During our discussion about our town's municipal and school district discrimination against the Boy Scouts, he quickly offered legal help if necessary. Fortunately we beat back the liberals on both fronts before requiring legal help.
Sounds more like dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda to me.....making the abominable acceptable. Ain't gonna happen.
Bookmarked for tomorrow.
Christians speak up while there are morals left.
1. Reading
2. Writing
3. Arithmetic
Leave everything else to the parents. Got it?
Man, this is why my daughter attends a private Christian school run by my church. She will never see the inside of a public school.
I also notice the pro-homo agenda crowd doesn't step in on threads like this, where the evil is undeniable!
On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc., 68 F.3d 525 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, U.S. (1996), in which the district court ruled, and the circuit court upheld, that it is constitutional for a public school to compel students--some as young as 14--without notifying parents, to sit through an explicit AIDS awareness presentation. A ruling that permits public school officials to force students--over the objections of their parents--to participate in activities that violate deeply held religious beliefs should be of concern to us all.
School officials at Chelmsford High School in Chelmsford, MA, knew full well what they were getting when they hired Suzi Landolphi, the owner of a company called Hot, Sexy, and Safer, to give presentations at two 90-minute assemblies at the school. They viewed a promotional videotape of the organization's past presentations as well as promotional brochures and articles. The superintendent and the assistant superintendent attended the presentation. The principal introduced the presenter to the students.
While school officials were busy securing what the principal described as `a very special program,' no effort was made to alert parents about the assembly, and students were compelled to attend it. Some argue that public school officials cannot keep parents apprised of every detail of their children's education. But Landolphi's presentation was not a calculus exposition. It was a highly charged event, unrelated to subjects traditionally taught to high school students.
A videotape of the program reveals that the presenter concentrated on personal matters and used language so graphic that it would make former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders blush.
Abstinence was never discussed as an option to avoid contracting AIDS. The assemblies were, however, filled with lewd demonstrations of crude sexual acts. Landolphi kicked off her presentation to 9th and 10th grade students by saying, `This is amaz[ing]--I can't believe how many people came here to listen to someone talk about sex, instead of staying home and having it yourself.' This may have been the high water mark for the show.
During the program, the presenter told the students that they were going to have a `group sexual experience, with audience participation'; told a minor he was not `having enough orgasms'; commented about a minor's `nice butt'; characterized the loose pants worn by a student as `erection wear'; and had a male student lick an oversized prophylactic, after which she had a female student pull it over the male's head.
Landolphi was also philosophical: `When we are younger, we know about our private parts. We're less embarrassed. Why is that? With all of us sitting in this room right now--I mean, have you ever really sat down and thought about your private parts? Did you ever think about them?'
She concluded her presentation by instructing the students to `Become sexually proud and confident people. Know how you work. Tell your parents about sex.'
Not only was Ms. Landolphi's program salacious, it was astonishingly inaccurate. Example: `When you find out someone you love has this virus, you tell them they can fight this virus, and they might fight it so well that they may never get ill. That's a fact.' She informed these students that those infected with HIV could avoid AIDS by getting rid of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and stress. And what, according to Landolphi, relieves stress? `Sex, of course.'
For school officials to hold such a controversial--to put it mildly--event without parental notification suggests these officials may have deliberately sidestepped the parents. Even if, on the other hand, this heedlessness was inadvertent, it begs a broader question:
Have some public school officials become so arrogant that they do not even give thought to the views of the people they serve--the community--when planning school events? Some Chelmsford parents believed that their constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children was violated. A Federal district court judge and a court of appeals, however, ruled against the parents.
The district court judge, in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, opined: `Parents who send their children to public schools * * * daily risk their children's exposure, both inside and outside the classroom, to ideas and values that the parents and the children find offensive.' Memorandum and Order, Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, No. 93-11842, slip op. at 10 (D. Mass. January 19, 1995). The effect of this brush off is to treat a convinced Christian, Jew, Muslim, or parent of other religious faith as insufficiently enlightened, deserving of exclusion from the educational process along with other narrow-minded and ignorant people. The erosion of our values that this kind of indiscriminate reasoning represents is truly breathtaking.