Wednesday, December 21, 2005

The Washington Times Tries to Stir Stuff Up

Monday was the first meeting of the MCPS citzens advisory committee. That was an important milestone, as the school district gets back on its feet after the controversy over the sex-ed curriculum. So, not surprisingly, I got a call from Washington Times reporter Jon Ward, who has been covering this issue in print for more than a year now. He wants to know how I feel about being on the committee with Peter Sprigg.

Listen, I despise everything Peter stands for. I've been clear about that, and I have not changed my opinion.

But we have work to do. He and I are two people out of fifteen on a committee that is charged with advising the school board on a new curriculum. The committee will vote on stuff, and if Peter can convince the majority that his gay-hating point of view is better, he will get his way. If he can't, he won't. I am confident that reasonable people will vote against him, but maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But actually, I'm pretty comfortable with this. When Peter and I met at the meeting Monday night (we have met before, in the green room at MSNBC and other places), we shook hands and spoke amicably to one another. We want different outcomes, but we are working together in the process.

I have no desire to badmouth the guy in the press or on the blog at this point. If I have to fight him, we can fight fair, in the committee meeting room, following Robert's Rules of Order or some adaptation thereof.

Jon tried different angles to get me to say nasty things about Sprigg. I did tell him that I thought Sprigg was "malicious," which was not nice, but, well, I do think that, and he would say something equally sweet if asked to describe my viewpoint. I'll guess he would call me a "pro-homosexual," which is a word, I think, that he made up himself and uses frequently.

Other than that, I told Jon I thought we could work together. I said nice things about differences of opinion. I said I didn't think the committee would have to fight, that we could all discuss and come up with a consensus.

Failing to get any ugly personal comments from me, this young reporter went back into the blog, to last summer, when I explained why I thought Peter Sprigg is a nut. He went back to THIS POST, where I discussed Sprigg's talk at the CRC Hate-Fest, summarizing his points and explaining what I found evil about it. In that post I also talked about Sprigg's part in the campaign against SpongeBob SquarePants and his statement that "tolerance" and "diversity" are code-words used by the "pro homosexual movement," which is unbelievable to somebody like me. (For the record, I support tolerance and diversity. I like them. And I'm not gay, and don't give a damn about any pro-homosexual movement, if they have one, whatever a pro-homosexual is.) Re-reading it, it was a pretty good post, and I stand by it. But that was last summer. Jon pulled a couple of inflammatory statements out of context and put them into the Reverend Moon's paper yesterday morning.

It might have been good if he had attended the meeting, maybe he could have had a news story about an actual event, rather than digging through last summer's blog for quotes. But, y'know, it was his girlfriend's birthday. And of course Clark always chooses Lois over covering a story.

I have my beliefs and Peter Sprigg has his, and we are on the new committee together. If everybody felt the same about everything, there would be no need for a committee. So we disagree. I can live with that.

Let me say, I think there are two legitimate sides to the ongoing controversy over sex education. One side seeks to protect the innocence of children, to preserve some sense of modesty, and to resist the sexualization of everything our young people are exposed to. The other side seeks to present important facts in an objective way, so that students learn enough to make wise decisions in their own lives and to live as respectful citizens. The two sides are not opposed, they simply focus differently. It is entirely possible for an open discussion to result in compromise and consensus.

But there is a third view. There are people, represented by the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and the Washington Times, who simply want it all to go away. They don't want to improve the sex-ed curriculum, they want to destroy it.

I think it was bad form for The Times to try to stir up discord when Montgomery County needs to move in a positive direction. And I hope that in the future The Times will strive to support the county, rather than attempt to undermine our hard work by trying to make a serious collaborative process into a petty personal squabble. I don't expect it, but I do hope.

61 Comments:

Blogger Kay2898 said...

Well what would one expect of Jon Ward at Times? He as we all know was caught suggesting strategy to CRC in emails to them early on as well as on Turner's private email list of not so nice things to say.


Figures...and who could take a newspaper seriously with Moon involved?

December 21, 2005 11:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that two people are on a committee together when one of them has repeatedly made nasty, exaggerated remarks about the other is news. Jim's past comments are a legitimate part of the story.

And, Kay, you didn't add anything. Why even embarass yourself by commenting?

