From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:54:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec11.140528.26046@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec11.080537.1288@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>
>>Not everyone who objects to homosexuality is a "fundie" as you so
>>non-judgementally put it. Many people do have a religious base to
>
>    I did not claim this.  I said that "fundie parents" were, in large
>part, behind the objections to the Rainbow Program.  If there were a few
>non-fundies in the crowd, they were obscured by the "Adam and Eve, not Adam
>and Steve" and other placards bearing biblebook citations.
>
>>their objections, it's true, but not all religious people are
>>fundamentalists. Many parents would balk at schools teaching
>>*anything* of a sexual nature to first-graders. I don't think it's
>
>    I, too, would balk at teaching things of a sexual nature to
>first-graders.  The Rainbow Program (which, btw, devotes only two out of
>over 400 pages to same-sex parents....did you know that?  Didn't think so)
>simply says that some kids have two moms or dads instead of one of each,
>and says that it's another kind of family.  Exactly where is the sexual
>content?

No sexual content there, simply trying to persuade my children that a 
deviant lifestyle is normal/acceptable.  That is not the public school's 
job.  It is mine and my wife's.

I will get to the sexual content later.

>    Have you even seen any of this educational material?  If not, where are
>you getting your information?
>
>>the place of public schools to either promote religion or offend
>>believers with what is clearly a propaganda campaign to win 
>>hearts and minds. I am not opposed to equal rights for homosexuals
>>but I find a dubious double-standard in place here; it's
>>not okay to promote the practice of religion in the classroom
>>but it's somehow okay to offend the practitioners of those 
>>religions with a blatant attempt to persuade their children to
>>believe in something which they feel is inappropriate. Now, as
>
>    There is no attempt to persuade, unless it is to persude kids that
>their parent-fed bigotry may have no factual basis.  Again, it just
>presents reality in an accepting manner.  How could religious parents
>object to their children being taught acceptance?

Where, pray tell, in the Ten Commandments, does it say, "accept your 
brother?"  The Bible does, however, say, "Go and sin no more," and 
"anyone who teaches sin to children would be better if he had a millstone 
hung around his neck and been tossed into the sea." (close paraphrase)

And, if you believe that there is no attempt to persuade, then I have 
a five-page paper which I wrote for a group over in talk.abortion about 
a year ago which tells exactly what sexual practices public school 
sex-ed curricula are trying to encourage.  If you would like me to 
mail you a copy, I will be glad to, but let me preface it by listing 
a couple of sexual practices it does attempt to persuade children that 
are "normal/acceptable:"

1) prostitution
2) anal sex
3) beasiality

>>a Christian, I don't go into mosques with my shoes on and sit
>>down to a big plate of roast pork neither do I feel it appropriate
>>to compel others to conform to my beliefs (yeah, I know this is
>>not typical of a lot of Christians). Why then, is this program
>
>    No lie.  You're refreshing in this context.
>
>>in NY which offends many people,somehow more defensible?
>>At the very least parents should be able to withdraw their
>>children from these indoctrination sessions if they wish to.
>
>    Are you under the impression that they can't (they can)?  You come
>across as someone without all the facts.  How about educating yourself
>about the issues you seem so bent on pontificating about?
>    Parents are free to remove their kids from the class when this topic
>comes up.  Less than 2% chose to do this.  They are far happier meddling in
>everyone else's lives which, I'm afraid, is another characteristic of
>fundies.

Perhaps they are free to remove their children from the class, but doesn't 
this smack of the same problem as voluntary prayer?  Children can sit 
quietly or step out in the hall during the prayer.  Lefties feel that non-
Christian children will be riddiculed or made to feel outcast if there is 
voluntary prayer, but there is no problem in Christian children being 
riddiculed or made to feel outcast in a class where children are told that 
it is ok for them to have sex with chickens.  

I would place fundamental lefties firmly in the camp you created for 
fundamental Christians.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11815 alt.politics.clinton:18806