quote:Because the kind of stories these kids are coming back with to tell their horrified Christian parents are highly unlikely to emerge from the mouths of non-Christian schoolteachers, but rather from the mouths of Christian schoolteachers who do not understand the necessity of the restrictions under which they work.
What necessity? What harm would come of reading the book that would necessitate the teacher not allowing the book?
Harm might come from not reading it, because it would prevent an educational experience and hurt the girl's feelings, but I don't see what bad you think could come of reading it. It's not like a bunch of kids are going to go home feeling their religious views have been rejected because a Christian girl in their class read a Christian book in school. (If kids DID go home thinking that, they probably need the lesson in tolerance anyway - you can't go through life being offended by the expression of alternative religious views.) If someone brought in a Muslim religious book to school and read it to me and my classmates, I certainly never would have been offended - and SHOULD not be.
In this case, it truly is just the law (and not any practical need) that would prevent the book reading - and not even that, if Dag is correct about how the courts have ruled.
Belle, it's so odd that the school would allow the children to make paper candy canes but not to read a book about them. Did the teacher tell you what law she was talking about? I think you have a right to have the school forward you a copy of it.
I, too, think that Emily's teacher should have kept her opinion to herself. It's understandable that she didn't, but a teacher should never express a negative opinion of a school policy to a student, religious or otherwise. I had lots of problems with the Y's afterschool program policies, but I never let the kids know.
I think that you would have handled my schoolyard incident perfectly and I wish you had been my teacher then. We were at recess in the yard, but the monitor (not my teacher, but a teacher in the school - they took turns) heard every word and smiled approvingly at the kids who were telling me that I was going to hell and that I killed Jesus. I don't think that is something that children should be allowed to say to each other and I don't think it's protected as religious speech. I assure you these kids were not expressing or discussing their Christianity, they were just using their Christianity to get away with being ugly to me, which is also disrespectful to Christianity.
I must say that I have been called "Christ-killer" ever since I can remember, by people who considered themselves good Christians. I have seen it spraypainted on tombstones and synagogue walls in 4 states. I was a religion major - I know that most Christians do not feel that way. But the ones who do feel that way do a lot of damage to Jews in the name of Jesus and that makes us sad and wary. If you'll recall, there were incidents after Gibson's movie came out. The biggest one was the church marquee in Denver that read, "The Jews killed Jesus. Period." It was eventually taken down, but the damage had been done. I can tell you that we had a lot of broken windows and grafitti in Richmond.
I try to focus on the righteous gentiles, who are in the majority and get so little attention. Like the gentile side of my family, the people who protested that church marquee, and the policemen who patrol the synagogues during our holidays. Like my friends here at Hatrack.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this significant decision, a divided Court (5-4) held that it was a violation of the First Amendment Speech Clause but not transgressory of the Establishment Clauses for a state entity (the University of Virginia) to refuse to fund the costs of a student Christian newspaper when the money to pay for that newspaper was derived from a mandatory student assessment of $14 per student/per semester.
In so holding, the Court relied heavily on the factual similarities and analysis in Lamb's Chapel (1993). According to the majority, the Speech Clause violation was the censoring of the Christian "viewpoint" on issues relating to "student news, information, opinion, entertainment, or academic communications," while the Establishment Clause was not violated because the printing costs were part of a neutral scheme of benefits that the University bestowed on more than 100 student groups. This case was the first Supreme Court case holding that it was permissible to give direct financial aid to an organization (and its press) that was avowedly religious in its operation, though the Court never used the language of "pervasively sectarian" to describe the student organization.
Important Facts
The Student Council at the U of VA authorizes funding of student organizations called Contracted Independent Organizations (CIO) through the Student Activities Fund. These CIOs must have a majority of its members as students and fulfill other procedural requirements, but they are considered independent of the U of VA. Of the more than 300 CIOs, about 115 received funding. There were 11 categories of student groups that can seek funding, one of which is "student news, information, opinion, entertainment or academic communications media groups."