December 21, 2005 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Interesting article. I especially loved Michelle Turner's quote at the end: " "If they take a more accurate and less political position on materials, it's a good thing. If they decide to continue with political advocacy, then there's a problem,".

To me that sounds like she wants factual information included in the curriculum instead of personal views - which is exactly what TTF and the advisory board is trying to do."

This is a lie. Jim even admitted today, on this blog, that he wants his personal views in the curriculum and not the facts. He mocked the idea of scientific proof.

"Unfortunately, based on her track record she seems to believe that her views are the "facts" and the medically accurate facts are just politics. Interesting..."

Medically, there are no facts.

"As far as scrounging up old blog comments - I agree the reporter was looking for something juicy and it was a low blow. However, as a fellow blogger I have learned that you should never write something on your blog that you don't want everyone on the internet to read. You never know where it could wind up. Believe me, my blog would be a LOT more interesting if I didn't follow that rule :"

Well said, Andrea.

December 21, 2005 12:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Well Andrea, maybe it's hard to explain. I re-read what I had said about Peter, and it's just fine, I think moral people should take a stand against someone like him. But I am setting out to work with the guy. Jon Ward knows that, obviously. But instead of bringing any "news" to the discussion, or reporting on anything that's actually going on, he puts some inflammatory junk in the paper.

If a person wanted to interrupt the process, this is what they'd do. From Jon's previous collaborations with the CRC, we can well guess that he does want to disrupt the committee's work.

This blog is a place for open expression and, for me, a place for self-discovery. I didn't come to this controversy with any beliefs about any of this, I'm just finding out what I think by engaging in the debate. As long as I stay honest in what I say, I don't regret any of it.

JimK

December 21, 2005 1:06 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said, "And, Kay, you didn't add anything. Why even embarass yourself by commenting?"

Well anonymous first I do not care what you think (no one does) and second your obsession and paranoia are shining through as it relates to myself and other women on the blog.

December 21, 2005 1:16 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said, "This is a lie. Jim even admitted today, on this blog, that he wants his personal views in the curriculum and not the facts. He mocked the idea of scientific proof."


Anonymous grasping at straws and lying as usual. But then again this anon is consistent in idiocy.

December 21, 2005 1:19 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

Who cares what Anon thinks! The Times is a rag and I know from personal experience that they will change stories based on money coming in The Times was asked to do an expose on Ritalin by the Scientologists who were advertising heavily with them quite some time ago. The Times talked it up- and then when their science/medical reporter at the time(someone with integrity and education- how did that happen?) determined that the Scientologists were absolutely wrong- this big three part series became a tiny article saying almost nothing.

And Peter Sprigg is a disgrace- I heard the lies he spewed at the CRC hatefest-so when we are talking about nasty, exaggerated remarks- that describes Peter exactly.

December 21, 2005 1:22 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

This is a lie. Jim even admitted today, on this blog, that he wants his personal views in the curriculum and not the facts. He mocked the idea of scientific proof.

Wha?

You don't even know what "my personal views" are. I haven't mentioned them at any time in public, and don't have any desire to propagate them through the schools. My personal views are ... personal. I keep them to myself.

Second of all, I couldn't "mock the idea of scientific proof," because there is no such idea. It's an ignorant misunderstanding. Nothing in science is proven, science is a process of discovery.

JimK

December 21, 2005 1:30 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said...
The fact that two people are on a committee together when one of them has repeatedly made nasty, exaggerated remarks about the other is news.


Yes news to CRC/PFOX and like kind that not everyone on the new CAC is a bigot or homophobe. The article by Jon Ward just confirms that CRC/PFOX and like kind are worried.

December 21, 2005 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Second of all, I couldn't "mock the idea of scientific proof," because there is no such idea"

there you go

December 22, 2005 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well Andrea, maybe it's hard to explain. I re-read what I had said about Peter, and it's just fine, I think moral people should take a stand against someone like him. But I am setting out to work with the guy. Jon Ward knows that, obviously. But instead of bringing any "news" to the discussion, or reporting on anything that's actually going on, he puts some inflammatory junk in the paper."

It's not hard to explain, Jim, it's hard to rationalize. The antagonism you've shown to this guy is news to most newspaper readers- few people read this blog. It's important context to understanding the relationships on the committee. Although you'd like to hide, the public has a right to know what a jerk you are. You're the king of inflammatory language.

