The Examiner Reports
The Examiner carried this story today:
Montgomery County (Map, News) - Groups opposed to the new sexual education curriculum in Montgomery County Public Schools are asking a Circuit Court judge to prevent controversial lessons on homosexuality from being taught until an appeal can be heard early next year.
The motion, filed this week in Rockville, is the latest volley in a two-year battle between the county and three groups: Citizens For A Responsible Curriculum, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, and the Family Leader Network.
Lawyer and CRC President John Garza on Thursday told The Examiner a hearing date has not yet been set on its most recent motion, filed Tuesday.
The particular lessons, which are planned for all county eighth- and 10th-graders in health courses, are not scheduled to be taught until sometime in October, he said, well before a January hearing in Circuit Court on the opponents’ appeal.
That appeal challenges the state board’s decision this summer upholding the county’s approval of sexual education curriculum that Garza called “blatant discrimination against certain religious groups” because of its treatment of homosexuality.
The parents disagree with the lessons on three main points:
- The accuracy of the lessons, specifically their teaching that homosexuality is innate;
- The fact that anal sex is not distinguished as being more dangerous than vaginal sex;
- That it teaches being against homosexuality makes someone homophobic, even if the objection is on religious grounds.
“This is a moral issue that flies in the face of most religions in the United States. Most religions in the United States still believe that homosexuality is sinful,” Garza said. “The information provided to students is dangerous and inaccurate.”
Schools spokesman Brian Edwards disagreed.
“We believe that they are bringing up the same arguments again, forcing the taxpayers of Montgomery County to spend thousands of dollars to defend what’s already been decided,” Edwards said.
Still, the case is gaining attention of national groups.
Last week, Lambda Legal, which represents the rights of gays and lesbians, filed a notice in support of the county on behalf of Metro D.C. PFLAG, an advocacy group. Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director for Lambda Legal, told The Examiner that her group views the updated curriculum as healthy.
It was formulated “in a smart, responsible way, with a lot of input,” she said.
OPTING OUT
Montgomery County has long required parents or guardians of all students attending health classes, including sexual education curriculum, to sign a paper giving them permission to attend, spokesman Brian Edwards said. Children whose parents choose not to allow them to take the controversial lessons are given supplemental instruction in other health curriculum, he said. Parents will also have the opportunity to attend information sessions, complete with all videos and supplements, that their children will receive during the sex ed portions of the course.
posted by JimK at 7:15 AM
32 Comments:
Since TTF is again posting a news story without making any comments or insights, I'll make some:
"“We believe that they are bringing up the same arguments again, forcing the taxpayers of Montgomery County to spend thousands of dollars to defend what’s already been decided,” Edwards said."
The current curriculum hasn't been scrutinized by the judiciary so Edwards statement is disingenuous. A curriculum with some similarities in that it makes assertions without empirical evidence was subject to judicial scrutiny a couple of years ago and found to be illegal because it constituted viewpoint discrimination.
The new curriculum is unique and it is appropriate to delay its implementation until constitutional issues can be settled by the courts.
Lets look at this point by point...
"The parents disagree with the lessons on three main points:
The accuracy of the lessons, specifically their teaching that homosexuality is innate;"
The accuracy of the lessons are backed up by every major medical establishment (I won't requote them here, but it is ALL of the biggies). They all agree it is innate. Get over it.
"The fact that anal sex is not distinguished as being more dangerous than vaginal sex;"
Anal sex and issues of safety are taught, and should be revised in other sections of the curriculum that are not being discussed at this time. This part of the curriculum is not the place for it...the biggest reason? It is covered in the section on health and disease. The part that annoys you and that no one ever mentions is that anal sex isn't specific to the LGBT community. First, I haven't heard of a lot of lesbians having issues with this... but heterosexual couples DO. Yes, homosexual couples do to... bet there are more hetero couples doing it, though! If you can't even attribute the act appropriately...
"That it teaches being against homosexuality makes someone homophobic, even if the objection is on religious grounds."
This one is cute... no where in the curriculum does it say this. Putting words in the mouth of the curriculum, again. (sigh). Religion is not mentioned. And seriously, even if it is based on religion... you don't think it might not be homophobic? There are plenty of religious folks who don't think homosexuality is either against their religion (the same religions, by the way) or something to be vilified.
“This is a moral issue that flies in the face of most religions in the United States. Most religions in the United States still believe that homosexuality is sinful,” Garza said. “The information provided to students is dangerous and inaccurate.”