World Awake Publications (WAP), established to "publish a magazine of philosophical and religious expression," qualified as a CIO but was denied funding because of another student policy denying funding to a "religious organization," that is an organization that "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." After administrative appeals were exhausted, suit was filed, but both the District and Appeals Courts sided with the University. The former held that there was no speech violation because the U of VA did not discriminate based on content or viewpoint, while the Circuit Court held that the practice constituted viewpoint discrimination but that the Establishment Clause trumped the Speech clause and was not violated because of the University's "compelling interest in maintaining strict separation of church and state."
posted
I, too, wonder what's so shocking about the Chinese zodiac. I find it hard to believe it was taught in anything more than a, 'Look, this is a traditional Chinese belief' way. So some kids took it literally. Surprise!
As for the Mel Gibson thing, I thought a large part of the furor was his use of scenes with anti-Semitic overtones that aren't actually in the Bible. This is is secondhand knowledge, though; I've never looked into it myself.
posted
Tres, he was referring to the necessity to not avoid teaching about christianity when teaching about other religions was done, I do believe.
That's certainly been my experience; the worst teachers at teaching fairly about christianity are the christians (and that tends to be because of some bizarre assumption that teaching about christianity is somehow illegal).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
This one blows my mind - the school district thinks that educators shouldn't teach kids what is in the Declaration of Independence?
quote:PASADENA, Ca., Nov. 30 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Cupertino Union School District in California ordered educator, Stephen Williams, to refrain using historical documents like the Declaration of Independence and numerous other documents because they had the word "God" in the body of the papers.
The Alliance Defense Fund filed papers for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against Patricia Vidmar, Principal of Stevens Creek School, William Bragg. Superintendent of Cupertino Union School District and Board of Education members: Pearl Cheng, Ben Liao, Josephine Lucey, Gary McCue and George Tyson.
The California Social Science Instructional Resources Evaluation even states, "The primary sources represent extensive variation and historical value in their nature and include, as appropriate to the content for a grade, materials such as documents, court decisions, speeches, debates, inaugural addresses, diaries, journals, slave diaries, excerpts from autobiographies, essays and religious literature." (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/im/documents/k8hssev.pdf)
Emphasis Mine.
quote:TEMPE, AZ, Nov 17 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter at Arizona State University College of Law (ASU) filed a lawsuit today against school officials who demanded that the chapter and its members abide by the school’s “nondiscrimination” policy that would prevent the chapter from conditioning membership and choosing leadership on the basis of an individual’s agreement with the CLS “Statement of Faith.”
The school’s policy, found in the University’s Student Code of Conduct, forces the CLS chapter, and other campus religious groups to accept non-Christian members and officers. The policy applies whether or not the student group is registered by and receiving benefits from the University. Moreover, in order to receive status as a registered student organization, the organization’s leaders must pledge compliance with all provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, including the “nondiscrimination” provision. The federal civil rights lawsuit alleges that ASU is violating the First Amendment rights of expressive association, free speech and free exercise of religion of the CLS chapter and other campus religious groups by failing to exempt them from the “nondiscrimination” provision in the Student Code of Conduct.
Through counsel at the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom, the CLS chapter asked school officials in late September to exempt the group and other religious student organizations from the religion and sexual orientation portions of the “nondiscrimination” provision of the Student Code of Conduct. The letter explained that anyone is welcome to attend chapter meetings and events, but that official members and leaders must agree to the CLS Statement of Faith, which is considered orthodox in both the Protestant and Catholic traditions. School officials denied the chapter’s request for an exemption, placing the chapter and its members in jeopardy of University sanctions under the Student Code of Conduct should they continue to require that members and leaders adhere to the Statement of Faith.
“Religious student organizations, like all other student organizations, should be able to come together around shared commitments,” stated Steven H. Aden, Chief Litigation Counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, located in Annandale, Virginia. “It is unfortunate that Arizona State University has chosen to value political correctness over religious freedom.”
The Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Here's something interesting, not related to religion, but about the school voucher issue:
quote:SACRAMENTO, Nov 12 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Pro-Family Law Center's lawyers are handling a unique Sacramento Superior Court case (No. 04AS00459) that could result in the creation of judicial vouchers for California's highly gifted children. However, the California Department of Education is now strenuously opposing the idea of a voucher for a 14-year-old child now attending UCLA, even though the facts of the case suggest that this might be the only suitable education for a highly gifted child such as the plaintiff.
Levi Levy, the child-plaintiff, began college at age 7. He passed the California High School Proficiency Exam at age 9, and began attending UCLA in January 2004. His mother, single and working, is not able to continue paying full cost for a suitable education for her child. While other California children, of the plaintiff's same age, are being provided a state-funded education, the CDE refuses to extend the same to this child, and, presumably, other similarly gifted children.
