1

"I hope that pledge covers my “belief” that it is ignorant and insensitive to expect me to accept certain beliefs and behaviors that are immoral."

Yes, of course they should respect that, but that doesn't mean that they have to believe the same things as you. I am not even sure why you need to say it.

2

Respect is different from tolerance. I may be tolerant of the fact that my neighbor only bathes once a week and smells to high heaven. I do not have to respect his behavior.

Yes, of course they should respect that, but that doesn't mean that they have to believe the same things as you. I am not even sure why you need to say it.

It has to be said because they won't respect those beliefs. Why, because the "agenda of respect" isn't about respect for all, it is about forcing acceptance of certain beliefs on society.

3

Right. Calling homosexuality a sin is now "bigotry." Check out this bit of character assassination of Reggie White.

4

As far as I can tell, Roger Ebert was the only prominent mainstream critic to praise "The Passion," giving it three-and-a-half stars. It also made his Special Jury Prize list in his year-end top ten feature.
Not only is Ebert probably the most well known movie critic, he's also one of the most respected, having won a Pulitzer for his writing.

Good to know there was at least one critic willingly to review the film honestly and on its own terms.

5

I hope that pledge covers my “belief” that it is ignorant and insensitive to expect me to accept certain beliefs and behaviors that are immoral. Does their definition of tolerance stretch that far? Or would my beliefs make me the black sheep of the family?

Hmmmm, the pledge says according to your post:

I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.

I can respect people who have beliefs different from my own. I can even respect people who have beliefs that I think are wrong...even morally wrong.

Respect is different from tolerance. I may be tolerant of the fact that my neighbor only bathes once a week and smells to high heaven. I do not have to respect his behavior.

No but you do have to respect him as a human beign...even a smelly one.

And that enrages me, because I have not read a single mainstream review that sought to appreciate Gibson's basic, powerful imagery on its own terms. Does atheism rule? Does blindness rule criticism? To have this movie reviewed only by nonbelievers and half-thinkers is tantamount to fascism.

Errr, no it is not tantamount to fascism. At Blockbuster there's a movie depicting a story from bht Book of Mormon. I haven't seen it but if I was a newspaper editor I'd feel no need to hire a Mormon reviewer just for that movie. And another thing:

Even Quentin Tarantino copped to the film's artistic power and visual beauty ...

What's with the snide 'even Quentin...' reference? Tarantino's movies are fascinating in their depictions of morality. Look at Jules conversion from a life of crime after what he feels was a miracle in Pulp Fiction. Even more fascinating was the emptiness of revenge depicted in the two Kill Bill movies (you gotta see the end of it).

As for the movie not getting a fair shake by mainstream reviewers, the only mainstream reviewer that anyone really follows is Roger Ebert (there were two before his partner sadly passed away). Here is what he said:

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:...

For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040224/REVIEWS/402240301/1023

He gave it four stars. What more do you want?

6

What if I don't want my children pledging, "I believe that America's diversity is its strength?" Maybe I, and therefore my children, take the commonsense view that, for example, radical Islamists living in our midst is not a strength.

What if I don't want my children pledging that they will have respect for people whose beliefs and characteristics are different from their own, without qualification?

This "tolerance pledge" is coming from the same ideological educators who have given us two generations of children who are educated to be "sensitive" and "tolerant" and "non-judgmental" but who can barely read or manage a checkbook. No more, please.

Note, by the way, that nothing I've said here has anything to do with religion.

7

I hope that pledge covers my “belief” that it is ignorant and insensitive to expect me to accept certain beliefs and behaviors that are immoral. Does their definition of tolerance stretch that far? Or would my beliefs make me the black sheep of the family?

The definition of respect.

And...

The definition of "accept."

To me, it appears that you do not want to respect those whose religious beliefs or outlook differs from yours.

And therefore, (Golden Rule invocation) you should expect respect from others because....?

8

That was my comment...

9

Wait a second- you're shilling for that discredited creationist nonsense "Unlocking the Mysteries..." which was stealth funded by creationist organizations and you haven't denounced Hew Hewitt's slander of Kos???

Geez, what hypocrisy.

10

BTW, that creationist article is nonsense.

It is not controversal that "intelligent design" "theory" is discredited by scientists around the world.

11

Wait a second- you're shilling for that discredited creationist nonsense "Unlocking the Mysteries..." which was stealth funded by creationist organizations and you haven't denounced Hew Hewitt's slander of Kos???

By now I should be used to your "fact-free" assertions and your constant attempts to change the subject and know better than to entertain such nonsense. Still, I'll bite. Why do you claim the doc was "stealth funded."

