Seven-Year-Old Beaten at School For Father's Stand Against Homosexual Activism

LifeSiteNews ^ | 6/14/06 | John-Henry Westen and John Jalsevac

[wagglebee]

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts, June 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On May 17—the two-year anniversary of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts—the first-grade son of a prominent pro-family advocate was dragged and beaten behind the Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington during recess, receiving multiple blows to the chest, stomach, and genital area.

Jacob Parker, the 7-year-old who was attacked, is the son of David Parker.  LifeSiteNews.com readers will recall that David Parker objected to homosexual curriculum in his son's kindergarten class.  At a meeting with the principal of the school last year Parker requested that the school inform him of when homosexual discussions would take place, so he could exclude his son from the activity. The principal refused and Parker said he would not leave until his request was granted. School administration called the police and had Parker charged with trespassing. (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05042910.html)

The school system has since continued to refuse to notify parents of such material being presented in class. On April 27, 2006, Parker, his wife, and another family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the school system.

According to Mr. Parker, school authorities determined from an investigation into the assault that the beating was indeed planned and premeditated.

Mr. Parker described the incident at the school saying:

"During the recess period, a group of 8-10 kids suddenly surrounded Jacob and grabbed him. He was taken around the corner of the school building out of sight of the patrolling aides, with the taunting and encouragement of other kids. Jacob was then positioned against the wall for what appeared to be a well planned and coordinated assault.”

According to Parker, his son related that one student in particular performed the actual physical assault while, “many children stood, watched silently, and did nothing as the beating commenced.”

"The group of kids surrounded Jacob and he was beaten and punched. Then, as he fell to the ground, another child was heard saying to the group of children, 'Now you all can finish him off,' and as he was down on his hands and knees, the beating continued on his back. Then, fortunately, one little girl ran to contact the oblivious playground aides to stop it.

"Four of the attackers were from Jacob's first-grade class; the others were from other classes at Estabrook.

"The teachers' aide apparently determined that since she could not see external bleeding, and since Jacob apparently was not hit in the face, she did not send him to she school nurse." The family was immediately notified of the incident.

Speaking to LifeSiteNews, Parker speculated that the cause of the attack is most likely what he called “displaced aggression.” “If children hear venomous things from their parents, the children do internalize this,” he said.

“I certainly don’t want to vilify the children in this,” he said. “We understand that skirmishes happen on the playground. It’s taking the child around out of view of the aides, and the number of children that stood around watching that concerns us.”

Parker noted that his conflict with the school over homosexuality is well known among the students.  "We are aware that the school administration sent notices home with all the young children concerning the Parker arrest, the 'King and King' incident and the federal lawsuit," he said. “They must know that the children read them.”

He pointed out that the date of the attack--the two year aniversary of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts--cannot be a coincidence.

The topic of Parker's beliefs has become so widespread among the students that Jacob says he overheard his fellow classmates ruminating that perhaps their current principle—who has resigned her position to take up a job elsewhere—was leaving the job because of Jacob’s father. Members of the community itself have organized public demonstrations specifically against Parker, in which their children have taken part. One of these demonstrations is pictured on the right. While prominently displayed in the student library are the back issues of the Lexington Minuteman that specifically deal with Parker’s case, for the children to read.

“We’re trying to be patient and tolerant," said Parker when asked if he was considering pulling his son out of the school. "We’re trying to hang on to the notion that the schools are for every child and for everyone. I don’t feel that we should have to leave for an injustice.”

But he added that “There are limits to how much patience we can have. I certainly understand why more and more parents are pulling their children out of public schools.”

Ironically, the school prides itself on its long-time involvement in various "Safe School" programs, which are geared to creating school environments "safe" for students who are homosexual.

Parker asked, "Isn't the school supposed to be addressing safety and preventing bullying and violence? Or are such programs only focused on children with homosexual parents? You can be certain that if this happened to a child with homosexual parents more would be made of this and that 'lessons' teaching tolerance and diversity of homosexual behavior normalization would be forced upon the young children."

The school and larger community are deeply divided over the Parker's stand against pro-homosexual indoctrination.  A group has been formed in Lexington to counter Parker's efforts.  The 'Lexington Cares' group maintains an anti-Parker website and has conducted anti-Parker letter writing campaigns and demonstrations. 

Calls to Estabrook school were not returned by press time.

