Elder Ballard Speaks At World Congress Of Families Conference

[Avatar4321]

I think this completely sums up the church's position and reality.  It is a great church if you are in a traditional family or hope to have one when you grow up.  For the rest, not so great of church.  The church likes the idea of being the most loving, kindest, tolerant people.  Hard to feel the love if you don't fit the mold.

Except you chose the mold you're in. You don't really have much room to complain about not feeling the light when you unplug the lamp.

[CV75]

Really...?

So, you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling outlawing many southern states ' communities' norm of constitiutionally-prohibited racial discrimination (segregation) in Brown vs. Board of Education....?

In other words, you actually believe public school districts should accomodate unconstitutional and/or legally-prohibited discriminatory practices which happen to be 'the norm' of local communities, such as racism, sexism/misogony, religious imperialism/intolerance, etc...?!

I'm only commenting on the scope of the linked article in the OP, not taking your bait, LOL.

[Daniel2]

I'm only commenting on the scope of the linked article in the OP, not taking your bait, LOL.

I'm not "baiting" you into anything more than asking for clarification of your own comment subsequent to the article in the OP.

Besiades, the article in the linked OP does fall within the scope of my counterpost to yours, since prohibition of marriage for same-sex couples has been ruled unconstitutional. A book about two men falling in love and marrying falls within behavior that the Supreme Court has found to be a constitutionally-protected right. The book itself (which I've read) is not sexual or salacious--it's on par with an other G-rated fairytale story.

Additionally, in your post I was asking for further clarification from YOU, who are the one who expanded the scope of your support for such accomodations when you asserted your belief that "school districts should accomodate local communities' views, whether or not you agreed with such norms."

A logical direct corollation of your comment would be that in racist communities, such as the deep south, where interracial relationships were socially unacceptable or even sinful (to put it mildly--and whether or not you agree with such notions), that scool districts should accomodate the communities' social norms by notifying parents before a teacher would read a fairytale picture book about an interracial couple to kindergardners.

Another direct logical correlation would be a school providing parental notification prior to a teacher reading a picturebook of Disney's The Little Mermaid (about a spunky, father-defiant, and bikini-clad woman) to a middle-eastern Muslim community who's community norms promoted female subordination to male patriarchy and the practice of females covering up by wearing burkas.

From your response above, it appears you're now backing away from that scope-expanding statement. Are you saying you retract that portion, then...?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

just making a point

We’re already going around in circles. So I’ll reply only to comments that I haven’t already responded to in a prior post.

 

You said: “If we're honoring diversity why does one set of mores and traditions get privileged over the other?” hence my question about your equating charity and tolerance with honoring diversity.

 

You’ve been using the term “traditional family” yourself, which you expressed as some kind of equation (“man + woman union”). I am not familiar with that vernacular—do you have a source or a reason for using that representation?

 

The traditions and values of loving and tolerant people can be opposed by others who consider themselves loving and tolerant, and who may or may not be so in the eyes of those who differ, or see those who differ as being so. It’s all very subjective, as well it should be, I suppose.

 

And you keep bring up “commitment to diversity” and “respect for diversity” but that wasn’t in the linked article. Are you trying to make this about diversity for diversity’s sake?

[california boy]

Except you chose the mold you're in. You don't really have much room to complain about not feeling the light when you unplug the lamp.

And perhaps this is also sums up the attitude of the church.  If you aren't married and having kids, it is your own darn fault.  You could if you really wanted to.

[CV75]

I'm not "baiting" you into anything more than asking for clarification of your own comment subsequent to the article in the OP.

OK. Please rephrase your questions and I'll try again; perhaps I misunderstood your first post; I'm certainly having less luck understanding this second one.

[Daniel2]

OK. Please rephrase your questions and I'll try again; perhaps I misunderstood your first post; I'm certainly having less luck understanding this second one.

Ok... although I thought my previous post was quite clear, I'll try again...