1. So why do you want to discuss a moral issue in a health class? The definition of "homophobia" is provided, nothing more. If you don't like the definition, take it up with the medical establishment. The fact remains that homosexual people exist in our (not to mention every other) society, they are our children, friends, parents, and/or teachers and they should receive facts also. My kids should have facts that are medically sound. The approved curriculum has it.
2. What is the dangerous and innacuarte information? I haven't seen or heard any yet from the updates to the curriculum, have you? I doubt it.
Be all and end all, the facts are presented in the approved curriculum and should be taught, this fall, now, today. If you don't want your kids exposed to facts, just don't sign the papers and get over it.
I agree with you, Montgomery County mom! We can't let the homophobic right-wingers bring religion into a public school. If someone does not want their son/daughter to be exposed to the real world, home school them or enroll them into a private school where religion is the root of academics. Here in Montgomery County we like to treat and be treated with equality. We find that everyone benefits from this.
"Lets look at this point by point"
Tell it to the judge. These arguments have been found deficient in a court of law before.
um...yah. So which court, where. And what points? If it has been covered before, why are we here with our "unique" curriculum which a very small minority is so het up about. The facts are presented. A court will not judge the facts, just the manner. The manner is not a subject of the suit.
The whole health class curriculum is set up so that if you don't want your kid exposed, you don't sign the paper for that section. It is open, clear, easy. If enough kids fail to opt in (the term "opt out" is wrong, wrong, wrong), MCPS would have alternative classes for the "throng" ya'll claim exist. The number required isn't that high... around 10 kids in a school of 600 I believe...
The whole thing is a tactic to make yourselves expensive and problematic so someone gives up. It isn't going to happen when it is about our kids too! You have the option, keep yours out. We have the option, and we want the approved curriculum NOW.
Let us not forget that even when you guys had 2 specified representatives included in the group recommending the changes, you couldn't manage to get your way. Go cry in someone else's milk.
"um...yah. So which court, where. And what points? If it has been covered before, why are we here with our "unique" curriculum which a very small minority is so het up about. The facts are presented. A court will not judge the facts, just the manner. The manner is not a subject of the suit."
You seem afraid to let a court look at this. One might call you judiciophobic. The court will look at many aspects of the manner in which procedures were manipulated to produce a biased product.
"The whole health class curriculum is set up so that if you don't want your kid exposed, you don't sign the paper for that section. It is open, clear, easy. If enough kids fail to opt in (the term "opt out" is wrong, wrong, wrong), MCPS would have alternative classes for the "throng" ya'll claim exist. The number required isn't that high... around 10 kids in a school of 600 I believe..."
What a joke! You know full well that if an abstinence only program were set up with an opt in policy, the numbers would be just the same. We'll have equality when both programs are available on the same terms and rather than opt in or out, parents can choose which they prefer.
"The whole thing is a tactic to make yourselves expensive and problematic so someone gives up."
Doesn't have to be so expensive. If MCPS thinks the new curriculum is so unassailable, it won't need much defense. Anyway, it sounds like wealthy national gay advocacy groups are providing legal assistance to poor destitute Montgomery County.
"It isn't going to happen when it is about our kids too! You have the option, keep yours out."
You have options too. There are plenty of liberal churches and advocacy groups that would be happy to put on these sort programs. Take your kids there and leave everyone else's kid out of it.
"We have the option, and we want the approved curriculum NOW."
Patience is a virtue, STILL.
"Let us not forget that even when you guys had 2 specified representatives included in the group recommending the changes, you couldn't manage to get your way."
Wow! MCPS stacked the deck and "even" then we couldn't get our way. What an assinine statement. The majority wins. MCPS carefully constructed that majority. It wasn't any "citizen's" advisory board.
"Go cry in someone else's milk."
Your lack of respect for our judicial system speaks volumes and the court will take notice.
Hey, chauncey.
were you a lonely child? it sure the heck seems like it! maybe if you were able to respect another's differences you would have more friends.
Hey, chauncey.
were you a lonely child? it sure the heck seems like it! maybe if you were able to respect another's differences you would have more friends.
hey youwish
You seem all gung ho on getting public schools to force school children to listen to a presentation of your personal opinion.
Instead of picking on kids, why don't you try to pass laws forcing adults to attend these kind of classes.
