"And it crosses my mind, what kind of uproar would we be hearing from CRC, and from Anon here in the comments, if MCPS gave students a pass to get out of school, so they could lobby for "gay clubs?" It doesn't appear to me that the Mormons in Utah batted an eye."
I assume stuff like that happens all the time. I don't know about CRC but I think letting students do something like that would be great. I also assume they'd try to discourage the kid if it was a more conservative cause.
I don't know if you've noticed but schools have a liberal bias. They're controlled by the NEA. They approve SSL for liberal-type causes but deny it for missionary work that is too evangelistic.
February 11, 2006 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...
"These are very conservative people, straight-laced, hard-working, down-to-earth. Myself, I would expect that such a uniform population would end up more or less stifling debate. Looking around, though, it appears that just the opposite happens."
You ought to get out more. Conservatives are almost always more open to debate than liberals who always have fixed notions that they don't want disturbed. Like your fairy tale view of gay life.
February 11, 2006 11:32 AM
Anonymous said...
"liberals who always have fixed notions that they don't want disturbed"
Hear, hear. Undeniably. The whole concept of political correctness was started by left-wing college professors. How do you get your ideas, Jim?
Haha, you guys are great. Look at what I said. I was commenting on the uniformity of the population, not its conservatism.
But ... way to come to the defense of something that didn't need defending.
Anyway, the problem these days is not "conservatism," in the Barry Goldwater sense, it's "conservatism" in the GW Bush sense, that is, a shutdown of curiosity and intellect in the service of blind loyalty.
JimK
February 11, 2006 12:34 PM
Anonymous said...
Jim,
Thanks for sharing your trip to Utah with us. Barack Obama was on to something when he warned us against blithely dividing ourselves into red state people and blue state people. There is a lot of purple out there, and if we have civil, intelligent discussions on potentially contentious issues, America will be the stronger for it.
The Maryland House of Delegates just had such extensive discussions in Committee meetings and on the floor. I hope people took the opportunity to read the various reports of what was said. They were quite revealing.
February 11, 2006 1:19 PM
Anonymous said...
"Thanks for sharing your trip to Utah with us."
Yeah, man, I hope you'll go on some more trips. That's alot more interesting than this pervert empowerment stuff.
"Barack Obama was on to something when he warned us against blithely dividing ourselves into red state people and blue state people. There is a lot of purple out there, and if we have civil, intelligent discussions on potentially contentious issues, America will be the stronger for it."
Well, you're right, David but the whole dang country is a very reddish shade of purple. Rainbow nation as it were. You guys should do some intervention work and tell Jim he should discuss things more civilly and intelligently. Watch out, though. From past experience, it might be that the only thing that turns reddish purple is his face.
"The Maryland House of Delegates just had such extensive discussions in Committee meetings and on the floor. I hope people took the opportunity to read the various reports of what was said."
Oh yeah, I read that stuff all the time. Hardly have time for anything else.
My wife and girls went with a homeschooling group on a field trip last week to Annapolis and met several legislators. They were all talking about this topic.
Well, I do want to thank Anon for one thing -- over the past few days he's made his true feelings known. "Pervert empowerment" and support for "stigmatization." Way to go, Anon.
February 11, 2006 6:04 PM
Anonymous said...
Anon's choice of language illustrates the appropriateness of the use of the term "bigot" to describe him. He suggests others "should discuss things more civilly and intelligently" and then opts to refer to an entire class of human beings as "perverts." He obviously knows better.
His own behavior defines "bigotry." He should follow his own advice.
Observer
February 12, 2006 7:32 AM
Anonymous said...
"then opts to refer to an entire class of human beings as "perverts.""
Well, some of us don't think classifying human beings by preferences is appropriate because preferences change over time- or at least they can. The problem is that the gay advocacy movement has created the myth of innateness for this really superficial and aesthetic preference and renamed it orientation. We don't agree.
Anon- kids can get SSL hours for conservative causes but not religious- not Jewish, not Hindu, not Christian. So don't start your usual nonsense- we all know the facts here. I am not weeping for evangelical missionaries not being able to get SSL hours- just like my kid couldn't get it for Jewish activities. Now if your church has a program feeding people- such as Martha's Table or the Luther Place(yes, a church!) Shelter - you can get SSL hours- my kids did. What can be more religous than feeding the hungry or helping to provide shelter for the homeless or clothing for the cold- oh,right in your mind, telling people they will go to hell unless they believe in Jesus? That is a super lesson for kids, I am sure, but not one public school should support.