According to PFLC's attorneys (Lively & Ackerman of Temecula, CA), the California Constitution and related federal judicial decisions require that an education, "suitable" to the specific needs of each child, must be provided by the State of California. Any failure to provide a suitable education is alleged to be a violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, it is also claimed that the truancy laws require Levy to be in attendance at a publicly funded school until he is 16 years of age, regardless of his highly gifted status.
In papers recently filed by the CDE, it was stated that "[Plaintiffs are] attempting to obtain the functional equivalent of a voucher for her son's university-level education ..." The CDE claims that they do not owe a "constitutional duty" to the child in this case.
PFLC attorney Richard D. Ackerman has responded to these claims by stating, "The one size fits all approach to education is failing the plaintiff in this case. At some point in time, we are going to have to realize that it is intellectual torture to require a highly gifted child to maintain compulsory attendance in a failing system that doesn't even work for average students. At a bare minimum, the CDE ought to be required to fund Levi's education to the same monetary level as provided on a per-student basis for every other child in the public schools, which happens to be between six and seven thousand dollars a head." Papers indicating the essence of PFLC's position were filed in court today.
This case will likely end up being appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, regardless of who comes out the victor in this important case. According to Ackerman, "This case has the potential to overhaul a failing educational system, and may open the doors to a truly suitable education for each child within the public school system."
And, a group of people who have left the homosexual lifestyle find their views are also being kept out of the public schools:
quote:MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD, Nov. 8 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Regina Griggs, executive director for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), called on the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education to reject the final recommendations by its Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development ("Committee"). The Committee advises the School Board on school curriculum dealing with family life, which now includes sexual orientation. The School Board will meet on November 9, 2004, to vote on the recommendations.
According to Jackie Rice, PFOX's local representative on the Committee, the Committee has approved materials for students and teachers published by gay activist groups, yet rejected ex-gay materials. Said Rice, "The Committee approved a student video demonstrating condom use that encourages fruit flavored condoms for oral sex, even after being told to delete this phrase by the School Board. Yet the Committee rejected any mention of ex-gays in the school curriculum and resources unless it was something negative about us. As an African-American and a representative of the ex-gay community, I resent the Committee's refusal to recognize diversity or an individual's right to self-determination."
Added Griggs, "The Committee's decision to censor ex-gay materials while approving anti-ex-gay references hurts us and our families, and subjects the ex-gay community to hate and ridicule. For example, the Committee approved Just the Facts, a pamphlet published by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN), a gay advocacy group. This pamphlet instructs school administrators to ignore any other point of view concerning homosexuality - even from parents whose children are students at the school."
According to Griggs, the Committee is violating state law by censoring ex-gay speech. Said Griggs, "The Board's own policy states that citizen advisory committees are required by Maryland law in order 'to ensure that local school boards will be informed by a variety of opinions from citizens.' The School Board placed a PFOX representative on the committee in order to receive viewpoints from all segments of the community, yet our input to the Board is continually blocked by gay activist groups and others who serve on this Committee and deny equality for ex-gays. The Committee has failed to serve its purpose."
The Committee is chaired by David Fishback. As the father of two gay sons, Mr. Fishback uses his position as chair to engage in hostile remarks about ex-gays to the Committee and promote gay advocacy materials while urging the rejection of ex-gay materials. "It's unconscionable that in this age of civil rights, the Board allows its committee chair to be openly hostile of ex-gays," said Griggs. "Having gay family members does not mean that we have to deny that ex-gays exist. We must promote inclusion and tolerance of everyone, both gay and ex-gay. Favoring homosexuality over another sexual orientation is discriminatory and hurts our schools."
Ms. Griggs also calls on the Board to accept PFOX's separate list of ex-gay materials for inclusion in the school curriculum. Explained Griggs, "The Board cannot make an informed decision when information about a minority group in its community is deliberately withheld from the Board. The Committee's phobia of ex-gays demonstrates why the Board must include ex-gays in the school's educational curriculum on sexual orientation. Ex-gays are part of our community and should not be discredited or excluded. Inclusive information is in the best interest of students and teachers, and affects the safety of our children."
quote:You said, "It's OK to take shots at whites, Christians, and men."
