From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: RE: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 10 Jan 93 12:43:22 GMT
Return-Path: <amail.amdahl.com!rich.bellacera@juts.ccc.amdahl.com>

> From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
>
> After reading in this group and in soc.motss that the Children of the
> Rainbow books "Daddy's Roommate" and "Heather has 2 Mommies" only
> teach that "homosexual families exist" and don't pass any value judgement
> on homosexuality, I got a chance to spend the afternoon at the library.
> I looked up some articles on "Children of the Rainbow", and checked
> "Daddy's Roommate" out.  They didn't have "Heather...".
>
> For the most part, "Daddy's Roommate" was quite benign; I didn't see
> anything that I would object to having my daughter taught in 1st grade.
> It showed a boy talking about his parents getting a divorce, about
> the new person at Daddy's house, showed the things Daddy and his
> new roommate did together (cooking, going to the park, cleaning the
> house, etc), and things they did with the boy.  Then near the end of
> the book, the boy says "Mommy says Daddy and Frank are gay. At first,
> I didn't know what that meant, so sh explained it.  Being gay is just
> one more kind of love.  And love is the best kind of happiness."
>
>
> There was also an article in USNews and World Report, that said:
> ----------------
> "These are not books about tolerance - letting people alone and not
> picking on others because of sexual orientation or family structure.
> They are books that celebrate the wonders of double-mommy and
> double-daddy households.  But surely schools can generate respect
> for Catholic children, lets say, without putting 'Heather finds
> peace as a Nun' on the reading list.  Schools can promote respect
> for all children without endorsing all the different beliefs,
> lifestyles or orientations found in their homes.
>
> So how did these books make it onto the reading list?  The answer
> is tucked away on page 145 of the city's 'children of the rainbow'
> first-grade curriculum: Teachers must "be aware of varied family
> structures, including...gay and lesbian parents," and "Children
> must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of
> household".  A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new
> ethic is descending upon the city's public school system.  The
> traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live
> together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new
> ethic requiring approval and endorsement (of gays want to live
> together, we must "acknowledge the positive aspects" of their way
> of life).
> ------------
>
> Despite what some of the gay posters have claimed, these books
> do more than teach that "queers exist".  The school curriculum book
> itself says that it is meant to do more than that.

I'm not sure what you are saying, Walter.  The media in all of its various
modes of commuication does the same (i.e. "do more than teach that "queers
exist"), however, it is quite a rare opportunity to be able to reach out to
children and begin a life long understanding of the world in which they live
I think you might be right that the message is to do more that teach
"existance", and the concept of presenting "positive aspects" is extremely
needed.  I see nothing in the article that implies that children will be
taught anything about how to actually perform in a homosexual way (which is
what is asserted by those who fear the new cirriculum).  I remember quite well
how when I was in grammar school grades, about the time when I could first use
a crayon we were asked to draw pictures of our family.  I was raised in a
heterosexual family so I can't relate firsthand, but if I had two daddies or
mommies (as is the case with a small portion of our society), I can imagine
the feeling of isolation when my family was not recognised as "acceptable."
Other children would not have understood, and I would have probably been
excluded from the exercise by a well meaning, but ignorant teacher, which
would have only added to my isolationistic feelings.  Also, by excluding such
families from literature isn't society just reinforcing the concept of
exclusionism?  I imagine one of the aspects of "teaching positive aspects of
gay families" is allowing a child to express some of his/her experiences with
his/her parents (like going to the zoo, to the park, to the ice cream parlor,
celebrating Christmas, visiting Grandma, going to church, etc.).

What do you suppose is the so called "secret agenda" in mind behind the
"Children of the Rainbow" other than presenting it as a reality, and teaching
tolerance?

I thoroughly believe that that by reaching children at such an early age it is
possible for children to both learn their religious and familial belief
systems, while still realizing and accepting that there are are different
definitions of "family" in existance, and what some of those are.  Also, this
curriculum might help prevent some children from becoming bigots, themselves,
and maybe saving the lives of those they would grow up to hate and attack.

just some thoughts.