From: max@lie.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books 
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest of Beaverton Oregon
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:18:48 GMT


KB == Ken Barnes		(hope I got all the attrib's right)
MB == Michael Bumbulis
MW == me.

KB:
>And in answer to the question posed by Mr. Webb, no, the "Aryan Nation"
>can't do that to a public school curriculum unless they were in the
>majority. Do you agree that the parents in this locality should be
>allowed to decide democratically on controversial issues such as these
>if there is sufficient public objection? Or do the ends really justify
>the means, in your opinion?
>(Let's see if this guy's_really_a liberal...)

Ah. Good of you to surrender all control of the curriculum to the
will of the majority, for within the past month the New York Times
has published the results of a poll which indicates that 70% of New
Yorkers agree with the stated goal of the program (Let's see if this
guy's _really_ going to let the majority determine what we teach those
kids.)

For the constitutional reasoning behind limiting majority rule in
certain cases, read on.

MW:>1) The people that wrote and reviewed this were not all gay.
MB:> Point #1 - how many of the people who wrote and reviewed the book
> held liberal values?

The values held by the writers match most of the rest of NY, so
my guess is that they were pretty representative.

MW:>2) The books are about tolerance for all races, as well as gays.
MB:>Point #2 - race is not analogous to sexual preference.

The old canard: "They were never enslaved, so it's ok to bully them
now".

A closer analogy is that of divorce. It is deprecated by no less than
J.C. himself, which you can't say about homosexuality. I suppose the
religious right would consider a divorced person to have diminished
family values.

I believe there is a book in the curricula describing a single parent
family. Where are the protests? It is widely illegal to discriminate
against divorced people.  Here in Oregon, that is statute ORS 659.030.
And yet, when confronted by this fact, Scott Lively of the OCA insisted
that that did not constitute 'special rights' for divorced people - but
he fell silent when asked why the same didn't hold for gays. [Lively,
Hinkle debate].

I suggest that you pick and choose the parts of the Bible that support
the conclusions you wish to draw, and slam the parts of the population
you wish to stigmatize. Perhaps it is because you know that someday
you yourself might be divorced that you do not stigmatize that group.

MW:>3) The parents were consulted.
MB:>Point #3 - if the parents were really consulted, why the parental 
   >uproar?  

Well, it turns out that the size of your vote is not affected
by the loudness of your voice, and the shrillness of your rhetoric.
A minority of parents is making a majority of the racket. Nothing
new there. As to the protests of some of the school boards, you must
know that the religious right is very good at advancing a candidate
that keeps his agenda under wraps until after the election. In one
case, a school board member down-played the role of his religion
in campaign speaches, and after elected justified his policies in
speeches sprinkled with scripture verses. Stealth-politics, don't
you know.

I guess being on a mission from God let's you cut a few ethical
corners, eh?

MW: "Values" do not control which gender gets your juices flowing.
MB: No, but sexual preference will probably influence your values.
KB: And I said as much, but someone wasn't listening.

So your claim is that the _values_ of homosexuals will be inferior
by virtue of the influence of their sexual orientation. I have already
in email twice this week been told that as an atheist, I can not
possibly have "true" values.

This makes it quite clear that the religious right's claim that
"family values" is  not exclusionary is deceptive. They want "family
values" put back into our constitution and our laws, oh, and BTW,
only they have true family values. As I suspected.

MW: In Young V. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may
>>educate children with curriculums it deems appropriate even when
>>the parents find those curriculums contrary to their beliefs.
MB: Statism at it's worst.  The state forces parents to have their
> children learn a set of values which may be contrary to those
> the parents want instilled.  Big Brother is alive and well.
MW:
>>the consensus-held version of civil rights history (for example,
>>the case was about Amish)?
MB: History is one thing, value indoctrination is another.  

It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that majority
vote can not be used to undermine the democracy.  (For an example of
this, see the republican guarantee clause of the constitution.)
Returning to the example of the Aryan Nation, suppose they wanted
to force their values to be taught to all of the kids in the
district. If successful, that would be a fundamental threat to the
equal rights of black children in the district, and democracy is
founded on equal rights. In short, that minimum set of values needed
to support democracy should definitely be taught - and is, routinely,
throughout the country in civics classes.

MW:
>Sorry for putting it so crudely, but could you choose to get an
>erection by looking at a male-bikini poster? It is no more a
>question of values for them, than for you.
MB:
>Come now, does Uncle Bob choose to get an erection when he see's
>pictures of naked 15 year olds?  Throughout history, sexual
>preferences have always been associated with values.

Are you intentionally linking pedophilia and homosexuality? This
particular rhetorical ploy by the r.r. has been rebutted and denounced
by dozens of mainstream professional psychiatric and clinical
organizations.  Go ahead - bring up Judith Reisman or Paul Cameron
- make my day!

For a counter-example, I refer you to T.H.White, author of "The
once and future king". It is quite clear from that text, and
his biographers agree, that he had a sexual dysfunction that
involved a desire to hurt boys.  It is also quite clear that
it horrified him, and that when in the grip of that desire, he
felt himself a monster. I can detect nothing in the _values_
expressed in that book that most people would argue with. I
can only hope he successfully repressed that desire throughout
his life. Poor bastard - he didn't choose what happened to him.

You see, I would defend the basic civil rights of anyone, including
perverts. Even you two.  Without equal rights, there is no due
process, and without due process, there is no freedom, for me or
anyone else.

Someone:
>>ultimately dependent on heterosexuals (or at least until recently).
>>Were there a sexual orientation-linked genetic marker test
>>available, no doubt some (perhaps most) heterosexual couples would
>>use it as a basis for aborting potentially homosexual fetuses. 
MW:>Surely the ultimate in discrimination.
MB: Indeed.  So if such markers are found, will you become anti-choice
    if such things occur?  Fess up.

Unlike you, I have a firm grip on the difference between disagreeing
with something, and trying to legislate it out of existence. Abortion
repels me, but I know that our society is not yet ready to leave that
behind. cf. prohibition.

MW: Is the curriculum we teach to our children really only to be 
>>the least common denominator of all beliefs held by all parents 
>>in this country? Can the Aryan Nation block schools from teaching
>          ^^^^^^^
MB:>HIDDEN AGENDA ALERT: The speaker wants a national curriculum.
   >Or am I reading too much into this? "Words mean things."--RHL III

You are reading too much into this.

I especially like watching Rush when someone manages to sneak a
challenging question past his filter. As you know, his operators
only let selected questions through. He fulminates, he blusters,
he calls the caller a liar, and goes to commercial - without answering
the question.

In less protected environments like CNN's Crossfire, he usually ends
up looking pretty silly.

	Max G. Webb