And what about Hewitt's statments were slander? I have serious doubts that you even read what Hewitt had to say about Kos.

12

mumon

Just keep repeating the word "discredited" often enough and maybe you'll finally convince yourself that it's true; then you can work on convincing everybody else. Repetition is the only evidence a Leftist requires - much like the "Bush is a liar" meme.

13

Tom Carter says:

"What if I don't want my children pledging that they will have respect for people whose beliefs and characteristics are different from their own, without qualification?"

The most common words and phrases today used in classroom halls are "Faggot" or "Thats so gay", etc. It's become the new "nigger", in the sense that it's something nasty to call someone that still has the stamp of societal approval. (I'm not comparing the two civil rights movements, but just the use of language). "Nigger" fell out of style because it became socially unacceptable. So faggot came more into use because it's still OK to be prejudiced against Gay & Lesbian fellow Americans. Even the President thinks so, with the approval of the majority of churches in this country.

Given these facts, I don't think you have to worry about children, especially your children, taking up a "pledge of tolerance" anytime soon. Except maybe the gay and lesbian ones. But then again, I don't find myself feeling very "tolerant" of the prejudices of straight people lately.

14

Joe writes: "But the fact that its artistic merit was overlooked by almost every film critic in the country does raise the question of whether 'atheism rules' in the field of film criticism."

A quick visit to RottenTomatoes reveals otherwise. Read each review, and see that the charge simply doesn't stick.

15

The most common words and phrases today used in classroom halls are "Faggot" or "Thats so gay", etc. It's become the new "nigger", in the sense that it's something nasty to call someone that still has the stamp of societal approval. (I'm not comparing the two civil rights movements, but just the use of language). "Nigger" fell out of style because it became socially unacceptable. So faggot came more into use because it's still OK to be prejudiced against Gay & Lesbian fellow Americans. Even the President thinks so, with the approval of the majority of churches in this country.

Comparing "nigger" to "faggot" is comparing apples and oranges, in my book.

"Nigger" was used as a derogatory term against people of a certain ethnic group/skin color. It was used to denegrate people who had a quality/body feature. This feature has no bearing on that person's behavior or moral quality; it has no bearing on who they are. It fell into disuse because of a moral evolution in the common person that said that tearing down a person for a body feature is wrong.

"Faggot" is a derogatory term used for people who choose to engage in a certain behavior, especially those whose choice to participate in this behavior has become their entire identity. This behavior tells you something about their moral quality. It has not fallen into disuse because, for now, people still judge others based on their actions. For the time being, it is still okay to be prejudiced against behavior, against choices.

I'm not saying it's okay to call people names, but to equate racism with non-support of the homosexual agenda is patently silly.

16

"I believe that America's diversity is its strength."

What a bunch of happy horse manure. And here I thought it was the ideas we held in common that were America's strength. Examples would be the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc., not to mention other things like ingenuity, work ethic, the value of education, the importance of relgion, family, and so forth.

The fact that my family is from Poland has little to do with us contributing to America's strength. It has far more to do with coming to America and latching on to the ideals I listed above.

(BTW - Yes, I'm well aware many of those ideas have fallen out of favor...which is perhaps why people are grasping at straws such as "diversity" to fill the void).

17

"Faggot" is a derogatory term used for people who choose to engage in a certain behavior, especially those whose choice to participate in this behavior has become their entire identity. This behavior tells you something about their moral quality. It has not fallen into disuse because, for now, people still judge others based on their actions. For the time being, it is still okay to be prejudiced against behavior, against choices.

It is also used against those people who have not engaged in homosexual behavior but find themselves attracted to the same sex rather than opposite sex. In other words, like the word 'nigger' it is used to attack a person without really regarding that person's behavior.

I don't think bigotry against homosexuals by the right has replaced racism, I think it has replaced anti-semitism. Take each attack that used to be launched on Jews by the right wing before Hitler discredited anti-semitism (hopefully forever) with what is said by the right today. They are nearly interchangable:

"Decadent Jews corrupting our culture"
"Decadent Homosexuals corrupting our culture"

"Jews control Hollywood!"
"Hollywood caters to the gays!"

"Jews control the money"
"Gays make more than the average American, how could they be victimized by discrimination!"

"Jews have a secret agenda"
"The Gay agenda"

etc...

What a bunch of happy horse manure. And here I thought it was the ideas we held in common that were America's strength. Examples would be the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc., not to mention other things like ingenuity, work ethic, the value of education, the importance of relgion, family, and so forth.