"If a person wanted to interrupt the process, this is what they'd do. From Jon's previous collaborations with the CRC, we can well guess that he does want to disrupt the committee's work."

You mean like the Eastern liberal press doesn't want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq. What's wrong with the occasional moderate in journalism. Read Bernard Goldberg.

"This blog is a place for open expression and, for me, a place for self-discovery. I didn't come to this controversy with any beliefs about any of this, I'm just finding out what I think by engaging in the debate."

what a bunch of crap

"As long as I stay honest in what I say, I don't regret any of it."

Until you start showing some regret, this will come up again and again. Apologies are in order.

December 22, 2005 11:32 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Wow ... the king.

JimK

December 22, 2005 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes news to CRC/PFOX and like kind that not everyone on the new CAC is a bigot or homophobe. The article by Jon Ward just confirms that CRC/PFOX and like kind are worried."

No, it's parents that are worried about what their kids are taught. If the gay agenda is successfully thrust on the public schools, it will be the beginning of the end of public schools in America.

December 22, 2005 11:39 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

"It's not hard to explain, Jim, it's hard to rationalize. The antagonism you've shown to this guy is news to most newspaper readers- few people read this blog. It's important context to understanding the relationships on the committee. Although you'd like to hide, the public has a right to know what a jerk you are. You're the king of inflammatory language."


Sprigg, Dobson, Moon and all their like kind bring it upon themselves.
Their hatefulness toward homosexuals, etc. is a disgrace. People are not going to stand for bigotry and hatefulness that they and you spew.

If you do not like people standing up to them and others like CRC and PFOX then quit writing or reading this blog.

By the way you jealousy of Jim is showing.

December 22, 2005 11:44 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

"No, it's parents that are worried about what their kids are taught. If the gay agenda is successfully thrust on the public schools, it will be the beginning of the end of public schools in America."


Gee TTF'rs are parents too and they are concerned as well when bigotry and hate are taught such
as what CRC promotes.

What in the world is a "gay agenda?" I did not know agendas could be gay.

December 22, 2005 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Their hatefulness toward homosexuals, etc. is a disgrace. People are not going to stand for bigotry and hatefulness that they and you spew."

So unless we teach kids that they should indulge whatever desire strikes them, we'll be hateful bigots. Typical bigotry from Kennedy, Romero and Larry Flynt.

December 22, 2005 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look, the point is you don't think Jim should be accountable for what he says. I think the text of this blog will be evidence in court when the Board has to explain why a ranting lunatic was put on the CAC. Not exactly a community representative, as Jon Ward has, unfortunately for you, pointed out.

December 22, 2005 12:22 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Your jealousy of Jim and his having a seat on CAC is showing again.

December 22, 2005 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What in the world is a "gay agenda?" I did not know agendas could be gay."

Do you even know what an agenda is?

December 22, 2005 12:27 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

anonymous said, "Not exactly a community representative, as Jon Ward has, unfortunately for you, pointed out."


Jon Ward writes for a rag. He was outed on this blog as suggesting strategy to CRC and company. That is what he and you are upset about.

Jon Ward writes for Moon's paper..enough said.

December 22, 2005 12:28 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

We all know that there is no "gay agenda" and your agenda to suggest such is going nowhere.

December 22, 2005 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your jealousy of Jim and his having a seat on CAC is showing again."

More jackass rhetoric. Jim whines about being quoted accurately and if anyone disagrees, they must be jealous.

Leaving all intelligent readers to wonder: jealous of what?

December 22, 2005 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We all know that there is no "gay agenda" and your agenda to suggest such is going nowhere."

So all these gay advocacy groups have missions and beliefs but not a plan or strategy? Or do you deny these groups exist? Oh that's right: you can't really do that when you're posting on one of their blogs!

December 22, 2005 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jon Ward writes for a rag. He was outed on this blog as suggesting strategy to CRC and company. That is what he and you are upset about."

Actually, I'm not all that upset. Jim has shown once again that he thinks he shouldn't be accountable for his rhetoric. Everyone reading this knows that so I'm pleased with this turn of events. Poetic justice.

December 22, 2005 12:35 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Yes, Jon Ward and Wash Times sure showed us. We are still laughing.

December 22, 2005 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said Typical bigotry from Kennedy, Romero and Larry Flynt."

