Post by: Paddy on August 22, 2007, 07:22:21 AM
Like they won't fix the local streets which are full of potholes. They keep raising water, sewer and trash pickup rates without good cause. City councils want to increase local sales taxes. Parents can't even control the local school districts (where the 'superintendents' are paid $100,000+/yr but there's not enough money to continue music education, sports, etc.)
Have we lost all control?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 22, 2007, 07:26:26 AM
Money goes into general fund, money gets sucked out for pet projects to try for votes in a home district.
And if you try to talk to a representative, it's:
Citizen: "Sir, I really need to talk to you, sir..."
Politician: "Not now, I'm sorry, I'm busy..."
versus
Lobbyist: "Here's a large check for your campaign."
Politician: "Sir! Step into my office, or come up to the lake house this weekend. Why..."
Post by: wooderson on August 22, 2007, 07:31:51 AM
We're not talking a CEO situation, where 'the boss' earning hundreds of times as much as 'the worker' - we're talking 3x-5x the salary of the teacher. In any district of reasonable size, the super's salary is a drop in the bucket. Even the absurd salaries paid to some high school football coaches here in Texas are largely irrelevant to budgetary concerns.
Post by: Paddy on August 22, 2007, 08:38:45 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 22, 2007, 08:55:43 AM
Post by: jnojr on August 22, 2007, 09:11:08 AM
Didn't mean to gore any oxes there, woody, really. It's just that I've dealt with at least one super in the past and it seems to me their purpose is merely political. I fail to see how they add any value at all to the (failing) K-12 educational system.
+1
And the question goes far beyond what a principal or superintendant makes. Why do we need "Boards of Education" in huge, shiny buildings that cost tens of millions of dollars filled with hundreds or thousands of bureaucrats?
Why can't schools be administered strictly on a local level? Why can't rural schools emphasize "hard skills" and conservative values without interference from the "Big City", demanding that sex ed and tolerance for "alternative lifestyles" must take the place of PE, welding, etc?
Government has reached a critical mass. It's of such size and scope now that it cannot do anything but grow, stagnate, consume ever-increasing amounts of resources while producing nothing, and constantly pass more and more restrictions on liberty. Will we act before it's too late, before that government "takes steps" to ensure its' own survival at our expense?
Post by: Standing Wolf on August 22, 2007, 09:29:03 AM
Quote
Have we lost all control?
Nope. We abandoned it.
Post by: wooderson on August 22, 2007, 10:37:59 AM
Why have a superintendent? Because a city of 100k may have 10 elementary schools, five junior highs and two high schools (those numbers may be off slightly, not sure). He gets charged with administrating all of them, uniformity of approaches and so on.
Why have boards of education? Because they're elected positions in most districts, exercising precisely the kind of 'local control' being talked about (whether they're a force for good or evil is another question).
Why have a bureaucracy? Because someone has to manage maintenance crews and construction oversight and teacher hiring and so on.
Post by: wooderson on August 22, 2007, 10:48:14 AM
Quote
Why can't schools be administered strictly on a local level? Why can't rural schools emphasize "hard skills" and conservative values without interference from the "Big City", demanding that sex ed and tolerance for "alternative lifestyles" must take the place of PE, welding, etc?
Because we, as a society, generally believe that every child deserves roughly the same educational opportunities as any other child.In this day and age, whether that be rural or urban (and remember, most Americans are urban), that involves a weak version of 'college prep.' Parents don't want junior written off to vocational school early on (in their opinion - me, I wish I could have taken metal shop in school), they want him to go to college whether or not that's good for him.
Tolerance of 'alternative lifestyles' - I don't even know what that means. Where are kids being force to 'love the gays' or something in defiance of the community feelings/religion?
Sex ed - real sex ed, not that abstinence crap - is good policy.
Post by: roo_ster on August 22, 2007, 12:47:18 PM
Quote
Why can't schools be administered strictly on a local level? Why can't rural schools emphasize "hard skills" and conservative values without interference from the "Big City", demanding that sex ed and tolerance for "alternative lifestyles" must take the place of PE, welding, etc?
Because we, as a society, generally believe that every child deserves roughly the same educational opportunities as any other child.In this day and age, whether that be rural or urban (and remember, most Americans are urban), that involves a weak version of 'college prep.' Parents don't want junior written off to vocational school early on (in their opinion - me, I wish I could have taken metal shop in school), they want him to go to college whether or not that's good for him.
