Tweet
Selective separation
David Limbaugh
December 31, 2004
It would be shocking if those who worship at the altar of church/state separation, while denying this nation's Christian heritage, would at least acknowledge that they are selective as to which values they object to the state promoting.
Until these avowed secularists start complaining about non-Christian, values-laden instruction in public schools, they'll come up short in the credibility department. When public schools endorse New Age ideas or the radical homosexual agenda, for example, the separationists are nowhere to be found.
Where were they, for instance, when Newton North High School in Newtonville, Mass., held a "Transgender, Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day," ("To BGLAD Day") in mid-December? On that day, students were allowed -- some would say "encouraged" -- to attend workshops and assemblies in lieu of their regular classes, in which speakers would "make students feel good about homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism."
Why weren't separationists upset that parents weren't forewarned about this glorious event? A school spokesman admitted that parents weren't notified, but said the event had been mentioned on the school's Web site and listed in event calendars.
Why didn't separationists complain that the school is trying to indoctrinate students on issues many consider to have spiritual and ethical implications? The online school calendar has a link containing information about BGLAD Day, including this statement: "Statistically, one in 10 students at this school are not straight. Teenage life is complicated enough, but how does it differ for GLBT teens? Come to this panel and find out."
Surely the school's administrators are aware that this widely disseminated assertion that 10 percent of the population is homosexual has been thoroughly discredited at best, and vigorously disputed at worst. Nevertheless, there is not so much as a qualifier, much less a disclaimer, accompanying the statement.
Other activities listed for the day included: "Little Theatre: Life Outside the Gender Norm: What happens when one's gender identity does not match their sex? In this session, speakers will talk about their experiences with gender identity and expression;" "Out at the Old Ballgame: Athletes and coaches discuss what it's like to be GLBT in the gym, on the field, and on the road;" "Color Me Queer," and others.
During one session, a speaker reportedly said he decided to "come out" as a "gay boy" based on the example of his "role model" brother. He also described how he fell in love with his sister's husband. This is not just a presentation of the homosexual lifestyle in a favorable light, but active recruitment -- proselytizing.
Two parents who objected to the event were ejected from campus after one -- Kim Cariani -- tried to videotape a session. According to Cariani, "They took the two of us and pulled us out and gave us one minute to leave, and if we came back on the property, we would be arrested for trespassing."
What are the activists trying to hide? Are they afraid their indoctrination techniques will be exposed? If they believe in the righteousness of their cause, shouldn't they invite the public's scrutiny?
The school spokesman protested that the event was not mandatory, and that while "classes were scheduled to attend … if students are uncomfortable or their parents are uncomfortable, the students can instead go to the library."
Again, where are the zealous advocates for church/state separation? Aren't they always the first to say that certain voluntary Christian-based activities -- prayer, recital of the Pledge, invocation of Christ in a valedictory address -- are objectionable because those choosing not to participate will be stigmatized or made to feel uncomfortable? Then what about those who choose to go to the library? What about their discomfort? What about their stigmatization as "homophobes"?
Can you imagine what would happen if a public school affirmatively endorsed a workshop in which homosexuality were described as sinful? At a similar event in a high school in Ann Arbor, Mich., in 2002, officials wouldn't even allow a Roman Catholic student to participate in a discussion because she said she was going to voice her disapproval of homosexuality. We're not talking about the school endorsing her opinion, mind you, but just allowing her to speak her mind. It wouldn't, but chose instead to suppress her speech and religious freedom.
These examples are just a few of the many proving that many separationists are not about vindicating constitutional rights, but indoctrination, mind control and suppression of opposing values.
If we're going to accede to the removal of Christ from public schools, can't we at least demand that the state not endorse contrary values?
David Limbaugh
December 31, 2004
It would be shocking if those who worship at the altar of church/state separation, while denying this nation's Christian heritage, would at least acknowledge that they are selective as to which values they object to the state promoting.
Until these avowed secularists start complaining about non-Christian, values-laden instruction in public schools, they'll come up short in the credibility department. When public schools endorse New Age ideas or the radical homosexual agenda, for example, the separationists are nowhere to be found.
Where were they, for instance, when Newton North High School in Newtonville, Mass., held a "Transgender, Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Awareness Day," ("To BGLAD Day") in mid-December? On that day, students were allowed -- some would say "encouraged" -- to attend workshops and assemblies in lieu of their regular classes, in which speakers would "make students feel good about homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism."
Why weren't separationists upset that parents weren't forewarned about this glorious event? A school spokesman admitted that parents weren't notified, but said the event had been mentioned on the school's Web site and listed in event calendars.
Why didn't separationists complain that the school is trying to indoctrinate students on issues many consider to have spiritual and ethical implications? The online school calendar has a link containing information about BGLAD Day, including this statement: "Statistically, one in 10 students at this school are not straight. Teenage life is complicated enough, but how does it differ for GLBT teens? Come to this panel and find out."
Surely the school's administrators are aware that this widely disseminated assertion that 10 percent of the population is homosexual has been thoroughly discredited at best, and vigorously disputed at worst. Nevertheless, there is not so much as a qualifier, much less a disclaimer, accompanying the statement.
Other activities listed for the day included: "Little Theatre: Life Outside the Gender Norm: What happens when one's gender identity does not match their sex? In this session, speakers will talk about their experiences with gender identity and expression;" "Out at the Old Ballgame: Athletes and coaches discuss what it's like to be GLBT in the gym, on the field, and on the road;" "Color Me Queer," and others.
During one session, a speaker reportedly said he decided to "come out" as a "gay boy" based on the example of his "role model" brother. He also described how he fell in love with his sister's husband. This is not just a presentation of the homosexual lifestyle in a favorable light, but active recruitment -- proselytizing.
Two parents who objected to the event were ejected from campus after one -- Kim Cariani -- tried to videotape a session. According to Cariani, "They took the two of us and pulled us out and gave us one minute to leave, and if we came back on the property, we would be arrested for trespassing."
What are the activists trying to hide? Are they afraid their indoctrination techniques will be exposed? If they believe in the righteousness of their cause, shouldn't they invite the public's scrutiny?
The school spokesman protested that the event was not mandatory, and that while "classes were scheduled to attend … if students are uncomfortable or their parents are uncomfortable, the students can instead go to the library."
Again, where are the zealous advocates for church/state separation? Aren't they always the first to say that certain voluntary Christian-based activities -- prayer, recital of the Pledge, invocation of Christ in a valedictory address -- are objectionable because those choosing not to participate will be stigmatized or made to feel uncomfortable? Then what about those who choose to go to the library? What about their discomfort? What about their stigmatization as "homophobes"?
Can you imagine what would happen if a public school affirmatively endorsed a workshop in which homosexuality were described as sinful? At a similar event in a high school in Ann Arbor, Mich., in 2002, officials wouldn't even allow a Roman Catholic student to participate in a discussion because she said she was going to voice her disapproval of homosexuality. We're not talking about the school endorsing her opinion, mind you, but just allowing her to speak her mind. It wouldn't, but chose instead to suppress her speech and religious freedom.
These examples are just a few of the many proving that many separationists are not about vindicating constitutional rights, but indoctrination, mind control and suppression of opposing values.
If we're going to accede to the removal of Christ from public schools, can't we at least demand that the state not endorse contrary values?
Comment