Google-sovellukset
Päävalikko

Post a Comment On: Vigilance

"Public Comments at the 6-27-05 MCPS-BOE Meeting"

10 Comments -

1 – 10 of 10
Blogger Kay2898 said...

Well it seems that Garza and his charges Recall and PFOX are not too happy now since he made his not to humble remarks.

Never happy from one day to next it seems. When are the two groups going to look at what their attorney negotiated for them and now realize what they have..not much?

June 30, 2005 2:43 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wish in one hand and CRC in the other

Montgomery Sentinel May 12, 2005
Editor's Notebook
Briam J Karem

The Internet is an amazing place.

Within three minutes of being on-line my teenage son was hit with about 30 ads for enlarging several different areas of his body, not to mention ads from lonely women, girls who seem to enjoy having other people watch them in various states of undress or engaging in several different bodily functions, several ads for obtaining prescription drugs without a prescription, four Viagra ads, two Levitra ads, one ad to meet lonely gay/lesbians in our area and one online gambling company.

Thank heavens we had the Spam filter on.

With all of this information available to anyone, not to mention what my son can see in a movie, or on cable or broadcast television, not to mention what kids talk about in school, on the playground, in the huddle and at the bowling alley and one has to wonder if the only topic of conversation for our children is about some exotic body function or excretion.

Imagine then a seven-minute video being presented in sex education class at your local high school that teaches children how to properly use a condom.

Many kids will look at it as "lame" and many others will merely use the seven minutes to take a quick nap.

But your friendly folks at the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays see evil that could threaten the Republic either in this film or the rest of the public school's sex education curriculum. Thus they've filed suit as they pursue a litigious outcome to their battle cry against sex education in a school environment they claim is proselytizing for homosexuality.

Judge Alexander Williams Jr. proved to be a friendly face and granted a temporary restraining order and Dr. Jerry Weast, proving that knee-jerk reactions are always commonplace after a court order, suspended the teachings and removed the film titled "Protect Yourself" from distribution.

On the one hand I love seeing the Board of Education challenged, but on the other hand not by the reactionaries who hide under a cloak of level-headedness.

A few facts about all this should be enlightening. CRC Vice President and attorney John Garza has children. But they don't attend public school.

If they did, they could opt out of the sex education class. But that's too darn bothersome for the members of the CRC and PFOX who believe a child who opts out will "self-identify" him or herself and that opting out of the course would actually lead to segregation.

Most likely what would happen is that a kid opting out of the class would be envied by his peers for being smart enough to get out of a class that doesn't teach as much as can be learned on the Internet or at the mall's food court on a Friday night.

I have much more faith in the teenagers of Montgomery County than the adults causing this stir.

Garza offers a mind-numbing defense for his group's move. He calls the sex education an "indoctrination program" and says that to exercise their right not to go into the class, kids would have to exercise free speech rights that they shouldn't be forced to exercise. "Part of free speech is the right to remain silent," he claims.

If only he'd take his own advice.

The problem with the CRC and PFOX continues to be the hypocrisy inherent in burying your head in the sand.

"Part of free speech is the right to an education that allows you to get knowledge," Garza claims. What Garza is really upset about is that the Board of Education isn't imparting the spin on the knowledge that he wants.

He's no friend of free speech nor is the CRC and PFOX.

The truth is there are going to be children who will understand the importance of abstinence and there will be children who don't. The goal is to keep down sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted teen pregnancies.

CRC and PFOX, while they claim to want nothing more than level-headedness actually, in their efforts, keep important knowledge from those who need it the most - those living on the fringe and in danger of falling through the cracks.

June 30, 2005 2:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the double dippin' lawyer says, "Never before have parents been able to stop implementation of a new curriculum," while that Board fella says, "We put this little obstacle behind us and we're moving on so thank you very much."

Hmmmmm. Interesting!

Aunt Bea

June 30, 2005 4:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

For Garza who is on payroll of CRC/PFOX... (I guess to pay for his children's private school education)

From Webster: enhance
to increase or improve in value, quality, desirability, or attractiveness

Well of course that was before CRC/PFOX actually read closely what they signed and agreed to in that $36,000 exchange that Garza negotiated along with Liberty Counsel to try ot stick it to BOE and taxpayers.

I might not feel too bad now knowing CRC/PFOX did not do so well and are so unhappy.

June 30, 2005 5:29 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gah. These hard-core anti-Education Christians (and the like) are driving me crazy.

Allowing children to abstain from sex-ed is digression.

With-holding vital information is just plain stupid.

If a child doesn't know what sex is or STDs are thanks to these people, then what does the child do if he/she accidentally get into it?

They cannot protect themselves from what they don't know.

And make no mistake, most everyone part-takes in sex, otherwise we would not be here today.

It's like allowing Hippie parents to opt their kids out of D.A.R.E. activities and drug education.

If the kids aren't taught that drugs are bad and have horrible consequences, they may be more likely to use them.

If the kids aren't taught that sex can result in uncurable diseases and or birth, they may be more likely to experience either or both.

It is inane to hold such information back.

Arg.

I doubt little James comes home and his Pastor father whips out a condom and shows him how to put it on correctly. Oh wait, some of them don't even believe in protecting themselves!

"Marriage" is a lousy excuse, because married couples don't always want to have children and I'm sure they're lustful from time to time.

-Alex-

July 01, 2005 10:58 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

A speaker from the CRC followed Matilda. If the CRC wants to provide transcripts of their speakers, they may do so but I don't have the time or desire to do so.

What, no desire to present even a pretense of balance? Tsk, tsk....

Orin Ryssman

July 02, 2005 11:57 AM

Blogger JimK said...

The "other side's" speakers can be summed up as: "Being gay ain't normal, and we're against it." No need to do a lot of work to record their little speeches. They can post it on their web site if they want, we don't have any obligation or motive to publicize their message.

Jim

July 02, 2005 12:52 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Orin, if you have watched the broadcast or the re-broadcasts of the meeting, you will know that two of the CRC speakers, Retta Brown and Dr. Ruth Jacobs were barely coherent. Dr. Jacobs feels very strongly that the unit on STIs needs to be updated. I have heard Dr. Jacobs speak before the board twice and it is my impression that she is very umcomfortable with public speaking. I suspect that she is better at making her point in one-to-one conversation. I sat beside her as she spoke and her written copy was covered with hand-written corrections and additions. She also displayed charts which she didn't explain. I do not envy anyone the job of transcribing her comments either from the BOE broadcast or from the written commentary she was required to provide. However, if you have taped the BOE broadcast and you are willing to tackle it, go for it.

Rhetta Brown, as usual, just doesn't make sense.

The third untranscribed speaker basically said that she objects to her children being taught anything that she doesn't agree with.

July 02, 2005 1:11 PM

Blogger Christine said...

If you are truly interested in hearing what the CRC speakers had to say, I'd suggest you contact the CRC website. I'm sure if you use goolge carefully, you'll have no trouble finding what you seek.

Christine Grewell

July 02, 2005 7:00 PM

Blogger Maryam Balbed said...

Nancy Navarro is committed to fact based education, and needs to return to the Board of Education as an elected member.

Navarro4boe.org

July 13, 2006 3:31 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot