Anyone who's read this 'blog for any length of time knows I am a advocate for responsible parenting. They also know I am a proponent of leaving family planning matters squarely between parents and God. I do not think this is, in and of itself, an irresponsible way to craft a family, believing as I do that God can be trusted to send us the family we are meant to have.
With that said, after reading reports about the California woman who just gave birth to octuplets, I have to question whether she overrode the divine plan and took matters into her own hands.
I am grateful all the babies are doing well. This is NOT about them, their worth, or their value to the world. This IS about a medical industry that is apparently highly unregulated and a woman who I suspect did not try to seek out higher wisdom before allowing herself to be artificially inseminated, a practice that often results in higher order multiple births.
While I commend her for electing to carry all the babies -- usually doctors advise "selective reduction" of embryos once conception has taken place -- I have to wonder why on earth she chose this route in the first place. I have to shake my head at the physicians who thought she was eligible for fertility treatment.
She already has six children ages 7 to 2 to care for.
She is not married. She filed for bankruptcy sometime back, unable to pay more than $900K in debt, mostly on two houses she owned. She is living with her parents in a very modest home that no doubt cannot accommodate fourteen children for long. Her grandmother is quoted as saying the woman has always loved and wanted lots of children.
That's fine. I've always loved and wanted to see the pyramids in Egypt. I've always loved and wanted to own my own bookstore. I've always admired and wanted a large family.
The first I will likely never do becuse I'm not willing to risk my life as a tourist in the Middle East. The second I won't do because I don't have cash-in-hand and I don't want to go into debt to get it. The third is up for grabs but has obvious biological limits attached. I am not inclined to humanly override those limits.
In short, trying to get what we want should never trump the wisdom to accept and use wisely what we need.
Large families like the Duggars of Arkansas or the Jeubs of Colorado have a distinct advantage over the woman in California. They have the stability and support of marriage, they are all professed and active believers in a God Who supplies all need (a mindset that calls down security and blessing of a different sort), they are all self-sufficient with family-based businesses and without government assistance. Both families are financially responsible for their debts and, in fact, live largely debt free.
I wish the California woman and all her children only the best. The babies are here now and it does no good to point a critical finger at them. We don't know their futures, their ultimate purpose or contribution and it's not for anyone to say.
I do hope, however, that the mother will lean actively on God rather than the state to help her raise these children, that she'll consult His higher wisdom in making decisions for their health, safety, and emotional lives, and that the doctors responsible for the procedure that put a mother of six young children and eight unborn babies at great risk will have their licenses yanked for good.
Wordly discourse on everything from the sad state of public education, politics and world peace to vegetarianism, breast vs. bottle, religious persecution, bad media, and all manner of life's vagaries.
January 31, 2009
January 30, 2009
Public education: It's all about the MONEY
Yes, it's true.
Despite what the teachers' unions and political liberals will tell you, public education in 21st century America is all about money.
Sure, students are being taught (okay, some of them are being taught) to read and write and do math. And, yes, some of them are getting to try their hand at the performing arts (in schools where these programs haven't been cut to make way for more standardized testing tutorials). And I'll grudgingly admit that some of them are even being steered into so-called gifted and talented programs -- the types of activities that just a few generations ago the majority of kids would have been expected to tackle as part of their regular coursework.
But don't look to the students to tell you the truth about what public education has evolved into. Look to the adults, the ones who run the show, the ones who negotiate salaries, benefits, and other perks that only grownups are privvy to.
Case in point: Houston ISD Superintendent Abe Saavedra recently got a bonus along with a slew of principals and teachers. The bonuses were supposedly based on "student performance," a euphemism for test scores.
Without taking time to research how bonuses were calculated -- the info is out there, I just haven't bothered to look it up -- I did note that Saavedra, who makes more than $350 K per year, also received a bonus of $77,500.
The next highest bonus went to a principal who got $29K.
Times may be tough, but only for those not in the upper echelons of public ed.
The average teacher bonus looked to be about $7K from my cursory reading of the list published in the Houston Chronicle.
So, it begs the question: Are there still teachers out there who teach because they have a passion for knowledge and want to share it with inquiring minds or have those folks left the building, leaving behind those who teach to the test (and, yes, they DO this) in the hopes of extra cash at the end?
What IS the motivator and is it really turning out better educated citizens?
On a related note, our nation's new secretary of education is speaking out about part of the proposed stimulus package that would inject about $150 billion into public schools, college grant programs, and other education-related projects.
It's worth noting that while Arne Duncan is enthusiastic about how this massive increase will save public ed. from itself (at least for awhile), the AP story I read also noted that Duncan plans to put his two children not in a Washington D.C. public school -- the D.C. schools are possibly the worst in the country, according to several news sources -- but in public school somewhere in northern Virginia.
What does it mean when the schools in the nation's capital are so bad that the president puts his daughters in the swanky Sidwell Friends private school and the secretary of education looks to another district to educate his children?
And don't get me started on the millions and millions of dollars thrown at the problem over the course of my lifetime!
But here we go again. And this time Secretary Duncan argues that throwing billions at public education is somehow going to save the economy. He doesn't really say how, but it sounds good.
From AP reporter Libby Quaid, read on:
"If we want to stimulate the economy, we need a better-educated workforce," Duncan said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.
"That's the only way, long-term, we're going to get out of this economic crisis," he said.
And this:
College affordability is critical, Duncan said. The stimulus plan would double spending on Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college, raising the maximum award by $500, to $5,350.
"In our economy, never has it been more important to go to college," Duncan said. "Well, college has never been more unaffordable. And so increasing access is hugely important. Long-term, if we want a better economy, we need more people going to college.
My guess is that two years from now when the stimulus money runs out, our public schools will be no better off than they are right now because some fundamental things will probably remain unchanged. Standardized testing will likely continue to drive the curriculum, administrators will continue to get theirs even at the expense of retaining good teachers, and cultural decay in the form of dumbed down music, literature and morals will continue to bombard our kids from all sides rendering too many of them slaves to the status quo.
Like the sharks on Wall Street and in corporate America who can't seem to account for the federal bailout monies already received, educational bureaucrats will just shrug their shoulders, say they have no other way to fix their problems, and then hold their hands out for more.
The government will probably give it to them because it's easier to throw dollars at public education than it is to really dig in and fix it right.
They like to tell us "it's for the children," but that's a big fat lie.
Be clear, dear readers. The prevailing attitude about education is that it is the means to a prosperous economy. The economy is what matters.
Nevermind how many brilliant, beautiful children are sacrificed along the way.
Despite what the teachers' unions and political liberals will tell you, public education in 21st century America is all about money.
Sure, students are being taught (okay, some of them are being taught) to read and write and do math. And, yes, some of them are getting to try their hand at the performing arts (in schools where these programs haven't been cut to make way for more standardized testing tutorials). And I'll grudgingly admit that some of them are even being steered into so-called gifted and talented programs -- the types of activities that just a few generations ago the majority of kids would have been expected to tackle as part of their regular coursework.
But don't look to the students to tell you the truth about what public education has evolved into. Look to the adults, the ones who run the show, the ones who negotiate salaries, benefits, and other perks that only grownups are privvy to.
Case in point: Houston ISD Superintendent Abe Saavedra recently got a bonus along with a slew of principals and teachers. The bonuses were supposedly based on "student performance," a euphemism for test scores.
Without taking time to research how bonuses were calculated -- the info is out there, I just haven't bothered to look it up -- I did note that Saavedra, who makes more than $350 K per year, also received a bonus of $77,500.
The next highest bonus went to a principal who got $29K.
Times may be tough, but only for those not in the upper echelons of public ed.
The average teacher bonus looked to be about $7K from my cursory reading of the list published in the Houston Chronicle.
So, it begs the question: Are there still teachers out there who teach because they have a passion for knowledge and want to share it with inquiring minds or have those folks left the building, leaving behind those who teach to the test (and, yes, they DO this) in the hopes of extra cash at the end?
What IS the motivator and is it really turning out better educated citizens?
On a related note, our nation's new secretary of education is speaking out about part of the proposed stimulus package that would inject about $150 billion into public schools, college grant programs, and other education-related projects.
It's worth noting that while Arne Duncan is enthusiastic about how this massive increase will save public ed. from itself (at least for awhile), the AP story I read also noted that Duncan plans to put his two children not in a Washington D.C. public school -- the D.C. schools are possibly the worst in the country, according to several news sources -- but in public school somewhere in northern Virginia.
What does it mean when the schools in the nation's capital are so bad that the president puts his daughters in the swanky Sidwell Friends private school and the secretary of education looks to another district to educate his children?
And don't get me started on the millions and millions of dollars thrown at the problem over the course of my lifetime!
But here we go again. And this time Secretary Duncan argues that throwing billions at public education is somehow going to save the economy. He doesn't really say how, but it sounds good.
From AP reporter Libby Quaid, read on:
"If we want to stimulate the economy, we need a better-educated workforce," Duncan said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.
"That's the only way, long-term, we're going to get out of this economic crisis," he said.
And this:
College affordability is critical, Duncan said. The stimulus plan would double spending on Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college, raising the maximum award by $500, to $5,350.
"In our economy, never has it been more important to go to college," Duncan said. "Well, college has never been more unaffordable. And so increasing access is hugely important. Long-term, if we want a better economy, we need more people going to college.
My guess is that two years from now when the stimulus money runs out, our public schools will be no better off than they are right now because some fundamental things will probably remain unchanged. Standardized testing will likely continue to drive the curriculum, administrators will continue to get theirs even at the expense of retaining good teachers, and cultural decay in the form of dumbed down music, literature and morals will continue to bombard our kids from all sides rendering too many of them slaves to the status quo.
Like the sharks on Wall Street and in corporate America who can't seem to account for the federal bailout monies already received, educational bureaucrats will just shrug their shoulders, say they have no other way to fix their problems, and then hold their hands out for more.
The government will probably give it to them because it's easier to throw dollars at public education than it is to really dig in and fix it right.
They like to tell us "it's for the children," but that's a big fat lie.
Be clear, dear readers. The prevailing attitude about education is that it is the means to a prosperous economy. The economy is what matters.
Nevermind how many brilliant, beautiful children are sacrificed along the way.
January 28, 2009
The youngest bullfighter
There's just something about bullfighting that makes me want to throw up.
No, it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a vegetarian and don't eat beef.
It has everything to do with the notion that teasing and then killing subsequently enraged animals for fun is, well, fun.
Mexico makes the headlines again this week for something other than border disputes with the U.S., violence in Juarez or the omnipresent drug cartels that keep our nation stoned.
Now it's home to the world's youngest and most prolific killer of bull calves in one appearance, Torero Michelito Lagravere, 11.
Lagravere recently slaughtered six calves before a cheering crowd of about 3000 spectators. His father is a professional bullfighter from France.
Mexico has no minimum age for bullfighting. Nor much of a standard for anything else, in my opinion.
The one bright spot in this whole tacky tale is the fact that publishers of the Guiness Book of World Records are refusing to include Lagravere's accomplishment because, they say, they don't record statistics that involve the harming or killing of animals.
In a world of oh so politically correct we-are-the-worldisms, it's refreshing to find at least one entity still sticking up for basic decency.
Some traditions should be allowed to die, and bullfighting is one of them.
No, it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a vegetarian and don't eat beef.
It has everything to do with the notion that teasing and then killing subsequently enraged animals for fun is, well, fun.
Mexico makes the headlines again this week for something other than border disputes with the U.S., violence in Juarez or the omnipresent drug cartels that keep our nation stoned.
Now it's home to the world's youngest and most prolific killer of bull calves in one appearance, Torero Michelito Lagravere, 11.
Lagravere recently slaughtered six calves before a cheering crowd of about 3000 spectators. His father is a professional bullfighter from France.
Mexico has no minimum age for bullfighting. Nor much of a standard for anything else, in my opinion.
The one bright spot in this whole tacky tale is the fact that publishers of the Guiness Book of World Records are refusing to include Lagravere's accomplishment because, they say, they don't record statistics that involve the harming or killing of animals.
In a world of oh so politically correct we-are-the-worldisms, it's refreshing to find at least one entity still sticking up for basic decency.
Some traditions should be allowed to die, and bullfighting is one of them.
January 27, 2009
Kill them NOW
Yep, you read that right. The monstrous parents of the two-year-old toddler Riley Sawyers are finally on trial for what stands as one of the most gruesome and heartbreaking cases of child abuse and murder in recent memory.
The details of her torture and death are so horrible I cannot and will not recount them here. The Houston Chronicle newspaper is carrying the full story so readers are asked to visit its website if they want to know more.
My previous comments on the death penalty in the case of the two Houston teen girls assaulted and killed many years ago by a Mexican national and his gang friends drew mixed and thoughtful responses. No doubt the death penalty is a contentious issue, especially for people of religious faith.
