Somebody needs to be slapped.

We all remember the Mathew Shepherd case in Wyoming, back in the 90′s. Tragic and sad. The media blew it huge, screaming of “tolerance” and of the need for “hate crimes legislation.”

The media too somehow found some dirty little “christian” people full of venom speaking of Shepherd burning in hell, and rejoicing at the thought. This of course they used as a broad brush to all Christians, as homosexual persecuting, hateful people in a frothing at the mouth mode, endorsing the murder of “sodomites.”

The great hypocrisy on this whole thing is the fact that in the same year or two of the Mathew Shepherd tragedy, there too was another tragedy, but the media was silent on the issue.

Back in the midwest, two homosexual men had an adolescent boy bound and gaged, drugged into submission. These monsters repeatedly sodomized the boy, then went out to eat dinner. Upon returning, the boy had ceased breathing. They tried to revive him, but to no avail. The boy died.

Hate Crime? Was this not a hate crime? Where was the media outcry, the national outcry on this? Silence! This vicious death of a minor was met with media silence in terms of the large national media.

This to me indicates a very calculated agenda, and there is not an agenda toward truth on such subject matter, but there is a pro homosexual agenda that is large, organized, and increasing it’s effectiveness.

Yes, they are. However, they should serve as a reminder of where our country could possibly be headed (as they are becoming more frequent). We should remember the Ninth Circuit court ruling in Fields V. Palmdale in Nov 2005 wherein they endorsed and adopted the recent First and Sixth Circuit court rulings and applied them to the issue of homesexuality they were dealing with:

“… once parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished. The constitution does not vest parents with the authority to interfere with a public school’s decision as to how it will provide information to its students or what information it will provide, in its classrooms or otherwise.” Pg 14

“While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to a public school, they do not have a fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child.” Pg 15

The Ninth Circuit ruled:

“Parents have a right to inform their children when and as they wish on the subject of sex; they have no constitutional right, however, to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.” Pg 14

and:

“In sum, we affirm that the Meyer-Pierce right does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door.” Pg 16

I see this as a warning to all parents! Yes, we should still continue to work with our local school districts in monitoring the curriculum and activities and advocating change when necessary. But BEWARE and REMEMBER… the courts have already ruled that if you are upset about something the school chooses to do, as a parent you have “no constitutional right… to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise”. This is now a great risk associated with using our public school system.

(At least the courts affirmed that parents have a right whether or not to send their children to a public school in the first place)

Homosexual parents, maybe. Pro-gay activist groups, no way.

There may be some extreme, unreasonable pro-gay activist groups out there (just as there are anti-gay activist groups), but I suspect that most reasonable activists, pro-gay or otherwise, recognize and support the right of parents to know what their children are being taught in school.

The cases you cite are unfortunate, but I believe that they are the exception, not the norm.

Declaring truth only works when both parties have a lot in common… the goal shouldn’t be to get our say in, but to help change hearts, no?

And the “homosexual agenda” is about as ill-defined as any other boogy men you care to envision… I’ll have to come back to latterdayteancum’s more inclusive statement: the broader issue is parental rights. That’s something that people across the board can get behind.

As for “traditional, God-given values”, you’ll have a hard time with this, too. Whose tradion? Whose God? How far back do we go to define tradition? I’m an active and faithful Latter-day Saint, but I must operate in a world that is filled with varying view points and a political system that protects my minority view point from majority coersion by protecting minority view points across the board. We can’t say we love a country and then behave in a way that tears at its seams.

Dialog is the answer… when dialog is no longer the answer, it’s beyond too late for anything but heading for the hills.

Um, “satanic campaign”? … That’s not the rhetoric that will encourage dialog or foster change, Connor.

Declaring truth to those who don’t like to hear it often comes off as “not encouraging dialog”. Like the story of the camel and the tent, compromising and “encouraging dialog” can often have a detrimental effect. Boldly declaring what is morally correct often is seen as “hate filled” and “bigoted”. But yes, pushing the homosexual agenda on innocent children is nothing more than, in my mind, from Satan. It’s certainly not from God.

So social re-engineering is almost ALWAYS a leftist effort — by definition.

Amen. All the more reason that a strong defense is needed for traditional, God-given values. We must take a stand for what is right and not capitulate. The war in heaven continues today in full force.

Exactly.

Connor:

Um, “satanic campaign”? … That’s not the rhetoric that will encourage dialog or foster change, Connor. It’s the rhetoric of fundie nutjobs — many of whom think that Mormonism is a “satanic campaign”.

And as for the left-leaning agenda pushers: should you be surprised? The right/left divide in our country is not so much about cogent arguments on good government, as they are a patois for the political aspirations of the enfranchised (right) and the political aspirations of the disenfranchised and those sympathetic to their plight (left). Within these patois, you have myriad subgroups that would rather not deal with each other…

So social re-engineering is almost ALWAYS a leftist effort — by definition. The only exception being the machinations of the far-right who rally not for the status-quo so much as their perceptions of an idylized past.

Anyway… so demonizing either side as some monolithic effort seems a little hollow and disengenuous. More over, it’s largely ineffective as a discussion tool — unless all you’re hoping to do is commisserate with people of a like mind. It’s the politics of “us” and “them”… and it’s bad for America.

/steps down from soap box

But I’m sure glad I was never subjected to this crap in school.

Amen! I’m not sure how I would have handled it. I was highly influenceable before I came the stubborn individual I am now (haha) and likely would have been negatively impacted by such a deceptive, satanic campaign guised as “education”. What filth!

Silus,

The schools feel more and more responsible — and courts are agreeing — for even the most innocuous of actions perpetrated within their halls. Can you blame them?

Ah, but the evident hypocrisy saturates any “do gooder” stated intent of protecting the kids. This isn’t about protection as much as it is about socialization. And those determining the accepted social standards to be taught are children are often left-learning liberal agenda pushers.

Funny thing: though we come at this from slightly different angles, I’m with you on homeschooling.

Glad to hear it. :)

latterdayteancum,

I am sure that even homosexual parents would agree that they should have control and say over what their children are being taught.

Homosexual parents, maybe. Pro-gay activist groups, no way.

In the end, most of these awareness days are a response to child-on-child brutality. The schools feel more and more responsible — and courts are agreeing — for even the most innocuous of actions perpetrated within their halls. Can you blame them?

Funny thing: though we come at this from slightly different angles, I’m with you on homeschooling.

: )