Note that the latter things are not mentioned in either the Constitution or Declaration. What is mentioned is life, liberty and the persuit of happiness which certainly implies diversity. If those things were the same for everyone (such as Nazi Germany's assertion that happiness was to be found in a strong Aryan ethnic identity or the USSR's assertion that individuals wanted to yield to a collectivist state) then you wouldn't need those 3 things.

Regardless, no one has explained to me what is wrong with respecting as human beigns those human beigns whom you have deep differences with????

18

"Faggot" is a derogatory term used for people who choose to engage in a certain behavior, especially those whose choice to participate in this behavior has become their entire identity. This behavior tells you something about their moral quality...For the time being, it is still okay to be prejudiced against behavior, against choices.

Phil, being a better Christian than I'm likely to ever be, should favor us with a brief tutorial telling us under what circumstances Christ would approve of Christians casting stones.

19

Boonton As for the movie not getting a fair shake by mainstream reviewers, the only mainstream reviewer that anyone really follows is Roger Ebert (there were two before his partner sadly passed away).

That’s like saying that the only blogger that anyone follows is Glenn Reynolds so the fact that every other blogger in the world may take a different opinion is irrelevant.

Jim A quick visit to RottenTomatoes reveals otherwise. Read each review, and see that the charge simply doesn't stick.

RottenTomatoes includes such film criticism from such places as “Hollywood B*tchslap”, “Uruguay Total”, “Modamag.com”, “Rue Morgue Magazine” and other publications and websites that no one has ever heard of. I guess if we include everyone who has a website and an opinion on the movie as a “film critic” then you’d be correct.

20

Aside from the issues of tolerance, what I want to know is why the word 'sexual identity' is being used by elementary school children. We're talking about 5-11 year olds.

21

That’s like saying that the only blogger that anyone follows is Glenn Reynolds so the fact that every other blogger in the world may take a different opinion is irrelevant.

Yes but it is in essence true. Siskel & Ebert were the only real mainstream critics that everyone really knew (plus the guy with funny hair on the Today show or whatever). Even if you don't accept this, look at what White wrote:

"And that enrages me, because I have not read a single mainstream review that sought to appreciate Gibson's basic, powerful imagery on its own terms."

Does it really get any more mainstream than Roger Ebert? Really????? BTW, if you sort the Rotten Tomatoes link by rating you'll see all the critics who gave Passion good reviews sorted in order. You'll notice quite a few mainstream critics there. That's not to say all mainstream critics liked it, but is it fascism? reallY???

"Aside from the issues of tolerance, what I want to know is why the word 'sexual identity' is being used by elementary school children. We're talking about 5-11 year olds. "

Indeed since we know that most children do not even know words like faggot exist until about 17 or 18.

22

Phil says:

"...derogatory term used for people who choose to engage in a certain behavior, especially those whose choice to participate in this behavior has become their entire identity."

It is you that have defined gays and lesbians by just a sexual behavior, not I. You insist that it is the total sum of my identity while ignoring the rest of my character, such as whether I'm honest, or kind or faithful, etc. You have decided that my entire being is immoral based on a single characteristic that you personally do not approve of. That is the very definition of a "stereotype". It's one that you wish to place me in to justify your ill feelings toward a whole class of people. It is not just a simple judgment of someone's else's behavior. Get thee to a mirror and take a good, hard look and see if you can practice some of that discernment.

-----------

As I've stated before, I'm not comparing civil rights movements. You can't, they are too different. But the riff about "behavior" is a deception. The choice to participate in a Religion is also just a "behavior", yet it is a choice that has the strongest protections our laws can provide.

However, there is an element that all civil rights movements share. It's the struggle against an idea. Its the notion by a group of people who have decided that another group of people are somehow different from themselves. It's often a single characteristic that is different and is maybe a little hard for them to understand so they reject the other people outright. Its an old hatred and fear of the "other". And soon they decide that anyone who has this different characteristic must haven "agenda" designed to harm them. So they start to feel that they are justified in being prejudiced against those other people. Even if those other people have done nothing harmful toward them. Its a great evil in the world. Stop encouraging it.

23

Boonton -- you'll note that I never proposed the idea of an American Aryan race. It wouldn't have done my immigrant family much good...some of whom never even learned English that well. I probably relish the traditions, language, and foods of the "old country" to a fault. Because I grew up that way, I'm the last person who would disrespect others for being different from the "American norm". Unfortunately, the "diversity" these children are being indoctrinated with is a facade. I'll repeat what I said... despite the fact that I have far more true respect for diversity than most people for whom "diversity" is a creed, America's strength lies more in our commonality than our differences. That in no way implies I want the differences to melt away.