Tolerance of 'alternative lifestyles' - I don't even know what that means. Where are kids being force to 'love the gays' or something in defiance of the community feelings/religion?
Sex ed - real sex ed, not that abstinence crap - is good policy.
Thank for proving jnojr's point.
Post by: Ned Hamford on August 22, 2007, 03:15:44 PM
Tolerance of 'alternative lifestyles' - I don't even know what that means. Where are kids being force to 'love the gays' or something in defiance of the community feelings/religion?
No major defiance of community feelings on it, but I can speak from experiance that in Westchester NY if a flaming (almost cartoon character) homosexual licks you against your will and you forcefully push him away you will face a week's suspension. Happened to my older brother. Person mentioned wasn't singling my brother out btw, he did it to alot of people, my brother was just the first to resist so forcefully that the person was knocked on their ass. My brother was almost suspended for a month when hearing his sentence he cursed at the administrator and said the licker was lucky he wasn't punched. Public High School
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 22, 2007, 05:11:05 PM
Post by: tyme on August 22, 2007, 05:45:34 PM
Quote
n this day and age, whether that be rural or urban (and remember, most Americans are urban), that involves a weak version of 'college prep.' Parents don't want junior written off to vocational school early on (in their opinion - me, I wish I could have taken metal shop in school), they want him to go to college whether or not that's good for him.
Parents largely take too little responsibility for their part in their children's education. It doesn't take a good high school to prepare a child for college. All it takes is a dedicated parent."If I grab a woman's ass, and she punches me, she's fighting for her rights. But if a *Not nice word for gay men* grabs my ass, and I punch his lights out, I'm a homophobe."
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 22, 2007, 06:01:50 PM
Well, by now nearly all of our positions of authority are sought out and occupied exclusively by the corruptible. These sorts of people can't possibly be good at what they do. The best we can hope for is that they're so afraid of getting booted out of office that they'll make a passing effort at not being egregiously bad at what they do.
Any aspect of our lives that government runs will be run incompetently. The only thing we can do is make sure that we, individually, retain as much control over our lives as possible.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 22, 2007, 06:12:33 PM
Quote
The best we can hope for is that they're so afraid of getting booted out of office that they'll make a passing effort at not being egregiously bad at what they do.
That's an integral part of a representative republic, yes.
Post by: Ned Hamford on August 22, 2007, 06:23:35 PM
Tinky-winky licked your brother?
Now that you mention it, its been awhile since I made fun of him over that...
Post by: Fjolnirsson on August 22, 2007, 07:19:24 PM
Quote
Riley, you live in California. That explains a lot.
I think Rabbi meant this at least partially tongue in cheek. But, Riley, you know I used to be a neighbor(of sorts). I lived just a couple cities over from you, and I have to tell you, it's a lot different up North. Folks like to talk about the East coast, and how things in Oregon are the same as CA. It just isn't true. Are there influences, some of them unwelcome, and growing? Sure. But the Bay Area has a cancer, and I used to feel exactly as you do when I lived there.
Post by: Monkeyleg on August 22, 2007, 07:59:41 PM
I've come to realize that, by the time citizens are invited to give their input, the fix is already in. The votes have been decided, the contractor has already bought off the legislators needed, and the hearings are nothing more than theater.
There are exceptions, of course. But it takes a really ticked-off citizenry to alter a course that's been set in stone.
If more citizens paid more attention earlier on in the process, things would be different.
A brief case in point: in a post last year, I railed about how the city was forcing us to accept street and sewer upgrades that citizens didn't want, nor could most afford. But it was the city engineer--an elected official--who ramrodded these changes through.
I just found out that he resigned the city council, and has taken a city engineer job in another state.
Could it be that he knew he'd be booted out of office next April, and so got out of Dodge when the getting was good?
Post by: Tallpine on August 23, 2007, 04:56:19 AM
Quote
The way I see it, the people who end up with power (like the people who end up getting money) are usually the people that wanted it bad enough to do what it takes to get it. Hence, the rich and powerful tend to be the ambitious. This is often a bad thing. But it is inevitable.
Which is why we should choose leaders by lottery
Quote
I've come to realize that, by the time citizens are invited to give their input, the fix is already in. The votes have been decided, the contractor has already bought off the legislators needed, and the hearings are nothing more than theater.
Exactly.
I actually heard a city councilman say that to a group of people who were angrily protesting a "proposed" ordinance. I was so flabbergasted that I didn't know how to respond.