And it's not. If it's wrong to take the shots, then it's wrong.
It's really that simple.
For crying out loud, Dag, try and give me the benefit of the doubt. When I say it's ok to take shots at those groups, I'm talking in a relative sense.
For the whites here. If a black man walk passed you and said "cracker" in passing, what would your reaction be?
Personally, I'd be surprised and kind of amused. The term cracker isn't connected to any kind of power struggle. Getting called a cracker is actually kind of amusing.
Thinking about it. When watching a movie, don't white audiences laugh when a black character calls a white character a cracker? It's a different story whena white character calls a black character a nigger, right?
Heck, we don't even say that word. We say "n-word". Because it's bound up with a series of vicious connotations.
Dag, I'd be curious to hear your story about racial discrimination.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With all due respect, blocking the P-FOX stuff makes sense because their views paint a completely wrong view of homosexuality. It is a fact that most reparative therapy really doesn't work and causes more harm than good.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hm. It sounds like a huge chunk of the problem is Christian public school teachers.
My son wouldn't tell us who told him that he couldn't pray in school or say "Jesus". His teacher that year was not a Christian...she was a fruitcake. I spent an unusually significant amount of time in my son's classroom that year because my work schedule allowed it, and got to know his teacher rather well. She was fruity.
I suspect it was one of the kids in his school who said it to him.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This one blows my mind - the school district thinks that educators shouldn't teach kids what is in the Declaration of Independence?"
No. This one's been quoted WAY out of context. The teacher in question has for years attempted to pass out pamphlets -- containing Bible verses -- explaining how America is a Christian country; the administration has repeatedly asked him to stop. Recently, he started passing out a similar pamphlet that cited references to God and the Creator in early documents as "proof" of the exclusively Christian intent of the Founding Fathers.
-----
The second article cited notes that a religious campus organization is suing the college because the college charter forbids organizations funded by the college from banning membership and/or leadership roles to individuals based on religion or sexual orientation. They hope to prove that religious organizations are entitled to discriminate against members based on religion, but that non-religious organizations are not entitled to the same discrimination (i.e. that the Chess Club could not prevent Muslims from joining, but that the Christian Legal Society could.)
While at first this stance seems logical, I think you'll agree that spending even a moment of thought on it reveals the major flaw.
--------
The third case reveals one of the major flaws of the voucher system, and is an excellent example of why vouchers should never be instituted on a large scale.
----
As for the fourth, from the "Christian Wire Service," I'm made relatively suspicious of their objectivity by lines like this one: "The Committee is chaired by David Fishback. As the father of two gay sons, Mr. Fishback uses his position as chair to engage in hostile remarks about ex-gays to the Committee and promote gay advocacy materials while urging the rejection of ex-gay materials."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust, compare words with similar weight behind them. For example, if someone called me a Nazi or Klansman, I'd be very upset, and it would be as bad a "shot" as calling someone the N-word.
As for the specific instance, it involved government contracting. We lost two very specific opportunities that were yanked at the last minute and changed to 8-A (minority-small-business only) status. Together they would have allowed us to double the size of the company within a year.
posted
Actually, the second one likely has a point, assuming they're correct on the "The policy applies whether or not the student group is registered by and receiving benefits from the University."
If the group is not receiving any benefits from the university, its just another freely associating group of people and should be able to conduct itself as it sees fit.
The school would likely also need to make it possible for the group to obtain on campus room to meet in, though I'm not certain of the history of law in that field.
However, the school would not be able to offer any funding or extend its tax exemption to that group, I do believe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For example, if someone called me a Nazi or Klansman, I'd be very upset, and it would be as bad a 'shot' as calling someone the N-word."
Do you really think so? The reason I ask is that both the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialists were clubs that people chose to join and have negative associations now only because the clubs themselves were founded on odious principles -- whereas I don't think anyone affected by the "n-word" chose to join a group.
Calling you a Klansman, in other words, is technically incorrect because you have not in fact chosen to join the Klan. Calling a black man a "nigger" doesn't even leave him the option of considering it logically incorrect -- because it doesn't matter whether he fits the stereotype at all, as long as he's got a darker skin.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but at this point, I don't care. They are completely wrong and that is all there is to it. It's agonizing for a person to have to go through something like that... Just this pain and frustrating and guilt. It's wrong. It's destructive.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not suggesting that you don't know how you feel, Dag; I'm suggesting that you might not know how someone else feels.
