Friday, February 09, 2007

School Board in South Jersey has Courageous Curriculum

Education or Indoctrination? Go to www.womedia.org to find out more about the other videos that the "Women's Educational Media" is trying to promote to elementary and middle school aged children. Go under "Our Films" to check out what is being taught to children regarding homosexuality in the school house.

9 Comments:

Anonymous OMD said...

I'm just going to say what's on my mind.

We ARE NOT talking about a person's sexual orientation here. Our learning institutions are FILLED with some of the most liberal thinking people out there.

IT IS THE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR that is the issue and we SHOULD NOT be indoctrinating young children's developing minds with teachings that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable sexual behavior!!

The schools forget WE are the people that pay their salaries and that they work for US. Parents are their childs best advocate. Matters of sexualityy should be left to the parents. The schools have gone way overboard on this. Their social engineering is wearing thin.

9:01 PM, February 09, 2007  
Blogger John Hosty said...

The instruction of children on sensitive subjects becomes other people's problem when their behavior results in hate and violence. When this happens as a result of what is taught at home, parents have opened the door for others to step in and modify their teachings.

Violence and hate must be unconditionally rejected if we are to have a better future for all, and it starts with teaching children their is no acceptable reason for it.

There are verses in the old testament that call for the destruction of temples and those who are not of the same faith. Were, for argument's sake, a parent to teach their child that harming others is God's will, we have the responsibility to teach otherwise.

What and how we teach children is subject to the pleasure of those who put their money, time, and children into the system. The best way to ensure schools teach what you want is not necessarily to silence the opposing voices, but rather to make the value of your opinion known.

Cream rises to the top, and in cooperation we find the best points on all sides. I have more than once had to stop and reconsider my position after someone who opposed my views made their own valuable contribution to debate.

4:15 PM, March 10, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

"The instruction of children on sensitive subjects becomes other people's problem when their behavior results in hate and violence. When this happens as a result of what is taught at home, parents have opened the door for others to step in and modify their teachings."

Oh, I diden't know all parents who have different opinions/belief structures teach hate to their children. Thanks for waking me up.???????????????

You said,

"There are verses in the old testament that call for the destruction of temples and those who are not of the same faith. Were, for argument's sake, a parent to teach their child that harming others is God's will, we have the responsibility to teach otherwise."

The new testament is considered the laws of God, not the old testament.

Before entering into a discussion of any one point, I want to stress that there is a fundamental inference regarding the laws of the Torah, and that is that those laws were given as part of a specific covenant between God and the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not to mankind as a whole. That is not to say that some of the laws codified in the Torah do not have universal application, because it is quite obvious that they do. One such law, regarding murder, is a sin whether someone is under the particular covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or the general covenant between the life giving Creator and all those living.

Thus, a larger question must be asked: concerning the covenant between the Creator, God, and the particular descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – is that covenant still in effect?

If that covenant is no longer in effect, if follows that those people who were formerly under that covenant have been excluded by the covenant maker (i.e. God) UNLESS they are now bound under the newer covenant (new testament). Also, then the laws that were specific to that first covenant cannot be binding, UNLESS they continue in the newer covenant.

I declare that a newer covenant has come!

It is that same covenant spoken of by Jeremiah the prophet, in chapter 31 of his book. It was brought about by the death of the anointed one (the Messiah, as prophesied by the prophet Daniel) - who was to come 490 years after the declaration of the rebuilding of Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity of the first covenant people. Interestingly, Daniel 9 says that Messiah would be “cut off”.

Where the old covenant was binding on a particular people and lineage, and that it was broken by those people formerly under it themselves, the newer covenant is binding upon a particular people also. However, it is NOT passed on by family genealogy as was the first covenant; rather, the newer covenant is binding in a mystical way. Where it was spoken that the Messiah would die, the key point is that He would also be raised from the dead! The newer covenant is binding upon those people who believe that this same anointed one, who was to come at the particular point in time (per Daniel 9), that they also believe that He rose from the dead and lives forever, that He is now reigning as KING Messiah – and that He LITERALLY has taken His seat at the Right Hand of the Power on high (i.e. God).

So, as you can see John, your belief that it is "God's will" to harm others is obscene and non-sensical.

I hope I have helped you clear this matter up.