But when the victim is a child I have to admit that I abandon any pretense of trying to reconcile it with my understanding of Christian teaching.
My gut, knee-jerk, instinctive and visceral reaction to crappy people like the ones who tortured and beat to death a two-year-old because she would not say "please," or "yes, sir" is that they should be killed.
Yeah, yeah, I know, innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge supporter of the Constitution.
But, really, folks, at the end of the day does anyone really believe in their heart of hearts that the Founding Fathers intended their precious document to be used as an excuse to NOT do away with the most worthless among us?
Sadly, the parents of Riley Sawyer will get to see another day and another and another after that -- albeit from behind prison bars -- while their innocent babe is no more.
Just as regrettable is the fact that the taxpayers of Texas will get to support these monsters for the rest of their lives. You see, proscutors will not be seeking the death penalty in this case.
According to the Chronicle, the DA will not be seeking the death penalty because of a state appeals court decision that, "the death penalty isn't appropriate in cases involving parents accused of killing their children."
If not then, when?
I'm adding these folks -- the parents -- to my PWANDG* list.
*People Who Are No Damn Good
The details of her torture and death are so horrible I cannot and will not recount them here. The Houston Chronicle newspaper is carrying the full story so readers are asked to visit its website if they want to know more.
My previous comments on the death penalty in the case of the two Houston teen girls assaulted and killed many years ago by a Mexican national and his gang friends drew mixed and thoughtful responses. No doubt the death penalty is a contentious issue, especially for people of religious faith.
But when the victim is a child I have to admit that I abandon any pretense of trying to reconcile it with my understanding of Christian teaching.
My gut, knee-jerk, instinctive and visceral reaction to crappy people like the ones who tortured and beat to death a two-year-old because she would not say "please," or "yes, sir" is that they should be killed.
Yeah, yeah, I know, innocent until proven guilty and all that stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge supporter of the Constitution.
But, really, folks, at the end of the day does anyone really believe in their heart of hearts that the Founding Fathers intended their precious document to be used as an excuse to NOT do away with the most worthless among us?
Sadly, the parents of Riley Sawyer will get to see another day and another and another after that -- albeit from behind prison bars -- while their innocent babe is no more.
Just as regrettable is the fact that the taxpayers of Texas will get to support these monsters for the rest of their lives. You see, proscutors will not be seeking the death penalty in this case.
According to the Chronicle, the DA will not be seeking the death penalty because of a state appeals court decision that, "the death penalty isn't appropriate in cases involving parents accused of killing their children."
If not then, when?
I'm adding these folks -- the parents -- to my PWANDG* list.
*People Who Are No Damn Good
January 26, 2009
We're beginning to sound a lot like China
Speaker of the House and mother of FIVE children Nancy Pelosi surprises me with her remarks in an interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
Apparently, the feds want to include funding for contraception in their proposed economic stimulus package.
Speaker Pelosi thinks this makes good sense because, "We have to deal with the downturn in our economy."
Have fewer children, have greater wealth? We don't want the poor to reproduce? We don't want anybody to reproduce?
U.S. taxpayers are already going to start funding abortions overseas again. Won't that help our bottom line somehow?
Yikes.
Apparently, the feds want to include funding for contraception in their proposed economic stimulus package.
Speaker Pelosi thinks this makes good sense because, "We have to deal with the downturn in our economy."
Have fewer children, have greater wealth? We don't want the poor to reproduce? We don't want anybody to reproduce?
U.S. taxpayers are already going to start funding abortions overseas again. Won't that help our bottom line somehow?
Yikes.
A wolf in sheep's clothing is roaming
Parents across Texas would do well to closely follow a new do-gooder law proposed by State Rep. Roberto Alonzo of Dallas.
HB 188 has the potential to inject governmental oversight of how you raise your children into just about every aspect of your lives, folks.
Full of sweeping general statements on the rights children should have, this bill not only wastes time and taxpayer money to state the obvious, but it fails to clearly define the issues it's crafted to address, especially as they pertain to discipline, education, and home life.
Apparently Rep. Alonzo thinks parents statewide need the state to teach them how to parent. If the bill is targeting families in poverty or who have a history of problems documented by Children's Protective Services, it doesn't say. Ergo, we are left to assume this bill is gunning for everybody.
And it's worth noting that even though the state cannot seem to graduate students from 12 years of public high school who can, across the board, read, write and do math suitable to begin a college career, HB 188 would provide for the development and implementation of a "curriculum" to be used at regionally located "family education centers."
Try to smother your laughter.
Finally, upon receipt of your child's birth or adoption certificate, you'd also be presented with a signed-by-the-governor copy of the law just so you, the ignorant fool, would know the eyes of Texas were now upon you.
Insulting? Patronizing? Downright ridiculous? You decide.
The bill is worded thusly:
81R457 KSD-D
By: Alonzo
H.B. No. 188
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the rights of children and the education of parents
regarding their duties as parents.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
ARTICLE 1. CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1.01. Chapter 151, Family Code, is amended by
adding Section 151.005 to read as follows:
Sec. 151.005. CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS. (a) It is the
intent of the legislature to ensure that:
(1) children are the number one priority of this
state; and
(2) parents are educated regarding their duties under
law as the primary protectors of their children.
(b) It is the policy of this state that each child has the
right to:
(1) live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home in
which the child is treated with respect;
(2) be free from physical, sexual, emotional, and
other abuse or neglect and any form of discipline that humiliates or
demeans the child;
(3) receive adequate and healthy food;
(4) receive access to a quality education; and
(5) receive appropriate medical, dental, vision, and
mental health services.
SECTION 1.02. Chapter 265, Family Code, is amended by
adding Section 265.006 to read as follows:
Sec. 265.006. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND OUTREACH CAMPAIGN
REGARDING CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS. (a) Not later than September
1, 2010, the department shall develop and implement a statewide
public awareness and outreach campaign designed to educate the
public regarding the legislature's adoption and content of the
children's bill of rights under Section 151.005.
(b) The department may solicit and accept gifts, grants, and
donations from any public or private source for purposes of this
section.
(c) This section expires December 31, 2011.
SECTION 1.03. Subchapter A, Chapter 192, Health and Safety
Code, is amended by adding Section 192.0035 to read as follows:
Sec. 192.0035. PRESENTATION TO PARENTS OF PROCLAMATION OF
CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS. (a) As soon as practicable after a
child's birth or adoption certificate is filed under this chapter
or a child's birth is reported under this chapter, the department
shall present to each of the child's parents a written proclamation
of the children's bill of rights prescribed by Section 151.005,
Family Code.
(b) The department, in consultation with the office of the
governor, shall establish the form, content, and manner of
presentation of the proclamation required by this section. The
proclamation must include a signed statement from the governor
congratulating the parent on the child's birth and informing the
parent of the parent's duties in relation to the child imposed under
the Family Code and other law.
(c) The executive commissioner of the Health and Human
Services Commission shall adopt rules for the administration of
this section.
ARTICLE 2. FAMILY EDUCATION CENTERS
SECTION 2.01. Subchapter F, Chapter 130, Education Code, is
amended by adding Section 130.093 to read as follows:
Sec. 130.093. FAMILY EDUCATION CENTERS. (a) The board of
trustees of a junior college district may establish, in conjunction
with other public or private institutions of higher education and
other participating private entities, a family education center.
The family education center must be administered under a formal
agreement entered into by the district with the other member
institutions and entities.
(b) The family education center shall provide comprehensive
family educational activities and training to the residents of the
region in which the center is located.
(c) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center shall establish the curriculum for the center in
consultation with the prevention and early intervention services
division of the Department of Family and Protective Services. The
curriculum must be designed to:
(1) educate parents regarding their duties under law
as the primary protectors of their children;
(2) promote the prevention and amelioration of child
abuse and neglect;
(3) reduce the need for state and local services
addressing child maltreatment; and
(4) engage family members in individual and group
sessions designed to:
(A) prevent the occurrence of family violence;
(B) address addiction problems and other mental
health issues of family members;
(C) equip family members with strategies to
reduce stress and anxiety and creative ideas for family activities;
(D) foster communication, respect, forgiveness,
and intimacy among family members;
(E) build self-esteem;
(F) develop short- and long-term family goals;
(G) develop vocational skills;
(H) develop life skills, including skills
relating to parenting, discipline, positive reinforcement, infant
care, household budgeting, financial planning, daily planning of
household chores, nutrition and wellness, personal care, and
community volunteerism; and
(I) address any other family educational goals of
the local community served by the center.
(d) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center shall work with the local community to identify
and offer courses that will meet the family educational goals for
the region served by the center.
(e) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center, under the terms of the formal agreement, may make
provisions for adequate physical facilities for use by the center.
(f) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center may solicit, accept, and administer, on terms
acceptable to the members, gifts, grants, and donations of any kind
and from any public or private source for use by the center.
SECTION 2.02. Chapter 265, Family Code, is amended by adding
Sections 265.007 and 265.008 to read as follows:
Sec. 265.007. FAMILY EDUCATION CENTER CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT. On request by the member institutions and entities of
a family education center established under Section 130.093,
Education Code, the department shall assist the member institutions
and entities in developing a comprehensive curriculum for the
center designed to meet the goals prescribed by Section 130.093(c),
Education Code.
Sec. 265.008. FEASIBILITY STUDY REGARDING FAMILY EDUCATION
CENTERS; REPORT. (a) The department shall evaluate the feasibility
of requiring certain families who are the subject of a report of
alleged abuse or neglect of a child under this subtitle to
participate in educational activities offered by a family education
center established under Section 130.093, Education Code, as an
alternative to removing the child from the child's home.
(b) Not later than December 1, 2010, the department shall
prepare and submit to the lieutenant governor, the speaker of the
house of representatives, and the members of the legislature a
report containing the department's findings regarding the
feasibility study conducted by the department under Subsection (a)
and the department's recommendations regarding whether family
education centers should be established statewide.
(c) This section expires September 1, 2011.
ARTICLE 3. EFFECTIVE DATE
SECTION 3.01. This Act takes effect immediately if it
receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each
house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.
If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate
effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2009.
HB 188 has the potential to inject governmental oversight of how you raise your children into just about every aspect of your lives, folks.
Full of sweeping general statements on the rights children should have, this bill not only wastes time and taxpayer money to state the obvious, but it fails to clearly define the issues it's crafted to address, especially as they pertain to discipline, education, and home life.
Apparently Rep. Alonzo thinks parents statewide need the state to teach them how to parent. If the bill is targeting families in poverty or who have a history of problems documented by Children's Protective Services, it doesn't say. Ergo, we are left to assume this bill is gunning for everybody.
And it's worth noting that even though the state cannot seem to graduate students from 12 years of public high school who can, across the board, read, write and do math suitable to begin a college career, HB 188 would provide for the development and implementation of a "curriculum" to be used at regionally located "family education centers."
Try to smother your laughter.
Finally, upon receipt of your child's birth or adoption certificate, you'd also be presented with a signed-by-the-governor copy of the law just so you, the ignorant fool, would know the eyes of Texas were now upon you.
Insulting? Patronizing? Downright ridiculous? You decide.
The bill is worded thusly:
81R457 KSD-D
By: Alonzo
H.B. No. 188
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the rights of children and the education of parents
regarding their duties as parents.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
ARTICLE 1. CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1.01. Chapter 151, Family Code, is amended by
adding Section 151.005 to read as follows:
Sec. 151.005. CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS. (a) It is the
intent of the legislature to ensure that:
(1) children are the number one priority of this
state; and
(2) parents are educated regarding their duties under
law as the primary protectors of their children.
(b) It is the policy of this state that each child has the
right to:
(1) live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home in
which the child is treated with respect;
(2) be free from physical, sexual, emotional, and
other abuse or neglect and any form of discipline that humiliates or
demeans the child;
(3) receive adequate and healthy food;
(4) receive access to a quality education; and
(5) receive appropriate medical, dental, vision, and
mental health services.
SECTION 1.02. Chapter 265, Family Code, is amended by
adding Section 265.006 to read as follows:
Sec. 265.006. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND OUTREACH CAMPAIGN
REGARDING CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS. (a) Not later than September
1, 2010, the department shall develop and implement a statewide
public awareness and outreach campaign designed to educate the
public regarding the legislature's adoption and content of the
children's bill of rights under Section 151.005.
(b) The department may solicit and accept gifts, grants, and
donations from any public or private source for purposes of this
section.
(c) This section expires December 31, 2011.
SECTION 1.03. Subchapter A, Chapter 192, Health and Safety
Code, is amended by adding Section 192.0035 to read as follows:
Sec. 192.0035. PRESENTATION TO PARENTS OF PROCLAMATION OF
CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS. (a) As soon as practicable after a
child's birth or adoption certificate is filed under this chapter
or a child's birth is reported under this chapter, the department
shall present to each of the child's parents a written proclamation
of the children's bill of rights prescribed by Section 151.005,
Family Code.
