Is it a public or private school? Does is accept government (taxpayer) funds or is it strictly funded through private means? If the answer to both of these is yes and there no violations of federal or state law then there is no issue. That being said, I do not agree with the schools position and would never consider donating money or sending my cildren there. But if they have violated no laws and are no recieving tax payer dollars then I as a citizen in a free country must live with that.
"It is very easy for you to take the position you take as a member of the majority. Me thinks were you a member of a minority group, that was the object of hatred, scorn, and often violence, labeled as sinful, etc. that you might have a different point of view. I can see no value at all for any religion to be preaching hatred.....and in the case of Christianity, it seems to me to be the antithesis of what Jesus gave his life for....so much stone casting by the religious right wing, in the name of Jesus Christ." i realize this wasn't addressed to me, but i will respond #1 I have been the victim of racism and hate speech firsthand (neither of which are crimes in the USA, but are in canada, UK, etc.) #2 this occurred to me AS a member of a minority but... it's irrelevant. in a free society we accept that speech that is BAD, speech that is OFFENSIVE, speech that is WRONG, speech that is contemptible, and speech that is HATEFUL ***must*** be protected. as soon as the govt. becomes the arbiter of speech (what speech is hateful, and what isn't, what speech is "good", what isn't) then we fall down the abyss that europe, canada, the UK etc. have. they no longer trust their citizens to be the arbiters of what ideas they can and cannot hear and express and as a point of semantics. morally disapproving of something =/= hate. whatever jesus (or buddha, or whatever) would or wouldn't have thought of homosexuality/homosexual behavior, etc. - moral dissapproval =/= "hate". howard dean, otoh SAID "i hate republicans and everything they stand for". that is arguably hate. but still constitutional saying that you morally disapprove of homosexuality (and i don't btw. but i support the rights of those that do to express their opinion) does not equal hating homosexuality or certainly not hating homosexuals. disapproval =/= hate and fwiw, i know an atheist who STRONGLY disapproves of homosexual behaviors. from a purely biological and evolutionary standpoint fwiw. i could bring up the speech i heard from angela davis (noted leftwing communist) who said "i HATE capitalists and i HATE rich people". bully for her. it should still be legal. even though she's an idiot the first amendment also protects idiocy
christians complaining about free speech is laughable. who is first in line to ban books in school libraries if there is a book that might be too sexual. just have some female flash a breast on tv and watch the christians complain. we are going through a fight in my town where christians want sex education banned in schools. hypocrites.
banning sex education in schools is perfectly reasonable. you are not saying that people cannot talk about sex, or teach sex education to their own children, you are saying that it is not the role of public schools, using our tax dollars to force it on all children. personally, and this has ZERO to do with religion, i do not think public schools should teach sex education (apart from basic biology). i think that is the role of parents. of course, in the case of private schools - i think that is totally up to them. i don't think schools should teach a lot of stuff. it doesn't follow that this means these things they don't teach should be banned from public discourse. and this is not just about christians. plenty of atheists, agnostics, jews, and muslims are on the front lines of these battles as well
rubbish. they don't want the state teaching THEIR children about sex. and i said again, it is not just about CHRISTIANS. last i checked, muslims, jews et al are also "religious". this is a majority christian nation, thus the majority of protesters who happen to be religious, also happen to be christian. however, i'm willing to bet you a very large percentage of muslims are also against state mandated sex education. personally, i am for sex education as regards to basic biology/anatomical functioning. it would be absurd to teach biology/anatomy without including the sex organs. however, as any parent knows (you can request copies of the curricula), these courses are generally a lot more than just basic physiology, but incorporate (how to put this delicately) how to advice as to condom applications etc. now, in public COLLEGEs, i am all for sex education since they are not acting in loco parentis for minor children. (generally). the students are (generally) of the age of majority, there is more choice involved (students have more options as to choosing curricula and individual colleges), etc. the fact that many parents SUCK and will not teach sex education to their kids is not a good thing, but just because a lot of parents suck doesn't give the schools the authority to tread in areas that are conventionally reserved for the family structure
and of course this is yet more thread drift. the subject of free speech suppression by campus speech codes on college campuses is very disturbing and fwiw, one of the most instructional and reaching recent cases vis a vis the 1st amendment and how far you CAN go in so called hate speech is the called nuremburg files (website) free speech case the appeals ruling, that the website DID have the right to print abortion dr's name and the threatening rhetoric towards them is a classic example of how offensive speech can be, and how far the constitution allows people to go in expressing viewpoints. they were originally prosecuted iirc under RICO statutes of all things
thats why i said this. notice the word religious. i did not specify christian. "thats not true. it is most always the religious that want to keep their children ignorant about sex." the state decides what to teach children. you cant have a few religious parents deciding what their children will or will not learn. if you do you end up with this. religious people are too willing to embrace willful ignorance over science: "Revealed truth: That which is revealed in Scripture, whether or not man has scientifically proved it. If it is in the Bible, it is already true without requiring additional proof. ... Fallacy: that which contradicts God's revealed truth, no matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem; --Bob Jones University, Biology Student Text (3rd ed.- 2 vol.)"
Burt..... You fail to realize that "freedom of religion" in the U.S.A. no longer applies to Christians. We've got to expend our resources protecting this rights of our minorities. ;-)
"the state decides what to teach children. you cant have a few religious parents deciding what their children will or will not learn. if you do you end up with this. religious people are too willing to embrace willful ignorance over science: " we (the people) ARE the state. and this is not about a few religious parents. and i am also going to say that i have seen no indication that religious people (in general) are more or less willing to embrace willful ignorance over science. ime, and the experience of some scientists as well, there is a vast diversity of religious beliefs among scientists, and willful ignorance is neither a particular quality of religious people, nor limited to religious people. last i checked, the majority of those who were willfully ignorant of the soviet gulags for several decades (duranty comes to mind) tended to be more likely than not, the same people who also were militantly atheist (since stalinism and militant atheism so often go hand and hand) everybody has their own prejudices (religious or not), and i have seen no evidence to support your claim regardless, this is simply about the authority of schools, acting in loco parentis, to teach about matters that many, if not most, parents feel is rightly a parent-child issue, not a teacher child issue. schools educatiing in reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, is awesome. schools teaching moral stances towards different sexual preferences (as sex ed classes invariably do - i've read the curricula - you should), how to classes on condom use, and such is an issue that is in my opinion best left to parents. imo, it should not be within the authority of public schools (i am not speaking of colleges obviously) to usurp parents prerogatives on this subject now, i also support school choice (vouchers and homeschooling) and fully support the right of private schools to teach sex education to whatever extent they want (shades of monty python's "stampeding towards the clitoris" sketch), since there is parental choice and feedback there in the realm of $$$$ - if the parents don't like it, they take their kids elsewhere. there is not such choice in the public school system, since it is meant to serve all. and again, while many religious people have strong beliefs about this, so do many atheists and agnostics. issues of sexuality, and how we feel about different "sexual choices" and preferences is an area clearly of both morality, and a mostly private sphere that should be left to parents not the state. it's a matter of locus of control for me. i am certain that many parents will teach their kids in ways that i disagree with, and that's FINE. that is their prerogative as parents. i do not want the State instructing children in the fineries of sexual behavior, preferences, moral stances, and how-to's again, it's a matter of whom should the locus of control rest - imo, the parents. irrespective of religion or lack thereof