Sunday, May 08, 2005

Oh Yeah, Most Significant Ever, Sure

These guys are s-o-o-o-o proud of themselves. Here's from Liberty Counsel's web site:
The Most Significant Curriculum Decision Ever Rendered
Yesterday's ruling by a Maryland federal court which blocked the entire homosexual sex education curriculum is the most significant curriculum decision ever rendered. This is the first successful federal constitutional challenge to such curriculum. In an article entitled "Future Shock" published in the pro-homosexual magazine, The Advocate, Patricia Warren once wrote: "Whoever captures the youth owns the future." Yesterday's decision snatched our youth out of the jaws of a radical homosexual agenda.

The emergency restraining order came just in time, since the curriculum was scheduled to begin today. We are thrilled with the judge's ruling, and we thank God that our children will not become mere human experiments of a radical sex education curriculum. The Most Significant Curriculum Decision Ever Rendered

... the most significant ruling ever??? A ten day temporary restraining order against a health class?

Wow, the history of the United States must really have been uneventful.

It's OK if they're happy about their victory in court. It was pretty clever, pretty sly -- they outsmarted the MCPS lawyers and fooled a federal judge, and they do have the right to gloat about that. But ... snatched our youth out of the jaws of a radical homosexual agenda? Uh, I don't think so.

Montgomery County, are you ready to give up? You gonna let Jerry Falwell's lawyers come up here and tell your school district not to teach about tolerance, not to teach about how to avoid pregnancy and sexual transmitted diseases? OK, just turn on the TV, lean back in the ol' Laz-E-Boy, and do nothing. These guys love making your decisions for you.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Uh, I don't think so."

So you admit you have a homosexual agenda?

May 08, 2005 11:39 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Real clever, there, Anon. I think their depiction of the situation is hysterical and out-of-proportion, but it serves their ends. If there were a "homosexual agenda," and kids were being snatched from the jaws of it, that would be one thing. To have obtained an injunction against a health class that teaches that some people are gay and some failies have two daddies ... no, that's not it. No agenda, no jaws.

May 09, 2005 7:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that all the homosexual awareness/tolerance this curriculum involves? Telling students that "some people are gay and some families have two daddies"? I'm visualizing the final exam right now:

Question 1.
Gay people exist. True or False?

Question 2.
Little Johnnie's daddies are gay. How many daddies does he have?

May 09, 2005 8:43 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

You think it's funny, and, well, it is, sorta, but currently the health teachers are not allowed to mention the fact that there are gay people. Can you imagine "sex education" that pretends such a thing does not exist? It's bizarre, but that's what we have had for the past 35 years, and thanks to the success of Jerry Falwell's lawyers, that's what we're going to keep.

So the exam might look like this:
Q: It is acceptable to mention gay people in a Montgomery County health class. True or false?
A: You're fired.

May 09, 2005 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Montgomery County it seems is allowing a curriculum that suggests that Catholic opposition to gays is based on hatred/bigotry. What a lie.

It seems its okay for liberals to attack Christianity and especially Catholicism these days. It would be fine for them to state their view and move on but no they have to try and malign Catholics in the process.

May 09, 2005 11:52 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Actually, our group has endorsed the Catholic view all along. Their belief is that gay sexual orientation is not a sin, but homosexual behavior is unnatural. So it is up to the person to control his or her own behavior.

There are two parts to that. First of all, gay people are acceptable, they just need to be celibate if they want to be good Catholics. The second part is, Catholics only expect the Catholic principles to apply to Catholics. They don't think the whole world needs to practice whatever their religion teaches.

I don't believe you will find a single word of anti-Catholic sentiment on this web site anywhere. (I sent my own kids to Catholic school for years.)

May 09, 2005 12:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay Jim K.

Here we go again with not telling the facts again. "Our group has endorsed the Catholic view all along. Their belief is that gay sexual orientation is not a sin, but homosexual behavior is unnatural. " Yeah right!

