MCPS Promotes PFOX
Yesterday the Mongtomery County Public Schools sent flyers home with high-school students, promoting the organization Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).
I have a copy of the flyer, but I'm not going to reproduce the whole thing. There are six long paragraphs here, the same stuff we have seen before, let me quote a few lines for you.
First of all, look at that first sentence. "Ex-gays" don't prove anything. The fact is that anyone can seek help and information about anything they want. The trick here is that you will agree with the second half of the sentence because it's obvious and true that people can seek help and information, and so you will tend to accept the first half. This lulls you into accepting that there is such a thing as an "ex-gay." This is not reasoning, it is a devious use of language.
And the second sentence. It seems so self-evident -- who opposes self-determinism and happiness? Self-determinism sounds good, but it does not apply to the subject of sexual orientation. You don't decide what your sexual orientation will be, you discover it as you live. PFOX professes the view that you can choose to be gay or straight, whichever you prefer, and that is absurd. They mask their message behind this friendly-sounding language.
PFOX uses half-syllogisms and happy words to make you feel that you agree with them, but the implications of what they are saying are false and hateful. Teenagers aren't sophisticated enough to untangle the real meaning of this text. The message here is this: if you're gay there's something wrong with you and you can and should change.
The final sentence there: supporting tolerance. I am going to their web site, to the "Articles" page. Here are the titles I see when I follow the links:
etcetera...
Notice a trend there? Notice the tolerance? PFOX routinely lies about being tolerant of gays. They are lying on this flyer, circulated by MCPS at Thomas S. Wootton High School in Rockville and probably in other places yesterday.
I do not see one article offering hope to straight people who wish they were gay, telling them "change is possible," offering suggestions for counseling and religious organizations that can help them make the transition. I don't even see anything defending the rights of "ex-straight" persons.
Here's the deal. There are groups that are not educational but work within the school community, scouts and sports groups and others that work with kids, and they need to be able to get announcements and information home to parents. So there is a procedure where four times a year a group can get flyers into the students' backpacks. PFOX capitalizes on that opening, they'll scream bloody murder if MCPS doesn't let them send their literature home, too, and so schoolteachers and administrators get the flyers all ready and hand them out to the students.
For an hour and a half in eighth grade and an hour and a half in tenth grade, the Montgomery County public schools will teach your children some facts about sexual orientation and gender identity. Four times a year, for as many years as PFOX chooses to do it, MCPS will give your children literature that completely undermines the health classes, that promotes bigotry, literature that is laced with hate and lies.
Who at Carver has the fortitude and the vision to put a stop to it? It's easy to say "There's nothing we can do," somebody's going to have to risk something to put a stop to this.
I have a copy of the flyer, but I'm not going to reproduce the whole thing. There are six long paragraphs here, the same stuff we have seen before, let me quote a few lines for you.
Ex-gays prove that those with unwanted same-sex attractions can seek help and information in overcoming their feelings. All individuals deserve the right to self-determinism and happiness based on their own needs, and not the needs of others. PFOX supports tolerance for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.
First of all, look at that first sentence. "Ex-gays" don't prove anything. The fact is that anyone can seek help and information about anything they want. The trick here is that you will agree with the second half of the sentence because it's obvious and true that people can seek help and information, and so you will tend to accept the first half. This lulls you into accepting that there is such a thing as an "ex-gay." This is not reasoning, it is a devious use of language.
And the second sentence. It seems so self-evident -- who opposes self-determinism and happiness? Self-determinism sounds good, but it does not apply to the subject of sexual orientation. You don't decide what your sexual orientation will be, you discover it as you live. PFOX professes the view that you can choose to be gay or straight, whichever you prefer, and that is absurd. They mask their message behind this friendly-sounding language.
PFOX uses half-syllogisms and happy words to make you feel that you agree with them, but the implications of what they are saying are false and hateful. Teenagers aren't sophisticated enough to untangle the real meaning of this text. The message here is this: if you're gay there's something wrong with you and you can and should change.
The final sentence there: supporting tolerance. I am going to their web site, to the "Articles" page. Here are the titles I see when I follow the links:
- First-Person: Same-Sex 'Marriage' -- Have the Best Interests of Children Been Considered?
- Seven Things I Wish Pro-Gay People Would Admit
- Leader of Gay Group Indicted in Rape Case (linked from the phrase "Violence Against Gays")
- Tolerance for Everyone (an article about a lesbian who falls in love with a man)
- Survey Reveals Why Some 'Same Sex Attracted' Men Seek Change
- HETEROSEXUALS VICTIMIZED BY HOMOSEXUALS
- Could a gay Congressman be quarantined?
etcetera...
Notice a trend there? Notice the tolerance? PFOX routinely lies about being tolerant of gays. They are lying on this flyer, circulated by MCPS at Thomas S. Wootton High School in Rockville and probably in other places yesterday.
I do not see one article offering hope to straight people who wish they were gay, telling them "change is possible," offering suggestions for counseling and religious organizations that can help them make the transition. I don't even see anything defending the rights of "ex-straight" persons.