Oh, that's right- you couldn't get away with it. Adults have rights but kids don't.
hey youwish
You seem all gung ho on getting public schools to force school children to listen to a presentation of your personal opinion.
Instead of picking on kids, why don't you try to pass laws forcing adults to attend these kind of classes.
Oh, that's right- you couldn't get away with it. Adults have rights but kids don't.
Hey, chauncey.
You said, "Instead of picking on kids, why don't you try to pass laws forcing adults to attend these kind of classes."
Well, the thing is... here in Montgomery County we don't mind people being differen and we want to show that to children; being different IS okay.
You seem all gung ho on getting public schools to force school children to listen to a presentation of your personal opinion.
The lie, no matter how frequently it is presented is still a lie.
The fact are that no one is forced to listen to this curriculum. Only students who receive parental permission will hear it. During this spring's pilot testing of the curriculum, over 90% of MCPS parents and guardians gave their students permission.
"Well, the thing is... here in Montgomery County we don't mind people being differen and we want to show that to children; being different IS okay."
Oh, I see. So society is fine and all the adults already agree that homosexuality is great. So why can't the kids just pick up on that they way they do with all other social conventions? Why is it necessary for schools to teach this if all the parents already display it to their kids by word and example?
You know full well that most parents, in MCPS, would prefer that their kids not be given the impression that homosexuality is acceptable. If you think that attitude is wrong, go after the adults and stop trying to indoctinate the kids. See how far you get.
"The fact are that no one is forced to listen to this curriculum. Only students who receive parental permission will hear it. During this spring's pilot testing of the curriculum, over 90% of MCPS parents and guardians gave their students permission."
The kids can't opt out. the parents can but, in reality, most are afraid to buck the status quo.
Try an experiment and set up an abstinence only class in one of the schools and let parents opt their kids out under the same procedure.
You wouldn't dare because you know what the result would be.
Actually-- You are wrong, Chancey... take a look at Bea's post. Chauncey, do you even live in Montgomery County or MD? I have several friends who are teachers who just happen to be gay. I am just wondering what your take on teachers who are gay teaching is? Thank goodness Montgomery County has sexual orientation under their non-discrimination clause. Companies know that if they want the best employees they can find, they better not discriminate…and MCPS is a good example of this. I mean, look at our SAT/ACT/AP test scores. They're quite impressive and, mind you, there are a whole lot of gay teachers who taught those kids and helped them become successful.
"...the impression that homosexuality is acceptable."
Any parents who feel that presenting facts about sexual orientation gives "the impression that homosexuality is acceptable" may refuse to sign the permission slip required to enroll in the class.
The kids can't opt out. the parents can but, in reality, most are afraid to buck the status quo.
Nobody can take the class unless a
parent or guardian has signed a permission slip. It's just like a field trip where no student gets on the bus without a signed permission slip.
What study proves your ASSertion that students receive parental permission because their "parents are afraid to buck the status quo" or did you just make that up?
"Nobody can take the class unless a
parent or guardian has signed a permission slip. It's just like a field trip where no student gets on the bus without a signed permission slip."
Thanks for repeating the same dreary line. Kids have no option. They have no rights.
"What study proves your ASSertion that students receive parental permission because their "parents are afraid to buck the status quo" or did you just make that up?"
It's an observation. I remember going to one of those information meetings when my kids were in middle school about the sex ed program. Only one other parent showed up. It's obvious that parents don't do due diligence on MCPS recommendations. It's a mass rubber stamp.
Meanwhile, tell me about any permission form of any kind where any significant portion of parents have not given the sought permission. You could send home a permission slip for a field trip to a strip joint and most parents would sign it.
No proof except an observation you made and an inference you drew from one meeting you attended when your kids were in middle school? Thanks for admitting that.
Try an experiment and set up an abstinence only class in one of the schools and let parents opt their kids out under the same procedure.
Why in the world would anyone want to set up an abstinence-only class? Abstinence-only education programs usually teach, in direct opposition to the findings of the CDC, NIH and mainstream medical professional organizations, that condoms are ineffective at preventing pregnancy and the spread of disease. In fact, if they were funded with federal tax dollars since Bush came to office, they are required to ONLY give failure rates for condoms. Maryland does not accept any federal dollars precisely so it is not forced to teach such erroneous information. Abstinence pledge taking, a common tactic of abstinence-only programs, has documented failure rates as high as 88%.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/20/60minutes/main696975.shtml
One abstinence-only program, Silver Ring Thing was found to have illegally used federal tax dollars to present religious messages and its HHS grant was suspended, but not until after it had already received $1.2 million in federal tax dollars. Read about it here:
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=3918
"Nobody can take the class unless a parent or guardian has signed a permission slip. It's just like a field trip where no student gets on the bus without a signed permission slip."
