Coercive Indoctrination or Sex Education?

The controversial books "King & King" & "Who's in a family" were on the hot-seat in Lexington, MA yesterday, as two sets of parents filed suit in US District Court in Boston against the principal, the superintendent, and other school officials.

The lawsuit stems from the two controversial books being taught to a couple of school-aged children. The Wirthlin's second grade son and David Parker's kindergarten aged son were read the stories during class time without any parental notification given to the parents regarding the material that focuses on sexual orientations and different types of families including those that are headed by same-sex "parents".

''I think it's right to have books and materials that reflect the children in our school," Lexington Principal Joni Jay said in an interview earlier this week. ''We're not talking about sex here. We are talking about families."

Let's back up for just one second here. So books about same-sex "weddings" and same-sex families are being read to second grade and kindergarten aged children? Why are weddings and different types of families being taught to this age group? Never mind the sexual orientations of the characters in the stories, Lexington schools are talking about ADULT themes to young children. I don't remember being taught about weddings or about families until I was at least in middle school sitting in a sociology class.

Why is it that we are all of a sudden teaching about sexual orientations to children? Does it really have to do with teaching them about diversity and tolerance or does it have to do with a Los Angeles PR firms recommended agenda of “equality” in which is the case with the homosexual community’s fight for equal rights?

Why do children need to be coercively indoctrinated about homosexuality? When a topic, such as sexual orientations or even a math equation, is TAUGHT in schools impressionable CHILDREN are going to think that the lesson is useful knowledge and something they should believe in or possibly experiment with and use in their daily lives. I can see how an arithmetic lesson could be useful in life but why would we want our young children to experiment with different types of sexual orientations? I have presented a similar question on a previous post of mine and have not received an honest and irrefutable answer.

"Students begin drawing pictures and writing stories about their families in kindergarten, and at some point a child will sit next to a classmate who has two mothers, and that's going to prompt questions" Jay said.

It is also going to prompt states of confusion. Shouldn’t the schools that have students with same-sex parents be telling those students who have 'questions' about someone that they should ask their parents about their concerns? Why is it that schools are answering questions regarding the sacred institution of marriage and the issues of sexual orientations? When did the schools start being the primary ‘parents’ to our children? Do not give me the argument that many parents are not going to talk about these issues at home. How can they, everything is being done in the schools without the parents knowing about it.

Abstinence Issue Follow Up

On April 20th, the Department of Public Health (DPH) awarded a 16-month contract “to provide high quality, medically accurate, developmentally age-appropriate, research-based abstinence education to 12-14 year old youth in public and private schools”. The competitively bid program is federally funded (Title V) and is restricted to only abstinence programs.

Planned Parenthood and its legislative allies oppose the DPH middle school program and filed amendment #219 to the House Budget that would prohibit the in-classroom abstinence program. They would prefer programs that teach Middle School children how to become proficient in condom use.

The House debate/vote on this amendment took place this afternoon (4/26/06).

• The DPH abstinence program that Planned Parenthood wants to stop is targeted to 12 -14 year olds.

• The DPH abstinence program is NOT a stand alone sexuality program but rather abstinence too ... a program that is offered in conjunction with larger sex ed programs. National Polling results indicate that 93% of teens themselves stated that they wanted to be given a "strong message" to abstain from sex and 96% of parents agree that abstinence is best for teens.

I will keep you updated on the results of the debate/vote that took place today.

Know Thy One Way Street.org

The Cape Cod Times, as reported on Know Thy Neighbor.org, has reported that a petition signer of the Protection of Marriage Amendment will not be reappointed to the board of fire engineers because of his assumed beliefs which were conjured up by a selectman from the small Cape Cod town of Truro.

The story is a one hit wonder on Know Thy Neighbors website. Tom Lang, Director of the site, does not see eye to eye when it comes to giving the opponent the same rights that they are steadfastly advocating for.