Here's the deal. There are groups that are not educational but work within the school community, scouts and sports groups and others that work with kids, and they need to be able to get announcements and information home to parents. So there is a procedure where four times a year a group can get flyers into the students' backpacks. PFOX capitalizes on that opening, they'll scream bloody murder if MCPS doesn't let them send their literature home, too, and so schoolteachers and administrators get the flyers all ready and hand them out to the students.
For an hour and a half in eighth grade and an hour and a half in tenth grade, the Montgomery County public schools will teach your children some facts about sexual orientation and gender identity. Four times a year, for as many years as PFOX chooses to do it, MCPS will give your children literature that completely undermines the health classes, that promotes bigotry, literature that is laced with hate and lies.
Who at Carver has the fortitude and the vision to put a stop to it? It's easy to say "There's nothing we can do," somebody's going to have to risk something to put a stop to this.
posted by JimK at 9:10 AM
41 Comments:
Jim writes,
Who at Carver has the fortitude and the vision to put a stop to it? It's easy to say "There's nothing we can do," somebody's going to have to risk something to put a stop to this.
What part of the First Amendment do you not understand? For someone that fancies himself oh-so-progressive and liberal, this entry, and especially the above remark are quite illiberal. It amaze me how the most vocal advocates of openness, tolerance and diversity will abandon their principles to further their partisan political objectives.
Everyone must surely know that you dislike, disagree and oppose groups like PFOX...however labeling such groups as purveyors of "hate and lies" will, only marginalize the cause you seek to advance among the more discerning.
Stop crying in cereal and make your case without calling names.
PFOX is not scientific, Orin.
These people should not be allowed to teach our students that bigotry and hate are acceptable. It is quite immoral and anti-Christian in all forms.
PFOX ruins the lives of most of the individuals they touch. This is simply not acceptable.
The APA has long been telling the truth about this fake therapy that PFOX offers to individuals and the true harm, danger and bigotry it promotes. It's sick.
Unfortunately you can't stop it. MCPS lost a case involving what goes home in backpacks after a religious group wanted to send information home. The federal government even opposed MCPS. The administration then decided to ban everything except school information. The PTA wasn't even allowed to send things home, at least at our elementary school. They finally reached this compromise where any group, even those that we don't agree with and we do not believe are truthful, could send home flyers once a grading period.
We are aware of the case, AnonFreak. That still does not make it right nor moral.
I'm glad PFOX's positive message is getting to the kids. Homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is a name given to the normal human condition. Homosexuality is the name for a phenomenom where individuals suffer from a misadaption to their circumstances.
There are no groups to give one therapy to convert to homosexuality because if anyone wanted to become a homosexual, they could find a way to develop these desires. What has proven difficult is a return to normal from perverted desires.
I am not anon freak. I am actually on your side. However, just because something is right or moral, it can't be followed in this case or the federal government backed by the far right will be all over MCPS. Weast is not going to go against them. Trust me, Weast does not care about what is moral or right. Read some of the special ed blogs such as MCNeeds. They gave in to this to avoid the feds.
Really, AnonFreak? Then why are you perverting religion?
I quote Robin Meyers, an ordained pastor of the United Church of Christ and author of "Why the Christian Right is Wrong":
"When you use hatred of homosexuals as a wedge issue to turn out record numbers of evangelical voters and seek to use the Constitution as a tool of discrimination, you are doing something immoral".
That's all PFOX is: one more piece of the Christian Right (which is not the conservative right)-- you peoples speak as if with God's own voice.
When the history of our age is written, the whole "ex-gay" voyage will be yet one more of the church's colossal mistakes-- along with the embrace of slavery, the subordination of women, and the institutional racism. The plague on the body of Christ, and the vitriolic rhetoric that surrounds it, will be remember as a source of deep shame. It has eaten away at the soul of the church, dividing congregations, denominations, families, and the nation. It has become the mother of all political wedge issues- the bottom line for Karl Rove's strategy of divide and conquer.
And, don't even give me the "Love the sinner, hate the sin crap, AnonFreak. We are talking about what someone IS, not what someone DOES. The handful of condemnations against homosexuality in the Bible are directed at homosexual activities, which are considered unnatural because they were nonprocreative and idolatrous because they were grouped with activities that were believed to separate us from God. They were not directed against sexual orientation, which nobody understood in those days which we still don't understand today.
It's people like you, AnonFreak, who are making a horrible mistake of perversion out of Christianity. You are using it as a force of fear and loathing to gain political power on the Christian Right.
The most familiar texts cited to prove that "God hates homosexuality" are Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it's an abomination," and Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood be upon them."
These "admonitions" were written in the sixth century B.C.E. by Jewish religious leaders who were trying to help save the existence of a captive people by the institution of what is know as the "holiness code." Whether it was the establishment of the Sabbath, kosher dietary laws, or circumcision, the holiness code helped keep the exiled Jews separate from their captors' sexual practices as well.