(b) The department, in consultation with the office of the
governor, shall establish the form, content, and manner of
presentation of the proclamation required by this section. The
proclamation must include a signed statement from the governor
congratulating the parent on the child's birth and informing the
parent of the parent's duties in relation to the child imposed under
the Family Code and other law.
(c) The executive commissioner of the Health and Human
Services Commission shall adopt rules for the administration of
this section.
ARTICLE 2. FAMILY EDUCATION CENTERS
SECTION 2.01. Subchapter F, Chapter 130, Education Code, is
amended by adding Section 130.093 to read as follows:
Sec. 130.093. FAMILY EDUCATION CENTERS. (a) The board of
trustees of a junior college district may establish, in conjunction
with other public or private institutions of higher education and
other participating private entities, a family education center.
The family education center must be administered under a formal
agreement entered into by the district with the other member
institutions and entities.
(b) The family education center shall provide comprehensive
family educational activities and training to the residents of the
region in which the center is located.
(c) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center shall establish the curriculum for the center in
consultation with the prevention and early intervention services
division of the Department of Family and Protective Services. The
curriculum must be designed to:
(1) educate parents regarding their duties under law
as the primary protectors of their children;
(2) promote the prevention and amelioration of child
abuse and neglect;
(3) reduce the need for state and local services
addressing child maltreatment; and
(4) engage family members in individual and group
sessions designed to:
(A) prevent the occurrence of family violence;
(B) address addiction problems and other mental
health issues of family members;
(C) equip family members with strategies to
reduce stress and anxiety and creative ideas for family activities;
(D) foster communication, respect, forgiveness,
and intimacy among family members;
(E) build self-esteem;
(F) develop short- and long-term family goals;
(G) develop vocational skills;
(H) develop life skills, including skills
relating to parenting, discipline, positive reinforcement, infant
care, household budgeting, financial planning, daily planning of
household chores, nutrition and wellness, personal care, and
community volunteerism; and
(I) address any other family educational goals of
the local community served by the center.
(d) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center shall work with the local community to identify
and offer courses that will meet the family educational goals for
the region served by the center.
(e) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center, under the terms of the formal agreement, may make
provisions for adequate physical facilities for use by the center.
(f) The member institutions and entities of the family
education center may solicit, accept, and administer, on terms
acceptable to the members, gifts, grants, and donations of any kind
and from any public or private source for use by the center.
SECTION 2.02. Chapter 265, Family Code, is amended by adding
Sections 265.007 and 265.008 to read as follows:
Sec. 265.007. FAMILY EDUCATION CENTER CURRICULUM
DEVELOPMENT. On request by the member institutions and entities of
a family education center established under Section 130.093,
Education Code, the department shall assist the member institutions
and entities in developing a comprehensive curriculum for the
center designed to meet the goals prescribed by Section 130.093(c),
Education Code.
Sec. 265.008. FEASIBILITY STUDY REGARDING FAMILY EDUCATION
CENTERS; REPORT. (a) The department shall evaluate the feasibility
of requiring certain families who are the subject of a report of
alleged abuse or neglect of a child under this subtitle to
participate in educational activities offered by a family education
center established under Section 130.093, Education Code, as an
alternative to removing the child from the child's home.
(b) Not later than December 1, 2010, the department shall
prepare and submit to the lieutenant governor, the speaker of the
house of representatives, and the members of the legislature a
report containing the department's findings regarding the
feasibility study conducted by the department under Subsection (a)
and the department's recommendations regarding whether family
education centers should be established statewide.
(c) This section expires September 1, 2011.
ARTICLE 3. EFFECTIVE DATE
SECTION 3.01. This Act takes effect immediately if it
receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each
house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.
If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate
effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2009.
Who is going to determine what constitutes the appropriate degree or type of the various things listed at the beginning of this bill? Medical care? Some people use it sparingly, some take their kids to the doctor every time they sneeze. Healthy and comfortable home? So kids who sleep two to a bed in a 700 s.f. house with analog TV and an old junker for transportation may be yanked from their families because their peers a neighborhood away enjoy single beds in private bedrooms with plasma TVs and a Lexus in the garage? Adequate and healthy food? My kids are vegetarians and to some folks this is paramount to starvation. Where on earth DO we get our protein? Would the state compel me to serve them meat? Quality education? Oh, this is a biggie. Teachers' unions would say we homeschoolers are absolutely not providing our children with quality ed. Does this mean the state would force us to feed our children to the public schools?
Rep. Alonzo's bill doesn't say. It's poorly worded. It seems to want to focus on establishing these family education centers but he constructs his argument for such a project by listing all the things Texas kids have a "right" to without clearly explaining how fulfillment of those rights should look.
I do think some families need help. Some parents are lousy at their job and the number of children in foster care is proof of that. So wouldn't it make more sense to streamline efforts to target those families in crisis while leaving the rest of us alone?
And before I get off my soapbox about this, am I the only one who finds it odd that HB 188 so righteously points out that "children are the number one priority of this state" even as far too many of our public schools suffer under the weight of illegal immigration, rampant drug use, crumbling facilities, fiscal mismanagement, and predatory teachers?
If children are the number one priority in Texas and the state government REALLY wants to do something to help its youngest citizens, I want the state to make a conviction for child molestation carry a minimum penalty of life without possibility of parole, fix all the broken-down schools and fully equip them with stocked libraries and adequate classroom supplies, do away with the standardized testing regimen that stresses our kids and scares away good and creative teachers, throw out all the social engineering that sucks up valuable academic hours in public school and get back to the basics of a solid education, compel hospitals to give every new mother a crash course in the importance of breastfeeding her newborn, create more task forces to nail internet child pornographers to the wall, and distribute grant money to build more playgrounds and neighborhood parks especially in poorer neighborhoods.
Where's the bill that tells the state to do all that?
January 21, 2009
I was doing okay until . . .
Rev. William Lowery opened his mouth and pissed me off.
Who IS this guy? Yes, yes, I know he was a friend and partner of Martin Luther King, Jr. but apparently MLK's balanced and intelligent approach to issues of race failed to rub off on the good reverend.
He delivered the benediction today after President Obama took the oath of office.
Rev. Lowery started out okay but he lost me about halfway through as the prayer he was supposed to be delivering turned into a rambling speech before culminating in the most ridiculous, asinine, inappropriate and flat-out tacky remark I guess I've ever heard spoken from the platform of an official proceeding.
He concluded his prayer with the following: "Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around – when yellow will be mellow – when the red man can get ahead, man – and when white will embrace what is right."
Nice.
Some commentators are making excuses for Lowery based on the fact that he's 87, but taking that into account, I still can't fathom how such outdated rhetoric made it into a presidential benediction in 2009.
My mother who is a member of Lowery's decade said it herself. "Age is no excuse for bad taste."
Didn't anyone read through his remarks ahead of time? On second thought, I guess you wouldn't reasonably expect a man of God to throw out such politically tinged nonsense on this, of all days.
Who IS this guy? Yes, yes, I know he was a friend and partner of Martin Luther King, Jr. but apparently MLK's balanced and intelligent approach to issues of race failed to rub off on the good reverend.
He delivered the benediction today after President Obama took the oath of office.
Rev. Lowery started out okay but he lost me about halfway through as the prayer he was supposed to be delivering turned into a rambling speech before culminating in the most ridiculous, asinine, inappropriate and flat-out tacky remark I guess I've ever heard spoken from the platform of an official proceeding.
He concluded his prayer with the following: "Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around – when yellow will be mellow – when the red man can get ahead, man – and when white will embrace what is right."
Nice.
Some commentators are making excuses for Lowery based on the fact that he's 87, but taking that into account, I still can't fathom how such outdated rhetoric made it into a presidential benediction in 2009.
My mother who is a member of Lowery's decade said it herself. "Age is no excuse for bad taste."
Didn't anyone read through his remarks ahead of time? On second thought, I guess you wouldn't reasonably expect a man of God to throw out such politically tinged nonsense on this, of all days.
January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day
Today was a good day. It gave my children a chance to see what is perhaps the greatest aspect of American government in action -- the peaceful transition of power from one leader to another. I got to explain to them why this is very important, and in doing so fulfilled our civics requirement for the week.
And even though I didn't vote for President Obama -- and I told my girls so -- I also told them why his election is meaningful in ways far beyond policies on economics, national security, or even social issues like education.
His story has given me a chance to lead my children gently into a gradual and growing understanding of why our nation has evolved the way it has. They are mystified when I explain that for many years blacks and whites were not thought of as equals. They puzzle over the fact that there was a time in this country when people owned other people as property.
They are young yet, just 9 and 6, and I am exercising my parental discretion as to when we will begin a formal and detailed study of slavery in America.
For now, it's enough for them to know that slavery is part of our nation's -- and family's -- history, that it was wrong and that it was in full violation of our Christian faith as proscribed by the Bible.
It's good, too, for them to witness the fact that even the most grievous of wrongs can, in time, be righted in the most spectacular of ways.
We need only to look at our newest president for proof.
May God bless President Obama and give him the wisdom to make the right choices. Anything less will send us all -- our captain included -- down with the ship, and I'm not a very good swimmer.
And even though I didn't vote for President Obama -- and I told my girls so -- I also told them why his election is meaningful in ways far beyond policies on economics, national security, or even social issues like education.
His story has given me a chance to lead my children gently into a gradual and growing understanding of why our nation has evolved the way it has. They are mystified when I explain that for many years blacks and whites were not thought of as equals. They puzzle over the fact that there was a time in this country when people owned other people as property.
They are young yet, just 9 and 6, and I am exercising my parental discretion as to when we will begin a formal and detailed study of slavery in America.
For now, it's enough for them to know that slavery is part of our nation's -- and family's -- history, that it was wrong and that it was in full violation of our Christian faith as proscribed by the Bible.
It's good, too, for them to witness the fact that even the most grievous of wrongs can, in time, be righted in the most spectacular of ways.
We need only to look at our newest president for proof.
May God bless President Obama and give him the wisdom to make the right choices. Anything less will send us all -- our captain included -- down with the ship, and I'm not a very good swimmer.
January 18, 2009
Reading, Writing, 'Rithmatic, and Homophobia?
Yeah, I know, the title for this entry doesn't make good sense, does it. Maybe that's because it DOESN'T MAKE GOOD SENSE!
A Wisconsin public high school is featured in the Spring 2009 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Teaching Tolerance" newsletter for its noble efforts to brainwash 11th graders into thinking something that they believe to be wrong is right.
Elkhorn High School teacher Sarah Arnold was "inspired" to develop a curriculum called "Exposing Hidden Homophobia" after overhearing her students making snide remarks and using words such as "gay" to describe the uncool behaviors of fellow classmates.
Following is an actual excerpt from a news article that appears at Christian LifeSiteNews.com. I was so taken aback by the description of the course I had to confirm it by going to the Southern Poverty Law Center's website where, to my dismay, I got confirmation. Read on and ask yourself if THIS is what parents sign up for when they send their kids to school.
The program Arnold developed included "in-depth exploration of depictions" of homosexuality in mass media; several homosexual-themed films, documentaries, books and novels; internet research on "the nature of homophobia"; and a "homophobia questionnaire" coupled with a "heterosexual questionnaire" designed to take questions "commonly asked of homosexuals and ask them of heterosexuals" - e.g., "When did you decide to become heterosexual?'"
Although students were reluctant and parents "balked," particularly Christian parents, Arnold would argue that the project supported "higher-order thinking skills" because students were asked to perform such tasks as assembling and presenting portfolios of their research into homosexual culture and media.
The article claims that, thanks to the program, students began to adopt a more favorable view of homosexuality, as evidenced by portfolio essays and an increased membership in the school's Gay-Straight Alliance.
Colleen Rafter, principal of Raritan High School in Hazlet, N.J., said she convinced the English department in her school to adopt a homosexuality program similar to Arnold's, according to the article.
"We really want to make a change in how people think and act," Rafter said. "I will try to be more brave on these issues myself."
The article then provides resources and lesson plans for other public school teachers to use, including shortened versions of Arnold's "Hidden Homophobia Unit."
Oh goody.
The New Jersey principal's remark about wanting to change the way people think and act should set off alarm bells in the heads of every parent. This is EXACTLY why schools are no longer safe places to send your children. Forget the drugs, the gangs, the bullying, the weapons, the sexual assaults by teachers -- what about the concerted and acknowledged efforts to restructure the way your children view their world?
Oh, but I was comforted to know that this ridiculous waste of THIRTY SEVEN class periods met the state's standards for writing because the program fostered "higher order thinking skills."