February 13, 2006 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...
"Anon- kids can get SSL hours for conservative causes but not religious- not Jewish, not Hindu, not Christian. So don't start your usual nonsense- we all know the facts here. I am not weeping for evangelical missionaries not being able to get SSL hours- just like my kid couldn't get it for Jewish activities. Now if your church has a program feeding people- such as Martha's Table or the Luther Place(yes, a church!) Shelter - you can get SSL hours- my kids did. What can be more religous than feeding the hungry or helping to provide shelter for the homeless or clothing for the cold- oh,right in your mind, telling people they will go to hell unless they believe in Jesus? That is a super lesson for kids, I am sure, but not one public school should support."
The purpose of the SSL law is to get kids involved in contributing to their community. It's not for the government to determine what does and does not contribute. Christian kids may think the community needs Jesus. Going out and spreading the news is sacrificial. Public schools, which look more and more like a bad idea every day, should be neutral as to how the kids sacrifice for their community.
When the establishment clause of the constitution was written, the government wasn't involved in every aspect of a person's life. It was never anybody's intention that the government take over everyone's life and then secularize it. That's an unconstitutional inteference by the government. The Roberts court will soon explain this better than I and you'll come to understand it.
Wrong, anon, as usual. When you go to government schools- the government can decide what the rules are. And if you don't like public schools, sacrifice so your kids can go private. I read stories all the time about people who scrimp or took out loans so their children can go to private schools. I can't really understand someone who thinks preaching is more important than actually helping the hungry, the cold, the homeless- I thought that was what Christianity was all about. Look at Mother Teresa- she didn't talk the Gospel- she lived the Gospel. I guess for people like you Pat Robertson and his sort are the real "Christians"- talk, talk,talk- and Pat has even taken money given to his Harvest organization to feed the hungry- to fund his radio network.
I don't need the court to explain anything to me- you and your kids can go out and preach all you want. I get visitors at my door and at Metro who want to convert me- they are free to preach and I am free to ignore them.
February 13, 2006 4:41 PM
Anonymous said...
The government is not supposed to interfere with the free exchange of ideas. The ideas are supposed to compete and win or lose on their merits. The government has no business assuring that anyone's ideas don't lose. Let each kid do service as he sees fit.
In an open playing field, the Judeo-Christian viewpoint will always prevail because it is true. That is why so many misguided people are against tuition vouchers which would be such a godsend to inner city kids. If the government simply funded education and let parents decide who should run them, soon only Judeo-Christian schools would survive.
Same with charities. Secular type institutions have failed. Why should we try to prop these dreary endeavours up by forcing public school kids into them. Let the kids be invested in the work.
"The government is not supposed to interfere with the free exchange of ideas. The ideas are supposed to compete and win or lose on their merits. "
"Government workers should serve their employers. If they want to just follow their own whims, they should seek funding elsewhere. They are there to execute the agenda of their employer."
So which is it? Is the government supposed to refrain from interfering "with the free exchange of ideas" or is the government to set "the agenda" for all its workers to follow? And do the people who work for the government, including scientists, have "ideas" or "whims?"
Christine
February 14, 2006 10:28 AM
Anonymous said...
"So which is it? Is the government supposed to refrain from interfering "with the free exchange of ideas" or is the government to set "the agenda" for all its workers to follow? And do the people who work for the government, including scientists, have "ideas" or "whims?""
Obviously, employees on government time have different obligations than ordinary citizens.
If some slob wants to promote something in his free time and own resources, I don't have a problem. But when a governmental employee sits around raking in my tax money with a computer bought in the same way, and advocates his own personal agenda, I've got a problem with that.
February 14, 2006 12:32 PM
I just got back from a trip to Provo, Utah. Unfortunately, I didn't get to look around much, just flew in, did my thing, and flew out.
I was invited to give a talk at Brigham Young University. In case you don't know, BYU is run by the Mormon Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You can't say exactly a hundred per cent, but generally, all the students (there are about 35,000 of them) and all the faculty are Mormons. It was one of the few times that I have given a talk and it started with a prayer. It's happened before, but usually only if I spoke at a church; this was in an auditorium in the Computer Science department. Before they introduced me they started with a prayer, asking Jesus to help them understand what I was going to say.
Yes, I understand that some readers will find a certain irony in that. Compounding the irony, these will be just those readers who don't know what the word "irony" means, who think it's a synonym for "sarcasm." Which is also ironic...
