't see why that would trouble you.

The parents are still free to instill hatred, bigotry and fear in the children in the evenings, weekends and summer.

Link to comment

It would appear it is time for the Mormons (any believer) to leave Sodom and Gomorrah.

You know, Pa Pa, your comment is remeniscent of a time in the early days of the church when the Saints sought out a new land where they could create a isolationist society outside of the United States, beyond the Western Frontier, without having to worry about external influences that contradicted or restricted the full realization of life with their own, "peculiar" values.

My understanding has always been that upon the Saints' hope for their home of Deseret to re-enter the Union (and Utah's subsequent statehood), however, that that isolationist idea was abandoned, and American Saints, at least, accepted that they would begin to live in a pluralistic society.

It sounds as if you're suggesting a return to an isolationist philosophy. I'm not sure how many Saints would agree--and imagine that many prominent Mormons invovled in seeking or promoting Mormon involvement in political office wouldn't characterize the influence of their LDS Faith in an isolationst fashion...

My view,

Daniel2

Link to comment

You know, Pa Pa, your comment is remeniscent of a time in the early days of the church when the Saints sought out a new land where they could create a isolationist society outside of the United States, beyond the Western Frontier, without having to worry about external influences that contradicted or restricted the full realization of life with their own, "peculiar" values.

My understanding has always been that upon the Saints' hope for their home of Deseret to re-enter the Union (and Utah's subsequent statehood), however, that that isolationist idea was abandoned, and American Saints, at least, accepted that they would begin to live in a pluralistic society.

It sounds as if you're suggesting a return to an isolationist philosophy. I'm not sure how many Saints would agree--and imagine that many prominent Mormons invovled in seeking or promoting Mormon involvement in political office wouldn't characterize the influence of their LDS Faith in an isolationst fashion...

My view,

Daniel2

It seems pretty clear that the only reason the saints sought out a 'new land' outside of the US was because they kept getting harassed and killed within the US.

History shows that they would have been more than happy to have remained within the country and to live among nonmembers, if they had been allowed. It seems disingenous to imply that they left because they wanted to be isolated, rather than to acknowledge that they chose isolation because they wanted to survive.

Link to comment

My point,other than the one on the top of my head, was not to compare the two groups as some have assumed,but to state that "fringe" groups like that one mentioned,will watch to see just how accomodating the law is to each and every special group. They can then complain that they are left out of such accomodation. We should remember that a accepted relationship in Greco-Roman times was that between an older man and a young boy.

Also,please refrain from claiming that many of the characters of history were homosexual.For most(other than Alexander) there is little clear evidence. Some would go so far as to put Christ Himself

in the mix. Where I served , Mormon missionaries were assumed to be homosexual because they were always together.

As for history,we seem to be able to include the inquisition as part of history,same with the Salem witch trials. Must we now avoid this because it refects negatively on some religion? Or can we mention the pre 1980's bath houses and bars(which,by the way,are making a comeback) while extoling the virtues and accomplishments of homosexuals?

Link to comment

My point,other than the one on the top of my head, was not to compare the two groups as some have assumed,but to state that "fringe" groups like that one mentioned,will watch to see just how accomodating the law is to each and every special group. They can then complain that they are left out of such accomodation.

They can complain all they want. But no rational person could believe that these fringe groups could convince the legislature and the Governor of CA to accommodate pedophiles.

The only point served by your comment is to impugn gays by associating them with pedophiles.

Link to comment

It seems pretty clear that the only reason the saints sought out a 'new land' outside of the US was because they kept getting harassed and killed within the US.

History shows that they would have been more than happy to have remained within the country and to live among nonmembers, if they had been allowed. It seems disingenous to imply that they left because they wanted to be isolated, rather than to acknowledge that they chose isolation because they wanted to survive.

Fair enough, Bluebell. I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous (an accusation towards others that I find to be inadequate, at best, given that we can't presume to know whether or not someone else is displaying an intentional level of malice, or whether they simply have an alternate view). I don't have a problem with anything you said above, in suggesting that the early Saint's would probably have preferred to remain where they were, and certainly one reason they fled was because of the persecution they were receiving (even, tragically, to the point of death). I certainly would also agree that the Extermination Order was horrific and a disgrace to the ideals of the United States of America.