Now I'll risk copyright violation by quoting from the actual article in SPLC's newsletter. You'll see that LifeSiteNews.com didn't slant its coverage. Note, too, SPLC's own chatty suggestions at the end of the article.
She got them started slowly. Their first assignment: spend a class period writing an essay about one thing that makes you different from other people. Students would return to that essay again and again throughout the unit, as they conducted an in-depth exploration of depictions of the GLBTQ community in the mass media.
Students watched the film Trevor (about the struggle of a gay teen in the Bible Belt in the 1970s), viewed a PBS special about the anti-gay murder of Billy Jack Gaither, did Internet research on the nature of homophobia and, ultimately, selected and read a book from a short list of young adult works about gay issues (including Rainbow Boys, Getting It, A Tale of Two Summers and The Laramie Project, among others).
Her students resisted at first. Many didn't want to be seen carrying gay-themed books around school, fearful of how they'd be perceived by others. Some parents also balked: many people in Elkhorn attend churches that interpret the Bible as condemning homosexuality.
In addition, administrators fretted about devoting more than a month of instruction to a single theme.
Still, Arnold had done her homework. When parents or administrators questioned the plan, she was able so show how it supported higher-order thinking skills. She had each student assemble and present, in a professional manner, a portfolio on their research. Students had to define sociological and literary terms used in the unit, analyze examples of gay themes in the media, do qualitative research to examine the changing culture within their schools and in the world outside, and write a letter explaining what they learned from the unit. Ultimately, the unit met almost every one of Wisconsin’s state standards for writing.
Arnold made the unit optional, but despite initial discomfort on the part of some parents and students, all of Arnold's students chose to complete the portfolio.
The climate in Elkhorn didn't change overnight, but membership in the school's newly-formed Gay-Straight Alliance grew, and students' portfolios showed small but significant shifts in attitude. One student, who self-identified as "against gays and lesbians" at the beginning of the unit, later wrote: "Gay people cannot help how they feel and that is OK, I understand, I am just not for it. Most importantly, when people use that phrase 'That is so gay,' it hurts everyone, not just gays."
You don't need 37 days of class time to broach the topic of hidden homophobia, Arnold notes. Short nonfiction works such as "A Rose for Charlie" take only a few class periods to explore and are easier to work into a schedule. By keeping an eye out for current events related to gay issues, teachers may find opportunities to start a discourse. Arnold recalls how she sparked a lively discussion by simply providing her students with a copy of a newspaper story about a hate group that protests at the funerals of gay people and soldiers killed in the Iraq war. "All you have to do is bring it up, and the kids launch into a conversation," Arnold said. "They say, 'can you believe people would say these things?' And that's a chance to talk about what we ourselves are saying, and the effect our words have."
Teachers and administrators who have seen Arnold's work have been inspired to incorporate it into their own curriculum. Colleen Rafter, principal of Raritan High School in Hazlet, N.J., said that after seeing Arnold's approach, she encouraged her English department to adopt a similar curriculum.
"We really want to make a change in how people think and act," Rafter said. "I will try to be more brave on these issues myself."
Exposing Hidden Homophobia: Support Materials
Sarah Arnold's unit on hidden homophobia inspired her students to take steps toward a more tolerant worldview – and it met her state's academic standards by challenging her students to think critically about the media.
You don't have to set aside an entire unit to make a dent in your students' anti-gay biases. Many of the lessons in Arnold's unit will work as stand-alone lesson plans.
Arnold shared her lesson plans and resources with us. We hope you will use them as source material for your own efforts to help students spot hidden homophobia.
That last sentence reminds me of the old "let's root out Communists" campaign of the 1950s. Got a homophobe in your midst? He just needs a good reprogramming. Think it'll take too long to accomplish? Don't worry, you don't have set aside an entire block of classtime to chip away at a kid's religious or moral upbringing. You can use the material as a standalone lesson!
As one popular Houston talk radio host says when he's frustrated beyond all measure, this makes my eyes bleed. Buckets and buckets and buckets.
This whole thing would be bad enough if it was confined to the one Wisconsin school but as you read for yourselves, it's likely to find its way into even more communities as everyone jumps on the bandwagon to prove how tolerant they are.
And the quote from the SPLC about the fact that many people in Elkhorn attend churches that "interpret" the Bible as condemning of homosexuality? This floors me as it reveals the sheer stupidity of either the writer of the SPLC article or the folks at Elkhorn High School who thought this curriculum would be A-okay. The Bible is plain-spoken in its denouncement of homosexuality and if I'm not mistaken it says so in more than one place. (See two mentions in Leviticus and another in Romans.) This doesn't leave much to "interpret."
Advocates for the brainwashing of our children would like you to believe these wacky Christians are just choosing to read the Bible a particular way so as to bolster their mean old anti-gay argument because they'd rather be mean to gays than, say, watch kudzu grow or paint dry. That subtle slant in SPLC's article is not to be overlooked.
So once again, we have a colossal failure on the part of public education officials to respect or at least consider the feelings and religious background of Christian students. Yes, the project was optional, but how many 11th graders have the guts to stand up and be different? And once again we have public educators wasting students' time and taxpayer dollars to support social engineering when what they oughta be doing is TEACHING THOSE KIDS THE THREE R's.
Critical thinking, my big fat fanny. You can critically think your way through some of the great philosophical or scientific questions of the last 3000 years. You can critically think your way through real problems facing the majority of the world's people. (Hint: Homophobia isn't one of them.) The claim that this skill is being developed by teaching children to embrace a way of life that is morally repugnant to most and at the least rife with proven health hazards is nothing short of evil in disguise.
If I had children at Elkhorn High School I'd become that district's worst nightmare and they'd be glad for me to yank my kids out. From the tone of the abovementioned articles, though, it sounds like far too many parents bowed their heads, stepped back, and allowed their children's integrity to be violated.
All in the name of tolerance.
Rise up, parents! Take back your children!
A Wisconsin public high school is featured in the Spring 2009 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Teaching Tolerance" newsletter for its noble efforts to brainwash 11th graders into thinking something that they believe to be wrong is right.
Elkhorn High School teacher Sarah Arnold was "inspired" to develop a curriculum called "Exposing Hidden Homophobia" after overhearing her students making snide remarks and using words such as "gay" to describe the uncool behaviors of fellow classmates.
Following is an actual excerpt from a news article that appears at Christian LifeSiteNews.com. I was so taken aback by the description of the course I had to confirm it by going to the Southern Poverty Law Center's website where, to my dismay, I got confirmation. Read on and ask yourself if THIS is what parents sign up for when they send their kids to school.
The program Arnold developed included "in-depth exploration of depictions" of homosexuality in mass media; several homosexual-themed films, documentaries, books and novels; internet research on "the nature of homophobia"; and a "homophobia questionnaire" coupled with a "heterosexual questionnaire" designed to take questions "commonly asked of homosexuals and ask them of heterosexuals" - e.g., "When did you decide to become heterosexual?'"
Although students were reluctant and parents "balked," particularly Christian parents, Arnold would argue that the project supported "higher-order thinking skills" because students were asked to perform such tasks as assembling and presenting portfolios of their research into homosexual culture and media.
The article claims that, thanks to the program, students began to adopt a more favorable view of homosexuality, as evidenced by portfolio essays and an increased membership in the school's Gay-Straight Alliance.
Colleen Rafter, principal of Raritan High School in Hazlet, N.J., said she convinced the English department in her school to adopt a homosexuality program similar to Arnold's, according to the article.
"We really want to make a change in how people think and act," Rafter said. "I will try to be more brave on these issues myself."
The article then provides resources and lesson plans for other public school teachers to use, including shortened versions of Arnold's "Hidden Homophobia Unit."
Oh goody.
The New Jersey principal's remark about wanting to change the way people think and act should set off alarm bells in the heads of every parent. This is EXACTLY why schools are no longer safe places to send your children. Forget the drugs, the gangs, the bullying, the weapons, the sexual assaults by teachers -- what about the concerted and acknowledged efforts to restructure the way your children view their world?
Oh, but I was comforted to know that this ridiculous waste of THIRTY SEVEN class periods met the state's standards for writing because the program fostered "higher order thinking skills."
Now I'll risk copyright violation by quoting from the actual article in SPLC's newsletter. You'll see that LifeSiteNews.com didn't slant its coverage. Note, too, SPLC's own chatty suggestions at the end of the article.
She got them started slowly. Their first assignment: spend a class period writing an essay about one thing that makes you different from other people. Students would return to that essay again and again throughout the unit, as they conducted an in-depth exploration of depictions of the GLBTQ community in the mass media.
Students watched the film Trevor (about the struggle of a gay teen in the Bible Belt in the 1970s), viewed a PBS special about the anti-gay murder of Billy Jack Gaither, did Internet research on the nature of homophobia and, ultimately, selected and read a book from a short list of young adult works about gay issues (including Rainbow Boys, Getting It, A Tale of Two Summers and The Laramie Project, among others).
Her students resisted at first. Many didn't want to be seen carrying gay-themed books around school, fearful of how they'd be perceived by others. Some parents also balked: many people in Elkhorn attend churches that interpret the Bible as condemning homosexuality.
In addition, administrators fretted about devoting more than a month of instruction to a single theme.
Still, Arnold had done her homework. When parents or administrators questioned the plan, she was able so show how it supported higher-order thinking skills. She had each student assemble and present, in a professional manner, a portfolio on their research. Students had to define sociological and literary terms used in the unit, analyze examples of gay themes in the media, do qualitative research to examine the changing culture within their schools and in the world outside, and write a letter explaining what they learned from the unit. Ultimately, the unit met almost every one of Wisconsin’s state standards for writing.
Arnold made the unit optional, but despite initial discomfort on the part of some parents and students, all of Arnold's students chose to complete the portfolio.
The climate in Elkhorn didn't change overnight, but membership in the school's newly-formed Gay-Straight Alliance grew, and students' portfolios showed small but significant shifts in attitude. One student, who self-identified as "against gays and lesbians" at the beginning of the unit, later wrote: "Gay people cannot help how they feel and that is OK, I understand, I am just not for it. Most importantly, when people use that phrase 'That is so gay,' it hurts everyone, not just gays."
You don't need 37 days of class time to broach the topic of hidden homophobia, Arnold notes. Short nonfiction works such as "A Rose for Charlie" take only a few class periods to explore and are easier to work into a schedule. By keeping an eye out for current events related to gay issues, teachers may find opportunities to start a discourse. Arnold recalls how she sparked a lively discussion by simply providing her students with a copy of a newspaper story about a hate group that protests at the funerals of gay people and soldiers killed in the Iraq war. "All you have to do is bring it up, and the kids launch into a conversation," Arnold said. "They say, 'can you believe people would say these things?' And that's a chance to talk about what we ourselves are saying, and the effect our words have."
Teachers and administrators who have seen Arnold's work have been inspired to incorporate it into their own curriculum. Colleen Rafter, principal of Raritan High School in Hazlet, N.J., said that after seeing Arnold's approach, she encouraged her English department to adopt a similar curriculum.
"We really want to make a change in how people think and act," Rafter said. "I will try to be more brave on these issues myself."
Exposing Hidden Homophobia: Support Materials
Sarah Arnold's unit on hidden homophobia inspired her students to take steps toward a more tolerant worldview – and it met her state's academic standards by challenging her students to think critically about the media.
You don't have to set aside an entire unit to make a dent in your students' anti-gay biases. Many of the lessons in Arnold's unit will work as stand-alone lesson plans.
Arnold shared her lesson plans and resources with us. We hope you will use them as source material for your own efforts to help students spot hidden homophobia.
That last sentence reminds me of the old "let's root out Communists" campaign of the 1950s. Got a homophobe in your midst? He just needs a good reprogramming. Think it'll take too long to accomplish? Don't worry, you don't have set aside an entire block of classtime to chip away at a kid's religious or moral upbringing. You can use the material as a standalone lesson!
As one popular Houston talk radio host says when he's frustrated beyond all measure, this makes my eyes bleed. Buckets and buckets and buckets.
This whole thing would be bad enough if it was confined to the one Wisconsin school but as you read for yourselves, it's likely to find its way into even more communities as everyone jumps on the bandwagon to prove how tolerant they are.
And the quote from the SPLC about the fact that many people in Elkhorn attend churches that "interpret" the Bible as condemning of homosexuality? This floors me as it reveals the sheer stupidity of either the writer of the SPLC article or the folks at Elkhorn High School who thought this curriculum would be A-okay. The Bible is plain-spoken in its denouncement of homosexuality and if I'm not mistaken it says so in more than one place. (See two mentions in Leviticus and another in Romans.) This doesn't leave much to "interpret."
Advocates for the brainwashing of our children would like you to believe these wacky Christians are just choosing to read the Bible a particular way so as to bolster their mean old anti-gay argument because they'd rather be mean to gays than, say, watch kudzu grow or paint dry. That subtle slant in SPLC's article is not to be overlooked.