Flynt relayed he was so honored to be a part of your thoughts and library


snow white

December 22, 2005 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Leaving all intelligent readers to wonder: jealous of what?

Well anonymous that would leave you out since we already know about your lack of intelligence.

snow white

December 22, 2005 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Flynt relayed he was so honored to be a part of your thoughts and library"

So, you are in contact.

December 22, 2005 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Flynt wanted to know where to send your subscriptions that you renewed since your previous ones (he noted you have had them for years) are running out.



Wanted to make sure you had a Merry Christmas and at least one gift under that tree!

Lumps of coal are not any fun.

snow white

December 22, 2005 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When Mr. Kennedy learned of Mr. Sprigg's nomination to the committee last summer, he wrote that Mr. Sprigg was a "big-time, dyed in the wool nut" who "sets the standard for everything that is despicable.""

December 22, 2005 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

True Sprigg is a nut who lives and breaths to spew hatefulness about homosexuals. Associated with Dobson.... birds of a feather you know.


snow white

December 22, 2005 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

these guys have done good work to strength families in America

but unless they affirm sinful behavior, they're bigots- right, Kay

December 22, 2005 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous said, but unless they affirm sinful behavior, they're bigots- right, Kay


Poor anonymous so parnoid and obessed with Kay even when addressing others. Have you seen a good shrink lately? They can help with that.


snow white

December 22, 2005 3:46 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I invite you to go to the post where I said those things, so you can see what I really said. Unless you'd rather just take it from the Times. I linked it in the blog post.

JimK

December 22, 2005 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just did, Jim. The only way they may have taken you out of context is that you said one of his writings is despicable not he himself. Not much of a distinction.

This is a public forum, Jim. Why don't you just disavow the statements and apologize for getting carried away?

December 22, 2005 4:20 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

Anon- talks about sin, the gay agenda- okay, anon- this is why I want you to stay away from my kids and their education. I don't want them learning the crazy, bigot agenda.

And I repeat Jon Ward is not a reporter and the Times is a rag that could never get published if it didn't get so much support from Reverend Moon- the advertising revenues of the Times is pathetic. Without Moon pouring the money he gets from the labors of his cult followers, the Times would close in a week.

December 22, 2005 4:40 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said, "This is a public forum, Jim. Why don't you just disavow the statements and apologize for getting carried away?"

*****


Oh anon you would just love that..do not hold your breath.


Why should Jim apolgize for speaking the truth? Sprigg was at the CRC hatefest as a fetured speaker and guess what...
Sprigg hates homosexuals. He talks about them, writes about them and says hateful things about them...period

Nobody should respect that and we don't.

December 22, 2005 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon- talks about sin, the gay agenda- okay, anon- this is why I want you to stay away from my kids and their education. I don't want them learning the crazy, bigot agenda."

You're really a hypocrite, Andrea. A scant 1% of the population is gay but kids "need" to learn about it. Most people are religious but you want to hide from your kids.

December 22, 2005 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tweeeeeet!

One percent!?

Out of bounds. Andrea, you get a free kick.

December 22, 2005 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said, "This is a public forum, Jim. Why don't you just disavow the statements and apologize for getting carried away?"

*****


Oh anon you would just love that..do not hold your breath.


Why should Jim apolgize for speaking the truth? Sprigg was at the CRC hatefest as a fetured speaker and guess what...
Sprigg hates homosexuals. He talks about them, writes about them and says hateful things about them...period

Nobody should respect that and we don't."

Kay, if he can't apologize for calling a fellow committee member "a dyed in the wool nut" and "despicable", he'll be ineffective in meetings. Sounds like he's already out of the loop, anyway.

He can choose to be a respectable member of this group or a demogogic rabble-rouser.

December 22, 2005 5:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tweeeeeet!

One percent!?

Out of bounds. Andrea, you get a free kick."

What an interesting thing to say.

Let's keep the kids from knowing about religion, Andrea. Might be dangerous.

December 22, 2005 5:08 PM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Kay, if he can't apologize for calling a fellow committee member "a dyed in the wool nut" and "despicable", he'll be ineffective in meetings. Sounds like he's already out of the loop, anyway.


Again Sprigg is considered a nut. If you think Jim is so out of the loop why are you wanting an apology?