I would also submit that their motivation in leaving was still reflective of their drive to live the ideals they believed in, and the clash of beliefs of both the Mormons and the non-Mormons were the source of the conflict (unjust as that conflict was). For example, the early Saints were unwilling to renounce polygamy, given their belief that God had called a prophet to restore that principle, whereas the non-Mormons were bitterly opposed to polygamy, due to their view that such a practice was un-Christian. Rather than "give up" the values they fervently believed in, the Saints chose to move beyond the borders of the United States. Living their values was more important than abandoning those values to avoid conflict and stay in the bigoted America they were facing. Pa Pa's post is remeniscent of that aspect--of chosing to leave a country the Saints felt inferfeared with their ability to live according to the dictates of their conscience.

Daniel2

Link to comment

My point,other than the one on the top of my head, was not to compare the two groups as some have assumed,but to state that "fringe" groups like that one mentioned,will watch to see just how accomodating the law is to each and every special group. They can then complain that they are left out of such accomodation. We should remember that a accepted relationship in Greco-Roman times was that between an older man and a young boy.

It's false to presume that the vast majority of LGBT equal rights supporters would support decriminalization of pedophilia or any legal recognition of pedophilic relationships.

As for history,we seem to be able to include the inquisition as part of history,same with the Salem witch trials. Must we now avoid this because it refects negatively on some religion? Or can we mention the pre 1980's bath houses and bars(which,by the way,are making a comeback) while extoling the virtues and accomplishments of homosexuals?

I would presume that the bill currently allows teaching about the Salem witch trials (given that it's been part of school's American History curriculum at least as far back as when I was a kid), as well as the crusades and Spanish Inquisition and Protestant Reformation that led to the eventual founding of America as the early settlers sought freedom from religious and civil tyranny.

In dicussions about the LGBT community--especially in social science or health classes--I think it'd be worthwhile to discuss and discourage the dangers of unprotected sex and how wantonly irresponsible sexual behaviors led to the spread of HIV, avoiding illegal drugs (which, among many other dangers, could expose kids to HIV if they use contaminated needles), etc.

I'm not sure, however, that I'm comfortable with my kids being taught about the actual existence of gay bathhouses, straight whorehouses, specific locations where kids could buy and use drugs with potentially HIV-infecting drugs, or any other location that glorifies sex... and don't believe teaching about such locations are necessary, according the curriculum. Are you suggesting that you want kids to be taught about bathhouses, whorehouses, drug sellers, etc.......?

Daniel2

Link to comment

And yet 75 years ago no rational person could believe that fringe groups could convince government to accomodate ....

75 years from now I wonder what groups will be accomodated.

Just to clarify.I believe that the vast majority of gays are not pedophiles and that the vast majority of pedophiles are not gay .

Link to comment

And yet 75 years ago no rational person could believe that fringe groups could convince government to accomodate ....

75 years from now I wonder what groups will be accomodated.

Fair enough to wonder--but such suppositions about the future shouldn't prevent current scrutiny of contemporary civil rights issues.

As should always be the case when considering the recognition of new civil rights, any equal civil rights being proposed for individuals based on a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual orientation will have to legally succeed or fail based on their own merits, specifically related to their heterosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality.

And as should always be the case when considering the recognition of new civil rights, any equal civil rights being proposed for individuals based on a pedophilic orientation will have to legally succeed or fail based on their own merits, specifically related to their pedophilia.

Just because the former is accomodated does not mean that the latter should or will be.

Just to clarify.I believe that the vast majority of gays are not pedophiles and that the vast majority of pedophiles are not gay .

I'm glad you recognize that, and thank you for sharing it.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Daniel2

A teacher who mentions that politician X owned slaves or that civil servant Y yelled at his dogs would have few if any repercusions. Now try saying that politician Z spent his afternoons in a gay bar

and watch as the sky fell.The first teacher was just teaching true history. The second was falsely trying to tarnish politian Z's reputation.