So once again, we have a colossal failure on the part of public education officials to respect or at least consider the feelings and religious background of Christian students. Yes, the project was optional, but how many 11th graders have the guts to stand up and be different? And once again we have public educators wasting students' time and taxpayer dollars to support social engineering when what they oughta be doing is TEACHING THOSE KIDS THE THREE R's.
Critical thinking, my big fat fanny. You can critically think your way through some of the great philosophical or scientific questions of the last 3000 years. You can critically think your way through real problems facing the majority of the world's people. (Hint: Homophobia isn't one of them.) The claim that this skill is being developed by teaching children to embrace a way of life that is morally repugnant to most and at the least rife with proven health hazards is nothing short of evil in disguise.
If I had children at Elkhorn High School I'd become that district's worst nightmare and they'd be glad for me to yank my kids out. From the tone of the abovementioned articles, though, it sounds like far too many parents bowed their heads, stepped back, and allowed their children's integrity to be violated.
All in the name of tolerance.
Rise up, parents! Take back your children!
January 16, 2009
Artist Andrew Wyeth was homeschooled
Another name to add to the Who's Who of Famous Homeschoolers, in case you didn't know: Andrew Wyeth, born in 1917 and passed away today, January 16, 2009.
He was the son of prolific illustrator and artist N.C. Wyeth and was educated at home until age 18. Andrew learned art from his father during those years and at the age of 20 held his first show, selling nearly all his pieces.
He never received a formal highschool diploma. Never got a college degree.
He was unquestionably unique among American artists.
Homeschooling. You just never know where it will take you.
He was the son of prolific illustrator and artist N.C. Wyeth and was educated at home until age 18. Andrew learned art from his father during those years and at the age of 20 held his first show, selling nearly all his pieces.
He never received a formal highschool diploma. Never got a college degree.
He was unquestionably unique among American artists.
Homeschooling. You just never know where it will take you.
January 14, 2009
What are we supposed to remember?
It's late, I'm tired, and I've been struggling the better part of the day with a recalcitrant four-year-old who runs hot and cold on just about everything he experiences.
Interestingly enough, my little boy has much in common with some of the good folks over in Alabama who are still so torn over their state's history that they can't seem to decide exactly what should be remembered and what should be swept into the dustbin of the past.
As usual, I am compelled to fully disclose lest any reader think I'm spouting off high and mighty with nary a personal experience to bolster my remarks.
Some of my ancestors owned slaves.
More on this later, but now back to the reason for this 'blog post.
A group of Alabama high school seniors -- white and black -- known as the Azalea Trail Maids has been selected to walk in the inaugural parade of President-elect Obama. Alabama NAACP Chairman Edward Vaughn is having to apologize for saying the girls, who dress in traditional antebellum hoop skirts and wide-brimmed hats, are reminders of the era of slavery.
"These are not just regular costumes. These are the costumes that remind someone of the plantation in Gone with the Wind," Edward Vaughn said in a phone interview last week with a local television station. "We needed something that could show Alabama's great progress rather than something that shows a shameful past," Vaughn said at the time.
Sigh.
I'm gonna weigh in here and I'll do it without putting on my Scarlett O'Hara ballgown -- you know, the one she made from heavy velvet drapes because the Yankees had cut off access to real cloth.
Frankly, the NAACP chairman's remarks profoundly confuse me. We are taught from a young age about the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, and the whole notion of right versus wrong with respect to these issues. Every February as Black History Month rolls around we are all urged, nay, required to remember the past and encouraged to work towards solutions to the problem of racism that, in fact, continues to undermine far too many relationships and hinder too many lives.
My question to Chairman Vaughn would be, "Aren't we supposed to remember our shameful past and if we don't won't we be guilty of revisionism and sugar-coating?"
Now, I suspect that what Mr. Vaughn really meant to say was that the women dressed in Civil War-era garb might serve to glorify that time in Alabama's history. The only problem with this would be the hard fact that what those girls will be wearing is every bit the style that was in vogue at the time. White women from all walks of life wore some degree of long skirt with hoops on special occasions. Black women, of course, were stuck out in the fields and had no opportunity to don such finery.
So what is Mr. Vaughn's real problem? Is it that such clothing was available to white women and not to black? Is it that the style is reflective of the antebellum era, an era in which slavery was the norm across much of the Deep South? Or is it that we should not reference any aspect of the Civil War unless we do so disparagingly, ergo accomplished young women in period costume are just too pleasant to gaze upon?
He doesn't say, but I can guess.
Which brings me back to my ancestral baggage.
My slave-owning relatives. I worked through the self-loathing about 10 years ago, after taking careful time to mull photocopies of actual records on file at the courthouse in Selma, AL. The documents include the will of a distant uncle who bequeathed to his many children a considerable amount of property, including more than 40 human beings.
Slaves. Women, men, children. Entire families are listed along with livestock, jewelry, tools, and other personal possessions.
The day I unearthed the yellowed document and realized what those names signified, I began to shake uncontrollably and I started to cry. Down in the corner of the Dallas County courthouse, I wasn't noticed and so was able to express my horror in relative privacy.
The hardest part was figuring out what to do next. The uncle in question died before the war. So did his sons who inherited some of the slaves. There was absolutely no way to castigate them. Their graves were already a crumbling pile of stone, so nothing to deface. Besides, such a rebuke posthumously would have been a waste of time and energy and I would have likely been arrested for desecration of a grave.
The only thing I could do was to offer up to black genealogists in the area the information I'd obtained in the hope that it would help them find their own long lost kin. Slave genealogy is tricky since virtually no records of birth or death dates were kept and slaves were often buried in unmarked or poorly marked graves.
And that's where the story, for me, had to end.
So, how should I regard my ancestors? At what point would even the most ardent modern-day abolitionist tell me to let it go and move forward in my own relationships with people of all colors?
What am I supposed to remember? How deeply am I supposed to dwell on it? And what, after more than 140 years am I allowed to leave behind?
Interestingly enough, my little boy has much in common with some of the good folks over in Alabama who are still so torn over their state's history that they can't seem to decide exactly what should be remembered and what should be swept into the dustbin of the past.
As usual, I am compelled to fully disclose lest any reader think I'm spouting off high and mighty with nary a personal experience to bolster my remarks.
Some of my ancestors owned slaves.
More on this later, but now back to the reason for this 'blog post.
A group of Alabama high school seniors -- white and black -- known as the Azalea Trail Maids has been selected to walk in the inaugural parade of President-elect Obama. Alabama NAACP Chairman Edward Vaughn is having to apologize for saying the girls, who dress in traditional antebellum hoop skirts and wide-brimmed hats, are reminders of the era of slavery.
"These are not just regular costumes. These are the costumes that remind someone of the plantation in Gone with the Wind," Edward Vaughn said in a phone interview last week with a local television station. "We needed something that could show Alabama's great progress rather than something that shows a shameful past," Vaughn said at the time.
Sigh.
I'm gonna weigh in here and I'll do it without putting on my Scarlett O'Hara ballgown -- you know, the one she made from heavy velvet drapes because the Yankees had cut off access to real cloth.
Frankly, the NAACP chairman's remarks profoundly confuse me. We are taught from a young age about the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, and the whole notion of right versus wrong with respect to these issues. Every February as Black History Month rolls around we are all urged, nay, required to remember the past and encouraged to work towards solutions to the problem of racism that, in fact, continues to undermine far too many relationships and hinder too many lives.
My question to Chairman Vaughn would be, "Aren't we supposed to remember our shameful past and if we don't won't we be guilty of revisionism and sugar-coating?"
Now, I suspect that what Mr. Vaughn really meant to say was that the women dressed in Civil War-era garb might serve to glorify that time in Alabama's history. The only problem with this would be the hard fact that what those girls will be wearing is every bit the style that was in vogue at the time. White women from all walks of life wore some degree of long skirt with hoops on special occasions. Black women, of course, were stuck out in the fields and had no opportunity to don such finery.
So what is Mr. Vaughn's real problem? Is it that such clothing was available to white women and not to black? Is it that the style is reflective of the antebellum era, an era in which slavery was the norm across much of the Deep South? Or is it that we should not reference any aspect of the Civil War unless we do so disparagingly, ergo accomplished young women in period costume are just too pleasant to gaze upon?
He doesn't say, but I can guess.
Which brings me back to my ancestral baggage.
My slave-owning relatives. I worked through the self-loathing about 10 years ago, after taking careful time to mull photocopies of actual records on file at the courthouse in Selma, AL. The documents include the will of a distant uncle who bequeathed to his many children a considerable amount of property, including more than 40 human beings.
Slaves. Women, men, children. Entire families are listed along with livestock, jewelry, tools, and other personal possessions.
The day I unearthed the yellowed document and realized what those names signified, I began to shake uncontrollably and I started to cry. Down in the corner of the Dallas County courthouse, I wasn't noticed and so was able to express my horror in relative privacy.
The hardest part was figuring out what to do next. The uncle in question died before the war. So did his sons who inherited some of the slaves. There was absolutely no way to castigate them. Their graves were already a crumbling pile of stone, so nothing to deface. Besides, such a rebuke posthumously would have been a waste of time and energy and I would have likely been arrested for desecration of a grave.
The only thing I could do was to offer up to black genealogists in the area the information I'd obtained in the hope that it would help them find their own long lost kin. Slave genealogy is tricky since virtually no records of birth or death dates were kept and slaves were often buried in unmarked or poorly marked graves.
And that's where the story, for me, had to end.
So, how should I regard my ancestors? At what point would even the most ardent modern-day abolitionist tell me to let it go and move forward in my own relationships with people of all colors?
What am I supposed to remember? How deeply am I supposed to dwell on it? And what, after more than 140 years am I allowed to leave behind?
January 13, 2009
Poisoning our children one book at a time
And what do public schools that have the ridiculous party invitation policy have to say about this, I wonder? (If you're out of the loop on the invitation rules, scroll back about three 'blog entries.)
Rainbow parties.
They sound like fun, don't they? Visions of little kids dressed up in colorful costumes with bright decorations and songs about fairies, gnomes, woodland life and animals may come to mind.
Set that precious vision aside and prepare to be disgusted. I tell you the following not to dwell gleefully on the foulness that has entrenched itself in our culture but to warn you if you are out of the loop -- as I was until just recently.
It turns out that rainbow parties are, frankly, oral sex contests in which girls wear various colors of lipstick that leave traces on their male partners. The guy with the most complete rainbow is, what? The winner? The top dog? It's a tough call.
I wouldn't have known about this except that an online community chat group to which I belong featured a warning post from a mother of a 12 year old girl. Her daughter asked her what a "rainbow party" was and the woman, who apparently paid attention when this middle school/high school phenomenon first surfaced, knew the answer but had to struggle to come up with an age appropriate explanation.
Very awkward, wouldn't you say?
I googled the subject and was surprised to find that yet another trashy tome had escaped my radar about three years ago. "Rainbow Party" is geared towards a "young adult" audience (14 and up) and was published by Simon and Schuster's Children's Publishing (emphasis mine).
The book's cover features a set of brightly colored lipsticks and according to author Paul Ruditis explores the oral sex orgy concept in an effort to warn readers to stay away from it. Barnes and Noble.com carries a synopsis from Publisher's Weekly. See what you think:
Promiscuous sophomore Gin is throwing a "Rainbow Party," at which girls "put on a different color lipstick, and the guys all drop their pants." In theory, after the girls perform oral sex on the boys, they would be left with rainbows around their penises. The author takes the perspective of Gin and her invitees in the hours before her after-school party. They all have reasons for going (Sandy hopes to find love, virgin Brick is being pressured by his friend to gain sexual experience, and there are rumors that Perry is gay)-and their own anxieties, too. This debut novel takes a steamy premise, and adds in plenty of racy material, too, including oral sex between two boys in a school bathroom, but while the author makes a compelling argument against abstinence-only education and also against limited definitions of sex, readers may tire of the standard-issue characters. They may also start to cringe every time a character talks about oral sex not really being sex. There is some important information to be gleaned here (Gin and Perry have mysterious sore throats, and Hunter notices a "burning sensation" when he urinates; later they learn of a gonorrhea outbreak among the sophomore class), but in the end, the story here is not as compelling as its premise. Ages 14-up. (June) Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
Okay, so we'll titillate to discourage, is that it?
Right.
The book was so controversial that some stores elected to not carry it. Others did, but only because they fullly understood the maxim that "sex sells" and when it targets young people it sells even more.
It begs the question: Did the practice become so popular in the years after Bill Clinton's tacky affair made headlines that it spawned the book or did the book inspire young people everywhere to discard whatever common sense and moral compass they might have had?
Either way, some kid in my community is supposedly planning to host one of these parties.