Okay, now that we've established that, what other defense is there for indoctrinating school children with phony ideas about "diversity"?

24

Established what? This is beginning to sound like a variation on 'tastes great! less filling!'. You told me that everyone should believe in 'American' ideas like community, church, hard work, school etc. What the hell are you talking about? Read the actual Declaration of Independence. The US was founded on the idea of liberty and liberty does not mean everyone doing the same thing or following the same ideology.

I'm not saying that hard work or going to school isn't a good idea for lots of people. I'm saying that diversity is just a new name for an old idea, liberty and tolerance. That old idea was a rejection of even older ideas that elevated the rights of the state/church/royality above that of the individual.

I will grant you that sometimes the diversity crowd goes a bit too far. They are like those coying anti-drug ads or do gooder 'only you can prevent forest fire' ads. But I don't see any reason for your hostility.

BTW, I've yet to hear why I shouldn't respect human beigns with whom I have deep disagreements as fellow human beigns.

25

Indeed since we know that most children do not even know words like faggot exist until about 17 or 18.

It took me a while to get the sarcasm. Good stuff.

Good to know there was at least one critic willingly to review the film honestly and on its own terms.

What on earth does that mean? The best reconstruction of this banality I can come up with is that you're an aesthetic formalist, but that seems unlikely.

Anyways, as much as I like Armond White (his reviews are great), he misses the ball on this one. Most of the negative reviews took the film to task for the gratuity of the violence. As I believe his colleague at the NYPress wrote, the film was basically violence porn.

26

"Take each attack that used to be launched on Jews by the right wing before Hitler discredited anti-semitism"

So Hitlers Socialist Party is right-wing?

I can't keep up....

27

I can't keep up....

Clearly.

28

Joe: You said, and I quote, "But the fact that its artistic merit was overlooked by almost every film critic in the country..." Ignore the minor websites, look at the "cream of the crop," and parse each review. The evidence simply does not support your assertion.

29

Hitler was slightly socialist in economics but not very. If you were a private business owner in Nazi Germany you probably did rather well, just ask IB Farber & other chemical giants.

30

Boonton -- let's cut the sophistry portions of our discussion and get right down to it. You said "I'm saying that diversity is just a new name for an old idea, liberty and tolerance." -- which is completely absurd to me. The word "diversity" has eerie connotations in modern PC climate. Joe's concern, and rightly so, is that certain types of diversity often get excluded from just such diversity celebrations. In other words, you can only appreciate diversity if you think like the indoctrinators. How backwards is that? It's the exact opposite of what you imply diversity should be in your question:

"BTW, I've yet to hear why I shouldn't respect human beigns with whom I have deep disagreements as fellow human beigns."

Let me ask... who here thinks otherwise? You've set up a straw man. This statement is fairly irrelevant to this discussion because I don't think you'll find much disagreement with it.

31

Speaking of strawmen, who here is arguing that you have to accept homosexual activity or even homosexuals as moral? Exactly how do you expect to be treated in a discussion where your prime objection is "eerie connotations"?

32

Well, Boonton, I'm no mind reader, but I'd put down money that those leading those students in the "tolerance pledge" believe that. Even if not in that case, it still happens all the time. A couple years back, my company forced everyone to take "diversity training". For two days, it was all about black and white. Then, in the last hour of the second day, the full scope of their agenda was revealed... yes, to include the acceptance of homosexuality. It happens all the time, in the name of "diversity".

Look, you've tried to put a nice face on diversity indoctrination. Can you really not see why people are skeptical when the word "diversity" starts getting tossed around? The way I see it, it is one of those cases where the best lies are 95% true.

33

So how exactly did your employer try to get you to 'accept homosexuality'? Were you asked to participate in homosexual acts? Were you asked to tell homosexual co-workers that you approved of them engaging in homosexual sex? I'm not trying to be cute here, please give me exact specifics.

34

J.J. writes "...I thought it was the ideas we held in common that were America's strength... the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution,... ingenuity, work ethic, the value of education, the importance of religion, family, ..."

Well Said!

Part of the money for this tripe is coming from PBS. As a taxpayer I'm incensed; its time to do some house cleaning there...

And if any public schools show this nonsense, they should be repremanded as well. We pay the bills, and public schools should not be indoctrinating our children. For goodness sake, half of the students can't read, write, and cipher. The public schools aren't doing their job now. They certainly shouldn't be wasting time on this hogwash!

35

Boontown is it?