Other commandments from the holiness code are either unknown or ignored, and they include a host of primitive practices that may strike us today as either amusing or barbaric. "You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard" (Leviticus 19:27) is God's law for barbers, but "a man or woman who is a medium or spiritualist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them " Leviticus 20:27) is no laughing matter. Out of this ancient code, however, we lift two texts condemning homosexuality and prescribing death as punishment for it. These are singled out as the "inviolate Word of God" because they appear to give biblical credence to our own prejudice and fear.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is not a moral choice but a biological predisposition, much like being born left-handed (also the source of fear and condemnation in the Bible) or with red hair.
The suicide rate among gay teens is alarming, and the "risky sexual behavior" that the Christian Right condemns is actually encourages by lack of dialogue, broken family relationships, and a culture of denial. As such, it is the antithesis of "pro-life". There is hardly a parish minister in the land who can't tell the story of some young man who realizes that he is gay, only to keep the secret from his family out of fear that they will cast him out. Many of teen runaways walking the streets of major cities are gay and lesbian and have been banished from "Christian" homes.
The most rigid, most compulsive, the most paranoid religious devotees are often hiding their own dark secrets. They seek the rigidity of authoritarian systems in order to cope with their own feelins of shame. Their inner conflicts are turned outward, and the collateral damage is all too apparent.
I think that may be your problem, AnonFreak. However, we are not going to let people like you, PFOX, CRC, and the Rich Chicken Hawks for Jesus ruin the lives of our children, brothers and sisters by promoting a theocratic agenda full of hate, fear, shame and lies.
To let you continue to do this to our children is not very Christian at all. Jesus is love, NOT hate.
(sorry to the "anon" who is not "AnonFreak". Usually he is the one who never puts a name. My apologies. However, my latest post is for AnonFreak, Theresa Rickman, PFOX, CRC, et. al.
The American Psychological Association, in conjunction with the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health care professional organizations has just published a booklet for school systems to deal with the misrepresentations made by groups like PFOX. See http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html
David S. Fishback
Another note having to do with the Bible:
Heterosexuals and homosexuals read and interpret scripture through the lens of their own presuppositions. What they are taught at home and at church greatly affects their understanding of scripture. Both groups read the same passage and come away with a different understanding of what God is saying to us today.
Heterosexuals tend to read scripture from a heterosexual viewpoint.
They read Biblical Complementarity into the scripture, when scripture does not mention it, and make assumptions based on their presupposition. They approach the Bible with a preconceived notion of Biblical Complementarity which distorts their interpretation of scripture.
They see no openly homosexual couples in the Bible. They view Adam and Eve as God’s unchangeable plan for marriage relationships. They assume, without the Bible ever saying so, that God simply would not bless any other marriage relationship than the kind they have and the kind Adam and Eve had.
And they see eight verses which are alleged to prohibit all same sex relationships. Based on their presuppositions about the kind of relationship God will bless, they conclude that God could never bless a gay couple. Only eternity will tell what harm such false teaching has done to millions of gays and lesbians.
Homosexuals usually grow up in heterosexual homes and churches.
Early on, homosexuals learn heterosexual viewpoints, including Biblical Complementarity theory. As their innate homosexual orientation begins to separate them from the heterosexual expectations of their parents, they begin to read scripture from a different perspective. They seek validation in scripture, of the same-sex attraction they feel as in integral part of their being.
They begin to read familiar scripture stories more closely to see if what they were taught is true. Study, prayer, critical thinking and comparing scripture with scripture begin to yield understandings different from what they were taught.
Source:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/BiblicalComplementarity.html
i am fully aware that what PFOX is doing is perfectly legal.
But I am concerned should they start trying passing along the discredited studies of Paul Cameron or referring to distortions of legitimate studies.
I agree, Black Tsunami.
Sadly, this is EXACTLY what PFOX/CRC/CRG/Focus on the Family is attempting trick the faithful into an agenda based on selfishness and greed--both are ideas that Jesus Christ is against.
It's not only anti-Christian but also anti-Muslim, anti-Buddhist, anti-Jewish, and anti-REALITY.
So, as it checks-out, LIBERALS (which are a positive and WONDERFUL group), are more CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM, BUDDHIST, JEWISH and REALITY-BASED than the "Christian RIGHT", which is not Christian at all.
This has always made sense. It's only now starting to surface their real agenda: wealth and power: EVERYTHING that is ANTI-Christian.
SHAME SHAME!!!!!
someone please explain how jim's post a couple days ago "Malleable Female Sexual Attraction" doesn't completely prove the point that sexual attractions can change. which means what the county is teaching is wrong and what pfox is teaching is right.
Or perhaps sexual orientation is just innate for some people ?
You guys talk out of both sides of your mouths all the time.
amazing.
Orin Ryssman said...
"What part of the First Amendment do you not understand? For someone that fancies himself oh-so-progressive and liberal, this entry, and especially the above remark are quite illiberal. It amaze me how the most vocal advocates of openness, tolerance and diversity will abandon their principles to further their partisan political objectives."
So Orin, are you suggesting that liberals should tolerate child abuse, or that liberals should tolerate child abuse because you tolerate child abuse?
Stunning said...
"You guys talk out of both sides of your mouths all the time."
--
He’s right you know.
We maximize tolerance, while at the same time minimizing intolerance - and admit it all the while.
