alt.education

On Apr 8, 2:56 am, "Tom Snyder" wrote:
> The state should get out of the social education business. It's a parent's
> repsonsibility to teach his/her children, not the state. Someone's viewpoint
> is going to rule, either the homosexual hedonist's or the Christian
> follower's. God defines what the family is in the Bible, not the hedonist's
> whim or lust. If the Supreme Court says that 2 + 2 = 5, does that make it
> true? No! So why should we follow its ignorant rulings on Church and State?

** Another stupidly confused screed by an idiot top poster.

** Tell me how you would respond when your 5 year old
comes home and asks "Why does Johnny have 2
mommies, and I only have one?"
>
> "Raymond" wrote in message
>
> news:6d803957-5241-4ecf-846c-7694cb019e24@m1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sorry to post at the top, but after reading this, it would seem if one
> is Gay they have a right to have their view taught in School, but if
> one is a Christian, or follow religion they can not. Seems that the
> Law that lets people say their kids can not hear of god, would apply
> to them that do not want their kids in school to learn of the
> homosexual teachings either. What gives here? When I was went to
> school the books used to teach the children had to be approved by the
> B of Education and the teacher could not teach stuff that was no
> accepted by the curriculum.
>
> Raymond
>
> On Apr 8, 4:48 am, "leonard7...@gmail.com"
> wrote:
>
> > Stupid parent trying to cloister his kid away from
> > real life. Then his 5 year old comes home and
> > says, "Howcome Johnny has two mommies?"
> > How does he explain that?
>
> > He is too ignorant to know, or to accept that
> > homosexuality is genetic
>
> > BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
> > Superintendent's orders to worried dad:
> > Butt out!
> > Elementary lessons on 'gay' issues now
> > tied to reading, social studies
>
> > By Bob Unruh
> > (c) 2008 WorldNetDaily
>
> > The superintendent of a public school that sparked a federal lawsuit
> > by teaching homosexuality to children as young as kindergarten has
> > told another worried parent he can review course material, but he has
> > no right to withdraw his child from class during lessons.
>
> > The lawsuit, on which WND has reported extensively, was filed by David
> > Parker, whose child was in a class at Estabrook Elementary in
> > Lexington, Mass.
>
> > Parker's strenuous objection to not being notified when lessons
> > concerning homosexuality were presented landed him in jail overnight.
> > His subsequent lawsuit resulted in a court verdict that essentially
> > concludes parents have no rights to control what their children are
> > taught.
>
> > Estabrook Elementary
>
> > The court ruling adopted the arguments submitted by several pro-
> > homosexual organizations that stated they had rights to children in
> > public schools. However, Parker has confirmed for WND the case is
> > being prepared for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because of the far-
> > reaching impacts of the ruling.
>
> > Unless the case is overturned, Parker told WND, "it now would allow
> > teachers in elementary schools to influence children into any views
> > they wanted to, behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience,
> > and against the will of the parents if need be."
>
> > In the latest confrontation, publicized by the traditional values
> > advocates at Mass Resistance, Lexington Supt. Paul Ash told a parent
> > who also wanted to be advised when homosexuality was being taught to
> > children that the school would not cooperate.
>
> > "We are not required to inform parents in advance of teaching units
> > that include same gender parents or required to release students when
> > such topics are discussed," Ash told the parent in an e-mail posted by
> > Mass Resistance. "The appeals court dismissed the claim that parents
> > have a right to require the school provide advance notice or the right
> > to remove their children.
>
> > "In addition, the school committee has decided that teachers must be
> > able to teach topics they feel are appropriate without the requirement
> > parents be notified in advance," Ash wrote.
>
> > The e-mail was in response to parent Shawn Landon's request to be
> > notified when such material would be promoted. His concerns, in
> > return, followed an announcement from the school that it was "creating
> > an inclusive environment and embracing diversity" by expanding its
> > promotions of such alternative lifestyles.
>
> > "A group of administrators, teachers, and community members formed the
> > 'Windows and Mirrors' subcommittee to develop a comprehensive,
> > inclusive K-5 Diversity curriculum ... [which] promotes acceptance and
> > understanding of the diversity of our town, country, and world, and
> > includes both historical lessons on civil rights and contemporary
> > lessons of families," Ash had announced.
>
> > Those "contemporary lessons of families," Ash continued, will include
> > a focus on "gay and lesbian parents."
>
> > Landon, after getting word of the school's plans, wrote Martha Batten,
> > Estabrook principal, "I will absolutely require prior notification to
> > any discussion, education, training, reading or anything at all