In insisting that the insults are equivalent, you imply that you know exactly how it feels to be called a nigger. Do you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your admitting the possibility I may feel worse?
OK, very good.
I've been called both based on political opinions I've held, usually by people who are ignorant about what my political opinions are and why I hold them.
quote:For example, if someone called me a Nazi or Klansman, I'd be very upset, and it would be as bad a "shot" as calling someone the N-word.
I don't think it's analogous at all. You'd really take being called a klansmen personally?
In my experience, an insult can only hurt when you feel there's a touch of truth to it.
Since you're so hellbent on misunderstanding me, I'll make it clear that I don't think you're rascist. But "nazi" and "klansmen" would only hurt you if you if they touched on something inside you. So what are they touching on?
quote:Since you're so hellbent on misunderstanding me, I'll make it clear that I don't think you're rascist. But "nazi" and "klansmen" would only hurt you if you if they touched on something inside you. So what are they touching on?
I'm not hellbent on misunderstanding you. I don't buy the foundational premises of your position.
posted
"I don't buy the foundational premises of your position."
You disagree that being compared to someone who belonged to an odious organization based on a distortion or misunderstanding of your political views is not equivalent to being lumped into a secondary class based on the color of your skin?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I know it's impolite and unkind, but, after a ton of research and personal experience I think the right is wrong about most of their ideas on homosexuality. Such as reparative therapy. It really does not work. It has caused stress, pain, suicide and agony to many who have participated in it. It does nothing to get rid of homosexual attraction, instead it teaches a person to just repress their homosexual urges. It's damaging and it should be stopped. Not only does it cause pain to the individual but to their family as well. I do not think that homosexuality damages society, no one has given me proof of this... I think the people who state things like this are as wrong as the people who, in the past, stated that blacks are inferior to whites. That isn't true. This sort of thing really does need to stop.. this scapegoating. I hate it and will not accept it anymore... *is derailing the topic....*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Such as reparative therapy. It really does not work. It has caused stress, pain, suicide and agony to many who have participated in it.
And yet, there are ex-gays who have married, had children, and leave a happy heterosexual lifestyle that would vigorously disagree with you.
But, the point here is not which view is right - it's whether or not it's wrong to censor speech by one group just because you don't agree with them - if your policy is that all community groups deserve equal access.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that, having not seen the materials in question, we do not know whether the committee turned them down based purely on their ideology or if there were other complications that made them unsuitable. And we have only the "Christian Wire Service" to imply the former.
quote:You disagree that being compared to someone who belonged to an odious organization based on a distortion or misunderstanding of your political views is not equivalent to being lumped into a secondary class based on the color of your skin?
That's not the foundational premise of his line of reasoning. It's a result, one I may agree with or not, but for very different reasons than the ones put forth by Foust.
posted
It's not a matter of loving who they choose though.. The problem is that they are making many false claims, using questionable methods and they probably do not even do studies ten years down the line to determine if their findings are true. They are saying things like homosexuality in men is caused by insuffient masculinity, this isn't true... That isn't the case at all... These folks will state things like homosexuality is the cause of depression, suicide and AIDS when that just isn't true. Much of that depression comes as a result of people's attitudes towards gay people! It comes from the intolerance and downright hatred society still has for gays. Gays are still alienated from their families and friends and groups like this do not help. If folks could truly be cured of homosexuality attraction, that is all well and good, and I don't think that a person who is attracted to the same sex can't love someone of the opposite sex, but there are problems and side effects groups like this will sweep under the rug. How many people in these groups still lead double lives? Still cruise without protection? This isn't the answer when it comes to homosexuality is. Really understanding it is the answer, not rehatching Freudian theories that have been abandoned!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are saying things like homosexuality in men is caused by insuffient masculinity, this isn't true... That isn't the case at all... These folks will state things like homosexuality is the cause of depression, suicide and AIDS when that just isn't true. Much of that depression comes as a result of people's attitudes towards gay people! It comes from the intolerance and downright hatred society still has for gays.
As Tom pointed out, you haven't seen their materials (or have you?) so you don't know that they make these claims in them at all.