Therefore, Clearly:
To consider such an expression of unity to be anything less than “talking out of both sides of one’s mouth,” would be to consider sheer madness to be sanity.
Welcome to the insanity of unity.
someone please explain how jim's post a couple days ago "Malleable Female Sexual Attraction" doesn't completely prove the point that sexual attractions can change. which means what the county is teaching is wrong and what pfox is teaching is right.
Wow, it took you long enough to bite at that one.
Diamond's research has identified a small group of women who seem to have an innately loosely defined sexual orientation. Nobody persuaded them, taught them, or "cured" them into changing their orientation; it just so happens that for them this is the normal way to be.
This does not generalize to PFOX's perspective for several reasons:
There are bisexual men (one of the orientations taught in MCPS) but no one has identified any males who spontaneously change their self-reported orientation -- and PFOX's primary focus is gay males
As compared to the PFOX perspective, where people go from homo- to heterosexual only, change in Diamond's sample goes both ways about the same proportion of the time
There is no outside agent of change in Diamond's subjects, neither a shrink nor a minister, no belief that it is "better" or "more normal" to be one way or the other, these people simply follow their emotions
It's not the same thing at all. PFOX believes there is something wrong with being gay and tries to convince people who are attracted to members of their sex that they can change. The fact is, they can't change, they can only deny their feelings -- and that is exactly the opposite of what Lisa Diamond's research subjects are doing.
PFOX says "change is possible" and then, as we see here, thinks they have won the argument is someone does change, even though the change is opposite of what PFOX hopes for, happens in a different population, and is spontaneous rather than a cure or religious conversion of some kind. The debate is not about whether change is or is not possible, it's about whether a homosexual orientation is some kind of moral flaw that people should try to overcome, or whether we as a society should get over it and accept people who feel that way for what they are.
JimK
Stunning said…
"I'm glad PFOX's positive message is getting to the kids. Homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is a name given to the normal human condition. Homosexuality is the name for a phenomenom where individuals suffer from a misadaption to their circumstances.
There are no groups to give one therapy to convert to homosexuality because if anyone wanted to become a homosexual, they could find a way to develop these desires. What has proven difficult is a return to normal from perverted desires."
--
"What has proven difficult is a return to normal from perverted desires."
Indeed. Some of the perverted desires-to-believe-in that have proven difficult to return from include:
1. PFOX's positive message is getting to the kids.
a) PFOX = positive message
b) PFOX = Positive…to the kids
2. Homosexuality is not the equivalent of heterosexuality.
a) sexuality is not the equivalent of sexuality.
3. Heterosexuality is a name given to the normal human condition.
a) normal = most important
b) heterosexual = normal
c) heterosexual = most important
4. Homosexuality is the name for a phenomenom where individuals suffer from a misadaption to their circumstances.
a) the “phenomenon” of same-gender attraction is based one’s inability to adapt. Period.
5. There are no groups to give one therapy to convert to homosexuality because if anyone wanted to become a homosexual, they could find a way to develop these desires.
a) homosexuals are heterosexuals who intentionally “develop” their same-gender attraction. Exclamation point.
6. You guys talk out of both sides of your mouths all the time.
a) It is acceptable to blanketly refer to anyone and everyone I disagree with as "you guys."
Orin
PFOX, under the case Child Evangelism Fellowship v. MCPS, has the right to distribute materials to students as does any other organization; it was in fact a first-amendment case. On the other hand, some courts have ruled that what is called a 'limited open forum' does not extend to material that contradicts a schools mission (sounds doubtful to me) or promotes harm to children (much more likely as a basis for denying permission to distribute material).
I myself do not see this as a first-amendment matter; let me explain.
Ms. Griggs has written a number of letters to newspaper editors labelling me as a hypocrite because I have stated that books that speak positively about lgbt people should be in school libraries, but books which promote reparative therapy should not. Her thought was that I support free speech for lgbt people and not 'ex-gays,' thus making me a hypocrite.
That is not my stance. I think schools should include lgbt-positive materials because such promote the well-being of children, and reparative therapy materials should not be included because they represent potential active danger and harm to children. It is not so much a free speech matter as one of what is good for the students.
Let me be clear: if schools reject materials which are harmful to children (e.g. materials from anti-black or pro-drug organizations, or materials plauding suicide), they should reject PFOX's materials because they may cause harm to individual children (not theoretical harm, but actual harm to real kids).
I can speak from long, painful personal experience about the real harm that reparative therapy causes. Children should not be exposed to this.
To summarize: I disagree with you Orin. Adults shouldn't have free speech rights in terms of what they give to children. Schools should include lgbt-postive materials because they are good for children, and exclude lgbt-pejorative materials because they are bad for children. We do this on other matters (gender, race, weapons, drugs); PFOX takes advantage of the fact that speaking pejoratively of lgbt people can be subsumed under the aegis of controversy, rather than being exposed as the harmful bigotry that it really is, at least at this point in the development of our culture
"The debate is not about whether change is or is not possible,"
yes actually it is. the school is teaching them it is innate, starting in teenage years when lots of studies show that some kids are very unsure during this period about their sexual orientation. this makes them more likely to experiment, they are "innately" less responsible at this age... and more likely to catch something.. thus MCPS is doing the children they teach a great harm..
