Conservative Christian Father
I was surfing around, looking for something to inspire me to write and I found this:
http://www.montanasnews.com/articles.php?mode=view&id=1772
This is an article posted in the Montana News (newspaper) about a father who got arrested for protesting information in a book that his elementary school child brought home. This book deals with familial relationships and the main character has two mommies.
The father was upset that the school foisted what he considers "gay propoganda" on his child without his consent. he went to the school and told them this and asked that he be notified of any gay material or lessons that would be taught through the school so that he could pull his son out of school on those days. He also wanted the school to send out permission slips to parents when this kind of material is presented so that they are aware of what their kids are being exposed to.
After two hours and ignoring numerous request by the school officials and police to leave school grounds, the father was arrested for trespassing (and I believe disorderly conduct). His trial date is set for June 1st.
The father feels that the school has no right to teach the children what he feels to be gay propoganda. He feels that it is the parent's responsibility to teach their children morals and ethics, not the school's. He feels that schools should stick with teaching english and math and leave morals to family and church.
When I saw this, my first thought was, JACKPOT!!!
Wow, there is so much to say... Where to start... Where to start...?
O.k. First, I agree that schools should focus more on teaching children reading and science and less on political and religious issues, especially in elementary schools. In high it's fine to do this as long as the school takes an unbiased 3rd party stance on every issue. This is a school, not a recruiting ground.
The only problem that I had with the book that the kid brought home was that it EMPHASIZED the homosexual part of the family. I would rather have books like this that combined different types of families without emphasizing those differences. For example, instead of focusing on the family makeup, these books could have a story line that follows these families on a trip to Mexico. The fact that the families are different becomes incidental to the story, thus teaching the children that other people are different but that the difference itself isn't important.
Now the father... The first thing that I thought of when reading this article was that the father would be a "Christian". It seems that every time I see a story like this a "Christian" is involved. BTW I used quotes here because Jesus taught love, respect for fellow humans, acceptance, and tolerance. None of which are demonstrated by these so-called "Christians". Of course, I was right.
My next thought was that the father would gather up a bunch of like-minded parents, most or all of them from his church, and blow this whole thing way out of proportion, which they did.
It's amazing how the newspaper that I got this article from wrote the article solely from the father's viewpoint. What ever happened to fair, UNBIASED reporting? Or have news agencies decided to forego that little annoyance?
The paper quoted the book as stating:
"Nate has trouble deciding what his favorite color is, but his two lesbian mamas help him realize that he does not have to have a best, best color."
The books actually states:
"Nate has trouble deciding what his favorite color is, but his two mommies help him realize that he does not have to have a best, best color."
Why did the paper change "mommies" to "lesbian momas"? "Mommies" could refer to mother and step mother, mother and grandmother (who is raising the child) or to a homosexual relationship. Why focus on the possible homosexual aspect? Why change the words to have a homosexual impact? Isn't that illegal?
The father is quoted as saying that he feels as though he is caught in an "ultraliberal twilight zone" in his state (Montana) and, in retrospect, cannot believe what has taken place there recently.
Why is it that "Christians" are always blaming "liberals" for things? Whatever happened to Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for All.
lib·er·al·ism
NOUN:
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
A. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
B. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
A. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
B. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
I don't see anything here that would make me think anything bad about liberals. Liberal to me means open-minded. people who think outside the box instead sticking with the accepted norm. Makes me think that there are people out there who are willing to accept people for who they are rather than for their religious beliefs, skin color, musical preference, political party, sexual persuasion, or anything else.
I would be proud to be considered a liberal. Every major change in the world, including the "discovery" of America was made by liberals. All advances in the sciences, art, and writing were made by liberals. But to these "Christians" (they also call themselves "Conservatives") "Liberal" is a curse word used on the feeble minded and morally currupt.
How does letting someone else do something that I feel is morally wrong make me bad? I think that smoking is morally repugnant, but I don't have the right or inclination from stopping you from smoking unless it affects other people like me. What you do in the bedroom is your business. I have no wish to make it part of mine. Why other people do is beyond me.
To put this article into a different perspective, imagine reading the same story and substitiute homosexual with interacial. The majority of "Conservative Christians" would view that as (insert race here) Propoganda as well.
Whatever doesn't fit their narrow, bigoted, outdated views is deemed "Liberal" and usually has the abjective "Propoganda" attached to it somewhere.
How is thinking for yourself bad? Why blindly follow others in an endless march without venturing off from the beaten path. How is following doctrin good?
Just a few thoughts...
http://www.montanasnews.com/articles.php?mode=view&id=1772
This is an article posted in the Montana News (newspaper) about a father who got arrested for protesting information in a book that his elementary school child brought home. This book deals with familial relationships and the main character has two mommies.
The father was upset that the school foisted what he considers "gay propoganda" on his child without his consent. he went to the school and told them this and asked that he be notified of any gay material or lessons that would be taught through the school so that he could pull his son out of school on those days. He also wanted the school to send out permission slips to parents when this kind of material is presented so that they are aware of what their kids are being exposed to.
After two hours and ignoring numerous request by the school officials and police to leave school grounds, the father was arrested for trespassing (and I believe disorderly conduct). His trial date is set for June 1st.