Evil roams around looking to devour our children's hearts and minds. Lock your doors.
Rainbow parties.
They sound like fun, don't they? Visions of little kids dressed up in colorful costumes with bright decorations and songs about fairies, gnomes, woodland life and animals may come to mind.
Set that precious vision aside and prepare to be disgusted. I tell you the following not to dwell gleefully on the foulness that has entrenched itself in our culture but to warn you if you are out of the loop -- as I was until just recently.
It turns out that rainbow parties are, frankly, oral sex contests in which girls wear various colors of lipstick that leave traces on their male partners. The guy with the most complete rainbow is, what? The winner? The top dog? It's a tough call.
I wouldn't have known about this except that an online community chat group to which I belong featured a warning post from a mother of a 12 year old girl. Her daughter asked her what a "rainbow party" was and the woman, who apparently paid attention when this middle school/high school phenomenon first surfaced, knew the answer but had to struggle to come up with an age appropriate explanation.
Very awkward, wouldn't you say?
I googled the subject and was surprised to find that yet another trashy tome had escaped my radar about three years ago. "Rainbow Party" is geared towards a "young adult" audience (14 and up) and was published by Simon and Schuster's Children's Publishing (emphasis mine).
The book's cover features a set of brightly colored lipsticks and according to author Paul Ruditis explores the oral sex orgy concept in an effort to warn readers to stay away from it. Barnes and Noble.com carries a synopsis from Publisher's Weekly. See what you think:
Promiscuous sophomore Gin is throwing a "Rainbow Party," at which girls "put on a different color lipstick, and the guys all drop their pants." In theory, after the girls perform oral sex on the boys, they would be left with rainbows around their penises. The author takes the perspective of Gin and her invitees in the hours before her after-school party. They all have reasons for going (Sandy hopes to find love, virgin Brick is being pressured by his friend to gain sexual experience, and there are rumors that Perry is gay)-and their own anxieties, too. This debut novel takes a steamy premise, and adds in plenty of racy material, too, including oral sex between two boys in a school bathroom, but while the author makes a compelling argument against abstinence-only education and also against limited definitions of sex, readers may tire of the standard-issue characters. They may also start to cringe every time a character talks about oral sex not really being sex. There is some important information to be gleaned here (Gin and Perry have mysterious sore throats, and Hunter notices a "burning sensation" when he urinates; later they learn of a gonorrhea outbreak among the sophomore class), but in the end, the story here is not as compelling as its premise. Ages 14-up. (June) Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.
Okay, so we'll titillate to discourage, is that it?
Right.
The book was so controversial that some stores elected to not carry it. Others did, but only because they fullly understood the maxim that "sex sells" and when it targets young people it sells even more.
It begs the question: Did the practice become so popular in the years after Bill Clinton's tacky affair made headlines that it spawned the book or did the book inspire young people everywhere to discard whatever common sense and moral compass they might have had?
Either way, some kid in my community is supposedly planning to host one of these parties.
Evil roams around looking to devour our children's hearts and minds. Lock your doors.
Right was the only way
Here's an interesting thought I came across in an old book that belonged to my grandmother titled, "Lectures and Addresses on Christian Science" by Edward A. Kimball published in 1921. I thought it worthy of sharing:
"You have got to understand that when Christ Jesus overcame evil he overcame an abnormity that had no right to exist. If one were to contend for the opposite proposition he would be obliged to sustain the proposition that Jesus Christ came on earth to undo, to subvert, the divine rule and purpose. You cannot think of anything more grotesque, more tragic, or more farcical than to suppose that a wise God would institute the undoing of His own wisdom, the undoing of His own purpose and provision.
"What must I believe? I must believe that everything he (Jesus) did was in exquisite accord with (God's) law. I must believe that he understood the law governing the cause. I must understand that his was an object lesson for the instruction, for the guidance, for the redemption of this race, and now I come to declare the most important thing of all. It is this: When Christ Jesus reformed the sinner he did it in the only right way, and when he healed the sick, he did it in the only right way. Again, if we are to be stoned, here is the place to cast us down. We rest upon this abrupt, startling statement that Christ Jesus healed the sick in the only right way. He did it, and when he did it accordiing to the only right way all the people were healed of all manner of diseases spontaneously.
"Think of it. Think, Christian men and women. I ask you to consider what would happen if you could sustain the alternative. If Jesus did not do it in the only right way, then there is a better Saviour than Christ Jesus.
"We come to plead with men to learn that in Christ and his way and his teaching and his rules you have the possibilities of irresistible, competent, and adequate salvation from all your misery. . ."
Indeed.
"You have got to understand that when Christ Jesus overcame evil he overcame an abnormity that had no right to exist. If one were to contend for the opposite proposition he would be obliged to sustain the proposition that Jesus Christ came on earth to undo, to subvert, the divine rule and purpose. You cannot think of anything more grotesque, more tragic, or more farcical than to suppose that a wise God would institute the undoing of His own wisdom, the undoing of His own purpose and provision.
"What must I believe? I must believe that everything he (Jesus) did was in exquisite accord with (God's) law. I must believe that he understood the law governing the cause. I must understand that his was an object lesson for the instruction, for the guidance, for the redemption of this race, and now I come to declare the most important thing of all. It is this: When Christ Jesus reformed the sinner he did it in the only right way, and when he healed the sick, he did it in the only right way. Again, if we are to be stoned, here is the place to cast us down. We rest upon this abrupt, startling statement that Christ Jesus healed the sick in the only right way. He did it, and when he did it accordiing to the only right way all the people were healed of all manner of diseases spontaneously.
"Think of it. Think, Christian men and women. I ask you to consider what would happen if you could sustain the alternative. If Jesus did not do it in the only right way, then there is a better Saviour than Christ Jesus.
"We come to plead with men to learn that in Christ and his way and his teaching and his rules you have the possibilities of irresistible, competent, and adequate salvation from all your misery. . ."
Indeed.
January 8, 2009
Go back to the WHAT?????
Wow. We've hit an all-time low in the great tradition of American protest. An anti-Israel rally down in Fort Lauderdale in support of the Palestinians featured a woman with no discernible accent yelling at Jews in her community to "go steal other lands," and "go back to the ovens." "You need a big oven, that's what you need!"
How dark can a heart be?
In this case, I'm thinking one shade or two past pitch black.
How dark can a heart be?
In this case, I'm thinking one shade or two past pitch black.
Did all that coffee improve test scores????
The following is straight out of the Chicago Sun Times newspaper. I'd comment, but that would be piling on. Okay, one comment, just one. IS THIS REALLY WHAT PUBLIC EDUCATION HAS COME TO? REALLY?
AND NOW, FOR THE NEWS.
Staff reporter Art Golab writes:
Chicago public school bureaucrats skirted competitive bidding rules to buy 30 cappuccino/espresso machines for $67,000, with most of the machines going unused because the schools they were ordered for had not asked for them, according to a report by the CPS Office of Inspector General.
That was just one example of questionable CPS actions detailed in the inspector general's 2008 annual report. Others included high school staffers changing grades to pump up transcripts of student athletes and workers at a restricted-enrollment grade school falsifying addresses to get relatives admitted.
In the case of the cappuccino machines, central office administrators split the order among 21 vocational schools to avoid competitive bidding required for purchases over $10,000. As a result CPS paid about $12,000 too much, according to Inspector General James Sullivan. "We were able to find the same machines cheaper online," he said.
"We also look at it as a waste of money because the schools didn't even know they were getting the equipment, schools didn't know how to use the machines and weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum," Sullivan said.
CPS spokesman Michael Vaughn said CPS plans to change its purchasing policy so that competitive bidding kicks in when a vendor accumulates $10,000 worth of orders, no matter how many schools are involved. One person was fired and disciplinary action is pending against three others, he said.
The grade-changing took place at an unidentified high school, where student athletes grades were boosted, then, after transcripts were issued for college admission offices, the grades were changed back. The culprits could not be identified because passwords allowing entry to the grading system were shared by a number of people, Sullivan said. A new record system has tighter security, he said.
At Carson Elementary, an overcrowded school in Gage Park where even neighborhood kids were restricted from enrolling, five lower- level employees got six relatives into the school by falsifying addresses. Sixty-nine students from outside the attendance area got in, but they didn't even bother to lie about their addresses. CPS had to spend as much as $252,000 to bus kids who live in the neighborhood to other schools, Sullivan said.
Vaughn said the employees involved have resigned, been fired or will be fired.
Public education. It's all about the children. . .
AND NOW, FOR THE NEWS.
Staff reporter Art Golab writes:
Chicago public school bureaucrats skirted competitive bidding rules to buy 30 cappuccino/espresso machines for $67,000, with most of the machines going unused because the schools they were ordered for had not asked for them, according to a report by the CPS Office of Inspector General.
That was just one example of questionable CPS actions detailed in the inspector general's 2008 annual report. Others included high school staffers changing grades to pump up transcripts of student athletes and workers at a restricted-enrollment grade school falsifying addresses to get relatives admitted.
In the case of the cappuccino machines, central office administrators split the order among 21 vocational schools to avoid competitive bidding required for purchases over $10,000. As a result CPS paid about $12,000 too much, according to Inspector General James Sullivan. "We were able to find the same machines cheaper online," he said.
"We also look at it as a waste of money because the schools didn't even know they were getting the equipment, schools didn't know how to use the machines and weren't prepared to implement them into the curriculum," Sullivan said.
CPS spokesman Michael Vaughn said CPS plans to change its purchasing policy so that competitive bidding kicks in when a vendor accumulates $10,000 worth of orders, no matter how many schools are involved. One person was fired and disciplinary action is pending against three others, he said.
The grade-changing took place at an unidentified high school, where student athletes grades were boosted, then, after transcripts were issued for college admission offices, the grades were changed back. The culprits could not be identified because passwords allowing entry to the grading system were shared by a number of people, Sullivan said. A new record system has tighter security, he said.
At Carson Elementary, an overcrowded school in Gage Park where even neighborhood kids were restricted from enrolling, five lower- level employees got six relatives into the school by falsifying addresses. Sixty-nine students from outside the attendance area got in, but they didn't even bother to lie about their addresses. CPS had to spend as much as $252,000 to bus kids who live in the neighborhood to other schools, Sullivan said.
Vaughn said the employees involved have resigned, been fired or will be fired.
Public education. It's all about the children. . .
January 5, 2009
Are they glad we're gone?
A project known as Exodus Mandate has, for several years, been actively and openly encouraging Christians to pull their children from public schools to either homeschool them or to enroll them in faith-based private schools.
EM's reasoning is that public schools are so hostile to anything related to Christianity that they undermine whatever religious training takes place in the home, perhaps to the point of turning children away from their family's faith altogether.
To this end, EM has recently begun advancing its agenda through a documentary and accompanying PR campaign titled "Call to Dunkirk," referring to the famously heroic episode during WWII when several hundred thousand British and Allied troops were rescued from the beaches of Dunkirk as they faced being mowed down by the Nazi war machine. Civilians rounded up boats of every sort and voluntarily ferried the troops to safety.
The goal of EM is to have all Christians "rescue" their children from the government schools.
I've been reading reader comments on this topic posted to various U.S. newspaper sites. Some of the writers seem to understand and sympathize with the frustrations so many Christians feel towards school districts that will not allow traditional Christmas symbols, music, or even the use of the word Christmas, but do seem to promote other ideologies through their choices of reading material, classroom projects, or, for example, the removal of posters such as the "In God We Trust" motto that's found on all U.S. currency.
But the vast majority of the newspaper readers who bother to comment on the Exodus Mandate article are quite gleeful in their parting shots. "Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out, " one reader remarked. And another wrote, "Whoo hoo! Just leaves more room for teachers to teach real science while the Christians go off to study creationism."
It would seem, dear readers, that many in the public schools WANT us to go away. The only hitch is, they probably don't want us to take our property tax money when we leave.
Pesky financial matters aside, the question remains. Should Christians remove their children from the secular schools? If the schools cannot accomodate us, and the secular among us want us gone anyway, perhaps Exodus Mandate has tapped into a legitimate dynamic after all.
What do you think?
EM's reasoning is that public schools are so hostile to anything related to Christianity that they undermine whatever religious training takes place in the home, perhaps to the point of turning children away from their family's faith altogether.
To this end, EM has recently begun advancing its agenda through a documentary and accompanying PR campaign titled "Call to Dunkirk," referring to the famously heroic episode during WWII when several hundred thousand British and Allied troops were rescued from the beaches of Dunkirk as they faced being mowed down by the Nazi war machine. Civilians rounded up boats of every sort and voluntarily ferried the troops to safety.
The goal of EM is to have all Christians "rescue" their children from the government schools.