No, AnonFreak.
MCPS is teaching the biology and science of the sexual orientation (which is not mentioned in Bible), not the religious side that CRC/PFOX want. That is why you guys continue to cry like babies, and throw tantrums... because, like a small child, you want everything your way and you won't have dialogue about it for any reason.
That is NOT acceptable.
If you are a real Christian, AnonFreak, you should not support lying to our students. It's childish, ignorant, arrogant and shameful.
Since MCPS allows the disemination of religious materials (i.e. PFOX's propaganda), I wonder if they would allow the Presbyterians, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Wiccans, or any other religious oraganization to distribute their materials in schools?
PFOX will not admit to it (in fact, they would rather that you not raise this issue) but their stance on homosexuality and the so-called reparative therapy they espouse are decidedly right-wing Christian viewpoints and have almost assumed the status of creed. (If you doubt that PFOX is "a wolf in a Christian sheep's clothing", just read one of the many, many so-called "Christian" web sites and notice the prayers, imprecations,sermons,and fund-raising activities, etc. preached to "save the homosexuals")
I am curious why they, alone of any religious group-affiliated organization, are allowed to spread their proselytizing materials to students in a government-run institution.
RT
Stunning said...
"yes actually it is. the school is teaching them it is innate, starting in teenage years when lots of studies show that some kids are very unsure during this period about their sexual orientation. this makes them more likely to experiment, they are "innately" less responsible at this age... and more likely to catch something.. thus MCPS is doing the children they teach a great harm.."
--
Re, Max Blumenthal's Theocracy Now!:
Lou Sheldon: Homosexuality is very clearly a gender identity confusion
Max Blumenthal: And you’ve said that the lifestyle is very seductive and it’s hard to get out of it.
Lou Sheldon: Well it’s a groove, you get in that groove and you’re up the creek without a paddle. But remember, homosexuality could strike you, it could strike this man here taking the picture.
Max Blumenthal: How could it strike me?
Lou Sheldon: Because you could go into a gender identity confusion, because it is a psychological imbalance. Something happens in a person’s life. It becomes a spirit.
--
"But remember, homosexuality could strike you, it could strike this man here taking the picture."
OMG, you‘re right anon. Apparently homosexuality could strike you, or me, or anybody! At any time! BUT ESPECIALLY THE YOUNG! -- once you get into that “groove” anyway… (Which is why dance floors should be criminalized btw)
But it could also strike a man who’s driving a boat, or maybe even one of the passengers on the boat. Or it could strike a man who’s mowing his lawn - and his beautiful wife too. How terrible that would be for their children? Two gay parents AND a divorce?
OH NO, OH NO! There’s a man across the street who’s mowing his lawn, it could strike him!
I don't think any gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders or straights would want to claim AnonFreak as "one of them/us".
AnonFreak- nobody wakes up one day and says, "I think I am going to be gay today". Lies from you, as per usual.
The prophet Hosea stated in 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because they have rejected knowledge..."
Andrea-not anon
What, it's catching? I thought gay people had to actively recruit us straights or seduce us into the homosexual lifestyle? Can't the homophobes make up their minds??? Plus if it is catching, then how do gay people know if you get points towards the microwave or other fine items in the homosexual recruitment catalog? So can I catch it from a gay guy who is passing by or just from a lesbian(same sex strike)? How close do they have to be? Like sitting next to me on the subway or just somewhere on the train?
It would seem that the only requirement for catching homosexuality is to take an MCPS health fornication class.
According to the rumors I've heard, some of the students have been turning gay by just walking through the classroom door.
And don’t bother opting out either, apparently the whole “strike you gay” thing hinges on the public school system not-expressly telling boys and girls that they should be attracted to one another.
Homosexuality is now inundating and clogging all religious thought-freedom in Montgomery County as a direct result of the fornication curriculum - a curriculum that doesn’t expressly tell boys to be sexually attracted to girls.
Who but for PFOX to help undo the resultant epidemic of homosexuality in Montgomery County Public Schools?
The MCPS website regarding flier distribution makes no mention of religious groups. It only talks about non-profit community organizations being allowed to distribute fliers for backpacks. Therefore, it appears any religious group that meets this criteria would be allowed to participate. As I said before, the people running the schools do not always have moreals and do not always do what is right so any group that meets the criteria, even if it sends out hate messages, apparently has the right to send home a flier. My high school student has not brought one home, or at least I don't think she has. She usually leaves all fliers on the kitchen table for us.
Anonymous
MCPS policy on non-profit flyers doesn't reflect on the school system's morals, but is in fact the result a lawsuit MCPS lost, with a group called Child Evangelism Fellowship. CEF is a conservative protestant organization (I have a certificate of training from CEF). I remember learning in my CEF training that gay men wear earings on the right side, that's how you can tell who they are.
The court ruled that if MCPS allows one non-profit to distribute material, it must allow all to do so. It's called a 'limited open forum'--in much the same way, if a school allows one non-curricular, it must allow all of them, barring concerns about student safety. That's my thought on PFOX's material; it is actively harmful to students, and shouldn't be allowed.