Thanks for repeating the same dreary line. Kids have no option. They have no rights.
You're welcome. Sorry you find the facts "dreary." Parents decide what optional classes their minor children may take. Students can sign their own permission slip once they reach 18 years of age.
I really enjoyed this part:
"This is a moral issue that flies in the face of most religions in the United States. Most religions in the United States still believe that homosexuality is sinful," Garza said. "The information provided to students is dangerous and inaccurate."
It's interesting that he would choose to juxtapose these concepts. Part of what the petitioners find objectionable is that the curriculum acknowledges this position, and acknowledges that it is a matter of belief, not based on reason or experience. There are people who believe that homosexuality is sinful, a belief that exists alongside and in spite of the evidence-based positions of medical science. So? That's a fact, one that Garza himself just expressed, so how is this information dangerous or inaccurate?
"No proof except an observation you made and an inference you drew from one meeting you attended when your kids were in middle school? Thanks for admitting that."
Actually, it's an example of an observation made repeatedly by everyone, including, I'm sure, yourself.
Where's your example of any permission form of any kind where any significant portion of parents have not given the sought permission?
There's your proof. Most parents will return any permission form, no matter what. There is a desire not to be seen as a trouble-maker by those who basically have control of the kids' environment for a good portion of the day.
Have just one school set up an abstinence program with the same type of opt-in procedure and you'll see a higher percentage of parents return the form.
We can tell you realize this by your rhetorical dodges.
"Sorry you find the facts "dreary.""
What's dreary are your word games to change the subject. You guys keep saying kids can opt out but that's not true. We were talking about the fact that kids don't have rights and that's why gay groups focus on an effort to indoctrinate them. All you can say is what parents can do. Why don't you push for a law to bring parents in and teach them the facts about homosexuality? It's because they have rights and you couldn't do it. The kids have to sit there and listen to some authority figure tell them what is. If they argue, it's off to the principal's office.
"There are people who believe that homosexuality is sinful, a belief that exists alongside and in spite of the evidence-based positions of medical science."
There is no evidence that homosexuality is innate. Indeed, the associations agree that there are various factors leading to this dysfunction and the decisive ones may well occur after birth.
There is evidence that anal sex is more dangerous than other forms.
Calling anyone who feels the homosexuality is inappropriate and immoral phobic is viewpoint discrimination and not "evidence-based" in any way.
Hey chauncey, two things. First, why did you change the subject from sexual orientation to anal sex, of all things? Amazing, the CRC's fascination with that topic.
Second, since you brought it up, please give us one source of scientific evidence that anal sex is more dangerous than other forms. I mean data, not somebody's web site or reasoning process.
Chauncey... the sex-ed classes are NOT debate classes. They are simply there to present scientific facts . Kids can join the debate team if they want to. This is just like evolution... just because some people believe in Intelligent Design does not make it scientifically evident.
Regarding word games to change the subject (ref chauncey @ 12:25), what do a belief that homosexuality is a sin and the conclusion that sexual orientation is innate have to do with one another? I don't see the connection.
Are you suggesting that the positions taken by the professional medical associations are based on something other than evidence? If so, what is it? You (and the authors of this petition) seem to be confusing the abundant evidence - a great deal of which is contributed by the ex-gay industry itself - that orientation is an innate human characteristic, with the fact that orientation is a complex phenomenon. They are not contradictory statements, as the petition so laughably tries to establish.
The curriculum provides a definition of homophobia; the term is not tossed out and left to random interpretation. It also makes no mention of the source of beliefs, because that would be irrelevent. What terminology would you suggest in its place, if you object to that term?
Finally, if your concern is with anal sex rather than with orientation, I would think that you would want that topic thoroughly covered - simply because it directly impacts many more people. As someone else already pointed out, there are a lot more straight people engaging in anal sex, so this population far exceeds in number the population of gay people.
The kids can't opt out. the parents can but, in reality, most are afraid to buck the status quo.
What study proves your ASSertion that students receive parental permission because their "parents are afraid to buck the status quo" or did you just make that up?
