Heat rises with Anti-Bullying Task Force
To the Editor:
Things are heating up again in the Anoka-Hennepin School District as a result of the Anti-Bullying Task Force recommendations.
Recommendation #3 states: “Honor and celebrate the contributions of diverse people and families in our community, country and world, including the LGBT community. Recognize, affirm and assess specific LGBT activities …. Continue to support student-led Gay Straight Alliance clubs …. Host school-related family nights for our diverse populations …. Create public displays honoring LGBT history month each October.”
This recommendation is an outrageous, controversial, biased disaster.
Is the Anoka-Hennepin School District prepared to apply the principles embedded in this recommendation consistently?
Those who engage in promiscuous, incestuous, philandering or polyamorous behaviors have also contributed to society. Should teachers be required to identify those proclivities while teaching about the contributions of such people?
Will the schools also create public displays that honor the accomplishments of polyamorous and minor-attracted persons, etc.?
Substituting for homosexuality another condition equally irrelevant to achievement and equally morally questionable brings into sharper relief the dubious nature of this recommendation. If a cross-dresser has contributed something to the world that is universally accepted as both positive and important, then it would be appropriate to educate students about the contribution. His cross-dressing, however, would be irrelevant.
The LGBT and their ideological allies insist that the sexual proclivities of cultural contributors be taught rather than just their contributions because they desperately want to associate achievement with their sexual identity in an attempt to change the moral views of young, naïve students.
It’s not the failure to teach about the achievements of homosexuals that bothers homosexual activists. It’s teaching about their achievements without identifying their sexual proclivities that bothers homosexual activists.
When an LGBT person has contributed something of value to society, those contributions should be noted. Their sexual preference, however, is not worthy of honor nor mention.
How can an educational institution possibly foster diversity, honor all voices, cultivate critical thinking, advance intellectual exploration and challenge assumptions on this most controversial cultural issue if liberal assumptions on the nature and morality of volitional homosexual practice are mandated and all dissenting views are censored?
Republican platform correct on moral issues
To the Editor:
Our Creator set the foundation of moral behavior. The Democratic party represented by their current platform and their history are on the wrong side of most moral issues. The social conservative side, represented by the Republican party is not without its flaws, but on most of these moral issues the Republican platform is correct.
Of course it if you think it is a woman’s on demand “right”, to kill the human being inside of her, then you would vote for the Democrats. If you think that an active gay life style does not accelerate sexual diseases, bad influence on the youth and broken lives, then you would vote for the Democrats. If you think that gay marriage is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman for rising children and supporting each other, then you would vote for the Democrats. If you want your fellow human beings messed up on marijuana coming at you down the highway, vote for the Democrats.
It is the moral issues that determine the fate of a country and an individual. Study history and you find what took down the great civilizations. Think less of how full your wallet has to be and more of what is best for your fellow human beings and the country.
Tolerance not as good as acceptance
To the Editor:
In response to “Proposed policy goes beyond tolerance” on Aug. 15, it seems Barb has a letter every week and there is one of two themes. Either arguing about the role she thinks religion should have in our government based on “her” interpretations of the Constitution or doing whatever she can to prevent our school district’s LGBTQ students, families and staff from ever receiving positive recognition, resources or support.
Her constant effort to get others to join her in excluding this statistically tiny sub group of people is concerning to me as someone who has gay family members. I also have kids attending school in this district while she does not. Yet she, a public spokesperson for a religious organization, that has dedicated much of its time and money to discriminating against gay people, demands and receives a seat at the table to try and dictate what policies are adopted in a district she doesn’t have any children in. Why is that?
Her repeated references to men who have sex with men is off putting in the first place, but continually connecting it to children and curriculum is really disturbing. Her twisting of the facts and her own obsession with the sex lives of gay people is so frustrating. All recommendation #3 is asking is that LGBTQ people be included in our district’s recognition of diverse populations in our schools because they have been deliberately excluded in large part due to Barb’s own efforts for decades.
The Riddle Scale she referred to is a list of attitudes that could be applied to any group. While tolerance is better than repulsion, it is not as good as acceptance or celebration and if we apply that to our lives I think most people would prefer to be accepted or celebrated instead of merely tolerated. She is correct in saying the recommendation goes beyond mere tolerance, they would actually celebrate and affirm ALL people “including” LGBTQ people, something the district claims it is already doing but clearly isn’t or we wouldn’t need recommendation #3.