I've been reading reader comments on this topic posted to various U.S. newspaper sites. Some of the writers seem to understand and sympathize with the frustrations so many Christians feel towards school districts that will not allow traditional Christmas symbols, music, or even the use of the word Christmas, but do seem to promote other ideologies through their choices of reading material, classroom projects, or, for example, the removal of posters such as the "In God We Trust" motto that's found on all U.S. currency.
But the vast majority of the newspaper readers who bother to comment on the Exodus Mandate article are quite gleeful in their parting shots. "Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out, " one reader remarked. And another wrote, "Whoo hoo! Just leaves more room for teachers to teach real science while the Christians go off to study creationism."
It would seem, dear readers, that many in the public schools WANT us to go away. The only hitch is, they probably don't want us to take our property tax money when we leave.
Pesky financial matters aside, the question remains. Should Christians remove their children from the secular schools? If the schools cannot accomodate us, and the secular among us want us gone anyway, perhaps Exodus Mandate has tapped into a legitimate dynamic after all.
What do you think?
January 2, 2009
They call THIS socialization?
Veteran homeschoolers roll their eyes when they hear it. Newbies fidget and frantically search for facts to justify the decision to teach their own.
People like me, somewhere between veteran and first-timer, just laugh. Sometimes we even do this out loud.
"Socialization."
As in, "How can your kids be properly socialized if they're with you all day intead of among hundreds of other kids just like them?"
The old adage about the blind leading the blind is surfacing here, but I digress.
It would help a lot if critics of homeschooling would at least use the skills they obtained in public school to look up the word in a dictionary -- assuming the schools have time to actually teach dictionary skills what with all the other claptrap they are mandated to provide.
But we'll leave that for another 'blog (and likely another, and another, and another after that).
What I want to explore this night is a policy apparently well-known to my contemporaries who have children in public school. It addresses the distribution of birthday party invitations.
Now, you wouldn't think the schools would have time to micromanage something as mundane as birthday party invitations but not only do they do it, they have official policies in place to make sure the invites are handled correctly.
It goes something like this: If your child wants to have a birthday party and invite his or her closest friends from class, he or she can do one of three things -- invite all girls only, invite all boys only, or (my personal favorite) invite every single kid in the class.
This is to keep those who didn't get invited from having their feelings hurt and then having to listen to those who did get invited talk about what a fabulous time they had at Build A Bear or Chuck E. Cheese.
In short, this policy teaches kids that you always win, you're always included, you're always wanted. It also teaches them that you must always include everyone, even the jerk who steals your new pencils, breaks your new crayons for fun, or bullies you on the playground.
It lies.
The way the REAL world works -- you know, the world we homeschoolers supposedly don't prepare our kids to handle once they're on their own -- is much different.
Your co-worker may get a promotion and you don't.
The guy who just passed you going 90 mph down the freeway escapes the cop's radar while you, trudging along at an equally illegal but slower 75 mph, get a speeding ticket.
Some women may marry millionaires, others will marry solid blue-collar types.
Some men will marry beauty queens who stay that way nearly forever. Others, like my husband, will marry the more plain but no less loyal and loving gal.
A guy steals your horse, you can run him down and turn him over to the sheriff. You don't have to invite him to Sunday dinner. Ever.
In short, life is NOT fair. It is NOT equal, and it DOES come with hurt feelings from time to time. You also have the option as an adult to spend time with kindred spirits and let the rest of the people in your sphere who are differently minded than you do their own thing.
My homeschooled children understand this. They know they are not invited to every party, every playdate, not even every private family affair. They're okay with this because we've taken the time to teach them there are alternatives to just about anything going on that doesn't involve them and that because they ARE involved in enough things missing out occasionally will not cause them to stop breathing.
Not invited to so-and-so's party? Hey, let's sit down and plan our next get-together with friends. Not asked to a playdate even though you know your other friends were invited? No big deal, you'll get an invite next time or maybe we could ask them all to come over here! Little brother took your doll carriage? Go get it back and play without him until he can settle down and be nice.
Public school doesn't socialize its children. It sets up fake, insincere scenarios in which everyone must pretend to get along or risk punishment.
I maintain that children who never learn to face and handle disappointments grow up to be adults who lack resilience, confidence, and the ability to cultivate a sense of self worth independent of what other people think or do.
It's the job of parents to prepare their children for independent living. It's the job of schools to give them the necessary academic tools to enhance this.
How did the wires get so badly crossed?
People like me, somewhere between veteran and first-timer, just laugh. Sometimes we even do this out loud.
"Socialization."
As in, "How can your kids be properly socialized if they're with you all day intead of among hundreds of other kids just like them?"
The old adage about the blind leading the blind is surfacing here, but I digress.
It would help a lot if critics of homeschooling would at least use the skills they obtained in public school to look up the word in a dictionary -- assuming the schools have time to actually teach dictionary skills what with all the other claptrap they are mandated to provide.
But we'll leave that for another 'blog (and likely another, and another, and another after that).
What I want to explore this night is a policy apparently well-known to my contemporaries who have children in public school. It addresses the distribution of birthday party invitations.
Now, you wouldn't think the schools would have time to micromanage something as mundane as birthday party invitations but not only do they do it, they have official policies in place to make sure the invites are handled correctly.
It goes something like this: If your child wants to have a birthday party and invite his or her closest friends from class, he or she can do one of three things -- invite all girls only, invite all boys only, or (my personal favorite) invite every single kid in the class.
This is to keep those who didn't get invited from having their feelings hurt and then having to listen to those who did get invited talk about what a fabulous time they had at Build A Bear or Chuck E. Cheese.
In short, this policy teaches kids that you always win, you're always included, you're always wanted. It also teaches them that you must always include everyone, even the jerk who steals your new pencils, breaks your new crayons for fun, or bullies you on the playground.
It lies.
The way the REAL world works -- you know, the world we homeschoolers supposedly don't prepare our kids to handle once they're on their own -- is much different.
Your co-worker may get a promotion and you don't.
The guy who just passed you going 90 mph down the freeway escapes the cop's radar while you, trudging along at an equally illegal but slower 75 mph, get a speeding ticket.
Some women may marry millionaires, others will marry solid blue-collar types.
Some men will marry beauty queens who stay that way nearly forever. Others, like my husband, will marry the more plain but no less loyal and loving gal.
A guy steals your horse, you can run him down and turn him over to the sheriff. You don't have to invite him to Sunday dinner. Ever.
In short, life is NOT fair. It is NOT equal, and it DOES come with hurt feelings from time to time. You also have the option as an adult to spend time with kindred spirits and let the rest of the people in your sphere who are differently minded than you do their own thing.
My homeschooled children understand this. They know they are not invited to every party, every playdate, not even every private family affair. They're okay with this because we've taken the time to teach them there are alternatives to just about anything going on that doesn't involve them and that because they ARE involved in enough things missing out occasionally will not cause them to stop breathing.
Not invited to so-and-so's party? Hey, let's sit down and plan our next get-together with friends. Not asked to a playdate even though you know your other friends were invited? No big deal, you'll get an invite next time or maybe we could ask them all to come over here! Little brother took your doll carriage? Go get it back and play without him until he can settle down and be nice.
Public school doesn't socialize its children. It sets up fake, insincere scenarios in which everyone must pretend to get along or risk punishment.
I maintain that children who never learn to face and handle disappointments grow up to be adults who lack resilience, confidence, and the ability to cultivate a sense of self worth independent of what other people think or do.
It's the job of parents to prepare their children for independent living. It's the job of schools to give them the necessary academic tools to enhance this.
How did the wires get so badly crossed?
Did Focus on the Family make a mistake?
Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization has yanked from its website an interview with radio/TV personality Glenn Beck about Beck's new bestseller, "The Christmas Sweater" because Beck is a satan-worshipper.
(pause)
Actually, Beck is a Mormon, but to some folks in the Christian evangelical movement he might as well kneel at the alter of the prince of darkness because they firmly believe Mormonism is a cult with nothing good to show for it.
The FOTF interview drew the ire from several evangelicals who accused Dobson of compromising true Christian doctrine for the sake of political correctness. In other words, if the featured guest doesn't match the specific theological criteria adhered to by FOTF, said guest should be booted.
Mormons aren't Christians, according to FOTF's critics, ergo Glenn Beck had no business discussing his book (which, by the way, features the very Christian themes of hope, redemption, and love) on the FOTF site.
I am not a Mormon, nor do I play one on TV. No one in my family belongs to the LDS church.
I have had the privilege, however, of being associated with several Mormons over the course of my adult life and, theological differences aside, found them to be incredibly lovely and caring people with a commitment to their families and community at large that's tough to beat.
While a handful of shrill evangelicals tarnishes the very heart and soul of Christian doctrine with their pronouncements about who will or won't enter The Kingdom (I know what the Bible says, so don't throw Scripture at me, please. It also says God has the final say, does it not?) the Mormons I have known go about their business of raising children, serving on their local school boards and volunteering in a whole host of other ways.
I used to write for a newspaper in a little town south of Houston where the Mormon community there regularly opened its church facilities to a variety of civic functions. They provided a place for the Boy Scouts to meet and hosted several publilc affairs events. Their members served in various public capacities and never failed to graciously grant me interviews when I needed them.
The town, settled by Quakers, boasted an incredible diversity of religions including the aforementioned LDS church, a Catholic church, a Lutheran church, a Friends (Quaker) church, and several others. Everyone knew everyone else, the churches and their leaders regularly cooperated on civic projects, and in general it was a nice, balanced place to live (and, for me, to work).
No one ever quizzed me about my religious leanings, nor was I ever approached about "converting."
The midwife who delivered three of my children and who is an honorary member of our family for life is also a Mormon.
Her love, compassion and dedication to us and to our children long ago surpassed her professional obligations, and it hurts me personally anytime her religion is condemned. I know her well, I know her as an intelligent, giving, thoughtful, amazing, eminently capable person and her acceptance of God and her relationship with Him are evident in the way she conducts her life and relationships with others. She has embraced each of my last three children, the first hands to hold them were hers, and she has never failed to remember them at holidays or on other special occasions. She has delivered babies for the rich, the poor, the unmarried and married, those of the Christian faith, Muslim faith, no faith, white folks, black folks, brown folks, and always with the same gracious and godly approach. She prays for wisdom as she attends each birth and the outcomes reflect this. She has never condemned me for being fat.
If that's what being a Mormon is all about, then I guess I wish more folks follow suit!
See, we have to decide whether how a person worships is more important than what they worship. I am a Protestant, so there are aspects of a Catholic worship service that don't resonate with me. But at the end of the day, it's the same God, the same Christ, the same set of commandments, the same Gospel. I'm comfortable enough to stand on our common ground, and see no need to lambaste them for being different.
Likewise, Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, but we share those same commandments, the same psalms, the same wise proverbs, and the same belief in one God vs. the many.
Mormons have their own denominational book and their own take on the nature of Christ. They have ceremonies and traditions that are not familiar to mainstream Christians, and the history of their faith is routinely called into question.
Come to think of it, on that last point they have everything in common with mainstream Christians! Have you seen the many books written these past 10 years that attempt to debunk the very existence of Jesus?
But to say they are not Christians is, well, just not for me to say. It boils down to fingerpointing, with the LDS side asserting its Christianity and the anti-LDS side denying it.
It's an argument that seems impossible to resolve unless you start to think like me or I start to think like you, and that is the sort of argument that tends to waste people's time and accomplishes little.
Look, don't take my word for it. Even I don't take my word for it. Instead, I went to the source itself, a website created to answer the types of questions non-Mormons seem to need answered. I've probably violated someone's copyright so I beg forgiveness in advance. Below is a bit of my research. Accept what is acceptable and in agreement with your understanding of Christianity and reject what is not. The first italicized paragraph is an exposition on the LDS Church's First Article of Faith. The rest of the articles follow:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”
Mormon doctrine teaches about God, the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Christianity often calls these three the Holy Trinity. Mormonism favors the term Godhead instead of Trinity, in order to distinguish its belief in the nature of God.
Mormon doctrine claims that the Godhead is three separate individuals. God, the Father, is literally the spiritual Father of all mankind. He has a glorified body of flesh and bone. Mormons believe what is written in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his [own] image,” is also literal. If God were to reveal Himself today, He would appear as a man, for man is created after His image. Although the image is the same, His body is not a mortal body, but a perfect, immortal body. As our Father, God shares passions and personality common to men. He loves us as a father would love his children. He rejoices in our righteousness and sorrows for our sins. God is all powerful, and all knowing, benevolent, and just. He is perfect, and His desire is for us to become like Him.