Other systems have been confronted with this; Arlington Public Schools chose not to allow anyone to distribute material in high schools (mostly because kids just throw it away and it causes litter). PFOX is considering distribution to elementary students in APS.
Orin Ryssman said...
"What part of the First Amendment do you not understand? For someone that fancies himself oh-so-progressive and liberal, this entry, and especially the above remark are quite illiberal. It amaze me how the most vocal advocates of openness, tolerance and diversity will abandon their principles to further their partisan political objectives."
And Emproph responded thusly,
So Orin, are you suggesting that liberals should tolerate child abuse, or that liberals should tolerate child abuse because you tolerate child abuse?
Thank you Emproph, for giving us all a little glimpse into a future where those that fancy themselves "progressive" can use the law as a cudgel to enforce their political opinions.
Guess what?...get the law changed to your definition of "child abuse" and then get back to me...ok?
Robert, more persuasively, argues,
Ms. Griggs has written a number of letters to newspaper editors labelling me as a hypocrite because I have stated that books that speak positively about lgbt people should be in school libraries, but books which promote reparative therapy should not. Her thought was that I support free speech for lgbt people and not 'ex-gays,' thus making me a hypocrite.
She does have an issue up to a point: equal access does mean mean equal...does it not?
That is not my stance. I think schools should include lgbt-positive materials because such promote the well-being of children, and reparative therapy materials should not be included because they represent potential active danger and harm to children. It is not so much a free speech matter as one of what is good for the students.
To be honest if I were a school librarian I would ban both sides from the library, eventhough I would be partial to the "lgbt-positive materials" crowd.
Why?
Simply because it is not a battle worth fighting...sorry, it just isn't. In a few short years high school students will likely be at any number of colleges that have any number of "lgbt" offices (Colorado State Univ. has one in the Student Union bldg - as highly a visible office as any on campus - with hundreds of books in its library). Try fighting it at the K-12 public school level and all one is inviting is alot of grief, not to mention distraction from the core mission of a K-12 school library: to assist the students with their classes.
While it is not common knowledge here, a good many teachers, counselors and administrators have small signs posted in discrete locations (I saw one on the back of a counselors door; one would only see it if the door was closed). I think this is a good thing...yes, you read that correctly.
Let me be clear: if schools reject materials which are harmful to children (e.g. materials from anti-black or pro-drug organizations, or materials plauding suicide), they should reject PFOX's materials because they may cause harm to individual children (not theoretical harm, but actual harm to real kids).
How about keeping all such materials out?
I can speak from long, painful personal experience about the real harm that reparative therapy causes. Children should not be exposed to this.
I am sure you can...if I were asked by a high school student if they should try such an approach I would be very cautious. I would say it might help some, but that for many it would likely do more harm than good.
To summarize: I disagree with you Orin. Adults shouldn't have free speech rights in terms of what they give to children. Schools should include lgbt-postive materials because they are good for children, and exclude lgbt-pejorative materials because they are bad for children.
To a degree I agree with you...ok? Keep in mind though that some of the students you teach derive from homes where parents do not take kindly to having their authority undermined, especially as related to sexual mores. And these parents vote and pay taxes. Now, you can respond, as I am nearly sure many TTF'ers would likely respond that you don't care...they are a whacked out fringe minority group...whatever. But do you really want to narrow the base of support for public education? I know I don't because I benefited by it, as have my two daughters.
We do this on other matters (gender, race, weapons, drugs); PFOX takes advantage of the fact that speaking pejoratively of lgbt people can be subsumed under the aegis of controversy, rather than being exposed as the harmful bigotry that it really is, at least at this point in the development of our culture.
I would not term it thusly, that is being "subsumed under the aegis of controversy", but rather under the aegis of butting out of the prerogative of parents in a free society to be the moral teachers of their children. Putting in such terms casts the issue quite a bit differently.
Still, all in all, Robert, you make better arguments for the progressive side than anyone else I have read on this site. And I am glad that public schools have such talented people like yourself.
No one in MCPS is taking any rights or control away from parents to guide the morals of their kids. The MCPS classes on Family Life and Human Sexuality are optional. All parents are invited to the school to review the curriculum and all materials that will be presented in these classes weeks before they are taught. This enables parents to decide for themselves if they want their students to receive the instruction offered or not.
Parents who do NOT want their student to learn scientific facts about these topics at school don't have to do anything to ensure their students don't get in. Parents who DO wish their students take this class must sign a permission slip which must be given to the teacher in order to allow their student to take the class.
Thusly said writes,
No one in MCPS is taking any rights or control away from parents to guide the morals of their kids. The MCPS classes on Family Life and Human Sexuality are optional. All parents are invited to the school to review the curriculum and all materials that will be presented in these classes weeks before they are taught. This enables parents to decide for themselves if they want their students to receive the instruction offered or not.
I am not sure why you are responding to an issue I was not even addressing...though looking at it now I realize that I had changed the subject somewhat...sorry, my mistake.