A couple months later we moved out of town.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 23, 2007, 05:15:07 AM
Quote
've come to realize that, by the time citizens are invited to give their input, the fix is already in. The votes have been decided, the contractor has already bought off the legislators needed, and the hearings are nothing more than theater.
That happened in my sister's area of PA, where a truck bypass road through their neighborhood had already "rushed through" before the citizens were even notified, and they'd started surveying before it was even approved.
So the neighbors simply moved all the survey markers anywhere from a few inches to a few feet in different directions every night.
This delayed it until the state's attorney could be made aware of it, a lawyer could be hired, and the whole thing was stopped as being blatantly against the law.
Post by: Werewolf on August 23, 2007, 10:17:49 AM
Quote
Tolerance of 'alternative lifestyles' - I don't even know what that means. Where are kids being force to 'love the gays' or something in defiance of the community feelings/religion?
Uhhhhh...
Oklahoma.
My grown daughters all went to school from late 80's thru 2000. When in an early elementary grade they all, one after the other came home with a book called "Tommy has two Mommies" or something like that. Required reading.
My niece 10 years their junior came home with the same book a few years back.
Now if that's not indoctrination then what is it?
Oklahoma=Conservative but that doesn't mean that the teacher's union is and it isn't. Complain to the school board and get booed into silence and accused of being an intolerant homophobe.
I'd say we've lost control.
Post by: wooderson on August 23, 2007, 10:26:42 AM
Quote
Now if that's not indoctrination then what is it?
I don't know, what is it? Did it make your daughters gay? Did it force them to buddy up with the local gay kid and be best friends?
Ironically, 'Heather Has Two Mommies' is the 11th-most banned book in the US.
Post by: Werewolf on August 23, 2007, 11:06:46 AM
Quote
Now if that's not indoctrination then what is it?
I don't know, what is it? Did it make your daughters gay? Did it force them to buddy up with the local gay kid and be best friends?
Ironically, 'Heather Has Two Mommies' is the 11th-most banned book in the US.
So yes it was indoctrination. And no amount of complaints from parents in the neighborhood got the school to stop sending the book home with our kids - it's still happening 15 years later.
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 23, 2007, 11:24:56 AM
Quote
Now if that's not indoctrination then what is it?
I don't know, what is it? Did it make your daughters gay? Did it force them to buddy up with the local gay kid and be best friends?
Ironically, 'Heather Has Two Mommies' is the 11th-most banned book in the US.
So yes it was indoctrination. And no amount of complaints from parents in the neighborhood got the school to stop sending the book home with our kids - it's still happening 15 years later.
It is a normal state of human affairs. That's the reality of the United States. There is no reason people should have to hide who they prefer to have a relationship with. Should we not teach children at all about other religions until their late highschool/college years? Fear and bigotry often come from unfamiliarity. You can still teach your children it is wrong and that it is an immoral, sinful way of life. Children also need to learn, regardless of religion or upbringing, that life is different for people with different beliefs and they had better get used to it.
Why shield them from it forever? Children spend a huge amount of time in schools, and they learn social issues whether or not it's taught in class. Why not address such issues in a positive way?
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 23, 2007, 11:28:26 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 23, 2007, 12:17:48 PM
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 23, 2007, 12:23:09 PM
Post by: roo_ster on August 23, 2007, 12:52:29 PM
Thanks for making jnojr's point for him and substituting your sensibility for the sensibilities of the taxpayers in various & sundry school districts who want no part of such indoctrination.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 23, 2007, 01:04:46 PM
I'm not sure that telling Billy "Hey, some people live life differently than you do" is exactly ruining his childhood.
I think that's the job of parents, not the state.
I also don't think it's the wisest thing to be teaching kids in their formative years, since the jury's still out on whether it can, indeed, be a learned behavior, not just "genetic".
Post by: Werewolf on August 23, 2007, 01:07:08 PM
I suppose my point shouldn't have been limited to homosexuality. It was more geared towards people who think we should completely avoid teaching any social issues in schools. Schools are about educating out children with useful skills in order to better their lives society as a whole. How can we avoid teaching about some social issues in such an institution?
Schools weren't always that way. Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home. Somehow the schools have co-opted the duty of parents to teach their children ethics, morality etc and unfortunately parents today seem to not only permit it but willingly go along with and prefer it that way.When I was in 2nd grade in 1959 if I'd been sent home with a book about homosexuality whose main hypothesis was that it was OK there'd have been a mob of parents with the proverbial pitchforks and torches marching on the school and some teachers gettin run out of town.
