alt.education

Raymond wrote:
>> >but if one is a Christian, or follow religion they can not.
>>
>> Religious views cannot be taught in public schools, because they are
>> ... religious.  If you have a basis other than your particular belief
>> system, then perhaps you have something worth teaching.  Otherwise
>> what you believe is no one's business but your own, and the state has
>> no business fostering otherwise.
>
>To some gay views are religious views

If it is someone else's view, only they have the right to decide
whether that view is religious for them. Your opinion is utterly
irrelevant, except to you.

>as that is where the argument about homosexuality started from.

Nonsense.

>For or against is a form of religion

No it isn't.

>is no ones business and why children need to hear about it, is wrong.

They "need to hear about it" because they WILL hear about it, from
other kids if not the teacher. Other kids are being raised in gay
households. "Heather has two Mommies" isn't a joke; it is the real
world. Get used to it.

>I believe you hit it on the head only since
>gay is a teaching most churches preach about as sin,

That is their problem. It is labeled a sin in the same chapters that
label eating ham as a sin.

>it is religious

Only for those who feel religiously about it. Those who don't feel
religiously about it are also part of the community.

>and the gay has no right to teach their form of religion either.

It isn't "religion" to them. It is everyday LIFE.

>> >Seems that the Law that lets people say their kids can not hear of god,
>>
>> Nothing stops their kids from hearing of God.  They have mouths of
>> their own, don't they?  They have no right to expect the state to
>> speak of God to their kids.
>
>The point really is not about God as nothing stops the kids from
>hearing about homosexual or gay life,

or anything else. That is an inherent result of "free speech" and has
nothing to do with religion. If you live in a society with free
speech, you have to get used to hearing things you don't agree with.
The fact that you don't agree because of your religion is of no import
or relevance to anyone but you. They can't stop you from holding your
beliefs, or teaching them to your kids if you so desire. But unless
you are willing to take personal responsibility for *all* aspects of
your kids's education including the costs, you can't stop others from
teaching what "we the people" think should be taught, so long as they
stick to secular phraseology and reasoning.

>but they should not hear about such in school,

You can't stop it, since kids will talk, and listen, to each other.

As long as it stays secular in tone, I'd rather have the adults
counterbalancing the kid-think.

>why does it seem the gay thinks they have some right
>to expect the state to let them speak of being Gay, when the Believer
>of what ever religon can not?

Being Gay is not a religion. They have the right to speak because of
free speech, just as you do. Teaching on the other hand is decided by
the state, and is based on state interests, not religious ones.

>> >would apply to them that do not want their kids in school to learn of the
>> >homosexual teachings either.  What gives here?
>>
>> Homosexuality is not religion.  There is no "separation of sexual
>> preference and state" in the Constitution, either stated or implied.
>
>Sure it is a religion

No.

>they have followers

Who are "they"?

There is a distinction between followers of a political movement and
followers of a religious movement. Religious organizations have MUCH
stronger protections from government meddling (which is why that
polygamist sect still exists, a century after the courts ruled that
even religious belief could not prevent government from prohibiting
polygamy.) Government-related organizations are much more regulated
than religions, which are not regulated at all provided that they
don't overtly break (secular) laws

>they claim rights,

They have rights.

>they want people to obey them

Don't we all.

>and teach that what they do is not sin,

Nobody but your ilk CARES whether it is "sin", and no one in the
public schools teaches anything about what is or is not a "sin".

>and sin is a religious viewpoint.

Which is why no one teaches in the schools about what is or is not a
sin. It doesn't matter whether it is a sin or not. If it is legal,
then it is an allowed behavior by society whether you think it is a
sin or not.

>Sure there is a separation of sexual
>preferences male or female what will it be.

Not relevant.

>I never heard of a gay person that was not a man or a woman, never some 3rd freak something
>with sex organs that are not like the male or female.

THere are lots of things you never heard of. That is why your kids
are being taught more than you.

>The constitution was made for humans

It was made for "we the people", regardless of our gender or our
preferences.

>and it is implied, humans make babies because they are male and female,

The constitution implies no such thing, and why people make babies is
of no import to the law.

>if one follows the gay line there be no children or humans made,

Not true, and not relevant.

>as they would not do as human normal people do,

No one is obliged to do what YOU think "normal people do".

>and create babies.

Not required by law.

>> If people don't want their kids in public schools, then they have to
>> meet the alternative requirements for compulsory education.  There are
>> religious schools in every state.  But eccentric choices do cost
>> money.
>
>So does owning a home and paying taxes that goes to schools if you
>have children or not.

Yep.

>> >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.
>>
>> That is still the case.
>
>If that be so, why is this being posted and why is that teacher not fired?

What teacher?

>Or was he/she fired.

Did he/she break any laws?

>Nothing meant by my he/she just did not get the name of the teacher male or female.

Probably because there was no teacher.

>> What makes you think that what is being taught isn't part of the
>> officially approved curriculum of the state in question?
>
>I never heard it was,

There seems to be a lot that you haven't heard. Maybe you need more
(religiously neutral secular) education.

>so what makes you think it is?

Because (if you read the subject line), the superintendent said that
it was. Since it is his legal responsibility, and he is legally
accountable for such matters, I am inclined to believe a
superintendent as a first approximation.

>I sure some reader would love to find out what official in what State approved
>such curriculum,

It isn't that hard. Such decisions are on record.

>I sure would, since if they approved such, they
>better approve also that the church can give its view on this matter

What church? There are thousands of churches in this country. And
they all can give their views - in the private sector. They are less
regulated than any other groups - in the private sector. But in the
public sector - they have no authority.

>as it is matter of faith, sin

Not to anyone except those who believe as you do.

>and what our children will learn

in the schools, that is up to the state to decide. Outside the
schools, you can hyper control your kids' learning environment all you
like (but they still will learn things you disapprove of, unless you
act like those in the polygamist sect that locked their kids away all
of their lives).

>and what will happen in their life.

That is utterly out of your control. You have limited control until
they turn 18. Then they can give you the finger if they want, and
there is nothing you can do about it.

lojbab