The issue though...whether it is library materials or sending stuff home is this: is it directly related to the educational mission of the school? Now I suspect that most in the TTF camp would contend that sending home "scientifically" based material does accomplish such a mission. As a school administrator I would want everyone to focus on the task at hand, learning the basics. If there were incidents that indicated a hostile environment towards gay/lesbian students then that would need to be addressed as such.
Parents who do NOT want their student to learn scientific facts about these topics at school don't have to do anything to ensure their students don't get in. Parents who DO wish their students take this class must sign a permission slip which must be given to the teacher in order to allow their student to take the class.
Really...enough already...sex ed is about more, much more than learning a set of scientific facts, or becoming proficient at putting on a condom...it is about the development of character, which includes learning self-control.
Bottom line is this: as long as the liberal-progressive crowd insists n pushing their socio-political "scientific" agenda, they will find others, ready for a political fight. The solution to this is a simple one, but the liberal-progressive crowd will not abide this, is to leave all such agendas at the school house door.
Orin said…
"Thank you Emproph, for giving us all a little glimpse into a future where those that fancy themselves "progressive" can use the law as a cudgel to enforce their political opinions.
Guess what?...get the law changed to your definition of "child abuse" and then get back to me...ok?"
Ok. But meanwhile, some "political opinion" to consider:
Ex-Gay Harm--Let Me Count the Ways
by Peterson Toscano
In the past 4.5 years I have been in contact with over 1000 ex-gay survivors. These are people who pursued ex-gay experiences, either on their own, or more often, assisted by others like a therapist, minister, ex-gay program. They attempted to change or suppress their sexual orientation and may have referred to themselves as ex-gays or simply strugglers or by some other name.
Through hearing their stories (some of which posted here at Beyond Ex-Gay--bXg) and in unpacking my own ex-gay journey, I have begun to understand the many ways people can be harmed by their ex-gay experiences. Many of us also received certain benefits from our ex-gay experiences, but in most cases the harm outweighs the good.
--
Further Narratives here.
--
Beyond the fact that PFOX is observably intentionally dishonest, if this ex-gay technology is screwing up adults this badly, how much more concern should we have when kids are exposed to this stuff?
And how is it possible to even characterize such a concern as being liberal OR "illiberal?"
From Truth Wins Out:
Family-Friendly Video: Is Homosexuality A Choice?
Emproph writes,
Beyond the fact that PFOX is observably intentionally dishonest, if this ex-gay technology is screwing up adults this badly, how much more concern should we have when kids are exposed to this stuff?
Good question...though given the current rate of decline in our culture and how liberals seem to upbraid conservatives nearly every time some feeble effort is made to slow (never mind arrest) that rate of decline, I find your concern for kids just a little convenient.
With that said, I would oppose every effort to allow both sides access in our public schools. That is, I would oppose PFOX and I would oppose any LGBT group. I would say to both to take their battles elsewhere. If TTF wanted to cut PFOX off at the kneecaps they would support a policy that excludes all. But like so many it would seem, TTF would like to have its cake and eat it as well. Sorry, but you have to make a choice.
And how is it possible to even characterize such a concern as being liberal OR "illiberal?"
To exclude a group because you strongly disagree with their agenda is the very essence of illiberal. I know...I know...they are the KKK...no, wait, they are like David Duke....no, wait they are like Fred Phelps...bottom line is you don't like the viewpoint they represent.
Tough.
I don't like the death, destruction and misery spread by groups like Planned Parenthood, but I have learned to get use to it.
"How about keeping all such materials out?
some of the students you teach derive from homes where parents do not take kindly to having their authority undermined, especially as related to sexual mores."
--
Running in the opposite direction with that...
Are there any estimates on how long this concerted effort to send pro-LGBT literature home with students has been such a problem in Montgomery County?
Does anyone have a copy of these pro-LGBT flyers that MCPS students have been forced to take home, and that have somehow garnered the ire of PFOX executives?
I’m assuming these pro-LGBT flyers must be a recent development, otherwise, what else would PFOX be trying to specifically undermine?
--
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays
Apparently they haven’t changed their acronym yet.
--
Furthermore, and from the PFOX flyer:
"those with unwanted same-sex attractions can seek help and information in overcoming their feelings."
Why, has there been some sort of marked increase in "unwanted" same-sex attractions in the Montgomery County Public School System?
Or not enough of an increase?
No more cut-and-paste here, just a wrap up...
If I were a teacher or school administrator I would make certain that everyone knew of my concern for all students, but especially those students that are vulnerable. I would do that knowing that these days it is more difficult than ever to stop those determined to bully.
If I were an administrator I would make it clear to the teachers that their job is to teach every student and make sure that each student feels safe at school.
And to those with outside agendas I would ask them to keep them outside. More than anything, a controversy assures that there will be distractions, and there are plenty enough of those without looking for more.
I am the proud product of the public school system, as are my two daughters. I think our public schools do a great job with the resources they are given, esp. given the record number of students that now arrive at school unprepared to learn. And I do not want public support for our schools to be weakened by any outside agendas...be they the TTF agenda, or the PFOX agenda (with their dubious claims of cure). Invite one in though, and you should not be surprised when the other also wants in.