The words faggot etc. certainly are out there, I've got kids ranging from 6-11 and they've all heard it. That's crazy. Plastic pledges like these will only force parents to have conversations with children that they shouldn't have to rush.

Patrick. I teach my kids to respect all humans, and to never call them names or degrade them (no matter if we believe their moral values are wrong). I will never teach them that they have to reserve some action or behavior on the part of others as protected from judgements of right and wrong.

I'm tired of being lumped in with biggots and those horrible "intollerant" people because of that. But, I expect it will always be such.

36

Joe Carter :

Follow around Panda's Thumb or google it. The production company that produced "Unlocking" didn't explictly identify itself as a religious organization despite the fact that it shared the same officiers, outsourcing agencies, addresses, etc.

You can do the homework on this, sir. It'd be good practice for you.

37

More on "unlocking": Here...

Dave Thomas pretty much impales these guys as frauds...

In other news, this lawyer shows why the recent overturning of the atavistic Georga "sticker" law on biology textbooks was not only right, but highly unlikely to be overturned.

It's a good day for honesty, reality, and religious freedom.

38

"I believe that America's diversity is its strength."

haha, except America's unity in that belief.

39

Mumum Dave Thomas pretty much impales these guys as frauds..

Do you even bother to read the sources you cite? PT just confirms what Jonathan Witt claimed: that the doc was pulled because of an arbitrary "funding" criteria that is not held consistently.

In other news, this lawyer shows why the recent overturning of the atavistic Georga "sticker" law on biology textbooks was not only right, but highly unlikely to be overturned.

You really agree with his reasoning? The idea that having a sticker saying a student should think critically about a subject predetermines "what students should think about evolution” is -- forgive me for saying so -- stupid. Expect this dumb ruling to be overturned posthaste.

40

"Then, in the last hour of the second day, the full scope of their agenda was revealed... yes, to include the acceptance of homosexuality. It happens all the time, in the name of "diversity"."

Let me spell something out for you. Your employer doesn't give a wet noodle for what you think about gays. Whether negative or positive.
But the fact of the matter is that in your daily course in life in the conduct of business you will find yourself running across people you don't approve of for personal reasons. That's fine. However, if those personal reasons spill over into the workplace then your employer has a problem because it effects the bottom line. If you are unwilling to work and give 100% when working on a project with a gay man, who happens to be the best for the project then your company is in trouble.

I get a laugh when I hear people complaining about diversity training. Do you know what it really is? It's something I learned in Sunday School that you and most folks have apparently forgotten. It's called "Courtesy". It's the ability to accept someone you don't like in your presence without poking at them with a stick. Or not judging someone's worth as a human being on the basis of your personal prejudices or feelings. It's placing the needs and wants of another person before yours, even when you don't like them. Just on the principle of the matter. It's practiced in the name of another forgotten concept. Civility. The idea that a even a large number of very different people can meet and find they have things in common as far as goals, dreams, aspirations. Civility is the glue that holds a society together.

It strikes me that some Christians have been complaining in no uncertain terms that gay marriage is going to be THE cause of the downfall of civilization.

I would put to you that the real cause is not whats going on in your neighbors house but rather in your own. It's the lack of everyday courtesy and civility practiced in your homes and churches. And the additional failure to practice that civility with your neighbors, even the ones you don't like or approve of.

The fact of the matter is that if no one had run around like a jackass shouting nigger and faggot at other people all the time there would be no such thing as "diversity" training. But they did it so there you go.

Apparently none of your parents read Dr. Dobson's books on child-rearing. Otherwise they would have given you the whoopin's that are occasionally needed to shape uncivilized barbarians into decent respectful members of society. Get thee to a woodshed.

41

Let me support Patrick's comment, I serious doubt JJ's employer tried to get him to 'accept homosexuality'. If they really did then he'd have a great sexual harassment lawsuit or at least a religious discrimination lawsuit on his hands.

In reality by 'accept' he probably means not hassel and not criticize them at work. That's not 'accepting homosexuality' anymore than Jesus talking to a Roman soldier is 'accepting Paganism'. I'll be the first to go along with the statement that t his diversity stuff often lurches into the land of corniness but a lot of kids stuff is like that.

No one here has defended their children calling people faggots (even if their targets are really gay) so its safe to say there's no real objection.

42

Boontown is it?

The words faggot etc. certainly are out there, I've got kids ranging from 6-11 and they've all heard it. That's crazy. Plastic pledges like these will only force parents to have conversations with children that they shouldn't have to rush.

No its Boonton. If your kids are calling someone a faggot they either don't know what the word means or they do. In either case it merits a conversation that maybe you wish would happen later but that's life.

