Responding To Commenter

I received a comment on my "Rolling My Eyes, Shaking My Head... and Praying" post that I feel the need to address. The commenter, Doc, stated the following...

"Oh please, instead of quoting WND, why don't you people actually read the bill in question? WND's article is not even an approximation of the truth. However, it's pretty typical that you would simply take the word of someone else, instead of thinking for yourself. That typifies how the average Christian's brain works.



Truly, it's Christians who are ruining our country. Our founding fathers didn't expect an environment of intolerance and hatred."

Ok, fair enough. I have no problem addressing this.



First, it is always a good idea to check out a story from many angles. So, instead of simply going by WND's story, I went looking for other sources about Bill 777.



Who introduced this bill? Well, that would be Senator Sheila Kuehl, who thinks it is of upmost importance to add to our children's history books whether or not any historical figure they learn about was gay.

"Ms. Kuehl said the practical applications of the law would be limited to including the accomplishments of gay figures in textbooks and class studies alongside those of other social and ethnic groups. For example, a teacher talking about Langston Hughes would not only mention the fact that he was a black poet, but also mention his sexuality, Ms. Kuehl said."-The New York Times, May 14, 2006

Wait a minute. Tell me WHY our children, or us adults for that matter, need to know ANYTHING about ANYBODY'S s*xual practices? Knowing what someone chose to do behind closed doors in their private life, regardless of whether I think it was right or wrong, has nothing to do with how the history of our nation was formed. If that was the case, then maybe we should also make sure we tell our children whether or not each historical figure chose paper or plastic, wore boxers or briefs, or pronounced it to-may-toes or to-mah-toes! If it is the intention of Bill 777 to "afford equal rights and opportunities to all persons", guess what? As a God-fearing Christian who believes in the Bible where it clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, I think my rights would be violated if I had to sit in a class and listen to such foolishness! Hmmm... Wonder what would be done about that?



Ms. Kuehl is also a member of The California Legislative
L*sbian, G*y, Bis*xual, & Transg*nder (LGBT) Caucus.



My point here is that Ms. Kuehl considers herself a l*sbian. No one can argue that this would have a major impact on her desire to include those like her in any 'anti-discrimination' bill. Correct?



My reason for pointing out Ms. Kuehl's 'preference' is this. I DID go and read the actual wording of Bill 777. Here is what I found:

Section 1. 200. It is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. The purpose of this chapter is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies therefor. (Emphasis mine)

Ok, so we see here, straight from the horses mouth, that ALL PERSONS, regardless of their gender or s*xual orientation, religion, etc. are garaunteed rights and opportunities. Correct?



So nobody, absolutely NOBODY can be denied their 'rights', opportunities, or be 'discriminated' against, because "No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation..."(section 220)



So what's going to happen when a student who claims to be g*y decides they would feel better using the opposite gender's restroom or locker room? No, this is not directly addressed in Bill 777, but if NOBODY can be discriminated against, do teachers have any right to tell that student that they have to use the bathroom designated for their specific gender? What about the girl who feels she relates more to the boys and wants to run for Homecoming King, or vice versa? Or if a teacher has a same-gender partner or a student only knows 'mom and mom', then I can very easily see where the use of 'Mom and Dad' or 'Husband and Wife' could be banned from use. Again, Bill 777 doesn't address these things specifically, but because of this bill, anyone could use what the bill says to do pretty much whatever they want, all in the name of 'anti-discrimination'.



You can protect the feelings of some of the people all of the time, and some of the people some of the time. But it's simply impossible to keep from 'offending' all of the people all of the time. It can't be done. But Bill 777 is trying to do just that, and in the process of trying to protect everyone, it has now stripped the rights of those who are against homos*xuality because now they are forced to sit under leadership who will be teaching things they believe in their heart to be wrong. This is no different than all those of other religions who have complained about the use of God in the Pledge of Allegience, teaching the Creation view in addition to evolution, prayer or the Ten Commandments in schools, and even using the word Christmas. What's the difference? Oh yeah, now I remember, THEY got what they wanted... Bill 777! Talk about 'intolerance and hatred' as my commenter, Doc, talked of. But it's only considered that when it's Christians standing up for what THEY believe.

51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.



51501. No textbook, or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the State Board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.



60044. No instructional materials shall be adopted by any governing board for use in the schools that, in its determination, contains any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

Well, there you have it. Instruction, activities, textbooks, and instructional materials all have to include that anything and everything you are or think you are or want to even PRETEND you are is ok. The world and everything in it is wonderful and ok, as long as you don't try to take a stand against any of it (oh, except that Christianity stuff)! THAT'S the ONE THING that's NOT ok. Try that and you'll be slapped with a discriminating hate-crime badge to your forehead!



I'll leave you with this. Our friend Doc stated the following... "Our founding fathers didn't expect an environment of intolerance and hatred." Let's hear exactly what our founding fathers DID have to say...



"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams, October 11, 1798



"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." --John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817



"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."--Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence



In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."



“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” --Thomas Jefferson (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital)



"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787



“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” --Noah Webster, Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language



“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” --George Washington



Shall I go on?