And, does it matter? I mean, obviously you disagree with them. I disagree with the religious beliefs held by the Jewish people, does that mean that I think the Jewish community center shouldn't be allowed to pass out pamphlets at the public schools? No, I don't.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Tom, instead of insisting that the Christian Wire Service is unreliable, why not read the actual content of the letters sent to the school advisory board before blanketly dismissing the claims of this organization?
quote:This resource consists of a quiz whereby students attempt to get the right answer on questions about homosexuality. The answers are factually incorrect and contain no footnotes to back up what are essentially opinions and not facts. For example, one question asks if “loving people of the same sex” is “sinful.” The answer given is that “many religious denominations do not believe this” and cites the Anglican Church of Canada as a resource. No alternate theology is presented although numerous denominations reject that viewpoint.
Is it right for a public school resource to refer students to only one particular religious resource?
quote:Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Q&A in Prevention Researcher
Transgenderism is a gender identity disorder, yet the article fails to recommend counseling for students struggling with gender confusion. Instead, it recommends that schools establish unisex bathrooms for transgender students. The article also discusses certain religious groups in a negative manner, claiming that evangelicals and fundamentalists are more likely to be less tolerant of homosexuals, although these faiths have gay outreach ministries. It recommends that the reader refer students to select religions, even if these religions conflict with the student’s own religious upbringing. In particular, the article recommends religions such as Lutherans Concerned, Dignity for Catholics, Rainbow Baptists, and More Light Presbyterians. It fails to mention that Dignity is no longer part of the Catholic Church. Courage, an Catholic organization which assists homosexuals to lead chaste lives, has officially replaced Dignity.
The Committee rejected ex-gay materials because some of the materials cited religious references, yet it approved this and other religious content articles, as described in this letter, because it agreed with their viewpoint. The Committee is guilty of viewpoint discrimination. Advocating certain religions over others is also discriminatory. Nor should teachers be instructed to refer students to other religions, especially without parental permission. This article has no place in a school setting.
Does anybody disagree with the last statement there?
The committee has rejected some materials from this group by claiming they have religious content - yet it approved other materials with religious content. Either both should be allowed in or neither.
quote:American Psychiatric Association (APA): Fact Sheet: Homosexual and Bisexual Issues, Feb. 2000
This resource should never have been approved by the Committee because it is outdated and was replaced by the APA with the below fact sheet.
American Psychiatric Association (APA): Fact Sheet: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, revised May 2000. This resource is also outdated and should not be used. For example, the fact sheet submitted to the Committee for its review consisted of three pages and cited the APA’s December 1998 position statement on psychiatric treatment for sexual orientation. However, the 1998 position statement was updated by the APA May 2000 statement, which is not incorporated into the fact sheet. Consequently, the fact sheet is erroneous.
For example, p. 2 of the fact sheet states that “There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation…” However, the APA May 2000 statement changes that finding to read: “To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of ‘reparative’ treatments.” [Emphasis added.] This is a serious omission which renders the resource erroneous and therefore useless, if not harmful.
We also note that since the release of the May 2000 statement, several studies on the efficacy of reparative therapy have been published in scientific journals. For example, see "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays” in the American Psychological Association journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (June 2002); “Motivational, Ethical, and Epistemological Foundations in the Clinical Treatment of Unwanted Homoerotic Attraction” in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 13-28 (2003); “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?” in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, 403-417 (October 2003); and the American Psychological Association journal Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75 (2002).
While there is probably no study that can ever conclusively prove that homosexuals can change the focus of their attraction, the fact that studies suggest it MAY be possible make the stance by this ex-gay advocacy group certainly understandable. They feel that exclusion of their viewpoint is discriminatory, and I can see why.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Christianity rarely meets serious intolerance (except perhaps in academia).
You know, as someone in the process of becoming a part of "academia," I'm wondering if I might need to work on developing my own persecution complex.
I realize this is a topic for a whole other thread, but, from my own first-hand view, I don't see any intolerance of Christianity in my academic field--which is a liberal arts field, which so many people seem to frequently rail against. I have to say, I'm fairly sick of people blithely labeling all of academia as intolerant. It just isn't. Yes, there are instances of intolerance of Christianity. There are also instances of Christians displaying anti-semitism--and of course, not all Christians, not most Christians even, feel that way.
posted
Of course not all academics are like that. But had that exclusion not been made, the counterexamples would have been immediate and numerous. Within academia as an institution, a lot of anti-Christianity exists.
