It seems a Mississippi School would rather cancel a prom than allow a student freedom of expression.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=latestnews
Printable View
It seems a Mississippi School would rather cancel a prom than allow a student freedom of expression.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...est=latestnews
I don't think using the word straight helps the situation. He could have been more tactful. Then again Polis is a Republican.:whistlingQuote:
"They ruined the prom, not only for this young woman, but for all of the straight kids at the school," he said.
I think that to say that the other side does not support freedom of expression is very damaging. Generally with LGBTQ issues, we see a clash of cultures. Those who would deny the young woman the ability to bring her girlfirend to the prom feel very threatened by non-heteronormative relationships. Personally, I find such a view extremely bigoted. However, if one wants to actually make progress instead of simply feeling superior to the other side, understanding that view and respecting it as genuinely held is very important.
I think the young lady played it just right.
Odd that the educational system in Mississippi (sorry, but the educational systems in this country - even the one in Mississippi - are, without fail or exception, liberally directed) is making such stilted decisions.
Tsk, tsk, as they say.
That one deserves a frame.
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2324/frame1m.jpg
Except for the ones that aren't...like Texas, say.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Sure as fuck wasn't liberals who decided to expand coverage of Ronald Reagan and eliminate Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbooks.
Sure as fuck t'weren't libs who decided that "separation of church and state" was NOT the original intent of the founding fathers and added more Bible study to required curriculum.
You statement is therefore invalid.
Not surprising, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerExcept for the ones that aren't...like Texas, say.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Sure as fuck wasn't liberals who decided to expand coverage of Ronald Reagan and eliminate Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbooks.
Sure as fuck t'weren't libs who decided that "separation of church and state" was NOT the original intent of the founding fathers and added more Bible study to required curriculum.
You statement is therefore invalid.
Not surprising, really.
Eliminate Jefferson?
The hell you say.
Separation of Church and State?
Doesn't appear in our founding papers anywhere.
Separation of Church from State?
Absolutely.
More correctly (in Texas, just the other day, in fact) liberals suggested U.S. history before 1877 be ignored.
Interesting article. I'm not American, but I wouldn't assume it's much different here. The schooling system is run by the government, and therefore reflects the views of those in power. These views are often unchanged over time. I hate to play devils advocate but, no one is forcing her to attend the school sanctioned prom; or attend the public school system in general. The teens mentioned in the article do have a choice.
Someone watches too much fox and friends.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=8203
Jefferson is replaced by St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone in a list of figures whose writings are considered to have inspired 18th and 19th century revolutionsQuote:
Fox: “So one of the proposed changes is to start history class in the year 1877.”
The truth: Texas has and always will teach U.S. History from the beginning until present day. U.S. History through Reconstruction is taught in the eighth grade and those standards can be found in the middle school standards, which are called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Here is a link to the middle school standards: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/s...KS_amended.pdf. U.S. History since 1877 is taught in 11th grade.
I'm sure J2K4 will be pleased because the term separation of church and state is credited to Jefferson.
Overall the proposed curriculum has been set to emphasize conservative ideology (judeo-christian, moral majority and Phyllis Schlafly) and downplay the rest.
It was an ideology review, not an academic one
By the way the biggest threat to government interference with freedom of religion is Christian conservatives.
Gee whiz, all that typing, only to sum things up with a sentence that, nearest I can determine, agrees with me?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
How sweet of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The bit aimed specifically at you corrects your erroneous statementHowever in emboldening my post you have highlighted an error of clarity on my part.Quote:
More correctly (in Texas, just the other day, in fact) liberals suggested U.S. history before 1877 be ignored.
Please allow me to correct.
The biggest threat OF government interference with freedom of religion will come/comes from Christian social conservatives in government.
This doesn't imply that I'm accusing all or even most Christian social conservatives
Correction allowed...it's still wrong.
I mentioned that there was a movement afoot in Texas to drastically change school curricula, and mentioned as well that the 1877 thingie was suggested; merely that.
That it was "suggested" (ridiculously, as an agenda item) is in fact a true thing.
Another true fact is that it was suggested, not by any conservative faction, but a liberal one.
Yet a third true fact is that it's mention does not in any way reflect on Christians or social conservatives, but rather (and only) on it's authors, who are of a decidedly liberal strain.
That you choose not to countenance these facts renders your statement the status of opinion, nothing more.
Mississippi consistently places at the bottom of the ranking when it comes to public education school programs right there with Hawai'i. So, this story doesn't surprise me..
The story there is Hawaii, not Mississippi.Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown1_
It's all down to who's doing the plundering, you see.
Steal all propriety from the locals and the only concerns left to them are bungled horribly out of inexperience in basic decision-making.
It's an old story.