It's an observation. I remember going to one of those information meetings when my kids were in middle school about the sex ed program. Only one other parent showed up. It's obvious that parents don't do due diligence on MCPS recommendations. It's a mass rubber stamp.
No proof except an observation you made and an inference you drew from one meeting you attended when your kids were in middle school? Thanks for admitting that.
Actually, it's an example of an observation made repeatedly by everyone, including, I'm sure, yourself.
None of this proves parents sign permission slips because "most are afraid to buck the status quo." You just made it up. If you want some other permission slip to make some other point, go find it yourself.
There is no evidence that homosexuality is innate.
The curriculum doesn't say "homosexuality is innate." You made that up too. The curriculum says "sexual orientation is innate and a complex part of one's personality."
...earlier in the day
"You seem afraid to let a court look at this. One might call you judiciophobic. The court will look at many aspects of the manner in which procedures were manipulated to produce a biased product."
I'm happy to have the court look into it... except that by doing so is expensive and the only possible outcome is that the curriculum is upheld as solid facts. It hurts me none at all except my tax dollars going to hold up somthing I know will eventually be put into place.
"You know full well that if an abstinence only program were set up with an opt in policy, the numbers would be just the same. We'll have equality when both programs are available on the same terms and rather than opt in or out, parents can choose which they prefer."
If there were an abstinence only program, you bet your bippy I would pull both my kids faster than you can post a one word response! I would not subject my children to that rubbish. The only reason both don't exist is that there IS NOT ENOUGH INTEREST. If there were 10 families each year in each class who wanted it, there is every chance you would get it, but guess what, there aren't that many!!!
"Doesn't have to be so expensive. If MCPS thinks the new curriculum is so unassailable, it won't need much defense. Anyway, it sounds like wealthy national gay advocacy groups are providing legal assistance to poor destitute Montgomery County."
Yah, just like Liberty Lawyers provided it to ya'll. But I'm happy to let a National group foot some bills caused by nutjobs and microsopic minorities.
"You have options too. There are plenty of liberal churches and advocacy groups that would be happy to put on these sort programs. Take your kids there and leave everyone else's kid out of it."
Execpt, there are more of us, so we win. Gotta love a democracy.
"The majority wins. MCPS carefully constructed that majority. It wasn't any "citizen's" advisory board."
It was a majority the first time the curriculum passed as well as the second time... when it was even more stacked in your favor. Sorry you couldn't come up with more nutjobs to join you in the quest... the majority did win.
"Your lack of respect for our judicial system speaks volumes and the court will take notice."
Again, you are too funny. First, I have enormous respect for the judicial system, you appear to applaud the time and money wasting tactics, not me. Interesting how you feel that a mom talking on a blog should somehow become evidence in a court of law... to what ends, that I believe the suit to be spurious and downright silly. Again, gotta love a democracy. My very respectful opinion of the court system is that you will loose and it will cost MCPS and the county money.
I can have my opinion, and since it matches with the majority of my neighbors, I can have my desire to have my children educated the way I want (through my votes for School Board; local, County, and State governments, as well as my PTA).
I'm sorry you don't feel so well represented. Again, as the minority opinion, you still have your rights to fail to Opt in.
Which reminds me, what pitiful excuse of a parent would sign anything without reading it? And I'm sorry you feel that you would be cowed by such a form. If I don't agree with something, I don't sign it. I go talk to someone...
Kids are not going to sit idly by either. You are expecting a kid to want to fail to opt in and the parent won't support them? I find that hard to believe. The reverse is slightly more likely. Kids have plenty of opportunities to express themselves. I know about taking on a school board. When I was 15 I asked to take shop, and being female was refused. As a juvinile with "no choice" I went to my parents and we worked with the school district until they changed their policy. I took shop that year. As an American, you see something you don't like and you work to change it. I am happy you are doing so, but being in the decided minority, you must also realize you aren't going to win.
I love my kids...enough to make sure they have the facts... and with enough of us, that means through the public school.
When I was teaching it was painfully apparent that parents who opted their kids out of any sex class were absolutely sure their kids would not be exposed to facts and information they didn't want their kids to know (which of the pseudo-Anons said that we don't give kids any choice in the matter?). I was always amused though when I knew that Sally, who sat in on the class, would almost always be questioned by Jason (whose parents opted him out of the class - not his choice, by the way) in the next class they shared together about every last detail that was discussed in the class that day. Some parents are so removed from the world that their kids live in that they think forbidding their child to hear information is going to prevent him/her from hearing the information! What a hoot!!
