I'm working on grade school social studies handbooks right now.
There's plenty of geography and history in there, yes. There are also a variety of government and civics sections, with messages about the virtues of America, and not littering, and following rules.
Somehow, I doubt your correspondent is writing to whoever selects textbooks in his state to object that children are being taught that the U.S. Constitution is a good thing, or that they should obey the rules of their classroom. When someone believes that "raise your hand" is acceptable, but "don't bully your classmates" isn't, teaching morality isn't the issue.
There is a differance between ethics and morality. Saying don't bully your classmates is the rough equal of the adult "dont beat someone up since it is a crime" and as such I have no problem with it.
But to require a oath of the children to RESPECT (not tolerate) someones sexuality and in other class room materials linked to this program they go in to more detail on this matter... it no longer is "don't bully" but becomes "homosexuality is normal" which is a moral judgement and as such can not defending as a right of the state to teach.
The point isn't "Don't beat someone up because it's a crime". It's "Don't beat people up because it's wrong." Don't beat them up, don't leave dead animals in their lockers, don't tease them mercilessly until they kill themselves.
Basic respect for other humans--whether or not you think they're "normal"--is a moral and ethical teaching that is at least as important as memorizing state capitals or knowing who Johnny Appleseed was.
It is not "normal" to be unable to walk. That's no excuse for persecuting the physically handicapped.
The focus should be not of the other persons characteristics or the requesting people to accept them. Since that teaches morals and as such it will step on someones toes since we are morally a very diverse society. Unless you really want to create a universal morality code.
The focus should be on not disrupting class, not assualting others, and lastly not bullying others. The trouble is the focus is off.. the desire is to stop bullying by promoteing a universal morality code set by the state. This is dangerous since the universal codes of the state have lead to death camps and gulag's in other countries. It is counter to the very foundation of our freedom, with like it or not is the right "not" to respect others.
For example to plan to promote the respect of conservative christains in the schools? How about Orthidox Jews and Muslims? What about fat children? What about socially clumsy children? Or kids with deformities? Or what ever under the sun.
One it isn't even possable. Two it isn't the job of the state. Three in directly impacts parents and make elements of society in to criminals. Four it is a abuse of the power of a teach to promote certain groups over other groups.
I see no problem is access for handicapped as long as it doe not disrupt the basic funstions of the school. (a Bubble boy could not expect a school to set up tunnels solely for him.)
"The focus should be not of the other persons characteristics or the requesting people to accept them."
The problem they're trying to address is violence, taunting, etc. that are based on (or use as a wedge) perceptions of difference. So yes, it does make sense to send a message that abusing someone else because of those characteristics is wrong.
Note that the message isn't "be nice to gays"; it's "do not attack others for being different. That would include not allowing a gay clique to sneeringly spit, "Breeders!" at passing hets. So when it comes to "focus on characteristics", homosexuality per se is not what's being listed, but "different from you" is.
This fits an ongoing pattern by the way. The best pro-gay-rights legislation proposed -- and in fact most of the mediocre examples as well -- are not written as "do special things for homosexuals"; they're specifically written to promote fair and equal treatmentregardless of orientation or perceived orientation. Similarly this attempt-to-persuade doesn't say, "be nice to gays", it says "respect people different from yourself". That's not an accident, and it's not spin. It's because the urge underlying this kind of effort is a desire for fairness.
But people who want to preserve their right/excuse/rationalization to continue to oppress or abuse others do not hesitate to paint it as "pro-gay" instead of "pro-equality/pro-fairness".
Even when there's a bit in it that says, "Don't pick on the fundies for being fundies." (That is, "belief" is listed as one of the differences to respect.)
You just can't say "dont do these things" in a vacuum. Every bully, large or small either didn't care or thought he was doing the right thing.
Look at that pledge. It doesn't say sexual preference. It makes no reference to one's sexual orientation.
It refers to sexual *identity*.
To paraphrase the part of the pledge you seem so worried about:
Swishy Boys who tend to come off more like girls, and butch girls who come off more as boys should be respected all the same.
Nothing about it refers to sexual preference. Nothing about gays. Nothing about polygamy..monogomy..incest...in fact NOTHING ABOUT ANYONE HAVING SEX WITH ANYONE.
How about, "homosexuality exists and you're not going to make someone het by peer pressure, so respect them as a person and stop trying to make them miserable"? Who the [expletive] cares whether it's "normal" or not?
