Skip to comments.Arrested father had point to make Disputed school's lesson on "diversity"
Posted on 04/29/2005 1:16:06 AM PDT by ninonitti
click here to read article
The father was asked why he didn't sent his son to private school. He pointed out that he is paying Lexington property taxes (undoubtedly sky high) and he shouldn't have to.
Do you have a link to the e-mail exchange?
Could you elaborate?
Give us your money and do makes us earn it.
The father has a right to remove his child.
The test must be on the PARENTS OF THE CHILD, adopting mandatory homosexuality is no different than the government adopting a mandatory religion.
Internal investigations by these agencies are little more than a joke. They may ferret out some personnel who steal state property and abuse their time. However, their abuse of the public usually goes unchallenged.
The liberals constantly call for corporate accountability. What is really needed is public sector accountability. If that were the case, the lesbian Marxists who become social workers and the schoolyard bullies who become LEOs may be less likely to run roughshod over individual rights.
You want to tell me what "unjust law" is being enforced here?
He wanted to get arrested to publicize his cause. Fine and dandy. He got what he wanted. So what's your beef with the cops? He was trespassing, he was removed.
The Agreement: Deceitful tactic by school officials?
Near end of meeting school officials negotiated an agreement with parent, then superintendent refused to sign it; had parent arrested instead.
As the meeting seemed at a stalemate, the Principal and Director of Education seemed to changed course. Although they had claimed they "did not have the authority" to allow David Parker's to be informed when his 6-year-old son was exposed to discussions of homosexuality, they suggested that the Superintendent did have the authority to agree -- at least until the full process of appealing to the School Committee went through.
So they had David hand-write an agreement, which they discussed with Superintendent William Hurley over the telephone, and then faxed to him. Dave was led to believe that Hurley was going to sign this - but instead he called back saying he rejected it, and they decided to have Dave arrested for trespassing.
The whole thing appears to have been a strange tactic to break down David Parker's resolve and have him finally give up and leave.
We, Tonia and David Parker, are once again requesting that we be notified when gay headed households/same sex union/transgender/bisexual issues are exposed to our child at Estabrook when teachers/staff/adults partake in these discussions.
The undersigned, Superintendent of the Lexington Public Schools, agrees that we will not only be notified when these discussions are planned but in addition agrees to an automatic opt out for our child when such discussions arise spontaneously to be enforced by those in authoritative control. Accordingly key teachers and staff must be notified (those that have authoritative control over our son at Estabrook) so that these accommodations may be implemented.
Parkers to Principal:
Date: Friday, March 4, 2005
Subject: David and Tonia Parker's Parental Rights Assertion
We would like to clarify that our previous e-mail which states: "we do not give the Lexington Public School system permission to discuss homosexuality issues (i.e. - trans gender/bisexual/gay headed households) to our son [son's name]" - is a parental assertion; not a matter open to legal interpretation or administrative policy. Let us, David and Tonia Parker, parents of [son's name], be clear in purpose and prose on this matter:
Discussions concerning homosexuality issues will not take place in front of our son, [son's name] (5 yrs old), at Estabrook. This includes material given to [our son] to covertly transport into our household (i.e.- diversity book bag). Such doctrine is against our Christian family beliefs. We will be notified when there are plans to have homosexual material discussed with the students - when [our son] is present - so that we can take action to ensure his spiritual safety. You are not permitted to infringe upon our religious beliefs and parental rights or obviate our freedom of choice, to exclude our son from material that would expose him to beliefs contrary to the Word of God in our Christian faith. Our parental rights and Christian belief system will be respected in this diversity- oriented, anti-biased school community. We know other parents, of various faiths and values, that endorse this position. This is not solely a Christian assertion of rights.
May God bless everyone who reads this to be shown his Love and truth of his Word.
Dave and Tonia Parker
PS- It is requisite that our assertion of rights be documented to teacher/staff; since, there were previous examples of less than adequate communication within the Lexington School system.
Principal's reply to Parkers:
Date: Monday, March 28, 2005
Subject: Re: David and Tonia Parker's Parental Rights Assertion
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker,
I just wanted to let you know that I did receive this email.
Principal, Estabrook School
Problem is perverted same sex couples can not copulate and have children in marriage.
So the book is wrong.
What percentage of same sex couple have born children out of their relationship.
In fairness maybe you should print all the emails. Even though I don't agree with the school's policies here, the first couple of emails from her were courteous, professional, and she offered multiple chances to set up a meeting.
You have only printed the third reply from her at which point I'm sure she was pretty fed up. She made dates and times available to the parents and instead of taking her up on her offer, they answered with harangues.
Print the entire exchange instead of taking bits out of context.
The only way you affect mind changes in these liberal elite papers is to hurt them financially.
However, the LA and New York Slimes loses circulation and blames it on changing habits in the way people get their news.
Last time I printed a longer exchange some were upset over the length. I did include the link but legally speaking, the fact they explicitly stated they did not want their child exposed to homosexuality should have ended it period in their favor.
I think this principle has recieved marching orders to keep to the propaganda point that homosexuals are not "sexual" when presented next to normal families.
The question is whether the mother and father will be the arbitors of what is reasonable. A reasonable person would expect to be informed when homosexuality is being taught in school.
I think I agree with you on hat the parents should get. I also think the parents behaved like asses.
Which red state? And are you in an urban or rural area?
We're set to move in a year and I'm having a tough time determining a destination. I won't live in another Marxist city like Seattle ever again.
would not be the first *ss the principle has had to deal with.
These books will become the new "heather has two momies" which are poison.
Odd how the MSM has not picked this up.
The LEOs here have done absolutely nothing wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.