"It does not change my stance on this particular issue. To most of the people who signed the petition, it WAS about gay marriage. They didn’t necessarily think about the broader ramifications. And even if he did, it is still wrong to persecute a man on the grounds that he is wrong to persecute us. I find that attitude revolting."

Leo Childs, a candidate for reappointment to the board of fire engineers, was turned down the position because Selectman Paul Asher-Best assumed that since Mr. Childs holds a bias against the gay community as a result of signing the petition he was not the best candidate for the job.

''There are a lot of households in Truro headed by gay and lesbian people, and I just need to make sure that they're going to have equal protection and not have people who are biased against them in charge of public safety situations."

Although the other selectman appointed new members to the board based on the belief that they wanted to have "new blood" serving for the town of Truro, Mr. Best and his assumptions of Mr. Childs intentions when signing the petition seemed to motivate his decision more than the candidates resume.

O.K., so Mr. Best did not want a petition signer to be reappointed to the board of fire engineers because he ass-u..&..me..d Mr. Childs was against gays. Couldn’t of Mr. Childs signed the petition because he DID support same-sex "marriage" and he wanted the Commonwealth to democratically vote on this issue to potentially put it in the law books? Why do people have to sign the petition and be non-supporters of same-sex "marriage"? I had a handful of people who supported same-sex "marriage" sign the petition this past Fall. Their intention was to finally have a say in what becomes law, not exploit those who participate in democracy as Know Thy Neighbor and MassEquality have done.

Know Thy Neighbor has been described as the following:

'' It discourages actions by anyone to harm a person ''for exercising their democratic right to sign the petition.''

Really? Is that why Know Thy Neighbor and MassEquality had harassed many (look for January 26th press release) who had signed the petition by calling up their place of residence and intimidating people? The whole idea that 'everyone has a right' is not balancing out with the actions these organizations have taken. I think organizations like these are named after streets...ONE WAY!!

Please do not hesitate to leave your comments on the Know Thy Neighbor website at the bottom of the Cape Cod article.

Hate Speech or First Amendment Right?

Tyler Chase Harper was given a one-day, in-school suspension for refusing to take off a T-shirt that stated his religious beliefs about homosexuality.

Mr. Harper, a 16-year-old sophomore at Poway High School in Southern California, wore a T-shirt with his religious beliefs during the school's annual Day of Silence.

Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Harper family.

"The district is asking students to be politically correct, the lawsuit asks that (the district) be constitutionally correct," said Tyler, who claims Poway Unified School District violated Chase's rights to free speech and freedom to exercise his religion.

With many schools up and ready to support the Day of Silence this year it will be interesting, as Mr. Harper can tell you, how one's religious beliefs or beliefs in general about homosexuality will be opposed and shunned upon.

The Day of Silence was expected to begin on April 26th according to their website, but it has seemed to have started earlier in some states. As I have reported in a previous post regarding this day, the next day, April 27th, is the Day of Truth. This Day of Truth is when those students who oppose the homosexual agenda are to were T-shirts that say "Day of Truth: The Truth Cannot Be Silenced" and hand out cards that read:

I am speaking the Truth to break the silence. Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint. Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed. By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.

Please support the Day of Truth and pass this message on to as many people you know.

'Keeping Sex in the Fireplace'

Governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday (4/20/2006) that the state of Massachusetts will be giving nearly $1 million to an organization that teaches skills that are necessary to attain abstinence before marriage.

The organization under fire is called Healthy Futures and it is a federally funded health program that educates teens in the areas of sexuality, healthy relationships, and self-respect through medically accurate information and interactive skits and demonstrations.

There is speculation that Healthy Futures runs its curriculum based on religious values because it was found under A Women's Concern. According to the Boston Globe story, “this agency is a pregnancy health service that lists its guiding principles on its website as the importance of the gospel, the sanctity of human life, and the soundness of sexual purity, marriage, and family.”