Link to comment

Daniel2

A teacher who mentions that politician X owned slaves or that civil servant Y yelled at his dogs would have few if any repercusions. Now try saying that politician Z spent his afternoons in a gay bar

and watch as the sky fell.The first teacher was just teaching true history. The second was falsely trying to tarnish politian Z's reputation.

I don't see how suggesting that "politician Z spent his afternoons in a gay bar" would be necessarily relevent--but I also don't see that it's "speaking adversely" about such an individual, and wouldn't have a problem, per se, with that statement. Any teaching about Harvey Milk, for example, would like acknowledge he operated out of a camera shop on Castro Street. What relevance would it have if Harvey went to gay bars...? Do we teach that John Adams may have gone to straight bars...? Would acknowledging that any straight politician went to any given bar be relevant to any of their historical accomplishments? Is acknowledging their going to a gay bar "speaking adversely"? Even if that was taught, my thoughts would be "no" on both counts.

Daniel2

Link to comment

Fair enough, Bluebell. I'm certainly not trying to be disingenuous (an accusation towards others that I find to be inadequate, at best, given that we can't presume to know whether or not someone else is displaying an intentional level of malice, or whether they simply have an alternate view). I don't have a problem with anything you said above, in suggesting that the early Saint's would probably have preferred to remain where they were, and certainly one reason they fled was because of the persecution they were receiving (even, tragically, to the point of death). I certainly would also agree that the Extermination Order was horrific and a disgrace to the ideals of the United States of America.

I would also submit that their motivation in leaving was still reflective of their drive to live the ideals they believed in, and the clash of beliefs of both the Mormons and the non-Mormons were the source of the conflict (unjust as that conflict was). For example, the early Saints were unwilling to renounce polygamy, given their belief that God had called a prophet to restore that principle, whereas the non-Mormons were bitterly opposed to polygamy, due to their view that such a practice was un-Christian. Rather than "give up" the values they fervently believed in, the Saints chose to move beyond the borders of the United States. Living their values was more important than abandoning those values to avoid conflict and stay in the bigoted America they were facing. Pa Pa's post is remeniscent of that aspect--of chosing to leave a country the Saints felt inferfeared with their ability to live according to the dictates of their conscience.

Daniel2

I would suggest that the only reason they fled was because of persecution as i think it would be impossible for someone to attempt to illustrate, given the historical facts that we have, that had there been no persecution, the saints still would have left the US.

What i believe seemed to be disingenous in your post was that you presented the saints as chosing to be isolationists without explaining that they were forced out, basically upon pain of death. Anyone not knowing LDS history, would have come away with a warped understanding of why they left the U.S. after reading your post.

However, i will freely admit that the label of disingenous might not have been accurate. It's why i said that it 'seemed' so, and not that it 'was'. I very much wanted to leave open the possible that i was reading it incorrectly.

Link to comment

Sorry, TAO, but when I see posts like Ninjas, it seriously makes me think we need a LOT more education, on this subject, in our schools.

And, we don't even know what the agenda is going to be. It could be really good, for all we know. I'd really like to have more information about it, before passing judgment.

Do you live in CA, TAO? I do.

Maybe the idea of tolerance and respect went out the window when the values and morals of the Bible were relegated to banned subjects. Given the paucity of true historicity being taught in the schools we do not need another niche group to explore.

Link to comment

Not quite. Can you be more specific. What do you mean "these values."

Let's start with homosexual sex, bisexual behaviour....

I guess I am stating the obvious. Those traditional values which teach sex between a man and a woman within the bounds of marriage.

By this bill, the teachers and schools are not allowed to teach lessons which would promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation.

That sounds much like what Christ taught, you know love thy neighbor. I really don't see why that would trouble you.

Do you take me for a fool? A moron?

Tell us about tolerance for the boy scouts. That shows the real purpose behind this "tolerance". It give cover to advocate these perverse values.

I do not think those advocates for this law have Christian values in mind when they voted for it. It is the wolf in sheep's clothing, and nobody is fooled except the naive and uninformed.