If the don't use the words you can always play off 'sexual identity' as meaning male or female.

43

Expect this dumb ruling to be overturned posthaste.

Lemme tell ya: not a chance. For better or worse, intent is a factor that's considered in these things, and the minutes of the school board meetings are absolutely, positively clear that the intent was religious.

Maybe the law shouldn't take intent into consideration, or maybe intent shouldn't be determinative - while these are interesting and important questions, if we're predicting outcome based on the law as it is, I put the odds of a successful appeal somewhere between zero and zip.

44

"This is normal, not crazy. Parents should be teaching their kids about the evil of bigotry as soon as the kids are old enough to comprehend what it means to be shunned and treated poorly by a group of people. Which means early."

I think everyone is totally missing the point on this. I agree with the above statement. Children, unfortunately, can be extremely cruel to other children simply because they are different. It doesn't matter what the difference is, just the fact that someone doesn't "fit into their click", makes that child different and subject to tremendous ridicule from the others.

All through the years, this is true. Remember some of the names? Cooties, nerd, geek, dirtball, nigger, faggot, jewboy, etc. These aren't new, they have been around for ages. This treatment can have very serious consequences.

Remember things like Columbine? Those two were chided and called names and "left out" of normal social relationships. What they did was horendous, but maybe, just maybe, it could have been prevented if they had been treated differently. There have been other cases similar. They all seem to have one common thread: The perpetrators were classified as "loners".

People are not always "loners" by choice. I believe that we should teach our children that diversity is something that does exist, and does not allow us to call someone names or leave them out simply because they are different.

Children who are victims of this treatment are often, though not always, the poor students. They are labled as "trouble makers". Remember, everyone needs attention and reinforcement. If they cannot get it positively, then they will get it negatively. Teaching our children that diversity is an important human trait, may help reduce the need for negative attention.

45

I've read that some anti-bullying programs have actually resulted in less teasing and less picking on the 'odd kids'. It is all too easy IMO to remember being teased and write if off as something that has to be that way because 'you can't change kids'.

Getting picked on, especially if you are signaled out to be the unpopular one, is increadibly stressful and damaging. It shouldn't be condoned or overlooked by teachers and parents since cruelty is a double edged sword. It corrupts the person doing the teasing as much as the victim.

46

Great White Wonder--

You misinterpreted my statement. What I was saying is that it is "crazy" to think that kids are not hearing these words, or don't know what they mean.

My kids don't call people these names, and if they should, they'll get soap in their mouths and a trip out to the woodshed.

I think it's interesting that Patrick thinks he knows what is going on in all "Christian's" homes and churches. This is the kind of tendentious presuppostion that makes the whole diversity movement stink to the skies. All those who are deemed "politically correct" pretend to know what everyone else is thinking and doing. Pure, pretentious BS.

Incidently, when I was in elementary school, I was beaten by a group of minority kids because I was white. Hmmmmmmm. Seems people can be cruel on every side of the equation.

47

OK, here's the link that Mr. Carter didn't find...

48

Joe Carter:

Thomas thus conclusively shows that it was the stealth nature of "Unlocking" that is at issue- just like the Armstrong Williams scandal.

It never ceases to amaze me how ethically challenged some of these folks are.

49

jpe :

The other item of issue in the Georgia case, was the fact that the sticker itself was telling the kids what to think about the theory of evolution, which Joe basically admits! IOW, making up your own conclusions about evolution is precisely what folks like Joe Carter do not want.

The Georgia case is not going to be overturned on appeal. Period.

50

I would say that one of the biggest myths is that all evangelicals are pre-millennial dispensationalists

Unfortunately, that one is propagated by Evangelicals themsleves. Many are under the false assumption that pre-, mid-, and post-tribulation dispensationalism are the only three views of eschatology around. Forget that the majority of the Church prior to the Nineteenth Century held to an amillennialist view.

51

The other item of issue in the Georgia case, was the fact that the sticker itself was telling the kids what to think about the theory of evolution, which Joe basically admits! IOW, making up your own conclusions about evolution is precisely what folks like Joe Carter do not want.

Thanks for trying to tell us what Joe wants. But excuse me if I prefer to hear it from Joe himself. Especially given your propensity for, shall we say, baseless accusations.

52

the stealth nature of "Unlocking" that is at issue

I hate to tell you mummon, but the relationship described between the organizations happens quite a bit. Planned Parenthood operates that way in a lot of instances.