It's no longer that way. And that's the point of this thread. The schools teach things that in my 55 years of experience I don't believe most Americans think is right but they go along with it rather than speak up and suffer the pangs and arrows of PC excoriation.
SO YES! Mainstream America has lost control of our schools, of our communties and of our state and national representatives who only pay lip service to what we think. (remember the immigration bill that got shot down and how the media crowed about how it was a grass roots effort that did it - guess what - it's baaaaaack!)
Post by: Manedwolf on August 23, 2007, 01:10:02 PM
Quote
Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home.
That's right. And I think that's how it should be. Just the facts.
No "alternative lifestyles are okay"...or NOT okay....in health class. That's proselytizing.
No religious beliefs in the science classroom. Only things provable or disprovable by the scientific method, that's IT.
Schools need to be in the business of knowledge, not social engineering to any given agenda.
Post by: Balog on August 23, 2007, 01:11:32 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 23, 2007, 01:19:24 PM
Quote
Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home.
Quote
Schools need to be in the business of knowledge, not social engineering to any given agenda.
That is, and has been, the view of the vast majority of parents for many years. Yet the legislatures continue to impose the will of minority lobbying groups on the educational system. They do this for money and votes. As a result, we've got a corrupt, screwed up ed system where graduating students can't even read their own diplomas. No child left behind and all.
Yeah, I'd say we've lost control.
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 23, 2007, 01:24:54 PM
Quote
I also don't think it's the wisest thing to be teaching kids in their formative years, since the jury's still out on whether it can, indeed, be a learned behavior, not just "genetic".
Religion is a learned behavior. I think it's prudent to have some material which promotes religious tolerance.
Quote
Thanks for making jnojr's point for him and substituting your sensibility for the sensibilities of the taxpayers in various & sundry school districts who want no part of such indoctrination.
So, if the majority of taxpayers in a certain local want your children to be "indoctrinated" in such a way, you're OK with it? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
I'm just having a hard time understanding how people can completely seperate the idea of education and teaching some level of tolerance for other beliefs. Most of America is not homogenous and coming into cantact with people of differing beliefs is unavoidable. Understanding this and being able to deal with it are valuable skills.
Quote
Schools weren't always that way. Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home. Somehow the schools have co-opted the duty of parents to teach their children ethics, morality etc and unfortunately parents today seem to not only permit it but willingly go along with and prefer it that way.
Because almost everyone was Christian and followed Christian morals to some extent, correct? Not that it's a wrong thing, but there's really no need to tech any type of tolerance when all you're dealing with are people who have the same beliefs as you. With the advent of the internet, television and other media, ease of travel and cultural shiftings that we are experiencing as part of modern life, no preparing children for it in some way is, in my opinion, a disservice.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 23, 2007, 01:32:55 PM
I'm not sure that telling Billy "Hey, some people live life differently than you do" is exactly ruining his childhood.
No one said it was. Public schools can, and should, teach kids about the different lives people lead, without telling them to accept a behavior that most parents disapprove of. And that's what's being discussed here. Not just telling children what "gay" means (which really doesn't need to happen in second grade anyway) but telling them that gay is good.
Quote
It is a normal state of human affairs. That's the reality of the United States. There is no reason people should have to hide who they prefer to have a relationship with.
File under question-begging. Quote
It was more geared towards people who think we should completely avoid teaching any social issues in schools. Schools are about educating out children with useful skills in order to better their lives society as a whole. How can we avoid teaching about some social issues in such an institution?
Who said schools shouldn't teach social issues? They can teach some without getting into all of them. They can also teach about homosexuality without indoctrinating seven-year-olds. But why should they? Homosexuality is not as common as you think it is.
Post by: wooderson on August 23, 2007, 01:37:57 PM
Quote
Schools were for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic along with history, science, civics, health etc. They didn't teach morality, ethics, proseletyze on social issues or any of the other things best left in the home.
This is patently absurd. Morality, ethics and patriotism have been a function of education (public and private) since it became commonplace.
To those who don't want schools teaching "Heather Has Two Mommies" - should schools encourage - if not force - kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God"?
Post by: Balog on August 23, 2007, 01:39:05 PM
Post by: Paddy on August 23, 2007, 01:42:59 PM
Quote
This is patently absurd. Morality, ethics and patriotism have been a function of education (public and private) since it became commonplace.