The father feels that the school has no right to teach the children what he feels to be gay propoganda. He feels that it is the parent's responsibility to teach their children morals and ethics, not the school's. He feels that schools should stick with teaching english and math and leave morals to family and church.
When I saw this, my first thought was, JACKPOT!!!
Wow, there is so much to say... Where to start... Where to start...?
O.k. First, I agree that schools should focus more on teaching children reading and science and less on political and religious issues, especially in elementary schools. In high it's fine to do this as long as the school takes an unbiased 3rd party stance on every issue. This is a school, not a recruiting ground.
The only problem that I had with the book that the kid brought home was that it EMPHASIZED the homosexual part of the family. I would rather have books like this that combined different types of families without emphasizing those differences. For example, instead of focusing on the family makeup, these books could have a story line that follows these families on a trip to Mexico. The fact that the families are different becomes incidental to the story, thus teaching the children that other people are different but that the difference itself isn't important.
Now the father... The first thing that I thought of when reading this article was that the father would be a "Christian". It seems that every time I see a story like this a "Christian" is involved. BTW I used quotes here because Jesus taught love, respect for fellow humans, acceptance, and tolerance. None of which are demonstrated by these so-called "Christians". Of course, I was right.
My next thought was that the father would gather up a bunch of like-minded parents, most or all of them from his church, and blow this whole thing way out of proportion, which they did.
It's amazing how the newspaper that I got this article from wrote the article solely from the father's viewpoint. What ever happened to fair, UNBIASED reporting? Or have news agencies decided to forego that little annoyance?
The paper quoted the book as stating:
"Nate has trouble deciding what his favorite color is, but his two lesbian mamas help him realize that he does not have to have a best, best color."
The books actually states:
"Nate has trouble deciding what his favorite color is, but his two mommies help him realize that he does not have to have a best, best color."
Why did the paper change "mommies" to "lesbian momas"? "Mommies" could refer to mother and step mother, mother and grandmother (who is raising the child) or to a homosexual relationship. Why focus on the possible homosexual aspect? Why change the words to have a homosexual impact? Isn't that illegal?
The father is quoted as saying that he feels as though he is caught in an "ultraliberal twilight zone" in his state (Montana) and, in retrospect, cannot believe what has taken place there recently.
Why is it that "Christians" are always blaming "liberals" for things? Whatever happened to Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for All.
lib·er·al·ism
NOUN:
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2.
A. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
B. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.
4. Liberalism
A. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
B. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
I don't see anything here that would make me think anything bad about liberals. Liberal to me means open-minded. people who think outside the box instead sticking with the accepted norm. Makes me think that there are people out there who are willing to accept people for who they are rather than for their religious beliefs, skin color, musical preference, political party, sexual persuasion, or anything else.
I would be proud to be considered a liberal. Every major change in the world, including the "discovery" of America was made by liberals. All advances in the sciences, art, and writing were made by liberals. But to these "Christians" (they also call themselves "Conservatives") "Liberal" is a curse word used on the feeble minded and morally currupt.
How does letting someone else do something that I feel is morally wrong make me bad? I think that smoking is morally repugnant, but I don't have the right or inclination from stopping you from smoking unless it affects other people like me. What you do in the bedroom is your business. I have no wish to make it part of mine. Why other people do is beyond me.
To put this article into a different perspective, imagine reading the same story and substitiute homosexual with interacial. The majority of "Conservative Christians" would view that as (insert race here) Propoganda as well.
Whatever doesn't fit their narrow, bigoted, outdated views is deemed "Liberal" and usually has the abjective "Propoganda" attached to it somewhere.
How is thinking for yourself bad? Why blindly follow others in an endless march without venturing off from the beaten path. How is following doctrin good?
Just a few thoughts...
posted by Keko at 13:17
1 Comments:
Hmm, well, I agree with the father on some levels, but not to the point of blowing everything out of proportion. I think that stories are important in Elementary school to promote tolerance. Recognizing that there are different types of families, races, cultures, etc is a healthy way to promote harmony in society. I do believe that some family types should be accepted, but not glorified. Single motherhood should never be a choice. It should be a last result of bad cercomstances. It happens, but it hurts children. Some cases it is MUCH better than the alternative, but it should never be glorified into making it a viable "choice" option. I believe that this was the father's problem. He felt that the story was glorifying the situation, rather than mearly exposing children to the fact that some people have different families.
The problem comes when every behavior becomes accepted. I believe that some behaviors cross a line and should not, and can not be accepted by society in order for it to continue functioning. The father in this story obviously thinks that living a gay lifestyle is one of those things. The ultimate question comes to "Are you born gay?" Like you are born Chinese, or Black, or Jewish? Some people say emphatically YES! I, personally, don't think that you are. That is really what the whole gay debate is about. If it is something "natural" and something that you can't change, then any rational person would say taht it must be accepted by society and not discriminated against. The father in this story feels like his point of view (that being gay is not natural, and is a choice) is automatically being discounted in order for gay lifestyles to be socially acceptable (propoganda).
I, personally, think that gay couples raising children is not the ideal situation. 2 parents are better than those people who choose single parenthood are worse, but a mother and a father is the ideal situation. Children need both sexes raising them to be well balanced adults. Abusive parents do not count. I think this is a failing in our society where we are so "liberal" and "tolerant" that we no longer give ourselves permission to make any judgement calls to say that one situation is better than another.
Post a Comment
<< Home