To express your concern to Estabrook school contact:

Estabrook School
117 Grove Street
Lexington, MA
02420 USA

Phone: (781)861-2520 
Fax: (781)862-5610 

[Bigg Red]

“We’re trying to be patient and tolerant," said Parker when asked if he was considering pulling his son out of the school. "We’re trying to hang on to the notion that the schools are for every child and for everyone. I don’t feel that we should have to leave for an injustice.”

&&&
While his opinion certainly makes sense, I would not leave my young child in such a dangerous situation.

I hope he sues the school district big time for this attack.

[GLDNGUN]

You are wasting your time speaking with MACVSOG68, who is nothing but your run-of-the-mill, pompous, liberal as*hole. SHe/IT likes to pose as a conservative here, but is really trolling for trouble.

Well, I'm certainly not going to waste any more time. I asked a simple question and, of course, I can't get a simple answer. It's obvious that he/she backs the gay agenda. Why can't people just stand up for what they believe in, rather than cowering, hiding, and dissembling?

[Bigg Red]

anti-gay bashing?

**
Yep, sounds like heterophobia to me. A hate crime.

[Bigg Red]

The Catholic School system also works.
*
If youre Catholic..
***
Nearly all Catholic schools accept students of any or no religious affiliation.

[MACVSOG68]

Why can't people just stand up for what they believe in, rather than cowering, hiding, and dissembling?

You mean like you're doing right now?

[LowOiL]

Even those who might use their own children as political pawns?

Word parsing, Political Pawns is your term. In this case it was an occupational hazard for standing up for principles as they were thrown at him. He didn't try to force homosexual behavior and such "teachings" (that have no business in schools) down little kids throats. The school did. He is teaching his kids an important lesson (unlike pushing gay sex discussion) of standing up for what is right. Teaching his kids that moralphobes are not to be backed down from, teaching his kids right from wrong (so that they will grow up to not stray from those ideas).

BTW... Newbie (as you like to call others)... "Hypocrites," Jesus said, "why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right?" (Luke 12:56-57). I don't plan on being a Hypocrite.

Funny later on you said " Nonetheless, I won't make any such judgments about you." Yet all you do is break (lie) your own self imposed limiter.

Example: "And I seriously doubt you know the meaning of conservative."

Example 2 : "What the matter, gutless punk."

I on the other hand have no problem judging you... You are a hypocrite and a unmoral conservative at best, and your posts prove it.

[MACVSOG68]

Word parsing, Political Pawns is your term. In this case it was an occupational hazard for standing up for principles as they were thrown at him.

Right....pawns. His kids were a convenient tool, one that obviously you would use too.

The school did. He is teaching his kids an important lesson (unlike pushing gay sex discussion) of standing up for what is right.

No he isn't. He is teaching his kid that lies and deceit are useful tools...that the end justifies the means. Anyone can teach that. If his father cannot tell the truth of what happened, exactly what is it he is standing up for?

Example: "And I seriously doubt you know the meaning of conservative."

It would appear to fit you as well.

Example 2 : "What the matter, gutless punk."

Yeah, isn't it amazing that it took about 300 posts of death threats, being called every name in the book including an a@@hole, until I finally had enough. The only thing no one found time to do, was to find anything wrong with what I said. You, it would seem fall into that category. It's me, not the subject. When you can't destroy the argument, destroy the poster. Great job! Look through all his posts. We might find something we can pick at. If you guys are the best the anti-homsexual lobby has, give it up. You've already lost.

I on the other hand have no problem judging you... You are a hypocrite and a unmoral conservative at best, and your posts prove it.

Of course. Any one who supports using kids for pawns and targets to get political mileage out of it can send all the insults he wants my way. But I guess if Cindy Sheehan could do it, so can you.

Take care.

[GLDNGUN]

You mean like you're doing right now?

LOL Uh, no. Feel free to ask me what I believe in, and I will tell you without hiding, cowering, or dissembling.

Do I support the gay agenda? NO. That means I do NOT support gay marriage or even "civil unions" that would give gay couples the same rights and privileges as married couples (man & wife). I do NOT support the public schools pushing the gay agenda ("gay is normal") on children of ANY age, much less elementary students. I do NOT support equating "sexual orientation" with race or religion. I do NOT support the government telling private businesses that they MUST do work for advocates of the gay agenda, as was recently the case in Virginia. I do NOT support allowing gays to adopt children.