Uh, that would fall under 'civics' dontcha know.
Quote
To those who don't want schools teaching "Heather Has Two Mommies" - should schools encourage - if not force - kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance, including "under God"?
Our money has the words 'under God', and yes, we should encourage patriotism for this great nation. It is home. Our home. Plenty of men better than you and me have shed their blood for it. Don't you ever forget that.
Post by: Paddy on August 23, 2007, 01:57:45 PM
Quote
I've never said the pledge, and I'll be damned if I ever will.
And you can be grateful you live in a country that affords you that freedom.
Post by: wooderson on August 23, 2007, 01:59:16 PM
Quote
Uh, that would fall under 'civics' dontcha know.
The post I responded to specifically denied their role in education's past.Quote
Our money has the words 'under God', and yes, we should encourage patriotism for this great nation.
So there you go - this isn't an uncommon belief. When we complain about 'indoctrinating' children - whether from the right (HOMOS) or left (CORPORATIONS) - what we really mean is 'not indoctrinating them as I desire them to be.'
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 23, 2007, 01:59:51 PM
Quote
No one said it was. Public schools can, and should, teach kids about the different lives people lead, without telling them to accept a behavior that most parents disapprove of. And that's what's being discussed here. Not just telling children what "gay" means (which really doesn't need to happen in second grade anyway) but telling them that gay is good.
On this point I'm going to say we may be more in agreement than it appears. Would you not agree it is prudent, however, to tell children to accept at least the fact that people are going to be Muslim, Christian, gay, whatever, without deriding them? What's so wrong with saying yes, people can be happy living a life different than yours?
How are you defining "accept a behavior"?
Quote
But why should they? Homosexuality is not as common as you think it is.
Um, not sure where that really falls into your argument.
Post by: Balog on August 23, 2007, 02:00:36 PM
Quote
I've never said the pledge, and I'll be damned if I ever will.
And you can be grateful you live in a country that affords you that freedom.
And you can be grateful I gave up years of my life and went to war so you can have the freedom to insult me. You're welcome.
Post by: jnojr on August 23, 2007, 02:00:44 PM
I'm not sure that telling Billy "Hey, some people live life differently than you do" is exactly ruining his childhood.
No one said it was. Public schools can, and should, teach kids about the different lives people lead, without telling them to accept a behavior that most parents disapprove of.
You're missing the bigger point.
There should be no public schools. What your kids learn should be decided by you, not some committee of bureaucrats that's trying to be "inclusive" of every possible point of view. If you're very religious, you should be sending your kids to a religious school. If you're in a farming area, you should be able to send your kids to a school where they'll learn about livestock husbandry, farming, mechanical work, etc. If it's your dream that your kid should go to college, you should be able to send your kid to a school that emphasizes a lot more "liberal arts" types of subjects.
I understand the point that "we, as a society, want an equal education for our kids". But society should not get to determine that! "Society" has no place telling parents what their kids will learn. Sure, it isn't "fair" that your parents might send you to a school that emphasizes agricultural arts and that "limits your capacity for achievement". So what? Who ever claimed life was "fair"
The more we try to make everybody "equal", the worse society's problems will be. We've progressed from making sure that all kids learn the three Rs, to making sure that they're all in school at the proscribed times, to making sure that they're all learning the Politically Correct topic of the week, to making sure that they're "equal" with the stupid, the drug addicted, the violent, etc. In our attempts to treat all kids as "equal", we've dragged them all down to the lowest common denominator in hellish classrooms where the "teachers" care more about staying alive and getting their retirements than trying to teach the unteachable.
Some kids will be, and should be, "left behind", so that all of them don't wind up left behind.
Post by: jnojr on August 23, 2007, 02:04:44 PM
Would you not agree it is prudent, however, to tell children to accept at least the fact that people are going to be Muslim, Christian, gay, whatever, without deriding them? What's so wrong with saying yes, people can be happy living a life different than yours?
There are a million things that somebody, somewhere, might decide it's "prudent" that children learn. There are so many of them, that things like the three Rs are falling by the wayside because they take too much time away from all the other stuff.
Post by: Pew pew pew on August 23, 2007, 02:06:26 PM
Quote
There should be no public schools.
See, that's a completely different argument. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I don't think that argument has anything to do with what can reasonably be expected to happen any time in the near future. Public schools aren't going away any time soon.