As a result of reviewing A Women's Concern's website, I did not find any principals based on the gospel in any way shape or form. On the contrary, the agency actually does not even recognize religion which is indicated in the following question and answer section under the 'sex' menu on the website:

Q: If you weren’t religious, why wouldn't you have sex before you're married? A: Regardless of their spiritual beliefs, the healthiest choice for anyone is to wait until they are in a faithful, lifelong relationship to have sex. Outside of that relationship, there are risks associated with sex, including STDs, unplanned pregnancy, and intense emotions that can make it hard when the relationship ends. Without a formal commitment like marriage, relationships have some level of insecurity because either person can leave at any time. Many people decide that these risks aren't worth it, and choose to wait.

Where are the religious connotations here? After searching the whole website I could not find a drop of evidence to support the gospel claim. Oh, you mean I read the article in the Boston Globe. Ooops, my fault for not knowing any better!!

If you want to talk about a program that teaches abstinence with the OPTION of a religious agenda then you should visit the Silver Ring Thing website. Now this program offers a religious viewpoint about sex and it also offers a non-religious viewpoint about sex. As a result of this abstinence program offering a religious background to its curriculum it cannot receive any federal funding.

Mindy Fried, whose daughter is a Boston Latin freshman had this to say:

''A Woman's Concern uses an abstinence-only until marriage Sex Ed curriculum. They're driven by a right-wing, Christian agenda, which to me is problematic. They talk about condom use being ineffective, so the curriculum is really misguiding kids. Most parents of course want their teenagers to delay sexual experiences, but that's not a reality. We need a curriculum that's broader than abstinence-only."

Here is my response to this:

Claim: "Using condoms will help prevent unwanted pregnancies and promote safe sex."

Response:

Medically this is not true. Condoms can reduce the risk of HIV but do little to reduce the risks of inhibiting the spread of STDs.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) evaluated the effectiveness of condoms on stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS in June 2000 and concluded that there was not enough evidence to determine that they were effective in reducing the risk of most other sexually transmitted diseases. 1 Some of the other findings of the panel were that:

• If condoms were used 100% of the time, they can reduce sexually transmitted HIV infection in both sexes and the risk of gonorrhea in men by about 87%. 2 But even if a condom were used 100% of the time correctly there would still be a 13% chance of transmitting HIV or gonorrhea.

• There is no conclusive evidence that condoms are effective in preventing STDs. 3

• As Meg Meeker explains in her book Epidemic: How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids: "Every STD has its own characteristics, its individual personality. Gonorrhea behaves differently from chlamydia, which behaves differently from herpes and HIV. Some STDs are viruses, some are bacteria. Some live on skin, some in blood, some only in genital fluids. The amount of germs needed to cause an infection varies from one disease to another. Ways of transmitting the disease also vary. Some sexual practices put certain parts of the body in contact with other parts of the body in contact with other parts of a partner's body. But condoms don't protect against all forms of disease transmission. Condoms only prevent contact with some bodily fluids and only the skin of the genitals themselves." 4

• HIV and gonorrhea are at crisis levels in Uganda, and the country has found that any person who always wears a condom during sex reduces his or her risk of getting gonorrhea by about 50%. 5 50% of the time persons wearing a condom "responsibly" contracted gonorrhea!

• The latest studies show that "condoms have no impact on the risk of sexual transmission of human papilloma virus in women." 6 Telling females that condoms promotes "safe sex" can given them a false sense of security which could actually encourage more sex in the future and increase a girl's risk of exposure to HPV and perhaps cervical cancer in later child bearing years.