Please tell me where I'm cowering, hiding, or dissembling.

Now then, you can either answer my original question or continue to play your word games; however, you'll soon by playing by yourself.

[newguy357]

"My dad's a bigger homosexual than your dad."
"IS NOT!"
"IS TOO!"
"IS NOT!"
"IS TOO!"
"Oh yeah, you wanna fight?"

I know, that's what I was thinking! Only in MA (or CA?).

[MACVSOG68]

Howdy, gldngun. I thought if I lifted enough rocks you'd come scurrying out from under one of them. See how much easier it is to confront someone directly?

Do I support the gay agenda? NO. That means I do NOT support gay marriage or even "civil unions" that would give gay couples the same rights and privileges as married couples (man & wife). I do NOT support the public schools pushing the gay agenda ("gay is normal") on children of ANY age, much less elementary students. I do NOT support equating "sexual orientation" with race or religion. I do NOT support the government telling private businesses that they MUST do work for advocates of the gay agenda, as was recently the case in Virginia. I do NOT support allowing gays to adopt children.

See, that wasn't so tough. But you don't have to convince me. All your nasty little one-liners kinda gave me that impression.

Now then, you can either answer my original question or continue to play your word games; however, you'll soon by playing by yourself.

In my pursuit of a real discussion of the issue at hand, I believe I have been playing by myself. Is this the post you are referring to:

Are you not in favor of the gay agenda? Do we really have to play the game of me naming off the things on the gay agenda list? Or can we just cut to the chase and avoid a lot of time wasting?
Guess we are just going to have to waste a lot of time. What exactly am I in favor of? Then do you want to know why Parker used his kids as pawns, or do you want to make me the issue here?

I still honestly do not know what gay agenda you are referring to. I was not being cute. Don't beat around the bush like you have been doing, and ask your questions outright. Since you can't do much to defend Parker and his antics, you can make me the subject. Feel free to ask.

[teawithmisswilliams]

He could have chosen home schooling or a private school.

That's right, drive out all the Americans who actually think their PUBLIC schools should not be introducing homosexuality to 6 year olds. Of course, that's the vast majority of Americans. His grave offense? He actually got indignant and angry--can't have that.

Only "tolerant" people who'll either promote, or passively swallow, the lies are permitted. Public "education" deserves to collapse if this is what it has come to.

[teawithmisswilliams]

Moreover, why is it always the default position of conservatives to pay for public entities and then cede them to the loons on the left?

Good point. The public schools should stand for traditional values, which the majority of parents support (including all those immigrants which the left is so fond of). Let the lefties homeschool or start their private schools to teach homosexuality to 6 year olds.

The left is all about taking over established institutions (judiciary, academia, mainline churches, public schools), rather than creating new ones, because they can't sell their agenda in the marketplace of ideas. So, they just impose them.

[MACVSOG68]

That's right, drive out all the Americans who actually think their PUBLIC schools should not be introducing homosexuality to 6 year olds

I'm sure you understand that it is Massachusetts we are talking about? I have no problem with him letting the school know he doesn't want such materials provided to his children. They had actually agreed to that. But when you use your children to help you in your crusade, then you have crossed the line. There was much he could have done without putting his children into the spotlight.

His grave offense? He actually got indignant and angry--can't have that.

No, that wasn't his offense. I too would have gotten angry if I didn't know my child was being provided such materials. That is not what this is about at all.

Only "tolerant" people who'll either promote, or passively swallow, the lies are permitted. Public "education" deserves to collapse if this is what it has come to.

Fine, stay and fight. But try doing it by leaving your children out of it and not putting them into a position of ridicule by the other children.

[RKBA Democrat]

People don't want to be confronted with the error of their choices.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt....

[EmilyGeiger]

I was wondering the same thing. When it comes to my children's safety, i'm not patient and tolerant.

[scandalon]

Another BIG reason to HomeSchool. The man's a fool for leaving his son in such a place.

[Tax-chick]

As I said, it's confusing to me. The original cause of trouble was homosexual indoctrination in the kindergarten class, iirc. When the school declined to address his objections, and even to inform parents of pro-homosexual curriculum's being used, then ... what? Did he decide it wasn't a problem after all?