9:29 PM, March 10, 2007  
Blogger John Hosty said...

Why do you have to try and twist things around like that? What I said was "When this happens as a result of what is taught at home..."

I did not say or imply that "all parents who have different opinions/belief structures teach hate to their children." This is an unacceptable attempt to mislead.

I thought after all this time perhaps I should try again to come here see if we could have a respectfull exchange, but that stills seems premature. Goodbye.

6:40 PM, March 12, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You are correct. I did "look too much" into what you said:

"The instruction of children on sensitive subjects becomes other people's problem when their behavior results in hate and violence. When this happens as a result of what is taught at home, parents have opened the door for others to step in and modify their teachings."

Although, I will stick to the point that it does sound like you are talking about a majority of parents. Maybe not all, but the majority. One man's opinion.

I also do not agree with your stance that it is up to the Public School System to modify any teachings that a particular family holds. Of course, if a family advocates the teachings of the KKK, or for molestation, then yes, that, as society would agree, needs to be modified. It is immoral behavior that, as we can both agree, is destructive as history has taught us. But to modify a sacred belief that homosexuality is wrong, which is being taught by some families at home and then "modify" it under the school bell is tyranic and irresponsible to both the child, parents and school officials who may hold different views then what they are teaching.

Why is there an advocation that parent's rights end at the school doors? Where is the separation of powers, government v. people's own belief structures? I thought the government was not able to impose any type of religious structure on its people. Homosexuality is a sacred issue to many and it is not to many as well. So where is the balance John?

Why does one group get its way, homosexual themes in school, that are being taught by authority figures, teachers, and the other group has to defend its stance at home under different authority figures, parents? Why should parents have to pay into a system that eviscerates their way of living? It does not make sense to me.

If you want to believe that homosexuality is moral and I don't, why do we have to shove either's view point down each others throat? Lets focus on the A,B,C's and 1,2,3's instead. There is no need to sculpt our future, our children, in any particular direction especially with tax dollars. Christians don't get a chance to teach about Christ, and since 1962 can not pray in school. So why all of a sudden a small subgroup of people, homosexuals, can now teach their lifestyles to our children and if others disaprove, they are called bigots or hate mongers or untolerant/undiverse people? It just does not make any sense.

Fair is fair, right John??

8:13 PM, March 12, 2007  
Blogger John Hosty said...

"If you want to believe that homosexuality is moral and I don't, why do we have to shove either's view point down each others throat? Lets focus on the A,B,C's and 1,2,3's instead. There is no need to sculpt our future, our children, in any particular direction especially with tax dollars."

Scia, we AGREE on this. I am not really interested in having all children taught about the gay community, or lifestyle options that differ from their parents teachings. I'm worried about violence only. If a child is violent we have to teach him not to be, and it doesn't matter what causes the violence. My comment from weeks ago was that the violent and hurtfull behavior is what must be modified with corrective teaching not to be that way. Surely you can agree on that point, can't you?

10:30 PM, March 19, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

You said:

" My comment from weeks ago was that the violent and hurtfull behavior is what must be modified with corrective teaching not to be that way. Surely you can agree on that point, can't you?"

I can, but why are classrooms discussing about upperclassmen's homosexual encounters from the weekend to freshman? (Newton post).

Teaching about the wrongs of teasing and violence is a thing taught in one class discussion and at home and not making a semester out of it. Teaching about the "benefits" of homosexuality is not education, it is indoctrination.

11:36 AM, March 22, 2007  
Blogger John Hosty said...

There is no such thing as indoctrination. A person's sexuality is not fluid, it is set and can't be changed. That's why the gay community laughs in its sleeve at people like Ted Haggard who compound a lie with another lie.

I have no interest in seeing the youth of America taught anything more than how to be a good neighbor, but I don't speak for everyone. Some people insist that we should have much conversation about the gay community, but that is not my angle. We should be aware that children will feel depressed about being different and offer counseling for their depression, but that counseling doesn't have to include that being gay is OK if that is not what their parents want. You were right, we don't have to force our own beliefs down each other's throats.

I bet you would have never thought we could see things on a similar plane, huh?

7:43 PM, March 22, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

Good points!!

No, I knew we could see eye to eye on things.

Thanks for stopping buy.

God Bless,
Scia

2:50 PM, March 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com