Anon... don't believe him for one minute. So what you sent your kids to Catholic School... that doesn't mean a thing.

I have friends that are Catholic... and they said it is stated that homosexuality is a sin. There is not grey area here, buddy... so don't try to make it grey!

Jim K. said, "I don't believe you will find a single word of anti-Catholic sentiment on this web site anywhere."

He doesn't believe? So your not too sure of yourself. Hummmm.....
Anywhere???... I surely wish I had the time to look through all of your mess on this website to give Anon your personal quotes not supporting this statement...

I'll can tell you Anon... what you will find on this website... pro-homosexual advocacy, misinformation of the facts regarding STD's, HPV transmissions, etc. Take a look for yourself Anon... you should be able to read between the lies... oh, I meant lines.

Suzie Q.

May 09, 2005 1:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


All due respect intended, you are wrong. Catholics are Christian and Christian doctrine clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. That being said, because somebody is sinning does not make them evil or bad, merely human. Jesus forgives us of all types of sin, homosexuality included.

What is wrong about this class is not that it mentions homosexuality, but that it teaches a point of view with the intent of countering a religious viewpoint. That by its very definition means that it is teaching religion. (Where are our church-state separatists now?)

Perhaps if the material (both in class and supplemental) simply removed all references to it as a moral issue and merely referenced there being those that engage in a homosexual lifestyle it would win some support.

As it stands, you are not likely to win.

May 09, 2005 1:40 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said...

>>Jesus forgives us of all types of sin, homosexuality included.<<

Not everyone believes homosexuality is a sin.

I do not.

Kay R

May 09, 2005 2:00 PM  
Blogger War Diaries said...

Ok, look:
"What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality?

The Church recognizes a basic distinction between homosexual orientation (or same-sex attraction) and homosexual behavior (see the Catechism, 2357-59). A homosexual orientation is usually not chosen and is a cause of suffering. Although this inclination is objectively disordered, it is not in itself sinful. Homosexual behavior, in contrast, is gravely sinful. Like all human actions, homosexual behavior is a choice, because we are not animals dominated by urges, but persons with free will. Like everyone else, homosexual persons are called to chastity, that is, the right ordering of their sexual desires."

Guess what I found that quote?
That's Ex-Recall website.

SusieQ, it would help if you start, in fact, quoting, instead of spilling your misrepresentations.
And we couldn't care less about your opinions, but at any rate, we have more than one Catholic doctrine expert among us… if you only knew.

May 09, 2005 2:11 PM  
Blogger War Diaries said...

Matt, to speak of an "homosexual lifestyle" is a point of view, not a statement of facts...
That would imply that homosexuality is chosen -which the Catholic Church denies-. Yes, acting upon your desires is chosen... Heterosexual and homosexual priests, for instance, chose to be celibate and don't act upon their sexual orientations. You [I'm pressuming you are heterosexual], and all homosexuals could do the same. The problem is when you don't chose to do so, but demand that all homosexuals do it or else "agree" to be label sinners.

May 09, 2005 2:17 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Matt, I have no doubt that Jesus would be horrified to see what people like you have made of his teachings. As for you, at least you should not attempt to speak for the Catholic church, of which you are clearly not a member, and I don't think you should assume that all Christians believe like you about "Christian doctrine." The Bible has a couple of lines about homosexuality, and lots about forgiveness and not judging others.

May 09, 2005 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone who has the curriculum can show me the exact quote but as I read it in the Washington Post it when something like this. {many religions in the past have used hatered and bigotry to justify their treatment of african americans} I believe this is what I was referring to. It then goes on to say there are tolerant religions and lists them. This is plainly an attack on Catholicism. It attributes motive to Catholics and offers a distored picture of the faith, further it offers no Catholic defense. Only a bigot would slyly make Catholics out to be hateful people by associating disagreement with homosexual behavior as hateful and bigoted.