And I don't see why a parent would continue to send a child to a school where he was targeted for violence. An ordinary fight between kids is one thing, but if this story is accurate, much worse is going on in the school than that.

[GLDNGUN]

I thought if I lifted enough rocks you'd come scurrying out from under one of them.

HUH? When was I ever hiding? I've always been right here in plain sight.

All your nasty little one-liners kinda gave me that impression.

Gave you the impression of what? That I oppose the gay agenda? The only "nasty" thing is what gays want to teach our children.

Is this the post you are referring to

What part of "answer my original question" was unclear? I'll repeat it. In response to your post: "much of the story has been distorted on these Lexington threads, much more in Parker's favor than it really was", I posted:

How so? Other than the fact that he's trying to slow down the gay agenda that you are in favor of, what is your point?

I still honestly do not know what gay agenda you are referring to.

ROFL. Riiiiiight. I just gave you a list of items from the gay agenda, yet, you simply don't have the foggiest idea of what on earth I could possibly be referring to. Too funny. Please don't waste any more time with your pro-gay stance. After all, "you don't have to convince me. All your nasty little one-liners kinda gave me that impression." Your pro-gay stance wasn't the issue to begin with.

We are back to the ORIGINAL question. Dr. Parker. Remember him?

[Jorge]

If parents are sicking their kids on mine because they're too cowardly to confront me, you can bet your @$$ they're not getting off scott free! So quit with the "consequences for Dad" crap.

Come on. You more or less said that as the Dad you would call the other parents out.
You would take justice into your own hands.

So you would end up in jail, and probably in more trouble than anybody else involved.

Unless you are into martyrdom, that would be foolish.

[MACVSOG68]

Gave you the impression of what? That I oppose the gay agenda? The only "nasty" thing is what gays want to teach our children.

Good for you. You've obviously missed the number of posts in which I argued that everyone should read Tammy Bruce's book The Death of Right and Wrong. If you've read it, and since this issue is so important to you, I'm sure you have, then you will know what my agenda is. BTW, Tammy Bruce is a lesbian.

What part of "answer my original question" was unclear? I'll repeat it. In response to your post: "much of the story has been distorted on these Lexington threads, much more in Parker's favor than it really was", I posted:

There you see. Actually your question was "What is my agenda"? But I'll answer the first. See post 203 and 298. 203 will give you a bit of the history of last years events, and 298 will give you the real story that got everyone here so cranked this year. If you still have questions, by all means, ask. I'm kind of surprised that someone with your keen interest in the truth doesn't at least ask if there might be a bit missing in these stories.

ROFL. Riiiiiight. I just gave you a list of items from the gay agenda, yet, you simply don't have the foggiest idea of what on earth I could possibly be referring to. Too funny. Please don't waste any more time with your pro-gay stance.

Well, you keep alluding to my pro-gay stance. Please let me know exactly what it is, and I'll confirm or deny. Like you, I've nothing at all to hide, or I sure wouldn't be hanging out here with y'all.

We are back to the ORIGINAL question. Dr. Parker. Remember him?

Ah, you mean the guy I questioned as to his motives, before I received death wishes, and a ton of hate posts? That Mr. Parker? Sure. Let's look at the facts here. Mr. Parker gives an interview in which he claims that approximately a month ago, his 7 year old son was dragged behind the school (which is kidnapping BTW) and beaten all over his body by a group of larger kids including striking in his genitals (sexual assault), with encouragement from adults, and was well planned in advance.

Now think about that for a moment. What would you have done? Call the police? Parker didn't. Official complaint to the school board? Nope, Parker didn't. Visit to a doctor to look at the beating and ensure the boy was ok? Nope. Parker didn't. At least go back into court and get some kind of restraining order or amend the original live complaint? Nope. Parker didn't. Take your boy out of that school to avoid any life threatening situation? Nope. Parker didn't. At least contact the parents of the children who beat the boy? Nope. Parker didn't.

Parker left the boy in school and did nothing for a month, until he went public to an anti-gay website. Now, if the boy really wasn't hurt, then of course, Parker lied. If the boy was actually beaten as Parker said, then Parker is guilty of parental negligence. Which do you think it is? That is my issue with Parker this year.

BTW, in addition to this issue, I am also quite concerned about the Duke rape case. I question the motives and the credibility of the alleged victim. After thinking about it, I guess that proves I am promoting a pro-rape agenda.

Take care.