> > related (even remotely) to homosexuality. It is quite clear by the e-
> > mail I just received that you have a very specific agenda and my
> > family will be exercising our rights to be notified and not to
> > participate. This goes against everything we believe and practice..."
>
> > Batten forwarded the e-mail to Ash, who responded that the court's
> > have "established Lexington's right" to teach diversity units,
> > including stories that show same gender parents. He also said there's
> > no need for the schools to let parents know, or even to permit parents
> > to withdraw their children if they would somehow happen to find out.
>
> > He did offer a solution: Landon could review the material ahead of
> > time, so he would know what indoctrination would be presented at some
> > later point.
>
> > "If your child happens to be placed in a class with a teacher who will
> > be teaching the four of five diversity units, you will then know what
> > will be taught and will be able to talk to your son or daughter about
> > the topics at home," the superintendent said.
>
> > Landon responded with his "disappointment."
>
> > "Your complete rejection of my basic rights as a parent is nothing
> > less than outrageous and discriminatory," he said. "It is entirely
> > unacceptable. I must insist that I be notified prior to my child being
> > exposed to this horribly offensive material."
>
> > "Good for you, Mr. Landon!" officials at Mass Resistance posted. "It's
> > about time more people stood up and were counted. It's actually
> > amazing and outrageous that people like Paul Ash ... are allowed to be
> > educators... What kind of human beings would do this to parents and
> > children?"
>
> > Parker and his lawyers say they will be seeking permission to submit
> > the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court over such indoctrination.
>
> > Parker said the ruling from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
> > essentially concluded that it is no burden on parents' free exercise
> > of religion to have their children taught ideas at a public school
> > that violate the parents' religious teachings.
>
> > "But that ignores the fact that the most basic free exercise is your
> > teaching your children right from wrong in their formative years," he
> > said. "That is completely being undermined by the rulings of these
> > federal courts so far.
>
> > "Teachers are being postured to have a constitutional right to
> > coercively indoctrinate little children [into whatever they choose to
> > teach,]" he said. "It's not just exposure to an idea, to the
> > [offensive] books, It's the teacher's manipulating the mind of
> > children to embrace dangerous ideologies, because the teacher happens
> > to believe it's a good ideology.
>
> > "It brings these battlegrounds to the psyches and minds of little
> > children," Parker said. "Their little minds should not be the
> > battleground for culture wars.
>
> > "Proper boundaries have to be established. This is absolutely of
> > national significance. No parent wants to put their very little
> > children in positions in which they're minds are being used as
> > battlegrounds," he said.
>
> > He warned pursuit of such agendas would cause public schools to
> > implode. That's an issue that California already is facing, as WND has
> > reported. There, a coalition of organizations is encouraging parents
> > and providing resources for them to be able to remove their children
> > from public schools. The coalition's goal is to take 600,000 children
> > from California's public districts, because of a new state law there
> > requiring indoctrination that not only is pro-homosexual, but also
> > affirms bisexuality, transsexuality and other alternative lifestyle
> > choices.
>
> > "The human secularist religion of the [National Education
> > Association,] buttressed by the power of the state, will now turn
> > public schools into the next secular synagogues," Parker said. "[They
> > say], 'We're just preparing the kids to be citizens.' But it's a
> > religion. It is a devious and evil form of religion."
>
> > The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Lexington, Mass.,
> > school district can teach children contrary ideas without violating
> > their parents' rights to exercise religious beliefs.
>
> > "Public schools," opined Judge Sandra L. Lynch, "are not obliged to
> > shield individual students from ideas which potentially are
> > religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no
> > requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even
> > participate in discussions about them."
>
> > As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf originally
> > dismissed the civil rights lawsuit, concluding there is, in fact, an
> > obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and
> > endorse homosexuality.
>
> > Parker said if this topic is approved, why not any other topic, up to
> > and including Nazism?
>
> > The Parker dispute began in the spring of 2005 when the Parkers then-5-
> > year-old son brought home a book to be shared with his parents titled,
> > "Who's in a Family?" It came in a "Diversity Book Bag" and depicted at
> > least two households led by homosexual partners.