Again, I dare you to post the text of the curriculum in your reply. You will see there is no question but to suggest a hateful motive(on the part of Catholics) to these impressionable young kids.

May 09, 2005 2:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You gonna let Jerry Falwell's lawyers come up here and tell your school district not to teach about tolerance, not to teach about how to avoid pregnancy and sexual transmitted diseases?"

Lets get one thing straight-
tolerance is for everyone. not just gays, lesbians, staights, blacks, white, pinks or blues. everyone. tolerance is a trait learned in kindergarden on up and if students dont have it down pat by now, maybe they arent mature enough to be taking any sex-ed course. not to mention, the best way to "avoid pregnancy and sexual transmitted diseases" is abstinence. are you saying otherwise?

May 09, 2005 3:00 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Hmm, I wonder what the plural of "Anonymous" is...

Anon2, abstinence is great. Abstinence education is ineffective. Let's encourage our kids to be abstinent, and let the schools teach them the facts.

Anon1, I have the feeling this isn't worth doing, but here we go. Here are the two paragraphs from the judge's opinion that I think you are talking about. The judge introduces this section by saying The Revised Curriculum contains a second handout also entitled "Myths and Facts," which states ... then he quotes a section, then this one:

The Bible contains six passages which condemn homosexual behavior. The Bible also contains numerous passages condemning heterosexual behavior. Theologians and Biblical scholars continue to differ on many Biblical interpretations. They agree on one thing, however. Jesus said absolutely nothing at all about homosexuality. Among the many things deemed an abomination are adultery, incest, wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber, and eating shellfish, like shrimp and lobster.

Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression. Less than a half a century ago, Baptist churches (among others) in this country defended racial segregation on the basis that it was condoned by the Bible. Early Christians were not hostile to homosexuals. Intolerance became the dominant attitude only after the Twelfth Century. Today, many people no longer tolerate generalizations about homosexuality as pathology or sin. Few would condemn heterosexuality as immoral — despite the high incidence of rape, incest, child abuse, adultery, family violence, promiscuity, and venereal disease among heterosexuals. Fortunately, many within organized religions are beginning to address the homophobia of the church. The Nation Council of Churches of Christ, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches support full civil rights for gay men and lesbians, as they do for everyone else.

Now, it does appear that the judge thought this was part of the curriculum -- he says "the Revised Curriculum contains a second handout..."

But this material is not in the curriculum at all. This is never to be presented in the classroom, and the instructions to teachers are extremely clear on that point.

I don't believe this kind of thing belongs in the classroom, and in retrospect it was not especially appropriate to recommend for teachers to read. But those are two very different things. I believe -- don't you? -- that teachers should know more than their students. And so materials were suggested, for teachers to read so they would have more background on these complex and difficult subjects.

While I know that you, for one, believe in the strictest separation of church and state, and that schools should never teach about religion, I don't think this is really a bad discussion. At least it seems to be factually accurate. It would be good for a teacher to know, when a kid in class asks a question, that not all religions are bigoted -- they might not realize that, if they only got their information from the news.

(Also, note there is nothing at all about Catholicism in this.)

May 09, 2005 3:13 PM  
Blogger War Diaries said...

