Smear the fear

Kelly, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to attack you if this is how a came across. But it’s worth noting that our kids have sexuality introduce to them at very young ages. With the weaknesses of the public school system, schools need to focus on the basics first. After all, many public school are failing. Yet, we have these stories of schools focusing on historical figures because of their sexuality? I believe children would be better serve by concentration on the subjects of math, sciences and the english language. Teaching tolorence is great as long as it doesn’t delve into the nuances of sexuality. Even the mentioning of homosexuals is fine with me. After all, we have all experience great relationships with people who happen to be gay. My biggest concern though is this placing importance on someone due to their sexual orientation. Now that’s should be irrelevent.

Have a great day all!

We may disagree strongly on various issues, but Kelly’s (and Kjerringa mot Strommen, and Observer, for that matter) character and dedication to her students has never been questioned.

-Kjerringa mot Strommen

Well, history texts have certainly have had a social agenda and they are definitely dripping with bias. However, is it scholastically necessary to mandate via the educational standards the sexual habits of historical figures? Will we examine, for example, the how many sexual partners James Baldwin had in his life time? This is not a trivial question, for it is the sexual act between two persons of the same sex that determines if one is a homosexual. And if it is important to know that a historical figure had sex with another person of the same sex, why would it be any less important to learn the number of sexual partners he or she had?

I’m not convinced that it is a scholarly endeavor to teach kids about the sexual practices of historical figures.

Kelly is the product of a home in which ethical conduct and the Golden Rule, fairness and respect for others are paramount. She has no interest in “promoting homosexuality”. Along with all the academic knowledge and skills she is teaching her students, she would like them to grow up to be students of good character, respectful of others.

The military is already very visible on the high school campuses (by virtue of NCLB and the dominant culture in our society). I see them every week with free access to students. They have far more access to students, in fact, than college recruiters. The other reality of the military - that the grandiose promises are not usually fulfilled, the issue of killing innocent people in a country we invaded is not presented at all. So much for “equal time”. That is not an issue of tolerance. However, disrespectful speech, “that’s so gay, that’s so retarded”, etc. is an issue that needs to be addressed. Certainly, a history text is not the only or even the most appropriate place to do this.

Unfortunately, high school history texts have “historically” had a political agenda. One only needs to read how the “Mexican American War/La intervencion norteamericana” is depicted on either side of the border.

Perhaps we should agree to disagree. Ad hominem remarks may make you feel better but they don’t prove your arguments.

When HP mentions the military, the fact that your already showing your uneaseness with the military shows that you might need some tolerence training in that department as well. After all, the military is an honorable profession. Military people should be able to come into school like any other professional alone without the premise of community helpers. It saddess me to hear teachers feel the way you do. I guess your a product of liberal college education. However, I commend you for reading HP’s website. I hope it will expand your insight into conservativism. Even if we don’t agree with each other.

1. Most important to me is that homosexuality as a lifestyle is not a morally benign issue. Reasonable, honest, good hearted people can disagree about whether or not homosexuality as a lifestyle is morally acceptable or not. To push it on children as a defacto morally benign issue is to take sides in this debate, and is therefore trampling on the rights of families to decide their own moral direction.

2. These are children, and frankly, they shouldn’t be hearing about homosexuality and the natural or unnaturalness of it at such an early age. When you are talking about first and second graders, whether or not they should hear this should be up to their parents, not up to educrats who don’t personally raise these children.

3. It doesn’t allow the parents/children any other option. If, for example, the public school system supported vouchers where it gave parents the ability to opt out of this program, well then, we are talking about something different. But the same people that want to force this program down the throats of those who morally object to it, are the same people that will fight tooth and nail against any system that allows parents to send their kids to a different school. In other words, this isn’t just brainwashing, this is forced brainwashing.

4. This isn’t merely a ‘bias free’ curriculum, this is one that goes out of its way to paint homosexuality in a positive, non-critical light. As my quote above demonstrates, “A closer reading makes it clear there is also an intent to discourage any disparaging references to anyone who’s gay, even if the comments are unrelated to the subject’s sexuality.” If that isn’t brainwashing, what is?

As much as you want to paint it as such, this is not an issue of tolerance vs. intolerance. This is more of an issue of ‘freedom of religion’. It is like what David Horowitz says about free speech, (paraphrasing)”I may disagree with everything you say, but I will fight for your right to say it”. In other words, this is not about whether one thinks homosexual lifestyles are morally benign or not, this is about whether parents have the right to believe and teach to their children their own moral virtues, homosexuality being just one of them.

Now let’s talk about your soldiers. Yes. The thought of soldiers in the classroom is not one that makes me happy. It all depends on the circumstance though. If the soldier were to come in to the classroom and no other community people were to come in then absolutely not because I would be pushing an agenda with my students. If the soldier came in along with various other community helpers such a a postal carrier, police officer, trash collector etc, this would be ok.

Anyway, I know that there is no sense in wasting any more time on this issue since we will never, ever agree. How truly sad it is to live in a world where we have to even have discussions about tolerance. Why can’t we appreciate all people for who they are and what they bring to the table?