However, the point is not who funded the program, but is the program factual in what it is saying? The links you pointed to were pretty much screeds of how the creationists are using ID. ID can include creationists, but it isn't completely creationists. The equivalent of this argument is to say that evolution is being used by atheists to advance their agenda. Hmmm, how many evolution documentaries have been shown on PBS? How many are pure speculation with little or not scientific underpinning?

Also, the point about the panel as a compromise doesn't necessarily tell the full picture. Since we don't know the details of how the panel discussion was to be set up, I would reserve judgement if it was a fair compromise.

53

However, the point is not who funded the program, but is the program factual in what it is saying? The links you pointed to were pretty much screeds of how the creationists are using ID. ID can include creationists, but it isn't completely creationists. The equivalent of this argument is to say that evolution is being used by atheists to advance their agenda.

But as long as they can get away with dismissing it right out of hand why should they bother to address the content? Which speaks to another topic about the lack of ability in the general populace to follow a logical argument. Unfortunately, until the latter problem gets addressed, the whole thing dwindles down to a popularity contest.

54

"Let me support Patrick's comment, I serious doubt JJ's employer tried to get him to 'accept homosexuality'. If they really did then he'd have a great sexual harassment lawsuit or at least a religious discrimination lawsuit on his hands."

Boonton, you weren't even there. You and Patrick can continue to whitewash "diversity training" as some happy-happy-joy-joy-peace-love-and-dope-smoke thing, but what it really is, in my experience, and in the experience of many others, is often exactly the opposite of what you're claiming it is. For two days my diversity training told me I was bad and evil (absolutely that explicitly) if I didn't fall for their limited view of the world hook, line, and sinker. They went as far as to say most white people couldn't be Christians and would probably end up in Hell. There's a lot of wishful thinking on your part. Maybe it should be what you say. It's not.

55

Mr Ed:

Me:The other item of issue in the Georgia case, was the fact that the sticker itself was telling the kids what to think about the theory of evolution, which Joe basically admits! IOW, making up your own conclusions about evolution is precisely what folks like Joe Carter do not want.

You:Thanks for trying to tell us what Joe wants. But excuse me if I prefer to hear it from Joe himself. Especially given your propensity for, shall we say, baseless accusations.

I was merely paraphrasing what Joe, himself said:

The idea that having a sticker saying a student should think critically about a subject predetermines "what students should think about evolution” is -- forgive me for saying so -- stupid.

Joe clearly thinks it's a good idea to think in a critical matter about evolution, and if you can't admit that then try looking at yourself in the mirror. Presumably he wants stickers for evolution, but not, say for mathematics, or physics or anything else, since he clearly didn't advocate putting stickers on other books. (I bet his bible doesn't have a sticker saying that the book is only a postulated sacred text and should be read critically.)

Chris Lutz:

We're still waiting for "factual content" of ID. Can you get a single person to show us it's a science? Mr. Carter's been, how shall I say it?...making baseless accusations against evolution, but I haven't seen anything that's ever made ID legitimate.

56

Let see, in general the two theories can be stated as such:

Evolution: Life began from inanimate matter.

ID: Life is designed and began due to the actions of an intelligence.

Now let's see, right now the evolutionists can't prove that life began from inanimate matter and IDers can't show that life was designed. That means the issue devolves down to each side proving their case. Evolutionists need to show that life can be created from non-life and IDers need to show how you can prove design.

So, since ID, at its basic level, deals only with how life started (it doesn't dispute mutation or natural selection, but may challenge some aspects of common descent), how is it any less scientific than claims of life from non-life made by evolutionists? PBS runs shows puporting just that quite often.

57

J.J.

I know I wasn't there, that's why I asked you for specifics which you didn't respond to until now. For the few specifics you gave:

1. Being told you were bad and evil.

I would say this isn't part of any diversity training I ever saw. If it was then I'd say your employer did a remarkably bad job.

2. Saying most white people couldn't be Christians and would probably end up in Hell.

Ditto on this. Who did your diversity training? The Nation of Islam????

58

I have been doing some research on my own on this video and came across this thread via Google so thought I would chime in.