First, as everybody knows by now, those comments are not in the curriculum... Which does not mean they have to be, and probably taking them out of the teachers' resources is the wise course to take.
Second, I do not think it was an attack on Catholicism, more than it was an attack on any other religion with a different view. But an attack on any religion would be just equally wrong.
Third, sadly -and actually, very sadly- to say that "religions in the past have used hatred and bigotry to justify their treatment of african americans," and indigenous populations, and jews, and gypsies, a long etc. is a very sad statement of facts, and I guess the idea behind it is: religion positions on issues are also subjected to history, and they have evolved with times, as the evidence of treatment of blacks proves. Does this discussion belong on the Health curriculum? I doubt it.
When a teacher says: "most experts agree that sexual orientation is not a choice," a student could say: "well, by my church X says that homosexuality is a sin." The teacher could then say: "Well, different religions have different views on this and many issues." End of that part of the conversation.
You don't need to dare us to post it, because we have posted the text of the curriculum a million times... I won't look for it now, but you could go and do it yourself, since it is on our Resources page.
And, remember in your defense of Catholicism, that you can count on some of our own, because some of us are also Catholics.
And about the "impressionable young kids," have you stopped to think how the impressionable young kids of homosexual parents feel when their parents relationship can not even be mentioned in a class? Or how some of the kids that have the "weird" feeling of not being what society has assumed they should be feel when their feelings and attractions are considered so nasty that can not even be mentioned in a class?
And remember that the Catholic Church itself says that sexual orientation is not chosen.

May 09, 2005 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

le sigh.

Here we go again.

The text about past uses of religion cannot be found in the curriculum. That quote is from the teacher resources, which teachers may read for their own enriched understanding of a topic, but may not use in the classroom. The materials were never intended for use in the classroom, and in answer to the CRC's concerns, the BOE recently reinforced the separation of teacher sources and student materials.

As I understand it, these resources about differing religious views were added to the list of teacher's materials in order to help the teachers understand that there are many different religious perspectives on homosexuality. In hindsight, it is probably fair to say that they ought to have left the topic alone. But using the same hindsight, it is also fair to ask why the current leaders of the CRC, who were members of the Citizens' Advisory Commission (Counsel?), didn't make their objections known when the curriculum changes were submitted to the Board almost a year ago.

It is regretable that Sunday's Washington Post featured a column about this issue written by Marc Fisher. Marc is a terrific writer, and I often agree with his opinions, but he's a guy who gets most of his arobic exercize by jumping to conclusions. He has misrepresented this material as being part of the curriculum when it is not, and presents it as though it was written by the county specifically for the curriculum. That's the way he writes about everything. I don't know if he doesn't do his homework or if he just likes to stir things up. As I said I enjoy his writing, but I also recognize it for what it is.

If you want to read the teacher resources, you will find full citations at the end of the curriculum revisions. You are welcome to find the materials cited and read them for yourself. I'm sure the BOE would like more parents to read more teacher resources in every subject.

May 09, 2005 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At the risk of repeating myself, you at TTF are all wrong about the purpose of teacher resources. They are indeed a part of the currciulum. They are the ONLY resources to be used by teachers (thereby 'approved') in support of their lesson plans and classroom work. No where does it say that they are NOT to be used in the classroom or that they are ONLY for background reference only. You keep trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes by stating a FALSE PREMISE. The resouces are there to be used by teachers to support the lesson plans and work in the classroom. We have it from Russs Henke that this is the case. He should know. He works for MCPS and oversees the work of the CAC.

And furthermore, your new tone regarding CATHOLICS and other people in organized religions is amusing. The CRC has put forth these ideas for months now because we feel the revised curriculum violates the value systems of many families, and you have fought us tooth and nail. And Kay, you cut and pasted the reference to 'what the Catholic Church says' right from our website as you know and this comes fromthe Catechism of the Catholic Church. You say "Not everyone believes homosexuality is a sin. I do not." Don't you get it? We do not want the school system telling children what they should think is sinful or not sinful. It is NOT THEIR PLACE. And the judge agreed with us.

Just FYI, here it is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

May 09, 2005 4:51 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I'm not going to argue your Catholicism, I support it and have no beef with it. We've always taken that approach.

People can have their faith, I think it's important -- crucial -- for living full lives on this earth. The objection, which is apparently beyond you, has to do with imposing your own religion's values on other people.

(There is another conflict, too, which is more difficult, which comes up when faith conflicts with facts... but this conversation has not been about that.)