Previously, you stated:

I would expect any school district to accommodate its community’s norm, whether I agree with it or not.

[Emphasis added].

I understood your use of the words "any shool distict" to mean more than one--as in multiple school districts, because "any" implies "all" of a grouping of school districts.

Given your comment, can you please provide a few examples of other communities' social norm (including those you diaagree with) besides opposition to same- sex marriage that you believe "any school district" should accomodate?

Or, did you mean "any school district" should accomodate local communities' norm ONLY when it comes to being pro-opposite sex (and anti-same-sex) marriage?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Daniel2

[CV75]

I understood your use of the words "any shool distict" to mean more than one--as in multiple school districts, because "any" implies "all" of a grouping of school districts.

I would expect any given school district to reflect its community’s norm. I may not represent or agree with that norm personally, but such are my expectations of the whole. Examples might be uniforms and dress codes, fundraising priorities and approaches, budgets and school activities, election of officials, selection of mascots, naming of facilities and wings, and policies covering student life, curricula, etc. If I felt strongly enough in conflict with the community norm, I might exercise my option to participate constructively in influencing change.

[Avatar4321]

And perhaps this is also sums up the attitude of the church.  If you aren't married and having kids, it is your own darn fault.  You could if you really wanted to.

You can't complain about not feeling the love we have for you because you cut yourself off from that love.

And contrary to your opinion, you very much have a choice on getting married and trying for children. You cannot blame others for making choices incompatible with that.

[jkwilliams]

You can't complain about not feeling the love we have for you because you cut yourself off from that love.

And contrary to your opinion, you very much have a choice on getting married and trying for children. You cannot blame others for making choices incompatible with that.

You think a gay man should get married (to a woman) and try to have children?

[Daniel2]

I would expect any given school district to reflect its community’s norm. I may not represent or agree with that norm personally, but such are my expectations of the whole. Examples might be uniforms and dress codes, fundraising priorities and approaches, budgets and school activities, election of officials, selection of mascots, naming of facilities and wings, and policies covering student life, curricula, etc. If I felt strongly enough in conflict with the community norm, I might exercise my option to participate constructively in influencing change.

I would agree that most of your examples are reasonable, but most don't require any special accommodations because they are decided through local referendums (i.e. school board elections and subsequent decisions).

But let's focus on "curricula," which is the most relevant to the topic of the OP, since it contemplates parental notification of a book being read as part of a class's curriculum.

Should school districts be required to notify and allow parents to opt out of curriculum on a day-to-day basis?

A close correlation seems to me to be Evolution vs. Creationism is science classes. Should school districts in majorly fundamentally-religious (and pro-Creationism) communities be expected or required to send notification home to students' parents that they are covering evolution in class on any given days, thus allowing them to opt their students out?

Same question with my previously cited examples of interracial coupes in anti-interracial marriage communities or fairytale mermaids in Muslim communities.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

We’re already going around in circles. So I’ll reply only to comments that I haven’t already responded to in a prior post.

 

You said: “If we're honoring diversity why does one set of mores and traditions get privileged over the other?” hence my question about your equating charity and tolerance with honoring diversity.

 

You’ve been using the term “traditional family” yourself, which you expressed as some kind of equation (“man + woman union”). I am not familiar with that vernacular—do you have a source or a reason for using that representation?

 

The traditions and values of loving and tolerant people can be opposed by others who consider themselves loving and tolerant, and who may or may not be so in the eyes of those who differ, or see those who differ as being so. It’s all very subjective, as well it should be, I suppose.

 

And you keep bring up “commitment to diversity” and “respect for diversity” but that wasn’t in the linked article. Are you trying to make this about diversity for diversity’s sake?

 

I'll try to explain again but I would kindly ask that you also answer my questions (I put them in bold below) so that the dialogue can progress.