Post by: Paddy on August 23, 2007, 02:09:50 PM
Quote
And you can be grateful I gave up years of my life and went to war so you can have the freedom to insult me. You're welcome.
I don't understand how you've been insulted. Nonetheless, would you care to explain why you swore the following oath:
"I, Balog, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
And yet you 'will be damned' should you ever pledge:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
?
Post by: Balog on August 23, 2007, 02:31:55 PM
Post by: Tallpine on August 23, 2007, 02:39:08 PM
Quote
The Reader's Digest version is that I vehemently object to the "indivisible" part. I feel it directly contradicts the intentions of the writers of the document I swore to defend.
Agreed. The "pledge" is something that was cooked up after the War Between the States.
Sort of a fealty pledge to a national rather than a federal govt
Post by: Paddy on August 23, 2007, 02:41:25 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 23, 2007, 03:03:27 PM
Would you not agree it is prudent, however, to tell children to accept at least the fact that people are going to be Muslim, Christian, gay, whatever, without deriding them?
I don't know if you're missing the point, or just trying to put a good face on things. At the right age level, schools can address the notion of peaceful disagreement and cooperation with different religions and different cultures. At the right age level, they can discuss the fact that some people are homosexuals and what that means. But jnojr and Werewolf were not talking about that. They were specifically talking about public schools telling students that homosexuality is morally acceptable.
Quote
What's so wrong with saying yes, people can be happy living a life different than yours?
Why would that be significant? I think there, you would cross the line from talking about the issues to preaching.
Quote
How are you defining "accept a behavior"?
To accept it as moral and valid. To remove the stigma normally associated with it. I think that's what Werewolf and jnojr were concerned about.
Quote
But why should they? Homosexuality is not as common as you think it is.
I'm asking if it is really worth treading into the waters of the discussion on homosexuality, for the public schools. Despite what some may imagine, I don't think most students have homosexual neighbors, or family members, or teachers, etc. They may have homosexual classmates, I guess. So, yes, there may be a need for talking about tolerance. But tolerance doesn't mean that Gary's gay behavior is OK. It just means you don't beat him up for it. You treat with the same respect you treat anyone else. Which, for high school students, wouldn't be very much. Post by: roo_ster on August 23, 2007, 04:34:45 PM
Quote
Thanks for making jnojr's point for him and substituting your sensibility for the sensibilities of the taxpayers in various & sundry school districts who want no part of such indoctrination.
So, if the majority of taxpayers in a certain local want your children to be "indoctrinated" in such a way, you're OK with it? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Barring a voucher system, if the voters & taxpayers decide they want such indoctrination, I am a big believer that they should get it good, hard, & in their face. Thing is, most every district where such indoctrination is pushed is done despite the wishes of the voters and initiated by the educrats. That is why there is such an outrage when the parents learn that sort of shenanigans are going on.
I am an adult and have no problem working with folks of all stripes, to include homosexuals. I understand that a small percentage of our population will declare themselves as such. Big whoop, its just another fact to deal with as an adult, such as the existence of alcoholism, orphans, chomos, progressive taxation, and injustice. Push such indoctrination on my kiddos, though, and the bonhomie I grant all will be dashed to pieces and be replaced with a significantly less welcoming attitude toward the pushers.
Post by: RevDisk on August 23, 2007, 09:10:02 PM
I've never said the pledge, and I'll be damned if I ever will.
I got in trouble for taping a copy of the Constitution to the homeroom wall, and swearing my allegiance to it instead of the flag.
Dover Area School District is just across the river from me. Parents overwhelmingly revolted against having creationism taught in science class. After Pat Buchanan's subtle warning that God would strike down York, PA and to expect no Divine mercy, students put up posters saying "In Darwin We Trust". I just find it kinda amusing that a lot of posters here are annoyed at Liberals spreading their agendas (rightly so), I see relatively few objections towards more right ish agendas. And I hear from liberals the same exact argument. It just kinda amuses me. Of course, both groups dislike when I meantion I don't think religion or views on alternative lifestyle should be acceptable material for public schools.
Quote
I don't understand how you've been insulted. Nonetheless, would you care to explain why you swore the following oath:
"I, Balog, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
"I, Balog, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
You are not required to give that version. They have a nonreligious version if requested. Military makes an effort not to discriminate against anyone's religion. The motto is "This We Defend", and that includes the freedom of religion. Freedom from religion too.
The nonreligious 'version' I swore merely omitted the last four words.