• A study published in the Journal of American Medical Association in June 2001 on condoms and herpes found that "only the women's risk of getting herpes was reduced. Using condoms didn't help the men reduce their risk of getting the disease at all." 7

• Studies evaluating the effects of condoms on chlamydia show that "they may or may not reduce the risk of chlamydia in men." 8 The NIH also concluded that the evidence is "inconclusive." In Uganda studies demonstrated a 50% reduction when men "always" wore condoms. 9

• Studies exist which analyze the effect of condoms on Syphilis and show that condoms can reduce the risks but must be worn all the time. One study which evaluated how well condoms reduced the risks of getting syphilis was conducted on prostitutes. The study showed that the risk of contracting syphilis was reduced 50%. 10 A Ugandan study demonstrated the same 50% reduction. But these findings mean that 50% of those who wore condoms contracted syphilis.

• Teenagers are less likely to use condoms the longer they are involved in a relationship. 11

• Studies have also shown that the earlier a young girl becomes sexually active, the more likely she is to have a greater number of partners and reduce her insistence on condom use. 12

• Very few teenagers use condoms consistently or correctly. 13 A study from Florida evaluated the effect of condoms on spreading the HIV infection. After 18 months, 17% of the previously uninfected partners were HIV positive.

• Condoms don't provide 100% protection for the prevention of pregnancy. One study from the School of Medicine Family Planning Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania reported that 25% of patients using condoms as birth control conceived over a one year period. 14

Notes

1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Workshop Summary : Scientific Evidence On Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention, July 20, 2001.

2. "Federal Panel on Condoms Offers Crucial Warning to Sexually Active Americans, Say the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.," NIH Condom Report Press Release, Media Advisories, Austin, Tex.:The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, July 19, 2001.

3. "Scientific Review Panel Confirms Condoms Are Effective Against HIV/AIDs, But Epidemiological Studies Are Insufficient for Other STDs." Press Release, H.H.S. News, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2001.

4. Meg Meeker, M.D., Epidemic: How Teen sex is Killing Our Kids, Life Line Press, Washington D.C., 2002, page 107.

5. Saifuddin Ahmed et al., "HIV Incidence and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevalence Associated With Condom Use: A Population Study in Rakai, Uganda." AIDS 15 (2001): 2171-2179.

6. "Federal Panel on Condoms Offers Crucial Warning to Sexually Active Americans, Say the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.," NIH Condom Report Press Release, Media Advisories, Austin, Tex.:The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, July 19, 2001.

7. A. Wald, A.G.M. Langenberg, K. Link, et al., "Effect of Condoms on Reducing the Transmission of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 from Men to Women." Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (2001): 3100-3106.

8. "Federal Panel on Condoms Offers Crucial Warning to Sexually Active Americans, Say the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.," NIH Condom Report Press Release, Media Advisories, Austin, Tex.:The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, July 19, 2001.

9. Saifuddin Ahmed et al., "HIV Incidence and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevalence Associated With Condom Use: A Population Study in Rakai, Uganda." AIDS 15 (2001): 2171-2179.

10. Jared M. Baeten et al., "Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Disease: Results from a Prospective Study." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 183 (2001): 380-385.

11. L. Ku, F.L. Sonestein, and J. H. Pleck, "The Dynamics of Young Men's Condom Use During and Across Relationships." Family Planning Perscpectives. 26 (1994): 246-251.

12. Thomas J. Fitch, "How Effective Are Condoms in Preventing Pregnancies and STDs in Adolescents? Austin, Tex.: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, July 1997.

13. G. Paz-Baily et al., "Condom Protection Against STD: A Study Among Adolescents Attending a Primary Care Clinic in Atlanta." Presented at the 2002 National STD Prevention Conference, San Diego, Calif., March 4-7, 2002. Abstract B9D.

14. Medical Institute for Sexual Health, P.O. Box 4919, Austin TX 78765.

Lexington Schools and Indoctrination

The Joseph Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, MA is in the news again. This time over the same issue of homosexual curriculum being taught to second graders but another parent besides David Parker is making the complaints. Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin’s 7 year old son was subjected to the children's book ''King & King" as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, and Mrs. Wirthlin did not agree with the indoctrination that was forced upon her son.