 

As you noted above, I asked:  “If we're honoring diversity why does one set of mores and traditions get privileged over the other?”  That was in response to a series of follow-ups to my original post.  To help clarify, I'll go back and try to re-state what I originally said:

 

That question was based on this comment that I quoted from Elder Ballard.  You note that I am not making this about "diversity for diversity's sake", the diversity and equality theme came from Elder Ballard himself.  Quoting the article linked in the OP:

 

He also provided an example of inflexibility, when a school district in 2006 refused to provide parents with advance warning if a teacher read a story about two princes falling in love.

 

"If those who oppose us are genuine in their commitment to the values of diversity and equality, we should be able to work together to find compassion and peace," Elder Ballard said. "Forcing the beliefs of one onto another, as was done with the children being read material contrary to their parents’ wishes, diminishes diversity and skews the scales of equality. By engaging in compromise and extending love to all God’s children, who are our brothers and sisters, we can create a peaceful, diverse tapestry of ideals and beliefs."

 

If Elder Ballard is suggesting that parents must be notified prior to a school reading of a story with homosexual characters falling in love, why wouldn't the school also be required to notify parents prior to reading a story about heterosexual characters falling in love?

 

Regarding the term "traditional family", in LDS vernacular that typically refers to a family headed by a male-female union.  Do you disagree?

 

What do you think Elder Ballard meant when he qualified his use of "families" to be nurtured with the term "traditional"?

[CV75]

Should school districts be required to notify and allow parents to opt out of curriculum on a day-to-day basis?

If that is their lawful policy and lawfully administered, of course.

[CV75]

If Elder Ballard is suggesting that parents must be notified prior to a school reading of a story with homosexual characters falling in love, why wouldn't the school also be required to notify parents prior to reading a story about heterosexual characters falling in love?

 

Regarding the term "traditional family", in LDS vernacular that typically refers to a family headed by a male-female union.  Do you disagree?

 

What do you think Elder Ballard meant when he qualified his use of "families" to be nurtured with the term "traditional"?

Elder Ballard obviously feels the sensibilities of parents should be a consideration in making and administering school policy. In this case, he is calling for compromise and the processes and attitudes that contribute to a better compromise.

 

It depends. By “male and female union,” do you mean marriage? What is uniquely LDS about the term “traditional marriage?” His audience was the World Congress of Families; do you think he was being parochial by using LDS vernacular?

 

I think he meant to use a term his audience would understand, and that it is a fine tradition to nurture.

[rockpond]

Elder Ballard obviously feels the sensibilities of parents should be a consideration in making and administering school policy. In this case, he is calling for compromise and the processes and attitudes that contribute to a better compromise.

 

It depends. By “male and female union,” do you mean marriage? What is uniquely LDS about the term “traditional marriage?” His audience was the World Congress of Families; do you think he was being parochial by using LDS vernacular?

 

I think he meant to use a term his audience would understand, and that it is a fine tradition to nurture.

 

Yes, by male and female union, I meant marriage.  So do we agree that when Elder Ballard said "traditional families" he was referring to those headed by a male-female marriage?

 

Now will you answer my other question?

 

If Elder Ballard is suggesting that parents must be notified prior to a school reading of a story with homosexual characters falling in love, why wouldn't the school also be required to notify parents prior to reading a story about heterosexual characters falling in love?

[jkwilliams]

Yes, by male and female union, I meant marriage.  So do we agree that when Elder Ballard said "traditional families" he was referring to those headed by a male-female marriage?

 

Now will you answer my other question?

 

If Elder Ballard is suggesting that parents must be notified prior to a school reading of a story with homosexual characters falling in love, why wouldn't the school also be required to notify parents prior to reading a story about heterosexual characters falling in love?

Imagine the uproar if some gay parents complained about, say, the Berenstain Bears or the Little House on the Prairie series because they promote heterosexual marriage.

[CV75]

Yes, by male and female union, I meant marriage.  So do we agree that when Elder Ballard said "traditional families" he was referring to those headed by a male-female marriage?