Jesus Christ is the firstborn spirit of God, according to Mormon doctrine. Because we are all spirit children of God, this makes Him our elder brother. Jesus was chosen before the world was created to be the Savior of all mankind. Under the direction of His Father, He created the earth and became Lord over all things. He ruled as Jehovah of the Old Testament and came to earth as Jesus of Nazareth. He had a mortal mother, Mary, but His Father was God. With this sacred parentage He was able to make Atonement for the sins of the world, being sacrificed for all our sakes when he was crucified. After three days He was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, possessing an immortal, glorified body like God the Father. Mormon doctrine says that Jesus Christ will be our mediator at the judgment bar of God. Because He has suffered all things, He will know how to judge us mercifully. Our sins are forgiven through obedience to Jesus Christ.
The Holy Ghost is a distinct personage in the Godhead, according to Mormon belief, but does not have a physical body as do God and Jesus. He is a personage of spirit and thus His influence can be everywhere at once. It is through the Holy Ghost that the power of God is wrought. The Holy Ghost is the revealer of truth. No one can know of God or Jesus Christ except by the power of the Holy Ghost. He is the Comforter that Jesus spoke of in John 14:26, “But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” Because of the Holy Ghost, the power and influence of God can always be with us. The Mormon (LDS) Church teaches that the gift of the Holy Ghost may only be given by priesthood authority.
Articles of Faith
1st We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2nd We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3rd We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4th We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5th We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6th We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7th We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8th We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9th We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10th We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11th We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12th We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13th We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
I like James Dobson. His book on raising boys has saved my sanity on more than one occasion and I've appreciated his willingness to stand up for traditional marriage and educational alternatives such as homeschooling.
But I'm disappointed in him this time around. In a world where so much divisivenes is already in play -- think of the incredibleand often horrible gulf between Islam and Christianity or Islam and Judaism, for example -- I'm sorry FOTF caved in to pressure from the holier-than-thou crowd.
(pause)
Actually, Beck is a Mormon, but to some folks in the Christian evangelical movement he might as well kneel at the alter of the prince of darkness because they firmly believe Mormonism is a cult with nothing good to show for it.
The FOTF interview drew the ire from several evangelicals who accused Dobson of compromising true Christian doctrine for the sake of political correctness. In other words, if the featured guest doesn't match the specific theological criteria adhered to by FOTF, said guest should be booted.
Mormons aren't Christians, according to FOTF's critics, ergo Glenn Beck had no business discussing his book (which, by the way, features the very Christian themes of hope, redemption, and love) on the FOTF site.
I am not a Mormon, nor do I play one on TV. No one in my family belongs to the LDS church.
I have had the privilege, however, of being associated with several Mormons over the course of my adult life and, theological differences aside, found them to be incredibly lovely and caring people with a commitment to their families and community at large that's tough to beat.
While a handful of shrill evangelicals tarnishes the very heart and soul of Christian doctrine with their pronouncements about who will or won't enter The Kingdom (I know what the Bible says, so don't throw Scripture at me, please. It also says God has the final say, does it not?) the Mormons I have known go about their business of raising children, serving on their local school boards and volunteering in a whole host of other ways.
I used to write for a newspaper in a little town south of Houston where the Mormon community there regularly opened its church facilities to a variety of civic functions. They provided a place for the Boy Scouts to meet and hosted several publilc affairs events. Their members served in various public capacities and never failed to graciously grant me interviews when I needed them.
The town, settled by Quakers, boasted an incredible diversity of religions including the aforementioned LDS church, a Catholic church, a Lutheran church, a Friends (Quaker) church, and several others. Everyone knew everyone else, the churches and their leaders regularly cooperated on civic projects, and in general it was a nice, balanced place to live (and, for me, to work).
No one ever quizzed me about my religious leanings, nor was I ever approached about "converting."
The midwife who delivered three of my children and who is an honorary member of our family for life is also a Mormon.
Her love, compassion and dedication to us and to our children long ago surpassed her professional obligations, and it hurts me personally anytime her religion is condemned. I know her well, I know her as an intelligent, giving, thoughtful, amazing, eminently capable person and her acceptance of God and her relationship with Him are evident in the way she conducts her life and relationships with others. She has embraced each of my last three children, the first hands to hold them were hers, and she has never failed to remember them at holidays or on other special occasions. She has delivered babies for the rich, the poor, the unmarried and married, those of the Christian faith, Muslim faith, no faith, white folks, black folks, brown folks, and always with the same gracious and godly approach. She prays for wisdom as she attends each birth and the outcomes reflect this. She has never condemned me for being fat.
If that's what being a Mormon is all about, then I guess I wish more folks follow suit!
See, we have to decide whether how a person worships is more important than what they worship. I am a Protestant, so there are aspects of a Catholic worship service that don't resonate with me. But at the end of the day, it's the same God, the same Christ, the same set of commandments, the same Gospel. I'm comfortable enough to stand on our common ground, and see no need to lambaste them for being different.
Likewise, Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, but we share those same commandments, the same psalms, the same wise proverbs, and the same belief in one God vs. the many.
Mormons have their own denominational book and their own take on the nature of Christ. They have ceremonies and traditions that are not familiar to mainstream Christians, and the history of their faith is routinely called into question.
Come to think of it, on that last point they have everything in common with mainstream Christians! Have you seen the many books written these past 10 years that attempt to debunk the very existence of Jesus?
But to say they are not Christians is, well, just not for me to say. It boils down to fingerpointing, with the LDS side asserting its Christianity and the anti-LDS side denying it.
It's an argument that seems impossible to resolve unless you start to think like me or I start to think like you, and that is the sort of argument that tends to waste people's time and accomplishes little.
Look, don't take my word for it. Even I don't take my word for it. Instead, I went to the source itself, a website created to answer the types of questions non-Mormons seem to need answered. I've probably violated someone's copyright so I beg forgiveness in advance. Below is a bit of my research. Accept what is acceptable and in agreement with your understanding of Christianity and reject what is not. The first italicized paragraph is an exposition on the LDS Church's First Article of Faith. The rest of the articles follow:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”
Mormon doctrine teaches about God, the Father, Jesus Christ, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Christianity often calls these three the Holy Trinity. Mormonism favors the term Godhead instead of Trinity, in order to distinguish its belief in the nature of God.
Mormon doctrine claims that the Godhead is three separate individuals. God, the Father, is literally the spiritual Father of all mankind. He has a glorified body of flesh and bone. Mormons believe what is written in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his [own] image,” is also literal. If God were to reveal Himself today, He would appear as a man, for man is created after His image. Although the image is the same, His body is not a mortal body, but a perfect, immortal body. As our Father, God shares passions and personality common to men. He loves us as a father would love his children. He rejoices in our righteousness and sorrows for our sins. God is all powerful, and all knowing, benevolent, and just. He is perfect, and His desire is for us to become like Him.
Jesus Christ is the firstborn spirit of God, according to Mormon doctrine. Because we are all spirit children of God, this makes Him our elder brother. Jesus was chosen before the world was created to be the Savior of all mankind. Under the direction of His Father, He created the earth and became Lord over all things. He ruled as Jehovah of the Old Testament and came to earth as Jesus of Nazareth. He had a mortal mother, Mary, but His Father was God. With this sacred parentage He was able to make Atonement for the sins of the world, being sacrificed for all our sakes when he was crucified. After three days He was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, possessing an immortal, glorified body like God the Father. Mormon doctrine says that Jesus Christ will be our mediator at the judgment bar of God. Because He has suffered all things, He will know how to judge us mercifully. Our sins are forgiven through obedience to Jesus Christ.
The Holy Ghost is a distinct personage in the Godhead, according to Mormon belief, but does not have a physical body as do God and Jesus. He is a personage of spirit and thus His influence can be everywhere at once. It is through the Holy Ghost that the power of God is wrought. The Holy Ghost is the revealer of truth. No one can know of God or Jesus Christ except by the power of the Holy Ghost. He is the Comforter that Jesus spoke of in John 14:26, “But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” Because of the Holy Ghost, the power and influence of God can always be with us. The Mormon (LDS) Church teaches that the gift of the Holy Ghost may only be given by priesthood authority.
Articles of Faith
1st We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2nd We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3rd We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4th We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5th We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6th We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7th We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8th We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9th We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10th We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
11th We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12th We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13th We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
I like James Dobson. His book on raising boys has saved my sanity on more than one occasion and I've appreciated his willingness to stand up for traditional marriage and educational alternatives such as homeschooling.
But I'm disappointed in him this time around. In a world where so much divisivenes is already in play -- think of the incredibleand often horrible gulf between Islam and Christianity or Islam and Judaism, for example -- I'm sorry FOTF caved in to pressure from the holier-than-thou crowd.
January 1, 2009
Breastfeeding and Facebook
Some of you may have heard about the recent controversy involving the online social site Facebook and its refusal to post photos of members breastfeeding their babies. The reason given has to do with the site's overall policy on nudity. Apparently, some women who nurse their babies have a need to not only let it all hang out when they do, but to broadcast it to those who visit their Facebook page.
Who ARE these women, and why are they spending so much energy protesting something that is, in my opinion, a non-issue.
Full disclosure (no pun intended): I am currently breastfeeding my fourth child who is now 16 mos. old. My other three nursed to the ripe old ages of 22 mos., 2 years, and 2 years 3 mos, respectively.
Do the math. That's a whole lotta nursing and not once have I felt compelled to stay home to do it. I've nursed in church, in the tax appraiser's office, the dentist's office, the library, a wedding, a funeral home, a funeral service, numerous restaurants, parks, homeschool association meetings and field trips, an amusement park, grocery stores, malls, and once in front of a fireworks stand on a road through East Texas.
I have never exposed myself in public. That's right, no nipple, no areola, no cleavage, no nothing. And I did all this without those fancy so-called nursing tops with slits or flaps or whatever other folderol supposedly designed to keep mom discreet and baby happy. And for the record, I'm not what you'd call minimally endowed, so exposure prevention has been more of a challenge for me than it might be otherwise.
So why, I ask, do some women have a need to shout to the world, "Hey, look at me, I'm nursing a baby!" And who are the woman who offend others by exposing their breasts in the process?
Just get on with it, ladies. If it's truly no big deal (and it truly is NO big deal) and if it's supremely natural (and it IS supremely natural), and if it's merely exercising the purpose for which breasts were made (yep, that, too) then why are these Facebook mothers making such a fuss about it? Why do they even want their nursing photos online?
Seems to me that things that are no big deal don't deserve the sort of publicity that this is receiving. Regular everyday events like putting gas in the car, going to the bathroom, brushing our teeth, doing laundry, shaving our legs, and whatnot are really quite unremarkable events.
If we want to normalize breastfeeding in our upside-down and backwards culture that still sees women's breasts as nothing but sexual objects then the first step would be to simply nurse our babies in peace and quiet, confidently, regularly and discreetly but with no sense of shame, and leave the time and energy for protesting to things that oughta be protested.
Some people will do anything to pick a fight and the moms of Facebook with their demand to be seen nursing their babies are a case in point.
Who ARE these women, and why are they spending so much energy protesting something that is, in my opinion, a non-issue.
Full disclosure (no pun intended): I am currently breastfeeding my fourth child who is now 16 mos. old. My other three nursed to the ripe old ages of 22 mos., 2 years, and 2 years 3 mos, respectively.
Do the math. That's a whole lotta nursing and not once have I felt compelled to stay home to do it. I've nursed in church, in the tax appraiser's office, the dentist's office, the library, a wedding, a funeral home, a funeral service, numerous restaurants, parks, homeschool association meetings and field trips, an amusement park, grocery stores, malls, and once in front of a fireworks stand on a road through East Texas.
I have never exposed myself in public. That's right, no nipple, no areola, no cleavage, no nothing. And I did all this without those fancy so-called nursing tops with slits or flaps or whatever other folderol supposedly designed to keep mom discreet and baby happy. And for the record, I'm not what you'd call minimally endowed, so exposure prevention has been more of a challenge for me than it might be otherwise.
So why, I ask, do some women have a need to shout to the world, "Hey, look at me, I'm nursing a baby!" And who are the woman who offend others by exposing their breasts in the process?
Just get on with it, ladies. If it's truly no big deal (and it truly is NO big deal) and if it's supremely natural (and it IS supremely natural), and if it's merely exercising the purpose for which breasts were made (yep, that, too) then why are these Facebook mothers making such a fuss about it? Why do they even want their nursing photos online?
Seems to me that things that are no big deal don't deserve the sort of publicity that this is receiving. Regular everyday events like putting gas in the car, going to the bathroom, brushing our teeth, doing laundry, shaving our legs, and whatnot are really quite unremarkable events.
If we want to normalize breastfeeding in our upside-down and backwards culture that still sees women's breasts as nothing but sexual objects then the first step would be to simply nurse our babies in peace and quiet, confidently, regularly and discreetly but with no sense of shame, and leave the time and energy for protesting to things that oughta be protested.
Some people will do anything to pick a fight and the moms of Facebook with their demand to be seen nursing their babies are a case in point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)