As long as people confine their religious practices to themselves, why would we care? But there is no rational reason, for instance, that is, a reason not based on faith, for thinking badly of non-celibate gay people. Two guys want to fall in love, who's it hurt? Some peole may have faith that tells them not to practice such behaviors themselves, and who could object to that? Ah, but some people seem to think somebody else's love life is their business!

As far as the teachers' resources, you're wrong. MCPS has pulled the documents off the web and I don't have copies here, but they did explicitly state that teachers were not to share information in the resources with students.

May 09, 2005 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, well that was AFTER they also pulled the statement 'sex play with friends of the same gender is not uncommon' -- it was not there before that.

And I would argue that the school system teaching that homosexual behavior is not sinful is indeed religious indoctrination -- secular though it may be. And that offends MY religious sensibilities. Why should your faith (secular or moral relativism, whatever you want to call it)-- trump mine?

May 09, 2005 6:10 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

The teacher
directions included in this packet are noted by the shaded areas. Teachers are
directed to present the information in bold italic print as direct lecture and they are
not to provide additional information, interpretation, or examples.

• Grade 10 Teacher's Resource

Grade 8 Teacher's Resource

Page 9 ---Grade 8
For Teacher Reference Only (The information in the shaded area is not to be shared with

Page 22-Grade 10
For Teacher Reference Only (The information in the shaded area is not to be shared with

Kay R

May 09, 2005 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a thought or two: Past misuse of the Bible does not negate it's current application to moral issues. If I use the Bible or the Koran to bolster an argument that child abuse or murder is wrong (both are expressly spoken against in those texts), that is the purpose for which those books were created. If we discriminate against murderers or pedophiles that cannot be helped - whether they are genetically predisposed to such behavior or not. This society cannot function without morals - no police force in the world could enforce it.

May 09, 2005 7:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, Thank you for your response. Unfortunately you missed my point. First, I spoke not for the Catholic Church, of which I am not member (you are correct in pointing that out). You however, by your own admission are also not a member so perhaps you don't have the right to continue the dialog either?

Second, I believe that we are all judged by God in heaven and we should leave that to Him. That is the meaning of "judge not". I do not judge here. I love homosexuals the same as heterosexuals and show the same care and attitude towards them.

What "judge not" does not imply is that there are no sins, it simply means it is not up to us to judge them. That does not mean we should not object when something that we believe is wrong is presented. We should object, in love. Just as Jesus did with the woman adulteress at the well. He spoke clearly of her sin and then of his forgiveness.

Although several people pulled out my statements about sin, not a one commented on the crux of what I was saying. . . if they simply pull out the moral commentary on homosexuality from the material it would probably pass easily. Why is that so hard to do?

Can anyone answer that question?

May 09, 2005 8:17 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Matt, thanks for your calm tone. Pulling out the moral commentary is easy, desriable, and inevitable. If I understand the judge's ruling, there were three teachers' resources that he objected to, which brought in commentary of how various religions view homosexuality. I say, yank 'em. The curriculum itself does not moralize one way or the other.

May 09, 2005 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I have hard copy of the CAC's report and the curriculum changes as accepted by the board last November. The teacher resources are clearly marked as teacher resources. They do not have big bold highlighted "do not show this to the kids" marks on them because the curriculum was written for the use of professinal educators who know what a teacher resource is and how it is to be used.

Think of it this way: Did you put Mr Yuck stickers on your cleaning solutions before you had kids? Probably not. After all, there wasn't anyone in the house who might think that it would be fun to swallow the Formula 409, was there?

The CAC knew how the teacher resources were to be used and didn't think it was necessary to put great big warning lables on them. It was only after unthinking folks pried off the lids and misused the information that the Mr Yuck labels became necessary.

May 10, 2005 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You can say all you want that they are not for use in the classroom and I would argue then -- what the heck are they there for? With the internet so accessible there should be no need to provide 'approved resources' when any teacher could go out on the web and pull down ANYTHING they choose to support the learning going on.