 

If Elder Ballard is suggesting that parents must be notified prior to a school reading of a story with homosexual characters falling in love, why wouldn't the school also be required to notify parents prior to reading a story about heterosexual characters falling in love?

Of course he was talking about marriage.

 

The school policy would be the only reason to require notification or not. He was talking about coming up with policy through healthy compromise and attendant attitudes.

[Buckeye]

Imagine the uproar if some gay parents complained about, say, the Berenstain Bears or the Little House on the Prairie series because they promote heterosexual marriage.

 

Actually, the Bearenstein Bears promotes bestiality. That's why it's banned in my house.

[rockpond]

Of course he was talking about marriage.

 

The school policy would be the only reason to require notification or not. He was talking about coming up with policy through healthy compromise and attendant attitudes.

 

Was he referring specifically to heterosexual marriage or do you think by "traditional families" he was including those headed by married gay couples as well?

 

Okay... so, in your opinion, should the school policy be required to notify parents that a story is being read about two men falling in love?

[CV75]

Was he referring specifically to heterosexual marriage or do you think by "traditional families" he was including those headed by married gay couples as well?

 

Okay... so, in your opinion, should the school policy be required to notify parents that a story is being read about two men falling in love?

I answered that.

 

It depends on the community.

[Buckeye]

 

Was he referring specifically to heterosexual marriage or do you think by "traditional families" he was including those headed by married gay couples as well?

 

Okay... so, in your opinion, should the school policy be required to notify parents that a story is being read about two men falling in love?

 

He's clearly talking about heterosexual marriage. I can understand his point about notice to parents, but it depends on the community standards and what would normally be considered controversial enough such that parents should be notified. In my school district, for example, I expect to get notified if they are showing my kid an R-rated movie (e.g., Glory). I could see how some communities at some points in time would expect notice for a book about 2 dads. For most communities in the US today, that's not the case anymore. But maybe it was 10 years ago. Things have changed a lot.

[rockpond]

I answered that.

 

It depends on the community.

 

No, you didn't actually answer my questions.  Your constant obfuscating and dancing around simple questions tells me what I need to know:  your argument falls apart on close examination.   That's the only conclusion I can come to.  Feel free to prove me wrong by going back to my last few questions and giving direct, clear answers.

[rockpond]

 

 

 

He's clearly talking about heterosexual marriage. I can understand his point about notice to parents, but it depends on the community standards and what would normally be considered controversial enough such that parents should be notified. In my school district, for example, I expect to get notified if they are showing my kid an R-rated movie (e.g., Glory). I could see how some communities at some points in time would expect notice for a book about 2 dads. For most communities in the US today, that's not the case anymore. But maybe it was 10 years ago. Things have changed a lot.

 

 

That's my conclusion as well, that he's talking about heterosexual marriage.  I find that sad... that he feels he needs to clarify that we nurture "traditional" or heterosexual-couple families rather than just all families.

 

As for the school district policy, Elder Ballard is citing diversity and equality as reasons why parents should be notified about the "two prince" book.  But if he's going to base such a request on diversity and equality, shouldn't the policy also be that parents are notified in a book is going to be read about a prince & a princess?  Why the double standard coming from a man who just told us we should be loving, kind, and tolerant?

[HappyJackWagon]

You can't complain about not feeling the love we have for you because you cut yourself off from that love.

And contrary to your opinion, you very much have a choice on getting married and trying for children. You cannot blame others for making choices incompatible with that.

Avatar, you're just digging a hole here.

 

The church doesn't even follow your advice any more. It doesn't counsel gay men to get married and have children.

These kinds of attitudes in the church  cause me to question Elder Ballard's expectation to be the most tolerant. Or, I should say, we have a LONG ways to go.

[Daniel2]

If that is their lawful policy and lawfully administered, of course.