As I was talking with Mr. Parker this morning regarding this issue, because it was all over talk radio, I could sense another civil litigation lawsuit occurring in Lexington.

Mr. Parker told me he was immediately going to call his friends to swarm the radio waves as Superintendent Paul Ash was on the John Depetro show, WRKO 680am, this morning. I knew then that many things were going to be argued on the show and I will have full coverage of what was said in the very near future.

As I had said in a previous post about David Parker:

What is the purpose of teaching children about homosexuality and transgenderism? I do believe the gay community needs more rights in order to live a more fulfilling life with their partners. On the other hand, it is wrong to teach children how they can lead a life that is considered unnatural by society. There is not one human society, advanced or primitive, civilized or uncivilized, where homosexual relationships’, including same-sex “marriages”, has existed as a normative part of family life. What is it about marriage that interests same-sex partners besides the sharing of benefits at a place of employment? Is this truly an issue of equality or do we as a society need to meet the gay community in the middle when it comes to rights? Would this community accept more rights and then agree to stop trying to eliminate traditional marriage as we know it? What do we need to do to make both sides comfortable?

California Bill to Promote Homosexuality in Schools

Senate Bill (SB) 1437, sponsored by Senator Sheila Kuehl, D- Los Angeles, would advance a deliberate biased message about homosexuality in California public schools and cease any open dialogue in the classroom on the issue of homosexuality. It would silence the Judeo-Christian worldview in the public schools. This so-called "tolerance" measure would hide the issue of homosexuality behind sexual identity and gender discrimination.

Specifically, SB 1437 would ban lessons, discussions and activities that reflect adversely upon one's sexual orientation under the guise of tolerance. While curriculum, instructional materials and teaching would be stripped of any negative messages about homosexuality, the teaching of traditional family views would not be tolerated.

Amendments were added last month that would require children to study the contributions of homosexuals to society. Just as they learn about the positive contributions of both men and women, black Americans, Mexicans and other cultural and ethnic groups, under SB 1437 children would learn the positive contributions "people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender" have made to California and the United States. If these historic figures were gay or not means little. Even recently, homosexual activists have claimed both Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ were homosexuals. History would not be reported but rewritten to fit an agenda.

This bill seeks to legitimize the pro-homosexual viewpoint and silences the traditional views of family. Homosexuality would be presented as a positive, accepted norm without any of the moral or health concerns expressed by many people. Stereotypical gender and traditional family roles would no longer be discussed in public schools, and everything - except the Christian viewpoint - would be protected under the guise of tolerance.

SB 1437 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 3-1 on April 4 and can come up for discussion any day beginning next week on the Senate floor.

• For more information about SB 1437, go here.
• Go to Family Research Council's website which informed me of this information to view other important topics.

They Came in Droves.

Click here for the unbelievably well thought out testimonials from Tuesday's Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Marriage Amendment. The day was filled with facts of why traditional marriage needs to be a part of society and emotional testimonials from those supporting same-sex "marriage".

I have provided a few pictures from the day as well as from other days in support of various causes. Enjoy!

LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!

Action Alert!

Come to the State House Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 10:00 AM

State House – Boston, MA

Hearing Room A-1

The Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing on Tuesday, April 11, to discuss the

Marriage Amendment. We MUST make a demonstration of the popular support for the Amendment. While the Amendment moves on to the Constitutional Convention regardless of the action the committee takes, we must take advantage of this opportunity to show the popular support for letting the Commonwealth vote on marriage.

We highly recommend that if you want to be inside the hearing room you arrive well before 10am. If you wish to give testimony, there will be a sign-up sheet available at the hearing.

Those of you leading the effort in favor of the Marriage Amendment at your church, please download this bulletin insert to spread the word about the hearing during Sunday services. Please put calls out to as many people as you know to get them motivated to head into Boston on Tuesday.

If you plan on attending the hearing, please send an E-mail to Info@Voteonmarriage.org