No, they are APPROVED because they are for teachers to USE. That is why some members of the CAC refused to include any information on the dangers of gay sex or any information on homosexuality not being a choice -- because they didn't want THAT information making its way into the classroom. PERIOD. The judge saw right though it and you people are on overdrive trying to convince everyone that he was STUPID and that the 'approved resources' are innocuous and they are NOT to be used by teachers-- and further Tish, you also want us to believe that even though it didn't explicitly SAY SO in big bold letters, the teachers all KNOW NEVER to use 'approved resources' in the classroom.

Please, give me a break.

May 10, 2005 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JimK mentioned the issue of religious people "imposing your views". I would agree that when we make policy for children in public schools we do impose our views as opposed to express our free speech among adults which is merely expressing our views. Would it also follow that if pro-homosexual or anti-religious material were included in public curriculum that might also constitute an "imposing of views". I think the dialogue could be more fruitful if we recognize that both sides feel discriminated against.

May 10, 2005 11:31 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Bianca, there's nothing to "agree to disagree" about. I posted the documents, you can get to them on the righthand side of the blog.

Here's the kind of thing they say in the 8th grade curriculum. At one point they say (Please Note: the sources for the definitions are listed below for teacher use only. The definitions are to be presented to students as stated below – no additional information, interpretation or examples are to be provided by the teacher.)

In other words, use the definitions, but don't show 'em the materials -- the "sources of the definitions."

In another place they say For Teacher Reference Only (The information in the shaded area is not to be shared with students.)...

There's nothing to argue about. The teachers were not to share the resources with the students. None of this is ambiguous or debatable.

I said somewhere else, you want your Algebra teacher to know Geometry, too. You want the teacher to know more than the students. That's what the resources are for.

May 10, 2005 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go again, bianca, mixing things up! I hope you do that on purpose.

Bianca said: "Why should your faith (secular or moral relavatism, whatever you want to call it)--trump mine?"

The answer, dear mixed-up lady is simple. Health education isn't about faith, it's about science. Faith, religion, fundamentalism, wackoism -- whatever you want to call it -- does not belong in public schools whereas Science most certainly does.

Joyful Noise

May 10, 2005 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I will try to address what you've written above.

1) Many things such as abortion, euthaniasa are not specifically mentioned by Christ. I don't think Christ mentioned insider trading either, but reasonable people can connect the dots.

2) You are attempting to dive for the cover of moral relativism by suggesting the scriptural interpretation of homosexuality should be lumped in with ancient Jewish law prohibiting shellfish consumption.
Taken in context with all the other mentions that are anti homosex and pro heterosex (in marriage) I think a reasonable person concludes the bible prohibits homosex.

3) I don't care about 1 and 2 from above. I'm not seeking to have this interpretation put into the curriculum.

4) If its in the reading materials its part of the course. Let's not play word games. It informs the lecturer. The lecturer informs the students. It sets the tone.

5) What is really scarry here is that you don't get the point. Only a bigoted, biased group would have allowed that language into the course/reading materials in the first place.

I would love to leave my religion and gay politics out of this SEX ED course.

May 10, 2005 2:41 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, at first I didn't think you were really talking to me, with all that Biblical stuff.

As far as distinguishing between the curriculum and the teachers' resources... Look at this. A teacher is going to teach a History class about, say, the late 20th century. He wants to cover the Gulf War. In order to understand it, a historian should understand a lot about Arabic culture, and about Islam. Is it appropriate for that teacher to read the Koran, in order to understand the dynamics that underlie Arabic culture? -- An exceptional teacher will do that. Yes, it is appropriate, very appropriate -- desirable, even.

Is it appropriate to assign the Koran for classroom reading? I doubt it. I can just see the ... mmm ... parents, taxpayers, and citizens' reactions to that one!

Teachers' resources should exceed the classroom presentation. It's not a "word game." A teacher should know more than his/her students.

May 10, 2005 3:25 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home