December 22, 2005 5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't care if he apologizes or not

looks better for our side if he doesn't

I don't expect him to, either- he's too full of himself to consider civility more important than his ... well, you know

December 22, 2005 9:25 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

Anon, my children who obviously are more well read and more intelligent than you(but perhaps you are younger than them-are you in your early teens?) know a great deal about religion-they know a lot about their own and other religions as well. They just aren't small-minded, narrow and bigoted like you. Religion and truly being religious doesn't involve
condemning those who believe differently or claiming that others are sinners. In fact, I think religion is a lot more about helping others- not condemning them. I know you like to make fun of that since you think spewing hatred and determining who sinners are is what God wants you to do. I would bet that your nasty disposition and hatefulness towards others is probably a sin in your religion. Odd that at this time of year, considering what you claim about religion-that you are so nasty. Not that I claim to understand so clearly as you do( no doubt God speaks to you directly)- but I doubt that Christianity actually suggests that Jesus was born, lived, died and was resurrected so people could be hateful in his name. Maybe you should take some time to actually pray and talk to your pastor about why you feel it is important to come to this blog. Certainly you don't do any good- you will never make any effect on TTF- but you probably do yourself- and the soul you think you have- some infinite harm- if you actually think you are a religious person. Go ahead, spew, be nasty-but don't pretend it has anything to do with religion or that you are religious in any real sense of the word.

December 22, 2005 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would bet that your nasty disposition and hatefulness"

You ought to go back and read your own posts.

Another lie you keep tossing out is that I or anyone else has suggested teaching what you call our "bigotry and hatefulness" to kids. Actually, CRC advocates keeping the curriculum the way it is. We don't want to teach any view- just facts, all the facts. As we've seen, you don't want kids to know the truth but you imagine you change the truth by indoctrinating them into your fantasy world.

As for religion, the topic is usually brought by your side in ways that display your bigotry and anti-religion views.

December 23, 2005 8:44 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said, "Actually, CRC advocates keeping the curriculum the way it is. We don't want to teach any view- just facts, all the facts. As we've seen, you don't want kids to know the truth but you imagine you change the truth by indoctrinating them into your fantasy world."



***********
Really then why does most of CRC leadership not have their kids in sex ed even old and why do their kids either opt out of old and/or got to private schools to avoid what CRC has labeled an indoctrination program?

We all remember(and have) Steve Fisher's rant on tha item and know that none of Michelle's kids take it or took it, etc. Even Johnny Garza's kids are in private. We could go on.


CRC is using the old curriculum as a ruse and everyone knows it. Are you going to now tell us the old graphic of a penis on condom usage was now good? If the old was so great to you all now why didn't your kids take it?

December 23, 2005 9:13 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

OK, that's interesting to learn that Cranky-Anon is actually a CRC member. It makes some things clearer, I think. Somebody commenting here can be anywhere in the world, we didn't know.

"Keeping the curriculum the way it is" is not possible, as the state has mandated the teaching of sexual variation, which is entirely omitted at the present time. Keeping things the way they are is sort of a definitive conservative goal, but it can't be done here.

Besides, I should point out, things have changed. Elton John just got married, Brokeback Mountain is a box-office success -- nobody cares any more if some people are gay. A tiny minority of extremists might continue to fight it, but the change is done. People really don't care what your sexual orientation is.

As for our "anti-religious" views, it should be clear that many of our members are quite religious. Our view is that religion has its place, and its place is not in the public schools. Especially when religious beliefs conflict with facts.

JimK

December 23, 2005 9:17 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

JimK said...
OK, that's interesting to learn that Cranky-Anon is actually a CRC member. It makes some things clearer, I think. Somebody commenting here can be anywhere in the world, we didn't know.

***************
Third Group.....

December 23, 2005 9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kay and Jim tag team:

I'm not in CRC. I meant "we" as in all people who advocate responsible education.

Again, you're just throwing up a smoke screen to obscure the fact that CRC hasn't, as you say, advocated teaching their view of homosexuality. They've consistently advocated teaching all the facts. As we've seen today, you don't want to teach all the facts but only those that support your fairy tale view of homosexuality.

Jim again displays his bigotry by saying religion needs to stay in its place. He sides with the bigots of history who think anyone different from them should stay in their place.

But I guess if I disagree, I must be an obsessed psychotic. More bigotry.