I spent twelve hours, solid, eight-thirty aye-em to eight-thirty pee-em, meeting with faculty and students, hearing about their projects, answering their questions, listening to their ideas. Lunch with the faculty, dinner at Sundance with a professor and his top graduate student, great guys, great food, great scenery.
They were a most impressive bunch. They showed me a couple of projects that'd knock your socks off. I mean, if your socks come off when you learn about a comprehensive Bayesian-network method for sampling from estimated probability distributions of classes of functions to predict the trajectory of a search algorithm. And of course the landscape out there was gorgeous. Huge, snow-covered mountains rise up, right from the edges of the city. A chilly-looking little river ran behind my hotel. The shuttle driver said, about three times, that the biggest problem they have there is deciding whether to play golf or ski. And in fact the airport was full of people with skis, and the weather was outrageous, twenties at night, forties in the afternoons with clear, bright, clean-air sunshine.
It was interesting to look at the local newspaper, to see what it is that people in Utah, arguably the most conservative state in the USA, are concerned about. The Salt Lake City Tribune had a whole section on what the legislature is up to.
For instance, I thought it was interesting that the Utah legislature is moving to make schools give a message about evolution to biology students -- but it's close: A proposal targeting evolution survived its toughest challenge Wednesday when it eked out of a House committee by one vote.
SB96, which requires teachers to say the state doesn't endorse any theory involving the "origins of species," needs only the support of the full House to pass the Legislature after gaining approval by the House Education Committee 7-6.
The bill is the brainchild of Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who is disgusted that some educators teach that humans have a common ancestor with chimpanzees... Evolution bill survives by a vote: Critic asks why lawmakers are telling teachers how to teach Oh, and I did like the way this female reporter played the "pill bill" in this story: Insurance and business leaders gave the all-male Senate Health and Human Services Committee the reasons they were looking for to kill the so-called “pill bill” for the eighth year in a row Wednesday - complaints about unfunded mandates, health care costs and meddling in the marketplace. Women's 'pill bill' dies again: Contraception: Planned Parenthood director tells lawmakers to provide 'health care that eliminates the need for abortion' The bill would have required insurance companies to cover birth control. But you gotta love that "all-male committee" wording, I think the reporter, Rebecca Wlash, managed to get her point across, don't you?
And then of course, here's Buttars again -- we've actually talked about him before on this blog, he's a piece of work. WEST JORDAN REPUBLICAN Sen. Chris Buttars' absence from Capitol Hill Wednesday disrupted the legislative process. His bill banning gay clubs from Utah high schools was pulled from a Senate committee in the morning. Here [in a photo], a group of Hunter High School students who were given permission slips to miss school so they could speak about the bill, do the next best thing and corner Rep. Ron Bigelow, R-West Valley City, in the hall. Bill banning gay clubs from Utah high schools pulled from a Senate committee So maybe it was a good thing the kids went to the legislature, got to lobby a little bit for the "gay clubs." Not only did they learn a little bit about how it all works, but it appears that they actually may have had an effect.
And it crosses my mind, what kind of uproar would we be hearing from CRC, and from Anon here in the comments, if MCPS gave students a pass to get out of school, so they could lobby for "gay clubs?" It doesn't appear to me that the Mormons in Utah batted an eye.
Also, it kind of sounds like it's just this one guy who wants this bill. Unlike the CRC, who is outraged that Gay-Straight Alliances can function in Montgomery County schools, the people of Utah -- except for this one nutty legislator -- seem to pretty much figure it's not really the state's business to meddle in every little thing that people do, including gay people. Isn't that weird?
I appreciated this letter to the editor on the day I was there: Sen. Chris Buttars has finally revealed his SB97, meant to abolish clubs for gay and lesbian teens.
If this bill passes, it will leave many of these teens without support when they need it most, and that will shape their lives accordingly. Such efforts of self-styled "moral" crusaders are, in fact, the main force urging gay teens into the sort of "self-destructive, secretive and promiscuous gay lifestyle" people like Sen. Buttars love to rally against.
Alternatively, these teens could be taught the value of abstinence and monogamy. They could learn to honestly accept their nature and deal with it in a way that fits their faith and morality. They could be assured they had a role and stake in our society, regardless of their orientation, and that there is a reason to hope for a better life outside of high school when it seems all hope is lost.
Sen. Buttars' hiding of such a malicious goal as removing support and sense of community from these teens should make everyone wonder if he hasn't begun using his copy of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters as an instruction guide for drafting legislation.