(And regarding "normal" -- if you can't quantify it and calculate a mean and a standard deviation, don't try to tell me what's "normal". 'Cause then "normal" pretty much just means "what I expect and fail to disagree with", and isn't useful here. If you reject things that are not normal, you reject 60-year marriages and high IQs. Pfffft on "normal"!)
In case anyone has forgotten grade school
There's plenty of geography and history in there, yes. There are also a variety of government and civics sections, with messages about the virtues of America, and not littering, and following rules.
Somehow, I doubt your correspondent is writing to whoever selects textbooks in his state to object that children are being taught that the U.S. Constitution is a good thing, or that they should obey the rules of their classroom. When someone believes that "raise your hand" is acceptable, but "don't bully your classmates" isn't, teaching morality isn't the issue.
Re: In case anyone has forgotten grade school
But to require a oath of the children to RESPECT (not tolerate) someones sexuality and in other class room materials linked to this program they go in to more detail on this matter... it no longer is "don't bully" but becomes "homosexuality is normal" which is a moral judgement and as such can not defending as a right of the state to teach.
Re: In case anyone has forgotten grade school
Basic respect for other humans--whether or not you think they're "normal"--is a moral and ethical teaching that is at least as important as memorizing state capitals or knowing who Johnny Appleseed was.
It is not "normal" to be unable to walk. That's no excuse for persecuting the physically handicapped.
Re: In case anyone has forgotten grade school
The focus should be on not disrupting class, not assualting others, and lastly not bullying others. The trouble is the focus is off.. the desire is to stop bullying by promoteing a universal morality code set by the state. This is dangerous since the universal codes of the state have lead to death camps and gulag's in other countries. It is counter to the very foundation of our freedom, with like it or not is the right "not" to respect others.
For example to plan to promote the respect of conservative christains in the schools? How about Orthidox Jews and Muslims? What about fat children? What about socially clumsy children? Or kids with deformities? Or what ever under the sun.
One it isn't even possable. Two it isn't the job of the state. Three in directly impacts parents and make elements of society in to criminals. Four it is a abuse of the power of a teach to promote certain groups over other groups.
I see no problem is access for handicapped as long as it doe not disrupt the basic funstions of the school. (a Bubble boy could not expect a school to set up tunnels solely for him.)
Re: In case anyone has forgotten grade school
The problem they're trying to address is violence, taunting, etc. that are based on (or use as a wedge) perceptions of difference. So yes, it does make sense to send a message that abusing someone else because of those characteristics is wrong.
Note that the message isn't "be nice to gays"; it's "do not attack others for being different. That would include not allowing a gay clique to sneeringly spit, "Breeders!" at passing hets. So when it comes to "focus on characteristics", homosexuality per se is not what's being listed, but "different from you" is.
This fits an ongoing pattern by the way. The best pro-gay-rights legislation proposed -- and in fact most of the mediocre examples as well -- are not written as "do special things for homosexuals"; they're specifically written to promote fair and equal treatment regardless of orientation or perceived orientation. Similarly this attempt-to-persuade doesn't say, "be nice to gays", it says "respect people different from yourself". That's not an accident, and it's not spin. It's because the urge underlying this kind of effort is a desire for fairness.
But people who want to preserve their right/excuse/rationalization to continue to oppress or abuse others do not hesitate to paint it as "pro-gay" instead of "pro-equality/pro-fairness".
Even when there's a bit in it that says, "Don't pick on the fundies for being fundies." (That is, "belief" is listed as one of the differences to respect.)
Re: In case anyone has forgotten grade school
Look at that pledge. It doesn't say sexual preference. It makes no reference to one's sexual orientation.
It refers to sexual *identity*.
To paraphrase the part of the pledge you seem so worried about:
Swishy Boys who tend to come off more like girls, and butch girls who come off more as boys should be respected all the same.
Nothing about it refers to sexual preference. Nothing about gays. Nothing about polygamy..monogomy..incest...in fact NOTHING ABOUT ANYONE HAVING SEX WITH ANYONE.
So why is it you keep mentioning homosexuality???
Re: In case anyone has forgotten grade school
(And regarding "normal" -- if you can't quantify it and calculate a mean and a standard deviation, don't try to tell me what's "normal". 'Cause then "normal" pretty much just means "what I expect and fail to disagree with", and isn't useful here. If you reject things that are not normal, you reject 60-year marriages and high IQs. Pfffft on "normal"!)