You might read what Christ said to the scribes and Pharasees. He was certainly lacking in "tolerance" here.

The parents are still free to instill hatred, bigotry and fear in the children in the evenings, weekends and summer.

By your own admission, this is all about social engineering, teaching our children a certain set of values, your values.

Your christophobia is obvious. Christian values are all about hatred and bigotry.

I seem to remember how you complained how the Christians were jamming down their values on society, but now that it is on the other side, you are very supportive.

Read what Christ had to say to the hypocrites. Not much tolerance there.

Link to comment

Maybe the idea of tolerance and respect went out the window when the values and morals of the Bible were relegated to banned subjects. Given the paucity of true historicity being taught in the schools we do not need another niche group to explore.

I suspect that history will not look kindly at those who resorted to biblical morality to justify bigotry agaisnt gays.

In CA, I hope they teach the children about Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore who insisted on displaying the ten commandments in his courtroom, and yet in 2002, took three children away from their lesbian mother reasoned that homosexuality was "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Link to comment

When history is taught, real history that is, it is unvarnished. In CA for example they teach both the good and ill of US policy internationally and domestically. They teach points of view, for both south and north, east and west, colonial and loyalist, and also atrocities committed on both sides.

I note that no one is teaching any "negative aspects". All I am going to say is that such teaching of "history" is typical of the overall formula used in order to indoctrinate children into thinking that the gay life style is acceptable and moral. You won't hear different points of view, you will only hear one. That isn't history, it is indoctrination.

Now there are going to be dishonest charges made, evasions in the issue, and of course dismissal of the slippery slope we are going down. I personally know the usually suspects will make the hew and cry while overlooking the gay lifestyle.

The economist

I warn you it isn't a pretty picture, but say hello to the new family that we will all be forced to call marriage.

By the way, this is the norm for the gay pride parade (actually one of the few pictures you can show). The new reality, some will embrace and use all kinds of justification for it. In stark terms I cannot.

Link to comment

I would suggest that the only reason they fled was because of persecution as i think it would be impossible for someone to attempt to illustrate, given the historical facts that we have, that had there been no persecution, the saints still would have left the US.

What i believe seemed to be disingenous in your post was that you presented the saints as chosing to be isolationists without explaining that they were forced out, basically upon pain of death. Anyone not knowing LDS history, would have come away with a warped understanding of why they left the U.S. after reading your post.

However, i will freely admit that the label of disingenous might not have been accurate. It's why i said that it 'seemed' so, and not that it 'was'. I very much wanted to leave open the possible that i was reading it incorrectly.

Persecution aside, it has been my understanding that the Saints were "gathering", in the early days. If someone converted, generally, they would move to Nauvoo or, later, to Utah, in order to be in fellowship and practice their religion with other Saints. There was even an attempt at living the Law of Consecration, in Kirtland. That practice stopped, at some point, and the practice of establishing member "outposts", not only in Utah, but in every State and country, became the practice, and the church went to the members (building Meeting Houses and Temples where they were) rather than the members coming to the church. In light of that history, I think it is fair to say that the Saints were more isolationists, in the early days, by choice, and became less so, as time went by. Also, isn't it a belief that there will be a regathering of the Saints, in the last days?

Isolationists might have been a wrong term, but they were definitely in their own, tight knit, little communities. So, I think a suggestion that some might want to return to that, if they see a "moral collapse" happening around them, is not far fetched.

Link to comment

Children do need to "accept homosexuality", at least, to the degree that GLBT persons have the same rights as any other citizen and cannot be discriminated against, in public institutions.

Well then neither should people with my opinion that homosexuality is wrong be discriminated against while voicing our opinions.

That means you cannot treat them, as inferior, no matter what your personal beliefs might be.

I'm not treating them as inferior. I'm saying what they are doing is wrong. There be a difference that you need to recognize.