Tom Butterfield Sandy I also liked this one: Some respondents have complained that moral "crusader" is too favorable a description of West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars.
They should study their history. The original crusaders were religious fanatics who mixed politics and religion and thereby caused great harm to their society. Sounds accurate to me.
Jack Worlton Salt lake City Utah is a strange state, just plain different. More than half the people who live in that state are Mormons. These are very conservative people, straight-laced, hard-working, down-to-earth. Myself, I would expect that such a uniform population would end up more or less stifling debate. Looking around, though, it appears that just the opposite happens. The discussion there is wide open. Maybe it turns out that one thing about being conservative, straight-laced, and hard-working is that you don't take time to interfere in other people's lives.
"My Visit to Utah"
15 Comments -
"And it crosses my mind, what kind of uproar would we be hearing from CRC, and from Anon here in the comments, if MCPS gave students a pass to get out of school, so they could lobby for "gay clubs?" It doesn't appear to me that the Mormons in Utah batted an eye."
I assume stuff like that happens all the time. I don't know about CRC but I think letting students do something like that would be great. I also assume they'd try to discourage the kid if it was a more conservative cause.
I don't know if you've noticed but schools have a liberal bias. They're controlled by the NEA. They approve SSL for liberal-type causes but deny it for missionary work that is too evangelistic.
February 11, 2006 11:28 AM
"These are very conservative people, straight-laced, hard-working, down-to-earth. Myself, I would expect that such a uniform population would end up more or less stifling debate. Looking around, though, it appears that just the opposite happens."
You ought to get out more. Conservatives are almost always more open to debate than liberals who always have fixed notions that they don't want disturbed. Like your fairy tale view of gay life.
February 11, 2006 11:32 AM
"liberals who always have fixed notions that they don't want disturbed"
Hear, hear. Undeniably. The whole concept of political correctness was started by left-wing college professors. How do you get your ideas, Jim?
February 11, 2006 12:02 PM
Haha, you guys are great. Look at what I said. I was commenting on the uniformity of the population, not its conservatism.
But ... way to come to the defense of something that didn't need defending.
Anyway, the problem these days is not "conservatism," in the Barry Goldwater sense, it's "conservatism" in the GW Bush sense, that is, a shutdown of curiosity and intellect in the service of blind loyalty.
JimK
February 11, 2006 12:34 PM
Jim,
Thanks for sharing your trip to Utah with us. Barack Obama was on to something when he warned us against blithely dividing ourselves into red state people and blue state people. There is a lot of purple out there, and if we have civil, intelligent discussions on potentially contentious issues, America will be the stronger for it.
The Maryland House of Delegates just had such extensive discussions in Committee meetings and on the floor. I hope people took the opportunity to read the various reports of what was said. They were quite revealing.
February 11, 2006 1:19 PM
"Thanks for sharing your trip to Utah with us."
Yeah, man, I hope you'll go on some more trips. That's alot more interesting than this pervert empowerment stuff.
"Barack Obama was on to something when he warned us against blithely dividing ourselves into red state people and blue state people. There is a lot of purple out there, and if we have civil, intelligent discussions on potentially contentious issues, America will be the stronger for it."
Well, you're right, David but the whole dang country is a very reddish shade of purple. Rainbow nation as it were. You guys should do some intervention work and tell Jim he should discuss things more civilly and intelligently. Watch out, though. From past experience, it might be that the only thing that turns reddish purple is his face.
"The Maryland House of Delegates just had such extensive discussions in Committee meetings and on the floor. I hope people took the opportunity to read the various reports of what was said."
Oh yeah, I read that stuff all the time. Hardly have time for anything else.
My wife and girls went with a homeschooling group on a field trip last week to Annapolis and met several legislators. They were all talking about this topic.
"They were quite revealing."
Why don't you fill us in on some details.
February 11, 2006 1:38 PM
Well, I do want to thank Anon for one thing -- over the past few days he's made his true feelings known. "Pervert empowerment" and support for "stigmatization." Way to go, Anon.
February 11, 2006 6:04 PM
Anon's choice of language illustrates the appropriateness of the use of the term "bigot" to describe him. He suggests others "should discuss things more civilly and intelligently" and then opts to refer to an entire class of human beings as "perverts." He obviously knows better.
His own behavior defines "bigotry." He should follow his own advice.
Observer
February 12, 2006 7:32 AM
"then opts to refer to an entire class of human beings as "perverts.""
Well, some of us don't think classifying human beings by preferences is appropriate because preferences change over time- or at least they can. The problem is that the gay advocacy movement has created the myth of innateness for this really superficial and aesthetic preference and renamed it orientation. We don't agree.