However..."opt out" is still provided for those parents...the vast majority of MCPS parents who want their kids to be educated, responsible adults want this curriculum and are entitled, in our democratic society to have it for their kids. The ultimate plan by CRC to undermine the public education system in Montgomery County is doomed to failure!
Robert A.
I'm not sure how many of the people who have hitherto chimed in on this topic actually have offspring in the 8th or 10th grades in Montgomery County Public Schools.
I do.
What the CRC,PFOX and FLN court filing is REALLY saying is that they don't believe that parents' should make the choice for their own children to take these classes. They want to courts to say that even with the curriculum on line and parents' information meetings (which include showing videos and all textbooks + visuals) parents should not be allowed the opportunity to make this curriculum available to our own children.
My child is scheduled to take the half-semester of 8th grade health classes in the second quarter of this school year. I have gotten to know the health teacher at his middle school over the past two years and I think she is very qualified to teach these classes. I have every confidence that she will not only read this text to her students Just as stereotyping others based on sexuality is not an acceptable behavior, stereotyping others based on personal beliefs is also not acceptable, she will also require that her students abide by that standard in her class.
The opponents of this curriculum think that they are the only people who care about active, involved and informed parenting, and that they therefore need to step up and make sure we cannot make decisions with which they disagree. The opponents posting here today don't seem to see that their statements and biases illustrate a certain disassociation from parenting; a theoretical rather than real-world exposure to the daily intricacies of bringing adolescents into adulthood.
Sally, who sat in on the class, would almost always be questioned by Jason (whose parents opted him out of the class - not his choice, by the way) in the next class they shared together about every last detail that was discussed in the class that day.
Isn't this the real reason that these people oppose others' parental rights? They actually think that they have the right to deny every child this information, because they know their own children will hear the truth one way or another. No one is trying to prevent them from teaching their own beliefs to their children, but that's not good enough. They seem to need to prevent all instances of their beliefs being challenged and contradicted, as well.
Andrea- not anon
What Chauncey - who is just nutty anon with another name -shows is no respect for MCPS parents. The CRC and PFOX will protect the children of MCPS parents because these parents would- in Nutty's words- let kids go to a strip show if a permission slip came home. Thanks, nutty, but I didn't need you or your CRC cronies to protect my kids. You go on "protecting" the very few CRC kids who go to MCPS by not signing the slip and leave our kids alone.
I would also suggest you not pretend to have any insight into anything- your little CRC friends might buy it but we don't.
chauncey said: "There is no evidence that homosexuality is innate."
No more evidence than heterosexuality is innate.
Not to mention the testimony of nearly every homosexual alive. And Since were talking about “evidence,” how many of the homosexual persons in your life have you asked about this?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
"There is evidence that anal sex is more dangerous than other forms.
Except your issue isn’t with that is it? It’s with the fact that anal sex isn’t being taught as being EXCLUSIVE to same-gender attraction in and of itself. I’d have more respect for you if you could just admit this.
"Calling anyone who feels the homosexuality is inappropriate and immoral phobic is viewpoint discrimination and not "evidence-based" in any way.
Would that be from the “evidence-based” heterosexual viewpoint? Since when WOULDN’T a heterosexual feel that homosexuality was inappropriate and immoral for themselves? Who are you to speak for those unlike you, especially via third party?
And would you prefer being called a hetero-supremacist-bigot as opposed to “phobic?” Because that can be arranged.
And BTW, it is viewpoint discrimination. I discriminate against hypocritical and supremacist viewpoints that selfishly attempt to force themselves onto the rest of us who hold integrity, honesty and equality as the societal standard.
David Weintraub said: "Isn't this the real reason that these people oppose others' parental rights? They actually think that they have the right to deny every child this information, because they know their own children will hear the truth one way or another. No one is trying to prevent them from teaching their own beliefs to their children, but that's not good enough. They seem to need to prevent all instances of their beliefs being challenged and contradicted, as well.
Exactly, and that's where the supremacist mindset comes in as well.
As long as the Dobsons, CRC's, PFOX's et al, of the world can continue to convince them that "God want them to do this," then it's up to the rest of us to conform to their myopic and virulently ignorant worldview, NO MATTER WHAT the consequences may be.
Post a Comment
<< Home