December 23, 2005 9:57 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Sure anon....
Third group....

December 23, 2005 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another brilliant post from Kay "afraid-o-the-facts" Romero

Why can't we teach kids that science has not determined the cause of hoosexuality?

December 23, 2005 10:15 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC anon said, "Again, you're just throwing up a smoke screen to obscure the fact that CRC hasn't, as you say, advocated teaching their view of homosexuality. They've consistently advocated teaching all the facts."


***********

Remember CRC promoting these?????


http://www.truthatschool.org/red_flags.htm


http://www.truthatschool.org/talking_points.htm

December 23, 2005 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you got something to say, say it

I'm not reading your links

December 23, 2005 10:17 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Anonymous said...
Another brilliant post from Kay "afraid-o-the-facts" Romero



Sure CRC anon....
Third group....

December 23, 2005 10:17 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Jim again displays his bigotry by saying religion needs to stay in its place. He sides with the bigots of history who think anyone different from them should stay in their place.

Ah, good one, Anon. I am not ashamed to promote the separation of religion and government, and don't think I'm exactly alone in that.

So let me ask you this one, not that you'll have the intellect to answer it. Say you have a society with two or more religions. You seem to think religion should be part of government... which religion should it be? And how should government deal with minority religions? Say there is an A holiday on the 25th, and a B holiday on the 26th. Which one should the government celebrate? And how can a government claim to represent all the citizens, when it actively endorses one religion over others?

Never mind, I think that's a little much for you.

Why can't we teach kids that science has not determined the cause of hoosexuality?

OK, Anon, why not? It sounds ok to me. The proposed curriculum didn't say anything about any causes of homosexuality. Do you want to add that? I don't see any reason not to.

Or are you saying that we/I have speculated as to what the causes are? Cuz ... if you are, you're wrong. I don't know how people get that way, but they do.

JimK

December 23, 2005 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So let me ask you this one, not that you'll have the intellect to answer it. Say you have a society with two or more religions. You seem to think religion should be part of government... which religion should it be?"

Obviously, everyone should be part of the government. The idea of the founding fathers is that your religious conscience shouldn't be dictated by the government. You shouldn't be forced by the government to feign allegiance to any denomination, as in in England where the monarch is also head of the church. All denominations and religions have an equal right to participate in the government. You want them to stay in their place.

"Why can't we teach kids that science has not determined the cause of hoosexuality?

OK, Anon, why not? It sounds ok to me. The proposed curriculum didn't say anything about any causes of homosexuality. Do you want to add that? I don't see any reason not to."

Good. We're in agreement. I think it will help temper the misimpression that the old curriculum created.

"Or are you saying that we/I have speculated as to what the causes are? Cuz ... if you are, you're wrong. I don't know how people get that way, but they do."

You're right, you don't. It may well be that the cause is preventable. It may also be that affirming it in sex-ed classes will reduce its stigma and cause kids to consider who might not have otherwise. It may be that all homosexuals are heterosexuals with emotional and social problems. Could be. You don't know.

December 23, 2005 11:21 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

It may well be that the cause is preventable. It may also be that affirming it in sex-ed classes will reduce its stigma and cause kids to consider who might not have otherwise. It may be that all homosexuals are heterosexuals with emotional and social problems. Could be. You don't know.

But Anon, all of this is pure speculation. You wish it would go away, and come up with fantasies about how homosexuality might just be some kind of imaginary phenomenon, when there is no reason in the world to think so.

That is not a satisfactory substitute for thinking.

JimK

December 23, 2005 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no choice but to speculate. That's what you have done repeatedly. There is no evidence from which to draw any facts. The board should present all theories available, in the absence of facts.

December 23, 2005 12:20 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous, that's the dumbest idea yet. There is lots of evidence. There have been hundreds of published studies on various aspects of sexual orientation. And none of them supported the stupid stuff you have proposed.

JimK

December 23, 2005 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, that's the dumbest idea yet. There is lots of evidence. There have been hundreds of published studies on various aspects of sexual orientation. And none of them supported the stupid stuff you have proposed."

Well, idiot, after the holidays, let's get out even one study and examine it and see what it indicates. Every time I've tried to do that, you tried to evade.

December 24, 2005 10:45 AM  
Blogger Kay2898 said...

CRC Anon Third Group

December 24, 2005 12:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home