But, no one should ever decide person X is anti-Christian because they happen to work in academia.
posted
I know. I just get tired of hearing people lump "academic" and "anti-Christian" together as if they were synonymous. I know plenty of Christian professors, and I'm sure they don't appreciate it. I know I certainly don't. I know lots of argument has been made that "a lot of anti-Christianity" exists in academia, but as someone in academia, I don't see it. I was also riffing on the persecution complex thing, about which I agree with (someone, I forget who said it): moral outrage seems to be quite fashionable these days. I'm just taking my fair share.
But, I think I'm probably too grumpy to be in this thread. I probably should just stick to the fluff today.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have seen the material. I torture myself doing research on this subject. There is belief, there is facts, and these people are not presenting facts. They are presenting false and harmful information. It's one thing if a person wants to distribute pamphlets about their particular religion, that is all well and good, but what groups like Exodus and P-FOX are doing is mildly simular to groups stating falsehoods about Christians, Jews or a particular race. I don't really think it's wrong for them not to be allowed to submit pamphlets like that at a school.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an atheist who hopes one day to enter into academia, I was conceding a possible exception rather than making a claim for.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cracker is more... funny than offensive. Like honky. I hate the N word because I'm black and if someone said it at me I'd probably hit them.. Plus it's so hateful. It makes me think of lynchings and people being whipped. I hate most slurs against people. They are dehumanizing.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting, Syn. When Chet and I went to Thanksgiving at my buddy Dre's, he and his family used it to each other fairly frequently. I have to admit, I was a bit surprised at first, but when no one beat each other up for it, I honestly stopped hearing it.
I was much more disturbed two days later when we went to breakfast at Chet's family's for after-Thanksgiving. Chet's aunt was talking about wanting red-headed grandbabies and how she was glad her middle son had picked a red haired girlfriend. So her eldest, being a smart aleck, said he'd have to ask Shawnequa if she had an red-heads in the family. That sparked about a five minute discussion- some of it silly, some of it inappropriate- and all of it in front of the cousin who's part black. No, I forgot, she's hispanic. That's an ethnicity. She can still be black.
Chet commented on it a few days later. He was really glad we'd spent Thanksgiving with our friends instead of his family. It's so sad that people can still act like that and never see the insanity of their own actions.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cracker is more... funny than offensive. Like honky. I hate the N word because I'm black and if someone said it at me I'd probably hit them.. Plus it's so hateful. It makes me think of lynchings and people being whipped. I hate most slurs against people. They are dehumanizing.
This is what I'm saying! Slurs against racial minorities are associated with crimes. Slurs against women are associated with crimes. Slurs against white guys? The only thing they're associated with is humour.
It's the just way the power game works. It's not a good thing, but it's not something that causes white males to suffer.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This topic is going the same way as the "A man never gets raped" line.
You know what, They can and they do. I don't care what anybody says. Men get raped avery year. The only reason you don't hear about it so much is because men are afraid to admit when it happens to them and it never gets reported. A good friend of mine down in SC was raped 5 years ago. It had happened maybe 4 months after I met him.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's the just way the power game works. It's not a good thing, but it's not something that causes white males to suffer.
It makes everybody suffer, because it teaches people that insensitivity is perfectly fine as long as you can get away with it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, we've been hearing about the guy who was banned from using the Declaration of Independence in his classroom on conservative talk radio up here (particularly on the Tony Snow show), and I've been sitting there, thinking, "There is WAY more to this story than I'm hearing."
Usually when I hear a story that inflammatory, my first reaction is to stop and imagine what real-life situation might be spun into the hyped-up stories that I'm hearing.
I was helped along by the fact that the teacher in question was actually interviewed on the air (perhaps by Snow, perhaps by someone else, I'm not sure). He couldn't get through three questions without quoting scripture. One of those look-how-religious-I-am types. Made me think, "Aha. This guy's a zealot. His principal wasn't banning the documents. He was banning this guy's USE of the documents. I wouldn't want this guy teaching my kids history, either, and I'm religious."
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And Tom, instead of insisting that the Christian Wire Service is unreliable, why not read the actual content of the letters sent to the school advisory board before blanketly dismissing the claims of this organization?"
Honestly? Because I don't think that the proper response to the admission of improper materials is the admission of equally improper materials that just happen to take an opposing view.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That's an ethnicity. She can still be black.