 

I'm unaware of any such "lawful policies" that mandate that schools must provide parental notification if books about gay couples (or any other specific type of family) are read in class.  Come to think of it, I'm unaware of any "lawful policies" mandating that schools provide  parental notification of any specific type of book is read in class.

 

Are you saying such lawful policies exist somewhere, and if so, can you please provide citations?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

This is what I've been able to find, so far:

 

In 2006, parents of a second-grader in Mass., attempted to have the book banned from his school after it was read in class without parental consent or warning.  A U.S. District Court Judge then said public schools are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

 

And from Reuters:

 

U.S. court upholds same-sex teaching to children

Sat Feb 24, 2007 11:20am EST

BOSTON 

A federal judge in Boston has dismissed a suit by two families who wanted to stop a Massachusetts town and its public school system from teaching their children about gay marriage, court documents show.

 

The families last year filed the suit asserting that the reading of a gay-themed book and handing out to elementary school students of other children's books that discussed homosexuality without first notifying parents was a violation of their religious rights.

 

Federal Judge Mark Wolf ruled on Friday that public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

 

"Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation," he said.

He said the courts had decided in other cases that parents' rights to exercise their religious beliefs were not violated when their children were exposed to contrary ideas in school.

The complaint filed against the town of Lexington, about 12 miles west of Boston, had said the school had "begun a process of intentionally indoctrinating very young children to affirm the notion that homosexuality is right and normal in direct denigration of the plaintiffs' deeply held faith."

 

The book that sparked the case was "King & King" which tells the story of a crown prince who rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after.

The Lexington school system had said reading the book was not intended as sex education but as a way to educate children about the world in which they live, especially in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

 

Other sources:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/education/24brfs-gay.html?_r=0

 

More here, from a report in 2007:

 

 

Now the Parkers are in the news again, following a federal judge's decision to dismiss the parents' suit against the Lexington public school system. The suit, David Parker et al. v. William Hurley et al., went before the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf wrote the decision dismissing the parents' constitutional claims.

 

"In essence, under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," wrote Judge Wolf. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation. . . . It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation's constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society."

 

The court based its decision primarily on the 1995 sex education case Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions. In that case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declared that parents' constitutional right to raise their children does not include restricting public school curriculum, and that the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by public school curriculum that contradicts parents' religious beliefs. Wolf also referenced Fields v. Palmdale School District, in which judges stated that "Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so." In his own decision, Judge Wolf attempted to prove that such decisions pertain equally to the youngest and oldest students in public schools.

 

"Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children. They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state," Wolf also wrote. He pointed out that the plaintiffs could send their children to a private school, homeschool their children, or attempt to elect like-minded people to the Lexington School Committee. "However," he wrote, the plaintiffs "have chosen to send their children to the Lexington public schools with its current curriculum. The Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what these children will be taught."

 

Wolf dismissed the Parkers' claims without prejudice. Massachusetts law requires parental notification and an opportunity to exempt children from curriculum that "primarily involves human sexual education or human sexuality issues." The Lexington school district argued in court that this policy does not apply to teaching about homosexuality or same-sex marriage. In his statement, Wolf appeared to agree with the school district on how the Massachusetts statute should be interpreted. "An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students. . . . It might also undermine the defendants' efforts to educate the remaining other students to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation."

 

The other plaintiffs in the case, Robert and Robin Wirthlin, sent their 1st-grader to the same school in Lexington. In their son's class, the teacher read King & King, a story about homosexual romance and marriage.

 

The Parkers, Wirthlins and their legal counsel plan to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

I'm trying to find out if the above ruling was ever appealed, as was promised by the parents' attorney.  If anyone else finds if it has, please let me know. EDIT: the appeal was dismissed by SCOTUS, per my post two posts down.

 

Given that the federal courts have ruled that such teachings by public schools are legal and lawful, and given Oaks' recent speech advocating respect for the rule of the courts' ultimate decisions, it would seem that Ballard's take on this particular topic conflicts with Oaks' calls for abiding by court rulings...?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Daniel2