As far as having GLBT people in our history books, I think that would be great (and apparently some are already there). As with the ongoing tradition, we have established, in regards to other minorities and previously persecuted groups, it helps with self esteem, when one can see the accomplishments of someone like themselves...someone of the same race or gender...or sexual orientation. This is something kids need...and something our country needs, if we really are serious about embracing the true diversity of this great nation.

Then perhaps we also need a section of history about people who struggled with the issue who came out straight in the end.

But as I said before, I don't think this will help them much.

What helped me deal most with bullying in my life was taking speech therapy. If they want to fix the suicide problem, they should have people who struggle take some form of therapy like that.

Part of dealing with bullying is stopping the bullying. However, another part is learning to ignore it. I think people are ignoring the second part which is rather critical, at least I have found. And forgetting to teach that part is going to end up harming them rather than helping, most likely.

Link to comment

Do eagle scout projects promote discrimination?

Is that really the best example you can come up with to rationalize your objection?

According to this bill, they do.

And no, I am not rationalizing my objection.

Link to comment

The people of California passed an initiative that basically turned over the running of the school systems to the state, rather than to the local school boards. They then elected legislators and a governor who decided to use their power for social engineering.

My objection is that the parents have lost control over the social values taught in the schools -- e.g. the principles taught in scouting are bad, while sexual deviance is praiseworthy.

Schools are not allowed to teach religious values, but they are forced to teach the religion of "tolerance". Not just tolerance, but advocacy of a certain set of values.

As I remember, a court case decision in MA now allows the schools to teach such classes without allowing the parents to opt out.

Jaybear, do you know understand our objection now? We don't want to have these values to be forced upon our children. Where does this stop == educational films, workshops, school projects, field trips......

cdowis, there is also that law in California... we are not allowed to opt out of 'discrimination training'.

Link to comment

I suspect that history will not look kindly at those who resorted to biblical morality to justify bigotry agaisnt gays.

I agree, and most real Christians would also agree. The Bible does not teach bigotry anymore than it taught slavery.

In CA, I hope they teach the children about Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore who insisted on displaying the ten commandments in his courtroom, and yet in 2002, took three children away from their lesbian mother reasoned that homosexuality was "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

That is fine as long as they teach a complete course in Christianity to put his comment into its real context, by one who understands Christianity, rather than one who hates it.

In any case, this law is basically taking all of our children from their parents because "Christianity teaches hatred and bigotry, and we will take over the teaching of values. And one of the first steps is to put a thumb in the eye of that hatefilled group, the scouting program."

Do you understand the concept "love the sinner, hate the sin"? We can love Casey Anthony, but hate what she may have done.

Link to comment

According to this bill, they do.

And no, I am not rationalizing my objection.

with all due respect, you should support your claim. Please don't go the way of several others who make claims and will not support their claims.

You are articulate and do a good job at making your points.

I can see why you would think that about Eagle projects, but, I see a good argument that Boy Scout service projects are not prohibited on California public school grounds because of this new Bill.

" ... a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220."

a service project so long as it is a service project and not a "proselyting" event against a group mentioned in Section 220, would be permitted by the statute. One the district does not need to sponsor a service project it only need grant or deny permission for the project on school grounds.

Not sure how relevant it is but the US Supreme Court has ruled the Scouts can ban homosexuals, and I believe the California Supreme Court did as well.

Link to comment

with all due respect, you should support your claim. Please don't go the way of several others who make claims and will not support their claims.

You are articulate and do a good job at making your points.

I can see why you would think that about Eagle projects, but, I see a good argument that Boy Scout service projects are not prohibited on California public school grounds because of this new Bill.

" ... a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220."

a service project so long as it is a service project and not a "proselyting" event against a group mentioned in Section 220, would be permitted by the statute. One the district does not need to sponsor a service project it only need grant or deny permission for the project on school grounds.

Not sure how relevant it is but the US Supreme Court has ruled the Scouts can ban homosexuals, and I believe the California Supreme Court did as well.

It is relevant because the Boy Scouts of America does not allow homosexual members into troops. Thus, if a school board supported an Eagle Project (a scouting activity), they would indirectly be supporting a discriminatory bias. Thus, it would be legal for them to do such on these grounds.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...