February 13, 2006 11:12 AM
Anon- kids can get SSL hours for conservative causes but not religious- not Jewish, not Hindu, not Christian. So don't start your usual nonsense- we all know the facts here. I am not weeping for evangelical missionaries not being able to get SSL hours- just like my kid couldn't get it for Jewish activities. Now if your church has a program feeding people- such as Martha's Table or the Luther Place(yes, a church!) Shelter - you can get SSL hours- my kids did. What can be more religous than feeding the hungry or helping to provide shelter for the homeless or clothing for the cold- oh,right in your mind, telling people they will go to hell unless they believe in Jesus? That is a super lesson for kids, I am sure, but not one public school should support.
February 13, 2006 2:17 PM
"Anon- kids can get SSL hours for conservative causes but not religious- not Jewish, not Hindu, not Christian. So don't start your usual nonsense- we all know the facts here. I am not weeping for evangelical missionaries not being able to get SSL hours- just like my kid couldn't get it for Jewish activities. Now if your church has a program feeding people- such as Martha's Table or the Luther Place(yes, a church!) Shelter - you can get SSL hours- my kids did. What can be more religous than feeding the hungry or helping to provide shelter for the homeless or clothing for the cold- oh,right in your mind, telling people they will go to hell unless they believe in Jesus? That is a super lesson for kids, I am sure, but not one public school should support."
The purpose of the SSL law is to get kids involved in contributing to their community. It's not for the government to determine what does and does not contribute. Christian kids may think the community needs Jesus. Going out and spreading the news is sacrificial. Public schools, which look more and more like a bad idea every day, should be neutral as to how the kids sacrifice for their community.
When the establishment clause of the constitution was written, the government wasn't involved in every aspect of a person's life. It was never anybody's intention that the government take over everyone's life and then secularize it. That's an unconstitutional inteference by the government. The Roberts court will soon explain this better than I and you'll come to understand it.
February 13, 2006 3:58 PM
Wrong, anon, as usual. When you go to government schools- the government can decide what the rules are. And if you don't like public schools, sacrifice so your kids can go private. I read stories all the time about people who scrimp or took out loans so their children can go to private schools. I can't really understand someone who thinks preaching is more important than actually helping the hungry, the cold, the homeless- I thought that was what Christianity was all about. Look at Mother Teresa- she didn't talk the Gospel- she lived the Gospel. I guess for people like you Pat Robertson and his sort are the real "Christians"- talk, talk,talk- and Pat has even taken money given to his Harvest organization to feed the hungry- to fund his radio network.
I don't need the court to explain anything to me- you and your kids can go out and preach all you want. I get visitors at my door and at Metro who want to convert me- they are free to preach and I am free to ignore them.
February 13, 2006 4:41 PM
The government is not supposed to interfere with the free exchange of ideas. The ideas are supposed to compete and win or lose on their merits. The government has no business assuring that anyone's ideas don't lose. Let each kid do service as he sees fit.
In an open playing field, the Judeo-Christian viewpoint will always prevail because it is true. That is why so many misguided people are against tuition vouchers which would be such a godsend to inner city kids. If the government simply funded education and let parents decide who should run them, soon only Judeo-Christian schools would survive.
Same with charities. Secular type institutions have failed. Why should we try to prop these dreary endeavours up by forcing public school kids into them. Let the kids be invested in the work.
February 13, 2006 10:43 PM
"The government is not supposed to interfere with the free exchange of ideas. The ideas are supposed to compete and win or lose on their merits. "
"Government workers should serve their employers. If they want to just follow their own whims, they should seek funding elsewhere. They are there to execute the agenda of their employer."
So which is it? Is the government supposed to refrain from interfering "with the free exchange of ideas" or is the government to set "the agenda" for all its workers to follow? And do the people who work for the government, including scientists, have "ideas" or "whims?"
Christine
February 14, 2006 10:28 AM
"So which is it? Is the government supposed to refrain from interfering "with the free exchange of ideas" or is the government to set "the agenda" for all its workers to follow? And do the people who work for the government, including scientists, have "ideas" or "whims?""
Obviously, employees on government time have different obligations than ordinary citizens.
If some slob wants to promote something in his free time and own resources, I don't have a problem. But when a governmental employee sits around raking in my tax money with a computer bought in the same way, and advocates his own personal agenda, I've got a problem with that.
February 14, 2006 12:32 PM