![Twitter](<a href="http://www.twitter.com/maggiesnotebook"><img src="http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-b.png" alt="Follow maggiesnotebook on Twitter"/></a>){kind=small}
This important article by Bob Unruh and WorldNetDaily.com and brought to our attention by loboinok and StoptheAclu.com, must stay on the front burner.
My commentary:
Three parents took this case to court and lost. Their request to remove their child from this specific class was also denied.
While there are numerous issues involved here, two stand out as particularly egregious:
1) The effort to separate a child from their parents by pledging confidentiality. This is basically a pact with the school against the parents. There is no "issue" - religious, political, gay, straight - suitable to require students, verbally or written, to "secret" information from parents. To assume that school officials "know best" in every arena doesn't just diminish parental rights, it simply abolishes them. There is no apology from school officials that should stand. Appropriate action is due against all who sanctioned this secret promise. In my view, "appropriate" means dismissal. The very fact that a school official will consider a "secret promise" is clear evidence of no respect for parental authority. Such people should not be working with children.
2) A parent must always have the opportunity to "opt out" of a specific class that is not needed for graduation credits. The history of controversial teaching is "remove your child from the class if you do not like it." This view is no longer considered "reasonable." The judge declared that opting-out is "not a reasonable expectation." Will the next move be to make these classes essential to graduation?
What we see here is the judge forcing his own expectations (his agenda), based on what he says is historical discrimination. The issue is not discrimination against the issue, it is discrimination against parental rights - all "minor child" issues should begin with the parents.
I have spent some time thinking about why only two sets of parents were involved in the law suit: Did all the other parents agree with the school? Could other parents not afford to pay for a lawsuit? Were other parents not aware of this "indoctrination" class? Probably, it was a matter of money and a lack of information.
We need good and responsible attorneys, throughout the U.S., to fight these battles for the parents and the children, pro bono. This is a battle for all children, gay or straight, and including those children who haven't given their sexuality a second thought. We do not endorse classes telling gay children, or children of gays, that their lifestyle is wrong. We should also not be telling them it is right. The parents should do the talking, not the teacheers. Teachers should accept each child without judgement of their sexual orientation or the child's opinion of sexual orientation. Save the judgement for core-class performance.
Here we go...it won't stop unless and until we make it stop.
(Disclaimer: all comments above are solely mine. I am not speaking for Mr. Unruh, WorldNetDaily, Loboinok or stoptheaclu.)
Posted: March 13, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Officials at Deerfield High School in Deerfield, Ill., have ordered their 14-year-old freshman class into a "gay" indoctrination seminar, after having them sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to tell their parents. "This is unbelievable," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for Concerned Women for America. "It's not enough that students at Deerfield High are being exposed to improper and offensive material relative to unhealthy and high-risk homosexual behavior, but they've essentially been told by teachers to lie to their parents about it."It should be pointed out that minors can't enter into a binding contract. Therefore, "confidentiality agreements" are illegal, worthless and total BS. It also shows that the school knew what it was doing was wrong, just by the fact that they wanted to keep it from the parents.
In what CWA called a "shocking and brazen act of government abuse of parental rights," the school's officials required the 14-year-olds to attend a "Gay Straight Alliance Network" panel discussion led by "gay" and "lesbian" upperclassmen during a "freshman advisory" class which "secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors." "This goes to the heart of the homosexual agenda," Barber said. "The professional propagandists in the 'gay-rights' lobby know the method all too well. If you can maintain control of undeveloped and impressionable youth and spoon-feed them misinformation, lies and half-truths about dangerous, disordered and extremely risky behaviors, then you can control the future and ensure that those behaviors are not only fully accepted, but celebrated." He said not only is forcing students to be exposed to the pro-homosexual propaganda bad enough, but then school officials further required that students sign the "confidentiality agreement" through which they promised not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the seminar. Barber said that also aligns with the goals of the disinformation campaign being run by those in the pro-homosexual camp. "That's what homosexual activists from GSA are attempting to do, and that's what DHS is clearly up to as well." The situation, according to district Supt. George Fornero, was partly "a mistake." He told CWA, the nation's largest public policy women's organization, that requiring children to sign the confidentiality agreement wasn't right and the district would be honest with parents in the future about such seminars. But CWA noted that even after the district was caught, parents still were being told they were not welcome to be at the "freshman advisory" and they were not allowed to have access to materials used in compiling the activist curriculum. Barber noted the damage being done is significant. "Until DHS and other government schools across the country are made to stop promoting the homosexual agenda, kids will continue to be exposed to – and encouraged to participate in – a lifestyle that places them at high risk for life-threatening disease, depression and spiritual despair," he said. It's not the first situation where WND has reported on schools teaching homosexuality to children. In Massachusetts after a school repeatedly advocated for the homosexual lifestyle to students in elementary grades, several parents sued, only to have the federal judge order the "gay" agenda taught to the Christians. The conclusion from U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf found that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality. Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children would undermine teaching and learning" David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral. "Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance. An appeal of that decision is pending. The judge concluded that even allowing Christians to withdraw their children from classes or portions of classes where their religious beliefs were being violated wasn't a reasonable expectation. "An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined. "Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation." And, he said, since history "includes instances of official discrimination against gays and lesbians it is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students different sexual orientations." If they disagree, "the Parkers and Wirthlins may send their children to a private school [or] may also educate their children at home," the judge said.Parents fume over salacious sex lesson 'State interest' argued in teaching homosexuality To the above, I can only add; Impeachment of Federal Judges This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
|