Well. after reading these two articles (#1: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42005c.asp; #2: http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/102005a.asp), The skeptic in me said that it could not be THAT bad, so I did some checking. I went to the website that the video will be advertising -- http://wearefamilyfoundation.org -- and looked for myself. All I found was a lot of generic language on tolerance and lots of information about the March 2005 video and the media/educational campaign that follows . . . UNTIL I dug a little deeper. There is a convenient "Search" bar on the site so I helped myself to see if anyterms like "sexual" or "sex" might be found on the list (even in terms such as Sexism). I found it peculiar that no listings were found. I tried several other terms that would appy and got no "hits." I decided to peruse the site myself only to find the term "sexual" listed in a few places, therefore telling me that the search engine was obviously not indexing the entire site and was apparently only providing pre-screened content. Thank heavens for Google!! I ran the following Advanced Search on Google (you can copy and past this and do the search yourself!): [ sexual site:wearefamilyfoundation.org ]. (Also you can simply click here: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-49,RNWE:en&q=sexual+site%3Awearefamilyfoundation%2Eorg )

I got SEVEN hits which I have viewed and I will comment on each of them below. {Keep in mind that, as the prviously posted articles say, the basic goal of the kids video (and the media frenzy that will most assuredly accompany it) is to not only promote so- called "tolerance" but to re-direct the viewers (children, teachers, parents) back to the "We Are Family" website for more information and resources.}

1. http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/TEACHERS/wfc_s1.asp (Worksheet -- part of item 3, below, asking questions to prompt writing on sexual orientation of fellow students and the feelings the knowledge of their orientation generates)

2. http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/tolerance_pledge.asp (Tolerance Pledge that includes "...I pledge to have respect for people whose ... sexual identity [among other items listed]... [is] different from my own."

3. http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/TEACHERS/wfc_use.asp ("Using This Guide" part of "Writing for Tolerance", includes the hope that this guide will "...reach people in a broad range of ages, classes, sexual orientations, [list continues] ...)

4. http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/TEACHERS/wfc_resources.asp (list of resources including: American Psychological Association. "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1998. By the Way, this is the FIRST resource listed!!; Also listed: Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "Faith in Our Families: Parents, Families and Friends Talk About Religion and Homosexuality." Washington, DC: Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, 1999. Of course, NO listings by PFOX or any other pro-gay-change/ex-gay resource)

5. http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/ADL_101Ways_YourComm.htm (101 Ways to Combat Prejudice #93: Meet with school and community librarians and local bookstores to discuss ways to highlight literature that is representative of all cultures and sexual orientations. #40: Organize a No-Ethnic/Homophobic Humor Open-Mike Nite featuring stand-up comedy by students. #14: Initiate classroom discussions of terms such as anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, homophobia and bias. Then compose a list of definitions and post it in a prominent place; ALSO, under Subtitle: "Developing A Common Language" is this: Heterosexism -- Heterosexism is prejudice and/or discrimination against people who are or who are perceived to be lesbian, gay or bisexual. Homophobia is the irrational fear of people who are believed to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

6. http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/PrinterFriendyPages/Article_MissAmerica.htm ("Miss America 2004 -- Tolerance Out, Understanding In" By Lauren Parker {Interviewing the Current Miss America, who is African-American}: "Dunlap also explains that 'acceptance' needs to spread far beyond black-white race issues, and far beyond race in general. 'America isn't just black and white, so I don't approach my platform from just a racial standpoint,' she says. 'It's about uplifting everyone--people of all varied religious beliefs, sexual orientations, class differences, cultural diversities, and the like.' "

7. http://www.wearefamilyfoundation.org/PDFs/WeAreFamily-guide.pdf ("We Are Family" Guide Activities geared to grades Pre-K through Grade 12, including: {from high school activity -- "Pyramid of Hate"} "...Ask the students if they can think of examples of genocide that occured due to race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc...."; {also from "Pyramid of Hate"} Student Handout including these questions: Have you Ever... Overheard a joke that made fun of a person of a different ethnic background, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation? Have You Ever... Been the target of name calling because of your ethnic group, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation? Have You Ever... Engaged in stereotyping (lumping together all people of a particular race, religion, or sexual orientation?)

So the second article was EXACTLY on target by saying this is a "Stealth" campaign to promote acceptance and tolerance of homosexulaity to grade school and pre-school aged children across North America and beyond!!

Please pray that God would show you how you can respond in your own community. Also, please forward ALL THREE of these articles to as many people as you can so we can inform the public as to the true meaning behind this campaign!!

Blessings

--Alan Levering; Founder, NCXDS Ex-Gay Internet Christian Ministries

Web: http://geocities.com/exgaylinks |
Discussion Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exgaydiscussionboard |
Spanish Language Discussion Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exgayenespa |
"Wounded Heart" Abused Men's Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/woundedheart |
Chat: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exgaydiscussionboard/chat

Feel free to link to these pages on your own website!!!

59

So if you teach your kids to not make fun of people by calling them things like faggot that means you are teaching them to accept homosexual sexual activity as moral?

60

Or to translate this paradign into a Biblical setting, we should rewrite the Bible to have Jesus saying:

"Those who do not accept adultry should cast the first stone at this woman"