Re: the MCPS promotion of PFOX. I have said repeatedly in the past and still contend that there is no such thing as an "ex-gay". An "ex-gay" person is more likely a confused heterosexual who has no firm grasp of his/her sexuality or reality. In order to determine that, he/she has likely experimented with sex in its many forms. No one can be "ex-gay" if he/she wasn't gay to begin with. Perhaps there should be another support group for these confused individuals: "Confused Heterosexuals Anonymous and Their Supporters"(CHATS). I could certainly support that...helping these poor heterosexual who have lived with their confusing sex identities and drives become healthy heterosexuals.
Diogenes
"An "ex-gay" person is more likely a confused heterosexual who has no firm grasp of his/her sexuality or reality. In order to determine that, he/she has likely experimented with sex in its many forms. No one can be "ex-gay" if he/she wasn't gay to begin with."
Maybe all gays are simply "confused heterosexuals".
Anonymous:
Could you possibly be describing yourself? You are right on target...a confused heterosexual!
PFOX: "Ex-gays prove that those with unwanted same-sex attractions can seek help and information in overcoming their feelings. All individuals deserve the right to self-determinism and happiness based on their own needs, and not the needs of others. PFOX supports tolerance for everyone regardless of sexual orientation."
Emproph: "Why, has there been some sort of marked increase in "unwanted same-sex attractions" in the Montgomery County Public School System that have somehow been going unaddressed?
Or not enough of an increase in the unwantedness of them?"
--
Orin says (among other things):
It amaze me how the most vocal advocates of openness, tolerance and diversity will abandon their principles to further their partisan political objectives.
labeling such groups as purveyors of "hate and lies" will, only marginalize the cause you seek to advance among the more discerning.
equal access does mean mean equal...does it not?
To exclude a group because you strongly disagree with their agenda is the very essence of illiberal. I know...I know...they are the KKK...no, wait, they are like David Duke....no, wait they are like Fred Phelps...
bottom line is you don't like the viewpoint they represent.
Invite one in though, and you should not be surprised when the other also wants in.
And to those with outside agendas I would ask them to keep them outside. More than anything, a controversy assures that there will be distractions
I find your concern for kids just a little convenient.
--
If that last line is so, then you must think gay students themselves are somehow convenient, and thus, support of them to be "distractions." How does that work?
Orin, If you consider the notion that ‘liberal’ means unlimited liberal-ness, and the notion of tolerance to be tolerance of intolerance itself, and the meaning of equality to be literally equal to inequality itself -- then PFOX has already won you over.
To claim that “neither” side should be able to express their view, is to avoid the issue by claiming that there are two legitimate sides to the issue - fair and unfair.
The essence of your complaint seems to be that ‘liberal,’ ‘tolerant,’ and ‘equal’ should be considered to be the same as their opposites.
A simple Google search of “pfox” exposes the hateful and dishonest motives of PFOX. To continue on with this mantra that support of LGBT students should be considered to be on par with the evidenced lies, hatred, and thus, harassment of LGBT students, tells me that you haven’t even done any research or reading in between posts.
You say…
“if I were asked by a high school student if they should try such an approach I would be very cautious. I would say it might help some, but that for many it would likely do more harm than good.”
So be it, but what do you base this on - what you’ve personally researched, or what you happen to pick up in the comments here at TTF and elsewhere?
Point being, your own personal credibility is still in question. How can you be trusted to know that banning “both” sides is the right thing to do, when you don’t even recognize the importance of determining the difference between them?
In addition, the "death, destruction and misery spread by groups like Planned Parenthood" is a separate issue in regard to hate groups who seek “equal” access - Hate groups like PFOX are seeking to isolate and spread hatred and lies against specific students.
“labeling such groups as purveyors of "hate and lies" will, only marginalize the cause you seek to advance among the more discerning.”
So be it. Show us how much more discerning you are than us. Is there something about the legitimacy of this PFOX situation that the rest of us are unaware of? Because PFOX says this:
"All individuals deserve the right to self-determinism and happiness based on their own needs, and not the needs of others."
No investigation is even required to understand that the "self-determination" and "happiness" of ex-gays is NOT being prevented - yet they imply this by insisting that every student take this persecution message home.
The intent of PFOX, with the help of CRW, is to create a political controversy that does not exist. This is the merit of the “liberal” objection to their so-called message of ‘freedom from homosexuality.’
“Freedom from” of course meaning, “denial of.”
Want evidence? Read their articles.
I am not sure why you are responding to an issue I was not even addressing
I was responding to this issue you addressed:
The solution to this is a simple one, but the liberal-progressive crowd will not abide this, is to leave all such agendas at the school house door.
What you see as an "agenda," the majority of Montgomery County residents see as providing information about family life and human sexuality to members of our community. We call it education. And because some in our community consider it "controversial" to provide information on human sexuality in school, even when the information is from the AMA, CDC, etc., MCPS makes those classes optional so no parents' students is "pushed" to learn it. Your objections about this information being provided by the schools are moot because the classes are optional -- parents decide for themselves whether or not their students will learn about family life and human sexuality at school.
Post a Comment
<< Home